Statewide Diversion and Per Capita Disposal Rate Statistics

In 2012, California’s statewide disposal was 29.3 million tons and population was 37.7 million residents. This resulted in a per resident disposal rate of 4.3 pounds/resident/day calculated using SB 1016’s measurement system. This is slightly less than the 2011 rate of 4.4 pounds/resident/day, and raises the per resident “diversion rate equivalent” to 66%.

The 2012 per employee disposal rate dropped to 10.8 pounds/employee/day resulting in a slight bump in the per employee “diversion rate equivalent” to 65% compared to 64% in 2011.

Almost all (99 percent) of California’s 29.3 million tons of disposal were landfilled in California, while approximately 1 percent was exported to landfills out of state. An additional 0.8 million tons were transformed at three permitted waste-to energy plants in California, but not included in the disposal rate estimate because of provisions in the law that allow limited diversion credit for transformation.

According to the California Department of Finance, labor markets, real estate markets and construction activity all showed some improvement in 2012. So far, this has not translated into increases in disposal. However, as the recovery picks up steam and the California economy improves, solid waste generation will increase as people find work, build more, produce more, and buy more. If these increased flows of materials are not planned for, they may end up in landfills rather than being recycled back into the economy.

CalRecycle will continue to support innovative and substantial diversion efforts such as mandatory commercial recycling, improved green building standards, and the universal adoption of C&D ordinances. These programs divert materials and reduce disposal.

Note: Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 (Chesbro, AB 341) declared that by 2020 the state of California will source reduce, recycle, or compost no less than 75% of solid waste generated. While similar to the state’s 50% waste diversion mandate, the 75% recycling goal does have some key differences.

In 2011, California’s statewide disposal was 29.9 million tons and population was 37.4 million residents. This resulted in a per resident disposal rate of 4.4 pounds/resident/day calculated using SB 1016’s measurement system. This is slightly less than the 2009 and 2010 rates of 4.5 pounds/resident/day, however, the per resident “diversion rate equivalent” remains unchanged at 65%.

The 2011 per employee disposal rate dropped to 11.3 pounds/employee/day resulting in a slight bump in the per employee “diversion rate equivalent” to 64% compared to 63% in 2010.

Almost all (99 percent) of California’s 29.9 million tons of disposal were landfilled in California, while approximately 1 percent was exported to landfills out of state. An additional 0.8 million tons were transformed at three permitted waste-to energy plants in California, but not included in the disposal rate estimate because of provisions in the law that allow limited diversion credit for transformation.

According to the California Department of Finance, labor markets, real estate markets and construction activity all showed some improvement in 2011. So far, this has not translated into increases in disposal. However, as the recovery picks up steam and the California economy improves, solid waste generation will increase as people find work, build more, produce more, and buy more. If these increased flows of materials are not planned for, they may end up in landfills rather than being recycled back into the economy.

CalRecycle will continue to support innovative and substantial diversion efforts such as mandatory commercial recycling, improved green building standards, and the universal adoption of C&D ordinances. These programs divert materials and reduce disposal.

Note: Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011 (Chesbro, AB 341) declared that by 2020 the state of California will source reduce, recycle, or compost no less than 75% of solid waste generated. While similar to the state’s 50% waste diversion mandate, the 75% recycling goal does have some key differences.

Disposal

In 2010, California’s statewide disposal was 30.4 million tons and population was 37.2 million residents. This resulted in a per resident disposal rate of 4.5 pounds/resident/day calculated using SB 1016’s measurement system. This rate remained unchanged from 2009.

Almost all (99 percent) of California’s 30.4 million tons of disposal were landfilled in California, while approximately 1 percent was exported to landfills out of state. An additional 0.8 million tons were transformed at three permitted waste-to energy plants in California, but not included in the disposal rate estimate because of provisions in the law that allow limited diversion credit for transformation.

Demographic Trends

California’s disposal of 30.4 million tons in 2010 is a slight decline of 0.7 million tons from 2009. However, it is 13.6 million tons less than the high of 44 million tons in 1989, and 12.1 million tons less than the second highest amount of 42.5 million tons recently recorded in 2005. In 2010, the per employee disposal rate reached a historic low of 11.7 pounds per employee per day, per resident “diversion rate equivalent” was 65 percent, and the per employee “diversion rate equivalent” was 63 percent.

