Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	15.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state or local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines on the Company or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by the Company. From time to time, the Company may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills, transfer stations, and E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which the Company operates. In addition, the Company is a party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the waste management business. Except as noted in the matters described below, as of June 30, 2014, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Chaparral, New Mexico Landfill Permit Litigation The Company’s subsidiary, High Desert Solid Waste Facility, Inc. (formerly known as Rhino Solid Waste, Inc.) (“HDSWF”), owns undeveloped property in Chaparral, New Mexico, for which it sought a permit to operate a municipal solid waste landfill. The New Mexico Environment Department (the “Department”) approved the permit for the facility on January 30, 2002. Colonias Development Council (“CDC”), a nonprofit organization, appealed the Department’s decision to the courts of New Mexico, alleging primarily that the Department failed to consider the social impact of the landfill on the community of Chaparral, and failed to consider regional planning issues. On July 18, 2005, in Colonias Dev. Council v. Rhino Envtl. Servs., Inc. (In re Rhino Envtl. Servs.), 2005 NMSC 24, 117 P.3d 939, the New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Department to conduct a limited public hearing on certain evidence that CDC claimed was wrongfully excluded from consideration by the hearing officer, and to allow the Department to reconsider the evidence already proffered concerning the impact of the landfill on the surrounding community’s quality of life. In July 2007, the Department, CDC, the Company and Otero County signed a stipulation requesting a postponement of the limited public hearing to allow the Company time to explore a possible relocation of the landfill to a new site. Since 2007, the Department has issued several orders postponing the limited public hearing, and on October 17, 2012, it granted a request by the parties to hold the limited public hearing in abeyance until further notice. In July 2009, HDSWF purchased approximately 325 acres of undeveloped land comprising a proposed new site from the State of New Mexico. HDSWF filed a formal landfill permit application for the new site with the Department on September 17, 2010. On September 12, 2011, the Department deemed the permit application complete and a public hearing on the matter had been tentatively scheduled for April 9, 2012, in Chaparral, New Mexico. On November 9, 2011, HDSWF filed a motion with the Department to hold in abeyance indefinitely the notice for public hearing and the permit hearing, and HDSWF agreed to provide the Department with at least 120 days’ prior notice of any desired, future permit hearing. The Department granted the motion. HDSWF requested the abeyance to defer capital expenditures related to permitting the new site until late 2014, when HDSWF expects to have a better understanding of several current market conditions and regulatory factors that affect the timing and feasibility of the project. These conditions and factors include: the status of El Paso Disposal, LP’s Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for the collection of solid waste generated within the City of El Paso, effective September 1, 2011, which has a 40-month term; the extension, renewal or replacement of El Paso Disposal, LP’s Solid Waste Franchise Agreement; and whether certain closed or non-operating disposal facilities in the El Paso market area are reopened and whether those facilities are operated by private or public entities. At June 30, 2014, the Company had $11,778 of capitalized expenditures related to this landfill development project. Depending on the outcome of the market conditions and regulatory factors described above, the Company may decide in late 2014 to abandon the project and expense the $11,778 of capitalized expenditures, less the recoverable value of the undeveloped properties and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period. Alternatively, if the outcome of the market conditions and regulatory factors described above is such that the Company believes the market for disposal of solid waste generated in the City of El Paso will remain competitive, HDSWF may decide in late 2014 to resume its permitting process for the new site. Under those circumstances, if the Department ultimately denies the landfill permit application for the new site, HDSWF intends to actively resume its efforts to enforce the previously issued landfill permit for the original site in Chaparral. If the Company is ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at the new site purchased in July 2009, the Company will be required to expense in a future period $10,324 of capitalized expenditures related to the original Chaparral property, less the recoverable value of that undeveloped property and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period. If the Company instead is ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at the original Chaparral property, the Company will be required to expense in a future period $1,454 of capitalized expenditures related to the new site purchased in July 2009, less the recoverable value of that undeveloped property and other amounts recovered. If the Company is not ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at either one of the two sites, the Company will be required to expense in a future period the $11,778 of capitalized expenditures, less the recoverable value of the undeveloped properties and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period. Harper County, Kansas Landfill Permit Litigation The Company opened a municipal solid waste landfill in Harper County, Kansas in January 2006, following the issuance by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) of a permit to operate the landfill. The landfill has operated continuously since that time. In 2005, landfill opponents (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a suit (Board of Comm’rs of Sumner County, Kansas, Tri-County Concerned Citizens and Dalton Holland v. Roderick Bremby, Sec’y of the Kansas Dep’t of Health and Env’t, et al.) in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, seeking a judicial review of KDHE’s decision to issue the permit, alleging that a site analysis prepared for the Company and submitted to KDHE as part of the process leading to the issuance of the permit was deficient in several respects. The action sought to stay the effectiveness of the permit and to nullify it. The Company intervened in this lawsuit shortly after it was filed. In June 2012, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs’ demand for revocation of the permit, and affirmed KDHE’s decision that the issuance of the permit met or exceeded all applicable regulatory requirements. