Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2007 Update

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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
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 Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since the 100th. In the 104th
Congress, the Senate passed S. 534, which would have granted states authority to restrict new shipments of municipal rd
solid waste from out of state, if requested by an affected local government. In the 103 Congress, both the House and
Senate passed interstate waste legislation (H.R. 4779 and S. 2345), but lack of agreement on common language
prevented enactment. For a discussion of the issues addressed in these bills, see CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste
Transport: Legislative Issues, by James E. McCarthy.
2 This report replaces CRS Report RL32570, Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2004 Update, by James E.
McCarthy. Earlier reports, many of which are now out of print but available directly from the author, were prepared in
2002, 2001, 2000, 1998, 1997, 1996, 1995, and 1993.

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 We rely on imports rather than exports as our measure of total shipments, because we believe that waste management
facilities and states have a greater interest in accurately measuring imports than they do exports. Often the amounts
received and their source are subject to formal legal reporting requirements and/or fees, with penalties for failure to
report. Exports are not generally subject to such requirements.
4 Because many of the larger importing states now differentiate MSW from other non-hazardous waste imports, we
compared total MSW imports to EPAs national estimate of MSW generation (245.7 million tons in 2005). For EPA
data on waste generation, see Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures, at State-reported waste generation, summarized in BioCycle magazine’s
biannual survey, is substantially higher (509 million tons in 2004) but may include other nonhazardous waste, provided
it was disposed at MSW facilities. For state-reported data, see Phil Simmons, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. Kaufman,
Nickolas J. Themelis, and James Thompson, Jr., “The State of Garbage in America,BioCycle, April 2006, p. 26.
Removing Canadian waste from the total imports would also reduce the percentage of waste crossing state lines for
disposal, from 17% to 16%.
5 Much of the waste destined for recycling may also have crossed state lines, but waste destined for recycling is not as
controversial as that sent for disposal. In addition, recycling facilities do not generally require permits by state agencies.
Thus, amounts shipped across state lines for recycling cannot generally be tracked by the solid waste agencies.

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 a7,931,984
Virginia b5,709,441
Michigan b,c5,442,044
Indiana a2,428,838
Wisconsin 2,143,133

Illinois c2,114,898
Oregon 1,795,971
Georgia 1,744,317
New Jersey 1,731,729
Ohio a1,689,470

South Carolina a1,243,993
Kansas 800,318
New York 769,083
Tennessee 682,411
Kentucky 663,685

Mississippi 553,772
New Mexico 471,345
Maine 436,412
Arizona 433,400
New Hampshire 402,900

Oklahoma 400,868
Nevada 381,719
Iowa d300,528
Maryland a286,011
Texas 259,040

Missouri 227,858
West Virginia 194,917
Massachusetts 169,845
Washington 147,746
Alabama 146,637

State Quantity Imported

North Carolina e137,298
North Dakota 88,000
Louisiana e77,190
California 75,734
Connecticut 43,921

Montana 32,205
Utah a16,038
Arkansas 7,574
Rhode Island 5,924
Nebraska d5,028
South Dakota 1,500
Total 42,194,725
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. See text and Table 4 for qualifications/details.
a. In addition, the state received substantial amounts of industrial, construction and demolition ( C&D), or
other non-hazardous waste. See Table 4.
b. 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2005.
c. Converted from cubic yards by CRS.
d. 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2005.
e. 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006.
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2005 or Latest Year
(in tons)
State Quantity Exported
New York 7,198,648
New Jersey 5,772,838
Illinois 4,441,679
Ontario, Canada a3,976,399
Missouri 2,398,865
Maryland 2,048,204

Massachusetts 1,986,945
Washington 1,745,171
Minnesota 1,085,000
North Carolina 1,074,386
Indiana 1,061,581

State Quantity Exported
District of Columbia 1,061,558

Florida 1,039,611
Ohio 875,005
California 856,509
Connecticut 636,599
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 Hampshire 175,000
South Carolina 163,646

