ELR Citation: ELR 20017
No(s). 88-5500 (3d Cir. Aug 25, 1989)

The court holds that a county landfill that imposed on imported waste rates that were higher than those imposed on locally generated waste did not violate the Commerce Clause or a waste-processing facility's due process and equal protection rights. A Pennsylvania-based waste processing facility received solid waste from Pennsylvania and New Jersey and disposed of some of that waste in the county landfill. Subsequently, the landfill instructed the waste-processing facility to reduce the volume of waste it delivered for disposal and raised the disposal rate for solid waste originating outside a local five-and-one-half county area. The court holds that the county acted as a market participant, rather than a market regulator, in deciding the conditions under which the waste-processing facility could use the landfill. The county marketed its landfill, setting the price and volume conditions for disposal. These conditions do not pertain to the operation of private landfills or apply beyond the immediate market in which the county transacts business. The court next holds that the county did not harbor a scarce natural resource for its own residents by using land in the operation of its landfill, and thus no natural resource exception to the market participant doctrine exists under these facts. The landfill was not a happenstance natural resource. Rather, the county expended funds to prepare the site for use, and waste disposal is unlike other natural resource industries because few communities welcome the opening of a waste disposal site in their midst. Thus, local benefits should follow local burdens. Finally, the court holds that it would be problematic to distinguish land in general and land practicably available for the construction of landfills. Here, the county used its initiative to build a waste disposal facility to serve its needs.

The court next holds that the rational basis standard of review is applicable to the equal protection claim, because no fundamental interest is impinged upon. Local or regional needs, such as preserving landfill capacity for waste disposal, are a legitimate purpose and excludable under an equal protection attack. Further, charging more for imported garbage reduces the flow of such garbage and is manifestly related to the objective of preserving landfill capacity for local garbage. Thus, the county's pricing scheme is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preserving the landfill for local waste-producing residents. Finally, the court holds that the waste facility operator has no statutory private right of action against the county, even though the land used by the county as the landfill was obtained through a federal statute. Neither the statute nor its legislative history provides a private right of action.

A dissenting judge would hold that the county is not acting as a market participant, but as a regulator of incoming solid waste. The county's actions, in creating a three-tier fee structure, distort market forces by causing private parties engaged in interstate commerce to be unable to realistically respond or compete.

[The district court's opinion appears at 18 ELR 20910.]

Counsel for Appellant
John P. Krill Jr., Carleton O. Strouss
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
The Payne Shoemaker Bldg., 240 N. Third St., Harrisburg PA 17101
(717) 231-4500

Counsel for Appellee
J. David Smith, Paul J. Ryan
McCormick, Reeder, Nichols, Sarno, Bahl & Knecht
835 W. Fourth St., Williamsport PA 17701
(717) 326-5131