Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2007 Update

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

This report, which replaces a 2004 report on the same subject (CRS Report RL32570, Interstate
Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update), provides updated information on interstate
shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not
enacted, numerous bills that would allow states to impose restrictions on interstate waste
shipments, a step the Constitution prohibits in the absence of congressional authorization. Over
this period, there has been a continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped
across state lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This
report provides data useful in addressing these questions. It generally presents data as of 2005.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise due to the closure of older local landfills and the
consolidation of the waste management industry. More than 42 million tons of municipal solid
waste crossed state lines for disposal in 2005, an increase of 8% over 2003. Waste imports have
grown significantly since CRS began tracking them in the early 1990s, and now represent 25.3%
of the municipal solid waste disposed at landfills and waste combustion facilities. In the last 10
years, reported imports have increased 147%.
Pennsylvania remains the largest waste importer. The state received more than 7.9 million tons of
MSW and 1.7 million tons of other non-hazardous waste from out of state in 2005. Most of this
waste came from New Jersey and New York. Pennsylvania’s waste imports represented 19% of
the national total. Virginia and Michigan, the second and third largest importers, received 5.7
million tons and 5.4 million tons from out of state respectively in 2005, each of them about 30%
less than the amount received by Pennsylvania.
With the exception of Pennsylvania, each of the 15 largest importers showed an increase in waste
imports, compared to our last survey, which provided data as of 2003. Indiana, Michigan, and
Wisconsin showed particularly large increases, with Ohio, New York, Oregon, and Georgia also
increasing substantially. In each of these states, waste imports increased by 300,000 tons or more,
in some cases substantially more. In all, 30 states had increased imports in the current report, and

11 states reported imports that exceeded 1 million tons.

While waste imports increased overall, Pennsylvania, the leading importer, reported a sharp
decline in imports. Pennsylvania’s imports fell for the fourth year in a row: about 2.7 million
fewer tons of out-of-state MSW were received at Pennsylvania landfills in 2005 than in 2001.
Factors causing this decline included the imposition of an additional $4.00 per ton state fee on
waste disposal and the absence of rail service at Pennsylvania landfills.
New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey in second place. Nine other
states (Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, Minnesota, North Carolina,
Indiana, and Florida), the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario also
exported more than 1 million tons each.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Total Shipments...............................................................................................................................2
Waste Import Highlights..................................................................................................................9
Major Exporters..............................................................................................................................11
Net Imports and Exports................................................................................................................12
Additional Information..................................................................................................................12
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons.....................................3
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons.....................................3
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year....................................................4
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year....................................................5
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year................................7
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of
Imported MSW, by State............................................................................................................14
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................29

This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW).
Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted to regulate this commerce,
by imposing barriers or requirements specific to waste importation; federal courts, however, have
declared such state restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, these
decisions say, congressional action is required.
Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would grant ¹
such authority. Over this period, there has been a continuing interest in knowing how much
waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal, and what states might be affected by
proposed legislation. This report provides data useful in addressing these questions. It updates ²
information provided in earlier CRS reports.
The report presents information gathered through telephone contacts with solid waste officials in
the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Canadian province of Ontario (which ships large
quantities of waste to the United States, principally to Michigan). The data obtained from these
contacts are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and Figures 1 and 2. Table 4 presents additional
information, including the names and telephone numbers of state contacts, and in some cases
links to detailed reports on solid waste management in the specific state that are available on the
Web.
Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so the available data
are incomplete, and in some cases represent estimates rather than actual measurements. In a
number of cases, faced with conflicting reports from exporters and importers or no quantitative
data at all, the report provides CRS’s best estimate, based on discussions with state officials or
other sources.
Seven of the states provided data for a period other than calendar year 2005—either a fiscal year
that included part of 2005 or a different calendar year. This adds another layer of imprecision:
CRS generally combined data for whatever was the reporting period closest to 2005, even though
in these seven cases, this meant combining data from somewhat different time periods. The
exceptions are noted in the appropriate tables. As a result, many of the totals reported here
represent a best estimate rather than precise figures.

¹^L^e^gⁱ^s^l^a^tion^{on i}ⁿ^te^r^s^ta^te^s^hⁱ^p^m^eⁿ^t^of^w^a^s^t^e^ha^s^be^eⁿ^intr^od^uc^e^dⁱⁿ^e^v^e^r^y^C^ong^r^e^ss^sⁱ^nc^e^the¹⁰⁰^th^{. In}^the¹⁰⁴^th
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^the^Se^na^te^pa^s^s^e^{d S.}⁵³^{4, w}^h^ic^{h w}^ould^ha^v^e^g^r^aⁿ^te^{d s}^t^a^t^e^s^a^u^thor^ity^{to r}^e^s^t^rⁱ^c^t^ne^w^s^h^ipm^e^nts^of^m^unicⁱ^pa^l^rd
^so^lⁱ^d^w^a^st^{e f}^r^o^m^o^u^t^o^f^st^at^e,ⁱ^f^req^u^e^st^ed^b^y^an^affect^ed^l^o^cal^go^ve^rn^m^eⁿ^t^.^In^t^h^e¹⁰³^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^b^o^t^{h t}^h^e^H^ous^e^aⁿ^d
^Se^na^te^pa^s^s^e^{d inte}^r^s^ta^te^w^a^s^t^e^le^gis^l^a^{tion (}^H^.R^{. 4}⁷⁷⁹^aⁿ^{d S}^.²³⁴⁵⁾^,^but^la^c^k^of^a^g^r^e^em^eⁿ^{t on c}^o^m^m^{on la}^ng^ua^g^e
^pre^v^eⁿ^te^{d e}ⁿ^a^c^t^m^e^{nt. For a}^dⁱ^sc^ussion^of^the^issue^s^a^ddre^sse^{d i}ⁿ^t^h^e^s^e^{bills, se}^e^{CRS Re}^p^o^{rt RS}²⁰¹⁰^6,^Iⁿ^tersta^t^{e Wa}^ste
^Tr^ans^p^o^r^t^:^Le^gis^l^at^iv^e^I^s^s^u^e^s^{, by}^J^a^m^e^s^{E. Mc}^Ca^rthy^.
²^T^hⁱ^s^rep^o^r^t^re^p^l^{aces CRS}^Rep^o^r^t^RL³²⁵⁷^0,^Iⁿ^te^r^s^t^ate^S^hⁱ^p^m^e^nt^of^M^unicⁱ^p^a^{l S}^o^li^{d W}^a^s^t^e^:²⁰⁰⁴^U^p^date^,^b^y^Ja^{mes E.}
^Mc^C^a^r^t^hy^{. Ea}^r^lie^r^r^e^por^ts^{, m}^aⁿ^y^of^w^h^ic^{h a}^r^e^now^{out of}^prⁱⁿ^t^but^a^v^a^ila^ble^dir^e^c^t^l^y^f^r^o^m^the^a^u^thor^,^w^e^r^e^pr^e^p^a^r^e^dⁱⁿ
²⁰⁰^{2, 20}⁰¹^,²⁰⁰⁰^{, 19}⁹⁸^,¹⁹⁹⁷^{, 19}^{96, 19}⁹⁵^,^aⁿ^d¹⁹⁹³^.

The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise:³ imports in the current survey
totaled 42.2 million tons, 17% of the 245.7 million tons of municipal solid waste generated in the ⁴
United States. Of municipal waste disposed (as opposed to recycled or composted), the
percentage is higher. EPA estimates that 79.0 million tons of municipal solid waste were recycled
or composted in 2005, leaving 166.7 million tons to be disposed in landfills or incinerators. Of ⁵
this amount, 25.3% crossed state lines for disposal.
Between CRS’s year 2004 report (reporting largely 2003 data) and the current survey (reporting
generally 2005 data), imports increased 3.2 million tons, or 8%. Since 1995, reported imports
have risen 147%, from 17.1 million tons in 1995 to 42.2 million tons in the current survey.

