# Amicus Brief — Philadelphia v. New Jersey > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2422%3A09 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 430 U.S. 141 ## Text MOTION FILED MAY 28 1976 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OcToBER TERM, 1975 No. 75-1150 City OF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY, ET AL. On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey MOTION AND BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Louis L. Meter, JR. Counsel for Amicus Curiae 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20006 May 28, 1976 Pares or Braow S. Apames Parmrrina, Inc., Wasuinetox, D. C. 14135.8.76 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OcrToBER TERM, 1975 No. 75-1150 Crry oF PHILADELPHIA, ET AL. v. NEw JERSEY, ET AL. On Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey. MOTION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICUS CURIAE The American Society of Civil Engineers (herein- after ‘‘ ASCE’’) respectfully moves, pursuant to Rule 42.3 of this Court, for leave to file the accompanying Brief as Amicus Curiae on the merits of this case. Although the attorneys for Petitioners have consented to the amicus filing of a brief amicus curiae, the amicus has been advised that the Respondent will not grant its consent. li The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is a non-profit corporation registered in the State of New York. Its membership consists of more than 72,000 individual civil engineers and other qualified individuals. The objective of the Society, as stated in its Constitution, is the advancement of the science and profession of engineering to enhance the welfare of mankind. An important concern of the Society is to promote sound engineering thought and practice in the solution of problems of environmental sanitation including the proper disposal of or recycling of solid wastes, the control of pollution, and the social and environmental impact of solutions to these engineering problems. ASCE has a responsibility to represent its members in important public policy matters significantly affect- ing the foregoing interests. The question before this court, that of the constitutionality of excluding out-of- state solid waste from deposit within landfills of New Jersey, is of particular concern to ASCE. This is be- cause the Society believes that the Court’s decision may have an impact on environmental and pollution issues beyond this particular case and, more signifi- cantly, may affect others than the parties to the case. Accordingly, the ASCE focus of interest is upon these aspects of the questions involved. It should be noted, also, that the ASCE perspective on the issues is different from that of the parties to the case. The viewpoint is that of the practicing civil engineer. The engineer believes that the complex eco- system which provides mans’ life sustaining environ- ment, and the pollution problems associated therewith, know no political boundaries. These problems, there- tii fore, are ill suited for unilateral solutions. In the words of Justice Cardoza, ‘‘the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together.’’ The Society believes that the import ban imposed by the New Jersey Waste Control Act is unsound from an engineering and professional point of view, and, more- over, is unconstitutional. The situation, unfortunately, is not helped by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Manage- ment Act regarding the review authority of counties over the solid waste management plans of municipali- ties within the state. The primary emphasis in the Pennsylvania law is on a state-wide plan. The law, further, contains retaliatory authority directed at the states which do not accept solid waste from Pennsyl- vania. (This latter proviso was enacted in 1974 in re- sponse to the New Jersey Act.) Further, the fact that the population density of New Jersey is 953.1 persons per square mile compared to 262.3 per square mile in Pennsylvania (381.3 persons per square mile in New York) does not make it easy to deal with the people aspect of the problem. (1970 census data, 1973 World Almanac, 144) But the foregoing has no bearing on the constitutionality of the New Jersey statute, even though it does have much to do with New Jersey’s un- derstandable concern in seeking to preserve its scarce landfill areas. What is important, however, is that the concept of areawide solutions to environmental problems has been embraced by the federal government in the air pollu- tion/water pollution control programs and in the solid waste management field. In the long run, this public policy should work to provide optimum solutions for the good of all states and all citizens. iv It is axiomatic that environmentally sound solutions to the solid waste management problem must be based on engineering considerations and their assessment by skilled professionals. The problem is sufficiently com- plex from the engineering standpoint alone, without the imposition of artificial, environmentally unsound political constraints. The nation cannot afford this kind of parochialism with its resulting inefficiency. It would reverse the progress made so far in the manage- ment of solid wastes and could have far reaching im- plications, as well, in matters relating to energy issues. While the immediate problem is Philadelphia’s, and Pennsylvania’s, the precedent established would spread rapidly across the country. Regional solid waste man- agement systems are already operating and many more are in various stages of planning and development throughout the nation. These regional systems and plans, in being and projected, are environmentally sound and cost-effective. Such regional solutions would be jeopardized or rendered useless if the New Jersey precedent is allowed to become widespread. Already six other states—Maine, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont pro- hibit, to varying degrees, the disposal of out-of-state solid waste. Delaware, Illinois and Louisiana allow disposal of solid waste from out-of-state, but with cer- tain limitations. It would appear that a Federal pol- icy of primary state responsibility over the environ- ment, coupled with provisions for areawide planning to make such responsibility meaningful in each state, is in jeopardy. Because of the importance of the issues involved, ASCE desires to present to this Court, for its assist- v ance, the Society’s views in regard to the significant questions involved in this proceeding. WuenrerorE, the American Society of Civil Engi- neers respectfully requests this Court to grant this motion and permit the Society to file the Brief Amicus Curiae attached hereto and submitted herewith. Respectfully submitted, Lovts L. Meter, JR. Counsel for Amicus Curiae 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 May 28, 1976 Page ae Se te cee ode seutethoons i BN SiieiiS ens age dhs Ceked us tatbvcesevcesc comnedese 1 PE TROD 5 nn icc dhe pew ccébesctcece 1 I SE CD SID kk tise decb.se cecavcennesiace 1 Interest of the Amicus Curiae .................4.-. 2 Summary of the Argument .................-+-+. 4 DD 5 dais oes Hinsate aber’ Hos che 0seecenecess 4) I. The Commerce Clause Issue: The management of solid waste is interstate commerce within the meaning of the Commerce Clause .............. 5 II. The New Jersey Waste Control Act would effect an improper discrimination against interstate commerce and is hence unconstitutional ........ 7 Ili. The Federal Preemptive Issue ................ 13 OS. a CS chad ve ek coanwavis dene eectéscweed 18 TABLE OF CITATIONS CasEs: American Can Company v. Oregon Liquor Control Commission, No. 75567 (Cir. Ct. Ore. September 1, 1972), 2ELR 20642, 20644, 20645 ............. 10, 13 Baldwin v. G.A.F. Sielig, 294 U.S. 511, 522, 523 (1934) 7 Brennan v. Metropolitan Trash, Inc., 513 F.2nd 1324, EE GHEE. sRA AGEs oatih g elie bie ohne se¥es cant 6 Cooley v. d of Wardens, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299, Dy EEE ockdkehe i gSbbbs bees bodehdedveweceser 13 Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 oF Ss 3 F errr rr 13 Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Hayael, 278 U.S. 1, 10 SRE i deh « bolwh 16 Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 598, 43 S.Ct. 658, 665, 67 L.Ed. 1117, 1133 (1923) ........ 9 Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970) .. 10 United States v. Bishop Processing Co., 287 F.Suppl. | 624, 631, 632 (D.C. Md. 1968) ...........ccceees United States v. National Society of Professional En- gineers, 389 F.Suppl. 1193, 1199 (1974) ......... 6 United States v. Pennsylvania Refuse Removal Asso- ciation, 242 F.Suppl. 794, 799 (E.D. Pa. 1965), aff’d, 357 F.2d 806, 809 (3rd Cire.), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 961, 16 L.Ed.2nd 674 (1966) ........... 5, 6 West v. Kansas Natural Gas Company, 221 U.S. 229, 255 (1910), 31 S.Ct. 564, 571, 55 L.Ed. 716, 726 CREED ccvccedisévedevasesesd beets > Respectfully submitted, Louis L. Meter, Jr. Counsel for Amicus Curiae 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_2422%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.