This report, which replaces a 2004 report on the same subject (CRS Report RL32570, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update (pdf)), 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. It generally presents data as of 2005.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure of older local landfills and the consolidation of the waste management industry. More than 42 million tons of municipal solid waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2005, an increase of 8% over 2003. Waste imports have grown significantly since CRS began tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 25.3% of the municipal solid waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10 years, reported imports have increased 147%.
Pennsylvania remains the largest waste importer. The state received more than 7.9 million tons of MSW and 1.7 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 2005. Most of this waste came from New Jersey and New York. Pennsylvania's waste imports represented 19% of the national total. Virginia and Michigan, the second and third largest importers, received 5.7 million tons and 5.4 million tons from out of state respectively in 2005, each of them about 30% less than the amount received by Pennsylvania.
With the exception of Pennsylvania, each of the 15 largest importers showed an increase in waste imports, compared to our last survey, which provided data as of 2003. Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin showed particularly large increases, with Ohio, New York, Oregon, and Georgia also increasing substantially. In each of these states, waste imports increased by 300,000 tons or more, in some cases substantially more. In all, 30 states had increased imports in the current report, and 11 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons.
While waste imports increased overall, Pennsylvania, the leading importer, reported a sharp decline in imports. Pennsylvania's imports fell for the fourth year in a row: about 2.7 million fewer tons of out-of-state MSW were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2005 than in 2001. Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $4.00 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. Nine other states (Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, Minnesota, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario also exported more than 1 million tons each.
This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted to regulate this commerce, by imposing barriers or requirements specific to waste importation; federal courts, however, have declared such state restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, these decisions say, congressional action is required.
Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would grant such authority.1 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.2
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 (which ships large quantities of waste to the United States, principally to Michigan). 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 links to detailed reports on solid waste management in the specific state that are available on the Web.
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, the report provides CRS's best estimate, based on discussions with state officials or other sources.
Seven of the states provided data for a period other than calendar year 2005—either a fiscal year that included part of 2005 or a different calendar year. This adds another layer of imprecision: CRS generally combined data for whatever was the reporting period closest to 2005, even though in these seven cases, this meant combining data from somewhat different time periods. The exceptions are noted in the appropriate tables. As a result, many of the totals reported here represent a best estimate rather than precise figures.
The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise:3 imports in the current survey totaled 42.2 million tons, 17% of the 245.7 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the United States.4 Of municipal waste disposed (as opposed to recycled or composted), the percentage is higher. EPA estimates that 79.0 million tons of municipal solid waste were recycled or composted in 2005, leaving 166.7 million tons to be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Of this amount, 25.3% crossed state lines for disposal.5
Between CRS's year 2004 report (reporting largely 2003 data) and the current survey (reporting generally 2005 data), imports increased 3.2 million tons, or 8%. Since 1995, reported imports have risen 147%, from 17.1 million tons in 1995 to 42.2 million tons in the current survey.
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons |
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons |
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State |
Quantity Imported |
Pennsylvania |
a7,931,984 |
Virginia |
b5,709,441 |
Michigan |
|
Indiana |
a2,428,838 |
Wisconsin |
2,143,133 |
Illinois |
c2,114,898 |
Oregon |
1,795,971 |
Georgia |
1,744,317 |
New Jersey |
1,731,729 |
Ohio |
a1,689,470 |
South Carolina |
a1,243,993 |
Kansas |
800,318 |
New York |
769,083 |
Tennessee |
682,411 |
Kentucky |
663,685 |
Mississippi |
553,772 |
New Mexico |
471,345 |
Maine |
436,412 |
Arizona |
433,400 |
New Hampshire |
402,900 |
Oklahoma |
400,868 |
Nevada |
381,719 |
Iowa |
d300,528 |
Maryland |
a286,011 |
Texas |
259,040 |
Missouri |
227,858 |
West Virginia |
194,917 |
Massachusetts |
169,845 |
Washington |
147,746 |
Alabama |
146,637 |
North Carolina |
e137,298 |
North Dakota |
88,000 |
Louisiana |
e77,190 |
California |
75,734 |
Connecticut |
43,921 |
Montana |
32,205 |
Utah |
a16,038 |
Arkansas |
7,574 |
Rhode Island |
5,924 |
Nebraska |
d5,028 |
South Dakota |
1,500 |
Total |
42,194,725 |
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. See text and Table 4 for qualifications/details.
a. In addition, the state received substantial amounts of industrial, construction and demolition ( C&D), or other non-hazardous waste. See Table 4.
b. 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005.
c. Converted from cubic yards by CRS.
d. 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005.
e. 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006.
