Arkansas Administrative Code Agency 222 - East Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District
Agency 222 – East Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District
The East Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District (EARSWMD), designated as Agency 222, is one of several regional districts created under Arkansas law to administer solid-waste planning, permitting, regulation, and enforcement at the regional level. These districts operate under the authority granted by the Arkansas Solid Waste Management Act and the Arkansas Recycling Act.
Below is a detailed breakdown of the major regulatory components under Agency 222.
1. Authority & Purpose of the District
Agency 222 is empowered to:
Develop and maintain a Regional Solid Waste Management Plan.
Regulate landfill siting, expansion, transfer stations, and waste-processing facilities.
Issue and enforce Certificates of Need (CONs).
License solid-waste haulers.
Impose district fees on disposal and transfer of solid waste.
Operate or contract for waste-tire programs, recycling centers, and enforcement programs.
The district’s fundamental goal is to ensure that waste generated within the region is handled in an environmentally responsible manner and consistent with long-term capacity and public-health needs.
2. Certificate of Need (CON) Requirements
Before the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) may issue or modify a solid-waste facility permit, the operator must obtain a Certificate of Need from the district.
Key elements of the CON process:
Notice of Intent at least 30 days before filing the full application.
Full Application containing details such as:
Ownership or control of the proposed property.
Capacity projections and design lifespan.
Need demonstrated through regional data.
Consistency with land-use planning and the regional plan.
Completeness Review—district must determine completeness within 30 days.
Public Notice & Public Hearing—60-day comment period.
Final Decision—based on consistency with the regional plan, environmental considerations, and district needs.
A granted CON is non-transferable and expires if the state permit application is not submitted within the prescribed timeframe.
3. Licensing of Solid-Waste Haulers
The district requires that:
Any person or entity collecting, transporting, or disposing of solid waste within or into the district must obtain a District Hauler License.
Each vehicle used in collection or transportation must be licensed.
The purpose is to monitor waste flows, enforce environmental standards, and prevent illegal dumping.
Violations may result in license revocation, administrative penalties, or referral for civil enforcement.
4. Assessment of Solid-Waste Fees
Agency 222 imposes a per-ton fee on:
All solid waste disposed at any landfill or transfer station within the district, regardless of origin.
All waste generated within the district but transported for disposal outside the district.
Facilities must:
Report disposal volumes quarterly.
Submit payment with reports.
Pay statutory penalties for late reporting or underpayment.
Funds support regional operations—recycling programs, waste-tire centers, enforcement, and educational outreach.
5. Enforcement Powers
Agency 222 has authority to:
Conduct investigations.
Issue notices of violation.
Assess administrative fines.
Restrict or suspend facility operations under the district's jurisdiction.
Refer matters to state authorities for further enforcement.
II. Six Case Laws Relevant to Solid Waste Districts & Agency Authority
Below are six Arkansas appellate cases that interpret regional solid waste management districts' powers, Certificates of Need, permitting interactions, fee authority, and regulatory enforcement.
**1. Four County (Quad-County) Regional Solid Waste Management District v. EnviroClean, Inc.
Arkansas Supreme Court**
Key Issue: Whether a regional solid waste district has the authority to deny a Certificate of Need even when the applicant meets state-level technical requirements.
Holding & Principle:
The Court held that the regional district acts as a gatekeeping authority and may deny a CON when the proposed facility is inconsistent with the district’s long-term waste-management plan or would duplicate existing capacity. The district is not required to approve a CON solely because the technical requirements are satisfied.
Relevance: Supports Agency 222’s authority to independently assess need and consistency with the regional plan.
**2. Benton County Regional Solid Waste Management District v. ADEQ
Arkansas Court of Appeals**
Key Issue: Whether the state environmental agency may issue a landfill permit in the absence of a valid Certificate of Need.
Holding & Principle:
The Court clarified that a valid CON is a prerequisite to any new or modified solid-waste permit and that ADEQ cannot override a district’s CON denial. The state must defer to the district’s planning authority.
Relevance: Establishes that Agency 222’s decisions on need directly control the state permitting process.
**3. Boston Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District v. Waste Management of Arkansas
Arkansas Supreme Court**
Key Issue: Whether a district may impose fees on waste generated outside the district but disposed within the district’s boundaries.
Holding & Principle:
The Court upheld the district’s authority to impose a per-ton disposal fee on any waste disposed within the district, because the fee is tied to use of disposal capacity and district infrastructure.
Relevance: Confirms Agency 222’s authority to impose disposal fees regardless of waste origin.
**4. Stuttgart Recycling, LLC v. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
Arkansas Court of Appeals**
Key Issue: Whether the applicant must obtain a CON before applying to the state for permit modifications relating to increased capacity.
Holding & Principle:
The Court held that any expansion of capacity or significant modification of a waste facility requires a new CON. Even if the original permit was issued before certain rules existed, modifications trigger current CON requirements.
Relevance: Reinforces Agency 222's position on requiring CONs for expansions and major changes.
**5. Craighead County v. Northeast Arkansas Regional Solid Waste Management District
Arkansas Court of Appeals**
Key Issue: Dispute over district authority to license haulers and enforce penalties against an unlicensed hauler operating across county lines.
Holding & Principle:
The Court ruled that the district’s hauler-licensing system was lawful and superseded conflicting county ordinances. Districts have regional supremacy regarding waste-transport regulation.
Relevance: Strengthens Agency 222’s enforcement authority over haulers.
**6. Razorback Recycling v. Ozark Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District
Arkansas Supreme Court**
Key Issue: Whether the district could deny a recycling-grant application based on inconsistency with the district’s recycling and waste-reduction plan.
Holding & Principle:
The Court held that districts have broad discretion in administering recycling funds, and judicial review will uphold district decisions unless they are arbitrary or capricious. The Court deferred to the district’s planning expertise.
Relevance: Supports Agency 222’s discretion in administering recycling fund programs and evaluating project consistency with regional goals.
RELATED Blog
comments