Order Code RL32570
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2004 Update
September 9, 2004
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2004 Update
Summary
This report, which replaces CRS Report RL31651, provides updated
information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late
1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would allow
states to impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments, a step the Constitution
prohibits in the absence of congressional authorization. Over this period, there has
been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state
lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This
report provides data useful in addressing these questions.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure of older local
landfills and the consolidation of the waste management industry. Slightly more than
39 million tons of municipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2003, an
increase of 11% over 2001. Waste imports have grown significantly since CRS began
tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 24.2% of the municipal solid
waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10 years,
reported imports have increased 170%.
Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received
more than 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons of other non-hazardous
waste from out of state in 2003. Most of this waste came from New York and New
Jersey. Pennsylvania’s waste imports represented 23% of the national total.
Virginia, the second-largest importer, received 5.5 million tons in 2003, 40% less
than the amount received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third-largest importer,
received 4.5 million tons of MSW from out of state.
Imports to both Virginia and Michigan increased substantially in the last year
— up about 1 million tons in each case. Nearly two-thirds of Michigan’s total
imports (about 2.8 million tons) came from the Canadian province of Ontario. These
imports grew as the Toronto area closed its last remaining landfill. Other states
showing major increases were Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Texas. In all, 28 states had increased imports in the
current report, and 10 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons.
While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Iowa, and New York) reported sharp declines in imports in the current
survey. Pennsylvania’s imports fell for the second year in a row: about 1.5 million
fewer tons of imports were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2003 than in 2001.
Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $5.00 per ton
state fee on waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills.
New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey in second
place. These two states account for 37% of all municipal solid waste crossing state
lines for disposal. Six other states (Missouri, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Ohio, and Washington), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of
Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Total Shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Waste Import Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Major Exporters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Net Imports and Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Figures
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons . . . . . 3
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year, in Tons . . . . . 3
List of Tables
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year . . 6
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and
Sources of Imported MSW, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update
Introduction1
This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal
solid waste. Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted
to regulate this commerce; federal courts, however, have declared these state
restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, congressional action
is required.
Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills
that would grant such authority.2 Over this period, there has been a continuing
interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal,
and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data
useful in addressing these questions. It updates information provided in earlier CRS
reports.3
The report presents information gathered through telephone contacts with solid
waste officials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province
of Ontario. The data obtained from these contacts are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and
3, and Figures 1 and 2. Table 4 presents additional information, including the
names and telephone numbers of state contacts, and in some cases weblinks to
detailed reports on solid waste management in the specific state.
1 (name redacted), Environmental Policy Analyst in the Resources, Science, and Industry
Division of CRS, provided research assistance for this report.
2 Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since
the 100th. In the 104th Congress, the Senate passed S. 534. The bill would have granted
states authority to restrict new shipments of municipal solid waste from out of state, if
requested by an affected local government. In the 103rd Congress, both the House and
Senate passed interstate waste legislation (H.R. 4779 and S. 2345), but lack of agreement
on common language prevented enactment. For a discussion of the issues addressed in these
bills, see CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues.
3 This report replaces CRS Report RL31651, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2002 Update. Earlier reports, now out of print but available directly from the author, were
CRS Report RL31051, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2001 Update; CRS
Report RL30409, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2000 Update; CRS Report
98-689, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1998 Update; CRS Report 97-349,
Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1997 Update; CRS Report 96-712, Interstate
Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1996 Update; CRS Report 95-570, Interstate Shipment
of Municipal Solid Waste: 1995 Update; and CRS Report 93-743, Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste.
CRS-2
Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so
the available data are incomplete, and in some cases represent estimates rather than
actual measurements. In a number of cases, faced with conflicting reports from
exporters and importers or no quantitative data at all, we provided our best estimate,
based on discussions with state officials or other sources.
Sixteen of the states provided data for a period other than calendar year 2003 —
either their latest fiscal year or a different calendar year. This adds another layer of
imprecision: we combined data for whatever was the latest reporting period, even
though in these 16 cases, this meant combining data from different time periods. The
exceptions from the 2003 reporting period are noted in the appropriate tables, but the
reader should perhaps keep in mind that many of the totals reported here are our best
estimate rather than precise figures.
Total Shipments
The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise:4 imports
in the current survey totaled 39.0 million tons, 17% of the 229.2 million tons of
municipal solid waste generated in the United States.5 Of municipal waste disposed
(as opposed to recycled or composted), the percentage is even higher. EPA estimates
that 68.0 million tons of municipal solid waste were recycled or composted in 2001,
leaving 161.2 million tons to be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Of this amount,
24.2% crossed state lines for disposal.6
Between CRS’s year 2002 report (reporting largely 2001 data) and the current
survey (reporting generally 2003 data), imports increased 4.0 million tons, or 11%.
Since 1993, reported imports have risen 170%, from 14.45 million tons in 1993 to
39.0 million tons in the current survey.
4 We rely on imports rather than exports as our measure of total shipments, because we
believe that waste management facilities and states have a greater interest in accurately
measuring imports than they do exports. Often the amounts received and their source are
subject to formal legal reporting requirements and/or fees, with penalties for failure to
report. Exports are not generally subject to such requirements.
5 Because many of the larger importing states now differentiate MSW from other non-
hazardous waste imports, we compared total MSW imports to EPA’s national estimate of
MSW generation (229.2 million tons in the latest available year, 2001). For EPA data on
waste generation, see “Municipal Solid Waste: Basic Facts” at [http://www.epa.gov/
epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/facts.htm]. State-reported waste generation, summarized in
BioCycle magazine’s annual survey, is substantially higher (369.4 million tons in 2002) but
may include other nonhazardous waste, provided it was disposed at MSW facilities. For
state-reported data, see Scott M. Kaufman, Nora Goldstein, Karsten Millrath, and Nickolas
J. Themelis, “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, January 2004, p. 33. Removing
Canadian waste from the total imports would also reduce the percentage of waste crossing
state lines for disposal, from 17% to 16%.
6 Much of the waste destined for recycling may also have crossed state lines, but waste
destined for recycling does not carry the same stigma as that sent for disposal, and recycling
facilities do not generally require permits by state agencies. Thus, amounts shipped across
state lines for recycling cannot generally be tracked by the solid waste agencies.
