Regulatory Tug o' War: legislators and environmentalists vs. building owners (and, frankly, reality). Landfill fees are going up. Armstrong on listening.
Regulatory Tug o' War: legislators and environmentalists vs. building owners (and, frankly, reality).
The three links below are exemplars of a dynamic I have written about before: the fire-breathing environmentalist legislators and the environmentalists they serve continually demanding more and more regulations and laws vs. practical daily considerations like cost and feasibility with regulatory agencies like the AQCC in the middle of the two.
For as much as it may seem shocking to people like me (and likely you), regulatory agencies that deal in environmental topics get just as much complaint from environmentalists as they do from others: I have read more than once complaints about the regulatory bodies not going far enough if you can believe it.
Thus the three links below.
The first details how some legislators are running a bill to force the AQCC to adopt the rules they want as opposed to the rules that the AQCC came up with on their own.
The second is about how a "cumulative Impacts"** amendment was added to another bill that seemed to have pretty broad support because environmentalists were kind of miffed about the bill not doing enough.
The third is about how apartment building owners are heading to Federal court to stop state and city (Denver) rules about large apartment buildings requiring hugely expensive renovations to meet.
In some sense, I do not envy the regulatory bodies their position. The state puts them there to enforce the policy desired by the rabid legislators/environmentalists (while providing cover for the Democrats who might otherwise not want their name attached to some of this stuff). In that role, the regulatory bodies then end up getting heat from all sides.
At the same time, these bodies are (by design) mostly political cronies of the ruling party who by and large execute the will of those that appoint them. They've been obedient henchmen: rather than being upfront about the policy they're bound to enforce, they dissemble and try to cheerlead. They downplay the actual costs and sacrifices required by the rules they institute.
I wish the apartment building owners luck with their lawsuit only insofar as I think it's one of a very few things left to bring some reason back to this process; I don't actually want lawsuits or conflict. They are a misuse of resources for us all.
A friend once brought up the fact that Jared Polis had a lawsuit about a neighbor (see the fourth link below) and that this lawsuit vanished when Polis ran for governor. I've also seen pictures of fracking protestors at his speeches way back in the day. That largely stopped.
I think about that and look at the kinds of bickering now bubbling up and I can't help but wonder if the Democrat political machine in this state's not starting to show some cracks in the facade.
That is, I wonder if some of the higher ups didn't buy the quiet and acquiescence of some of the fringe elements of their party with promises of environmental law, made and enforced by the likes of the AQCC. Now that they see the results of that work, are they angry at what they got sold (am I way off the mark)?
If so, what will they start doing about it? What will the electorate's response be?
**Defined thusly by the EPA from the fifth link: "The combined, incremental effects of human activity, referred to as cumulativeimpacts, pose a serious threat to the environment. While they may beinsignificant by themselves, cumulative impacts accumulate over time, from oneor more sources, and can result in the degradation of important resources."
https://tsscolorado.com/legislators-criticize-state-agencies-as-they-look-to-upend-recent-environmental-rulemakings/
https://tsscolorado.com/dems-define-cumulative-impacts-in-carbon-capture-bill-pausing-agency-rulemaking/
https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/25/colorado-landlords-lawsuit-greenhouse-gas-cuts-injunction/
https://www.dailycamera.com/2013/07/25/jared-polis-sues-to-stop-fracking-next-to-his-weld-county-property/
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/cumulative.pdf
Landfill fees are going up. Depending on how your trash service is priced, you may notice an increase.
I noticed the article (linked below) in my local paper. It mentions that CDPHE is upping their fee on the Logan County Landfill.
To wit, quoting the article:
" ...Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will be increasing user fees for solid waste disposal from 35 cents to 39 cents per cubic yard July 1."
and further down,
"Based on last year’s usage, [LoganCo Landfill Supervisor Josh] Cline said the landfill would see an increase of about $2,300 combined in its two busiest quarters."
The sentence above is kind of awkward, so I assume what this means is the costs of the landfill would go up by $2300 for half a year (the two busiest quarters). I suppose you could also take it to be an increase of $2300 a year.
Regardless, it means higher prices.
Oh, and not to worry, those costs will get passed on to you.
I got curious at this so I reached out to CDPHE with some questions. Below is what I got back from the media person at CDPHE's solid waste dept.
Q: First, is it accurate that CDPHE raised the landfill fees? If so, is the number in the article accurate?
A: It is accurate that CDPHE has raised the landfill fee. As part of a stakeholder process led by CDPHE, the solid waste user fee will increase $0.04 from $0.21 to $0.25 per cubic yard of waste disposed in solid waste facilities.
Q: Second, can you give me a rationale for the increase?
A: The Solid and Hazardous Waste Commission has not approved a change to the solid waste user fee since 2010. The costs of administering the Solid Waste and Materials Management Program have increased since that time. Additionally, due to budget cuts and recent obligations to conduct groundwater monitoring at no cost to small landfills, the fund that supports the Solid Waste Program experienced a budget shortfall.
Q: Lastly, what will the increase be put to?
A: The increase will be used to help eliminate the budget shortfall in the solid waste management fund, backfill vacant staff positions, and reduce the permitting review backlog, which has been growing in recent years due to the vacant staff positions.
I had one more follow up. I asked the gentleman whether or not the increases were statewide. He told me they were.
In order put some context behind what CDPHE said in response to my questions, I did some looking through CDPHE's Solid Waste Program reports.
Fairness necessitates a look at changes in demand across the years. Obviously, if there's increased demand there's an increased need for inspectors, fieldwork, etc.