³^W^e^rel^y^oⁿⁱ^m^p^o^r^t^s^rat^h^{er t}^h^aⁿ^e^x^p^o^r^t^s^{as o}^u^{r m}^easu^r^{e o}^f^t^o^t^a^l^shⁱ^p^m^eⁿ^t^s,^b^ecau^{se we b}^e^lⁱ^e^{ve t}^h^at^w^a^st^e^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t
^f^a^{cilities an}^d^{states h}^a^v^e^{a g}^r^eaterⁱⁿ^{terest in}^accu^rately^measu^rⁱⁿ^g^im^p^o^r^ts^th^an^t^h^ey^d^o^ex^p^o^r^{ts. Of}^ten^th^{e am}^ounts
^receiv^e^d^an^d^th^{eir so}^u^r^{ce are su}^b^j^{ect to}^f^o^rm^{al le}^g^a^{l rep}^o^r^tin^g^req^uⁱ^r^e^m^en^{ts an}^d^/^o^r^f^{ees, w}^ith^p^eⁿ^a^ltie^{s f}^o^{r f}^a^ilu^{re to}
^r^e^por^t.^Ex^por^ts^a^r^e^{not g}^e^ne^r^a^lly^subje^c^t^t^o^s^u^c^h^r^e^qu^ir^e^m^eⁿ^ts^.
⁴^Becau^se^m^aⁿ^y^o^f^t^h^{e l}^a^{rger i}^m^p^o^r^tⁱⁿ^{g st}^at^{es n}^o^w^dⁱ^f^f^e^r^eⁿ^tⁱ^a^t^e^M^S^W^f^r^o^m^o^t^h^e^{r n}^oⁿ^-^h^azard^o^u^s^w^a^s^t^{e i}^m^p^o^r^t^s^,^w^e
^c^o^m^p^a^r^e^d^tota^{l MSW}^im^{ports to}^EP^A^’^{s na}^tio^na^{l e}^s^tim^a^t^e^of^MSW^g^e^ne^ra^{tion (2}^45.^{7 m}^illio^{n to}^{ns i}ⁿ²⁰⁰^5).^For^E^P^A
^da^ta^on^w^a^s^t^e^ge^ne^r^a^{tion, s}^e^e^M^unicⁱ^p^a^{l S}^o^li^{d W}^a^s^t^eⁱⁿ^t^h^e^Uⁿ^ite^d^State^s^:²⁰⁰⁵^Fac^t^s^aⁿ^d^Fi^gur^e^s^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.e^pa^.g^ov^/^m^sw^/^pubs^/^m^s^w^c^h^a^r^05.p^d^f^.^Sta^t^e^-^r^e^por^te^d^w^a^ste^g^e^ne^r^a^{tion, s}^u^m^m^a^r^iz^e^dⁱⁿ^Bⁱ^oCycl^e^m^a^gaziⁿ^e^’s
^bⁱ^anⁿ^u^{al su}^rv^ey^{, is su}^b^s^tan^tially^hⁱ^g^h^{er (5}⁰⁹^m^illioⁿ^toⁿ^sⁱⁿ²⁰⁰⁴^{) b}^u^{t m}^a^yⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^o^t^h^e^{r n}^oⁿ^h^azard^o^u^s^w^a^{ste, p}^r^o^v^id^ed
^{it w}^a^{s dispose}^d^a^t^M^S^W^f^a^c^ilitie^s^.^For^sta^t^e^-re^porte^d^da^ta^,^se^e^P^hⁱ^l^Sim^m^{ons, Nora}^G^o^ldsteⁱ^{n, Sc}^ott^{M. Ka}^uf^m^a^n,
^Ni^cko^l^{as J.}^T^h^e^m^elⁱ^s^,^an^d^Ja^m^e^s^T^h^o^m^p^s^oⁿ^,^Jr.^,^“T^h^e^S^t^at^{e o}^f^G^a^r^b^{age i}ⁿ^Am^eri^c^a,^”^Bⁱ^o^C^ycl^e^{, A}^p^{ril 20}⁰⁶^{, p}^.²⁶^.
^Re^m^o^viⁿ^g^Can^a^dⁱ^an^w^a^st^e^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e t}^o^t^a^lⁱ^m^p^o^r^t^s^w^o^u^l^d^al^{so red}^u^c^{e t}^h^{e p}^e^rcen^t^a^{ge o}^f^wast^{e cro}^ssiⁿ^g^st^at^{e l}ⁱⁿ^{es f}^o^r
^dis^pos^a^l^,^f^r^om^17%^{to 1}⁶^%^.
⁵^M^u^{ch o}^f^t^h^{e w}^a^st^{e d}^e^stⁱⁿ^ed^f^o^{r rec}^y^clⁱⁿ^g^m^a^{y al}^so^h^a^{ve cro}^ssed^st^at^{e l}ⁱⁿ^es,^bu^t^w^a^st^{e d}^e^stⁱⁿ^ed^f^o^{r rec}^y^clⁱⁿ^{g i}^sⁿ^o^t^as
^c^ontrov^e^rsia^{l a}^s^tha^t^se^nt^f^o^{r disp}^osa^l^{. In a}^dditⁱ^oⁿ^{, re}^c^y^c^ling^f^a^c^ilitie^{s do}^{not g}^e^ne^ra^lly^re^quire^pe^rm^{its by}^sta^t^e^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^.
^T^hus^{, a}^m^ounts^s^hⁱ^ppe^{d a}^c^r^os^s^s^t^a^t^e^line^s^f^o^r^r^e^cy^c^ling^c^a^{nnot g}^e^ne^r^a^lly^be^tr^a^c^k^e^{d by}^the^s^o^{lid w}^a^s^t^e^a^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^.

Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year, in Tons

Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
^{(in tons)}
^State^{Quantity Imported}
^Pennsylvania^a^7,931,9⁸⁴
^Virginia^b^5,70^9,44¹
^Michigan^b^,^c^5,4^42,0⁴⁴
^Indiana^a^2,428,8³⁸
^Wisconsin^2,14^3,13³

^Illinois^c^2,11^4,89⁸
^Oregon^1,79^5,97¹
^Georgia^1,74^4,31⁷
^{New Jers}^ey^1,73^1,72⁹
^Ohio^a^1,689,4⁷⁰

^{South Carolina}^a^1,243,9⁹³
^Kansas^800,³¹⁸
^{New York}^769,⁰⁸³
^Tennessee^682,⁴¹¹
^Kentucky^663,⁶⁸⁵

^Mississippi^553,⁷⁷²
^{New Me}^xico^471,³⁴⁵
^Maine^436,⁴¹²
^Arizona^433,⁴⁰⁰
^{New Ham}^pshire^402,⁹⁰⁰

^Oklahoma^400,⁸⁶⁸
^Nevada^381,⁷¹⁹
^Iowa^d^300,5²⁸
^Maryland^a^286,0¹¹
^Texas^259,⁰⁴⁰

^Missouri^227,⁸⁵⁸
^{West Virginia}^194,⁹¹⁷
^Massach^usetts^169,⁸⁴⁵
^Washington^147,⁷⁴⁶
^Alabama^146,⁶³⁷

^State^{Quantity Imported}

^{North Carolina}^e¹³^7,29⁸
^{North Dakota}^88,0⁰⁰
^Louisiana^e^77,1⁹⁰
^California^75,7³⁴
^Connecticut^43,9²¹

^Montana^32,2⁰⁵
^Utah^a^16,03⁸
^Arkansas^7,57⁴
^{Rhode Island}^5,92⁴
^Nebras^ka^d^5,028
^{South Dakota}^1,50⁰
^Total^42,1^94,7²⁵
^Source:^{CRS, based on data pro}^{vided by state progra}^{m officials. S}^{ee text a}^nd^{Table 4}^{for q}^{ualifications/details}^.
^a.^{In addition, the state received su}^{bstantial amounts}^{of industrial, constru}^{ction and demolition ( C&D}^{), or}
^{other non-}^{hazardous waste. See}^{Table 4}^.
^b.^10/1/²⁰⁰⁴^{- 9/3}^0/2⁰⁰^5.
^c.^{Converted from c}^{ubic yards}^by^CRS.
^d.^7/1/2⁰⁰^{4 - 6/}^30/²⁰^05.
^e.^7/1/2⁰⁰^{5 - 6/}^30/²⁰^06.
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
^{(in tons)}
^State^{Quantity Exported}
^{New York}^7,19^8,64⁸
^{New Jers}^ey^5,77^2,83⁸
^Illinois^4,44^1,67⁹
^{Ontario, Canada}^a^3,976,3⁹⁹
^Missouri^2,39^8,86⁵
^Maryland^2,04^8,20⁴

^Massach^usetts^1,98^6,94⁵
^Washington^1,74^5,17¹
^Minnesota^1,08^5,00⁰
^{North Carolina}^1,07^4,38⁶
^Indiana^1,06^1,58¹

^State^{Quantity Exported}
^{District of Columbia}^1,06^1,55⁸

^Florida^1,03^9,61¹
^Ohio^875,⁰⁰⁵
^California^856,⁵⁰⁹
^Connecticut⁶³^6,59⁹
^Tennessee^518,⁸⁹⁶
^Kentucky^488,¹⁵⁷

^Texas^460,⁰⁰⁰
^Kansas^446,¹⁵⁰
^Iowa^409,⁸⁸¹
^Pennsylvania^338,²⁶⁵
^{West Virginia}^298,²³⁸
^Wisconsin^263,¹²⁶

^Louisiana^260,⁵⁸⁸
^Alabama^231,⁷⁰⁰
^Virginia^210,⁶⁸⁸
^Mississippi^194,¹⁶⁴
^{New Ham}^pshire^175,⁰⁰⁰
^{South Carolina}^163,⁶⁴⁶

^Arkansas^161,³⁰³
^Georgia^125,⁰⁰⁰
^Oklahoma^110,⁰⁰⁰
^Vermont^104,²⁷⁸
^{British Columbia, Canada}^a^101,8³⁴
^Michigan^99,8⁵⁵

^{Rhode Island}^76,0⁷⁷
^Maine^71,3⁷⁹
^Idaho^63,0⁵⁶
^Oregon^52,4³⁸
^Delaware^30,0⁰⁰
^Alaska^25,2⁰¹

^State^{Quantity Exported}
^Nebras^ka^12,4¹⁵
^Arizona^7,00⁰
^Nevada^4,50⁰
^{North Dakota}^3,00⁰
^Utah^1,50⁰
^Wyoming²⁰⁰
^Total^42,7^66,5³³
^Source:^{CRS, based on data pro}^{vided by state progra}^{m officials. In many}^{cases, the}^amount^{is base}^{d on data}
^{compiled by receiving states. See}^{text and}^Ta^{ble 4}^{entries for additional information and qualificatio}^ns.
^a.^{exports to t}^{he United States}
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
^{(in tons)}
^{State Imports}^Exports^{Net Imports}^{/Net Exports(-)}
^{Pennsylvania 7,93}^1,98⁴^338,²⁶⁵^7,59^3,71⁹
^{Virginia 5,70}^9,44¹^210,⁶⁸⁸^5,49^8,75³
^{Michigan 5,44}^2,04⁴^99,8⁵⁵^5,34^2,18⁹
^{Wisconsin 2,14}^3,13³^263,¹²⁶^1,88^0,00⁷
^{Oregon 1,79}^5,97¹^52,4³⁸^1,74^3,53³

^{Georgia 1,74}^4,31⁷^125,⁰⁰⁰^1,61^9,31⁷
^{Indiana 2,42}^8,83⁸^1,06^1,58¹^1,36^7,25
^{South Carolina}^1,24^3,99³^163,⁶⁴⁶^1,08^0,34⁷
^{Ohio 1,68}^9,47⁰^875,⁰⁰⁵^814,⁴⁶⁵
^{New Me}^xico^471,³⁴⁵^-^471,³⁴⁵

^{Arizona 433,}⁴⁰⁰^7,00⁰^426,⁴⁰⁰
^{Nevada 381,}⁷¹⁹^4,50^377,²¹⁹
^{Maine 436,}⁴¹²^71,3⁷⁹^365,⁰³³
^{Mississippi 553,}⁷⁷^194,¹⁶⁴^359,⁶⁰⁸
^{Kansas 800,}³¹⁸^446,¹⁵⁰^354,¹⁶

^{Oklahoma 400,}⁸⁶⁸^110,⁰⁰⁰^290,⁸⁶⁸
^{New Ham}^pshire^402,⁹⁰⁰^175,⁰⁰⁰^227,⁹⁰⁰
^{Kentucky 663,}⁶⁸⁵^488,¹⁵⁷^175,⁵²⁸
^{Tennessee 682,}⁴¹¹^518,⁸⁹⁶^163,⁵¹⁵
^{North Dakota}^88,0⁰⁰^3,00⁰^85,0⁰⁰

