Boise County Glass Recycling Concerns
Open Letter to Idaho World Editor, Boise County Commissioners, Sheriff, and Waste Management
We were sorry to read in The Idaho World that Boise County is embarking on a public-private partnership glass recycling project with Republic Services (Idaho City), Miller Enterprises (Horseshoe Bend), and Environmental Abrasives (Boise) that is not needed and likely will add to county expense. Similar programs have proven expensive in more populous blue states and cities (which often subsidize recycling with deposit fees).
We would rather not see Boise County government expand in this way, even if “citizens want it.” Adding more services and creating taxpayer dependency on another program is not good governance. Instead, let’s focus on core services including road maintenance, law enforcement, courts, emergency management, litter cleanup (with help from Community Justice, citizens, schools, and other volunteer groups), and good overall fiscal management.
Boise County pilot (May-July 2026, drop-off at 3 transfer stations, not Lowman):
- Uses dedicated containers to Environmental Abrasives in Boise for processing into sandblasting abrasives (not new glass bottles).
- Accepts clean empty bottles/jars (clear/colored, broken OK).
- Excludes lids, non-container glass, ceramics, etc.
- No specific costs disclosed.
- No additional landfill fees to citizens.
- Continuation depends on participation, transport/recycling costs not exceeding landfill fees.
Potential costs:
- Collection/roll-off containers, transport to Boise, processing.
- US data shows glass recycling often costs $10–$40+/ton to processors (plus collection/transport).
- Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) contamination adds expense.
- Landfill tipping in Ada County ~$33/ton (recent).
- Glass is heavy, raising haul costs.
- Many programs run at a net loss vs. landfilling unless markets pay or avoid high landfill fees.
- Local precedent (Boise) shows savings in some cases by diverting from landfill, but depends on volume and exact fees.
- Pilot program aims for cost parity or better.
Comparison to other blue states/cities (CA, OR, WA, e.g., Seattle, Portland, San Francisco):
- Blue states/cities often have higher glass recycling rates (OR ~51%, some bottle bills/deposits help).
- Many use curbside or drop-off but face similar issues: high collection/processing costs, contamination in single-stream, low/negative cullet* values leading some to drop glass or switch to specialized collection.
- States with deposit systems achieve better rates (e.g., ME 76%); without deposits, rates lag and costs rise.
- Rural/low-volume areas like Boise County struggle more than dense urban ones due to transport economics.
- Many municipalities nationwide have scaled back glass in curbside due to economics.
* Cullet is “recycled broken or waste glass used in glass-making.”
Pros:
- Conserves raw materials (sand, soda ash, limestone).
- Diverts from landfills (glass doesn’t decompose).
Cons:
- High collection/transport costs (heavy material).
- Contamination reduces value.
- Sorting is labor-intensive.
- Limited markets for mixed/color-sorted glass; often cheaper to landfill in low-fee areas.
- Low participation in drop-off can make program uneconomic.
Please, commissioners, let’s scrap this idea before it proceeds further and focus on core services only.
- Recycling program description (Sheriff Facebook page): https://tinyurl.com/5ba7ycxx
- Recycling costs and rural vs. blue city/state comparisons https://tinyurl.com/4jtvm2uh and https://tinyurl.com/3nu3pymd