Could a South Carolina city require every resident and business to use its trash service in 1995?

Official title

Concerning whether it would be legal for the City of Laurens to adopt an ordinance which would preclude the private sector from handling any aspect of trash and/or waste pickup and disposal, and therefore require all residents and/or businesses within the municipal limits of the City of Laurens to deal with the City’s sanitation department.

Requester

Thomas J. Thompson, Esquire, City Attorney, City of Laurens

Plain-English summary

Laurens asked whether it could bar private trash companies and require all residents and businesses to use the city sanitation department. The city said private competition had reduced revenue while its collection equipment and staff remained costly. The 1995 informal opinion did not decide that such an ordinance was valid or invalid. It identified decisions supporting municipal exclusivity for public-health purposes and other authority questioning restrictions driven by municipal economics.

South Carolina courts had not supplied enough guidance, and the AG had not received the proposed ordinance. The letter flagged the city’s revenue rationale as a concern in light of a case rejecting a waste monopoly that lacked a sufficient public-health connection.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the AG approve a ban on private waste haulers? A: No. The letter said the legality of a specific ordinance remained uncertain.

Q: Why was the city’s financial reason relevant?
A: The opinion discussed a decision skeptical of an exclusive hauling rule motivated by municipal economics rather than a demonstrated health purpose.

Q: Could the AG evaluate the exact ordinance?
A: No. No ordinance text had been presented for review.

Q: Did the letter find authority supporting exclusive municipal collection? A: Yes. It also identified a substantial line of authority allowing cities to reserve garbage collection to themselves under health-related powers.

Background and statutory framework

The letter compared two approaches in municipal-law authorities and discussed a Utah court decision on a city waste ordinance. It noted a prior AG letter rejecting compulsory use of a county collection service, while also recognizing authority for exclusive municipal garbage collection.

Citations and references

• Parker v. Provo City Corporation
• AG opinion dated June 28, 1974, identified in the letter

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-10-1995-1/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/95aug10thompson.pdf

Original opinion text

)

,

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES MOLONY CONDON
ATIORNEY GENERAL

August 10, 1995

I
I

Thomas J. Thompson, Esquire
City Attorney, City of Laurens
Post Office Box 215
Laurens, South Carolina 29360
RE: Informal Opinion
Dear Mr. Thompson:
You have advised that the City of Laurens has historically provided trash and waste pickup and also disposal of the same. The City utilizes uniform trash containers for residential use and also provides various trash dumpsters for commercial and/or business establishments depending on their needs. The resident and/or business is required to purchase the trash receptacle from the City and also pay fees in connection with the use of the same on an annual basis. You have further advised that over the last several years, outside firms have been contracting with the commercial segment within the municipal limits to handle the providing of trash receptacles and also to dispose of their waste; apparently the cost to deal with these outside firms is substantially less than the fees and/or taxes imposed by the City of Laurens. As a result of the foregoing, the City of Laurens is losing substantial revenues each year and is operating at a deficit due to the fact that the City has a rather large investment in waste pickup equipment and also a number of people employed for the purpose of handling the trash and waste disposal situation. On the basis of the foregoing, you have asked whether it would be legal for the City to adopt an ordinance which would preclude the private sector from handling any aspect of trash and/or waste pickup and disposal, and therefore require all residents and/or businesses within the municipal limits of the City of Laurens to deal with the City's sanitation department. REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

PosT OFACE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA, S.C. 29211-1549

•

TELEPHONE:

803-734-3970

•

..

FACSIMILE: 803-253-6283

Thomas J. Thompson, Esquire
Page 2
August 10, 1995

[
[

I
I

By an opinion of this Office dated June 28, 1974, it was concluded that residents of a county may not be required to use the solid waste collection service which would provide door-to-door collection service for which a service charge would be levied. A copy of this opinion is enclosed. The author of the opinion cites to portions of the wellknown treatise, McQuillin on Municipal Corporations. Additional research shows that there are apparently two approaches to the issue. One is represented by 7 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, §24.242, which observes that "an ordinance prohibiting any person, firm, or corporation other than the city waste removal department from collecting or removing garbage on a commercial basis for hire may be invalid as bearing no reasonable relation to the purpose and objects of the municipality." A copy of the entire section, with cites, is enclosed herewith, as is a copy of Parker v. Provo City Corporation, 543 P.2d 769 (Utah 1975), from which that point was made in McQuillin. 1 The court declared that the defect in the ordinance in question was that it did not bear a reasonable relation to its purposes. The court stated: Here, a muted claim is made that this is a health measure. However, the record discloses more concern for the convenience and economics of the waste disposal department than for the promotion of the public health. Indeed, there is no showing that the material collected or the method of hauling is, in any way, detrimental to the public health. By its prohibition of a legitimate endeavor, which is not shown to bear a reasonable relation to the public health, defendant [city] cannot, under its power to protect the public health, invade a private property right. Parker v. Provo City Corporation, 543 P.2d at 770. On the other hand, there is a substantial body of law represented by §24.250 of McQuillin on Municipal Corporations. In part that section provides: Municipal corporations frequently perform the service of collecting and removing all garbage, trash, and similar substances, and prohibit any other persons from engaging in that business. A municipality may do this

1

The court in Parker v. Provo City Corporation, supra, seems to rely heavily on Dillon's Rule to reach the conclusion that the city had no authority to enact the ordinance in question. It is observed that Dillon's Rule as applied to municipalities was abolished in Williams v. Town of Hilton Head Island,_ S.C. ~ 429 S.E.2d 802 (1993), a copy of which is enclosed.

Thomas J. Thompson, Esquire
Page 3
August 10, 1995
under its police or general power to provide for the health of its inhabitants and to prevent and abate nuisances. ...

l
I
I

I

~

I

A copy of the entire section with citations is enclosed, as are copies of several judicial decisions which relate to a municipality's reservation of collection of garbage or trash exclusively to itself. In addition, enclosed are portions of Annot., 83 A.L.R.2d 799, §§4 and 5, as to attacks on an exclusive license as a monopoly or franchise and the exclusion of private services; you will see therein the types of attacks that are usually made on ordinances such as you envision, as well as the merits of such attacks. Whether such an ordinance would withstand scrutiny in the courts of this State is uncertain, as the courts have not given sufficient guidance on the issue as yet. Moreover, no ordinance has been presented to this Office for review, so that there is no way to compare such an ordinance to those which have withstood judicial scrutiny. Of concern is the Parker v. Provo City Corporation decision which focused on economics of that city1s waste disposal department, as your letter (as stated in the facts recited above) pointed out that the City of Laurens is losing substantial revenues each year and is operating at a deficit due to the investment in waste pickup equipment and employees. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Senior Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kindest regards, I am Sincerely,

VJ~ C!J ·/dwaoPatricia D. Petway
Senior Assistant Attorney General
Enclosures