The continuing economic downturn and increased diversion program implementation likely share responsibility for the small drop in disposal from 2009 to 2010. CalRecycle examined three readily available economic indicators to gauge the economy’s impact on disposal. Employment is an indicator of production and services, personal income is an indicator of spending and consumption, and housing permits are an indicator of construction activity. In 2010, these indicators show a leveling out after steep declines posted in 2009. Employment only declined slightly (approximately 1 percent) in 2010. Personal income in California grew by 2.5 percent from 2009 to 2010 compared to a 2.3 percent drop between 2008 and 2009. Housing permits (driven by large year-end increases in multi-family housing permits) rose by 23 percent from 2009 to 2010. While this increase appears large, the 2010 level is only one-third of the historic trend. The increase in end-of-year multi-family permits should lead to increased disposal in subsequent years, but probably did not affect 2010 disposal.

The federal census provides new population estimates benchmarks every 10 years (e.g. in 2010). During the years between the benchmarks the California Department of Finance provides annual estimates of California’s population. The 2010 preliminary estimate (37.2 million) for California’s population shows approximately 1.1 million fewer residents than in 2009 (38.3 million). This 2.8 percent difference is due to new preliminary population benchmark set by the 2010 federal census. Because they use different benchmarks, the 2009 and 2010 population estimates are not strictly comparable.

In the future, we expect the California economy will rebound and solid waste generation will increase as people find work, build more, produce more, and buy more. When that occurs statewide disposal will likely increase, particularly if CalRecycle’s stakeholders in local government and the solid waste industry reduce/eliminate important diversion programs or fail to plan for the increased flows of materials.

Although jurisdictions are facing severe budgetary problems, now is the time to plan for, and prepare to implement, diversion programs to handle these materials. If these increased flows of materials are not planned for, they may end up in landfills rather than being recycled back into the economy. CalRecycle will continue to support innovative and substantial diversion efforts such as mandatory commercial recycling, improved green building standards, and the universal adoption of C&D ordinances. These programs divert materials and reduce disposal.

Summary

California’s 2009 per resident disposal rate was 4.5 pounds/resident/day, a drop from 5.1 pounds/resident/day in 2008. Total disposal in 2009 was 31.1 million tons, a drop of 4.4 million tons from 2008. While ongoing waste diversion efforts contributed to these declines, several additional factors including large drops in personal income and consumption, construction activity, and employment suggest the recession is the primary driver of these decreases in overall disposal and per capita disposal rates.

In 2009, 99 percent of California’s 31.1 million tons of disposal were landfilled in California and approximately 1 percent was exported to landfills out of state. An additional 0.8 million tons were transformed at three permitted waste-to energy plants in California, but the transformed amount is not included in the per capita disposal rate estimate because of provisions in the law that allow limited diversion credit for transformation.

Comparing 2009 to 2008, population increased 1.2 percent (408,695) and disposal decreased 12.4 percent (4.4 million tons). Comparing 2009 to 2005, when California disposal peaked at 42.5 million tons, population increased 4.4 percent (1,615,756) and disposal decreased 27 percent (11.3 million tons).

As the economy went into recession, construction of residential and commercial structures plummeted, the income of wage and salary workers declined, and fewer new and replacement items were purchased. The result was a decrease in solid waste generated by construction and demolition (C&D) activities, generated by the commercial sector (manufacturing, sales, and service activities), and generated by Californians in their homes. The market prices for many materials dropped due to the economic conditions, while the supply of some materials increased as some Californians recycled more to offset other lost income. Local government budgets have also been negatively impacted by the recession. When many services provided by local government are being cut (even emergency services in some cases), maintaining or expanding diversion programs can be challenging for local elected officials.

In the future, we expect the California economy will rebound and solid waste generation will likely increase as people find work, build more, produce more and buy more. When that occurs the statewide per resident disposal rate will likely increase, particularly if CalRecycle’s stakeholders in local government and the solid waste industry reduce/eliminate important diversion programs or fail to plan for the increased flows of materials.

The Importance of Diversion Program Planning and Implementation

Initially when the economy recovers, disposal amounts will likely rise (perhaps approaching pre-recession levels), if jurisdictions do not have adequate diversion programs in place. To CalRecycle, this will be a flag that diversion programs at all levels need to be maintained and in some cases reinvigorated, to achieve and sustain reductions in both overall and per capita disposal and ensure that jurisdictions continue to meet AB 939’s disposal reduction goals. Encouraging actual reductions in disposal rather than just mathematical calculations showing greater diversion rates was one major reason CalRecycle supported the switch to the per capita disposal measurement system (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 [Wiggins, SB 1016]), and these will be key considerations when CalRecycle conducts its regular, formal reviews of jurisdiction program implementation.