CRS-3
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste,
2003 or Latest Year, in Tons
Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04)
Amounts in Tons
1,000,000 or greater
500,000 to 999,999
100,000 to 499,999
0 to 99,999
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste,
2003 or Latest Year, in Tons
Source: Map Resources. Adapted by CRS. (K. Yancey 8/31/04)
CRS-4
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State
Quantity Imported
Pennsylvania
a 9,155,638
Virginia
b 5,489,170
Michigan
c,d 4,503,218
Ohio
2,541,074
Illinois
d 1,880,865
New Jersey
e 1,671,065
Georgia
1,445,254
Oregon
e 1,424,801
South Carolina
f 1,227,240
Wisconsin
1,210,008
Indiana
917,678
Kansas
e 697,874
Kentucky
e 598,549
Mississippi
579,752
Tennessee
577,940
New Mexico
537,000
Nevada
422,456
Alabama
c 415,425
New Hampshire
e 401,852
Arizona
g 379,900
Oklahoma
333,616
New York
311,417
West Virginia
276,439
Iowa
f 276,302
Texas
251,100
Maine
220,000
Missouri
206,873
Maryland
202,768
Massachusetts
179,852
North Carolina
f 133,145
Washington
e 112,097
North Dakota
e 101,196
Nebraska
f 93,563
Vermont
61,463
Connecticut
51,521
California
e 44,000
Montana
31,437
Idaho
18,668
Arkansas
15,361
Rhode Island
5,575
South Dakota
e 658
Utah
500
Total
39,004,310
a In addition, Pennsylvania received 1,407,834 tons c 10/1/2002 - 9/30/2003.
of industrial waste, C&D, ash, asbestos, and sludge. d Converted from cubic yards using 3.3 cu. yds. = 1 ton.
b Virginia also imported 1.1 million tons of other
e 2002 data.
f 7/1/2002 - 6/30/2003.
waste, mostly C&D, sludge, and incinerator ash. g 4/1/2003 - 3/31/2004.
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. See text and Table 4 for qualifications/details.
CRS-5
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State
Quantity Exported
New York
8,247,610
New Jersey
5,803,184
Ontario, Canada
2,922,473
Missouri
2,334,511
Illinois
2,097,407
Maryland
1,941,370
Massachusetts
1,239,364
District of Columbia
1,176,010
Ohio
1,102,341
Washington
a 1,001,717
North Carolina
b 971,286
Indiana
945,241
California
798,056
Florida
676,517
Minnesota
a 611,044
Connecticut
634,155
Georgia
600,000
Pennsylvania
558,975
Texas
511,000
Tennessee
431,740
Kansas
371,371
West Virginia
364,719
Kentucky
328,993
Iowa
271,925
Louisiana
248,625
Virginia
240,633
Michigan
223,310
Wisconsin
213,989
South Carolina
184,797
Vermont
a 126,159
Delaware
121,585
Rhode Island
117,301
Arkansas
114,192
Mississippi
113,013
Oklahoma
99,000
Alabama
94,664
New Hampshire
65,000
Maine
a 49,868
Idaho
44,307
Alaska
24,868
Oregon
a 18,668
Nebraska
b 10,537
North Dakota
a 10,000
Nevada
3,300
Utah
1,500
Wyoming
1,487
Total
38,067,812
a2002 data.
b July 2002 - June 2003.
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. In many cases, the amount is based on data
compiled by receiving states. See text and Table 4 entries for additional information and qualifications.
CRS-6
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste,
2003 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State
Imports
Exports
Net Imports/Exports
Pennsylvania
9,155,638
558,975
8,596,663
Virginia
5,489,170
240,633
5,248,537
Michigan
4,503,218
223,310
4,279,908
Ohio
2,541,074
1,102,341
1,438,733
Oregon
1,424,801
18,668
1,406,133
South Carolina
1,227,240
184,797
1,042,443
Wisconsin
1,210,008
213,989
996,019
Georgia
1,445,254
600,000
845,254
New Mexico
537,000
-
537,000
Mississippi
579,752
113,013
466,739
Nevada
422,456
3,300
419,156
Arizona
379,900
7,000
372,000
New Hampshire
401,852
65,000
336,852
Kansas
697,874
371,371
326,503
Alabama
415,425
94,664
320,761
Kentucky
598,549
328,993
269,556
Oklahoma
333,616
99,000
234,616
Tennessee
577,940
431,740
146,200
Maine
220,000
49,868
170,132
North Dakota
101,196
10,000
91,196
Nebraska
93,563
10,537
83,026
Iowa
276,302
271,925
4,377
Idaho
18,668
18,000
668
Utah
500
1,500
-1,000
Alaska
—
24,868
-24,868
Indiana
917,678
945,241
-27,563
Vermont
61,463
126,159
-64,696
West Virginia
276,439
364,719
-88,280
Arkansas
15,361
114,192
-98,831
Louisiana
—
107,075
-107,075
Rhode Island
5,575
117,301
-111,726
Delaware
—
121,585
-121,585
Illinois
1,880,865
2,097,407
-216,542
Texas
251,100
511,000
-259,900
Connecticut
51,521
634,155
-582,634
Minnesota
—
611,044
-611,044
Florida
—
676,517
-676,517
California
44,000
798,056
-754,056
North Carolina
133,145
971,286
-838,141
Washington
112,097
1,001,717
-889,620
Massachusetts
179,852
1,239,364
-1,059,512
District of Columbia
—
1,176,010
-1,176,010
Maryland
202,768
1,941,370
-1,738,602
Missouri
206,873
2,334,511
-2,127,638
New Jersey
1,671,065
5,803,184
-4,132,119
New York
311,417
8,247,610
-7,936,193
Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews. Data subject to qualifications: see text and Tables 1, 2, and 4.
CRS-7
Waste Import Highlights
Twenty-eight states had increased imports of municipal waste since 2001, with
the largest increases occurring in Virginia and Michigan. The increases in these two
states, 1.4 million tons in Virginia and 0.9 million tons in Michigan over the two-year
period, total 57% of the entire increase nationally.