Arkansas 161,303
Georgia 125,000
Oklahoma 110,000
Vermont 104,278
British Columbia, Canada a101,834
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
Nebraska 12,415
Arizona 7,000
Nevada 4,500
North Dakota 3,000
Utah 1,500
Wyoming 200
Total 42,766,533
Source: CRS, based on data provided by state program officials. In many cases, the amount is based on data
compiled by receiving states. See text and Table 4 entries for additional information and qualifications.
a. exports to the 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 7,931,984 338,265 7,593,719
Virginia 5,709,441 210,688 5,498,753
Michigan 5,442,044 99,855 5,342,189
Wisconsin 2,143,133 263,126 1,880,007
Oregon 1,795,971 52,438 1,743,533

Georgia 1,744,317 125,000 1,619,317
Indiana 2,428,838 1,061,581 1,367,25
South Carolina 1,243,993 163,646 1,080,347
Ohio 1,689,470 875,005 814,465
New Mexico 471,345 - 471,345

Arizona 433,400 7,000 426,400
Nevada 381,719 4,50377,219
Maine 436,412 71,379 365,033
Mississippi 553,77194,164 359,608
Kansas 800,318 446,150 354,16

Oklahoma 400,868 110,000 290,868
New Hampshire 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 16,038 1,500 14,538
Nebraska 5,028 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 7,574 161,303 -153,729
Louisiana 77,190 260,588 -183,398
Texas 259,040 460,000 -200,960
Connecticut 43,921 636,599 -592,678
California 75,734 856,50-780,775

North Carolina 137,298 1,074,386 -937,088
Florida — 1,039,611 -1,039,611
District of Columbia 1,061,558 -1,061,558
Minnesota — 1,085,000 -1,085,000
Washington 147,746 1,745,171 -1,597,425

Maryland 286,011 2,048,204 -1,762,193
Massachusetts 169,845 1,986,945 -1,817,100
Missouri 227,858 2,398,86-2,171,007
Illinois 2,114,894,441,679 -2,326,781
New Jersey 1,731,729 5,772,838 -4,041,109
New York 769,083 7,198,648 -6,429,565
Source: CRS, based on telephone interviews. Data subject to qualifications: 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 See “Federal Appeals Court Strikes Majority of Virginia Restrictions on Trash Imports, Daily Environment Report,
June 7, 2001, p. A-2. The case decided was Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316 (4th Cir 2001).

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 Letter of Senators Stabenow and Levin to Hon. Lauerl C. Broten, Ontario Minister of the Environment, August 30,
8 Letter of Laurel C. Broten, Ontario Minister of the Environment, to Senators Stabenow and Levin, August 30, 2006.

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

9 United Haulers Assn v. Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth., 127 S. Ct. 1786 (2007).
10 Personal communication, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, May 30, 2007.
11 Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load it on larger trucks for disposal
12 Another Canadian province, British Columbia, also exports waste to the United States, but the amount is
substantially smaller (about 100,000 tons to Washington state).

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 Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived from data provided by
neighboring states.
14Waste Age 100,” Waste Age, June 2006, p. 22.
15 “The State of Garbage in America,BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and April 2006, pp. 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
Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Receiving states report Tennessee 134,164 146,637 tons in 2005. The state does not track the origins Philip Davis,
231,700 tons of MSW tons Imports doubled, to 297,387 of imported waste, but believes it is AL Dept. of Environmental Management
from Alabama in 2005. Mississippi 97,517 tons tons in 2006, but remained mostly from Georgia and the (334) 271-7755
less than half the peak Florida panhandle.
Georgia 19 tons amount (675,000 tons in
25,201 tons in 2005, Washington. No imports. N.A. Jennifer Roberts,
according to Washington. AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation
(907) 269-7553
Arizona does not export Arizona estimates that between 433,400 tons in 2005. Nearly all (428,500 tons) from David Janke,
significant amounts of 1,000 and 10,000 tons may flow California. Small amounts from AZ Dept. of Environmental Quality
MSW. There are small to New Mexico; 1,200 tons to Nevada (4,500 tons) and New (602) 771-4173
flows from border areas Nevada; and 500 tons to Utah. Mexico (400 tons).
iki/CRS-RL34043to New Mexico, Nevada,
g/wand Utah. Based on state
s.orestimates, CRS estimates
leaktotal exports at 7,000 tons.
://wikiFour receiving states Missouri (‘06) 101,644 State does not track imports, Missouri reported 7,574 tons Susan Speake,
httpreported receiving tons but believes that imports are shipped to Arkansas in 2006. AR Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology
161,303 tons from Mississippi 29,895 tons relatively small and confined (501) 682-0600
Arkansas, an increase of to border areas.
almost 50,000 tons since Texas 22,521 tons
2003. Tennessee 7,243 tons
B.C. shipped 101,834 tons Washington N.A. N.A. N.A.
to the United States,
according to Washington
Receiving states report Arizona 428,500 75,734 tons in 2005. State does not keep track of where Sherry Sala-Moore,
856,509 tons of MSW tons waste comes from. CA Integrated Waste Management Board
shipped from California. Nevada 379,009 (916) 341-6204
Although exports are tons
substantial, they represent Statewide/SWTotals.asp

