1. Flow Control Update Dormant Commerce Clause Challenges May 13, 2014 Presented by Andrew Foster

2.  Historical “Big Picture”  C&A Carbone (1994) & United Haulers (2007)  Post-United Haulers Cases  C&A Carbone/Rockland County (2014)  Implications/What’s Next? Topics for Today: 1

3.  Economic Flow Control  Other Legal Challenges: - Void for Vagueness (JWJ Industries) - Impairment of Contracts (City of Dallas) - Due Process Violations - Takings Topics NOT for Today: 2

4. Historical “Big Picture” 3 Public Private

5. 4

6. 5

7. 6

8. 7

9. 8

10. 9

11. 10

12. 11

13. 12

14. (Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman) 13

15.  Town ordinance imposed “Flow Control”  Directed all solid waste to a favored private facility  HELD: Violates the dormant Commerce Clause: - “hoards solid waste” for “favored local operator” - “squelches competition” - “discriminates” against interstate commerce - “economic effects are interstate in reach” C & A Carbone v. Clarkstown (1994) 14

16.  County ordinances imposed “Flow Control”  Directed all solid waste to publicly owned and operated facilities  HELD: No dormant Commerce Clause Violation: - Exception for “publicly owned and operated” facilities - Flow Control laws that benefit “a clearly public facility”... are not “discriminatory” United Haulers v. Oneida-Herkimer (2008) 15

17.  United Haulers (2d Cir., 2001)  No “discrimination,” because publicly owned facilities  Remanded for Pike balancing  United Haulers (2d Cir., 2006)  Pike balancing challenge rejected  If any “burden,” far outweighed by benefits Underlying Second Circuit Opinions: 16

18. 17

19.  Quality Compliance (2008, M.D. GA.)  Lebanon Farms (2008, 3d Cir.)  Construction Materials (2009, D.N.H.)  Southern Waste (2010, S.D. Fl.)  Active Disposal (2010, N.D. IL.)  Sandlands C&D (Horry County) (2013, 4 th Cir.) Post-United Haulers Developments: 18

20. C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) 19  County ordinance imposed waste “Flow Control”  Directed all solid waste AND recyclables to publicly owned, but (arguably) privately operated facilities  HELD:  No “discrimination” under UH (2d Cir., 2001)  Pike balancing rejected per UH (2d Cir. 2006)

21. C&A Carbone v. Rockland County (2014) 20  SUBHOLDINGS:  Mere public ownership of building is determinative  Unprecedented scope → recyclables!  “Market participation” doctrine protects “outsourcing” of operations  Evidence of law’s “ultimate efficacy” → irrelevant

22. 21

23. (Expert Report, C&A Carbone/Rockland County, M. Berkman) 22

24. Implications/What’s Next? 23

25.  Undermines narrowness of United Haulers publicly “owned and operated”/“clearly public” exception  Encourages adoption of new flow control laws using publicly-owned, but privately-operated facilities  Invites flow control laws encompassing recyclables  Sanctions “nominal” public ownership of buildings to insulate flow control laws from challenge  Invites local governments to favor local firms via the “market participation” exception). 24

26. Andrew P. Foster Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP One Logan Square, Ste. 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996 (215) 988-2512 phone (215) 988-2757 fax Andrew.Foster@dbr.com www.drinkerbiddle.com 25 Thank You & Questions?