Several decades ago, California, like many States, panicked at the thought that they would run out of space in existing landfills, and that few landfills would be constructed in the future. Therefore, they enacted aggressive programs to keep various waste-streams out of landfills; it was amazing the quantity of otherwise recyclable items that had been sent to landfills. [See http://www.epa.gov/osw/rcc/resources/action-plan/act-p1.htm.] As part of the mandatory diversion programs, a number of years ago, my local solid waste contractor used, as required by the local regulatory agency, various containers for recycling which were differentiated by the material (e.g., glass, newspaper, plastic bottles). Starting about five years ago, the locals switched to single-containers: one for garbage (the volume of the container determined your monthly rate), and one each for yard waste and for all types of recycling (these two containers were of a standardized size and provided to all). One of the advantages of such containers is that a single driver in a specially designed truck could go up and down the street and unload a container in a quick and efficient action (a "fork" on the side of the truck picked up a container and dumped it into the truck); there were thus three trucks working the neighborhood, one for each type of container. [It also worked to the advantage of the contractor since their regulated return was often calculated based on capital investment, not labor, and so having three specialty trucks meant a "nice" return on their investment.] What I have noticed in my unscientific observation of my neighbors is that although family size varied enormously from household to household, the quantity of items in the recycling and yard waste containers were often nearly equal. The good news is that California has met its highly aggressive goals for reducing solid waste headed for landfills, and greatly increasing its recycling. [For example, green waste is frequently composed and either sold or used in conjunction with various plantings in public areas (e.g., parks, highway medians).] Now a national study, though of questionable statistical validity, has supported these ad hoc observations. Skumatz Economic Research Associates sent surveys to communities across the U.S., and received 700 replies (the cross-section was from communities with populations as small as 1,400 to as large as 1.5 million). The results were presented at the recent annual meeting of the Solid Waste Association of North America. The results noted multiple benefits from the single-container program for recycling. First, for residents, it is easier to manager. Cost-savings were seen in many communities because they reduced pickups of recycling from once a week to twice a month [that would never work in my area where recycling containers are full within a week]. Having containers for yard waste also allowed for recycling [EPA estimates yard waste is 17% of solid waste]; come communities also had single containers for food waste [EPA estimates food waste is 7% of solid waste]. Highlighting Boulder's experience, it was noted that single-containers increased the collection of yard waste by 20% and of recycling by 7%. Thus, the use of single-container systems offers a strategy to assist local communities increase the collection of recyclables items and yard waste, and reduce the volume of materials sent to landfills. The results of the survey can be found at http://www.serainc.com/SERASummaryOfSolidWasteandRecyclingSurvey_v4.pdf.