Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin, Minn.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1642,92-1642 |
| Citation | 985 F.2d 1381 |
| Parties | , 23 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,787 WASTE SYSTEMS CORP., an Iowa corporation, Appellee, v. COUNTY OF MARTIN, MINNESOTA; County of Faribault, Minnesota, Appellants. State of Arkansas; State of Delaware; State of Florida; State of Indiana; State of Iowa; State of Kansas; State of Maryland; State of Michigan; State of Minnesota; State of Mississippi; State of Nebraska; State of Nevada; State of New Jersey; State of North Carolina; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Pennsylvania; State of Virginia; Sierra Club; The Minnesota County Attorneys Association; The Association of Minnesota Counties; Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Amici Curiae. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Walter J. Duffy, Minneapolis, MN, argued (James R. Steffen, on the brief), for appellants.
Timothy R. Thornton, Minneapolis, MN, argued (Jack Y. Perry, on the brief), for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON and MAGILL, Circuit Judges, and VAN SICKLE, * Senior District Judge.
Martin and Faribault Counties appeal from an order granting Waste Systems Corporation's motion for summary judgment. Martin and Faribault Counties had enacted waste designation ordinances mandating that all compostable solid waste generated within their borders be delivered to the Prairieland Solid Waste Composting Facility. The district court 1 found the ordinances violated the Commerce Clause, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. We affirm and remand for further proceedings regarding Waste Systems' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
In 1989, Martin and Faribault Counties (the Counties) created a joint powers board, the Prairieland Solid Waste Board (the Board), for the purpose of constructing and operating a solid waste composting facility. The Board subsequently sold approximately $8,000,000 in bonds guaranteed by the Counties to finance building the Prairieland Solid Waste Composting Facility (the Plant) located in Truman, Minnesota. The Plant opened in July 1991. 2
Before the Plant was constructed, all solid waste was transported out of the Counties for disposal. 3 Approximately two-thirds of the waste generated by the Counties was disposed of across state lines in a clay-lined landfill 4 located in Lake Mills, Iowa, and operated by Waste Systems Corporation, an Iowa corporation. 5
While the Plant was still in the planning stages, the Counties prepared and approved designation plans. 6 In the designation plans, the Counties examined the needs of the Plant, and considered whether to adopt ordinances designating that all compostable solid waste generated in the Counties be delivered to the Plant.
When discussing the need for designation, both Counties' designation plans state:
A critical element in assuring both the reliability and financial security of the Facility is the commitment of a long-term waste supply. Without an adequate supply of waste, the Facility can not be financially successful. The waste supply will serve as a source of revenue for the Facility.... [D]esignation is necessary for financial security of the Facility.
Martin County Designation Plan (Martin Plan) at 2; Faribault County Designation Plan (Faribault Plan) at 2 (emphasis added). The theme of the need for designation for economic reasons is repeated:
Designation of the Facility is necessary for financial support for both the initial development and the successful operation of the Facility.
.... The financial feasibility of the project would be negatively impacted without designation.
....
The financial stability of the Facility is directly dependent on the waste received by the Facility.
Martin Plan at 23; Faribault Plan at 21.
In the designation plans, the Counties also discuss whether methods less restrictive than designation would ensure that waste be delivered to the Plant. They reject the option of seeking contractual commitments. In the section regarding contractual commitments with public entities, the Counties state Martin Plan at 28; Faribault Plan at 26. Regarding the method of contractual commitments with private haulers, the Counties state Martin Plan at 30; Faribault Plan at 28. Both plans identify disposal alternatives in Iowa as potentially more economical to public entities and private haulers.
The Counties also explore and reject the possibility of using economic incentives (subsidizing the fees paid to the Plant for waste disposal). In this discussion, they state a Martin Plan at 33; Faribault Plan at 30-31. Although recognizing that closure of disposal facilities outside the Counties was not a viable alternative because the Counties had no control over such facilities, the plans also discuss this alternative. The Counties note that even if they could close out-of-county disposal alternatives, they Martin Plan at 34; Faribault Plan at 32.