^{State Imports}^Exports^{Net Imports}^{/Net Exports(-)}

^{Utah 16,0}³⁸^1,50⁰^14,5³⁸
^Nebras^{ka 5,02}⁸^12,4¹⁵^-7,387
^{Alaska —}^25,2⁰¹^-25,20¹
^{Delaware —}^30,0⁰⁰^-30,00⁰
^{Idaho —}^63,0⁵⁶^-63,05⁶

^{Rhode Island}^5,92⁴^76,0⁷⁷^-70,15³
^{Alabama 146,}⁶³⁷^231,⁷⁰⁰^-85,06
^{West Virginia}^194,⁹¹⁷^298,²³⁸^-103,3²¹
^{Vermont —}^104,²⁷^-104,2⁷⁸
^{Iowa 300,}⁵²⁸^409,⁸⁸¹^-109,3⁵³

^{Arkansas 7,57}⁴^161,³⁰³^-153,7²⁹
^{Louisiana 77,1}⁹⁰^260,⁵⁸⁸^-183,3⁹⁸
^{Texas 259,}⁰⁴⁰^460,⁰⁰⁰^-200,9⁶⁰
^{Connecticut 43,9}²¹^636,⁵⁹⁹^-592,6⁷⁸
^{California 75,7}³⁴^856,⁵⁰^-780,7⁷⁵

^{North Carolina}^137,²⁹⁸^1,07^4,38⁶^-937,0⁸⁸
^{Florida —}^1,03^9,61¹^-1,039,6¹¹
^{District of Columbia}^—^1,06^1,55⁸^-1,061,5⁵⁸
^{Minnesota —}^1,08^5,00⁰^-1,085,0⁰⁰
^{Washington 147,}⁷⁴⁶^1,74^5,17¹^-1,597,4²⁵

^{Maryland 286,}⁰¹¹^2,04^8,20⁴^-1,762,1⁹³
^Massach^{usetts 169,}⁸⁴⁵^1,98^6,94⁵^-1,817,1⁰⁰
^{Missouri 227,}⁸⁵⁸^2,39^8,86^-2,171,0⁰⁷
^{Illinois 2,11}^4,89^4,44^1,67⁹^-2,326,7⁸¹
^{New Jers}^ey^1,73^1,72⁹^5,77^2,83⁸^-4,041,1⁰⁹
^{New York}^769,⁰⁸³^7,19^8,64⁸^-6,429,5⁶⁵
^Source:^{CRS, based on telephon}^{e interviews. Data subject to}^qual^{ifications: see text and Tables 1,}^{2, and 4.}

Thirty states had increased imports of municipal waste since 2003, with the largest increases
occurring in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These three states, along with Pennsylvania and
Virginia, accounted for 56% of total municipal waste imports in 2005.
As shown in Table 1, Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer. Disposal facilities
in the state received 7.9 million tons of MSW and 1.7 million tons of other nonhazardous waste
from out of state in 2005. The amounts represented 39% of all solid waste disposed in the state
and 19% of the national total for interstate MSW shipments. Pennsylvania has abundant landfill
capacity, relatively low tipping fees, and is near two major states that have a shortage of disposal
capacity: New York and New Jersey.
Despite the state’s continued predominance on the list of waste importers, Pennsylvania’s MSW
imports actually declined for the fourth year in a row in 2005—a cumulative decrease of more
than 2.7 million tons. This happened simultaneously with continued growth of interstate waste
shipments along the Eastern seabord.
Several factors appear to have been at work. First, beginning in 2002, Pennsylvania imposed a
new state fee of $4.00 per ton on waste disposal. Added to pre-existing fees, the state and local
governments in Pennsylvania now collect $7.25 on each ton of waste disposed in the state. This
may have provided sufficient economic incentive for some haulers to dispose elsewhere. Second,
the state appears to be receiving less waste from New York City, whose Mayor has adopted a goal
of shipping all of New York City’s waste by rail, rather than truck. Pennsylvania has no landfills
served by rail, so some of this waste has been diverted to large landfills in Virginia that do have
rail service.
After Pennsylvania, Virginia is the largest waste importer, with imports totaling 5.7 million tons
of MSW and 1.3 million tons of other nonhazardous waste. Waste imports to Virginia have
increased 45% since 2001, when they totaled 4.1 million tons of MSW and 0.7 million tons of
other waste. The state has attempted to restrict imports, but has not been as successful as
Pennsylvania, in part because it has chosen a variety of measures that have run afoul of the
Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. These included a ban on barge shipping of wastes on
Virginia rivers, truck regulations that applied only to commercial solid waste transporters, and ⁶
daily limits on the amount of waste that Virginia landfills could accept.
Michigan, the third-largest waste importer for the past several years, has also seen substantial
growth in imports. Significant amounts of waste come to Michigan from Indiana, Illinois, and
other neighboring states; but the biggest source, accounting for 69% of Michigan’s out-of-state
waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario is also Michigan’s neighbor, but the fact that it lies in a foreign
country and that it has large expanses of open land where landfills might be sited seems to have
added additional notoriety to its waste shipments. Ontario’s shipments to Michigan have grown as
Toronto, Canada’s largest city, awarded new contracts for waste disposal and closed its last two
landfills. At the beginning of 1999, the Toronto area was generating about 2.8 million tons of
waste annually, of which about 700,000 tons were shipped to Michigan. By early 2003, however,

⁶^S^{ee “F}^ed^eral^A^p^p^eal^{s Co}^u^r^t^S^t^ri^{kes M}^a^j^o^ri^t^y^o^f^Vⁱ^rgiⁿⁱ^a^Rest^ri^ctⁱ^oⁿ^s^on^T^r^ash^Im^p^o^r^t^s^,^”^D^a^ily^Envⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^{t Re}^por^t^,
^J^une⁷^,²⁰⁰¹^,^{p. A}^-^{2. T}^h^e^c^a^s^e^de^cⁱ^de^{d w}^a^s^Wa^s^t^e^Ma^na^g^e^m^e^{nt H}^o^ldiⁿ^g^s^{, I}ⁿ^c^.^v^.^G^ilm^or^e^,²⁵²^F.^3d³¹^{6 (}⁴^th^Cⁱ^r²⁰⁰¹⁾^.

there was virtually no local disposal capacity in the Toronto area, and almost all of the waste was
being shipped to Michigan, where large disposal sites offered very low cost disposal.
In August 2006, the Ontario Minister of the Environment reached an agreement with Michigan’s
two Senators, under which Ontario will eliminate shipments of municipally managed waste to
Michigan by the end of 2010. In return, the Senators agreed not to pursue passage of legislation
that would have imposed large inspection fees and other requirements on Ontario’s waste ⁷
shipments to the United States. On September 19, 2006, Toronto’s City Council approved a letter
of intent to purchase a landfill near London, Ontario, where it is expected to ship its waste as it
phases out shipments to Michigan.
The agreement reached by the two Michigan Senators in their exchange of letters with Ontario’s
Minister of the Environment would not eliminate the majority of the waste shipped from Ontario
to Michigan, however. The agreement refers to “municipally managed waste,” and specifically ⁸
uses a 2005 baseline amount of 1.34 million metric tons of municipal waste shipped. About two-
thirds of the waste shipped from Ontario is not “municipally managed”—it is waste collected by
private haulers and shipped to Michigan landfills under private contracts. These wastes are
exported to Michigan either because it provides lower cost disposal options or because the
landfills in Michigan are controlled by the same company that collects the waste in Canada. The
provincial government and the local governments within the province have no authority to
prevent these private waste shipments from leaving Ontario. (For additional information on
Canadian waste import issues, see CRS Report RL33720, Imports of Canadian Waste.)
In other highlights from the CRS survey:
• Eleven states reported imports exceeding 1 million tons per year, an increase ^th
from 10 in CRS’s last survey. Indiana, the additional state, jumped from 11 to ^th

4 on the list with an increase of 1.5 million tons.

• In addition to the 11 states that imported more than a million tons, another 20
states had imports exceeding 100,000 tons.
• Besides the three big increases discussed above (Indiana, Virginia, and
Michigan), states that reported major increases in imports compared to CRS’s
previous survey were Wisconsin, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Georgia, Illinois,
Maine, Tennessee, and Kansas, each of which reported an increase of at least
100,000 tons. Growth of waste imports in the Great Lakes states was particularly
strong: together, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois saw an
increase of 3.65 million tons in MSW imports.
• New Jersey remains on the list of major importers, with 1.7 million tons of MSW
imports in 2005. The state is also a major exporter of waste: receiving states
estimated New Jersey’s exports at 5.8 million tons. The absence of flow control
(local government requirements that waste within their jurisdiction be disposed at
local facilities, which were overturned by the courts in the mid-1990s) has led to
increased waste exports from New Jersey over the last decade. Waste-to-energy
facilities in New Jersey, in turn, began importing MSW in order to replace local

⁷^L^e^tte^r^of^Se^na^tor^s^Sta^b^eⁿ^ow^a^nd^L^e^vⁱ^{n to H}^on.^L^a^ue^r^l^C^.^B^r^oteⁿ^,^Oⁿ^ta^rⁱ^{o M}ⁱ^nis^t^e^r^of^the^Envⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^{t, A}^u^g^u^s^t³⁰^,
²⁰⁰^6.
⁸^L^e^tte^r^of^L^a^ur^e^l^C^.^B^r^oteⁿ^,^Oⁿ^ta^rⁱ^{o Mi}^nis^t^e^r^of^the^Envⁱ^r^o^nm^eⁿ^{t, to Se}^na^t^o^r^s^Sta^b^e^now^a^{nd L}^e^vⁱ^n,^A^u^g^u^s^t^30,²⁰^06.

waste flowing elsewhere. As a result, large amounts of waste have entered New
Jersey from New York in recent years. On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court
held, in the United Haulers case, that flow-control ordinances requiring delivery
of local waste to a publicly-owned processing facility do not violate the
Constitution’s commerce clause, making it clear that some forms of flow control ⁹
can survive judicial scrutiny. New Jersey officials do not expect the decision to ¹⁰
have much impact on waste exports or imports, however.
• Besides Pennsylvania, only Alabama experienced a major decrease in imports in
2005. Imports to Alabama have been particularly volatile. They declined by
almost 270,000 tons (65%) in 2005, compared to 2003, but rebounded 150,000
tons in 2006. Even after that increase, they were less than half the peak amount
recorded in 2002.
• Ten other states reported declines in waste imports. The declines were generally
small—in half the cases, less than 20,000 tons.
• Although there are no comprehensive data, imports to transfer stations¹¹ have
been a political issue in some locations. Transfer stations are generally located in
urban areas and are subject to less stringent regulation than disposal facilities.
Heavy truck traffic and odors have aroused concerns in some neighboring
communities. Connecticut, Rhode Island, the District of Columbia, and South
Carolina have reported significant amounts of out-of-state waste imported to
transfer stations, then exported to other states for disposal. A New York City plan
to export most of its waste to transfer stations in New Jersey raised substantial
controversy, before being rescinded.

