There's no recycling without a market.

If you ask C&D recyclers what they really need to improve their businesses, and hence increase recycling rates, the most common answer you will hear is, "market development." What they mean is they need more outlets for their materials, and some help overcoming the barriers, sometimes justified but usually not, that the products face in the marketplace.

One of the ways that governmental agencies have tried to help out would-be recyclers is to provide some incentive to buy recycling equipment, usually by relaxing the sales tax requirement on the purchase or provide grant money to make the purchase. This is all well and good, but as articulated by R. David Loewendick, the president of S.G. Loewendick, a company highlighted in a story starting on page 20, a better way to stimulate recycling is to provide a tax incentive to the entity buying the recycled product. That should provide the spark to light the fire for the recycling markets.

It is an idea that makes sense. Of course, it may not always work. For example, in parts of California, there is limited availability of natural aggregates because of lack of access to the material. So the cost of natural aggregate, at least for roadbase, is usually a few dollars more per ton than for recycled roadbase in the same market.

Using the recycled roadbase on a good sized job, say one requiting 30,000 tons, could accrue a savings of more than $60,000 to the taxpayer. However, some municipalities and even sometimes the state department of transportation, Caltrans, have said the materials do not meet their quality requirements and they won't use it, despite innumerable studies refuting this thought. Currently the Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) is working to change that situation in the Golden State, but it does show that economics alone won't always help the market.

Some equipment manufacturers may at first object because existing incentives on equipment have helped them make sales. But if you look at the big picture, many of their customers have had problems getting rid of some of their products. If government were to help develop markets, that would grow the C&D recycling industry, which would provide greater opportunities for equipment manufacturers to sell to operators who will have more of a chance for success.

Of course, government itself should be one of the biggest purchasers of the material, especially if it is going to mandate the recycling of C&D. Using the California roadbase example again, there are municipalities there that require the generators of concrete and asphalt debris to send their materials to recyclers, sometimes located in their town, in order to receive the credit for recycling. But then that same municipality won't buy back the finished product for its own road projects.

Remember, the U.S. EPA has added a fourth R to the famous three Rs of recycling--reduce, reuse, recycle, and rebuy.