Service, National Park Service, Department of the Army, and General Services Administration. A chapter is also devoted to reviewing Federal efforts to encourage waste reduction, resource recovery, and recycling.

The study concludes that the majority of disposal sites operated or used by the agencies studied were unsatisfactory, frequently contributing to air pollution due to burning refuse, and to water pollution from wastes disposed of with improper drainage due to poor siting of the disposal facility. Only the Army was generally disposing of its wastes in a satisfactory manner.

The study recommends several actions which would help organize the solid waste management programs of the FS, BLM, and NPS. First, the agencies should establish responsibility centers for solid waste matters at all levels of the agency. Second, the agencies should "establish procedures so that (1) solid waste management policies are effectively communicated to all officials, (2) headquarters provide adequate policy guidance to regional personnel, and (3) regional officials carry out agency policies effectively." Finally, the study recommends that periodic inspections or agency or lessee operated disposal sites on Federal land and sites used for disposal by an agency on private land be undertaken and the results be reported.

The study concludes in its chapter dealing with Federal efforts to encourage waste reduction and resource recovery that much more could be done in these areas by GSA and the Army than is being done now. The recommendations made in the study to the Secretary of the Army and Administrator of GSA are: first, that the Secretary of the Army make a study to determine whether the Army should emphasize the use of buying beverages in returnable containers; second, that the administrators of both agencies make studies to determine those wastes which could be salvaged in sufficient quantities to be reused or recycled; third, that the administrators emphasize to their agency personnel the significance of the solid waste problem and the laws concerning Federal protection of the environment; fourth, that the administrators consider using more reusable or recyclable materials, containers, and packaging.

L. John E. Carroll, "Down in the Dumps," New York Times, April 22, 1972:

We are rapidly approaching the point where our cities are running out of dump space. New York, for example, will have exhausted its dumps by 1975, it is estimated.

So, all too often, we are told we must cut the present average of five pounds of waste per person per day. But even if we could-unlikely in a nation of planned obsolescence and convenience products-it would only dent the more than a third of a billion tons of the annual garbage output. We are told recycling will help us dispose of the waste and make a profit, too. But the advanced recycling technology required is a long way off. Or not yet economically feasible.

Today's real solid-waste problem is the logistics of disposal. What to do with our garbage is the heart of the concern-particularly at this time, Earth Week, 1972.

P

ST ler cent of

Wille Aberia are) drowning in a poc, amen

than five people per sy-people.

per cent of pegged at

SET

Are mille, it's like

While these farts pinpoint the reason for the waste problem, they also hint at its solution if we discard the blinders of provincialism. Why not take garbage from where there are many people and little land and rail-lau! it—the least expensive transportation-to where there is much land and few people!

It's easy. Just compress the garbage to its smallest possible volume and make it not only easy to handle but uno jetimible in terms of odors, vermin, or dammability. The technology is available.

Technologically, then, the logistics problem is resolvable. But that is only the first step in solving our disposal problem. Far more difficult is the recognition that solid waste disposal is a national, not a local, problem.

New York City, again, is an example of this. Although the “super city" has the nation's largest waste disposal problem, a plan to organize a three-state disposal authority-involving New Jersey and Connecticut—was all but abandoned recently. The only thing agreed upon: no one wanted someone else's garbage.

I advocate that Congress and the Administration recognize the need for national action, and implement it with a seven-point legislative

program:

1. To build public awareness of the problem's national scope.

2. To offer inducements for construction and operation of nonpolluting processing plants. Local governments could receive Federal subsidies, private contractors tax credits.

3. To empower the Environmental Protection Agency to identify appropriate waste depositories nationally and to supersede restrictive state laws as are found in Delaware, Maine and Rhode Island. Despoiled lands under Federal control should be the initial such landfills, while necessary legislation concerning state and private lands is created.

4. To pay such areas under state and private control a tonnage fee, based on location and distance from the waste source.

5. To accelerate beautification of America with such landfills through tax credits and subsidies, reclaiming them for parks and recreaction sites.

6. To give, by executive order through the Interstate Commerce Commission, rate relief to long-distance rail haulage of properly processed wastes.

7. To accelerate recycling research by infusion of greater funds into selected, realistic programs.

At first blush, some may object to the seemingly high cost of such a national program. But the present $4.5-billion annual price tag to handle America's 365 million tons of waste is not cheap; we can expect to be spending $8 billion or more by 1980.

Inevitably the Federal Government will become involved in solid waste disposal. Why not now, when vigorous leadership and actions can meet current challenges and guarantee that future waste will not create far greater national problems?

M. Gordon J. F. Macdonald, testimony before the Subcommittee on Minerals, Materials, and Fuels, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate (Nov. 1, 1963), pp. 265–266:

What are the realistic alternatives to deal with the problems I have outlined?

The first is no Federal action. In many ways I am sympathetic to that, given my general political views, but I consider this to be completely unrealistic because of the pressing nature of the problems from any one of a number of points of view-environment, land use, energy. Further, the simple fact is that the Federal Government today, through depletion allowances, capital tax provisions, other tax provisions that I referred to, is already deeply involved in how materials are priced.

