Texas' Government-Created Dumpster Monopolies Are Hurting Small Businesses
Texas is known as a state that supports entrepreneurship, private property rights and free-market competition.
Yet in cities across Texas, local governments have created a system where one waste company can be given the exclusive right to provide dumpster services while competing businesses are legally prohibited from serving customers who want to hire them.
Cities generally don't call these arrangements monopolies.
They call them exclusive franchise agreements, exclusive waste contracts, or municipal solid-waste franchises.
But changing the terminology doesn't change what happens in practice.
One provider is granted exclusive access to a market. Competitors are prevented from entering that market. Customers lose the ability to choose another provider.
That's a government-created monopoly.
For small businesses like Zebra Junk Removal, this isn't just an argument about economics or government policy. It has a direct financial impact.
I've personally received calls from customers wanting to rent dumpsters from us — even though we don't advertise dumpster rentals.
I've had to turn those customers away.
I would love to purchase additional dumpsters or dump trailers and expand into dumpster rental. There's clearly demand for it. But in several cities we serve, exclusive waste arrangements can prevent independent companies like mine from competing for that business.
A customer wants to hire us.
We're willing to provide the service.
And the city can effectively tell both of us:
No. You have to use the company we selected.
What Is a Monopoly?
In basic economic terms, a monopoly exists when a single provider controls a market without meaningful competition.
Federal antitrust law has dealt with monopolization for well over a century. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization and conspiracies to monopolize.
The U.S. Department of Justice explains that an unlawful monopoly under federal antitrust law involves a company possessing market power and obtaining or maintaining that power through anticompetitive conduct rather than competition on the merits.
The DOJ also specifically notes that exclusive contracts that reduce competition can potentially violate federal antitrust law.
That does not mean every monopoly or exclusive agreement automatically violates the Sherman Act. Federal antitrust cases involve specific legal tests and circumstances.
But the economic reasoning behind antitrust law is important here: competition matters.
Competition gives businesses incentives to lower prices, improve productivity, provide better service and innovate.
When competitors are prohibited from entering a market, those pressures disappear or become significantly weaker.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice — The Antitrust Laws.
Texas Has an Even Stronger Statement About Monopolies
Texas doesn't just have ordinary competition laws.
The Texas Constitution itself addresses monopolies.
Article I, Section 26 states:
“Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed.”
Those aren't my words.
They're written directly into the Texas Constitution.
Yet Texas law also recognizes something called an “exclusive solid waste management service contract.”
Texas Health and Safety Code §363.120 defines an exclusive contract as a contract or franchise agreement between a public agency and a privately owned solid-waste provider that grants that provider an exclusive right to provide certain waste-management services within the agency's jurisdiction.
Read those words again:
Exclusive right.
One private provider receives the exclusive right to perform certain services.
Other providers cannot compete for those services.
Customers cannot freely choose those competitors.
Whatever terminology we put on the contract, the economic result is obvious.
How This Affects Zebra Junk Removal
For Zebra Junk Removal, these exclusive dumpster contracts have a very real impact on our ability to grow. We currently serve 10 cities across North DFW, yet in many of those cities, we are prohibited from offering dumpster rentals simply because the city has granted that business to one exclusive provider. We already have the trucks, trailers, insurance, and customers to provide this service, but we're prevented from competing—not because we can't meet the requirements, but because competition isn't allowed. The table below shows just how much of our service area is affected.
City | Monopoly with a private company? |
Denton | City of Denton Waste Services |
Aubrey | Republic Services |
Little Elm | Community Waste Disposal (CWD) |
The Colony | Republic Services |
Prosper | Republic Services |
Frisco | Waste Connections |
McKinney | Frontier Waste Solutions |
Carrollton | No Monopoly for Dumpster Rentals, However they require 7.5% of all revenue generated from dumpster rentals. They justify this under their "Solid Waste Collection Permit" View more here under 'Hauler Permitting" https://www.cityofcarrollton.com/departments/departments-q-z/trash-recycling |
Plano | Monopoly with Republic Services for Commercial, residential has no monopoly. https://www.plano.gov/commercial-waste-and-recycling |
Lewisville | Republic Services |
Let's Call an “Exclusive Waste Franchise” What It Is
If a city gives one private company the exclusive right to sell a particular service and prohibits competing companies from selling that same service, I believe the proper description is simple:
A government-created monopoly.
Calling it an “exclusive franchise agreement” doesn't suddenly create competition.
In fact, the word exclusive tells you exactly what the arrangement accomplishes.
And this isn't a situation where a company becomes dominant because it developed better technology, provided incredible customer service, lowered its prices or simply outperformed every competitor.
The exclusivity exists because the government created it.
The city effectively tells other businesses:
You aren't allowed to compete here.
That's fundamentally different from a company becoming the largest provider because customers voluntarily chose it over its competitors.
If a national waste company provides the best dumpster service in town, that's great.
Let them prove it.
Let them compete against everyone else.
Temporary Dumpsters Are Not the Same Thing as Weekly Trash Collection
There is a reasonable argument for municipalities coordinating ordinary residential garbage collection.
