Materials Management and Rural America, Part 2

October 2, 2018

October 2, 2018


Last week’s article, Materials Management and Rural America, Part 1, presented a broad overview of some of the issues facing rural and small towns in America. As found in a Wall Street Journal analysis of rural America, based upon a number of key measures of socioeconomic, the decline in our rural and small communities is accelerating.


An ongoing series posted on CityLab, however, points out that economic growth and opportunity is “not only uneven and unequal between urban and rural places; it is also uneven within them.” Thus, some rural and small communities are flourishing, just as some urban areas are growing and thriving, while other communities, rural and urban, are on the decline.


Working in a range of small and rural communities over the past decade, I’d tend to concur with CityLab’s conclusion.


Materials Management presents Opportunity


In a September 2018 Resource Recycling article, Looking Farther Afield, Natasha Duarte (Director of the Composting Association of Vermont) and I discuss food scrap diversion efforts in small towns and rural jurisdictions in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont.

As presented in the article, effective strategic planning, dedication on the part of local stakeholders, and a focus on resident education and involvement has helped make food scrap diversion successful in a number of rural and small town communities. Similarly, just as in urban areas, small and rural communities can benefit greatly from effective implementation of source reduction, reuse, and recycling.

Beyond the potential economic benefits, materials management can help to build communities, bring citizens together, promote public participation, and help to spur a sense of community pride.


Vermont, a state comprised primarily of rural and small town communities, has become a national leader in materials management. To conserve space in its only landfill and reduce its carbon footprint, the Vermont Legislature adopted Act 148, the Vermont Universal Recycling Law, in 2012. Through a phased in time-line, the law bans disposal of the following major types of waste materials: “blue bin" recyclables, leaf and yard debris, clean wood, and food scraps.


Additionally, all towns were required by 2015 to adopt pay-as-you-throw waste collection systems. The ban on food scraps began in 2014 with the largest generators (greater than 104 tons per year), if the generator is located within 20 miles of a processing facility. The threshold has been lowered each subsequent year. By 2020, all food scrap generators, including residents, will be required to divert food scraps from disposal.


As noted in last week’s article, I live and work in Brattleboro, Vermont (population 12,000). The town is a mecca for those of us in materials management. Curbside recycling was started in the town long before I arrived. In 2013, with the urging of Triple T Trucking, the town’s contracted waste and recycling hauler, Brattleboro initiated a pilot curbside food scraps collection program.


The pilot went town-wide in 2014 with free curbside food scrap collection offered to all 5,300 households (including multi-family properties with up to four units). With the adoption of pay-as-you-throw trash disposal in July 2015, collection of food scraps more than doubled to 9.5 tons per week.


In 2016, the town became one of the few communities, small or large, to adopt every-other-week trash collection. Now Brattleboro is diverting 64 percent of its waste stream through recycling and organics diversion. Moreover, the Town of Brattleboro saves about $35,000 a year in reduced tip fees (landfill-tipping charges locally are $105 per ton).


Keeping organics local has also benefited the community. The Windham Solid Waste Management District compost facility (located in Brattleboro) processes 605 tons per year of food waste (and soiled paper) from the Brattleboro curbside collection, along with 627 tons per year of commercial and institutional food waste. The facility is a cash-positive operation. Residents can purchase compost at a relatively low cost; schools and other entities around the region have benefited from the District’s generous donation of compost.

Around Vermont, small and rural communities have certainly been aided in their waste diversion efforts by the formation of “waste management districts.” Utilizing fees paid by their member communities, as well as grants and fee-for-service programs, the districts help communities to reduce and divert waste, and provide information about trash, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste, including hauling services, drop-off centers, and more. The districts also provide technical assistance and training for businesses, schools, events, and residents in accordance with Vermont’s Universal Recycling Law.


For example, with support from a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Services grant, the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District helped establish two community food scrap composting sites. They are located at Quarry Hill, a low-income housing complex with 36 units in Barre and Franklin Street Home Owners Association, a condominium complex with 10 units in Montpelier.


In Massachusetts, another waste management district has become a leader in materials management in that state. The Franklin County Solid Waste Management District consists of 21 member towns in the less-populated western part of the state. The towns’ populations range from 378 to 8,455.


Twenty-five public schools in Franklin County, including seven high schools, have comprehensive recycling and cafeteria and kitchen food scrap composting programs. Additionally, eight other schools in the county collect food waste for animal feed at local farms. Only two schools in the county remain without food scrap diversion programs.


All twenty District transfer stations accept recyclables, eight of these accept food scraps and soiled paper from residents at no cost. Several also have swap sheds. Three "Super Sites" are permitted (and open year-round) to accept automotive products such as used motor oil, oil filters, transmission fluid, and anti-freeze; mercury-containing devices such as fluorescent lamps, button batteries, fever thermometers and thermostats; oil-based paints, thinners, lacquers, and other paint-related items; rechargeable nickel-cadmium batteries; and fluorescent lamp ballasts. The district also lends its special event signage and recycling and compost bins to over 40 special events each year.


These are just a few examples of how small and rural communities can offer comprehensive materials management programs. Many of these efforts, including reuse and food scrap diversion, can draw upon the strengths inherent in these communities. For example, diversion of food scraps for animal feed in agricultural areas. More on this topic in Part 3.



By Athena Lee Bradley

Share Post

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.