only about 2% of the Oregon 49,000 tons
amount disposed in-state.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
o State does not track Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico State does not track imports. Kansas, Nebraska Charles Johnson,
exports. Very small Small amounts may be CO Dept. of Public Health and Environment
amounts may be exported imported from Kansas and (303) 692-3348
to neighboring states. Nebraska.
Six states reported New York 218,013 Connecticut reports 43,921 Massachusetts 36,924 tons Judy Belaval,
receiving 636,599 tons tons tons of MSW imports in New York 3,769 tons CT Dept. of Environmental Protection
from Connecticut in 2005. Pennsylvania 201,700 2005. (860) 424-3237
Rhode Island 3,218 tons
Ohio 131,801
Massachusetts 81,151 tons
Georgia 3,869 tons
Michigan 36 tons
iki/CRS-RL34043West Va. 29 tons
s.orVirginia 18,537 tons The state does not track MSW exports. CRS The state does not track MSW imports but says it is N.A. Nancy Markur, DE Dept. of Natural Resources and
leakPennsylvania 8,741 tons estimates exports at likely a negligible amount. All Environmental Control,
://wiki30,000 tons in 2005 based on reports from receiving Small amounts to Maryland and New Jersey. MSW landfills in the state are owned by the state and are (302) 739-9403
httpstates, a decline of about prohibited from accepting
75% since 2003. out-of-state waste.
Virginia 1,059,700 Receiving states reported There are no disposal Maryland. Thomas Henderson,
tons receiving at least 1,061,558 tons in 2005, facilities in the District of Columbia, but D.C. has D.C. Dept. of Public Works, Solid Waste Division
Pennsylvania 1,858 tons the bulk of which went to imported substantial (202) 645-5141

Virginia. An uncertain amount went to amounts of waste from
Maryland, as well. Maryland to transfer stations
located in the District. This
waste is then exported for
disposal. According to D.C.,
about one quarter of the
waste handled at D.C.
transfer stations originates in

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Georgia 1,039,611 The state does not track The state does not track N.A. Peter Goren,
tons exports. Georgia reports imports. There is little FL Dept. of Environmental Protection
receiving over 1 million Small amounts may go to incentive to import, since (850) 245-8714
tons of MSW from Florida Alabama. disposal is less expensive in
in 2005. Exports to Georgia, and there are no
Georgia increased 350,000 major out-of-state cities near
tons since 2003, but still the Florida border.
represent only 3% of
Florida’s waste generation.
CRS estimates 125,000 Alabama 75,000 tons 1,744,317 tons in 2005. Florida 1,039,611 Scott Henson,
tons of exports based on S. Carolina 28,810 tons Waste imports have tons GA Dept. of Natural Resources
information available from increased by 750,000 tons N. Jersey 394,747 tons (404) 362-4533
three receiving states. Tennessee 17,056 tons since 2002.
Exports decreased from S. Carolina 81,738 tons
an estimated 600,000 tons New York 75,345 tons
in 2003.
iki/CRS-RL34043N. Carolina 42,668 tons
g/wRh. Island 38,687 tons
leakTennessee 30,083 tons
://wikiMaryland 29,454 tons
http12 others 11,984 tons
No exports of MSW in N.A. No imports of MSW. N.A. Gary Siu,
2005. Proposals to export HI Dept. of Health
waste from Oahu to (808) 586-4244
Washington state or Idaho
are under consideration.
Idaho does not track Washington 32,256 tons Idaho does not track Small amounts from Oregon and Dean Ehlert,
exports. Three receiving Montana 29,000 tons imports, but says there is not Nevada. ID Dept. of Environmental Quality
states report 63,056 tons a large amount of waste (208) 373-0416