As the economy rebounds, businesses will produce more, consumers will consume more, and more materials will be generated from residential and commercial construction. Although jurisdictions are facing severe budgetary problems, now is the time to plan for, and prepare to implement, diversion programs to handle these materials. If these increased flows of materials are not planned for, they may end up in landfills rather than being recycled back into the economy. CalRecycle will continue to support innovative and substantial diversion efforts such as mandatory commercial recycling, improved green building standards and the universal adoption of C&D ordinances. These programs divert materials and reduce disposal.

Finally, whether the per resident disposal rate is higher or lower in future years, it is important to remember that these numeric estimates are just one set of indicators to consider when assessing statewide, or local government, disposal reduction progress. More revealing and lasting indicators are the number and effectiveness of local government diversion programs, the quality and extent of the diversion facility infrastructure in California, and the robustness of markets for recyclables and recycled-content products. All of these factors will be considered in CalRecycle’s next review of jurisdictions.

Disposal Decline

Diversion program implementation has undoubtedly contributed to the 27 percent decrease in disposal since 2005. However, the recession that began in 2007 was probably the dominant driver for the change, as suggested by the significant drops in personal income and consumption, construction activity and employment.

Personal Income and Consumption

Due to the recession, Californians earned less money in 2009 and had even less left over after housing and transportation expenses. As a result, they purchased less and consequently disposed of less.

As the number of employed workers and total hours worked decreased, household income also declined. However, expenditures for goods resulting in landfilled waste diminished at a faster rate than income reductions. This is due largely to the relatively large fixed proportion of income spent on rent or mortgage payments, as well as an increasing proportion spent on fuel costs.

The National Bureau of Economic Research uses several indicators to determine whether the economy is in recession. One measure is real (inflation-adjusted) personal income less transfer payments (i.e., social security and unemployment insurance payments). This measure shows an unprecedented decline in consumption spending from a peak in mid-2007. Consumption spending in early 2010 is equivalent to 2005-06. However, real per capital personal consumption expenditure is more revealing: first-quarter 2010 is very near first-quarter 2000. In 2000, this annualized amount was $29,189; by 2008 it rose to $31,860, and in the first quarter of 2010 the number declined to $29,157.

The largest portion of personal consumption expenditure is rent and mortgage payments, roughly one-third of the total. While rent and mortgage payment expenditures experienced a small decline, purchases of all other goods and services have declined disproportionately. Additionally, increasing fuel costs also have required an increasing proportion of income, as transportation fuel prices have doubled since 2003. Together these economic factors have resulted in a greater decline in disposal of existing household items and packaging of new household items.

Construction Activity

Coinciding with the decline in disposable income, California has experienced a similar decline in home and apartment construction. This dramatic decrease in construction drove disposal amounts from construction and demolition activities down.

In 2008, about 16 percent of landfill disposal was from construction materials. From 1990 to 2007, California saw about 140,000 new housing units constructed annually. In 2009, the total was about 36,000, or 27 percent of the historic average. The drop in construction of commercial buildings lagged that of housing building, due to greater time-lags in the interval between obtaining funding and permits, and completion of projects.

It is likely that construction will increase somewhat in 2011, although some housing economists estimate that the existing over-supply of affordable housing will continue to slow new construction for several more years. The slowdowns in housing construction, and a corresponding oversupply in commercial real estate, suggest that construction and demolition debris disposal will continue to be much smaller than in the first half of the decade. Spending in recent months indicates perhaps a new level of sustained construction spending. Although construction and demolition debris in recent years has accounted for approximately one-fifth of disposal, this drop in construction activity since 2006 could account for a significant portion of the decline in overall disposal experienced in the last four years.

Employment

Between 2006 and 2009, employment dropped a total of 6.4 percent despite an overall 3.2 percent increase in population during this period. This decrease in employment means less solid waste created by Californians in the course of manufacturing goods, selling products or providing services.

In the longer-term future, disposal in California may increase more slowly, as the population growth slows. The annual growth rate of more than 2 percent experienced in the 1990s has already declined to about 1.2 percent, and is expected to decline to less than 1 percent annual growth in the next decade.