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State |
Quantity Exported |
New York |
7,198,648 |
New Jersey |
5,772,838 |
Illinois |
4,441,679 |
Ontario, Canada |
a3,976,399 |
Missouri |
2,398,865 |
Maryland |
2,048,204 |
Massachusetts |
1,986,945 |
Washington |
1,745,171 |
Minnesota |
1,085,000 |
North Carolina |
1,074,386 |
Indiana |
1,061,581 |
District of Columbia |
1,061,558 |
Florida |
1,039,611 |
Ohio |
875,005 |
California |
856,509 |
Connecticut |
636,599 |
Tennessee |
518,896 |
Kentucky |
488,157 |
Texas |
460,000 |
Kansas |
446,150 |
Iowa |
409,881 |
Pennsylvania |
338,265 |
West Virginia |
298,238 |
Wisconsin |
263,126 |
Louisiana |
260,588 |
Alabama |
231,700 |
Virginia |
210,688 |
Mississippi |
194,164 |
New Hampshire |
175,000 |
South Carolina |
163,646 |
Arkansas |
161,303 |
Georgia |
125,000 |
Oklahoma |
110,000 |
Vermont |
104,278 |
British Columbia, Canada |
a101,834 |
Michigan |
99,855 |
Rhode Island |
76,077 |
Maine |
71,379 |
Idaho |
63,056 |
Oregon |
52,438 |
Delaware |
30,000 |
Alaska |
25,201 |
Nebraska |
12,415 |
Arizona |
7,000 |
Nevada |
4,500 |
North Dakota |
3,000 |
Utah |
1,500 |
Wyoming |
200 |
Total |
42,766,533 |
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.
a. exports to the United States
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State |
Imports |
Exports |
Net Imports |
Pennsylvania |
7,931,984 |
338,265 |
7,593,719 |
Virginia |
5,709,441 |
210,688 |
5,498,753 |
Michigan |
5,442,044 |
99,855 |
5,342,189 |
Wisconsin |
2,143,133 |
263,126 |
1,880,007 |
Oregon |
1,795,971 |
52,438 |
1,743,533 |
Georgia |
1,744,317 |
125,000 |
1,619,317 |
Indiana |
2,428,838 |
1,061,581 |
1,367,257 |
South Carolina |
1,243,993 |
163,646 |
1,080,347 |
Ohio |
1,689,470 |
875,005 |
814,465 |
New Mexico |
471,345 |
- |
471,345 |
Arizona |
433,400 |
7,000 |
426,400 |
Nevada |
381,719 |
4,500 |
377,219 |
Maine |
436,412 |
71,379 |
365,033 |
Mississippi |
553,772 |
194,164 |
359,608 |
Kansas |
800,318 |
446,150 |
354,168 |
Oklahoma |
400,868 |
110,000 |
290,868 |
New Hampshire |
402,900 |
175,000 |
227,900 |
Kentucky |
663,685 |
488,157 |
175,528 |
Tennessee |
682,411 |
518,896 |
163,515 |
North Dakota |
88,000 |
3,000 |
85,000 |
Utah |
16,038 |
1,500 |
14,538 |
Nebraska |
5,028 |
12,415 |
-7,387 |
Alaska |
— |
25,201 |
-25,201 |
Delaware |
— |
30,000 |
-30,000 |
Idaho |
— |
63,056 |
-63,056 |
Rhode Island |
5,924 |
76,077 |
-70,153 |
Alabama |
146,637 |
231,700 |
-85,063 |
West Virginia |
194,917 |
298,238 |
-103,321 |
Vermont |
— |
104,278 |
-104,278 |
Iowa |
300,528 |
409,881 |
-109,353 |
Arkansas |
7,574 |
161,303 |
-153,729 |
Louisiana |
77,190 |
260,588 |
-183,398 |
Texas |
259,040 |
460,000 |
-200,960 |
Connecticut |
43,921 |
636,599 |
-592,678 |
California |
75,734 |
856,509 |
-780,775 |
North Carolina |
137,298 |
1,074,386 |
-937,088 |
Florida |
— |
1,039,611 |
-1,039,611 |
District of Columbia |
— |
1,061,558 |
-1,061,558 |
Minnesota |
— |
1,085,000 |
-1,085,000 |
Washington |
147,746 |
1,745,171 |
-1,597,425 |
Maryland |
286,011 |
2,048,204 |
-1,762,193 |
Massachusetts |
169,845 |
1,986,945 |
-1,817,100 |
Missouri |
227,858 |
2,398,865 |
-2,171,007 |
Illinois |
2,114,898 |
4,441,679 |
-2,326,781 |
New Jersey |
1,731,729 |
5,772,838 |
-4,041,109 |
New York |
769,083 |
7,198,648 |
-6,429,565 |
Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews. Data subject to qualifications: see text and Tables 1, 2, and 4.
Thirty states had increased imports of municipal waste since 2003, with the largest increases occurring in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These three states, along with Pennsylvania and Virginia, accounted for 56% of total municipal waste imports in 2005.
As shown in Table 1, Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer. Disposal facilities in the state received 7.9 million tons of MSW and 1.7 million tons of other nonhazardous waste from out of state in 2005. The amounts represented 39% of all solid waste disposed in the state and 19% of the national total for interstate MSW 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 MSW imports actually declined for the fourth year in a row in 2005—a cumulative decrease of more than 2.7 million tons. This happened simultaneously with continued growth of interstate waste shipments along the Eastern seabord.