Nobody wants six garbage trucks from six companies driving through the same residential neighborhood every Tuesday morning.
Cities need reliable sanitation services, predictable collection schedules and proper disposal.
But temporary dumpster rentals are different.
A homeowner remodeling a house may need a dumpster for three days.
A roofing company may need one at a jobsite.
A contractor may need one during construction.
A property manager may need one during an apartment cleanout.
A homeowner may need one after cleaning an estate.
These are individual transactions between customers and private businesses.
A temporary roll-off dumpster sitting on private property doesn't need to be treated the same way as weekly municipal garbage collection.
Cities could continue maintaining their normal residential garbage systems while allowing independent companies to compete for temporary dumpster rentals.
What Happens When Competition Is Removed?
Imagine you're remodeling your house and need a dumpster.
You call three companies.
One charges $425.
Another charges $500 but can deliver today.
A third charges $450 and gives you a longer rental period.
Normally, you decide which option works best.
That's competition.
Now imagine the city has granted another company the exclusive right to provide the service.
It doesn't matter that you prefer Company A.
It doesn't matter that Company B can deliver faster.
It doesn't matter that Company C is locally owned.
You're required to use the designated provider.
That provider doesn't necessarily have to win your business based on price, service or availability.
The government already eliminated its competition.
That is exactly why competition is so important.
Businesses should have to earn customers.
This Directly Hurts Small Businesses Like Mine
This issue is personal for me because I own Zebra Junk Removal, a small locally owned junk-removal company serving North Texas.
We already own trucks and dump equipment.
We're already in the business of hauling debris.
Dumpster rental would be a completely natural expansion of our company.
And customers have already asked us for it.
Again, we don't even advertise dumpster rentals.
People have called us asking anyway.
Those aren't theoretical customers in an economics textbook.
Those are real people with real projects who were prepared to spend real money with my company.
And I've had to say no.
I would love to invest in additional dump trailers or roll-off dumpsters.
That investment means buying equipment.
Equipment needs maintenance.
Trucks need fuel.
Businesses need insurance.
Growing companies eventually need additional drivers and employees.
Those employees spend money in their communities.
That's how a local economy grows.
Instead, exclusive dumpster arrangements can shut that entire opportunity down before a small business even gets the chance to compete.
And Zebra Junk Removal is certainly not the only business affected.
There are independent dumpster companies, junk-removal businesses, haulers and contractors throughout Texas that could potentially expand their businesses if these markets were opened to competition.
American AF Dumpsters Is Fighting Back
One Texas small business has taken this fight to court.
American AF Dumpster Rentals and its founder, Joshua Roman, filed a lawsuit against the City of Waxahachie on June 24, 2026, represented by the Institute for Justice.
According to the Institute for Justice, Waxahachie began ordering contractors in December 2025 to stop using American AF dumpsters as the city enforced an exclusive arrangement benefiting its designated waste provider.
American AF provides temporary roll-off dumpsters to construction and renovation projects, including dumpsters placed on private property.
The company argues that the city's restriction creates an unconstitutional dumpster monopoly.
And the argument goes directly back to the Texas Constitution:
“Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed.”
The lawsuit is still a legal challenge, so the courts will ultimately determine whether Waxahachie's particular arrangement violates the Texas Constitution.
But the underlying economic situation isn't difficult to understand.
A customer wants to hire American AF.
American AF wants to provide the service.
The government prevents the transaction because another provider has been granted exclusivity.
That's exactly the kind of government-created monopoly this article is criticizing.
Some Cities Go Even Further: Removing Competitors' Dumpsters
This issue becomes even more concerning when enforcement goes beyond fines and warnings.
Some Texas municipalities have rules allowing dumpsters they consider unauthorized to be removed or impounded.
Mesquite is one particularly striking example.
According to the city's ordinance information documented by the Texas Waste Freedom Project, Mesquite can treat outside commercial or construction dumpsters as unauthorized containers subject to impoundment.
The Texas Waste Freedom Project reports that American AF had one of its dumpsters impounded and had to pay the city to reclaim its own equipment.
Think about what that means from a small-business owner's perspective.
You purchase a dumpster.
You maintain it.
You insure it.
A private customer hires you.
The customer authorizes you to put your dumpster on their property.
You deliver your equipment.
And because you're not the authorized provider, the government can potentially remove or impound that equipment.
Some people — myself included — look at that situation and have a very simple reaction:
How is taking another company's privately owned equipment not stealing?
Legally, a city will argue that an authorized impoundment under municipal law is not theft. That's a legal issue that can be fought in court.
But that doesn't make the situation any less outrageous from the perspective of the business owner whose equipment was taken.
At a minimum, Texans should be asking why a local government should have the power to seize a private company's dumpster from a willing customer's property simply because that company dared to compete with the government's preferred provider.
There Is a Better Solution
Ending these monopolies doesn't mean eliminating regulation.
Dumpster companies should still have rules.
Require liability insurance.
Require proper vehicle registration.
Require legal disposal.
Require containers to be safely positioned.