Conclusion

California’s disposal has been dropping dramatically from 2006 to 2009. The significant declines in the economic indicators discussed above suggest that the economy has been largely responsible for these declines in disposal. Additionally, during this period the recession has also taken a toll on markets for recycled materials and the funding available to local governments to aggressively pursue diversion efforts. On the other hand, the recovery rates for some materials may have increased as people have attempted to supplement their incomes through recycling. Because of the complex interactions among economics, human behavior, and materials management, determining the relative impacts on disposal from the economy and diversion efforts is impossible. However, one thing remains clear: as the economy improves, effective diversion programs will be essential to keeping disposal down and recovering valuable materials before they are buried or burned.

Alternative Measures

The per resident disposal rate is now the standard measure of progress for local jurisdictions. Prior to 2007, staff calculated diversion rates annually for each jurisdiction and for the state. Under the new system, staff no longer calculates diversion rates but a somewhat similar number (a “diversion rate equivalent”) can be derived based on the per capita disposal rates. Using the per resident disposal indicator, California’s “diversion rate equivalent” was 65 percent in 2009. Using the per employee disposal rate (an alternative indicator allowed in statute), produces an estimated 2009 statewide “diversion rate equivalent” of 62 percent. This employment-based indicator is more sensitive to changes in the economy and thus shows a lower diversion rate than the rate derived from population.

The “diversion rate equivalents” appear to be attractive and easy indicators, but they should not be emphasized. While shown on the same graph above, the historical diversion rates and the per capita derived “diversion rate equivalents” are not strictly comparable. They are calculated differently and each has its own sets of assumptions, caveats and challenges. In addition, CalRecycle has never measured diversion, so any diversion rate has just been a mathematical estimate. Through our stakeholders and the disposal reporting system, CalRecycle gets reliable information about the amounts and origins of materials disposed within California and by California jurisdictions. The per capita disposal rates are simple measures that utilize the best data we have.

Summary

In 2008, California’s statewide disposal was 35.5 million tons, the per resident disposal rate was 5.1 pounds/resident/day, and the estimated diversion rate equivalent was 59 percent. This rate was calculated using SB 1016’s new measurement system. While the economic downturn has likely been the major driver of this drop in disposal, continued implementation of diversion programs has undoubtedly also led to decreased disposal. When the economy rebounds waste generation will increase as well, so if these decreases in disposal are to last, efforts to divert solid waste cannot wane.

Many jurisdictions may face challenges maintaining their current diversion programs given the economy and revenue problems that could impact diversion program infrastructure. Under a quick recovery, generation and disposal may both rebound more quickly than the diversion infrastructure and local programs. Even though times are very tough, now is the time to plan for the diversion programs that will be needed when the recovery comes.

To provide a benchmark that is consistent with the new methodology that we require local jurisdictions to use, staff recalculated the 2007 statewide diversion rate equivalent to be 54 percent rather than the 58 percent reported late last year. The difference in rates is due to the base against which progress is measured. Now that we have a standardized methodology, the new methodology will provide results that are more consistent and more comparable from year to year. However, this change does not affect the official diversion rate of 58 percent for 2007 using the old goal measurement method.

Background

California’s per capita (per resident or per employee) disposal measurement system (SB 1016, Wiggins, Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008) is simpler and faster than the old method, because it now focuses on only disposal and population, two readily available factors. In subsequent years, staff will be able to produce diversion rate equivalent estimates by June for the prior calendar year.

Analysis

Last year, 37.9 million Californians disposed of 35.5 million tons of solid waste. This is a very large amount, but it is a significant reduction in both overall disposal and per resident disposal from prior years. Overall disposal has decreased by 7 million tons (more than 16 percent) from its peak 42.5 million tons in 2005. Per resident disposal is currently the lowest since disposal reporting began in 1995, and is down 1.2 pounds from the peak of 6.3 pounds per resident per day in 2005.

Even when diversion rates where steadily increasing, disposal slowly crept upward and per capita disposal remained stubbornly level. Part of the drive behind SB 1016 was to address this problem and go after actual decreases in disposal. As a result, the new measurement system has fewer loopholes and less generous adjustments than the prior method of calculating diversion rates, so increases in the statewide rate (as well as jurisdiction’s rates) under the new system will more accurately reflect real efforts, real programs and real reductions in disposal. Smaller jurisdictions will continue to have accuracy challenges because population and disposal estimates for these jurisdictions are subject to considerable error.

