HCS HB 660 -- SOLID WASTE

SPONSOR:  Schlottach

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on
Conservation and Natural Resources by a vote of 13 to 0.

Currently, each operator of a solid waste sanitary landfill or a
transfer station in Missouri collects a charge of $1.50 per ton,
and each operator of the solid waste demolition landfill collects
$1 per ton for deposit into the Solid Waste Management Fund.
These charges are adjusted annually by the same percentage as the
increase in the federal Consumer Price Index (CPI).  This
substitute requires that no annual adjustment be made to the
charges imposed during October 1, 2005, to October 1, 2009,
except those needed to fund the operating costs of the Department
of Natural Resources.  During this time, no annual increase will
exceed the percentage increase measured by the CPI.  The
substitute decreases the percentage dedicated to the elimination
of illegal solid waste disposal from 42% to 39% and increases the
percentage that will be allocated through grants to participating
cities, counties, and districts from 58% to 61%. Of the 61%, 40%
must be allocated based on the population of each district, and
60% will be allocated based on the amount of revenue generated
within each district.  The minimum a district may receive is
increased from $45,000 to $95,000.

The substitute eliminates the requirement that generators located
outside the state must register with the department.  Missouri
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are required to pay a
fee equal to $5 per ton or a portion thereof, not to exceed
$52,000 but not less than $150 per site per year, for all
hazardous waste received from outside the state.  Payment for any
other expenditures which are not covered under the federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 will be received by the Hazardous Waste Fund.
Currently, 40% of all moneys collected by the department pursuant
to hazardous waste regulation is deposited into the Hazardous
Waste Remedial Fund and 60% deposited into the Hazardous Waste
Fund.  The substitute allows for all moneys collected to be
deposited into the Hazardous Waste Fund and eliminates the
Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund.

The waste tire fee expired on January 1, 2004.  The substitute
reimposes the fee until January 1, 2010.  The department must
give preference to contract bids for waste tire cleanups from
vendors that are Missouri residents, employ Missouri workers, or
use the tires for fuel or to manufacture a useful product.  The
department may consider prior performance in the awarding of the
contract.  A vendor will not be given a preference for a bid to
fill a landfill with waste tires, waste tire chips, or waste tire
shreds, including landfill cover.

The substitute extends the operation of the Dry Cleaning
Emergency Response Fund to 2012 and exempts dry cleaners who use
non-chlorinated solvents from the program.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Income on General Revenue Fund of $0 to
Unknown in FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008.  Estimated Effect on
Other State Funds of a Cost of $733,368 to an Income of Unknown
in FY 2006, a Cost of $2,033,368 to an Income of Unknown in FY
2007, and a Cost of $2,033,368 to an Income of Unknown in FY
2008.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill shifts funds from
promoting waste reduction to funding the permitting and
inspection of solid waste facilities.  By changing the fee
distribution, funding will be balanced between the Department of
Natural Resources and the local districts.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Schlottach;
Department of Natural Resources; Greene County Solid Waste
Commission; Mark Twain Solid Waste Management District; Gary
Ryan; Missouri Enterprise Business Assistance Center; Missouri
Chapter of the National Solid Waste Management Association;
Genesis Solid Waste Group, Incorporated; Environmental Industry
Association; Crown Disposal; IESI of Missouri; Waste Haulers of
Missouri; Fred Weber, Incorporated; Sonny's Solid Waste Group,
Incorporated; Dennis McCann; Solid Waste Advisory Board; and
Waste Management, Incorporated.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that it does not
provide a better balance between rural and urban interests, which
is something that needs to be achieved.

Testifying against the bill were Meramec Regional Planning
Commission; Ozark Rivers Solid Waste District; Missouri
Association of Councils of Government; and St. Louis - Jefferson
County Solid Waste Management District.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on the bill say that many non-profit
organizations rely on grants from the department's solid waste
programs.  Issues such as economic growth and development must be
considered.

Others testifying on the bill were Web Innovations and Technology
Services; and Department of Natural Resources, Solid Waste
Management Program.

Kristina Jenkins, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
93rd General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated August 25, 2005 at 1:20 pm