The preponderance of these two states in the 2003 waste statistics demonstrates
another element of the emerging picture of interstate waste shipment: 49% of total
municipal waste imports are disposed in just three states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Michigan.
As shown in Table 1, Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer.
Disposal facilities in the state received 9.1 million tons of MSW and 1.4 million tons
of other nonhazardous waste from out of state in 2003. The amounts represented
nearly half of all solid waste disposed in the state and 23.5% of the national total for
interstate shipments. Pennsylvania has abundant landfill capacity, relatively low
tipping fees, and is near two major states that have a shortage of disposal capacity:
New York and New Jersey.
Despite the state’s continued predominance on the list of waste importers,
Pennsylvania’s imports declined in both 2002 and 2003 — a cumulative decrease of
more than 1.5 million tons of MSW imports. This happened simultaneously with
continued growth of interstate waste shipment in and through the Middle Atlantic
states.
Several factors appear to have been at work. First, in the last two years,
Pennsylvania imposed a new state fee of $5.00 per ton on waste disposal. Added to
pre-existing fees, the state now collects $7.25 on each ton of waste disposed in the
state. This may have provided sufficient economic incentive for some haulers to
dispose elsewhere. Second, the state appears to be receiving less waste from New
York City, whose Mayor has adopted a goal of shipping all of New York City’s
waste by rail, rather than truck. Pennsylvania has no landfills served by rail, so some
of this waste has been diverted to large landfills in Virginia that do have rail service.
After Pennsylvania, Virginia is the largest waste importer, with imports totaling
5.5 million tons of MSW and 1.1 million tons of other nonhazardous waste. Waste
imports to Virginia have increased sharply since 2001, as noted above. The state has
attempted to restrict imports, but has not been as successful as Pennsylvania, in part
because it has chosen a variety of measures that have run afoul of the Constitution’s
interstate commerce clause. These have included a ban on barge shipping of wastes
on Virginia rivers, truck regulations that applied only to commercial solid waste
transporters, and daily limits on the amount of waste that Virginia landfills could
accept.7
7 See “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Majority of Virginia Restrictions on Trash Imports,”
Daily Environment Report, June 7, 2001, p. A-2. The case decided was Waste Management
Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4th Cir 2001)..
CRS-8
Michigan, the third-largest waste importer for the past several years, saw out-of-
state waste grow by 1.03 million tons in 2003, following a slight decline in 2002.
Substantial amounts of waste come to Michigan from Illinois, Indiana, and other
neighboring states; but the biggest source, accounting for 62% of Michigan’s out-of-
state waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario is, of course, also Michigan’s neighbor, but
the fact that it lies in a foreign country and that it has large expanses of open land
where landfills might be sited seems to have added additional notoriety to its waste
shipments. Ontario’s shipments to Michigan have grown as the Toronto area
awarded new contracts for waste disposal and closed its last two landfills. At the
beginning of 1999, the Toronto area was generating about 2.8 million tons of waste
annually, of which about 700,000 tons were shipped to Michigan. By early 2003,
however, there was virtually no local disposal capacity in the Toronto area, and
almost all of the waste was being shipped to Michigan, where large disposal sites
offered very low cost disposal.
In other highlights:
! Ten states reported imports exceeding 1 million tons per year in the
latest year, an increase of two from our last survey two years ago.
New Jersey, Georgia, and South Carolina joined the “millionaires”
in 2003, while Indiana went the other way, dropping below the
million mark for the first time since 1995.
! In addition to the 10 states importing more than a million tons,
another 22 states had imports exceeding 100,000 tons.
! For the fifth year in a row, New Jersey is on the list of major
importers, with 1.67 million tons of MSW imports in 2002 (2003
data were not yet available). The state is still a major exporter of
waste, as well: receiving states estimate New Jersey’s exports at 5.8
million tons in 2003. But the absence of flow control (local
government requirements that waste within their jurisdiction be
disposed at local facilities, which were overturned by the courts in
the mid-1990s) has led waste-to-energy facilities in New Jersey to
import waste to replace the local waste that is now being disposed
elsewhere. As a result, large amounts of waste are entering New
Jersey from New York.
! Other states reporting major increases in imports were Ohio,
Georgia, and South Carolina. Ohio has had a 1.5 million ton
increase in MSW imports between 1998 and 2003, and appears
poised to import even more, according to press reports and
conversations with industry observers.8 The state has prepared draft
permits that would expand landfill capacity by 176 million tons,
8 See, for example, “Three Ohio Landfills Want More Garbage Trucked In,” Cincinnati
Enquirer, August 16, 2004, at [http://www.enquirer.com].
CRS-9
according to one analyst.9 Georgia experienced a seven-fold
increase, to 1.4 million tons over the same period; and South
Carolina more than doubled imports (to 1.2 million tons) in the last
two years.
! Oklahoma made its second appearance on our list of importers: the
state reports that in September 2001, it began receiving 1,500 tons
per day (about 500,000 tons per year) of waste from Wichita,
Kansas. Some of this waste has since been diverted to a landfill in
Topeka, Kansas, but Oklahoma’s Red Carpet Landfill still imported
nearly 334,000 tons of waste from Kansas in 2003, according to
Kansas officials.
! Texas moved from 33rd to 25th on our list, with an import increase of
217,000 tons since 2001. Louisiana appeared to be the major source
of the increased imports, sending more than 140,000 tons to a
landfill in Newton, Texas, very near the Louisiana border.
! New York saw a big drop in waste imports following rapid growth
in 2000 and 2001. The state had imported 839,700 tons of waste in
2001, an increase from 539,000 tons in our previous survey. But in
this year’s survey, imports declined sharply, totaling only 311,417
tons in 2003.
! Although there are no comprehensive data, imports to transfer
stations10 are a political issue in some locations. Transfer stations
are generally located in urban areas and are subject to less stringent
regulation than disposal facilities. Heavy truck traffic and odors
have aroused concerns in some neighboring communities.
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia have
reported significant amounts of out-of-state waste imported to
transfer stations, then exported to other states for disposal. New
York City’s plan to export most of its waste to transfer stations in
New Jersey raised substantial controversy, before being rescinded.
