by Michelle Millet
According to the long range calendar, this Tuesday the Davis City Council was set to discuss the potential implementation of a containerized green waste collection program.
The 2013 Davis Integrated Waste Management Plan, a document compiled by city staff with input from the Davis Natural Resource Commission,  list the pro’s and con’s of switching from a  loose-in-the-street-yard material to a green waste containerization program. Some of which include the following:
Con’s:
- Limited material collected each week
- Potential for lost yard material tonnage if reminder material is placed in the trash
- Potential for increased contamination of yard material
- Complaints from residents with large/established trees
- Residents will have 3 carts to store, businesses will have four
Pro’s:
- Cleaner pick-up of yard materials leading to a reduction in the necessity for weekly street sweeping.
- Increased bike safety
- Improved storm water quality
- Reduction of organic matter in the waste treatment plant
- Ability to collect food scraps and, soiled paper, and other non-recyclable organic material from all customers
The piece will focus on the final pro listed:  The ability to collect food scraps and, soiled paper, and other non-recyclable organic material from all customers
In my article A Davis Families Attempts at Zero Waste, I noted:
Composting presents a huge challenge for us, mostly because the amount of food scraps generated by my family is more then we are able to effectively compost. Plus, I never seem to be able to get the ratio of wet to dry materials correct, or achieve the optimal temperate for the process to work correctly.
Considering the amount of feedback I got on this comment it seems that many people in Davis face a similar dilemma. Â After reading the article numerous people mentioned to me that they wanted to implement a backyard composting system, and in fact had tried but were unsuccessful for various reasons.
Some complained of odors, some that their piles attracted maggots, flies, and rodents, and some like me, had a hard time getting the ratio of wet to dry materials correct, and could not find the time to keep up with the necessary maintenance required to achieve  a successful composting pile.  They were excited to learn that the city was contemplating a program that would allow them to divert their food scraps from their garbage.
Allowing for residential collection of food scrap collection has multiple advantages.
They city of Davis has a goal, to divert 75% of it’s solid waste from landfills by 2020. It is estimated that food scraps comprise 25.4% of the total residential waste stream in Davis . A composting program would allow the diversion of this waste from the landfill to a composting facility.  Currently all yard waste collected by DWR, and food scraps collected as part of the city’s commercial food scrap collection pilot program, are brought to a composting facility in Zamora run by Northern Recycling Compost.
Besides helping the city reach it’s solid waste management goal diverting food waste from landfills has significant environmental impacts, most notably it’s effect on green house gas emissions. When food waste is disposed in a landfill it quickly rots and becomes a significant source of methane-a potent greenhouse gas with 21 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. According to a CalRecycle report landfills are the second largest anthropogenic source of methane in California.
Yolo County Landfill does have a methane capturing system, but these systems have their limitations. Â Food waste decomposes rapidly and can often start generating methane within days or weeks.
Efficient methane collection at a landfill cannot take place until an area (a cell) is closed and capped (covered with an impermeable membrane). Infact a CalRecycle published paper assumes landfill gas collection efficiencies of 0% for the first two years after waste placement, 50% the third year, 70% for year 4, and only 80% thereafter (CalRecycle, 2012).
Not only does composting  reduce the amount of waste that needs to be disposed of,  it converts this waste into a product that has many useful purposes.
For example benefits to farmers who use compost include: Increased soil water holding capacity and reduced runoff, beneficial micro-organisms to improve soil health,  addition of organic matter and carbon sequestration, and improved soil.
Compost also provides low levels of all primary, secondary and micronutrients, many of which become depleted from agricultural lands over time and may not be replenished with conventional fertilizers.
Collection of residential food scraps and compostable materials, so these materials can be diverted from the landfill, and instead be converted to a composting material is beneficial in many ways, and I urge our council, and community members, to take these benefits into consideration when contemplating the pro’s and con’s of a green waste containerization collection program.
I’m okay going to a green waste container, but since Davis has so many trees there should be days scheduled (maybe one a month in the Fall) where residents can put leaves and branches out in the street and have them picked up the old way.
Most cities have trees and most have green waste containers, so it seems most have figured out a way around that.
In the Fall one can have huge amounts of leaves and the branches can be too big to containerize. I think one day a month in the Fall is a nice compromise.
I wouldn’t disagree.
Sacramento does seasonal claw operation.