Enforce weight restrictions.
Regulate hazardous materials.
Require permits where there's a legitimate reason for them.
Fine companies that illegally dump waste.
Those are reasonable regulations.
But regulation and monopoly are two completely different things.
Cities could establish a non-exclusive licensing or franchise system.
If a dumpster company meets the requirements, let it operate.
If ten companies meet the requirements, let all ten operate.
Then let customers choose.
The city still gets oversight.
The public still gets safety protections.
And businesses get competition.
What Would Ending These Monopolies Do for the Economy?
Opening these markets wouldn't just benefit dumpster companies.
Consider everything involved in starting or expanding a dumpster operation.
Businesses purchase dumpsters and trailers.
They purchase trucks.
They hire drivers.
They buy tires.
They purchase commercial insurance.
They pay mechanics.
They purchase fuel.
They pay disposal facilities.
They advertise.
They rent commercial property.
They hire employees.
They pay taxes.
And successful companies purchase even more equipment and hire more people.
Competition also gives entrepreneurs opportunities to develop better business models.
Maybe one company specializes in small residential dumpsters.
Another focuses on roofing contractors.
Another provides same-day delivery.
Another offers dump trailers that don't damage residential driveways.
Another competes primarily on price.
Another provides exceptional customer service.
Nobody knows which model customers will prefer.
That's exactly why government shouldn't choose the winner.
Let the market figure it out.
Competition Doesn't Guarantee Small Businesses Will Win
Opening these markets doesn't mean customers suddenly have to support small businesses.
That's not what I'm asking for.
Waste Management, Republic Services, Waste Connections and other major companies should be allowed to compete too.
If they provide a better service for a better price, customers should hire them.
Small businesses aren't entitled to customers.
We're entitled to the opportunity to compete for them.
If my dumpster service is terrible, customers shouldn't hire me.
If another local company provides better service, they should get the business.
If a national company beats both of us, they should get it.
That's a free market.
What isn't a free market is selecting one provider and legally prohibiting everyone else from competing.
You Can Support the Fight Against Exclusive Waste Franchises
Joshua Roman of American AF Dumpsters started a petition in December 2024 calling for Texas to stop exclusive waste-franchise practices that prevent independent companies from providing temporary waste services.
The petition specifically addresses the impact these arrangements have on small businesses and property owners and calls for greater protection for temporary waste-service competition.
If you believe Texas property owners should be able to choose which qualified dumpster company they hire, I encourage you to read it and decide for yourself.
SIGN THE PETITION:
Stop Exclusive Waste Franchises in Texas: Protect Small Businesses and Temporary Services
Even if you don't own a dumpster company, this issue affects contractors, roofers, remodelers, property managers, homeowners and anyone else who may eventually need a temporary dumpster.
If We Accept This for Dumpsters, Where Does It End?
There's also a bigger question here that goes beyond dumpsters:
If we're comfortable allowing a city to select one private company and prohibit its competitors from operating, where exactly do we draw the line?
Today, it's an “exclusive waste franchise.”
What happens if tomorrow it's an exclusive junk-removal franchise?
Imagine a homeowner calls Zebra Junk Removal to clean out a garage, remove furniture or empty an estate, only to be told that the city has already selected its “authorized junk-removal provider.”
Would we accept that?
What about plumbers?
Could a city select one plumbing company and tell every other licensed and insured plumber that they're no longer allowed to perform work within city limits?
What about electricians, roofers, landscapers, HVAC companies or demolition contractors?
Obviously, these industries have different regulations and legal frameworks, and I'm not suggesting Texas cities currently have the authority to create monopolies over all of them.
I'm asking a more fundamental question:
What principle makes it acceptable for the government to eliminate private competition in one ordinary service industry but unacceptable in another?
If the justification is simply that the city can regulate an industry, that should concern every small-business owner. Governments can establish safety standards, licensing requirements and reasonable regulations without selecting one private company to receive the business.
Once we normalize the idea that an “exclusive contract” is enough justification to shut competitors out of a private market, we should be very careful about the precedent we're accepting.
Today it's dumpsters.
Tomorrow, who knows?
At some point, we have to decide whether we want cities regulating fair competition — or deciding who is allowed to compete at all.
Texas Should Let Small Businesses Compete
I don't want the government to guarantee Zebra Junk Removal customers.
I don't want special treatment.
I don't want legislation protecting my company from competitors.
I want exactly the opposite.
Let me compete.
Let American AF compete.
Let independent dumpster operators compete.
Let the national companies compete.
Establish reasonable safety and disposal requirements, enforce those requirements equally, and then get out of the way.
If a large waste company offers a better service than I can, customers should hire them.
But if a customer calls Zebra Junk Removal and says:
“I want to rent a dumpster from you.”
I should be able to say:
“Absolutely.”
I shouldn't have to tell them:
“Sorry. Your city won't let me.”
Texas entrepreneurs shouldn't need permission to compete with a private company simply because that company secured an exclusive agreement with city government.
Our own state constitution says:
“Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed.”
Maybe it's time we started taking those words seriously.
Comments