While waste imports increased overall, 14 states reported declines in waste
imports. In several cases, the declines were small, but seven of the states
(Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, and Iowa) had
declines exceeding 100,000 tons.
Major Exporters
As shown in Table 2, eight states (New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Washington) and the District of Columbia each
exported more than 1 million tons of waste to facilities in other states in the latest
9 Telephone conversation, September 2, 2004.
10 Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load it on
larger trucks for disposal elsewhere.
CRS-10
reporting period, and nine other states exported more than half a million tons. The
Canadian province of Ontario also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste
(nearly 3 million tons), most of it to Michigan.
New York, New Jersey, Missouri, Illinois, and Maryland, the five largest
exporting states, accounted for 54% of waste exports nationally.
New York’s exports rose to 8,247,610 tons in 2003, according to nine receiving
states, an increase of 754,000 tons over 2001. The increase reflects the March 2001
closure of New York City’s Fresh Kills Landfill — the city’s last disposal facility.
New Jersey’s estimated exports, 5.8 million tons, have also grown dramatically.
In New Jersey’s case, the cause of increased exports is the overturning of the state’s
flow control law, which, until 1997, directed much of the state’s waste to high-cost
local facilities for disposal. The state law was overturned and the state exhausted its
appeals in October 1997. Exports have since grown by about 3.5 million tons per
year.
Illinois’ exports, at 2.1 million tons, declined by nearly 1 million tons in 2003,
after several years of rapid growth. Despite the decline, the state’s exports in 2003
were still more than double the amount reported for 1994.11 Most of the exports
originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has a relative shortage of
disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole reported a more than doubling of landfill
capacity between 1995 and 2003, but Chicago is located near the border of both
Indiana and Wisconsin; so increases in capacity elsewhere in Illinois may not affect
disposal decisions in the metropolitan area.
In all, 11 states, the District of Columbia, and Ontario, Canada increased waste
exports by more than 100,000 tons each in the period, while 5 states had major
decreases. In addition to New York, New Jersey, and Ontario (discussed above),
Missouri, Kansas, Georgia, and Massachusetts showed the largest increases. Among
states showing decreased exports, only Illinois showed a large drop.
Net Imports and Exports
Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts
imported or exported. The table shows that 23 states were net importers, 22 plus the
District of Columbia were net exporters. Thirty-five of the 50 states had net imports
or exports exceeding 100,000 tons in the reporting period; 20 exceeded 500,000 tons.
Perhaps most interesting, given the tendency to identify states as either exporters or
importers, 23 states both exported and imported in excess of 100,000 tons of
municipal solid waste (up from 17 in our 2002 report).
Several factors are at work here. In the larger states, there are sometimes
differences in available disposal capacity in different regions within the state. Areas
without capacity may be closer to landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal
11 Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived
from data provided by neighboring states.
CRS-11
options) in other states. A good example is Illinois: the Chicago area, which is close
to two other states, exports significant amounts of waste out of state. Downstate,
however, Illinois has substantial available landfill capacity, and imported 1.5 million
tons from St. Louis and other locations in Missouri.
As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the regionalization and
consolidation of the waste industry. In 2003, the three largest firms (Waste
Management, Allied Waste, and Republic Services) accounted for 67% of total
revenues of the industry’s 100 largest firms.12 These large firms offer integrated
waste services, from collection to transfer station to disposal site, in many locations.
Often, they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border, rather than
dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. As small landfills continue to
close — the number of U.S. landfills declined 54% between 1993 and 2002, from
4,482 to 2,07113 — this trend toward regionalization and consolidation is likely to
continue. The amount of waste being shipped across state lines for disposal may rise
in this process.
Additional Information
The remainder of this report consists of a table summarizing waste import and
export data, by state. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed in
alphabetical order, with data for the amount of waste exported, destination of exports,
amount of waste imported, source of imports, and a state agency contact for
additional information.
12 “Waste Age 100,” Waste Age, June 2004, pp. 30-42.
13 “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and January 2004, p.
39.
CRS-12
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Mississippi reports
Besides Mississippi, very
415,425 tons in FY03
Mostly from Georgia.
Larry Bryant,
receiving 94,664 tons of
small amounts to Florida.
(10/02 - 9/03), a decrease
Some from the Florida
AL Dept. of
Alabama
MSW from Alabama in
of 260,000 tons from
panhandle.
Environmental
2003.
FY02, but an increase
Management
compared to FY01.
[redacted]
24,868 tons in 2003,
Washington.
No imports.
N.A.
Jennifer Roberts,
according to Alaska.
AK Dept. of
Alaska
Environmental
Conservation
[redacted]
Arizona does not export
Arizona estimates that
379,900 tons in the period
Nearly all (375,600 tons)
David Janke,
significant amounts of
between 1,000 and 10,000
4/03 - 3/04.
from California. Small
AZ Dept. of
MSW. There are small
tons may flow to New
amounts from Nevada,
Environmental Quality
flows from border areas
Mexico; 1,200 tons to
New Mexico, and Utah.
[redacted]
Arizona
to New Mexico, Nevada,
Nevada; and 500 tons to
and Utah. Based on state
Utah.
estimates, CRS estimates
total exports at 7,000
tons.
Three receiving states
84,698 tons to Missouri,
State does not track
Missouri reported 15,361
Doug Szenher,
reported receiving
21,546 tons to
imports, but believes that
tons shipped to Arkansas
AR Dept. of Pollution
114,192 tons from
Mississippi,
imports are relatively
in 2003.
Control and Ecology
Arkansas in 2003. In
7,948 tons to Tennessee.
small and confined to
[redacted]
Arkansas
addition, Texas receives
< 25,000 tons to Texas.
border areas.
some Arkansas waste.
Arkansas itself reported
only 36,050 tons of
exports.
CRS-13
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Receiving states report
Nevada 422,456 tons
44,000 tons in 2002.
State does not keep track
Sherry Sala-Moore,
798,056 tons of MSW
Arizona 375,600 tons
of where waste comes
CA Integrated Waste
shipped from California.
(4/03-3/04).
from.
Management Board
Although exports are
[redacted]
California
substantial, they
represent less than 2% of
www.ciwmb.ca.gov/
the amount disposed in-
lgcentral/drs/Reports/
state.
