Agenda - Council - 09/13/1982 - Special

Home

I I I I I INTRODUCTION PURPOSE In recent ~ears, public distrust of waste disposal practices has slowed--in some cases, halted--efforts to site new solid waste disposal facilities. It is not surprising that most communities are unwilling to bear the costs involved in hosting such facilities: adverse environmental, social and economic impacts; risks to public health and property; and uncertainties about the severity and duration of these impacts. Unlike the benefits of waste disposal facilities, too many of the costs are borne disproportionately by the host community and its residents. ' I I To deal with the situation, the 1980 state Waste Management Act called for the Metropolitan Council to examine ways of mitigating and compensating for adverse impacts of solid waste disposal facilities, including methods of financing (Minn. Stat., sec. a73.149, subd. 2c). The Council is to submit its report to the state Legislative Commission on Waste Management. ',1 I I I I I This document is the first of two reports on the subject. It discusses the compensation and mitigation measures most appropriate to deal with particular impacts and the best means of implementing such measures. The report can serve to inform property owners and local governments about ways adverse impacts could be reduced and various forms of compensation. The second report, to be based on the analysis in this document, will contain specific compensation and mitigation recommendations for waste disposal facilities to be sited in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The second report will serve as a guide for preparing legislation, if necessary, to implement compensation and mitigation measures. This report is divided into four major sections. The first examines the adverse impacts associated with waste disposal facilities, and discusses a variety of mitigating steps to reduce such impacts. The second section dis- cusses what compensation measures are available and which are most appropriate to deal with specific impacts. The third focuses on responsibilities for paying for mitigation and compensation, and how they should be financed. The final section describes compensation and mitigation methods being implemented in other states. BACKGROUND To date-, there have been few governmental policies that have endorsed providing compensation to offset the adverse impacts of solid waste disposal facilities. Compensation has traditionally been provided when a constitutional "taking" has occurred. If property owners have to relocate to make way for a public facility, they will have suffered a "publicly inflicted private injury" and are eligible for compensation. But nearby landowners whose property values are affected, the host community that must provide services to the facility and citizens less directly affected traditionally have not been eligible for com- pensation. Nevertheless, there is a growing recognition that wider use of compensation may make a facility more acceptable. In many states, new laws dealing with hazardous and solid waste disposal require that mitigating measures be taken to reduce adverse effects, and that compensation be made available when mitigation is impossible or not feasible. Mitigative measures are actions taken to alleviate, reduce or even completely I