After approving the designation plans, the Counties adopted identical designation ordinances 7 (the Ordinances), which are challenged in this case. The Ordinances, effective June 24, 1991, "requir[e] that all non-exempt mixed municipal solid waste generated within [the Counties] be delivered to [the] Facility in Truman, Minnesota." (Emphasis added). The Ordinances note that the county-guaranteed bonds which were issued to finance the Plant "are payable primarily from the net revenues or charges to be derived from the Facility, including fees paid by Haulers and Generators of Solid Waste for delivery of Solid Waste to the Facility." Martin County, Minn., Designation Ordinance; Faribault County, Minn., Designation Ordinance (Ordinances), subsection I.5. The Ordinances further state that "Designation as provided in this Designation Ordinance is necessary to assure the delivery of Solid Waste to the Facility, to assure the financial success of the Facility and to minimize the fees payable for responsible solid waste management...." Id. subsection I.10.
An exemption contained in the Ordinances allows a person owning a resource recovery plant 8 to petition for waste to be excluded from the Ordinances. The county petitioned "shall grant the petition if it determines that: a) the materials will in fact be processed ... and b) the exclusion can be implemented without impairing the financial viability of the Facility...." Id. subsection IV.5 (emphasis added).
Waste Systems brought an action in district court against the Counties, claiming, inter alia, the Ordinances interfere with Waste Systems' right to compete in interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause, deprive Waste Systems of substantive due process of law, and violate Waste Systems' civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Waste Systems subsequently sought summary judgment with respect to the Commerce Clause claim, and the Counties sought summary judgment with respect to all claims.
The district court granted Waste Systems' motion for summary judgment on the Commerce Clause claim and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Ordinances. It found the Ordinances discriminated against interstate commerce and were enacted as a protectionist measure. See Waste Sys. Corp. v. County of Martin, Minn., 784 F.Supp. 641, 644-45 (D.Minn.1992). Because the court enjoined enforcement of the Ordinances under the Commerce Clause, it did not address Waste Systems' due process claim. See id. at 646. The court also denied the Counties' motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim. See id. at 646-47. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the court granted final judgment with respect to all claims.
We review the district court's granting of summary judgment de novo. See Gregory v. City of Rogers, 921 F.2d 750, 751 (8th Cir.1990). We examine the Ordinances under the law established by City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978), and In re Southeast Ark. Landfill, Inc. v. State of Ark., 981 F.2d 372 (8th Cir.1992). We reject the balancing test under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 90 S.Ct. 844, 25 L.Ed.2d 174 (1970), as inapplicable to this case.
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall have the Power ... to regulate Commerce ... among the several states." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. The Supreme Court has also recognized a "dormant" component to the Commerce Clause: in the absence of express regulation from Congress, the clause acts as a limitation on a state's power to discriminate against interstate commerce. Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 326, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 1731, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979).
When a regulation treats inter- and intrastate commerce evenhandedly in order to accomplish a legitimate local public interest and any corresponding effects on interstate commerce are incidental, the regulation does not violate the Commerce Clause unless the burden imposed on interstate commerce is excessive in relation to the local benefits. Pike, 397 U.S. at 142, 90 S.Ct. at 847....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller
...the legislature or the courts of the State, but will determine for itself the practical impact of the law.'" Waste Systems Corp., v. Minnesota, 985 F.2d 1381, 1387 (8th Cir.1993) (quoting Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. at 336, 99 S.Ct. 1727 (quoting Lacoste v. Louisiana Dep't of Conservation,......
-
Randy's Sanitation, Inc. v. Wright County, Minn.
...Circuit affirmed this Court's decision against the constitutionality of interstate waste designation in Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin, 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir.1993), aff'g 784 F.Supp. 641 (D.Minn.1992), the County suspended the Ordinance as it applied to the flow of solid waste acr......
-
Barker Bros. Waste v. Dyer County Legislative Body, 95-2942-GA.
...export of waste, as to do so would deprive sister states of the valuable commerce of waste disposal. Waste Systems Corp. v. County of Martin, Minnesota, 985 F.2d 1381, 1386 (8th Cir.1993). See also New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 331, 102 S.Ct. 1096, 71 L.Ed.2d 188 (1982) (......
-
Red River Service Corp. v. City of Minot, N.D.
...local waste producers from competition from out-of-state producers seeking to use local disposal areas); Waste Sys. Corp. v. Martin County, 985 F.2d 1381 (8th Cir.1993) (holding ordinances requiring delivery of all in-county compostable solid waste to counties' facility violated Commerce Cl......