I have a vague recollection of this option being discussed at a council meeting and DWR saying it wasn’t possibly but I don’t remember the details. I learned from a friend who lives in Seattle that they are allowed to put extra debris in compostable bags, so that might be an option.
I don’t understand why that isn’t an option, DWR has the equipment already, after all they’re using it right now. Have you ever tried putting branches in a bag?
I’ll check on it. If I remember correctly, which is not often the case, Rochelle brought up this possibility and DWR implied it had to by one or the other, it may have been cost related.
Here is what is say’s about this in the staff report for Tuesday’s meeting:
Option 2: Carts plus seasonal street pick-up
During leaf-drop season, customers may place yard materials only (no food scraps or other organics) loose-in-the-street for pick-up by DWR during a two month period from October 15 through December 15, annually. This allows customers to easily dispose of fallen leaves and other yard debris during the time of year when it is most needed. This is a more costly alternative as DWR would need to keep two sets of equipment in repair for running two different collection systems. Switching from cart collection to loose-in-the-street and back also causes customer confusion. Other cities that have opted for this method have had to increase staffing to monitor yard material pile placement and cite customers that leave piles out in the street during the wrong time of the year. DWR has indicated that additional street side pick-ups could be scheduled for a fee.
“DWR has indicated that additional street side pick-ups could be scheduled for a fee.”
As noted in my 8:38 pm post below, that system has worked very well in El Macero for over 15 years. The as-requested pile pickup fee is currently $4.00 per pile.
City of Woodland: “Street Piles: During leaf drop season, green waste street piles are collected weekly. During the rest of the year, street piles are collected once per month from each address and are allowed for only one week before each pickup date.”
Sounds like a good plan that Woodland has.
We have had containerized green waste in El Macero (provided by DWR) since before 1998 (when I moved here). If you drive around Davis and do a “clean streets” survey, I think it is very likely that you will find that the streets in El Macero are the cleanest in the city. We do have availability of service from “the claw” to pick up green waste piles each week on Monday. There is a $4.00 per pile fee for any requested pile pickups. Pile size is limited to no larger than 5′ by 5′ by 5′ Based on the El Macero Homeowners Association CC&R rules, piles can not be placed on the street any earlier than Sunday (24 hours prior to pickup), but actual practice by El Macero residents has occasional piles beginning on Saturdays. We are billed by DWR quarterly and any $4.00 pile fees appear on that quarterly bill.
I personally don’t see the greenhouse gas argument as being the most compelling reason for containerization. Putting an end to the current situation of organic material ending up in the storm sewer system is (for me) a much more compelling reason.
Bicycle and pedestrian safety is another compelling reason (from my perspective), and I don’t personally ride a bike. El Macero is a bicyclists mecca, in large part because the bicycle lanes are almost never clogged with myriad piles of green waste forcing bicylists to have to ride out in the automobile lanes and walkers to hae to walk in the automobile lane to bypass the pile.
This system has worked beautifully and economically in El Macero for oer 15 years. Seems like a precedent.
“I personally don’t see the greenhouse gas argument as being the most compelling reason for containerization.”
Why? Do you find it at all compelling?
Another question I have for you. (it’s a real one, not a rhetorical one) Do you think the city can reach it’s waste diversion goals without implementing a residential food scrap collection program. (one of our other NRC colleagues claims it can not).
We could save much more methane by outlawing cows. Why not outlaw meat?
If the goal is 100% waste diversion, then the answer is (by definition) obviously not. But perhaps that means it’s time to make a more realistic goal, rather than try to achieve the unachievable.
The City has set a goal to achieve 100% diversion by 2025.
Then the City’s goal is unattainable and should be changed.
No child left behind had a goal of 100% of students reading at grade level by 2014. How about a goal of 100% no rain on Sunday.
How many El Macero residents do their own yard work?
I don’t know. My wife and I do all our own, and have been doing it for each of the 15 years we have lived here.
Driving around El Macero on a Tuesday morning when the trash cans are out for pick up, I would say that a bit more than half the houses have green cans, so my guess as an answer to your question is a bit more than half.
Im assuming DWR picks up these green cans, and they go to the composting facility?
Yes, the green can pickups by DWR are handled the same way for El Macero as the green pile pickups by DWR are handled for Davis. The individual lawn services vary in how they handle any green waste they cart away.
