Also known as: toxic waste · toxic-waste · hazardous waste
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Waste materials whose interstate disposal is subject to state fees or surcharges that discriminate on the basis of origin and thereby violate the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Triumph Manufacturing ships toxic wastes from its out-of-state plant to a disposal facility in State A. State A charges the company a surcharge double the rate imposed on in-state generators for identical waste. The company challenges the fee as unconstitutional. The surcharge is struck down because it discriminates against interstate commerce on the basis of waste origin.
Threshold Capital owns land used for coal extraction that generates toxic wastes. A new state subsidence-control statute prevents mining methods that risk waste migration into groundwater. The company claims the regulation constitutes a taking. The court rejects the claim because the regulation prevents a public nuisance equivalent to toxic contamination.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Talon Security holds property containing buried toxic wastes from prior industrial activity. The state condemns the land to create a secure containment facility serving multiple counties. The owner argues the taking lacks public use. The condemnation is upheld because the project addresses a broad public health threat from the wastes.
Torchlight Media owns a former printing plant site laced with toxic wastes. The city condemns the parcel to transfer it to an auto manufacturer that will remediate the contamination as part of a redevelopment plan. The owner objects that the transfer serves only private interests. The taking is sustained because the project eliminates a public nuisance and creates jobs.
No. Such a fee is presumptively invalid because it discriminates on the basis of origin. The primary authority establishes that origin-based cost differentials on waste disposal, including hazardous waste, violate the clause.
Supporting sources
CERCLA imposes strict liability for cleanup costs on owners and operators when hazardous substances are released. Defenses are narrow and lender liability receives special treatment under the statute.
Supporting sources
A regulation that prevents nuisance-like harm from toxic wastes is generally not a taking. The police power supports restrictions that protect public health without requiring compensation.
Supporting sources
…stopping illegal activity or abating a public nuisance. See Nassr v. Commonwealth , 394 Mass. 767, 477 N. E. 2d 987 (1985) (hazardous waste operation); Kuban v. McGimsey , 96 Nev. 105, 605 P. 2d 623 (1980) (brothel); MacLeod v. Takoma Park , 257 Md. 477, 263 A. 2d 581 (1970) (unsafe building); Eno v. Burlington , 125…