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. On September 13, 2013, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed KDHE’s issuance of the landfill permit to the Company. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, which review is discretionary. On June 20, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition for review, which finally concluded the litigation in the Company’s favor. Solano County, California Landfill Expansion Litigation On December 17, 2010, Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund (“SPRAWLDEF”) and one its members filed a petition for writ of mandate in San Francisco Superior Court seeking to overturn the October 2010 approval of the marsh development permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (“BCDC”) for the expansion of the Potrero Hills Landfill, alleging that the approval is contrary to the Suisun Marsh Protection Act. The petition, captioned SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, names BCDC as a respondent and the Company as the real party in interest. The Company’s subsidiary, Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. (“PHLF”), owns and operates the Potrero Hills Landfill. The San Francisco Superior Court stayed the action and, on April 5, 2012, transferred the case to Solano County Superior Court. On November 29, 2012, the Superior Court issued an order finding that the administrative record before BCDC did not contain sufficient evidence regarding net profits for the proposed project or the alternative to support the agency’s finding that the alternative was economically infeasible. The Superior Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus and final judgment on January 14, 2013, setting aside the BCDC permit and remanding it back to the agency for further consideration. Both the Company and BCDC filed notices of appeal, staying execution of the writ and judgment pending the appeal. On April 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing the trial court order. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal rejected SPRAWLDEF’s arguments, finding ample evidence in the record to support BCDC’s determination that alternatives to landfill expansion were economically infeasible and remanded the case back to the Superior Court to deny the petition. On June 9, 2014, SPRAWLDEF filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. A decision on the petition for review is expected during the third quarter of 2014. At this point the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. On June 10, 2011, June Guidotti, a property owner adjacent to PHLF, and SPRAWLDEF and one of its members, each filed administrative petitions for review with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) seeking to overturn a May 11, 2011 Order No. 2166-(a) approving waste discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) for PHLF’s landfill expansion, alleging that the order is contrary to the State Board’s Title 27 regulations authorizing waste discharge requirements for landfills, and in the case of the SPRAWLDEF petition, further alleging that the Regional Board’s issuance of a Clean Water Act section 401 certification is not supported by an adequate alternatives analysis as required by the federal Clean Water Act. The Regional Board is preparing the administrative record of its decision to issue Order 2166-(a) to be filed with the State Board as well as its response to the petitions for review. It is anticipated that the Regional Board will vigorously defend its actions and seek dismissal of the petitions for review. A hearing date has not yet been set on either petition, and the State Board has held both the Guidotti and SPRAWLDEF petitions in abeyance at the petitioners’ requests. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. If as a result of any of the matters described above, after exhausting all appeals, PHLF’s marsh development permit is permanently rescinded, the Company estimates that it would be required to recognize a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $11,000 to reduce the carrying value of PHLF to its estimated fair value. Madera County, California Materials Recovery Facility Contract Litigation The Company’s subsidiary, Madera Disposal Systems, Inc. (“MDSI”) was named in a complaint captioned County of Madera vs. Madera Disposal Systems, Inc., et al, filed in Madera County Superior Court (Case No. MCV 059402) on March 5, 2012, and subsequently transferred to Fresno County Superior Court. Madera County alleges in the complaint that from 2007 through 2010, MDSI breached a contract with the County for the operation of a materials recovery facility by withholding profits from facility operations in excess of those authorized by the contract. The County further alleges that the breach gives the County the unilateral right to terminate all of its contracts with MDSI, including contracts for (1) the collection of residential and commercial waste in the unincorporated parts of the County, (2) operation of the materials recovery facility, (3) operation of the North Fork Transfer Station and (4) operation of the Fairmead Landfill. The County seeks monetary damages of $2,962 from MDSI, plus pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum. MDSI had been under contract with the County to collect residential and commercial waste and operate the county-owned Fairmead Landfill continuously since at least 1981. In 1993, MDSI contracted with the County to construct and operate a materials recovery facility for the County on the premises of the Fairmead Landfill. After it entered into the materials recovery facility contract, MDSI entered into new contracts with the County for waste collection and landfill operation to run concurrently with the materials recovery facility contract. In 1998, MDSI and the County agreed to extend the terms of the County contracts until November 10, 2012, with MDSI holding a unilateral option to extend the contracts for an additional five-year term. In March 2011, the County issued a Notice of Default to MDSI under the materials recovery facility contract and gave MDSI 30 days to cure the default. MDSI provided information that it believed demonstrated that it was not in default under the contract and had not withheld profits that it was obligated to deliver to the County under the terms of the contract. On February 7, 2012, the County issued a Notice of Termination to MDSI terminating all of its contracts effective November 1, 2012. The lawsuit followed on March 5, 2012. MDSI answered the complaint and asserted a claim against the County for wrongful termination of the contracts. On October 31, 2012, MDSI ceased providing services and vacated the County premises. The case is set for trial in Fresno in December 2014. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. The Company disputes Madera County’s right to terminate the MDSI contracts effective November 1, 2012, and seeks damages for the profits lost as a result of the wrongful termination. The Company estimates that the current annual impact to its pre-tax earnings resulting from the termination of MDSI’s contracts with Madera County is approximately $2,300 per year, not including any monetary damages and interest the Court could order MDSI to pay the County.

