Lori Golightly
ESPM5242-Fall 2007
Exercise 2-10/02/07
POLICY PROBLEM
The language change in 1994 to define source-separated organics as municipal solid waste in the
Minnesota Waste Management Act (Minnesota Statute 115A.03 Subd. 21. (b) and 115A.03 Subd.
32a.) has limited the expansion of composting facilities and organics recycling programs in the
state of Minnesota.
OUTCOMES
The outcomes that will be measured will be the political, economic, and environmental impacts
of the language change on composting facilities and organics recycling. The political outcomes
include “fairness” and distribution of benefits and costs to the stakeholders with the definitional
change and legal outcomes of changing the law. Economic outcomes include the cost and
benefits of the policy change, including the net present value and cost-benefit ratio. Finally, the
environmental outcomes include the effectiveness of protecting groundwater and surface water
from leachate, and ensuring a “superior” product or uncontaminated compost.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Technical feasibility/Effectiveness
The technical feasibility evaluation criteria will measure if the change in definition of sourceseparated organics will indeed expand organics recycling programs and/or composting facilities.
The focus using the technical feasibility criteria will be the effectiveness of the change on the
programs already in place, and the potential programs.
The effectiveness of the change will be measured by estimating the impacts through comparison
of how the definition of source-separated organics is not included as municipal solid waste in
other states and countries (i.e. Canada) and program impacts prior to the definition change.
Beyond estimating impacts through comparison of other states and countries, potential direct and
indirect impacts will need to be considered. An example of a direct impact of the definition
change could be increased composting facility. An example of an indirect impact could be the
increase of environmental damage through improperly run compost facilities (leachate draining
into ground water or surface water, contamination of compost). These impacts will be measured
by developing a standard of what is or is not acceptable environmentally and economically. To
determine acceptable environmental standards, comparison past and present standards will be
used. The metric to understand the effectiveness of the definition change would be a success
metric, using success or failures from other comparable programs or prior developed best
management practices. To determine acceptable economic standards, net present value and
benefit-cost ratio will be utilized.
Political viability
The second evaluation criterion intended to be used in the analysis is political viability. This
criterion will be used to indicate the alternatives with the least political opposition. As there has
been a change in the political environment around solid waste and source-separated material, it is
important to include this criterion. Constraints and feasibility of implementing the change will be
considered as part of this criterion.
In order to measure political viability, a metric of determining if whether policy makers will
accept the outcomes will be developed. The metric would contain surveys and interviews of
policy makers in the Minnesota legislature as well as State and various counties’ employees
directly involved in solid waste decisions. Another metric for measuring political viability would
be the mission effectiveness of the state’s solid waste plan or state county’s solid waste plans.
Currently, the state has a waste management hierarchy, and recycling is set up as higher on the
hierarchy than waste disposal. This metric would be designed to determine if the current
definition and future definition would meet the mission or goals of the solid waste plan for the
Golightly
Page 2
state in increasing recycling and composting and decreasing landfilling and other waste disposal
methods.
Equity
The third evaluation criterion to be used is equity. Determining the effect of policy change could
have potential redistribution effects on relevant groups. Using the equity criteria will aid in
determining how the benefits or costs of the policy change are distributed, and the level of
“fairness” of the distribution.
The first metric to use in determining equity is whether the net effect of the definition/policy
change costs and benefits are zero for the affected populations (i.e. waste haulers, businesses,
compost facilities, recycling facilities, waste-to-animal haulers). Though equity is subjective, a
baseline must be determined in the area of organics recycling. The current amount of material
that is being composting could be one base line and another base line (through past waste sorts)
is the amount of waste that could be diverted. These baselines could be determined by using the
various stakeholders to achieve these baselines, as well as past waste sort reports. These baselines
will aid in determining if the change in definition will favor one stakeholder over another. The
baseline could also be determined through the amount of materials each stakeholders’ facilities
could physically handle and how much room the facilities had for expansion, as well as the
amount of material available in the state. Finally, the metric could also determine if a
stakeholder has been more or less favorably treated than another stakeholder.
Legal
The legal criterion is naturally part of this specific policy analysis, as the policy problem is
centered a round an existing state law. As part of the evaluation and alternative process,
investigation of the current law will be considered, as well as the political difficulties in changing
the law. The metric to determine the legal possibility is comparing past and present laws in the
state of Minnesota, and include national laws with composting facility requirements.
Golightly
Page 3