Under the influence of European law, waste law in California is evolving and imposes new obligations. But for Glendale, in terms of the management of waste, it is concerned by this device which is characterized by the implementation of regulations insofar as “all legal texts are intended, with some exceptions, to apply locally; the decentralization has led, overseas in particular, to a transfer of skills and of responsibilities, recent and accentuated; finally, its natural and social environment needs to be protected, in order to limit and stop all attacks on the quality of life of the population must be preserved or improved.

Strengthening regulations in the household waste sector

Since the 90’s California has undergone a process of development which is therefore triggered on all fronts. However, it was faced with environmental problems especially in the area of ​​waste disposal. Thus, from 1989, a state plan for the collection and management of household waste has been drawn up by the local officials.

At the level of the state, this scheme, after having been approved of the Governor and examined by the Departmental Hygiene Committee, entered in force by decree. This scheme is spearheaded by fight against the eradication of certain gross landfills and numerous deposits wilderness that undermines the Californian landscape, while it is one of the major assets of the state for the development of tourist activity, as well as the public health.

State garbage disposal schemes

Local collection schemes attempt to provide solutions by putting in place an organized waste collection and treatment policy for housewives at the department level. But given their low legal significance, their effectiveness is also reduced with elected officials to the extent that they do not impose any real prescriptions to be followed.

Indeed, developed under the leadership of the representative of the State of California, the plan proposes to establish, under acceptable economic conditions, collection circuits, number and location of depots and treatment factories as well as their capacity for action and radius.

Nevertheless, it is important to identify existing services and facilities and study their cost. In addition, the diagram is presented in the form of two documents: the first is a general report including a presentation plan of factories and landfills controlled and the second represents a study of the marketing of sub products. Also, the plan provides for the creation of additional water at least two so-called controlled landfills.

But their elaboration constitutes a dispute because it will depend on the provisions issued by the counties which, in the field of extension and strengthening of urbanized spaces and activities, will proceed expressly at the location of these landfills as well as the collection perimeters. This project is therefore only indicative and evolving.

In addition, in view of the evolution of urban growth, techniques and marketing of by-products, the circular highlights that the conclusions of this report can be modified and therefore, the scheme should be able to be reworked.

Also, the creation of a circular relating to the collection and treatment of urban waste is the weak link in this scheme. Indeed, this process does not give the diagram any value since it tends to establish projects and that he is not obliged to impose constraints on municipalities. In fact, its application, subject to no obligation, therefore depends on the free will of these last.

Even if no financial means are provided for these schemes, when do they have even the merit of provoking the “reflection” of the municipalities. This taking of consciousness dates back to 1989 when we witnessed a broadening of skills in the field of household waste. Some waste management council was created in 1993 and later dissolved in the extent to which it has achieved its objective and is therefore overwhelmed by the cooperation which has practically spread throughout the state.

Waste management regulations

In the field of the environment, it ensured (1) the management of the park of garbage collection bins, which are endowed all inhabitants, (2) door-to-door collection and (3) the collection of bulky waste door to door. In fact, it’s more a “sight” collection, meaning that the truck collects all bulky the waste on public roads.

Also it took care of the transfer of waste from the municipalities and composting of green waste on two platforms, one in Glendale (valuation remains insufficient, there is less than 10% of the tonnage collected compared to 300 to 400 in the entire state), which also processes sludge from a sewage treatment plant, and the other up north.

However, it is clear that these departmental diagrams did not have any legal value, to which the federal law did not refer. In front of these unsuccessful environment patterns, only partially responding to the treatment of waste and faced with the growing scale of the latter, California voted a framework law on waste. But very few of his articles have been so far applied. This law provided in particular that the municipalities have the obligation to collect waste, at least once a week in the towns or villages with more than 500 inhabitants.

Also waste disposal plans would be drawn up to avoid the current “every man for himself” (the implementing decree has not been issued after seventeen years); that the manufacture and sale of products could be regulated, or even prohibited, generators of waste that are difficult to eliminate; that the producers of waste-generating products may be obliged to contribute to their elimination; that the recovery of materials or energy must be “facilitated”, that we can even impose a minimum proportion of materials recovered in certain products.

The federal law obliges producers of packaged household products like Glendale dumpster rentals and others to either collect their packaging themselves, or entrust this recovery to an approved body, such as eco-packaging, which can in particular selectively collect or sort the packaging.