authorized in the approved county solid waste management plan. — U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 2019, 2022, 119 L.Ed.2d 139 (1992). In Fort Gratiot the Court also discussed a city ordinance it had previously struck down as discriminating against interstate commerce. That ordinance made it unlawful to sell pasteurized milk in a particular city unless the milk had been processed at a plant located within five miles of the city. Id. at 2025 (citing Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 71 S.Ct. 295, 95 L.Ed. 329 (1951)). The Court explained that the fact that the ordinance discriminated against in-state processors as well as out-of-state processors "did not mitigate its burden on interstate commerce.” Id., see also Waste Sys. Corp. v. County of Martin, Minn., 985 F.2d 1381, 1386-87 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Waste Recycling, Inc. v. Southeast Alabama
holding that an arkansas statute discriminated against interstate commerce by banning the importation of most outofstate waste even though a small amount of outofstate waste was allowed into arkansas under the statute holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce holding that three municipal flow control ordinances similar to the one here at issue discriminated against interstate commerce holding that ordinance requiring all municipal solid waste generated within county to be delivered to a particular facility discriminated against interstate commerce holding that merely because some instate outofcounty waste would also be discriminated against does not render the law valid under the commerce clause