in 2005. Oregon 1,800 tons imported currently. Idaho
Waste Systems has applied
for permission to import
substantial quantities from
Hawaii, however.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Six neighboring states Indiana 2,522,635 The state reports 2,114,898 Missouri (76%) Ellen Robinson,
report receiving 4,441,679 tons tons of imports in 2005. Iowa (19%) IL Environmental Protection Agency
tons of MSW from Illinois Wisconsin 1,412,153 (Data converted from cubic (217) 782-9288
in 2005. Exports more tons yards to tons by CRS.) Indiana (3%)
than doubled since 2003. Wisconsin (2%) index.html
Michigan 416,538
tons Small amounts from 6 other states.
Missouri 71,095 tons
Iowa 12,926 tons
Kentucky 6,332 tons
Five receiving states Michigan 731,270 2,428,838 tons of MSW in Illinois 2,122,945 Michelle Weddle,
reported a total of tons 2005, an increase of 1.5 tons IN Dept of Environmental Management
1,061,581 tons of MSW Kentucky 170,870 million tons from 2003. The Ohio 115,489 tons (317) 233-4624
from Indiana in 2005. tons state also received 658,000
iki/CRS-RL34043 tons of other solid waste Kentucky 109,786 tons far05.pdf
g/wOhio 97,518 tons from out of state in 2005. Michigan 65,521 tons
s.orIllinois 61,854 tons
leakVirginia 69 tons 23 others 15,097 tons
://wikiIllinois 398,112 409,881 tons in 2005. The state reported a total of Minnesota 265,939 tons Mark Warren,
http tons 300,528 tons in FY2005. Illinois 11,874 tons IA Dept of Natural Resources
Missouri 6,704 tons Imports declined to 281,925 tons in FY2006. Missouri 10,857 tons (515) 281-4968
Nebraska 5,028 tons Nebraska 8,952 tons
Wisconsin 37 tons Wisconsin 2,901 tons
(Exports to Nebraska do not
include waste directly hauled
without passing through a
transfer station.)
Kansas reports MSW Oklahoma 400,868 800,318 tons of MSW in Missouri 769,356 tons Christine Mennicke,
exports of 446,150 tons in tons 2005, almost all from Oklahoma 27,499 tons KS Dept. of Health and Environment
2005. Waste exports Missouri 45,282 tons Missouri. (785) 296-0724

“went way down” in 2006, Nebraska 3,463 tons
because a new landfill
opened in Kansas.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Ohio 249,902 tons 488,157 tons in 2005, a Tennessee 283,836 663,685 tons in 2005. Allan Bryant,
Indiana 170,870 tons 48% increase since 2003. tons Imports in 2006 rose slightly to 686,151 tons. KY Dept. for Environmental Protection (502) 564-6716
Tennessee 126,416 tons Indiana 141,365 tons
West Va. 106,936 tons Ohio 58,679 tons
Illinois 4,277 tons Smaller amounts from Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and Virginia.
Mississippi 60,000 tons states Texas 152,615 77,190 tons in FY2006 (July John Rogers,
Texas 10,300 tons reported 260,588 tons in 2005. Little change from tons 1, 2005-June 30, 2006). LA Dept. of Environmental Quality (225) 219-3266
Arkansas 6,500 tons 2003. Mississippi 107,973 tons
(CRS estimates based on La. data.)
Maine reports exports of About 15,000 tons went to Maine imported 436,412 tons Facilities don’t report state of George MacDonald,
iki/CRS-RL3404371,379 tons in 2005. New Brunswick, Canada, and the rest to New Hampshire. of MSW and C&D waste in 2005. origin, but 2/3 to 3/4 of the waste is believed to come from ME Dept of Environmental Protection (207) 287-5759
g/wMassachusetts. The rest probably
s.orcomes from New Hampshire.
leakReceiving states reported Virginia 1,992,313 The state reported receiving Massachusetts, New York, West Edward Dexter,
://wikireceiving 2,048,204 tons from Maryland in 2005. tons 286,011 tons of out-of-state MSW, and 245,835 tons of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and D.C. MD Dept of the Environment (410) 537-3318
http97% of the exports went Georgia 29,454 tons other waste, mostly C&D in
to Virginia. Pennsylvania 26,350 tons 2005. Imports increased 37%