Statewide/SWTotals.
asp
State does not track
Kansas, Nebraska, New
State does not track
Kansas, Nebraska.
Glenn Mallory,
exports. Very small
Mexico.
imports. Small amounts
CO Dept. of Public Health
Colorado
amounts may be
may be imported from
and Environment
exported to neighboring
Kansas and Nebraska.
[redacted]
states.
Five states report
Pennsylvania-283,157 tons
Connecticut reports
Mass. 41,869 tons
Judy Belaval,
receiving 634,155 tons
(45%)
51,521 tons of MSW
NY 9,597 tons
CT Dept. of
from Connecticut in
Ohio-234,311 tons (37%)
imports in 2003.
NJ 55 tons
Environmental Protection
2003. Connecticut
Massachusetts-60,599 tons
[redacted]
reports exports of
(10%)
286,086 tons. It believes
Michigan-31,102 tons (5%)
that the difference in
New York-24,986 tons
Connecticut
reported amounts
(4%).
represents MSW direct-
hauled out of the state
without passing through
transfer stations and
C&D waste mixed in
with MSW.
CRS-14
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
The state does not track
Virginia-65,627 tons (54%)
The state does not track
N.A.
Nancy Markur,
MSW exports. However,
Pennsylvania-55,277 tons
MSW imports but claims
DE Dept. of Natural
receiving states, which
(45%)
it is likely a negligible
Resources and
have reported data for
New York-681 tons (1%)
amount. All MSW
Environmental Control,
Delaware
2003, reported receiving
landfills in the state are
[redacted]
121,585 tons from
owned by the state and are
Delaware in 2003.
prohibited from accepting
out-of-state waste.
Receiving states, which
Virginia-1,175,881 tons
There are no disposal
Maryland.
D.C. Dept. of Public
have reported data for
(99.99%)
facilities in the District of
Works, Solid Waste
2003, reported receiving
Columbia, but DC has
Division
1,176,010 tons in 2003,
In 2002, some amount was
imported substantial
[redacted]
District of Columbia
the bulk of which went to
sent to Maryland, but
amounts of waste from
Virginia.
Maryland does not track
Maryland to transfer
totals by state of origin.
stations located in the
District. This waste is
then exported for disposal.
The state does not track
Georgia. Small amounts to
The state does not track
Alabama reports that it
Peter Goren,
exports. Georgia reports
Alabama.
imports. There is little
ships very small amounts
FL Dept. of
receiving 676,517 tons of
incentive to import, since
to a facility in the Florida
Environmental Protection
MSW from Florida in
disposal is less expensive
panhandle.
[redacted]
Florida
2003. Exports are
in Georgia.
increasing, but still
represent only 2% of
Florida’s waste
generation.
CRS estimates 600,000
Alabama and South
1,445,254 tons in 2003.
47% of the waste comes
Scott Henson,
tons of exports based on
Carolina account for about
Waste imports have
from Florida, 29% from
GA Dept. of Natural
information available
95% of the total. The rest
increased by 451,000 tons
New Jersey, 7% from
Resources
Georgia
from three receiving
goes to Tennessee. Exports
since FY2002.
South Carolina, 6% from
[redacted]
states.
to South Carolina have
Rhode Island.
increased substantially.
CRS-15
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
No exports of MSW.
N.A.
No imports of MSW.
N.A.
Gary Siu,
Hawaii
HI Dept. of Health
[redacted]
Idaho does not track
Montana, Washington.
Idaho does not track
Oregon and a very small
Dean Ehlert,
exports. Washington
imports. Oregon reported
amount from Nevada.
ID Dept. of
reports an estimated
exports to Idaho of 18,668
Environmental Quality
Idaho
18,000 tons of MSW
tons of MSW in 2002.
[redacted]
from Idaho in 2002.
Montana reports 26,307
tons in 2003.
Six neighboring states
Wisconsin 777,983 tons;
The state reports
Missouri (78%); Iowa
Ellen Robinson,
report receiving
Indiana 668,161 tons
1,880,865 tons of imports
(15%); Wisconsin (3%);
IL Environmental
2,097,407 tons of MSW
(2002);
in 2003. (Data converted
Indiana (3%); small
Protection Agency
Illinois
from Illinois.
Michigan 559,454 tons;
from cubic yards to tons
amounts from 7 other
[redacted]
Missouri 79,147 tons;
by CRS.)
states.
Kentucky 8,754 tons;
Iowa 3,908 tons.
Six receiving states
Michigan 540,384 tons,
917,678 tons of MSW in
Illinois (73%);
Michelle Weddle,
reported a total of
Kentucky 199,439 tons
2003, a decrease of
Ohio (13%);
IN Dept of Environmental
945,241 tons of MSW
( 2002)),
402,000 tons from the
Michigan (7%);
Management
Indiana
from Indiana.
Ohio 157,512 tons,
previous year. The state
Kentucky (6%).
[redacted]
Illinois 42,210 tons,
also received 217,200 tons
Penn. 5,005 tons,
of other solid waste from
www.in.gov/idem/land/sw
Virginia 691 tons.
out of state in 2003.
/qtrlyrpts/fars/far02.pdf
CRS-16
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
CRS estimates 350,000
Illinois, 266,158 tons;
The state reported a total
89% from Minnesota.
Mark Warren,
tons based on reports
Missouri 5,267 tons;
of 276,302 tons in
The rest from Missouri,
IA Dept of Natural
from Iowa and receiving
Wisconsin 500 tons.
FY2003.
Nebraska, Illinois, and
Resources
states. Three receiving
FY 03 exports to Nebraska
Wisconsin.
[redacted]
states report 271,925
totaled 93,563 tons, acc. to
tons in 2003; the
Iowa.
Iowa
additional amount in our
estimate represents an
estimated amount of
waste shipped to
Nebraska. Iowa reported
248,834 tons in FY2003
(7/02 - 6/03).
Waste exports declined
90% to Oklahoma.
697,874 tons of MSW in
638,983 tons (92%) from
Kent Foerster,
in 2003 to 371,371 tons
10% to Missouri.
