Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission v. Municipal Sanitary Landfill Authority

• Decision Date: 13 February 1974
• Parties: HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION and State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Plaintiffs, v. MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL AUTHORITY et al., Defendants, and City of Yonkers, New York, Defendant-Intervenor.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court

Page 160

127 N.J.Super. 160

316 A.2d 711

HACKENSACK MEADOWLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION and State of

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Plaintiffs, v. MUNICIPAL SANITARY LANDFILL AUTHORITY et al., Defendants, and City of Yonkers, New York, Defendant-Intervenor.

Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division.

Feb. 13, 1974.

Mark L. First, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiffs (George F. Kugler, Jr., Atty. Gen., attorney).

David N. Samson, Newark, for defendants (Lieb, Wolff & Samson, Newark, attorneys).

Eugene J. Fox, of the New York Bar, Corp. Counsel for City of Yonkers, pro hac vice, for defendant-intervenor (Schapira, Steiner & Walder, Newark, attorneys).

SCHREIBER, J.S.C.

The Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission (HMDC) and the State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), seek to enjoin the Municipal Sanitary Landfill Authority (MSLA) from accepting for disposal in its landfill site located within the Hackensack Meadowlands District any solid wastes originating from or collected outside the territorial limits of New Jersey. Both HMDC and DEP had adopted regulations, effective September 1, 1973 and August 31, 1973, respectively, which prohibited such disposal.

An Ad interim restraint, consented to by defendant, had been entered pending determination of the request for a permanent injunction. On the return date of the order to show cause defendants answered by challenging the constitutionality of the regulations and the Waste Control Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1I--1 et seq. The hearing was adjourned to allow plaintiffs time to respond to the challenges. In the meantime, the City of Yonkers, New York, whose refuse was being deposited on the MSLA site, moved for and was granted leave to intervene as a party defendant. No testimony was taken at the hearing. The parties relied on affidavits and the transcript of proceedings taken before the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission on June 18, 1973.

MSLA has made a three-fold attack. It contends that (1) the Waste Control Act, regulation N.J.A.C. 7:26--1.5 promulgated thereunder, and certain regulations of HMDC, namely, N.J.A.C. 19:7--1.1(g) and (h), are invalid, arbitrary and unreasonable; (2) the procedure followed by DEP in promulgating its rule, N.J.A.C. 7:26--1.5, violated due process of law and (3) all the above designated regulations and the Waste Control Act must fall because they violate Article 1, Section 88 paragraph 3 (the Commerce Clause, and Article 4, Section 2, (the Privileges and Immunities Clause) of the U.S. Constitution.

I

The Waste Control Act, N.J.S.A. 13:1I--1 to 8, recites that the Legislature found that the disposal of wastes generated or collected outside the State poses a threat to the quality of New Jersey's environment and that the Commissioner of Environmental Protection was empowered to create regulations prohibiting the 'landfill of solid waste' and the 'disposal of liquid wastes' within the State which originated or were collected outside New Jersey. The Commissioner adopted Regulation N.J.A.C. 7:26--1.5, effective August 31, 1973, which reads as follows:

Out of State waste

(a) No person engaged in the collection of solid or liquid wastes shall dispose of any solid or liquid wastes which originated or were collected outside the territorial limits of this State in sanitary landfills in the Hackensack Meadowlands District.

(b) No person owning or operating a sanitary landfill within the Hackensack Meadowlands District shall accept for disposal in such sanitary landfill any solid or liquid wastes which originated or were collected outside the territorial limits of this State.