15.COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In the normal course of its business and as a result of the extensive governmental regulation of the solid waste and E&P waste industries, the Company is subject to various judicial and administrative proceedings involving federal, state or local agencies. In these proceedings, an agency may seek to impose fines on the Company or to revoke or deny renewal of an operating permit held by the Company. From time to time, the Company may also be subject to actions brought by special interest or other groups, adjacent landowners or residents in connection with the permitting and licensing of landfills, transfer stations, and E&P waste treatment, recovery and disposal operations, or alleging environmental damage or violations of the permits and licenses pursuant to which the Company operates.

In addition, the Company is a party to various claims and suits pending for alleged damages to persons and property, alleged violations of certain laws and alleged liabilities arising out of matters occurring during the normal operation of the waste management business. Except as noted in the matters described below, as of June 30, 2014, there is no current proceeding or litigation involving the Company or its property that the Company believes could have a material adverse impact on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Chaparral, New Mexico Landfill Permit Litigation

The Company’s subsidiary, High Desert Solid Waste Facility, Inc. (formerly known as Rhino Solid Waste, Inc.) (“HDSWF”), owns undeveloped property in Chaparral, New Mexico, for which it sought a permit to operate a municipal solid waste landfill. The New Mexico Environment Department (the “Department”) approved the permit for the facility on January 30, 2002. Colonias Development Council (“CDC”), a nonprofit organization, appealed the Department’s decision to the courts of New Mexico, alleging primarily that the Department failed to consider the social impact of the landfill on the community of Chaparral, and failed to consider regional planning issues. On July 18, 2005, in Colonias Dev. Council v. Rhino Envtl. Servs., Inc. (In re Rhino Envtl. Servs.), 2005 NMSC 24, 117 P.3d 939, the New Mexico Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Department to conduct a limited public hearing on certain evidence that CDC claimed was wrongfully excluded from consideration by the hearing officer, and to allow the Department to reconsider the evidence already proffered concerning the impact of the landfill on the surrounding community’s quality of life. In July 2007, the Department, CDC, the Company and Otero County signed a stipulation requesting a postponement of the limited public hearing to allow the Company time to explore a possible relocation of the landfill to a new site. Since 2007, the Department has issued several orders postponing the limited public hearing, and on October 17, 2012, it granted a request by the parties to hold the limited public hearing in abeyance until further notice.