2002, plus 277,632 tons of
Missouri; the remainder
KS Dept. of Health and
from 500,000 tons in
other waste, primarily
from Oklahoma.
Environment
2002. Both years were
C&D. The state believes
[redacted]
Kansas
substantially above pre-
imports are under-
2002 exports, however.
reported, in part because
waste imported by transfer
stations is not counted.
328,993 tons in 2003.
Tenn. 221,025 tons,
598,549 tons in 2002.
Indiana (33%), Ohio
Allan Bryant,
Indiana 59,557 tons,
(32%), and West Virginia
KY Dept. for
Ohio 46,307 tons,
(21%) were the main
Environmental Protection
Kentucky
Illinois 1,618 tons,
sources in 2002.
[redacted]
Virginia 486 tons.
Tennessee (6%) and
Virginia (5%) contributed
lesser amounts.
CRS-17
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Texas reports that it
Texas, Mississippi.
Louisiana does not track
N.A.
Dennis Duszynski,
received 141,550 tons
waste imports. Little
LA Dept. of
Louisiana
from Louisiana in 2003.
waste is believed to be
Environmental Quality
Mississippi received
imported.
[redacted]
107,075 tons.
The state does not
New Hampshire received
CRS estimates 2003
Massachusetts reported
George MacDonald,
maintain export data. In
38,643 tons. Most of the
imports at 220,000 tons,
178,886 tons of MSW
ME Dept of
2002, neighboring states
rest went to Canada. Data
based on reports from
shipped to Maine in 2003.
Environmental Protection
Maine
and Canada reported
provided by North East
Massachusetts and
The rest comes from New
[redacted]
receiving a total of
Waste Management
NEWMOA.
Hampshire.
49,868 tons.
Officials Association
(NEWMOA).
Receiving states reported
Virginia-1,808,446 tons
The state reports receiving
Delaware, Pennsylvania,
Frank Diller,
receiving1,941,370 tons
(93%)
202,768 tons from out-of-
Virginia, West Virginia,
MD Dept of the
from Maryland in 2003.
Pennsylvania-130,516 tons
state. The state has also
D.C., New Jersey, and
Environment
(6%)
generally imported
New York.
[redacted]
Maryland
Ohio-1,332 tons (<1%)
substantial quantities of
West Virginia-1,052 tons
C&D waste.
(<1%)
New York-25 tons (<1%)
CRS-18
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
In 2003, Massachusetts
SC-450,221 tons (36%)
In 2003, Massachusetts
New York-67,634 tons
Brian Holdridge,
reported exporting a total
New Hampshire-258,919
reported importing a total
(38%)
MA Dept. of
of 1,239,364 tons.
tons (21%)
of 179,852 tons.
Connecticut-60,599 tons
Environmental Protection
New York-193,297 tons
(34%)
[redacted]
(16%)
Rhode Island-24,114 tons
Maine-178,886 tons (14%)
(13%)
Ohio-99,061 tons (8%)
New Hampshire-22,471
Massachusetts
Connecticut-39,023 tons
tons (12%)
(3%)
Vermont-2,745 tons (2%)
Virginia-9,343 tons (<1%)
Maine-2,289 tons (1%)
Rhode Island-5,575 tons
(<1%)
Pennsylvania-5,039 tons
(<1%)
The state does not track
Ohio 71%,
In FY2003 (10/02 - 9/03),
Ontario, Canada (62%),
Christina Miller,
exports, but two
Indiana 29%.
imports of MSW were
Illinois (12%), Indiana
MI Dept. of
neighboring states
4,503,218 tons, an
(12%), Ohio (8%),
Environmental Quality
reported 223,310 tons
increase of 1.0 million
Wisconsin (4%). Six
[redacted]
Michigan
from Michigan in 2003.
tons in the past year.
other states (principally
(Data converted from
Connecticut, Maine,
www.deq.state.mi.us/
cubic yards to tons by
and New York) account
documents/deq-whm-stw-
CRS.)
for the remaining 2%.
landfillreport.pdf
In 2002, the state
Iowa 286,802 tons
According to the state, a
N.A.
Jim Chiles,
exported 611,044 tons.
Wisconsin 265,880 tons
negligible amount has
MN Pollution Control
Minnesota
No. Dakota 57,360 tons
been imported.
Agency
So. Dakota 658 tons
[redacted]
CRS-19
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Tennessee reports
Tennessee.
579,752 tons in 2003.
356,477 tons (62%) from
Pradip Bhowal,
receiving 113,013 tons of
Tennessee; 107,075 tons
MS Dept. of
Mississippi waste in
(18%) from Louisiana;
Environmental Quality
2003.
94,650 tons (16%) from
[redacted]
Mississippi
Alabama; 21,550 tons
(4%) from Arkansas.
www.deq.state.ms.us/MD
EQ.nsf/pdf/SW_
AnnualReport2003
2,334,511 tons in 2003.
Illinois 1,648,008 tons
206,873 tons in 2003.
Arkansas (41%);
Debbie Sessler,
(71%); Kansas 658,979
Illinois (38%);
MO Dept. of Natural
Missouri
tons (28%); the remaining
Kansas (18%);
Resources
1% went to Arkansas, Iowa,
Iowa (3%).
[redacted]
Kentucky and Tennessee.
Montana does not track
N.A.
31,437 tons in 2003 —
Idaho (84%), North
Pat Crowley,
exports, and is not
almost identical to the
Dakota (11%), Wyoming
MT Dept. of
Montana
believed to export any
amount in 2002.
(5%).
Environmental Quality
significant amount of
[redacted]
MSW.
The state does not collect
Iowa.
The state does not collect
Iowa.
Keith Powell,
records on MSW exports,
records on MSW imports.
NE Dept. of
but Iowa reports
Iowa reports sending
Environmental Quality
Nebraska
receiving 10,537 tons
Nebraska 93,563 tons of
[redacted]
from Nebraska in
MSW in FY2003.
FY2003.
Arizona estimates that it
Arizona, Idaho.
422,456 tons in 2003.