compared to calendar year
West Va. 87 tons 2004.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
usetts Receiving states reported S. Carolina 475,495 In 2005, Massachusetts Connecticut 81,151 tons Brian Holdridge,
a total of 1,986,945 tons tons reported importing a total of N. Hampshire 41,079 tons MA Dept. of Environmental Protection
from Massachusetts in Georgia 394,747 169,845 tons. (617) 292-5578
2005. tons Rhode Island 30,534 tons
Vermont 16,391 tons
Maine 300,000
tons New York 627 tons
N. Hampshire 281,375 Maine 63 tons
New York 216,661
Ohio 168,740
Maryland 101,367
iki/CRS-RL34043 tons
g/wConnecticut 36,924 tons
s.orRhode Island 5,924 tons
Pennsylvania 5,417 tons
://wikiMichigan 273 tons
Virginia 22 tons
Ontario 3,781,171 The state does not track Indiana 65,521 tons In FY2005 (10/04 - 9/05), Christina Miller,
tons exports, but three neighboring states Ohio 32,658 tons imports of MSW were 5,442,044 tons, an increase MI Dept. of Environmental Quality (517) 373-4741
Indiana 731,270 tons reported 99,855 tons Wisconsin 1,676 tons of almost half a million tons
Illinois 416,538 tons from Michigan in 2005, a since FY 2003. Michigan also

decrease of 125,000 tons imported 721,000 tons of
Ohio 299,791 tons since 2003. industrial solid waste. (Data
Wisconsin 211,648 tons converted from cubic yards to tons by CRS.) Imports
leveled off in FY2006, Three other states (New York,
increasing less than 1%. Massachusetts, and New Jersey)
shipped small amounts.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
In 2005, the state Wisconsin 729,264 According to the state, a N.A. Jim Chiles,
exported about 1,085,000 tons negligible amount has been MN Pollution Control Agency
tons. Iowa 265,939 imported. (651) 296-7273
N. Dakota 88,000 tons
S. Dakota 1,500 tons
194,164 tons, according to Tennessee 134,164 553,772 tons in 2005. Tennessee 318,391 tons Pradip Bhowal,
receiving states. tons Imported amounts have been Louisiana 107,973 tons MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
Louisiana 60,000 tons relatively stable since 2002. Alabama 97,517 tons (601) 961-5082
Arkansas 29,895 tons SW_2005StatusReport/$File/AnnualReport2005%20-
iki/CRS-RL340432,398,865 tons in 2005; Illinois 1,598,625 227,858 tons in 2006, a slight Arkansas 101,644 tons Glenda Marshall-Griffin,
g/w2,520,071 tons in 2006. tons increase over 2003. Illinois 81,917 tons MO Dept. of Natural Resources (573) 526-3843
s.orKansas 769,356 Kansas 37,594 tons
leak tons
Iowa 6,704 tons
://wikiIowa 10,857 tons
httpTennessee 9,723 tons
Arkansas (‘06) 7,574 tons
Kentucky 2,730 tons
Idaho 29,000 tons Montana does not track N.A. 32,205 tons in 2005—almost Pat Crowley,
N. Dakota 3,000 tons exports, and is not believed to export any identical to the amount in 2003. MT Dept. of Environmental Quality (406) 444-5294

significant amount of The rest from Wyoming and Utah.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
ka The state does not collect Iowa 8,952 tons The state does not collect Iowa. Keith Powell,
records on MSW exports, Kansas 3,463 tons records on MSW imports. NE Dept. of Environmental Quality
but Iowa and Kansas Iowa reports sending (402) 471-4210
reported receiving 12,415 Nebraska 5,028 tons of
tons from Nebraska in MSW in FY2005.
2005. Iowa alone received
23,628 tons from
Nebraska in FY 2006.
Arizona estimates that it Arizona, Idaho. 381,719 tons in 2005. Almost all (379,009 tons) from Dave Simpson,
received 4,500 tons of California. A small amount is NV Division of Environmental Protection
MSW from Nevada. In imported from neighboring (775) 687-9469
addition, a small amount is communities in Utah and Arizona.
exported to Idaho from
border communities in the
northeast corner of the
iki/CRS-RL34043CRS estimates exports of Mostly to Maine; 41,000 tons In 2005, New Hampshire Massachusetts 281,375 tons Donald Maurer,
g/whire 175,000 tons in 2005, to Massachusetts. imported 402,900 tons of NH Dept. of Environmental Services
s.orbased on reports from MSW, primarily from Maine 54,000 tons (603) 271-3713

leakreceiving states. Massachusetts. Imports were Vermont 49,800 tons
unchanged compared to Connecticut 10,661 tons
httpRhode Island 6,856 tons

