Cite as: 504 U. S. 353 (1992)
Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting
where land is cheapest and population densities least. See Alm, "Not in My Backyard:" Facing the Siting Question, 10 EPA J. 9 (1984) (noting the need for each county to accept a share of the overall waste stream equivalent to what it generates so that "less populated counties are protected against becoming the dumping ground of the entire region"). I see no reason in the Commerce Clause, however, that requires cheap-land States to become the waste repositories for their brethren, thereby suffering the many risks that such sites present.
The Court today penalizes the State of Michigan for what to all appearances are its good-faith efforts, in turn encouraging each State to ignore the waste problem in the hope that another will pick up the slack. The Court's approach fails to recognize that the latter option is one that is quite real and quite attractive for many States—and becomes even more so when the intermediate option of solving its own problems, but only its own problems, is eliminated.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
373
Page: Index Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Last modified: October 4, 2007