Denver’s Waste No More Rules Put More Pressure on Struggling Restaurants

On September 15, 2025, the Denver City Council approved updates to Denver’s Universal Recycling and Composting Ordinance. The revisions followed a voter-approved measure that passed with 70% approval from Denver voters. The city drafted the final ordinance after receiving input from community stakeholders, the Mayor, and City Council. Denver’s Universal Recycling and Composting Ordinance, known as “Waste No More,” imposes several new waste requirements. Multi-family residential buildings, food businesses, and permitted events must now provide recycling and composting services. Non-residential buildings and construction and demolition projects must now provide recycling services.

This ordinance certainly has good intentions. Yes, we should recycle more. Composting can also lighten the load on landfills and turn food waste into something useful. But good intentions don’t always turn into good policy. Many businesses will feel the effects of this measure, but for this post, I am focusing on restaurants.

Denver restaurants are hurting, and it is not getting any easier. Many restaurants operate without any profit. Those that are profitable generally run at no more than a 3% profit margin. Consider a restaurant generating $1 million in annual sales. At a 3% margin, that leaves only $30,000 (before taxes). That’s all that’s left to help support the owner and their family. And things are just getting worse for restaurants. Colorado Restaurant Association President and CEO Sonia Riggs recently said that many restaurants now report profit margins between 1% and 2%, while others operate in the red. Using the same example, a 1% to 2% margin leaves just $10,000 to $20,000 in annual profit before taxes.

With margins that small, even modest cost increases can dramatically affect a restaurant’s ability to survive. Operating a Denver restaurant can now cost more than operating one in New York City. Waste No More adds another cost that Denver restaurants must now bear.

The Regulations

On June 30, 2026, the City and County of Denver published final rules implementing Waste No More. The regulations took effect on September 1, 2026. However, the city has indicated that enforcement will not begin until next year. The city intends to use the first year to educate operators and help them make the required changes.

Restaurants must now give employees, contractors, and customers access to on-site recycling. Employees and contractors must also have access to composting. Front-of-house operations must provide trash and recycling containers that customers can see. Restaurants must also pair those containers together. The city gave restaurants a different message at a public Colorado Restaurant Association Mile High Chapter board meeting. City representatives said restaurants without visible guest trash bins would not need to add trash and recycling bins where none currently exist. The regulations appear to say otherwise. This requirement may therefore depend on discretionary enforcement.

That is a problem.

Restaurants must also provide recycling, trash, and composting in the back-of-house. At minimum, composting bins must sit in food preparation and dishwashing areas. Anyone who has worked in a restaurant knows those areas are usually tight on space. The dish pit can be especially cramped.

So, where are these new composting and recycling bins going to go?

All centralized collection areas, such as dumpsters, must also group trash, recycling, and compost together. Now restaurants and building owners must find room for another dumpster for compost. Further, they must also clean the bins often enough to prevent insects and rodents. So, daily, I guess?

That’s not going to be cheap. It also won't happen daily.

The regulations also require sufficiently sized on-site and collection bins. Those bins must handle the regular accumulation of recyclable and compostable materials. Restaurants may need to reconfigure their layouts to accommodate additional collection bins. They must also pay haulers to collect compost. There is an option to self-haul. But how many restaurants have the time and ability to haul their own waste? They would need to transport trash, recycling, and compost to a facility licensed and registered with the city.

The costs do not end there.

In addition to additional bins, recycling dumpsters, and composting dumpsters, and cleaning those dumpsters frequently, restaurants must also train their staff on proper recycling and composting procedures. That takes time and money.

The regulations also require proper signage at front-of-house and back-of-house waste locations. For front-of-house signage, we all know most people don’t read signs. They put their trash wherever they want. That leaves restaurants with two likely outcomes. Employees may have to sort through recycling by hand and remove materials that do not belong there. Or everything may eventually end up in the trash.

Either outcome creates potential problems. Contaminated recycling could lead to additional charges from the recycling company. Throwing recyclables away could also lead to city enforcement. It’s really a lose-lose for the restaurant.

Back-of-house compliance will also take time for employees to learn. Composting may prove especially difficult. My wife and I have composted for years. I still get confused about what belongs in the compost. Does cheese? No. Does meat? Sometimes. Does fish? Yes. Some cardboard and paper products qualify, but not all. It is confusing. Thankfully, the city is providing signage that restaurants can use. But what happens during a rush when everyone is in the weeds? I can tell you what I would have done when I was a server. Everything would have gone into the trash. I assume the same thing will happen now.