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
ey 5,772,838 tons in 2005, Pennsylvania 4,512,908 1,731,729 tons in 2005, 94% New York 1,639,916 Ray Worob,
according to eight tons from New York. tons NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection
receiving states. Georgia 394,747 Pennsylvania 70,950 tons (609) 984-6903
tons International 16,689 tons
Virginia 334,009 9 other states 4,174 tons
Ohio 316,656
S. Carolina 155,716
New York 56,136 tons
West Va. 2,086 tons
iki/CRS-RL34043Maryland 580 tons
g/wTexas 450,000 tons xico Texas and Arizona report Texas and Arizona. 471,345 tons were imported Connie Pasteris,
s.orColorado 17,000 tons receiving small amounts of waste from New Mexico. in 2005, a decrease of about 65,000 tons since 2003. NM Environment Dept. (505) 476-3561

leakThe rest is from Arizona,
://wikiOklahoma, Mexico, and possibly Utah.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Ten importing states Pennsylvania 3,075,953 New York reports that Connecticut 218,013 tons Gerard Wagner,
report a total of 7,198,648 tons 769,083 tons of MSW were Massachusetts 216,661 tons NY State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
tons from New York in Virginia 1,803,754 imported in 2005, an (518) 402-8662
2005, a decrease of over 1 tons increase of 450,000 tons Ontario 195,228 tons
million tons since 2003. since 2003. The state also New Jersey 56,136 tons
New York facilities New Jersey 1,639,916 imported 390,000 tons of
reported exports of tons other solid waste in 2005. Pennsylvania 41,368 tons
4,070,503 tons in 2005. Ohio 583,999
Vermon 38,087 tons
tons Quebec 2,114 tons
Georgia 75,345 tons N. Hampshire 1,476 tons
West Va. 13,810 tons
Connecticut 3,769 tons
Michigan 1,325 tons
iki/CRS-RL34043Massachusetts 627 tons
g/wKentucky 150 tons
leak1,074,386 tons in 2005, according to receiving S. Carolina 554,074 tons 137,298 tons in FY2006 (July 2005-June 2006). Does not S. Carolina 80,661 tons Ellen Lorscheider, NC Dept. of Environment and Natural
include 107,888 tons of Virginia 56,637 tons Resources
://wikistates. In addition, the state exported 96,001 Virginia 418,868 waste imported from a South (919) 508-8499
httptons to a South Carolina tons Carolina transfer station,
transfer station, which, Tennessee 56,806 tons which originally received the
after baling, were sent Georgia 42,668 tons waste from North Carolina.
back to North Carolina
for disposal. Exports West Va. 1,970 tons
account for slightly over
10% of the waste
generated in the state.
Montana estimates that Montana 88,000 tons in 2005, Minnesota Steve Tillotson,
North Dakota exported according to Minnesota. ND Dept. of Health
3,000 tons to Montana in (701) 328-5166


Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
857,005 tons in 2005, a Michigan 299,791 Ohio imported 3,024,452 Ohio imported waste from 27 Michelle Kenton,
decrease of almost tons tons of solid waste in 2005, states. The largest sources were OH Environmental Protection Agency
250,000 tons since 2003. Kentucky 249,902 but 43% of it was C&D New York (35%), New Jersey (614) 728-5368
waste, industrial waste, and (19%), Pennsylvania (13%),
tons other non-MSW. Imports of Massachusetts (10%), Connecticut 2005_out_of_state_waste.pdf
West Va. 161,024 general solid waste, the (8%), Indiana (6%), West Virginia
equivalent of MSW, totaled (4%), and Kentucky (3%).
tons 1,689,470 tons.
Indiana 115,489
Pennsylvania 29,832 tons
Georgia 815 tons
Virginia 152 tons
Texas about CRS estimates exports at State does not track imports. Mostly from Kansas. John Roberts,
iki/CRS-RL34043 80,000 tons 110,000 tons in 2005, based on reports from Kansas reports that 400,868 tons of waste were shipped OK Dept. of Environmental Quality (405) 702-5100
g/wKansas 27,499 tons receiving states. from the Wichita area to
s.orSmall amounts to New Mexico. Oklahoma in 2005, but the
leakquantity imported dropped
significantly in mid to late-
://wiki2006, when a new landfill opened in Kansas.
Ontario shipped 3,976,399 Michigan 3,781,171 None. N.A. Bruce Pope,
tons of MSW to the tons Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy
United States in 2005, New York 195,228 (416) 325-4420
according to receiving tons
states. Michigan received
95% of the total. (Data for
Michigan are for FY2005
and were converted from
cubic yards to tons by
Oregon exported 52,438 Washington and Idaho. Oregon imported 1,795,971 Washington 1,745,171 Judy Henderson,
tons of MSW in 2005. tons of MSW in 2005. tons OR Dept. of Environmental Quality
Imports accounted for 37% California 49,000 tons (503) 229-5521

of all the waste disposed in
Oregon that year. Idaho 1,800 tons

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
Ohio 214,951 New Jersey and New York The state does not track 7,931,984 tons in 2005 a Sally Lohman,
tons accounted for nearly 96% of Pennsylvania’s MSW imports in exports. According to neighboring states, decline of 2.7 million tons since 2001. The state is still, PA Dept. of Environmental Protection (717) 787-7382
New Jersey 70,950 tons 2005. Pennsylvania exported by far, the largest importer
New York 41,368 tons 338,265 tons of MSW in 2005. of MSW, representing about 20% of the national total of
West Virginia 9,513 tons imports. In addition to MSW,
Virginia 1,483 tons Pennsylvania received 1.7 million tons of other solid
(Exports to Ohio estimated by waste from out of state in New Jersey 4,512,908
CRS, based on Ohio data.) 2005. tons
New York 3,075,953
Connecticut 201,700 tons
West Va. 68,264 tons
iki/CRS-RL34043Ohio 29,832 tons
s.orMaryland 26,350 tons
leak6 others 16,976 tons
://wikiGeorgia 38,687 tons Receiving states reported 76,077 tons of MSW from Massachusetts reports sending 5,924 tons of MSW Massachusetts Robert Schmidt, RI Dept. of Environmental Management
httpMassachusetts 30,534 tons Rhode Island in 2005. to RI. Officially, however, RI (401) 222-2797 x7260

N. Hampshire 6,856 tons does not accept MSW from
out-of-state. In 2005, all
Small amounts to Connecticut MSW imported to RI was
and New Jersey. reported as sent back out-of-
state for disposal.

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
N. Carolina 554,074 tons Receiving states reported Georgia 81,738 tons South Carolina imported Pete Stevens,
Massachusetts 475,495 tons 163,646 tons of waste from South Carolina. NC (FY2006) 80,661 tons 1,243,993 tons of MSW in FY2005 (7/04-6/05), plus SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control (803) 896-4149
New Jersey 155,716 tons West Va. 748 tons 284,106 tons of other solid waste disposed at MSW
Texas 29,882 tons Virginia 499 tons landfills.
Georgia 28,810 tons
Non-MSW came mostly from
Georgia, Delaware, and North
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 Environment and Natural Resources
reports having shipped 1,500 (605) 773-3153
tons of waste to South
Dakota in 2005.
iki/CRS-RL34043Mississippi 318,391 Kentucky 283,836 tons Six neighboring states 682,411 tons in 2005, A. Wayne Brashear,
g/wtons report receiving 518,896 741,560 tons in 2006. TN Dept. of Environment and Conservation
s.or Kentucky 126,416 Virginia 147,485 tons tons of waste from Imports increased 28% from (615) 532-8010
leaktons Mississippi 134,164 tons Tennessee in 2005, an 2003 to 2006.
NC 56,806 tons increase of about 70%
://wikiVirginia 39,805 tons since 2001.
httpGeorgia 30,083 tons
The remainder went to Indiana The remainder came from 5 other
and W. Virginia. states. (2005 data)
Louisiana 152,615 tons 460,000 tons. New Mexico 450,000 259,040 tons in 2005. Edward Block,
Oklahoma 83,219 tons tons TX Commission on Environmental Quality (512) 239-6613

Arkansas 22,521 tons Louisiana (FY2006) 10,300 tons
Small amounts from New Mexico
and Kansas. (Oklahoma and
Arkansas are estimated based on
Texas data.)