Several factors appear to have been at work. First, beginning in 2002, Pennsylvania imposed a new state fee of $4.00 per ton on waste disposal. Added to pre-existing fees, the state and local governments in Pennsylvania now collect $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 5.7 million tons of MSW and 1.3 million tons of other nonhazardous waste. Waste imports to Virginia have increased 45% since 2001, when they totaled 4.1 million tons of MSW and 0.7 million tons of other waste. 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 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.6
Michigan, the third-largest waste importer for the past several years, has also seen substantial growth in imports. Significant amounts of waste come to Michigan from Indiana, Illinois, and other neighboring states; but the biggest source, accounting for 69% of Michigan's out-of-state waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario is 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 Toronto, Canada's largest city, 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 August 2006, the Ontario Minister of the Environment reached an agreement with Michigan's two Senators, under which Ontario will eliminate shipments of municipally managed waste to Michigan by the end of 2010. In return, the Senators agreed not to pursue passage of legislation that would have imposed large inspection fees and other requirements on Ontario's waste shipments to the United States.7 On September 19, 2006, Toronto's City Council approved a letter of intent to purchase a landfill near London, Ontario, where it is expected to ship its waste as it phases out shipments to Michigan.
The agreement reached by the two Michigan Senators in their exchange of letters with Ontario's Minister of the Environment would not eliminate the majority of the waste shipped from Ontario to Michigan, however. The agreement refers to "municipally managed waste," and specifically uses a 2005 baseline amount of 1.34 million metric tons of municipal waste shipped.8 About two-thirds of the waste shipped from Ontario is not "municipally managed"—it is waste collected by private haulers and shipped to Michigan landfills under private contracts. These wastes are exported to Michigan either because it provides lower cost disposal options or because the landfills in Michigan are controlled by the same company that collects the waste in Canada. The provincial government and the local governments within the province have no authority to prevent these private waste shipments from leaving Ontario. (For additional information on Canadian waste import issues, see CRS Report RL33720, Imports of Canadian Waste.)
In other highlights from the CRS survey:
As shown in Table 2, eleven states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, Minnesota, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida) and the District of Columbia each exported more than 1 million tons of waste to facilities in other states in the latest reporting period, and 21 other states exported more than 100,000 tons. As noted above, the Canadian province of Ontario also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste (nearly 4 million tons), most of it to Michigan.12
Although the reported amount of total waste exports grew by more than 4 million tons, shipments from the two largest exporting states, New York and New Jersey, did not increase. Compared to CRS's last survey, New York's exports fell more than a million tons to 7.2 million tons in 2005, according to 10 receiving states. New Jersey's estimated exports, 5.8 million tons, remained steady.
By far, the largest growth in exports came from Illinois, whose exports more than doubled, to 4.4 million tons.13 Most of the exports originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has a relative shortage of disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole has reported a more than doubling of landfill capacity since 1995, 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 Chicago metropolitan area.
In all, 10 states and Ontario increased waste exports by more than 100,000 tons each in the period. In addition to Illinois and Ontario, Minnesota and Florida showed the largest increases. Five states and D.C. had decreases of more than 100,000 tons. Besides New York, the others were Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts imported or exported. The table shows that 21 states were net importers; 24 plus the District of Columbia were net exporters. Thirty-eight of the 50 states had net imports or exports exceeding 100,000 tons in the reporting period; 22 exceeded 500,000 tons. Perhaps most interesting, given the tendency to identify states as either exporters or importers, 25 states both exported and imported in excess of 100,000 tons of municipal solid waste, an increase from 23 in CRS's last 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 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 2 million tons from St. Louis, other locations in Missouri, and Iowa.
As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the regionalization and consolidation of the waste industry. In 2005, the three largest firms (Waste Management, Allied Waste, and Republic Services) accounted for 66% of total revenues of the industry's 100 largest firms.14 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 63% between 1993 and 2004, from 4,482 to 1,65415—this trend toward regionalization, consolidation, and waste shipment across state lines is likely to continue.
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.