This is a terrible idea creating more work for people with limited benefit. The entire greenhouse gas argument is misinformed. Food waste is not from sequestered carbon from fossil fuel it is from carbon fixed from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Carbon added to landfills becomes sequestered unless released so the only carbon that escapes does so before burial seals it in or methane capture occurs. An actual amount of green waste carbon recapture versus landfill recapture and sequestration could be estimated for food scraps instead of vague ideas about systems designs so we could get an actual cost benefit analysis. Of course any analysis needs to include the extra carbon dioxide produced by humans sweating to get it in the can. Last but not least we would need to include estimates of compliance on food scraps being separated out. With my trash can less than half full each week I’m already paying $5 dollars a month more for excess capacity so what incentive is there to bother?
“This is a terrible idea creating more work for people with limited benefit. ”
It continue to amazing how many things we fight in Davis that other communities have had for 20-25-30 years with no problems whatsoever.
We already have a high level of recycling. When comparing what we do with what other communities do it is important to consider why they do what they do and under what circumstances we do what we do. Simplistic replies of Seattle does it tells us little about what we should do without an analysis of similarities and differences as an underpinning for the discussion. Simply because someone else does something is not enough.
Toad, I really don’t think this is about recycling. For me it is about 1) public safety for bicyclists and pedestrians and 2) the elimination of organic polution in our storm sewers.
A bigger problem for public safety is bikes without lights.
Agreed, but that isn’t an either/or pair of public safety problems. The presence of the one does not negate the presence of the other.
“Toad, I really don’t think this is about recycling. ”
I do. And I’d add that until we reach a 100% diversion rate that no level of recycling is “high enough”. Food scrap diversion would be a significant step in this direction.
I don’t have a problem with you trying to reach 100% waste stream reduction. I have a problem with you trying to impose your philosophical view on me.
This isn’t about me and my personal goals. In 2011 the city passed a Zero Waste Resolution. I don’t see how it’s possible to achieve this goal without a food scrap collection program. If we don’t go a green waster containerization program then we will have to have some sort of separate food scrap collection program. It make sense to combine these two things.
It makes more sense to have realistic goals than to pass things that will never be achieved and then use them to impose draconian changes without a thorough understanding of the consequences of our actions.
It is about you and your personal goals. You want to stop production of methane and I can assure you you will never in your life reach 100% compliance with your own goal. In combination with other zealots Davis is likely to impose this nonsense on everyone and you can feel good about what you contributed to the community but in reality the amount of greenhouse gas emission reduction compared to the big sources will be minuscule and less effective than other possible solutions such as switching away from coal. The photovoltaics on my roof save more carbon from going into the atmosphere than you will ever save forcing this nonsense on me.
I agree, and the city has set up short term realistic goals. I don’t view a food scrap collection program as draconian. I’m not sure what negative consequences will arise from diverting food scraps from landfills to composting sites where this waste can be converted to a useful and beneficial product.
Its the can not the scraps that is the problem. Its making people stuff all their yard waste into a can that is the problem.
“Its making people stuff all their yard waste into a can that is the problem.”
I guess what it comes down to is that I don’t see this as a huge problem. Again Davis is only 1 of 3 other cities in CA that have this type of program. People seem to be handing it just fine.
Toad, I have had no problem stuffing my green waste into our can for 15 years, and I suspect our yard produces significantly more green waste than the average yard in Davis. It is really quite easy.
We have a “carry around” smaller container that we put the garden pruning materials and raking materials in at the site where they are either pruned or raked up, and then when that “carry around” is comfortably full, we carry it to the green can and dump in the contents. I suspect that you already have a “carry around” of your own and the only difference is that you take your container to the street when it is full and dump it onto the street surface.
Again, you can take this up with CalRecycle, they are the ones that supplied me with the methane data, and they seem pretty convinced that landfills are a significant source of this greenhouse gas.
As far a zealot goes, other words have been used to describe me by those who know me best, but zealot has never been one of them. I’m more of a do whats easiest kind of person.
Which is why a food scrap collection program is so appealing to me, and my non-zealot friends, who care about making difference but find themselves to busy with kids, and jobs, and lives, to do things like compost.
I don’t think asking people not to put yard waste in the street is that big of an imposition (especially given the imposition this action has on bikers, whose actions lead to a decrease in carbon emissions.)
It’s not carbon emissions they are concerned with it’s methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas. Here is a link to the Calrecycle report I referenced it you would like more info:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Actions/Documents/77/20132013/935/Landfilling%20of%20Waste%20FINAL.pdf