Defendant contends that there is no basis for the Legislature's findings, that the regulation is invalid in the absence of a showing of a causal relationship between banning out-of-state garbage in New Jersey and a threat to its environment, and that the regulation is overly broad by banning all wastes. The statute and the administrative regulations are presumptively valid. Harvey v. Essex County Board of Freeholders, 30 N.J. 381, 153 A.2d 10 (1959); Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 248 A.2d 521 (1968); State v. Profaci, 56 N.J. 346, 266 A.2d 579 (1970). Since one can reasonably and readily conceive of facts which would support the Legislature's findings and the Commissioner's regulations, the onus is on defendant to establish that the Legislature's and Commissioner's actions are arbitrary. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kandle, 105 N.J.Super. 104, 251 A.2d 295 (App.Div.1969), aff'd 54 N.J. 11, 252 A.2d 403 (1969); Municipal Sanitary Landfill Authority v. Hackensack Meadowlands Development Comm'n, 120 N.J.Super. 118, 293 A.2d 426 (App.Div.1972); Borden's Farm Products Co., Inc. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 55 S.Ct. 187, 79 L.Ed. 281 (1934). Defendant's proof consisted of an affidavit of an engineer, Dennis L. Backus, and the transcript of proceedings before the Hackensack Meadowlands Commission held on June 18, 1973 with respect to its proposed regulations. The affidavit asserts that quantities of solid wastes are used for construction purposes and that therefore a complete ban on disposal of out-of-state solid wastes is inappropriate. This conclusion does not necessarily follow, because no reference is made to the amount of New Jersey refuse which is being used for landfill purposes, the limited amount of area available, and the environmental and public health impacts involved. Further, an affidavit of Lino Pereira, the Principal Environmental Engineer of DEP, asserts that sanitary landfills 'present a pollution danger because they do not conserve or recover resources but bury them, and because they severely limit the future use of the land on which they are located.' Additionally, he avers that sanitary landfills present a unique fire problem. An affidavit of Bernhard V. Lind, Acting Chief of the Bureau of Solid Waste Management in the DEP, asserts that of the 55,000 tons per week of solid waste being disposed of in the Hackensack Meadowlands District, 10,000 tons originated outside New Jersey and there was an acute shortage of remaining landfill life located there. In view of all the foregoing, it is obvious that MSLA has not met its burden.

The same type of attack has been made upon regulations of N.J.A.C. 19:7--1.1(g) and (h) of the HMDC. These regulations read as follows:

19:7--1.1(g) No solid waste originating or collected outside of the territorial jurisdiction of New Jersey shall be disposed of or treated within the Hackensack Meadowlands District. No sanitary landfill operator shall accept for disposal, at a sanitary landfill within the Hackensack Meadowlands District, any solid waste originating or collected outside of the territorial limits of New Jersey.

19:7--1.1(h) All operators of sanitary landfills within the Hackensack Meadowlands District shall submit to the Commission, together with their applications, as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this subchapter, a certification stating that no solid waste originating or collected outside of the territorial limits of New Jersey will be accepted for disposal or treatment.

Defendant has made no showing that there was no basis for these regulations. The affidavits of William D. McDowell, Executive Director of HMDC, and George D. Cascino, its Chief Engineer, disclosed that three surveys had been made to determine the volume and origin of solid waste disposed of in landfills in the Hackensack Meadowlands District. The first disclosed that in 1968 some 30,000 tons were entering the District each week, of which 4,000 tons originated outside New Jersey. HMDC study in 1971 revealed that the weekly tonnage was 42,000, of which 5,000 emanated from outside the State. In April 1973 HMDC updated its study. At that time weekly tonnage had increased to 55,000, of which 10,000 came from sources outside New Jersey. The Commission concluded that the sites had only three years of life remaining and that banning of our-of-state garbage would extend the landfill life some six months.

Under the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Act the Commission must provide disposal facilities for the New Jersey municipalities (totalling 118, according to plaintiffs) which had been utilizing the District. N.J.S.A. 13:17--10(a), (b) and (e). The affidavits point out that the Commission needs as much time as possible to develop a viable alternate method of disposal. One cannot reasonably contend that promulgation of the regulations under the totality of these facts and circumstances was arbitrary.

Defendant also argues that the HMDC regulations contravene N.J.S.A. 13:17--6(w) and 13:17--10(b) and (e) by failing to provide for disposal facilities for waste equal to levels at the time the statute was passed, which levels included out-of-state waste. N.J.S.A. 13:17--6(w) authorizes HMDC 'to provide solid waste disposal facilities for the treatment and disposal of solid waste, as hereinafter provided.' N.J.S.A. 13:17--10 reads:

(a) Within 6 months of the effective date of this act the commission shall undertake and complete a survey of the district to determine the total amount of solid waste treated and disposed on a daily basis in the district as of the effective date of this act by persons In this State.

(b) The commission is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to guarantee that solid waste disposal facilities sufficient to treat and dispose of the total amount of solid waste determined by its survey shall be available or be provided by the commission.

(e) The commission, in its discretion, may provide solid waste disposal facilities sufficient to treat and dispose of more than the total amount of solid waste determined by its survey, and may make such facilities available to persons other than those treating and disposing of solid waste in the district as of the effective date of this act. (Emphasis added).

Defendant reads these three sections together as guaranteeing continued use to All...