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State
State |
Amount of |
Destination of |
Amount of |
Sources of |
Additional |
||
Alabama |
Receiving states report 231,700 tons of MSW from Alabama in 2005. |
Tennessee Georgia |
134,164 tons 97,517 tons 19 tons |
146,637 tons in 2005. Imports doubled, to 297,387 tons in 2006, but remained less than half the peak amount (675,000 tons in 2002). |
The state does not track the origins of imported waste, but believes it is mostly from Georgia and the Florida panhandle. |
Philip Davis, |
|
Alaska |
25,201 tons in 2005, according to Washington. |
Washington. |
No imports. |
N.A. |
Jennifer Roberts, |
||
Arizona |
Arizona does not export significant amounts of MSW. There are small flows from border areas to New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah. Based on state estimates, CRS estimates total exports at 7,000 tons. |
Arizona estimates that between 1,000 and 10,000 tons may flow to New Mexico; 1,200 tons to Nevada; and 500 tons to Utah. |
433,400 tons in 2005. |
Nearly all (428,500 tons) from California. Small amounts from Nevada (4,500 tons) and New Mexico (400 tons). |
David Janke, |
||
Arkansas |
Four receiving states reported receiving 161,303 tons from Arkansas, an increase of almost 50,000 tons since 2003. |
Missouri ('06) Texas Tennessee |
101,644 tons 29,895 tons 22,521 tons 7,243 tons |
State does not track imports, but believes that imports are relatively small and confined to border areas. |
Missouri reported 7,574 tons shipped to Arkansas in 2006. |
Susan Speake, |
|
British Columbia, Canada |
B.C. shipped 101,834 tons to the United States, according to Washington |
Washington |
N.A. |
N.A. |
N.A. |
||
California |
Receiving states report 856,509 tons of MSW shipped from California. Although exports are substantial, they represent only about 2% of the amount disposed in-state. |
Arizona |
428,500 tons 379,009 tons 49,000 tons |
75,734 tons in 2005. |
State does not keep track of where waste comes from. |
Sherry Sala-Moore, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgcentral/drs/Reports/Statewide/SWTotals.asp |
|
Colorado |
State does not track exports. Very small amounts may be exported to neighboring states. |
Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico |
State does not track imports. Small amounts may be imported from Kansas and Nebraska. |
Kansas, Nebraska |
Charles Johnson, |
||
Connecticut |
Six states reported receiving 636,599 tons from Connecticut in 2005. |
New York Georgia Michigan West Va. |
218,013 tons 201,700 tons 131,801 tons 81,151 tons 3,869 tons 36 tons 29 tons |
Connecticut reports 43,921 tons of MSW imports in 2005. |
Massachusetts New York Rhode Island |
36,924 tons 3,769 tons 3,218 tons |
Judy Belaval, |
Delaware |
The state does not track MSW exports. CRS estimates exports at 30,000 tons in 2005 based on reports from receiving states, a decline of about 75% since 2003. |
Virginia Pennsylvania |
18,537 tons 8,741 tons |
The state does not track MSW imports but says it is likely a negligible amount. All MSW landfills in the state are owned by the state and are prohibited from accepting out-of-state waste. |
N.A. |
Nancy Markur, |
|
Small amounts to Maryland and New Jersey. |
|||||||
District of Columbia |
Receiving states reported receiving at least 1,061,558 tons in 2005, the bulk of which went to Virginia. |
Virginia |
1,059,700 tons 1,858 tons |
There are no disposal facilities in the District of Columbia, but D.C. has imported substantial amounts of waste from Maryland to transfer stations located in the District. This waste is then exported for disposal. According to D.C., about one quarter of the waste handled at D.C. transfer stations originates in Maryland. |
Maryland. |
Thomas Henderson, |
|
An uncertain amount went to Maryland, as well. |
|||||||
Florida |
The state does not track exports. Georgia reports receiving over 1 million tons of MSW from Florida in 2005. Exports to Georgia increased 350,000 tons since 2003, but still represent only 3% of Florida's waste generation. |
Georgia |
1,039,611 tons |
The state does not track imports. There is little incentive to import, since disposal is less expensive in Georgia, and there are no major out-of-state cities near the Florida border. |
N.A. |
Peter Goren, |
|
Small amounts may go to Alabama. |
|||||||
Georgia |
CRS estimates 125,000 tons of exports based on information available from three receiving states. Exports decreased from an estimated 600,000 tons in 2003. |
Alabama S. Carolina Tennessee |
75,000 tons 28,810 tons 17,056 tons |
1,744,317 tons in 2005. Waste imports have increased by 750,000 tons since 2002. |
Florida S. Carolina New York N. Carolina Rh. Island Tennessee Maryland 12 others |
1,039,611 tons 394,747 tons 81,738 tons 75,345 tons 42,668 tons 38,687 tons 30,083 tons 29,454 tons 11,984 tons |
Scott Henson, |
Hawaii |
No exports of MSW in 2005. Proposals to export waste from Oahu to Washington state or Idaho are under consideration. |
N.A. |
No imports of MSW. |
N.A. |
Gary Siu, |
||
Idaho |