Almost all from
Dave Simpson,
received 3,300 tons of
California. A small
NV Division of
MSW from Nevada. In
amount is imported from
Environmental Protection
Nevada
addition, an “insignifi-
neighboring communities
[redacted]
cant” amount is exported
in Utah and Arizona.
to Idaho from border
communities.
CRS-20
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
CRS estimates exports of
About two-thirds to Maine;
In 2002, New Hampshire
About three-quarters from
Pierce Rigrod,
65,000 tons in 2003,
most of the remainder to
imported 401,852 tons of
Massachusetts. The rest
NH Dept. of
New Hampshire
based on reports from
Massachusetts.
MSW, primarily from
was from Vermont and
Environmental Services
receiving states and
Massachusetts.
Maine.
[redacted]
NEWMOA.
5,803,184 tons in 2003,
PA 4,800,094 tons;
1,671,065 tons in 2002.
97% from New York.
Ray Worob,
according to six
OH 431,086 tons;
NJ Dept. of
importing states. New
GA 413,456 tons;
Environmental Protection
New Jersey
Jersey reported 3.7
VA 84,218 tons;
[redacted]
million tons of exports in
NY 72,409 tons;
2002 (latest available
WV 1,921 tons.
data).
The state says there are
Texas and Arizona.
537,000 tons of MSW
511,000 tons from Texas.
John O’Connell,
no exports, except for
were imported in 2003,
The rest is from Colorado,
NM Environment Dept.
materials destined for
according to official data,
Arizona, Indian nations,
[redacted]
recycling. Texas and
but state officials believe
and maquiladora waste
Arizona report receiving
the reported amount could
from Mexico.
small amounts of waste
be as much as 25% below
New Mexico
from New Mexico.
actual imports because of
underreporting by landfills
that serve border cities and
Indian nations. Imports
are believed to be
increasing in 2004.
CRS-21
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Nine importing states
PA 3,760,783 tons;
New York estimates
Ontario, Canada (43%);
Gerard Wagner,
report a total of
VA 1,765,271 tons;
311,417 tons were
New Jersey (23%);
NY State Dept. of
8,247,610 tons from New
NJ 1,652,861 tons
imported in 2003. The
Pennsylvania (16%);
Environmental
York in 2003. New
(2002);
state also imported
Massachusetts (9%);
Conservation
York facilities reported
OH 887,297 tons;
172,000 tons of C&D
Connecticut (8%).
[redacted]
New York
exports of 4,960,830 tons
MA 67,634 tons;
waste in 2003.
in 2003.
WV 57,687 tons;
GA 28,274 tons;
MI 18,206 tons;
CT 9,597 tons.
971,286 tons in FY2003
Virginia (50%),
133,145 tons in FY2003
South Carolina (64%);
Paul Crissman,
(July 2002-June 2003),
South Carolina (44%),
(July 2002-June 2003).
Virginia (36%).
NC Dept. of Environment
an increase of 89,039
Tennessee (5%),
Does not include 77,217
and Natural Resources
tons from the previous
Georgia (1%).
tons of waste imported
[redacted] x254
year. In addition, the
from a South Carolina
North Carolina
state exported 77,217
transfer station, which
[http://wastenot.enr.state.n
tons to a South Carolina
originally received the
c.us/swhome/SW02-
transfer station, which,
waste from North
03_AR.doc]
after baling, were sent
Carolina.
back to North Carolina
for disposal.
North Dakota estimates
Montana received slightly
101,196 tons in 2002.
Minnesota would be the
Steve Tillotson,
North Dakota
exports at 10,000 tons in
less than 4,000 tons. The
largest source.
ND Dept. of Health
2002.
rest is not accounted for.
[redacted]
1,102,341 tons in 2003.
Michigan (38%);
Ohio imported 2,541,074
Ohio imports waste from
Michelle Kenton,
Kentucky (29%);
tons in 2003, an increase
27 states. The largest
OH Environmental
West Virginia (17%);
of 553,000 tons since
sources were New York
Protection Agency
Ohio
Indiana (13%);
2001.
(35%), Pennsylvania
[redacted]
Pennsylvania (4%).
(18%), New Jersey (17%),
Connecticut (9%).
CRS-22
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
Kansas received 58,891
Kansas, Texas.
State does not track
Mostly from Kansas.
John Roberts,
tons of waste from
imports. Kansas reports
OK Dept. of
Oklahoma in 2002.
that 333,616 tons of waste
Environmental Quality
Oklahoma
Texas received at least
were shipped from the
[redacted]
40,000 tons in 2003
Wichita area to Oklahoma
(CRS estimate, based on
in 2003.
Texas data).
Ontario shipped nearly 3
Primarily Michigan. Some
None.
N.A.
Bruce Pope,
million tons of MSW to
to New York.
Ontario Ministry of
the United States in 2003
Environment and Energy
(2,922,473 tons),
[redacted]
according to receiving
states. Michigan
Ontario, Canada
received 2,789,650 tons
of this waste in FY2003
(10/02-9/03). (Data
converted from cubic
yards to tons by CRS.)
New York received
132,823 tons.
Oregon exported 18,668
Mainly to Idaho.
Oregon imported
Almost all from
Peter Spendelow,
tons of MSW in 2002.
1,424,801 tons of MSW in
Washington.
OR Dept. of
2002. Imports accounted
Environmental Quality
Oregon
for 34% of all the waste
[redacted]
disposed in Oregon that
year.
CRS-23
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
The state does not track
84% (467,042 tons) to
9,155,638 tons in 2003, a
New Jersey (at 4.8 million
Sally Lohman,
exports. According to
Ohio; the rest to New York,
decline of 1.5 million tons
tons) and New York (at
PA Dept. of
neighboring states,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
since 2001. The state is
3.76 million) accounted
Environmental Protection
Pennsylvania exported
still, by far, the largest
for nearly 94% of
[redacted]
558,975 tons of MSW in
importer of MSW,
Pennsylvania’s MSW
2003.
representing 23.5% of the
imports in 2003. Other
[http://www.dep.state.pa.u
Pennsylvania
national total of imports.
sources included
s/dep/deputate/airwaste/w
In addition to MSW,
Connecticut (0.28 million)
m/drfc/reports/ctyfac.htm]
Pennsylvania received 1.4
and Maryland (0.13
million tons of other solid
million).
waste from out of state in
2003.
