State and Local Efforts to Divert Organic Waste Steadily Advance

• Author: Linda K. Breggin
• Position: Director of ELI's Center for State, Tribal, and Local Environmental Programs
• Pages: 11-11

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2022 | 11

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, January/February 2022.

Copyright © 2022, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Around the States

OVER A dozen states and

localities have enacted laws

aimed at diverting food

waste and other organic materials from

landlls. Food waste is typically the

largest component of landll waste, 20

percent on average. e magnitude of

the waste — roughly 80 billion pounds

per year — isn’t surprising given that

Americans toss up to 40 percent of

their food. And, over 95 percent of

food waste ends up in landlls. State

and local diversion requirements not

only aim to address the deleterious en-

vironmental, social justice, and cost im-

pacts of this voluminous waste, but also

seek to realize a range of benets.

States and localities often adopt

diversion measures as part of broader

waste reduction and climate mitiga-

tion goals. For example, key California

diversion measures are embedded in a

state law on short-lived climate pollut-

ant reductions, includ-

ing fugitive methane

emissions from land-

lls. In addition, ac-

cording to New York

City’s Department

of Sanitation, divert-

ing organic waste

from landlls “to produce soil enhanc-

ing compost, or as an energy source

through aerobic and anaerobic digest-

ers, is a key component of the city’s goal

of sending zero waste to landlls.”

Cities and states cite a range of addi-

tional benets, including Austin’s goal

to “increase the life of local landlls”—

which can avoid negative externalities

and environmental justice concerns as-

sociated with siting new landlls.

States and cities also point to the

economic development benets of or-

ganic waste diversion requirements. Ac-

cording to a Massachusetts study, the

benets of its law include new jobs in

the organics processing, food recovery,

and hauler sectors.

Although recycling of food scraps is

environmentally preferable to landll

disposal, EPA’s food recovery hierarchy

instead prioritizes waste prevention fol-

lowed by surplus food rescue. States

and localities do not typically identify

food waste prevention as an explicit di-

version goal — but several do include

source reduction as a potential com-

pliance measure, including Maryland.

Several laws, however, such as those

enacted in California and New York,

are specically intended as a means to

reduce food insecurity by recovering

edible food. According to the Vermont

Department of Environmental Conser-

vation, the results can be signicant —

in the two years following the state’s di-

version requirement for large food scrap

generators, the Vermont Food Bank re-

ported a 40 percent surge in donations.

Food waste diversion laws take a va-

riety of approaches with respect to sub-

stantive requirements, entities covered,

and implementation timelines. Some

focus on mandating

composting or an-

aerobic digestion and

outline compliance

measures that typically

include both on-site

and o-site options.

ese laws frequently

provide exceptions for generators that

are not located near a processing facility

— which is dened by Rhode Island as

15 miles, for example, but by Maryland

as 30 miles. Other states and localities

are more expansive and mandate or list

additional compliance activities that

can include reducing food waste, do-

nating surplus food, feeding animals,

and providing for industrial uses.

Some states and localities, includ-

ing Seattle as well as Vermont, impose

diversion requirements on all types of

businesses. But many laws focus pri-

marily on rms that generate food

waste, including food wholesalers,

manufacturers, and retailers. Others

cast a wider net, including Massachu-

setts, which covers governmental enti-

ties, and Rhode Island, which regulates

educational institutions. Several states

and localities consider not only the type

of business in determining the entities

subject to diversion requirements, but

also the amount of food scraps gener-

ated and, in some cases, the square foot-

age of businesses.

Although households are responsible

for roughly 40 percent of wasted food,

at the state level most laws do not ap-

ply to them — with certain exceptions,

such as Vermont and California. As

early as 2009, however, San Francisco

required “all persons” to separate com-

postables and participate in compost-

ing programs. And, since 2015, Seattle

has prohibited food waste in household

garbage. Both cities oer curbside pick-

up of organics.

Most states and localities phase in

their diversion requirements to aord

businesses time to prepare and to al-

low for development of the food scrap

recycling infrastructure necessary to

recycle the diverted waste. As a result,

even an early adopter, such as Vermont,

only completed its ban on land-lling

food waste in 2020 — six years after

its law was enacted. Other states, such

as Maryland, which only recently e n-

acted its law, have yet to start imple-

mentation.

Although organics diversion re-

quirements take time to implement

fully, the uptick in state and local

mandates is likely to continue, as

such laws provide an eective means

of tackling critical waste manage-

ment and climate mitigation chal-

lenges.

State and Local Eforts to Divert

Organic Waste Steadily Advance

Many food measures

are part of broader

waste reduction and

climate goals

Linda K. Breggin is director

of ELI’s Center f or State, Tribal, and

Local Environ mental Progr ams. She

can be reache d at breggin@eli.org.