Idaho does not track exports. Three receiving states report 63,056 tons in 2005. |
Washington Montana Oregon |
32,256 tons 29,000 tons 1,800 tons |
Idaho does not track imports, but says there is not a large amount of waste imported currently. Idaho Waste Systems has applied for permission to import substantial quantities from Hawaii, however. |
Small amounts from Oregon and Nevada. |
Dean Ehlert, |
|
Illinois |
Six neighboring states report receiving 4,441,679 tons of MSW from Illinois in 2005. Exports more than doubled since 2003. |
Indiana Iowa Kentucky |
2,522,635 tons 1,412,153 tons 416,538 tons 71,095 tons 12,926 tons 6,332 tons |
The state reports 2,114,898 tons of imports in 2005. (Data converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) |
Missouri (76%) Iowa (19%) Indiana (3%) Wisconsin (2%) Small amounts from 6 other states. |
Ellen Robinson, http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/landfill-capacity/index.html |
|
Indiana |
Five receiving states reported a total of 1,061,581 tons of MSW from Indiana in 2005. |
Michigan Illinois Virginia |
731,270 tons 170,870 tons 97,518 tons 61,854 tons 69 tons |
2,428,838 tons of MSW in 2005, an increase of 1.5 million tons from 2003. The state also received 658,000 tons of other solid waste from out of state in 2005. |
Illinois Kentucky Michigan 23 others |
2,122,945 tons 115,489 tons 109,786 tons 65,521 tons 15,097 tons |
Michelle Weddle, |
Iowa |
409,881 tons in 2005. |
Illinois Nebraska Wisconsin |
398,112 tons 6,704 tons 5,028 tons 37 tons |
The state reported a total of 300,528 tons in FY2005. Imports declined to 281,925 tons in FY2006. |
Minnesota Illinois Missouri Nebraska Wisconsin |
265,939 tons 11,874 tons 10,857 tons 8,952 tons 2,901 tons |
Mark Warren, |
(Exports to Nebraska do not include waste directly hauled without passing through a transfer station.) |
|||||||
Kansas |
Kansas reports MSW exports of 446,150 tons in 2005. Waste exports "went way down" in 2006, because a new landfill opened in Kansas. |
Oklahoma |
400,868 tons 45,282 tons |
800,318 tons of MSW in 2005, almost all from Missouri. |
Missouri Oklahoma Nebraska |
769,356 tons 27,499 tons 3,463 tons |
Christine Mennicke, |
Kentucky |
488,157 tons in 2005, a 48% increase since 2003. |
Tennessee Illinois |
283,836 tons 141,365 tons 58,679 tons 4,277 tons |
663,685 tons in 2005. Imports in 2006 rose slightly to 686,151 tons. |
Ohio Indiana Tennessee West Va. |
249,902 tons 170,870 tons 126,416 tons 106,936 tons |
Allan Bryant, |
Smaller amounts from Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Virginia. |
|||||||
Louisiana |
Neighboring states reported 260,588 tons in 2005. Little change from 2003. |
Texas |
152,615 tons 107,973 tons |
77,190 tons in FY2006 (July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006). |
Mississippi Texas Arkansas |
60,000 tons 10,300 tons 6,500 tons |
John Rogers, |
(CRS estimates based on La. data.) |
|||||||
Maine |
Maine reports exports of 71,379 tons in 2005. |
About 15,000 tons went to New Brunswick, Canada, and the rest to New Hampshire. |
Maine imported 436,412 tons of MSW and C&D waste in 2005. |
Facilities don't report state of origin, but 2/3 to 3/4 of the waste is believed to come from Massachusetts. The rest probably comes from New Hampshire. |
George MacDonald, |
||
Maryland |
Receiving states reported receiving 2,048,204 tons from Maryland in 2005. 97% of the exports went to Virginia. |
Virginia Pennsylvania West Va. |
1,992,313 tons 29,454 tons 26,350 tons 87 tons |
The state reported receiving 286,011 tons of out-of-state MSW, and 245,835 tons of other waste, mostly C&D in 2005. Imports increased 37% compared to calendar year 2004. |
Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and D.C. |
Edward Dexter, http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/SW_Managed_in_MD_Report_CY_2005.pdf |
|
Massachusetts |
Receiving states reported a total of 1,986,945 tons from Massachusetts in 2005. |
S. Carolina Rhode Island Pennsylvania Michigan Virginia |
475,495 tons 394,747 tons 300,000 tons 281,375 tons 216,661 tons 168,740 tons 101,367 tons 36,924 tons 5,924 tons 5,417 tons 273 tons 22 tons |
In 2005, Massachusetts reported importing a total of 169,845 tons. |
Connecticut N. Hampshire Rhode Island Vermont New York Maine |
81,151 tons 41,079 tons 30,534 tons 16,391 tons 627 tons 63 tons |
Brian Holdridge, |
Michigan |
The state does not track exports, but three neighboring states reported 99,855 tons from Michigan in 2005, a decrease of 125,000 tons since 2003. |
Indiana Ohio Wisconsin |
65,521 tons 32,658 tons 1,676 tons |
In FY2005 (10/04 - 9/05), imports of MSW were 5,442,044 tons, an increase of almost half a million tons since FY 2003. Michigan also imported 721,000 tons of industrial solid waste. (Data converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) Imports leveled off in FY2006, increasing less than 1%. |
Ontario Illinois Ohio Wisconsin |
3,781,171 tons 731,270 tons 416,538 tons 299,791 tons 211,648 tons |
Christina Miller, http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-whm-stsw-ReportSolidWasteLandfilledFY2005.pdf |