In July 2009, HDSWF purchased approximately 325 acres of undeveloped land comprising a proposed new site from the State of New Mexico. HDSWF filed a formal landfill permit application for the new site with the Department on September 17, 2010. On September 12, 2011, the Department deemed the permit application complete and a public hearing on the matter had been tentatively scheduled for April 9, 2012, in Chaparral, New Mexico. On November 9, 2011, HDSWF filed a motion with the Department to hold in abeyance indefinitely the notice for public hearing and the permit hearing, and HDSWF agreed to provide the Department with at least 120 days’ prior notice of any desired, future permit hearing. The Department granted the motion. HDSWF requested the abeyance to defer capital expenditures related to permitting the new site until late 2014, when HDSWF expects to have a better understanding of several current market conditions and regulatory factors that affect the timing and feasibility of the project. These conditions and factors include: the status of El Paso Disposal, LP’s Solid Waste Franchise Agreement for the collection of solid waste generated within the City of El Paso, effective September 1, 2011, which has a 40-month term; the extension, renewal or replacement of El Paso Disposal, LP’s Solid Waste Franchise Agreement; and whether certain closed or non-operating disposal facilities in the El Paso market area are reopened and whether those facilities are operated by private or public entities.

At June 30, 2014, the Company had $11,778 of capitalized expenditures related to this landfill development project. Depending on the outcome of the market conditions and regulatory factors described above, the Company may decide in late 2014 to abandon the project and expense the $11,778 of capitalized expenditures, less the recoverable value of the undeveloped properties and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period. Alternatively, if the outcome of the market conditions and regulatory factors described above is such that the Company believes the market for disposal of solid waste generated in the City of El Paso will remain competitive, HDSWF may decide in late 2014 to resume its permitting process for the new site. Under those circumstances, if the Department ultimately denies the landfill permit application for the new site, HDSWF intends to actively resume its efforts to enforce the previously issued landfill permit for the original site in Chaparral. If the Company is ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at the new site purchased in July 2009, the Company will be required to expense in a future period $10,324 of capitalized expenditures related to the original Chaparral property, less the recoverable value of that undeveloped property and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period. If the Company instead is ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at the original Chaparral property, the Company will be required to expense in a future period $1,454 of capitalized expenditures related to the new site purchased in July 2009, less the recoverable value of that undeveloped property and other amounts recovered. If the Company is not ultimately issued a permit to operate the landfill at either one of the two sites, the Company will be required to expense in a future period the $11,778 of capitalized expenditures, less the recoverable value of the undeveloped properties and other amounts recovered, which would likely have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period.

Harper County, Kansas Landfill Permit Litigation

The Company opened a municipal solid waste landfill in Harper County, Kansas in January 2006, following the issuance by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (“KDHE”) of a permit to operate the landfill. The landfill has operated continuously since that time. In 2005, landfill opponents (the “Plaintiffs”) filed a suit (Board of Comm’rs of Sumner County, Kansas, Tri-County Concerned Citizens and Dalton Holland v. Roderick Bremby, Sec’y of the Kansas Dep’t of Health and Env’t, et al.) in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, seeking a judicial review of KDHE’s decision to issue the permit, alleging that a site analysis prepared for the Company and submitted to KDHE as part of the process leading to the issuance of the permit was deficient in several respects. The action sought to stay the effectiveness of the permit and to nullify it. The Company intervened in this lawsuit shortly after it was filed. In June 2012, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs’ demand for revocation of the permit, and affirmed KDHE’s decision that the issuance of the permit met or exceeded all applicable regulatory requirements. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Kansas Court of Appeals. On September 13, 2013, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed KDHE’s issuance of the landfill permit to the Company. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs petitioned the Kansas Supreme Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, which review is discretionary. On June 20, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs’ petition for review, which finally concluded the litigation in the Company’s favor.

Solano County, California Landfill Expansion Litigation

On December 17, 2010, Sustainability, Parks, Recycling and Wildlife Legal Defense Fund (“SPRAWLDEF”) and one its members filed a petition for writ of mandate in San Francisco Superior Court seeking to overturn the October 2010 approval of the marsh development permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (“BCDC”) for the expansion of the Potrero Hills Landfill, alleging that the approval is contrary to the Suisun Marsh Protection Act. The petition, captioned SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, names BCDC as a respondent and the Company as the real party in interest. The Company’s subsidiary, Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. (“PHLF”), owns and operates the Potrero Hills Landfill. The San Francisco Superior Court stayed the action and, on April 5, 2012, transferred the case to Solano County Superior Court. On November 29, 2012, the Superior Court issued an order finding that the administrative record before BCDC did not contain sufficient evidence regarding net profits for the proposed project or the alternative to support the agency’s finding that the alternative was economically infeasible. The Superior Court therefore issued a writ of mandamus and final judgment on January 14, 2013, setting aside the BCDC permit and remanding it back to the agency for further consideration. Both the Company and BCDC filed notices of appeal, staying execution of the writ and judgment pending the appeal. On April 29, 2014, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion reversing the trial court order. In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeal rejected SPRAWLDEF’s arguments, finding ample evidence in the record to support BCDC’s determination that alternatives to landfill expansion were economically infeasible and remanded the case back to the Superior Court to deny the petition. On June 9, 2014, SPRAWLDEF filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. A decision on the petition for review is expected during the third quarter of 2014. At this point the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

