James E Kundell Deanna L Ruffer
2. Privatization does not eliminate the ultimate responsibility of local government Although private involvement can help carry out services, the ultimate responsibility for
the welfare of the community remains in the hands of government. Even if the local gov- ernment develops a relationship in which all management activities are handled privately, it must, at a minimum, ensure that the services are meeting community needs and are cost-effective.
If there is an interest in considering privatization, this option should be taken into consid- eration during the inventory and assessment and the identification of needs steps in the plan- ning process. Integrating this type of managerial decision into the planning process ensures that all waste streams and management practices and needs are accounted for in a compre- hensive manner. The planning process brings each element of the solid waste management system into perspective, including reduction, collection, disposal, education, administration, and costs. The analysis of management options can examine different scenarios for ownership and operation of facilities and programs, taking into consideration the protection of human health and the environment, public opinion, and financial considerations.
Plan Implementation
An annual program of monitoring and evaluation should be established to ensure that the strategy laid out in the plan is being accomplished. As part of this annual process, it may be necessary to reassess program goals and objectives to adapt to the evaluation of what has been accomplished and what is still required to achieve the goals and objectives. It is extremely challenging to tailor activities to existing conditions as more is learned about what works well and what does not.
Once implementation of the plan begins, the problems and complexities seem to grow. Since an integrated solid waste management system includes multiple facilities, processes, programs, and procedures, it is unlikely that the entire system can be developed and put into place at the same time. Elements of the system will probably be developed and implemented over a period of many years. This means that the complete, integrated system as envisioned in the plan may not be in place for several years after plan adoption, if indeed it ever is. Since the waste stream is changing over time, markets for recovered materials fluctuate, and processing technologies continue to evolve, it is highly likely that by the time some elements of the plan are implemented some changes will be required to the programs, facilities, and procedures defined in that or other elements of the plan. This natural evolution of the management sys- tem will increase the importance of annual updates to the plan to ensure its continued useful- ness as a management tool.
4.3
CONCLUSIONS
As solid waste reduction and management become more complex, and management options become more sophisticated, planning becomes increasingly important. This planning is evolv- ing over time to truly meet the solid waste reduction and management needs of both state and local governments.
Integrated solid waste management planning is not simple. It involves what seems to be an infinite number of combinations and interactions of programs, all of which are changing con- stantly. Because of this, it may be more appropriate to refer to the product of the process as an integrated solid waste management strategyrather than an integrated solid waste manage- mentplan.Indeed, it is important to recognize the importance of the planning process itself in the development of a worthwhile, broadly acceptable, and implementable plan. It must also be recognized that there must be a clear, explicit, and logical rationale for the approaches,
actions, and strategies that the plan proposes. At the same time, the decision-making environ- ment in which most solid waste management planning is done makes it a complex political process. Thus, success is often not simply a function of the clarity, completeness, and quality of the technical analysis. Rather, the planning process and the plan itself must produce relevant products that policy makers can use within a context that may be much broader than the solid waste management system itself.
REFERENCES
Adams, L., and J. E. Kundell (2000) A telephone survey was conducted during May–June 2000 for updat- ing this chapter, Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia, Atlanta, GA.
Kundell, J. E. (1991) “Ten Commandments for Developing State Solid Waste Policies,” Conference of Southern County Associations, Athens, GA.
Kundell, J. E., H. Lu, and D. Dudley (1998) “State Progress and Programs Since Subtitle D,”Solid Waste Technologies,vol. 12, no. 1/2.
Lewis, S. G. (March, 1992) “Integrated Waste Management Planning (Chinese Checkers Planning),” Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Chester, PA.
McDowell, B. D. (1986) “Approaches to Planning,” in F. S. So, I. Hand, and B. D. McDowell, eds.,The Prac- tice of State and Regional Planning,American Planning Association, pp. 3–22.
Mishkin, A. E. (1989) “Recent Federal and State Mandates and Regulatory Initiatives and Their Effects on Solid Waste Management Planning for Local Governments,” in 1989 National Solid Waste Forum on Integrated Municipal Waste Management,Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, pp. 259–270. P.L. 89-272, Sec. 202 (6). P.L. 89-272, Sec. 205. P.L. 89-272, Sec. 206. P.L. 89-272, Sec. 206 (2). P.L. 91-512. P.L. 91-512, Sec. 207. P.L. 94-580. P.L. 95-580, Sec. 2. P.L. 98-616.
Ruffer, D. L. (1997) “Life After Flow Control, Assuring the Economic Viability of Local Government Solid Waste Management Systems,”Waste Age,vol. 28, No. 1.
State of Georgia (1997) Georgia Solid Waste Management Plan,State of Georgia, Georgia Department of Community Affairs, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority, Athens, GA.
State of North Carolina (1992) North Carolina Recycling and Solid Waste Management Plan,State of North Carolina, Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
SWANA (August, 1990) “The Role of the Public Sector in the Management of Municipal Solid Waste,”
The Solid Waste Association of North America,Technical Policy Position, August 1990.
U.S. EPA (1989) The Solid Waste Dilemma:An Agenda for Action,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530-SW-80-019, Washington, DC.