Three other states (New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) shipped small amounts. |
|||||||
Minnesota |
In 2005, the state exported about 1,085,000 tons. |
Wisconsin S. Dakota |
729,264 tons 265,939 tons 88,000 tons 1,500 tons |
According to the state, a negligible amount has been imported. |
N.A. |
Jim Chiles, |
|
Mississippi |
194,164 tons, according to receiving states. |
Tennessee |
134,164 tons 60,000 tons |
553,772 tons in 2005. Imported amounts have been relatively stable since 2002. |
Tennessee Louisiana Alabama Arkansas |
318,391 tons 107,973 tons 97,517 tons 29,895 tons |
Pradip Bhowal, |
Missouri |
2,398,865 tons in 2005; 2,520,071 tons in 2006. |
Illinois Tennessee Arkansas ('06) Kentucky |
1,598,625 tons 769,356 tons 10,857 tons 9,723 tons 7,574 tons 2,730 tons |
227,858 tons in 2006, a slight increase over 2003. |
Arkansas Illinois Kansas Iowa |
101,644 tons 81,917 tons 37,594 tons 6,704 tons |
Glenda Marshall-Griffin, |
Montana |
Montana does not track exports, and is not believed to export any significant amount of MSW. |
N.A. |
32,205 tons in 2005—almost identical to the amount in 2003. |
Idaho N. Dakota |
29,000 tons 3,000 tons |
Pat Crowley, |
|
The rest from Wyoming and Utah. |
|||||||
Nebraska |
The state does not collect records on MSW exports, but Iowa and Kansas reported receiving 12,415 tons from Nebraska in 2005. Iowa alone received 23,628 tons from Nebraska in FY 2006. |
Iowa Kansas |
8,952 tons 3,463 tons |
The state does not collect records on MSW imports. Iowa reports sending Nebraska 5,028 tons of MSW in FY2005. |
Iowa. |
Keith Powell, |
|
Nevada |
Arizona estimates that it received 4,500 tons of MSW from Nevada. In addition, a small amount is exported to Idaho from border communities in the northeast corner of the state. |
Arizona, Idaho. |
381,719 tons in 2005. |
Almost all (379,009 tons) from California. A small amount is imported from neighboring communities in Utah and Arizona. |
Dave Simpson, |
||
New Hampshire |
CRS estimates exports of 175,000 tons in 2005, based on reports from receiving states. |
Mostly to Maine; 41,000 tons to Massachusetts. |
In 2005, New Hampshire imported 402,900 tons of MSW, primarily from Massachusetts. Imports were unchanged compared to 2002. |
Massachusetts Maine Vermont Connecticut Rhode Island |
281,375 tons 54,000 tons 49,800 tons 10,661 tons 6,856 tons |
Donald Maurer, |
|
New Jersey |
5,772,838 tons in 2005, according to eight receiving states. |
Pennsylvania West Va. Maryland |
4,512,908 tons 394,747 tons 334,009 tons 316,656 tons 155,716 tons 56,136 tons 2,086 tons 580 tons |
1,731,729 tons in 2005, 94% from New York. |
New York International 9 other states |
1,639,916 tons 70,950 tons 16,689 tons 4,174 tons |
Ray Worob, |
New Mexico |
Texas and Arizona report receiving small amounts of waste from New Mexico. |
Texas and Arizona. |
471,345 tons were imported in 2005, a decrease of about 65,000 tons since 2003. |
Texas Colorado |
450,000 tons 17,000 tons |
Connie Pasteris, |
|
The rest is from Arizona, Oklahoma, Mexico, and possibly Utah. |
|||||||
New York |
Ten importing states report a total of 7,198,648 tons from New York in 2005, a decrease of over 1 million tons since 2003. New York facilities reported exports of 4,070,503 tons in 2005. |
Pennsylvania West Va. Connecticut Michigan Massachusetts Kentucky |
3,075,953 tons 1,803,754 tons 1,639,916 tons 583,999 tons 75,345 tons 13,810 tons 3,769 tons 1,325 tons 627 tons 150 tons |
New York reports that 769,083 tons of MSW were imported in 2005, an increase of 450,000 tons since 2003. The state also imported 390,000 tons of other solid waste in 2005. |
Connecticut Massachusetts Ontario New Jersey Pennsylvania Vermon Quebec N. Hampshire |
218,013 tons 216,661 tons 195,228 tons 56,136 tons 41,368 tons 38,087 tons 2,114 tons 1,476 tons |
Gerard Wagner, |
North Carolina |
1,074,386 tons in 2005, according to receiving states. In addition, the state exported 96,001 tons to a South Carolina transfer station, which, after baling, were sent back to North Carolina for disposal. Exports account for slightly over 10% of the waste generated in the state. |
S. Carolina Georgia West Va. |
554,074 tons 418,868 tons 56,806 tons 42,668 tons 1,970 tons |
137,298 tons in FY2006 (July 2005-June 2006). Does not include 107,888 tons of waste imported from a South Carolina transfer station, which originally received the waste from North Carolina. |
S. Carolina Virginia |
80,661 tons 56,637 tons |
Ellen Lorscheider, |
North Dakota |
Montana estimates that North Dakota exported 3,000 tons to Montana in 2005. |
Montana |
88,000 tons in 2005, according to Minnesota. |
Minnesota |
Steve Tillotson, |
||
Ohio |
857,005 tons in 2005, a decrease of almost 250,000 tons since 2003. |
Michigan Georgia Virginia |
299,791 tons 249,902 tons 161,024 tons 115,489 tons 29,832 tons 815 tons 152 tons |
Ohio imported 3,024,452 tons of solid waste in 2005, but 43% of it was C&D waste, industrial waste, and other non-MSW. Imports of general solid waste, the equivalent of MSW, totaled 1,689,470 tons. |