Receiving states reported
79% to Georgia; 21% to
Massachusetts reports
Massachusetts — 5,575
Robert Schmidt,
117,301 tons of MSW
Massachusetts. Tiny
sending MSW to RI.
tons in 2003.
RI Dept. of Environmental
from Rhode Island in
amounts to Pennsylvania
Officially, however, RI
Management
2003.
and Connecticut.
does not accept MSW
[redacted] x7260
Rhode Island
from out-of-state. In 2002,
all MSW imported to RI
was reported as sent back
out-of-state for disposal.
Georgia, North Carolina
Georgia 98,791 tons,
South Carolina imported
Massachusetts (38%) and
Pete Stevens,
and Virginia report
NC 84,932 tons,
1,227,240 tons of MSW in
North Carolina (36%)
SC Dept. of Health and
184,797 tons of waste
Virginia 1,074 tons.
FY2003 (7/02-6/03).
were the main sources.
Environmental Control
South Carolina
from South Carolina in
Georgia (17%) and
[redacted]
2003.
Delaware (9%) accounted
for most of the remainder.
CRS-24
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
The state does not track
N.A.
The state does not track
Minnesota
Jim Wente,
exports of MSW;
imports of MSW;
SD Dept. of Environment
according to the state,
according to the state,
and Natural Resources
there are insufficient
there are insufficient
[redacted]
South Dakota
amounts to warrant
amounts to warrant
tracking.
tracking. Minnesota
shipped 658 tons of MSW
to South Dakota in 2002.
Four neighboring states
Mostly to Mississippi
577,940 tons in 2003.
221,025 tons (38%) from
A. Wayne Brashear,
report receiving 431,740
(83%). The rest went to
Kentucky; 134,237 tons
TN Dept. of Environment
tons of waste from
Kentucky (8%),
(23%) from Virginia;
and Conservation
Tennessee, an increase of
Virginia (7%), and
113,013 tons (20%) from
[redacted]
more than 40% since
Georgia (2%).
Mississippi; 53,484 tons
Tennessee
2001.
(9%) from North Carolina;
28,289 tons (5%) from
Georgia; the rest from
Missouri, Arkansas, West
Virginia, and Alabama.
New Mexico reports
New Mexico
251,100 tons in 2003.
Louisiana 141,550 tons
Edward Block,
511,000 tons of waste
Mexico 48,117 tons
TX Commission on
from Texas in 2003.
Oklahoma at least 40,000
Environmental Quality
Texas
Texas reported a similar
tons. The rest from
[redacted]
amount, relying on 2002
Arkansas, Kansas,
data.
Mississippi, and New
Mexico.
As in previous years,
Nevada, Arizona.
0 tons in 2003, except for
Arizona
Jeff Emmons,
about 1,000 tons of waste
a “trickle” from Arizona.
UT Dept. of
went from Wendover,
Environmental Quality
Utah
Utah, to Wendover,
(801)538-6748
Nevada. Also, Arizona
reports about 500 tons of
waste from Utah.
CRS-25
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
In 2002, 126,159 tons
Mostly to New York and
Facilities in Vermont do
New York 61,463 tons
Julie Hackbarth,
were exported.
New Hampshire. A small
not accept out-of-state
VT Dept. of
Vermont
amount to Massachusetts.
waste. However, New
Environmental
York reports sending
Conservation
MSW to Vermont.
[redacted]
The state does not track
Tennessee 134,237 tons;
Virginia remains the
95% from 3 states and
Kathy Frahm,
MSW exports. Seven
No. Car. 48,213 tons;
second-largest waste
DC: 1,808,446 tons from
VA Dept. of
states report 240,633
Kentucky 31,845 tons;
importer. The state
Maryland; 1,765,271 from
Environmental Quality
tons of exports from
Georgia 15,623 tons;
imported 5,489,170 tons
New York; 1,175,881
[redacted]
Virginia.
West Va. 5,321 tons;
of MSW in 2003 and 1.1
from DC; 470,074 tons
Virginia
So. Car. 2,807 tons;
million tons of other waste
from North Carolina.
www.deq.state.va.us/
Penn. 2,587 tons.
(mostly C&D waste,
Less than 5% from 16
waste/pdf/swreport03.
sludge, and incinerator
other states.
pdf
ash). Imports increased
by nearly 1 million tons
compared with 2002.
1,001,717 tons of MSW
Oregon.
112,097 tons of MSW in
50% from British
Ellen Caywood,
in 2002, plus 423,531
2002, plus 53,838 tons of
Columbia; 19% from
WA Dept. of Ecology
tons of other waste.
other waste.
Oregon; 16% from Idaho;
[redacted]
Washington has huge
15% from Alaska.
amounts of landfill
www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/03
Washington
capacity, but because of
07019.pdf
contractual arrange-
ments, the state exports
substantial amounts of
waste.
No tracking system. Six
Kentucky (35%), Ohio
276,439 tons in 2003.
Ohio 195,203 tons,
Jan Borowski,
receiving states reported
(31%), Pennsylvania (20%),
NY 57,687 tons,
WV Solid Waste
364,719 tons of waste
Virginia (13%). Small
Penn. 13,275 tons,
Management Board
West Virginia
from West Virginia.
amounts to Tennessee and
Virginia 5,321 tons.
[redacted]
New York.
The rest from 9 other
states.
CRS-26
Amount of
Destination of
Amount of
Sources of
State
MSW Exported
Exported Waste
MSW Imported
Imported Waste
Additional Information
The state does not collect
Michigan (77%), Illinois
1,210,008 tons in 2003.
Illinois 777,983 tons,
Kurt Byfield,
export data, but two
(23%).
Minn. 431,526 tons.
WI Dept. of Natural
receiving states report
Resources
Wisconsin
213,989 tons of
(608)266-8805
Wisconsin exports in
2003.
The state does not collect
Montana.
The state does not collect
N.A.
Bob Doctor,
export data. Montana
import data. A few tons a
WY Dept. of
Wyoming
reported 1,487 tons from
day may enter the state.
Environmental Quality
Wyoming.
[redacted]
N.A. = not available
Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by state program officials.
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.