There's something, well, trashy about this plan: smelling a rat, the Chamber finds flawed logic in landfill 'tipping' fees.

Concerns over imports of trash into Michigan landfills are on the rise, and so are concerns over the proposed "tipping" fee. The last legislative session in Lansing advised a $3 per ton tipping fee. This year's proposal ranges from $6 to $7.50.

At first blush, it seems logical that increasing tipping fees would reduce out-of-state trash, which accounts for about 25 percent of our annual landfill contributions. Miraculously, proponents claim this fee will not impact Michigan's residents and businesses, which comprise the other 75 percent of landfill contributions.

The Detroit Regional Chamber has taken a deeper look into the issue and found a flawed logic with tipping fees and the distribution mechanisms for those fees when collected.

2004 proposal:

Q: Will we get our money back? After all, part of last year's proposal was to redistribute the collected tipping fees to the communities. If imports are contributing an additional 30 percent to the trash bank, won't we get a better return?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A: The calculations were based on assumptions that out-of-state contracts did not have preemptive clauses against additional tipping fees. This was a false assumption. Most contracts DO have preemptive clauses.

Q: Well, at least we'll get our own fees back, right?

A: Some, yes. Most communities in Southeast Michigan, however, would see less money returning. Proportionally, less densely populated communities would see a greater return. Monies would be retuned based on two factors. The first is a flat return rate of 10 percent to each county. The rest would be based on a per capita distribution for communities with recycling programs. This leaves Southeast Michigan and other densely populated Michigan communities with less than when they started. If the ultimate goal is to increase recycling and reduce landfill dependency, weighting the program toward smaller populations with less waste will not achieve the stated goal.

2005 proposal:

Q: This year, the fee increased and the distribution formula changed. Does that mean the new plan is better?

A: No. This time around, the proposed distribution mechanism would look like this:

Collected fees equal

* 40 percent (various environmental projects) plus

* 40 percent (discretionary municipal spending) plus

* 10 percent (local recycling programs) plus

* 5 percent (administrative expenses) plus

* 5 percent (waste management plans)

Of the approximately $140 million in fees collected, Michigan communities can recoup 90 percent of the funds only if they enter into a contract with the state and follow the distribution rules to a tee. Otherwise, the funds remain in the proposed state "Michigan Green Communities Fund."

Q: So what part of the collected fees will help increase recycling?

A: Only 10 percent of the collected fees, or about $14 million would definitely contribute to new recycling programs. The other 80 percent of the potential returned revenues to communities do not necessarily have an obligation toward recycling or waste diversion.

The Chamber is concerned with the amount of trash disposed of in our state. We are also concerned about increasing financial burdens to our residents, businesses and communities. Both proposals to impose a tipping fee are saddled with flawed distribution systems and neither will actually increase our recycling rate or deter out-of-state trash. The Chamber would like to work with the Legislature and other interested groups to find a solution that will increase our recycling and boost our economy.

Melissa Roy Trustman is the Chamber's director of public policy. For more information about this and other policy issues, contact her at [e-mail].