Report on Carteret County Solid Waste Fee Dispute and its Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

Case Summary: Armistead v. Carteret County

A legal challenge concerning the lawfulness of solid waste management fees in Carteret County, North Carolina, is set for review by the state’s Supreme Court. The case centers on whether residents can proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the county. The dispute directly engages with the principles of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning sustainable communities, responsible production, and just institutions.

The core issues under judicial review are:

1. The legality of the county’s solid waste fee structure under state statute N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-292(b).
2. The certification of three classes of plaintiffs, which would expand the lawsuit beyond the original named parties.
3. The transparency and equity of municipal service financing as it pertains to environmental management.

Plaintiffs’ Position: A Challenge to Equitable and Transparent Governance

The plaintiffs allege that Carteret County’s fee collection practices violate state law and undermine principles of fair governance, directly impacting the community’s progress toward key SDGs.

• Violation of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The plaintiffs argue that the county has created a “profit center” from solid waste services, contradicting the mandate for accountable and transparent institutions (Target 16.6). They contend that fees were presented on property tax bills with threats of foreclosure, without clear information on exemption possibilities, thus failing to provide access to justice and fair administrative processes.
• Contradiction of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The lawsuit claims the county charges property owners who do not use the county’s 12 “green box” disposal sites, as they already pay for municipal or private collection. This practice raises questions about the equity and inclusivity of the county’s waste management system, a cornerstone of Target 11.6, which aims to reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities through effective waste management.
• Misalignment with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): By allegedly charging fees that exceed the cost of service, the county’s system is not structured to promote sustainable practices. An effective framework under SDG 12 would align costs with services to encourage waste reduction (Target 12.5). The plaintiffs assert that Carteret County’s role is limited to providing drop-off sites, not collection or landfill management, yet it imposes two separate fees on residents.

Defendant’s Position: Adherence to Established Administrative Process

Carteret County defends its fee structure by highlighting its established administrative procedures, framing the issue as a failure by the plaintiffs to follow protocol.

• Institutional Process (SDG 16): The county maintains that its ordinance includes a clear process for exemption from the solid waste fee. According to their brief, taxpayers who can certify that they pay for private or municipal collection are eligible for a release from the fee.
• Resident Responsibility: The county’s legal argument is that the plaintiffs did not request an exemption through this established channel. This position underscores the county’s view that it has provided a lawful and accessible remedy, consistent with the functions of a public institution.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goal Implications

The outcome of this case will have significant implications for how local governments balance fiscal responsibilities with their commitments to sustainability and justice.

SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

• The case scrutinizes whether a municipality’s waste management financing is inclusive and equitable. A system that charges residents for services they do not use can create financial burdens and distrust, hindering the development of truly sustainable communities.
• Effective implementation of Target 11.6 requires waste management systems that are not only environmentally sound but also socially and economically fair for all residents.

SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

• The dispute highlights the importance of financial models that support, rather than penalize, responsible waste management choices. If residents paying for private collection are also charged a county fee, it may disincentivize participation in municipal or private systems that could be more efficient or offer recycling services aligned with SDG 12.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• At its core, the lawsuit is a test of institutional accountability (Target 16.6) and access to justice (Target 16.3). The Supreme Court’s decision on allowing a class-action suit will determine the ability of a large group of citizens to collectively seek remedy for what they allege are unlawful fees.
• The case questions the transparency of the county’s billing and exemption processes, emphasizing the need for clear communication and accessible administrative procedures in public governance.

SDGs Addressed in the Article

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  This goal is central to the article as the dispute revolves around the provision and financing of essential municipal services, specifically solid waste management. The article details how Carteret County manages waste through “12 sites where residents can drop off their waste,” which is a fundamental service for maintaining sustainable and healthy communities. The legal challenge concerning the fees for these services directly impacts the financial sustainability and equity of the county’s waste management system.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article connects to SDG 12 by focusing on the end-of-life phase of products—solid waste disposal. The establishment of “green box” sites and the associated fee structure are mechanisms intended to manage waste generated by the community. An effective and fairly funded waste management system is a prerequisite for achieving goals related to reducing waste generation and promoting recycling, as it provides the necessary infrastructure for residents to dispose of their waste responsibly.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This goal is addressed through the legal conflict between residents and the county government. The lawsuit challenges the accountability and transparency of a public institution. Plaintiffs allege that Carteret County is not transparently managing its solid waste fees, using them as a “profit center” and failing to provide clear information on exemptions. The case, Armistead v. Carteret County, and its progression to the North Carolina Supreme Court, is an example of citizens using the justice system to hold local government accountable, which is a core principle of SDG 16.

Specific SDG Targets Identified

1. Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management.

   The article’s entire focus is on the system Carteret County has for “solid waste management services.” The conflict over the fees for operating the “12 solid waste disposal sites” is directly related to how municipal waste is managed. The plaintiffs’ argument that the county “plays no role at all in this solid waste collection and transport” but still charges fees highlights a debate over the effectiveness and structure of the county’s approach to waste management.

2. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

   This target is identifiable in the plaintiffs’ core allegations. They claim the county’s fee practices are not transparent, stating, “No information was included about property owners not necessarily owing the fees or about how a property owner could challenge whether the fees were in fact owed.” The accusation that the county “has been making a profit off of these fees for years” directly questions the accountability of the institution in managing public funds collected for a specific service.

3. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

   The legal challenge itself, particularly the effort to certify it as a “class-action suit,” points to this target. The plaintiffs argue that a class action is “the best way to ensure that the property owners are properly represented as a class.” This represents an attempt to achieve responsive and representative justice for a large group of residents who feel their concerns about the “wrongfully assessed fees” were not addressed through normal administrative channels. The county’s defense that plaintiffs “never asked for release or exemption by following a simple administrative remedy” underscores the disconnect between the institution’s process and the residents’ ability to participate in it.

Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Implied Indicator for Target 11.6: Proportion of municipal solid waste collected and managed in controlled facilities (related to Indicator 11.6.1).

   The article implies this indicator by discussing the infrastructure for waste management. The “12 ‘green box’ sites where residents can dispose of waste” are the controlled facilities in question. The dispute over the fees ($15 landfill fee and a $157-$165 fee) required to operate these sites is a measure of the financial aspect of managing the collected waste. The efficiency and accessibility of this system, which are being debated, are crucial for measuring progress toward managing municipal waste effectively.

2. Implied Indicator for Target 16.6: Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services (related to Indicator 16.6.2).

   This indicator is strongly implied by the existence of the lawsuit. The legal action brought by residents against Carteret County is a clear signal of profound dissatisfaction with a public service—specifically, the administration of solid waste fees. The plaintiffs’ statement that the county’s practices are unlawful and that residents “are still paying for charges even when they don’t owe them” demonstrates a lack of satisfaction and trust in the transparency and accountability of the county’s administration.

Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: carolinajournal.com