As shown in Table 2, eleven states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Washington, Minnesota, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida) and the District of
Columbia each exported more than 1 million tons of waste to facilities in other states in the latest
reporting period, and 21 other states exported more than 100,000 tons. As noted above, the
Canadian province of Ontario also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste (nearly 4 ¹²
million tons), most of it to Michigan.
Although the reported amount of total waste exports grew by more than 4 million tons, shipments
from the two largest exporting states, New York and New Jersey, did not increase. Compared to
CRS’s last survey, New York’s exports fell more than a million tons to 7.2 million tons in 2005,
according to 10 receiving states. New Jersey’s estimated exports, 5.8 million tons, remained
steady.

⁹^Uⁿ^ite^{d H}^a^u^l^e^r^s^A^s^s^’^{n v}^.^Oⁿ^eⁱ^da^-^H^e^r^kⁱ^m^e^r^{Solid W}^a^s^t^e^Mgm^t^{. A}^u^t^h^.,¹²^{7 S}^.^C^t^.¹⁷⁸⁶⁽²⁰⁰⁷⁾^.
¹⁰^P^e^r^s^ona^{l c}^o^m^m^unic^a^{tion, N}^e^w^J^e^r^s^ey^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^Envⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^tal^P^r^ote^c^tⁱ^on,^Ma^y^{30, 2}⁰⁰⁷^.
¹¹^T^r^an^s^f^{er st}^atⁱ^oⁿ^s^recei^ve^w^a^st^e^f^r^o^m^co^l^l^ectⁱ^oⁿ^t^r^u^c^ks,^co^m^p^actⁱ^t^,^b^a^l^eⁱ^t^,^and^l^o^adⁱ^t^on^l^a^{rger t}^r^u^c^{ks f}^o^{r d}ⁱ^sp^o^s^al
^el^se^w^h^ere.
¹²^A^nothe^r^C^a^na^diaⁿ^pr^ov^inc^e^,^B^r^iti^s^h^C^o^l^u^m^b^ia^{, a}^l^s^o^e^x^por^ts^w^a^s^t^e^{to the}^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^{, b}^u^{t t}^h^e^a^m^{ount is}
^s^ubs^ta^ntia^lly^s^m^a^lle^r⁽^a^bout¹⁰^0,0^{00 t}^ons^{to W}^a^s^h^ing^t^oⁿ^s^t^a^t^e⁾^.

By far, the largest growth in exports came from Illinois, whose exports more than doubled, to 4.4 ¹³
million tons. Most of the exports originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has
a relative shortage of disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole has reported a more than doubling of
landfill capacity since 1995, but Chicago is located near the border of both Indiana and
Wisconsin; so increases in capacity elsewhere in Illinois may not affect disposal decisions in the
Chicago metropolitan area.
In all, 10 states and Ontario increased waste exports by more than 100,000 tons each in the
period. In addition to Illinois and Ontario, Minnesota and Florida showed the largest increases.
Five states and D.C. had decreases of more than 100,000 tons. Besides New York, the others were
Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts imported or exported.
The table shows that 21 states were net importers; 24 plus the District of Columbia were net
exporters. Thirty-eight of the 50 states had net imports or exports exceeding 100,000 tons in the
reporting period; 22 exceeded 500,000 tons. Perhaps most interesting, given the tendency to
identify states as either exporters or importers, 25 states both exported and imported in excess of

100,000 tons of municipal solid waste, an increase from 23 in CRS’s last report.

Several factors are at work here. In the larger states, there are sometimes differences in available
disposal capacity in different regions within the state. Areas without capacity may be closer to
landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal options) in other states. A good example is Illinois:
the Chicago area, which is close to two other states, exports significant amounts of waste out of
state. Downstate, however, Illinois has substantial available landfill capacity, and imported 2
million tons from St. Louis, other locations in Missouri, and Iowa.
As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the regionalization and consolidation of
the waste industry. In 2005, the three largest firms (Waste Management, Allied Waste, and ¹⁴
Republic Services) accounted for 66% of total revenues of the industry’s 100 largest firms.
These large firms offer integrated waste services, from collection to transfer station to disposal
site, in many locations. Often, they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border, rather
than dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. As small landfills continue to close—the ¹⁵
number of U.S. landfills declined 63% between 1993 and 2004, from 4,482 to 1,654—this trend
toward regionalization, consolidation, and waste shipment across state lines is likely to continue.

The remainder of this report consists of a table summarizing waste import and export data, by
state. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed in alphabetical order, with data for the

¹³^Illin^{ois, l}ⁱ^k^e^m^o^{st sta}^t^e^s^{, doe}^{s not}^re^{port w}^a^ste^e^x^ports.^T^h^{is e}^x^port^e^s^tim^a^t^e^w^a^{s de}^riv^e^{d f}^r^o^m^da^ta^prov^ide^d^by
^ne^ig^hbor^ing^s^t^a^t^e^s^.
¹⁴^“^W^a^s^te^A^g^e^100,”^Wa^st^{e A}^g^e^,^J^u^ne²⁰⁰⁶^{, p}^.²²^.
¹⁵^“T^h^e^S^t^at^{e o}^f^G^a^rb^{age i}ⁿ^Ameri^c^a,^”^Bⁱ^o^C^ycl^e^{, A}^p^r^{il 19}⁹⁴^{, p}^.⁵¹^{, a}^{nd A}^p^r^il²⁰^06,^p^p^.^38,⁴⁰^.

amount of waste exported, destination of exports, amount of waste imported, source of imports,
and a state agency contact for additional information.

Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State
^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{Receiving states report}^Tennessee^134,¹⁶⁴^146,⁶³^{7 tons in}²⁰^05.^{The state does not track}^{the orig}^ins^{Philip Davis,}
^231,⁷⁰^{0 tons of}^MSW^tons^{Imports dou}^{bled, to 297,38}⁷^{of imported waste, but}^{believes it is}^{AL Dept. of En}^{vironmental Ma}^na^gement
^{from Alabama in}²⁰^05.^Mississippi^97,5^{17 tons}^{tons in 2}⁰⁰^{6, but}^remained^{mostly from Georgia and the}^{(334) 27}^1-77⁵⁵
^{less than}^{half the}^peak^{Florida panhandle.}
^Georgia^{19 tons}^{amount (6}^75,0^{00 to}^{ns in}
²⁰⁰^2).
^25,2^{01 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5,^Washington.^{No imports.}^N.A.^Jennifer^Roberts,
^{according to Washington.}^{AK Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Cons}^ervation
^{(907) 26}^9-75⁵³
^{Arizona does not export}^{Arizona estimates that betw}^een^433,⁴⁰^{0 tons in}²⁰^05.^{Nearly all (428,5}^{00 to}^{ns) from}^{David Janke,}
^{significant amounts of}^1,00^{0 and}^10,0^{00 ton}^{s may flow}^{California. Sma}^{ll amounts from}^{AZ Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Quality}
^{MSW. There are small}^{to New Me}^{xico; 1,200}^{tons to}^{Nevada (4,50}^{0 tons) a}^{nd New}^{(602) 77}^1-41⁷³
^{flows from border areas}^{Nevada; and 5}^{00 to}^{ns to Utah.}^{Mexico (40}^{0 tons).}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^{to New Me}^{xico, Nevada,}
^g/w^{and Utah. Based on state}
^s^.or^{estimates, CRS estimates}
^le^ak^{total exports at 7,0}⁰⁰^tons.
^://wiki^{Four receiving states}^{Missouri (‘06)}^101,⁶⁴⁴^{State does not track imports,}^{Missouri reported}^7,57^{4 tons}^{Susan Speake,}
^h^ttp^{reported receiving}^tons^but^{believes that imports}^are^{shipped to Arka}^{nsas in}²⁰^06.^{AR Dept. of Pol}^{lution Control and Ecology}
^161,³⁰^{3 tons f}^rom^Mississippi^29,8^{95 tons}^{relatively small and confined}^{(501) 68}^2-06⁰⁰
^{Arkansas, an i}^{ncrease of}^{to border areas.}
^{almost 50,00}^{0 tons sin}^ce^Texas^22,5^{21 tons}
²⁰⁰^3.^Tennessee^7,24^{3 tons}
^{B.C. shipped 10}^1,83^{4 tons}^{Washington N.A.}^N.A.^N.A.
^{to the United States,}
^{according to Washington}
^{Receiving states report}^Arizona^428,⁵⁰⁰^75,7^{34 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5.^{State does not keep track}^{of whe}^re^{Sherry Sala-Moore,}
^856,⁵⁰^{9 tons of}^MSW^tons^{waste comes from.}^{CA Integrated Waste}^Manage^me^{nt Board}
^{shipped f}^{rom California.}^Nevada^379,⁰⁰⁹^{(916) 34}^1-62⁰⁴
^{Although ex}^{ports are}^tons^{http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/lgcentral/}^drs/^Reports/
^substa^{ntial, they rep}^resent^Statewide/^SWTotals^.asp

