Laserfiche WebLink
period of time, if major reduction and recovery projects are implemented accord- <br />ing to planned time schedules. This extended period of use will further delay <br />the time when better -designed, more expensive landfills are needed and the <br />waste management system as a whole operates more competitively. As a result, <br />land disposal capacity will have to be carefully controlled if the regional <br />strategy is to be successfully implemented. <br />ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REGIONAL STRATEGY <br />Solid waste management requires responsive public decision -making. The state <br />Waste Management Act mandates a decision -making process for solid waste man- <br />agement in the Metropolitan Area that involves several levels of government. <br />The major planning and coordinating functions are given to the Council, and the <br />counties have primary implementation responsibilities. The state, cities and <br />towns have various regulatory and implementation authorities. However, new <br />institutional relationships may be necessary, along with additional len:slative <br />authority, to successfully implement the regional strategy. <br />SUBREGIONAL SERVICE AREAS <br />The regional strategy lays out an approach that calls for a regional system of <br />processing and source separation activities to be phased in over the next five <br />years. Only the residuals from these activities could go to land disposal <br />facilities after 1990. A concept of centralized management and coordination of <br />the waste, its components and final destination is necessary to implement the <br />regional system (see Figure 3-1). The majority of the waste would most likely <br />go to centralized locations after source reduction and separation. Here the <br />waste would be processed and/or sent to other processing locations, and the <br />remaining residuals would go to land disposal facilities. <br />Cooperative arrangements among the counties, will be necessary if the region - <br />wide approach is to succeed. Present patterns of waste management (collection, <br />transportation and disposal), and the potential locations for processing facili- <br />ties and final product markets, are not easily adaptable to service areas based <br />solely on the jurisdictional boundaries of individual counties. There are indi- <br />cations that some of the major processing projects currently being developed <br />may not have sufficient waste supplies to expand in the future because of these <br />factors. If this is the case, solid waste recovery may not reach its fullest <br />potential. What is needed is a subregional approach that involves groups of <br />counties. <br />Ramsey and Washington Counties have joined together to develop and implement a <br />major centralized processing facility and ancillary services. The subregional <br />approach, in this instance, has worked well in project development, financing <br />and waste supply assurance. <br />The following subregional service area recommended based on waste supply con- <br />centrations, geographical proximity of the counties to one another and the <br />potential locations for processing activities. Solid waste planning, facility <br />development, financing and operations could be facilitated by the two- or three - <br />county subregional approach. <br />1. Anoka and Hennepin Counties; <br />2. Dakota and Hennepin Counties; <br />7P <br />