Exemptions

The ordinance allows alternative compliance measures. However, those options mostly benefit restaurants already conducting those operations. For example, a restaurant may compost on-site. But, it can do so only if it complies with all applicable laws and regulations.

The regulations also include several exemptions. If approved by the city, the following exemptions can waive certain requirements for restaurants.

Economic Hardships

A restaurant may seek an exemption when compliance creates a significant financial burden. The burden must threaten the premises’ ability to maintain normal operations or employment levels.

The regulations identify several circumstances that may demonstrate financial hardship.

1. The building faces a qualified tax lien sale or public auction because of unpaid property taxes.
2. A court-appointed receiver controls the building.
3. The building was acquired through a deed in lieu of foreclosure.
4. The premises qualifies to file sales taxes quarterly.
5. Average occupancy costs exceed 10% of overall business costs during the previous twelve months.
6. Vacancy reduces net operating income enough to push the debt-service coverage ratio below 1.25.
7. Compliance materially impairs the premises’ ability to provide essential community services because of increased operating costs.

There are two parts of this exemption that every restaurant should focus on.

First, the above list is qualified in the regulations using the phrase “including but not limited to.” That language matters. It means a restaurant may present another reason for an exemption even if it doesn’t fall into the above list. That does not mean the city will grant the exemption. But it gives the city the ability to do so.

One unlisted reason could involve the owner’s ability to earn a profit and support their family. To me, that should be on the list. Average restaurant profit margins are around 1% to 2%, and many restaurants already operate in the red. At those margins, almost any additional cost can become material.

So, how will the city evaluate reasons that do not appear on the list? That is a key question. It could also lead to litigation. Without a consistent standard for unlisted exemptions, applicants could argue that a denial by the city was arbitrary and capricious. Arbitrary and capricious arguments are something lawyers love to make and cities hate to defend. The city of Denver already faces financial hardships and is making cuts throughout the city. The last thing the city wants is another lawsuit.

The second provision restaurants should focus on is number 7. It covers situations where compliance costs materially impair the premises’ ability to provide essential community services because of increased operating costs. That language could matter significantly for restaurants, though whether the city will treat restaurant operations as “essential community services” is unclear. For those restaurants operating at 1-2% margins, or in the red, additional compliance costs could compromise their ability to continue operating.

Other Exemptions

De minimis volumes of materials

This exemption applies to restaurants generating very small amounts of waste. Restaurants must generate less than 64 gallons of trash per month. They must also generate less than 96 gallons of recyclables and 48 gallons of compost per month.

Inadequacy of waste hauling services

This exemption applies when adequate hauling services are not reasonably available despite the restaurant’s good-faith efforts.

Space Constraints

Restaurants may qualify when they lack adequate space for the required containers. An exemption may also apply when haulers cannot safely access or service the only available container location. Physical barriers may also qualify when the restaurant cannot reasonably or immediately remedy them.

For many restaurants operating in downtown Denver, the space exemption may provide a realistic path. The word “reasonable” also creates ambiguity about how the city will enforce this exemption. That ambiguity creates another opportunity for inconsistent enforcement and potential litigation.

Lawsuits

I know this post focuses on how Waste No More could harm restaurants that are already struggling. So, why am I talking about litigation, when litigation costs are enormous?

Yes, litigation is expensive. It is especially expensive when you are one restaurant fighting City Hall. The economics change considerably if a restaurant association or group of affected restaurants brings a coordinated challenge. Further, dollars to doughnuts, the city will not want to deal with that fight. The city may decide that changing its enforcement approach makes more sense than defending a lawsuit.

There are never guarantees in litigation. But cities generally do not like spending money on lawsuits.

Conclusion

I want to make clear that I support efforts to increase recycling and composting in our cities and states. My problem is not with that goal. My problem is that this well-intentioned ordinance was poorly implemented. The regulations contain significant gaps. Those gaps could lead to uneven enforcement against Denver businesses. Uneven enforcement creates an uneven playing field. It also creates opportunities for abuse.

Many restaurants already operate on profit margins between 1% and 2%. Others are operating in the red. For those restaurants, these additional costs could be devastating. Restaurants should understand their compliance obligations and determine whether they qualify for an exemption.

If you are exploring your options, please don’t hesitate to reach out for a free introductory call.