Bill would let Marion County cities negotiate waste contracts; commissioners warn flow-control needed to maintain recovery

Senate Bill 1067, before the House Climate, Energy and Environment Committee on May 8, would permit cities in Marion County to control or direct disposal, transfer, or material- or energy-recovery of solid waste generated within the city and to enter related contracts, rather than leaving that authority solely at the county level.

Senator Deb Patterson, sponsor of the Senate measure, said the bill would “level the playing field” with other Oregon counties where cities already have that authority and would give cities an option to negotiate rates and disposal arrangements for their residents. Leslie Munoz, who represents House District 22 and testified in favor, told the committee the bill is permissive, not mandatory — a city would have to adopt an ordinance to exercise the new authority — and could be used to seek alternatives to incineration or to negotiate different service terms.

Marion County officials and industry witnesses urged caution, arguing flow-control and regional contracting provide the revenue and scale to support recovery infrastructure. Commissioner Kevin Cameron told the committee Marion County recovers a high share of its waste stream and that flow-control has supported investment in transfer stations and recycling infrastructure. He cited DEQ figures for 2022 showing Marion County’s recovery rate at about 46.7%, with Lane County at 52.9% and Metro (Portland area) at 45.6%. Cameron said, “It costs money to take things out of the system and recover them,” and warned that removing flow-control authority piecemeal could leave smaller local haulers unable to compete and undermine regional recovery.

Brian May, Marion County’s environmental services manager, described regional infrastructure needs and a large material-recovery investment planned in neighboring Lane County: he said Lane County’s proposed iMRF and related investments approach $150 million and that recent contract and franchise disputes have already led some flows to be shipped out of region. May and Commissioner Cameron asked the committee to consider waiting for an upcoming regional task-force report (expected in June) that analyzes regional recovery and infrastructure options before enacting statutory changes.

The committee also heard that the state has recently lost a waste-to-energy operator; testimony noted the operator Covanta gave up its permit and that some types of regulated medical or hazardous waste have been routed out of state. Representative Emerson noted that hospitals previously relied on local capacity for regulated medical waste and now some municipalities are hauling material to Idaho. County witnesses said they are exploring interim options, including new treatment pathways and franchise agreements that would allow local treatment of medical waste while preserving regulatory safeguards.

Supporters of the bill framed it as local control: Senator Patterson said the change would “return the ability to negotiate to the people who set the rates, elected city officials.” Opponents flagged potential competitive and environmental impacts if cities unilaterally direct flows away from coordinated county-level programs. Marion County officials described franchise agreements and flow-control as tools that ensure waste is directed to invested local infrastructure and noted the long planning timelines for transfer stations and processing facilities.

No formal committee action was taken on May 8; the chair carried the hearing record forward and announced the item would be continued on May 13 so more in-person testimony could be received. Witnesses asked the committee to consider the June regional report before further action.