The screenshot labeled Solid Waste Volumes per Facility is a comparison of maps for 2010 and 2024. The size of the circles shows the size of the landfill and the color of the circle indicates how much trash came in (the size of the bucket and how fast you're pouring in).
I highlighted some interesting things. In black you'll see a facility that has closed after 2010 (it's not on the 2024 map). In blue you'll see a new facility. And in green you'll see facilities that are growing both in capacity and the amount of trash. That Front Range is filling up!
Take a look at the screenshots marked 2019 and 2023. These are graphs from the reports whose year matches the title of the screenshot.
These are compound bar graphs and show the regular trash by year along with the amount of waste tires by year. I put a red line from 2010 forward on on the graphs and then highlighted the tops of the regular trash bars in red. I highlighted the 200 so you can have the same reference on both graphs.
As you can see, fewer inspections are happening from 2019 on, but those are not a minimum. The low numbers from 2020 - 2023 are on par with those of 2010 and 2011.
The screenshots labeled 2019 Compliance and 2023 Compliance are bar graphs that spell out the amount of enforcement actions CDPHE has had to undertake. There is overlap, but doing both reports enables a look back to 2010.
Note that for each year, they broke down the enforcement actions into three categories. How many advisories (you have a problem and you need to fix it) needed to be issued, how many orders (this is your last chance to fix the problem before an action is taken), and how many court cases needed to be undertaken.
You can see that, with the exception of a dip for COVID, there seems to be an upward trend in advisories, but not much of a pattern for warnings and court actions.
Lastly compare the screenshots labeled Complexity 2019 and 2023. These graphs show the breakdown of the backlog and days to completion for plan reviews and etc. CDPHE broke out those by what they termed plans of low, medium, and high complexity. I wanted to go all the way back to 2010, but I could not with the reports I had. Best I could do was 2016 - 2023.
I think it would be fair to say that in the last year, the backlog is piling up. It would also be fair to say that there is not (to my eyes anyway) a decided upward trend over the years.
Lots of numbers. Lots of words. If you're still here I salute you and your interest in garbage.
Looking at all of this together, the picture that emerges for me is that there is not too much increased need due to big increases in the number of dumps or of dump owners being scofflaws. You could probably make the case that they're having to flag dump operators more, but not having to escalate beyond that.
If you look at the reports on how long its taking to get reports out, I think it's reasonable to say there's difficulty recently in getting reports out, but that prior to this year or so, they've been able to keep up (at least from 2016 forward--as far back as I could go).
My guess is that CDPHE has some vacancies and is struggling to fill them Vacancies due to COVID, retirement? I don't know. The overall pattern that I see here is not one of increased demand but likely increased difficulty finding people to do the work they have.
Costs, too, have likely gone up significantly--labor costs, copier paper, what have you. In addition to those basics, I would guess that regulatory costs have increased. That is, in keeping with the answer I got about having to test small landfills for free, there are more rules to keep track of and more forms to fill out. Thus ever the nature of government.
So, is the approximately 20% increase in fees going to help defray extra costs or is it going to help pay for an expanding government (more regulations and more office workers in CDPHE's central building)?
The answer I'd bet my lunch on is yes.
https://www.journal-advocate.com/2024/04/09/logan-county-landfill-use-fees-to-increase-july-1/
https://cdphe.colorado.gov/hm/swreports
To round out the day, consider the op ed below by Mr. Armstrong on listening.
In particular, I like the examples he offers. Some quotes (with the link intact in the second one):
"If, as a gun-rights activist, you cannot say to [State Senator Tom] Sullivan, [father of Columbine Massacre victim Tom] Mauser, and other victims of gun violence, 'I am so very sorry for your loss' (with 'sorry' in this context reflecting empathy), and understand why Sullivan and Mauser advocate stricter gun laws, then, I suggest, you do not have the moral fiber to engage fruitfully in politics."
"If you listen to various Democrats, Republicans voted against the measures just because they are obtuse and evil. But if you read Marianne Goodland’s report in Colorado Politics, you might get a sense of the Republican position. Goodland writes, 'The Colorado Supreme Court ruled last year that legislation passed in 2021 that removed the statute of limitations was unconstitutional because it was retrospective.' A fundamental legal principle is that government should not create punishments after the fact. Is that what this year’s proposal does? I’m not sure, but it’s certainly a reasonable concern. And people who voice that concern deserve better than to be tarred as rapist sympathizers."
Agree or disagree, you are wise when engaging in politics if you stop and think through your opponent's arguments. If you stop and try to envision why they hold the positions they do.
This is not exactly the thrust of Mr. Armstrong's arguments, but to me you need to be able to do this so you can be not just a more decent and rounded individual but so that you can be a better advocate for your position.
Op ed's worth a read and some thought.
Related:
Not quite the thrust of the main post above, but I want to excerpt another quote from the op ed:
"[9News Anchor Kyle Clark here in reference to his commentary on people taunting victims of gun violence] ... looks only at one side. Also since soon after Columbine, various anti-gun activists have relentlessly hurled insults at gun owners, saying they sympathize with murderers and the like."
In other words, Mr. Armstrong here echoes one of the themes I harp upon about Clark and others in the liberal media: they call out bad behavior by the group they don't like while completely ignoring that of the group they do like.
You can be relating true facts and still be biased. Remember that.
Armstrong’s article is a balm for the somewhat or grossly irritated state of so many people who are currently feeling the weight of so much “stuff” going on in their lives and in our country. Being patient is not my favorite virtue, but patiently trying to hear and understand is, to me, as essential as exercise and eating a healthy diet…not expecting that everyone sees my priorities the way I do.