A second alternative is direct use of Federal funds. That is, the use of subsidies to recycling plants or to provide for the construction of such plants in direct payments to secondary materials dealers. In my view, this would be highly inefficient, would require large administrative staff, and in the end would be far more costly than the proposal that I will bring forward to you.

The third is the use of regulatory authorities. This has been suggested in a number of ways. We have had States such as Oregon and Vermont that have used a system of mandatory deposits approach to beverage containers. There are other suggestions requiring bounties on automobiles, and one could go on and on.

I think the administrative problems, at least in the State I know best, Vermont, are piling up and, furthermore, I think this is a "Band-Aid" that deals with a related problem but not with the resource recovery question that is central.

Finally, there is the question of incentives to the private sector. I strongly believe successful resource recovery strategy must be based on market mechanism. Regulatory approaches that I have mentioned are only piecemeal and do not promise to be as effective as a direct economic incentive.

Specifically, the proposal that I would like to argue for today is a tax incentive to encourage the private sector to become involved in recycling of waste material and make solid waste and resource recovery more profitable and competitive with current means of disposal. In this context, I mean by resource recovery, both recovery of materials of various sorts, such as steel, aluminum, glass, and reuse and recovery of energy contained within waste products.

paper, for

The proposal would involve legislation authorizing a resource recovery tax credit to provide a direct offset against taxes to any manufacturing firm utilizing materials that have passed through the consumer waste stream. I would suggest that initially the tax offset should be 10 percent of the price paid for by the user for materials derived from waste materials that have passed through the consumer system. It would not apply to waste generated internally within an industry.

In particular, the tax offset would apply to urban waste and other postconsumer waste products. Because of the experimental nature of this proposal, it should have a definite time limit and I would suggest 10 years as that time limit, subject to reexamination by the Congress. This tax credit would apply to the major items contributing to solid waste, including paper, glass, aluminum, steel, and textiles, as well as to organic materials and other waste that could be used as an energy source. It would not apply to semiprecious metals such as lead, copper, and other elements, whose high price already assures an active secondary market. Furthermore, the tax credit would not apply to whole parts of manufactured products such as the bumpers of automobiles or radiators or whatever else.

The purpose of the tax proposal would be to reverse the uneconomic position of secondary materials, uneconomic in large part due to the existence of the depletion allowance, and to assure an adequate market for these materials. The provision of such a tax credit would be of benefit to industry if it could use maximum quantities of waste available. In a real sense, the tax credit would in part, and only in part, if set the advantages now given to virgin materials through the depletion allowance.

N. "House Panel Modifies Tax Spur to Recycling of Waste Matter, New York Times, March 1, 1974, pp. 35, 391:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 28.-The House Ways and Means Committee tentatively approved today several changes in the tax laws aimed at providing incentives for the production of recycled materials. The possibility that the committee would later modify its decision appeared strong, however.

Committee members of both parties protested that the action was the reverse of what ought to be done in the face of shortages of fuels and other materials, some of which are worldwide.

They said that instead of adding new tax-incentives for recycling, Congress should repeal existing incentives, such as the depletion allowance, that apply now to the production of new materials ranging from oil to gold to gravel.

In addition, the Administration will apparently oppose much of the committee's, plan. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Frederic G. Hickman told the committee that he saw the potential for “great mischief" if the ideas the committee approved today became law.

Mr. Hickman was asked to come back to the committee next week with proposals the Administration could support that would deal with the problem presented by the fact that the tax laws, at present, made it more profitable to mine new raw materials than to recycle used ones. The committee gave its tentative approval to three approaches to stimulating the use of recycled materials.

The least controversial step was a vote to repeal the present 6-centsa-gallon tax on recycled oil. This is primarily used as lubricating oil in automobiles and some other kinds of machinery. Repealing the tax would make recycled oil competitive in price with new oil.

RECYCLING PLANTS COVERED

In a second step, the committee voted to provide some sort of taxincentive for the construction of recycling facilities. It did not decide exactly which facilities would be covered. Other than those that deal with solid waste in cities, separate reusable materials and convert much of the remaining trash and garbage into fuel.

It appeared possible that other types of recycling plants and equipment might be covered, either by provisions for fast tax-writeoffs or by providing a 14 per cent investment credit, instead of the standard 7 percent, on expenditures for recycling equipment. The committee appeared to be leaning toward the latter approach.

In its most controversial decision, the committee agreed to give a tax incentive that would work in the same way as the depletion allowance to recyclers of many of the minerals now covered by the depletion allowance.

O. Judith A. Hufnagel, "Packaging: The Pro and Con of Restrictive Legislation," Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (1972), pp. 5-12:

The following discussion on the pros and cons of banning non-returnable beverage containers is taken from a report issued by the New York City Environmental Protection Agency.

"1. In favor of a Returnable Bottle System

"a. Returnable glass containers are cheaper than one-way bottles if they are reused more than five times.

"b. Returnables utilize considerably less energy than one-way containers.

"c. Returnables, if returned, will result in a decrease in the solid waste load.

"d. Returning bottles gives the citizen a chance to take affirmative steps to confirm his or her interest in helping the environment.

e. Marketing channels for handling returnables are in existence; they are not altogether phased out even now.