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
CRS estimates exports at Nevada, Arizona, Montana 16,038 tons of MSW in 2005, Arizona Ralph Bohn,
1,500 tons. As in previous plus 275,837 tons of UT Dept. of Environmental Quality
years, about 1,000 tons of industrial waste. (801) 538-6794
waste went from
Wendover, Utah, to
Wendover, Nevada. Also,
Arizona reports about 500
tons of waste from Utah.
Perhaps 50 tons to
In 2005, 104,278 tons N. Hampshire 49,800 tons Facilities in Vermont do not N.A. Julie Hackbarth,
were exported, according New York 38,087 tons receive any out-of-state VT Dept. of Environmental Conservation
to receiving states. About waste. (802) 241-3446
20% of the waste Massachusetts 16,391 tons
generated in the state
goes out of state for
g/wMaryland 1,992,313 The state does not track Tennessee 147,485 Virginia remains the second-Kathy Frahm,
s.ortons MSW exports. Six states tons largest waste importer. The VA Dept. of Environmental Quality
leak New York 1,803,754 report 210,688 tons of NC (FY2006) 56,637 tons state imported 5,709,441 (804) 698-4376
exports from Virginia. tons of MSW in 2005 and 1.3

://wiki tons West Va. 5,321 tons million tons of other waste
httpDC 1,059,700 tons Pennsylvania 918 tons (mostly C&D waste, incinerator ash, and industrial
Kentucky 283 tons waste). Imports increased by
N. Carolina 418,868 tons about 400,000 tons
New Jersey 334,009 tons Georgia 44 tons compared with 2003.
Smaller amounts from 13 other

Amount of Destination of Amount of Sources of Additional
MSW Exported Exported Waste MSW Imported Imported Waste Information
1,745,171 tons of MSW in Oregon. 147,746 tons of MSW in B.C., Canada 101,834 tons Ellen Caywood,
2005, according to 2005, plus 67,112 tons of Oregon 45,554 tons WA Dept. of Ecology
Oregon. Washington has other waste. (360) 407-6132
over 200 million tons of Idaho 32,256 tons
disposal capacity (38 years Alaska 25,201 tons
at current disposal rates),
but because of contractual Montana 13 tons
arrangements, the state
exports substantial
amounts of waste.
Kentucky 106,936 Ohio 161,024 tons No tracking system. Eight 194,917 tons in 2005, a Jan Borowski,
tons NY 13,810 tons receiving states reported 298,238 tons of waste decrease of almost 30% since 2003. Imports represented WV Solid Waste Management Board (304) 926-0448
Ohio 74,301 tons Penn. 9,513 tons from West Virginia. about 10% of total waste
Pennsylvania 68,264 tons Virginia 5,623 tons Exports virtually disposal in West Virginia in
unchanged since 2003. 2005.
iki/CRS-RL34043Virginia 38,114 tons
g/wMaryland 8,844 tons
s.or3 other states 1,779 tons
(Exports to Ohio estimated by The rest from 6 other states.
://wikiCRS, based on Ohio data.)
httpThe state does not collect Michigan 211,648 2,143,133 tons in 2005, an Illinois 1,412,153 Lindsey Miller,
export data, but four tons increase of 77% since 2003. tons WI Dept. of Natural Resources
receiving states reported Illinois 47,056 tons Imports from Illinois and Minn. 729,264 tons (608) 266-2111
263,126 tons of Wisconsin Minnesota both increased
exports in 2005, an Iowa 2,901 tons substantially. Michigan 1,676 tons
increase of 23% since Indiana 1,521 tons
The state does not collect Montana The state does not collect N.A. Bob Doctor,
export data. Montana import data. A few tons a WY Dept. of Environmental Quality
reported about 200 tons day may enter the state. (307) 473-3468
from Wyoming.
Source: CRS, based on information provided by state program officials.
Note: N.A. = not available

James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy, 7-7225