One major point of SB 1016 was to shift the focus away from numeric estimates which are just one indicator to consider and toward diversion program implementation efforts which are better and more meaningful long-term indicators. The shift in focus from estimated diversion to measured disposal is a fundamental change that may well require renewed dedication and efforts from the Board and its stakeholders in order to make meaningful reductions in disposal, and thus the corresponding benefits in conserving natural resources, reducing environmental impacts of disposal and reducing climate change emissions.

In order to provide a benchmark that is consistent with the new methodology we require local jurisdictions to use, staff recalculated the 2007 statewide diversion rate equivalent to be 54 percent rather than the 58 percent reported late last year. The difference in rates is due to the base against which progress is measured. The 54 percent rate was generated using the same four year average (2003 to 2006) for the statewide base that jurisdictions use. Now that we have a standardized methodology, the new methodology will provide results that are more consistent and more comparable from year to year. This change does not affect the official diversion rate for 2007 using the old goal measurement method, so it remained at 58 percent–California’s Estimated Statewide Diversion Rates Since 1995.

Please note that the diversion rates under the old system, were calculated using additional demographic factors, increasing base-year generation over time, different year types (calendar, federal fiscal and state fiscal) and different inputs/adjustments from year to year. For more information about the old diversion rate system, please visit the Disposal and Diversion Rate Statistics: 1989-2006 page.

For comparison purposes, staff also calculated statewide disposal per employee and the statewide diversion rate equivalent using employment rather than population; this alternative exists in statute for jurisdictions with waste streams dominated by commercial and industrial activities. California’s disposed waste stream is approximately 75 percent commercial (including multi-family housing and all sources of commercial waste) and 25 percent single family residential, so it is appropriate to consider this alternative. Using employment data from the Employment Development Department, 2008 employment was 15.4 million employees, the per employee disposal was 12.7 pounds per employee per day, and the statewide diversion rate equivalent would be 58 percent. This is very close to the 59 percent rate derived from the per resident disposal method.

Beginning with the 2007 report, the new per capita disposal measurement system (Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 [Wiggins, SB 1016]) builds on AB 939 compliance requirements by implementing a simplified measure of a jurisdiction’s performance.

The new system avoids base-year generation, taxable sales, or inflation issues by using disposal tons divided by population for 2007 and later years. Since statewide disposal and population data should be available by May of the year following the measurement year, the new method is faster and simpler. The new per capita disposal rate approach is not determinative of jurisdiction compliance but is just an indicator used in evaluating program implementation and local jurisdiction performance.

Summary

In 2007 there were two different Disposal Rate and Diversion Rate Equivalent numbers based on similar but slightly different calculation methods. The first calculation method used provided the disposal and diversion rate equivalent numbers reported at the CIWMB Board meeting on Dec. 16, 2008. This calculation method used the January 1 Department of Finance population total of 37.5 million residents, and federal fiscal year (October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007) reported disposal of 39.6 million tons. This resulted in a 2007 Statewide Per Capita Disposal Rate of 5.8 pounds per person per day. Staff calculated this to be a 58 percent diversion rate equivalent.

In order to provide a benchmark that is consistent with the new methodology we require local jurisdictions to use, staff recalculated the 2007 statewide disposal and diversion rate equivalents. The January 1 Department of Finance population total of 37.5 million residents was still used, but the disposal amount was changed to the calendar year total of 39.3 million tons. This resulted in a 2007 Statewide Per Capita Disposal Rate of 5.7 pounds per person per day. Staff calculated this to be a 54 percent diversion rate equivalent.

The difference in diversion rate equivalents is due to the base against which progress is measured. The 54 percent rate was generated using the same four year average (2003 to 2006) for the statewide base that jurisdictions use. Now that we have a standardized methodology, the new methodology will provide results that are more consistent and more comparable from year to year. This change does not affect the official diversion rate for 2007 using the old goal measurement method, so it remains at 58 percent.

Background

Statewide goal measurement from 2006 used population, employment, and inflation-adjusted taxable sales to estimate waste generation tons for each measurement year. This waste generation amount was compared to reported disposal tons to calculate an estimated diversion rate. Benchmark data for estimating measurement year statewide waste generation tons included all jurisdiction base-year generation amounts, many dating back to 1990. California Board of Equalization release dates for taxable sales data gradually increased from almost eight months after the 1996 measurement year to 12 months after the 2006 measurement year. See California’s Estimated Statewide Diversion Rates Since 1995 graph for further diversion rate assistance.