^{only about 2}^%^{of the}^Oregon^49,0^{00 tons}
^{amount disposed in-state.}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^o^{State does not track}^{Kansas, Neb}^{raska, New}^Mexico^{State does not track imports.}^{Kansas, Neb}^raska^{Charles John}^son,
^{exports. Very s}^mall^{Small amounts may be}^{CO Dept. of Public Health a}^{nd E}^nvironment
^{amounts may}^{be e}^xported^{imported from Kansas a}^nd^{(303) 69}^2-33⁴⁸
^{to neighboring states.}^Nebras^ka.
^{Six states reported}^{New York}^218,⁰¹³^{Connecticut r}^eports^43,9²¹^Massach^usetts^36,9^{24 tons}^{Judy Belaval,}
^{receiving 63}^6,5^{99 tons}^tons^{tons of MSW imports in}^{New York}^3,76^{9 tons}^{CT Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Protection}
^{from Connecticut}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5.^Pennsylvania^201,⁷⁰⁰²⁰⁰^5.^{(860) 42}^4-32³⁷
^{Rhode Island}^3,21^{8 tons}
^tons
^Ohio^131,⁸⁰¹
^tons
^Massach^usetts^81,1^{51 tons}
^Georgia^3,86^{9 tons}
^Michigan^{36 tons}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^{West Va.}^{29 tons}
^g/w
^s^.or^Virginia^18,5^{37 tons}^{The state does not track}^{MSW exports. CRS}^{The state does not track}^{MSW imports b}^{ut says it is}^{N.A. Nancy}^Mark^ur,^{DE Dept. of Natu}^{ral Resources a}^nd
^le^ak^Pennsylvania^8,74^{1 tons}^{estimates exports}^at^{likely a neglig}^{ible amount. All}^Environme^{ntal Control,}
^://wiki^30,0^{00 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰⁵^ba^sed^{on reports}^{from receiving}^{Small amounts to Maryland and}^{New Jers}^ey.^{MSW landfills in the state are}^{owned by th}^{e state a}^{nd are}^{(302) 73}^9-94⁰³
^h^ttp^{states, a decline of about}^{prohibited from acce}^pting
^{75% since 20}^03.^{out-of-state waste.}
^Virginia^1,05^9,70⁰^{Receiving states reported}^{There are}^{no disposal}^Maryland.^{Thomas Henderso}^n,
^tons^{receiving at least}^1,06^1,55^{8 tons in}²⁰^05,^{facilities in the District of}^{Columbia, but D.C. has}^{D.C. Dept. of Public Works, S}^o^lⁱ^d^Waste^Divisi^on
^Pennsylvania^1,85^{8 tons}^{the b}^{ulk of which}^{went to}^{imported substa}^ntial^{(202) 64}^5-51⁴¹

^Virginia.^{An u}^{ncertain a}^{mount we}^{nt to}^{amounts of waste}^from
^{Maryland, as well.}^{Maryland to tran}^sfer^stations
^{located in the District. This}
^{waste is then}^ex^{ported for}
^{disposal. Accord}^{ing to D.C.}^,
^{about one}^quart^{er of t}^he
^{waste handled at D.C.}
^transfe^{r stations originates in}
^Maryland.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{Georgia 1,03}^9,61¹^{The state does not track}^{The state does not track}^N.A.^{Peter Goren,}
^tons^{exports. Georgia re}^ports^{imports. There is little}^{FL Dept. of Environ}^{mental Prote}^ction
^{receiving over 1}^milli^on^{Small amounts may go to}^{incentive to import, since}^{(850) 24}^5-87¹⁴
^{tons of MSW from Florida}^Alabama.^{disposal is less expensive in}
^{in 20}^{05. E}^xports^to^{Georgia, and there a}^{re no}
^{Georgia increased 3}^50,0⁰⁰^{major out-of-state cities near}
^{tons since}²⁰^{03, b}^{ut still}^{the Florida border.}
^represe^{nt only}^{3% of}
^Florida^{’s waste generation.}
^{CRS estimates 125,0}⁰⁰^Alabama^75,0^{00 tons}^1,74^4,31^{7 tons in}²⁰^05.^Florida^1,03^9,61¹^{Scott Henson,}
^{tons of ex}^{ports based o}ⁿ^{S. Carol}^ina^28,8^{10 tons}^{Waste imports have}^tons^{GA Dept. of Nat}^{ural Resources}
^{information available from}^{increased by}⁷^50,0^{00 tons}^{N. Jersey}^394,⁷⁴^{7 tons}^{(404) 36}^2-45³³
^{three re}^{ceiving states.}^Tennessee^17,0^{56 tons}^{since 2}⁰⁰^2.
^Export^{s decreased f}^rom^{S. Carol}^ina^81,7^{38 tons}
^{an estimated 6}^00,0^{00 ton}^s^{New York}^75,3^{45 tons}
^{in 20}^03.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^{N. Carolina}^42,6^{68 tons}
^g/w^{Rh. Island}^38,6^{87 tons}
^s^.or
^le^ak^Tennessee^30,0^{83 tons}
^://wiki^Maryland^29,4^{54 tons}
^h^ttp^{12 othe}^rs^11,9^{84 tons}
^{No exports}^{of MSW in}^N.A.^{No imports of MSW.}^N.A.^{Gary Siu,}
²⁰⁰^{5. Proposals to export}^{HI Dept. of Health}
^{waste from Oa}^{hu to}^{(808) 58}^6-42⁴⁴
^{Washington state or}^Idaho
^{are u}^{nder consideration.}
^{Idaho does not track}^Washington^32,2^{56 tons}^{Idaho does not track}^{Small amounts from Oregon}^and^{Dean Ehlert,}
^{exports. Three}^receiving^Montana^29,0^{00 tons}^{imports, but say}^{s the}^{re is not}^Nevada.^{ID Dept. of Environ}^{mental Q}^uality
^{states report}⁶^3,05^{6 tons}^{a large amount of waste}^{(208) 37}^3-04¹⁶

^{in 20}^05.^Oregon^1,80^{0 tons}^{imported curre}^{ntly. Idaho}
^{Waste Systems has}^ap^plied
^{for permission to import}
^substa^{ntial qua}^{ntities from}
^{Hawaii, however.}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{Six neighboring states}^Indiana^2,52^2,63⁵^{The state re}^{ports 2,1}^14,⁸⁹⁸^{Missouri (76%)}^{Ellen Robinson,}
^{report rec}^{eiving 4,4}^41,6⁷⁹^tons^{tons of imports in}²⁰^05.^{Iowa (19%)}^{IL E}^nvironmen^{tal Protection Agency}
^{tons of MSW from Illinois}^Wisconsin^1,41^2,15³^{(Data converted from c}^ubic^{(217) 78}^2-92⁸⁸
^{in 20}^{05. E}^xports^more^tons^{yards to tons by}^CRS.)^{Indiana (3%)}^{http://www.epa.state.il.us/}^{land/landfill}^-capacity/
^{than dou}^{bled since 2}⁰⁰^3.^{Wisconsin (2%)}^index.html
^Michigan^416,⁵³⁸
^tons^{Small amounts from 6 oth}^{er state}^s.
^Missouri^71,0^{95 tons}
^Iowa^12,9^{26 tons}
^Kentucky^6,33^{2 tons}
^{Five receiving states}^Michigan^731,²⁷⁰^2,42^8,83^{8 tons of}^{MSW in}^Illinois^2,12^2,94⁵^{Michelle Weddle,}
^{reported a total of}^tons²⁰⁰^{5, an in}^{crease of}^1.5^tons^{IN Dept of}^En^{vironmental Ma}^nag^ement
^1,06^1,58^{1 tons of}^MSW^Kentucky^170,⁸⁷⁰^mill^{ion tons from 2}⁰⁰^{3. The}^Ohio^115,⁴⁸^{9 tons}^{(317) 23}^3-46²⁴
^{from Indiana in}²⁰^05.^tons^{state also received 65}^8,00⁰^{http://www.in.gov/}^{idem/catalog/}^documents/^land/
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^{tons of other solid waste}^Kentucky^109,⁷⁸^{6 tons}^far0^5.pdf
^g/w^Ohio^97,5^{18 tons}^{from out of state in}²⁰^05.^Michigan^65,5^{21 tons}
^s^.or^Illinois^61,8^{54 tons}
^le^ak^Virginia^{69 tons}^{23 othe}^rs^15,0^{97 tons}
^://wiki^Illinois^398,¹¹²^409,⁸⁸^{1 tons in}²⁰^05.^{The state re}^{ported a total of}^Minnesota^265,⁹³^{9 tons}^{Mark Warre}^n,
^h^ttp^tons^300,⁵²^{8 tons in FY2}⁰⁰^5.^Illinois^11,8^{74 tons}^{IA Dept of Nat}^{ural Resource}^s
^Missouri^6,70^{4 tons}^{Imports declined to 2}^81,9²⁵^{tons in FY20}^06.^Missouri^10,8^{57 tons}^{(515) 28}^1-49⁶⁸
^Nebras^ka^5,02^{8 tons}^Nebras^ka^8,95^{2 tons}
^Wisconsin^{37 tons}^Wisconsin^2,90^{1 tons}
^(Exports^{to Neb}^{raska do not}
^{include waste directly hauled}
^{without passing t}^hroug^{h a}
^transfe^{r station.)}
^{Kansas re}^{ports MSW}^Oklahoma^400,⁸⁶⁸^800,³¹^{8 tons of}^{MSW in}^Missouri^769,³⁵^{6 tons}^{Christine Me}^nnicke,
^{exports of}⁴⁴^6,15^{0 tons i}ⁿ^tons²⁰⁰^{5, almost all from}^Oklahoma^27,4^{99 tons}^{KS Dept. of Health and E}^nvironm^ent
²⁰⁰^{5. Waste e}^xports^Missouri^45,2^{82 tons}^Missouri.^{(785) 29}^6-07²⁴