Ohio imported waste from 27 states. The largest sources were New York (35%), New Jersey (19%), Pennsylvania (13%), Massachusetts (10%), Connecticut (8%), Indiana (6%), West Virginia (4%), and Kentucky (3%). |
Michelle Kenton, http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/facts/2005_out_of_state_waste.pdf |
|
Oklahoma |
CRS estimates exports at 110,000 tons in 2005, based on reports from receiving states. |
Texas |
about 80,000 tons 27,499 tons |
State does not track imports. Kansas reports that 400,868 tons of waste were shipped from the Wichita area to Oklahoma in 2005, but the quantity imported dropped significantly in mid to late-2006, when a new landfill opened in Kansas. |
Mostly from Kansas. |
John Roberts, |
|
Small amounts to New Mexico. |
|||||||
Ontario, Canada |
Ontario shipped 3,976,399 tons of MSW to the United States in 2005, according to receiving states. Michigan received 95% of the total. (Data for Michigan are for FY2005 and were converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) |
Michigan |
3,781,171 tons 195,228 tons |
None. |
N.A. |
Bruce Pope, |
|
Oregon |
Oregon exported 52,438 tons of MSW in 2005. |
Washington and Idaho. |
Oregon imported 1,795,971 tons of MSW in 2005. Imports accounted for 37% of all the waste disposed in Oregon that year. |
Washington Idaho |
1,745,171 tons 49,000 tons 1,800 tons |
Judy Henderson, |
|
Pennsylvania |
The state does not track exports. According to neighboring states, Pennsylvania exported 338,265 tons of MSW in 2005. |
Ohio New York West Virginia Virginia |
214,951 tons 70,950 tons 41,368 tons 9,513 tons 1,483 tons |
7,931,984 tons in 2005 a decline of 2.7 million tons since 2001. The state is still, by far, the largest importer of MSW, representing about 20% of the national total of imports. In addition to MSW, Pennsylvania received 1.7 million tons of other solid waste from out of state in 2005. |
New Jersey and New York accounted for nearly 96% of Pennsylvania's MSW imports in 2005. |
Sally Lohman, http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1238&Q=464453&PM=1 |
|
(Exports to Ohio estimated by CRS, based on Ohio data.) |
New Jersey West Va. Ohio Maryland 6 others |
4,512,908 tons 3,075,953 tons 201,700 tons 68,264 tons 29,832 tons 26,350 tons 16,976 tons |
|||||
Rhode Island |
Receiving states reported 76,077 tons of MSW from Rhode Island in 2005. |
Georgia Massachusetts N. Hampshire |
38,687 tons 30,534 tons 6,856 tons |
Massachusetts reports sending 5,924 tons of MSW to RI. Officially, however, RI does not accept MSW from out-of-state. In 2005, all MSW imported to RI was reported as sent back out-of-state for disposal. |
Massachusetts |
Robert Schmidt, |
|
Small amounts to Connecticut and New Jersey. |
|||||||
South Carolina |
Receiving states reported 163,646 tons of waste from South Carolina. |
Georgia NC (FY2006) West Va. Virginia |
81,738 tons 80,661 tons 748 tons 499 tons |
South Carolina imported 1,243,993 tons of MSW in FY2005 (7/04-6/05), plus 284,106 tons of other solid waste disposed at MSW landfills. |
N. Carolina Massachusetts New Jersey Texas Georgia |
554,074 tons 475,495 tons 155,716 tons 29,882 tons 28,810 tons |
Pete Stevens, |
Non-MSW came mostly from Georgia, Delaware, and North Carolina. |
|||||||
South Dakota |
The state does not track exports of MSW. |
N.A. |
The state does not track imports of MSW. Minnesota reports having shipped 1,500 tons of waste to South Dakota in 2005. |
Minnesota |
Jim Wente, |
||
Tennessee |
Six neighboring states report receiving 518,896 tons of waste from Tennessee in 2005, an increase of about 70% since 2001. |
Mississippi Georgia |
318,391 tons 126,416 tons 39,805 tons 30,083 tons |
682,411 tons in 2005, 741,560 tons in 2006. Imports increased 28% from 2003 to 2006. |
Kentucky Virginia Mississippi NC |
283,836 tons 147,485 tons 134,164 tons 56,806 tons |
A. Wayne Brashear, |
The remainder went to Indiana and W. Virginia. |
The remainder came from 5 other states. (2005 data) |
||||||
Texas |
460,000 tons. |
New Mexico |
450,000 tons 10,300 tons |
259,040 tons in 2005. |
Louisiana Oklahoma Arkansas |
152,615 tons 83,219 tons 22,521 tons |
Edward Block, |
Small amounts from New Mexico and Kansas. (Oklahoma and Arkansas are estimated based on Texas data.) |
|||||||
Utah |
CRS estimates exports at 1,500 tons. As in previous years, about 1,000 tons of waste went from Wendover, Utah, to Wendover, Nevada. Also, Arizona reports about 500 tons of waste from Utah. Perhaps 50 tons to Montana. |
Nevada, Arizona, Montana |
16,038 tons of MSW in 2005, plus 275,837 tons of industrial waste. |
Arizona |
Ralph Bohn, |
||
Vermont |
In 2005, 104,278 tons were exported, according to receiving states. About 20% of the waste generated in the state goes out of state for disposal. |
N. Hampshire New York Massachusetts |
49,800 tons 38,087 tons 16,391 tons |
Facilities in Vermont do not receive any out-of-state waste. |
N.A. |
Julie Hackbarth, |
|
Virginia |
The state does not track MSW exports. Six states report 210,688 tons of exports from Virginia. |