On June 10, 2011, June Guidotti, a property owner adjacent to PHLF, and SPRAWLDEF and one of its members, each filed administrative petitions for review with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) seeking to overturn a May 11, 2011 Order No. 2166-(a) approving waste discharge requirements issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) for PHLF’s landfill expansion, alleging that the order is contrary to the State Board’s Title 27 regulations authorizing waste discharge requirements for landfills, and in the case of the SPRAWLDEF petition, further alleging that the Regional Board’s issuance of a Clean Water Act section 401 certification is not supported by an adequate alternatives analysis as required by the federal Clean Water Act. The Regional Board is preparing the administrative record of its decision to issue Order 2166-(a) to be filed with the State Board as well as its response to the petitions for review. It is anticipated that the Regional Board will vigorously defend its actions and seek dismissal of the petitions for review. A hearing date has not yet been set on either petition, and the State Board has held both the Guidotti and SPRAWLDEF petitions in abeyance at the petitioners’ requests. At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter.

If as a result of any of the matters described above, after exhausting all appeals, PHLF’s marsh development permit is permanently rescinded, the Company estimates that it would be required to recognize a pre-tax impairment charge of approximately $11,000 to reduce the carrying value of PHLF to its estimated fair value.

Madera County, California Materials Recovery Facility Contract Litigation

The Company’s subsidiary, Madera Disposal Systems, Inc. (“MDSI”) was named in a complaint captioned County of Madera vs. Madera Disposal Systems, Inc., et al, filed in Madera County Superior Court (Case No. MCV 059402) on March 5, 2012, and subsequently transferred to Fresno County Superior Court. Madera County alleges in the complaint that from 2007 through 2010, MDSI breached a contract with the County for the operation of a materials recovery facility by withholding profits from facility operations in excess of those authorized by the contract. The County further alleges that the breach gives the County the unilateral right to terminate all of its contracts with MDSI, including contracts for (1) the collection of residential and commercial waste in the unincorporated parts of the County, (2) operation of the materials recovery facility, (3) operation of the North Fork Transfer Station and (4) operation of the Fairmead Landfill. The County seeks monetary damages of $2,962 from MDSI, plus pre-judgment interest at 10% per annum.

MDSI had been under contract with the County to collect residential and commercial waste and operate the county-owned Fairmead Landfill continuously since at least 1981. In 1993, MDSI contracted with the County to construct and operate a materials recovery facility for the County on the premises of the Fairmead Landfill. After it entered into the materials recovery facility contract, MDSI entered into new contracts with the County for waste collection and landfill operation to run concurrently with the materials recovery facility contract. In 1998, MDSI and the County agreed to extend the terms of the County contracts until November 10, 2012, with MDSI holding a unilateral option to extend the contracts for an additional five-year term.

In March 2011, the County issued a Notice of Default to MDSI under the materials recovery facility contract and gave MDSI 30 days to cure the default. MDSI provided information that it believed demonstrated that it was not in default under the contract and had not withheld profits that it was obligated to deliver to the County under the terms of the contract.

On February 7, 2012, the County issued a Notice of Termination to MDSI terminating all of its contracts effective November 1, 2012. The lawsuit followed on March 5, 2012. MDSI answered the complaint and asserted a claim against the County for wrongful termination of the contracts. On October 31, 2012, MDSI ceased providing services and vacated the County premises. The case is set for trial in Fresno in December 2014.

At this point, the Company is not able to determine the likelihood of any outcome in this matter. The Company disputes Madera County’s right to terminate the MDSI contracts effective November 1, 2012, and seeks damages for the profits lost as a result of the wrongful termination. The Company estimates that the current annual impact to its pre-tax earnings resulting from the termination of MDSI’s contracts with Madera County is approximately $2,300 per year, not including any monetary damages and interest the Court could order MDSI to pay the County.