^{“went way down” in}²⁰^06,^Nebras^ka^3,46^{3 tons}
^because^{a new}^landfill
^{opened in Kansas.}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^Ohio^249,⁹⁰^{2 tons}^488,¹⁵^{7 tons in}²⁰^{05, a}^Tennessee^283,⁸³⁶^663,⁶⁸^{5 tons in}²⁰^05.^{Allan Bryant,}
^Indiana^170,⁸⁷^{0 tons}^{48% i}^ncrease^{since 2}⁰⁰^3.^tons^{Imports in}²⁰⁰⁶^{rose slightly}^{to 686,1}⁵¹^tons.^{KY Dept. for Environme}^{ntal Protection}^{(502) 56}^4-67¹⁶
^Tennessee^126,⁴¹^{6 tons}^Indiana^141,³⁶⁵^tons
^{West Va.}^106,⁹³^{6 tons}^Ohio^58,6^{79 tons}
^Illinois^4,27^{7 tons}^{Smaller amounts from Illinois,}^{Missouri, New Jers}^{ey, and Virginia.}
^Mississippi^60,0^{00 tons}^state^s^Texas^152,⁶¹⁵^77,1^{90 tons}^{in FY20}⁰⁶^(July^{John Rogers,}
^Texas^10,3^{00 tons}^{reported 2}^60,5⁸⁸^{tons in}²⁰⁰^{5. Little chang}^{e from}^tons^1,²⁰^05-J^{une 30, 20}^06).^{LA Dept. of En}^{vironmental Q}^uality^{(225) 21}^9-32⁶⁶
^Arkansas^6,50^{0 tons}²⁰⁰^3.^Mississippi^107,⁹⁷³^tons
^{(CRS estimates based on La. data.)}
^{Maine re}^{ports ex}^{ports of}^{About 1}^5,00^{0 tons w}^{ent to}^{Maine imported 4}^36,4¹²^tons^Facilit^{ies don’t report state of}^{George MacDonald,}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^71,3^{79 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5.^{New Bru}^{nswick, Canada, and}^{the rest to}^{New Ham}^ps^hire.^{of MSW and C&D waste in}²⁰⁰^5.^{origin, but 2/3}^{to 3/4 of t}^{he wast}^{e is}^{believed to come from}^{ME Dept}^{of E}^{nvironmental Prote}^ction^{(207) 28}^7-57⁵⁹
^g/w^Massach^usetts.^{The rest probably}
^s^.or^{comes from New}^Ham^pshire.
^le^ak^{Receiving states reported}^Virginia^1,99^2,31³^{The state re}^{ported receiving}^Massach^{usetts, Ne}^{w York, West}^{Edward Dexter,}
^://wiki^{receiving 2,0}^48,2^{04 ton}^s^{from Maryland in}²⁰⁰^5.^tons^286,⁰¹^{1 tons of out-of-state}^{MSW, and 24}^5,83^{5 tons of}^{Virginia, Pennsylvania, and D.C.}^{MD Dept of the}^E^nvironment^{(410) 53}^7-33¹⁸
^h^ttp^{97% of}^{the e}^xports^went^Georgia^29,4^{54 tons}^{other waste, mostly C&D in}
^{to Virginia}^.^Pennsylvania^26,3^{50 tons}²⁰⁰^{5. Im}^{ports increa}^{sed 3}^7%^{http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/}^{SW_Managed_in_MD_Report_C}^Y_2005.pdf

^{compared to calendar yea}^r
^{West Va.}^{87 tons}²⁰⁰^4.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^usetts^{Receiving states reported}^{S. Carol}^ina^475,⁴⁹⁵^{In 2}⁰⁰^{5, Massac}^hu^setts^Connecticut^81,1^{51 tons}^{Brian Holdridge,}
^{a total of 1,986,9}^{45 ton}^s^tons^{reported importing a total of}^{N. Hamps}^hire^41,0^{79 tons}^{MA Dept. of E}^nvironmen^{tal Protection}
^{from Massac}^hus^{etts in}^Georgia^394,⁷⁴⁷^169,⁸⁴^{5 tons.}^{(617) 29}^2-55⁷⁸
²⁰⁰^5.^tons^{Rhode Island}^30,5^{34 tons}
^Vermont^16,3^{91 tons}
^Maine^300,⁰⁰⁰
^tons^{New York}⁶²⁷^tons
^{N. Hamps}^hire^281,³⁷⁵^Maine^{63 tons}
^tons
^{New York}^216,⁶⁶¹
^tons
^Ohio^168,⁷⁴⁰
^tons
^Maryland^101,³⁶⁷
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^tons
^g/w^Connecticut^36,9^{24 tons}
^s^.or^{Rhode Island}^5,92^{4 tons}
^le^ak
^Pennsylvania^5,41^{7 tons}
^://wiki^Michigan²⁷³^tons
^h^ttp
^Virginia^{22 tons}
^Ontario^3,78^1,17¹^{The state does not track}^Indiana^65,5^{21 tons}^{In FY20}⁰⁵^(10/^{04 -}^9/0^5),^{Christina Miller,}
^tons^{exports, b}^{ut t}^hree^{neighboring state}^s^Ohio^32,6^{58 tons}^{imports of MSW were}^5,44^2,04^{4 tons, an in}^crease^{MI Dept. of E}^nvironme^{ntal Quality}^{(517) 37}^3-47⁴¹
^Indiana^731,²⁷^{0 tons}^{reported 9}^9,85^{5 tons}^Wisconsin^1,67^{6 tons}^{of almost half a milli}^{on tons}
^Illinois^416,⁵³^{8 tons}^{from Michigan in}²⁰⁰^{5, a}^{since FY 20}^{03. Mic}^{higan also}^{http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/}^deq-whm-^{stsw-ReportSoli}^{dWasteLandfilled}^FY2005.^pdf

^{decrease of 1}^25,0^{00 to}^ns^{imported 72}^1,00^{0 tons of}
^Ohio^299,⁷⁹^{1 tons}^{since 2}⁰⁰^3.^{industrial solid waste. (}^Data
^Wisconsin^211,⁶⁴^{8 tons}^{converted from c}^{ubic ya}^rds^{to tons by CRS.) Imports}
^{leveled off in FY2006,}^{Three other}^{states (New York,}
^{increasing less tha}ⁿ^1%.^Massach^{usetts, and}^{New Je}^rsey)
^{shipped small amou}^nts.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{In 2}⁰⁰^{5, the}^state^Wisconsin^729,²⁶⁴^{According to the state, a}^N.A.^{Jim Chiles,}
^{exported abo}^{ut 1,0}^85,0⁰⁰^tons^{negligible amount has}^been^{MN Pollution Control Agency}
^tons.^Iowa^265,⁹³⁹^imported.^{(651) 29}^6-72⁷³
^tons
^{N. Dakota}^88,0^{00 tons}
^{S. Dakota}^1,50^{0 tons}
^194,¹⁶^{4 tons, according to}^Tennessee^134,¹⁶⁴^553,⁷⁷^{2 tons in}²⁰^05.^Tennessee^318,³⁹^{1 tons}^{Pradip Bhowal,}
^{receiving states.}^tons^{Imported amou}^{nts ha}^{ve bee}ⁿ^Louisiana^107,⁹⁷^{3 tons}^{MS Dept. of Environ}^{mental Q}^uality
^Louisiana^60,0^{00 tons}^{relatively stable since 2}⁰⁰^2.^Alabama^97,5^{17 tons}^{(601) 96}^1-50⁸²
^(FY2006)^{http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDE}^Q.nsf/^pdf/
^Arkansas^29,8^{95 tons}^{SW_2005StatusRe}^port/^$File/^AnnualReport²⁰⁰⁵^%2^0-
^%20We^b%^{20Version.pdf?O}^pen^Element
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^2,39^8,86^{5 tons in}²⁰^05;^Illinois^1,59^8,62⁵^227,⁸⁵^{8 tons in}²⁰^{06, a slight}^Arkansas^101,⁶⁴^{4 tons}^{Glenda Mars}^{hall-Griffin,}
^g/w^2,52^0,07^{1 tons in}²⁰^06.^tons^{increase over}²⁰^03.^Illinois^81,9^{17 tons}^{MO Dept. of Nat}^{ural Resource}^s^{(573) 52}^6-38⁴³
^s^.or^Kansas^769,³⁵⁶^Kansas^37,5^{94 tons}
^le^ak^tons
^Iowa^6,70^{4 tons}
^://wiki^Iowa^10,8^{57 tons}
^h^ttp^Tennessee^9,72^{3 tons}
^{Arkansas (‘0}⁶⁾^7,57^{4 tons}
^Kentucky^2,73^{0 tons}
^Idaho^29,0^{00 tons}^{Montana does not t}^rack^N.A.^32,2^{05 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5—almost^{Pat Crowley,}
^{N. Dakota}^3,00^{0 tons}^{exports, and is}^not^{believed to export any}^{identical to the amount in}²⁰⁰^3.^{MT Dept. of En}^{vironmental Q}^uality^{(406) 44}^4-52⁹⁴

^{significant amount of}^{The rest f}^{rom Wyoming and Uta}^h.
^MSW.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^ka^{The state does not collect}^Iowa^8,95^{2 tons}^{The state does not collect}^Iowa.^{Keith Powell}^,
^{records on MSW ex}^ports,^Kansas^3,46^{3 tons}^{records on MSW imports.}^{NE Dept. of}^Environm^{ental Q}^uality
^{but Iowa a}^{nd Kansas}^{Iowa reports se}^nding^{(402) 47}^1-42¹⁰
^{reported receiving}^12,4¹⁵^Nebras^{ka 5,0}^{28 ton}^{s of}
^{tons from Ne}^braskaⁱⁿ^{MSW in FY200}^5.
²⁰⁰^{5. Iowa alone received}
^23,6^{28 tons}^from
^Nebras^{ka in FY 2}⁰⁰^6.
^{Arizona estimates that it}^{Arizona, Idaho.}^381,⁷¹^{9 tons in}²⁰^05.^{Almost all (379,009 ton}^{s) from}^{Dave Simpson,}
^{received 4,50}^{0 tons of}^{California. A smal}^{l amount is}^{NV Division of Environmental Pr}^otection
^{MSW from Nevada. In}^{imported from neigh}^boring^{(775) 68}^7-94⁶⁹
^additi^{on, a small amount is}^{communities in Utah a}^{nd Arizona.}
^{exported to Idaho f}^rom
^{border commu}^{nities in the}
^{northeast cor}^{ner of t}^he
^state.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^{CRS estimates exports of}^{Mostly to Maine; 41,0}⁰⁰^tons^{In 2}⁰⁰^{5, New}^Hamps^hire^Massach^usetts^281,³⁷^{5 tons}^{Donald Maurer,}
^g/w^hire^175,⁰⁰^{0 tons in}²⁰^05,^{to Massach}^usetts.^{imported 40}^2,90^{0 tons of}^{NH Dept. of E}^nvironme^{ntal Services}
^s^.or^{based on re}^{ports f}^rom^{MSW, primarily from}^Maine^54,0^{00 tons}^{(603) 27}^1-37¹³

