flow control update

Flow Control Update Dormant Commerce Clause

ChallengesMay 13, 2014

Presented by Andrew Foster

2

Historical “Big Picture” C&A Carbone (1994) & United Haulers (2007) Post-United Haulers Cases C&A Carbone/Rockland County (2014)

Implications/What’s Next?

Topics for Today:

3

Economic Flow Control Other Legal Challenges:

- Void for Vagueness (JWJ Industries)

- Impairment of Contracts (City of Dallas)

- Due Process Violations

- Takings

Topics NOT for Today:

4

Historical “Big Picture”

Public

Private

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

(Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman)

14

15

Town ordinance imposed “Flow Control”

Directed all solid waste to a favored private facility HELD: Violates the dormant Commerce Clause:

- “hoards solid waste” for “favored local operator”

- “squelches competition”

- “discriminates” against interstate commerce

- “economic effects are interstate in reach”

C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown (1994)

16

County ordinances imposed “Flow Control” Directed all solid waste to publicly owned and

operated facilities

HELD: No dormant Commerce Clause Violation:

- Exception for “publicly owned and operated” facilities

- Flow Control laws that benefit “a clearly public facility” . . . are not “discriminatory”

United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer (2008)

17

United Haulers (2d Cir., 2001) No “discrimination,” because publicly owned

facilities

Remanded for Pike balancing United Haulers (2d Cir., 2006)

Pike balancing challenge rejected

If any “burden,” far outweighed by benefits

Underlying Second Circuit Opinions:

18

19

Quality Compliance (2008, M.D. GA.) Lebanon Farms (2008, 3d Cir.) Construction Materials (2009, D.N.H.) Southern Waste (2010, S.D. Fl.) Active Disposal (2010, N.D. IL.) Sandlands C&D (Horry County) (2013, 4th Cir.)

Post-United Haulers Developments:

20

C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) County ordinance imposed waste “Flow Control”

Directed all solid waste AND recyclables to publicly owned, but (arguably) privately operated facilities

HELD:

No “discrimination” under UH (2d Cir., 2001)

Pike balancing rejected per UH (2d Cir. 2006)

21

C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) SUBHOLDINGS:

Mere public ownership of building is determinative

Unprecedented scope → recyclables!

“Market participation” doctrine protects “outsourcing” of operations

Evidence of law’s “ultimate efficacy” → irrelevant

22

(Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman)

23

Implications/What’s Next?

24

25

Undermines narrowness of United Haulers publicly “owned and operated”/“clearly public” exception

Encourages adoption of new flow control laws using publicly-owned, but privately-operated facilities

Invites flow control laws encompassing recyclables Sanctions “nominal” public ownership of buildings to

insulate flow control laws from challenge Invites local governments to favor local firms via the

“market participation” exception).

Andrew P. FosterDrinker Biddle & Reath LLP

One Logan Square, Ste. 2000Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996

(215) 988-2512 phone(215) 988-2757 fax

Andrew.Foster@dbr.com

www.drinkerbiddle.com

26

Thank You & Questions?