Tennessee West Va. Pennsylvania Kentucky Georgia |
147,485 tons 56,637 tons 5,321 tons 918 tons 283 tons 44 tons |
Virginia remains the second-largest waste importer. The state imported 5,709,441 tons of MSW in 2005 and 1.3 million tons of other waste (mostly C&D waste, incinerator ash, and industrial waste). Imports increased by about 400,000 tons compared with 2003. |
Maryland New Jersey |
1,992,313 tons 1,803,754 tons 1,059,700 tons 418,868 tons 334,009 tons |
Kathy Frahm, |
Smaller amounts from 13 other states. |
|||||||
Washington |
1,745,171 tons of MSW in 2005, according to Oregon. Washington has over 200 million tons of disposal capacity (38 years at current disposal rates), but because of contractual arrangements, the state exports substantial amounts of waste. |
Oregon. |
147,746 tons of MSW in 2005, plus 67,112 tons of other waste. |
B.C., Canada Oregon Idaho Alaska Montana |
101,834 tons 45,554 tons 32,256 tons 25,201 tons 13 tons |
Ellen Caywood, |
|
West Virginia |
No tracking system. Eight receiving states reported 298,238 tons of waste from West Virginia. Exports virtually unchanged since 2003. |
Kentucky Pennsylvania Virginia Maryland 3 other states |
106,936 tons 74,301 tons 68,264 tons 38,114 tons 8,844 tons 1,779 tons |
194,917 tons in 2005, a decrease of almost 30% since 2003. Imports represented about 10% of total waste disposal in West Virginia in 2005. |
Ohio NY Penn. Virginia |
161,024 tons 13,810 tons 9,513 tons 5,623 tons |
Jan Borowski, |
(Exports to Ohio estimated by CRS, based on Ohio data.) |
The rest from 6 other states. |
||||||
Wisconsin |
The state does not collect export data, but four receiving states reported 263,126 tons of Wisconsin exports in 2005, an increase of 23% since 2003. |
Michigan Iowa Indiana |
211,648 tons 47,056 tons 2,901 tons 1,521 tons |
2,143,133 tons in 2005, an increase of 77% since 2003. Imports from Illinois and Minnesota both increased substantially. |
Illinois Michigan |
1,412,153 tons 729,264 tons 1,676 tons |
Lindsey Miller, |
Wyoming |
The state does not collect export data. Montana reported about 200 tons from Wyoming. |
Montana |
The state does not collect import data. A few tons a day may enter the state. |
N.A. |
Bob Doctor, |
Source: CRS, based on information provided by state program officials.
Note: N.A. = not available
1. |
Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since the 100th. In the 104th Congress, the Senate passed S. 534, which 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, by [author name scrubbed] (pdf). |
2. |
This report replaces CRS Report RL32570, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update, by [author name scrubbed] (pdf). Earlier reports, many of which are now out of print but available directly from the author, were prepared in 2002, 2001, 2000, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, and 1993. |
3. |
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. |
4. |
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 (245.7 million tons in 2005). For EPA data on waste generation, see Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures, at http://www.epa.gov/msw/pubs/mswchar05.pdf. State-reported waste generation, summarized in BioCycle magazine's biannual survey, is substantially higher (509 million tons in 2004) but may include other nonhazardous waste, provided it was disposed at MSW facilities. For state-reported data, see Phil Simmons, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. Kaufman, Nickolas J. Themelis, and James Thompson, Jr., "The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, April 2006, p. 26. Removing Canadian waste from the total imports would also reduce the percentage of waste crossing state lines for disposal, from 17% to 16%. |
5. |
Much of the waste destined for recycling may also have crossed state lines, but waste destined for recycling is not as controversial as that sent for disposal. In addition, 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. |
6. |
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). |
7. |
Letter of Senators Stabenow and Levin to Hon. Lauerl C. Broten, Ontario Minister of the Environment, August 30, 2006. |
8. |
Letter of Laurel C. Broten, Ontario Minister of the Environment, to Senators Stabenow and Levin, August 30, 2006. |
9. |
United Haulers Ass'n v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 127 S. Ct. 1786 (2007). |
10. |
Personal communication, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, May 30, 2007. |
11. |
Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load it on larger trucks for disposal elsewhere. |
12. |
Another Canadian province, British Columbia, also exports waste to the United States, but the amount is substantially smaller (about 100,000 tons to Washington state). |
13. |
Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived from data provided by neighboring states. |
14. |
"Waste Age 100," Waste Age, June 2006, p. 22. |
15. |
"The State of Garbage in America," BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and April 2006, pp. 38, 40. |