^le^ak^{receiving states.}^Massach^{usetts. Im}^{ports we}^re^Vermont^49,8^{00 tons}
^unc^{hanged com}^{pared to}^Connecticut^10,6^{61 tons}
^://wiki²⁰⁰^2.
^h^ttp^{Rhode Island}^6,85^{6 tons}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^ey^5,77^2,83^{8 tons in}²⁰^05,^Pennsylvania^4,51^2,90⁸^1,73^1,72^{9 tons in}²⁰^05,^94%^{New York}^1,63^9,91⁶^{Ray Worob,}
^{according to eight}^tons^{from New York.}^tons^{NJ Dept. of E}^nvironme^{ntal Protection}
^{receiving states.}^Georgia^394,⁷⁴⁷^Pennsylvania^70,9^{50 tons}^{(609) 98}^4-69⁰³
^tons^Inter^national^16,6^{89 tons}
^Virginia^334,⁰⁰⁹^{9 other stat}^es^4,17^{4 tons}
^tons
^Ohio^316,⁶⁵⁶
^tons
^{S. Carol}^ina^155,⁷¹⁶
^tons
^{New York}^56,1^{36 tons}
^{West Va.}^2,08^{6 tons}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^Maryland⁵⁸⁰^tons
^g/w^Texas^450,⁰⁰^{0 tons}^xico^{Texas and Arizona re}^port^{Texas and Arizona.}^471,³⁴^{5 tons we}^{re imported}^{Connie Pasteris,}
^s^.or^Colorad^o^17,0^{00 tons}^{receiving small amounts of}^{waste from New}^Me^xico.^{in 20}^{05, a decrea}^{se of about}^65,0^{00 tons}^since²⁰^03.^NM^Environme^{nt Dept.}^{(505) 47}^6-35⁶¹

^le^ak^{The rest is f}^{rom Arizona,}
^://wiki^{Oklahoma, Mexico, and possibly}^Utah.
^h^ttp

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{Ten importing states}^Pennsylvania^3,07^5,95³^{New York report}^{s that}^Connecticut^218,⁰¹^{3 tons}^{Gerard Wagne}^r,
^{report a total of 7,1}^98,6⁴⁸^tons^769,⁰⁸^{3 tons of}^{MSW were}^Massach^usetts^216,⁶⁶^{1 tons}^{NY State Dept. of Environ}^mental^Conservation
^{tons from New}^{York in}^Virginia^1,80^3,75⁴^{imported in 20}^{05, a}ⁿ^{(518) 40}^2-86⁶²
²⁰⁰^{5, a decrease}^{of over 1}^tons^{increase of 4}^50,⁰⁰⁰^tons^Ontario^195,²²^{8 tons}
^mill^{ion tons since 2}⁰⁰^3.^{since 2}⁰⁰^{3. The state also}^{New Jers}^ey^56,1^{36 tons}
^{New York facilities}^{New Jers}^ey^1,63^9,91⁶^{imported 39}^0,00^{0 tons of}
^{reported ex}^{ports of}^tons^{other solid waste in 20}^05.^Pennsylvania^41,3^{68 tons}
^4,07^0,50^{3 tons in}²⁰^05.^Ohio^583,⁹⁹⁹
^Vermon^38,0^{87 tons}
^tons^Quebe^c^2,11^{4 tons}
^Georgia^75,3^{45 tons}^{N. Hamps}^hire^1,47^{6 tons}
^{West Va.}^13,8^{10 tons}
^Connecticut^3,76^{9 tons}
^Michigan^1,32^{5 tons}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^Massach^usetts⁶²⁷^tons
^g/w^Kentucky¹⁵⁰^tons
^s^.or
^le^ak^1,07^4,38^{6 tons in}²⁰^05,^{according to receiving}^{S. Carol}^ina^554,⁰⁷⁴^tons^137,²⁹^{8 tons in FY2}⁰⁰^{6 (July}²⁰⁰^5-Ju^ne²⁰^{06). Does not}^{S. Carol}^ina^80,6^{61 tons}^{Ellen Lorscheider,}^{NC Dept. of E}^nvironment^{and N}^atural
^{include 10}^7,88^{8 tons of}^Virginia^56,6^{37 tons}^Resources
^://wiki^{states. In addition, the}^{state exported}^96,0⁰¹^Virginia^418,⁸⁶⁸^{waste imported from a Sout}^h^{(919) 50}^8-84⁹⁹
^h^ttp^{tons to a South Carolina}^tons^{Carolina transfer station,}
^transfe^{r station, which,}^Tennessee^56,8^{06 tons}^{which originally received the}^{http://wastenot.enr.state.nc.u}^s/sw^home/AR05-^06.pdf
^{after baling, were se}^nt^Georgia^42,6^{68 tons}^{waste from Nort}^{h Carolina.}
^{back to Nort}^{h Carolina}
^{for disposal. Exports}^{West Va.}^1,97^{0 tons}
^{account for}^{slightly over}
^{10% of}^{the wast}^e
^{generated in t}^{he state.}
^{Montana estimates}^that^Montana^88,0^{00 tons}^{in 2}⁰⁰^5,^Minnesota^{Steve Til}^lotson,
^{North Dakota ex}^ported^{according to Minnesota.}^{ND Dept. of Health}
^3,00^{0 tons to Mon}^{tana in}^{(701) 32}^8-51⁶⁶

²⁰⁰^5.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^857,⁰⁰^{5 tons in}²⁰^{05, a}^Michigan^299,⁷⁹¹^{Ohio imported 3,02}^4,45²^{Ohio imported waste from}²⁷^{Michelle Kenton,}
^{decrease of almost}^tons^{tons of solid waste in 200}^5,^{states. The largest sourc}^{es were}^{OH E}^nvironme^{ntal Protection Agency}
^250,⁰⁰^{0 tons sinc}^{e 2}⁰⁰^3.^Kentucky^249,⁹⁰²^but^43%^{of it was C&D}^{New York (35}^{%), New Jer}^sey^{(614) 72}^8-53⁶⁸
^{waste, industrial waste, and}^{(19%), Penn}^{sylvania (13}^%),^{http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/}^facts/
^tons^{other non-MSW. Im}^{ports of}^Massach^{usetts (}^{10%), Conn}^ecticu^t²⁰⁰^{5_out_of_state_waste.pdf}
^{West Va.}^161,⁰²⁴^{general solid waste, the}^{(8%), Indiana (6%), West Virginia}
^{equivalent of}^{MSW, totaled}^{(4%), and Kentu}^{cky (3%).}
^tons^1,68^9,47^{0 tons.}
^Indiana^115,⁴⁸⁹
^tons
^Pennsylvania^29,8^{32 tons}
^Georgia⁸¹⁵^tons
^Virginia¹⁵²^tons
^Texas^about^{CRS estimates exports at}^{State does not track imports.}^{Mostly from Kansas.}^{John Roberts,}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^80,0^{00 tons}^110,⁰⁰^{0 tons in}²⁰^05,^{based on re}^{ports f}^rom^{Kansas re}^{ports that}⁴^00,8⁶⁸^{tons of waste were}^ship^ped^{OK Dept. of Environ}^{mental Q}^uality^{(405) 70}^2-51⁰⁰
^g/w^Kansas^27,4^{99 tons}^{receiving states.}^{from the Wichita area}^to
^s^.or^{Small amounts to New Me}^xico.^{Oklahoma in 2}⁰⁰^{5, but t}^he
^le^ak^quan^{tity imported dropped}
^{significantly in mid to late-}
^://wiki²⁰⁰^{6, whe}^{n a}^{new landfill}^{opened in Kansas.}
^h^ttp
^{Ontario ship}^{ped 3,9}^76,3⁹⁹^Michigan^3,78^1,17¹^None.^N.A.^{Bruce Pope,}
^{tons of MSW to the}^tons^{Ontario Ministry of}^Environ^ment^{and Ene}^rgy
^{United States in 20}^05,^{New York}^195,²²⁸^{(416) 32}^5-44²⁰
^{according to receiving}^tons
^{states. Michigan rec}^eived
^{95% of}^{the total. (Data for}
^{Michigan are}^{for FY20}⁰⁵
^{and were conv}^{erted from}
^{cubic yards}^{to tons by}
^CRS.)
^{Oregon ex}^{ported 5}^2,43⁸^{Washington and Ida}^ho.^{Oregon imported}^1,79^5,97¹^Washington^1,74^5,17¹^{Judy He}^nderson,
^{tons of MSW in 2}⁰⁰^5.^{tons of MSW in 2}⁰⁰^5.^tons^{OR Dept. of Environm}^{ental Q}^uality
^{Imports acco}^{unted for}³⁷^%^California^49,0^{00 tons}^{(503) 22}^9-55²¹

^{of all the waste disposed in}
^{Oregon that}^year.^Idaho^1,80^{0 tons}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^Ohio^214,⁹⁵¹^{New Jers}^{ey and}^{New York}^{The state does not track}^7,93^1,98^{4 tons in}²⁰⁰⁵^a^{Sally Lohman,}
^tons^{accounted for}^{nearly 9}^{6% of}^{Pennsylvania’s MSW imports in}^{exports. According to}^{neighboring state}^s,^{decline of 2.7 million tons}^{since 2}⁰⁰^{1. The state is still,}^{PA Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Protection}^{(717) 78}^7-73⁸²
^{New Jers}^ey^70,9^{50 tons}²⁰⁰^5.^{Pennsylvania e}^xported^{by far, t}^{he largest importe}^r
^{New York}^41,3^{68 tons}^338,²⁶^{5 tons of}^{MSW in}²⁰⁰^5.^{of MSW, represe}^{nting about}^{20% of}^the^{national total of}^{http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/}^{landrecwaste/}^cwp/^{view.asp?a=123}^8&Q=⁴⁶⁴⁴⁵^3&PM=¹
^{West Virginia}^9,51^{3 tons}^{imports. In addition to MSW,}
^Virginia^1,48^{3 tons}^{Pennsylvania re}^{ceived 1.7}^mill^{ion tons of other solid}
^(Exports^{to Ohio estimated by}^{waste from out of stat}^{e in}^{New Jers}^ey^4,51^2,90⁸
^{CRS, based on Ohio data.)}²⁰⁰^5.^tons
^{New York}^3,07^5,95³
^tons
^Connecticut^201,⁷⁰^{0 tons}
^{West Va.}^68,2^{64 tons}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^Ohio^29,8^{32 tons}
^g/w
^s^.or^Maryland^26,3^{50 tons}
^le^ak^{6 others}^16,9^{76 tons}
^://wiki^Georgia^38,6^{87 tons}^{Receiving states reported}^76,0^{77 tons}^{of MSW from}^Massach^{usetts reports}^{sending 5,9}^{24 to}^{ns of MSW}^Massach^usetts^{Robert Schmidt,}^{RI Dept. of Environm}^{ental Ma}^nag^ement
^h^ttp^Massach^usetts^30,5^{34 tons}^{Rhode Island in 20}^05.^{to RI. Officially}^{, however, RI}^{(401) 22}^2-27⁹⁷^x⁷²⁶⁰

^{N. Hamps}^hire^6,85^{6 tons}^{does not accept}^{MSW from}
^{out-of-state. In 20}^{05, all}
^{Small amounts to Connecticut}^{MSW imported to RI was}
^{and New Je}^rsey.^{reported as se}^{nt ba}^{ck out-of-}
^{state for disposal.}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{N. Carolina}^554,⁰⁷^{4 tons}^{Receiving states reported}^Georgia^81,7^{38 tons}^{South Carolina imported}^{Pete Stevens,}
^Massach^usetts^475,⁴⁹^{5 tons}^163,⁶⁴^{6 tons of waste}^{from South Carolina.}^{NC (FY200}⁶⁾^80,6^{61 tons}^1,24^3,99^{3 tons of}^{MSW in}^FY2005^(7/0^4-6/^{05), plus}^{SC Dept. of Health and E}^nvironm^{ental Control}^{(803) 89}^6-41⁴⁹
^{New Jers}^ey^155,⁷¹^{6 tons}^{West Va.}⁷⁴⁸^tons^284,¹⁰^{6 tons of othe}^{r solid}^{waste disposed at MSW}^{http://www.scdhec.gov/recycle/}^fo^rms/^msw05f.pdf
^Texas^29,8^{82 tons}^Virginia⁴⁹⁹^tons^landfills^.
^Georgia^28,8^{10 tons}
^{Non-MSW came mostly from}
^{Georgia, Delaware, and North}
^Carolina.
^{The state does not track}^N.A.^{The state does not track}^Minnesota^{Jim Wente,}
^{exports of}^MSW.^{imports of MSW. Minnesota}^{SD Dept. of Environmen}^{t and}^Na^{tural Resources}
^{reports having}^s^{hipped 1,50}⁰^{(605) 77}^3-31⁵³
^{tons of waste to South}
^{Dakota in 200}^5.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^Mississippi^318,³⁹¹^Kentucky^283,⁸³^{6 tons}^{Six neighboring states}^682,⁴¹^{1 tons in}²⁰^05,^{A. Wayne Brashear,}
^g/w^tons^{report rec}^{eiving 51}^8,8⁹⁶^741,⁵⁶^{0 tons in}²⁰^06.^{TN Dept. of En}^{vironment a}^{nd C}^onservation
^s^.or^Kentucky^126,⁴¹⁶^Virginia^147,⁴⁸^{5 tons}^{tons of waste from}^{Imports inc}^{reased 2}^8%^from^{(615) 53}^2-80¹⁰
^le^ak^tons^Mississippi^134,¹⁶^{4 tons}^{Tennessee in}²⁰⁰^{5, an}²⁰⁰^{3 to 2}⁰⁰^6.
^NC^56,8^{06 tons}^{increase of abo}^{ut 7}^0%
^://wiki^Virginia^39,8^{05 tons}^{since 2}⁰⁰^1.
^h^ttp^Georgia^30,0^{83 tons}
^{The remainder we}^{nt to I}^ndiana^{The remainder ca}^{me from}^{5 othe}^r
^{and W. Virginia.}^{states. (200}^{5 data)}
^Louisiana^152,⁶¹^{5 tons}^460,⁰⁰^{0 tons.}^{New Me}^xico^450,⁰⁰⁰^259,⁰⁴^{0 tons in}²⁰^05.^{Edward Block,}
^Oklahoma^83,2^{19 tons}^tons^{TX Commission on Environment}^{al Quality}^{(512) 23}^9-66¹³

^Arkansas^22,5^{21 tons}^Louisiana^(FY2006)^10,3^{00 tons}
^{Small amounts from New}^Mexico
^{and Kansas. (Oklahoma and}
^{Arkansas a}^{re estimated based on}
^{Texas data.)}

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^{CRS estimates exports at}^{Nevada, Arizona, Montana}^16,0^{38 tons}^{of MSW in 2}⁰⁰^5,^Arizona^{Ralph Bohn,}
^1,50^{0 tons. As in}^previous^{plus 2}^75,8³⁷^{tons of}^{UT Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Quality}
^{years, about}^1,00^{0 tons of}^{industrial waste.}^{(801) 53}^8-67⁹⁴
^{waste went f}^rom
^{Wendover, Utah, to}
^{Wendover, Nevada. Also,}
^{Arizona reports abo}^{ut 5}⁰⁰
^{tons of waste from Uta}^h.
^Perhaps⁵⁰^{tons to}
^Montana.
^{In 2}⁰⁰^{5, 1}^04,2^{78 ton}^s^{N. Hamps}^hire^49,8^{00 tons}^Facilit^{ies in Vermont do not}^N.A.^{Julie Hackbart}^h,
^{were ex}^{ported, according}^{New York}^38,0^{87 tons}^{receive any out-of-state}^{VT Dept. of Environmen}^{tal Conservation}
^{to receiving states. About}^waste.^{(802) 24}^1-34⁴⁶
^{20% of}^{the wast}^e^Massach^usetts^16,3^{91 tons}
^{generated in t}^{he state}
^{goes out of state for}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^disposal.
^g/w^Maryland^1,99^2,31³^{The state does not track}^Tennessee^147,⁴⁸⁵^{Virginia remains the second-}^{Kathy Frahm,}
^s^.or^tons^{MSW exports. Six states}^tons^{largest waste importer. The}^{VA Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Quality}
^le^ak^{New York}^1,80^3,75⁴^{report 2}^10,⁶⁸^{8 tons of}^{NC (FY200}⁶⁾^56,6^{37 tons}^{state imported 5,7}^09,4⁴¹^{(804) 69}^8-43⁷⁶
^{exports from}^Virginia.^{tons of MSW in 2}⁰⁰⁵^and^1.3^{http://www.deq.virginia.gov/}^{waste/aswrs.html}

^://wiki^tons^{West Va.}^5,32^{1 tons}^mill^{ion tons of other waste}
^h^ttp^DC^1,05^9,70⁰^tons^Pennsylvania⁹¹⁸^tons^{(mostly C&D waste,}^{incinerator ash, a}^{nd industrial}
^Kentucky²⁸³^tons^{waste). Imports increa}^{sed by}
^{N. Carolina}^418,⁸⁶^{8 tons}^{about 4}^00,0⁰⁰^tons
^{New Jers}^ey^334,⁰⁰^{9 tons}^Georgia^{44 tons}^{compared with}²⁰⁰^3.
^{Smaller amounts from}^{13 othe}^r
^states.

^Amou^{nt of}^Destinat^{ion of}^Amou^{nt of}^{Sources o}^f^Additional
^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported W}^aste^Infor^mation
^1,74^5,17^{1 tons of}^{MSW in}^Oregon.^147,⁷⁴^{6 tons of}^{MSW in}^B.C.^{, Canada}^101,⁸³^{4 tons}^{Ellen Caywood,}
²⁰⁰^{5, according to}²⁰⁰^{5, plus}⁶^7,11^{2 tons of}^Oregon^45,5^{54 tons}^{WA Dept. of Ecology}
^{Oregon. Washington}^has^{other waste.}^{(360) 40}^7-61³²
^{over 20}^{0 million tons of}^Idaho^32,2^{56 tons}^{http://www.ecy.wa.gov/}^pu^bs/⁰⁶⁰⁷^024.^pdf
^{disposal capacity (38 yea}^rs^Alaska^25,2^{01 tons}
^{at curre}^{nt disposal rates),}
^but^becau^{se of contrac}^tual^Montana^{13 tons}
^arrangeme^{nts, the}^state
^{exports s}^u^b^stantial
^{amounts of waste.}
^Kentucky^106,⁹³⁶^Ohio^161,⁰²^{4 tons}^{No tracking syste}^{m. Eight}^194,⁹¹^{7 tons in}²⁰^{05, a}^{Jan Borowski,}
^tons^NY^13,8^{10 tons}^{receiving states re}^ported^298,²³^{8 tons of waste}^{decrease of almost 30}^{% since}²⁰⁰^{3. Im}^{ports re}^prese^nted^{WV Sol}^{id Waste Management Bo}^ard^{(304) 92}^6-04⁴⁸
^Ohio^74,3^{01 tons}^Penn.^9,51^{3 tons}^{from West Virginia.}^{about 1}^{0% of total waste}
^Pennsylvania^68,2^{64 tons}^Virginia^5,62^{3 tons}^Export^{s virtually}^{disposal in West Virginia in}
^unc^{hanged sinc}^{e 2}⁰⁰^3.²⁰⁰^5.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL34043}^Virginia^38,1^{14 tons}
^g/w^Maryland^8,84^{4 tons}
^s^.or^{3 other stat}^es^1,77^{9 tons}
^le^ak
^(Exports^{to Ohio estimated by}^{The rest f}^{rom 6 othe}^{r states.}
^://wiki^{CRS, based on Ohio data.)}
^h^ttp^{The state does not collect}^Michigan^211,⁶⁴⁸^2,14^3,13^{3 tons in}²⁰^{05, a}ⁿ^Illinois^1,41^2,15³^{Lindsey Miller,}
^{export data, b}^{ut four}^tons^{increase of 7}^7%^{since 2}⁰⁰^3.^tons^{WI Dept. of Natu}^{ral Resources}
^{receiving states re}^ported^Illinois^47,0^{56 tons}^{Imports f}^{rom Illinois and}^Minn.^729,²⁶^{4 tons}^{(608) 26}^6-21¹¹
^263,¹²^{6 tons of Wisconsin}^{Minnesota bot}^{h increas}^ed
^{exports in}²⁰⁰^{5, an}^Iowa^2,90^{1 tons}^substa^ntially.^Michigan^1,67^{6 tons}
^{increase of 2}^3%^since^Indiana^1,52^{1 tons}
²⁰⁰^3.
^{The state does not collect}^Montana^{The state does not collect}^N.A.^{Bob Doctor,}
^{export data. Monta}^na^{import data. A few tons a}^{WY Dept. of Environme}^{ntal Qual}^ity
^{reported about}²^{00 ton}^s^{day may enter}^the^state.^{(307) 47}^3-34⁶⁸
^{from Wyoming.}
^Source:^{CRS, based on informat}^{ion provided by state p}^{rogram of}^ficials.
^Note:^{N.A. = not available}

^Ja^m^e^s^E^.^M^c^C^a^rt^hy
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^En^vⁱ^r^oⁿ^m^eⁿ^{tal P}^o^lic^y
^j^m^ccart^h^y^@^crs^.^loc.g^o^v^{, 7-}⁷²²⁵