The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is considering whether to issue a permit to allow Waste Management to disturb wetlands adjacent (yes, adjacent) to Riverbend Landfill in order to construct a road and expand the dump. Many of us have already commented that there is no need for this road or this expansion. Please make your voice heard -- click the link below to submit your comment to DSL by 5:00 PM Saturday, December 17! [The link takes you to a box that describes the project; click Add at the bottom of the box to type your comments in.]
Dear Friends,
Riverbend Landfill is like the energizer bunny that keeps going. Now, they are applying for a Division of State Lands Permit to fill in wetlands to build a road next to Highway 18. This road will be higher than Highway 18.
The DSL application states that they need the road to "provide internal landfill traffic, to maintain traffic safety, and to allow private access to an area south of Module 11 reserved for a Green Technology facility." [Note: "Module 11" is the major portion of the proposed expansion currently on appeal at the Oregon Court of Appeals.]
There are several problems, the first being that this road leads out of the internal landfill traffic.
Will the Green Technology Facility actually be built? The Yamhill County Site Design Review approval, passed despite local opposition including from the City of McMinnville, is tied up in court, but that did not stop Yamhill County from issuing a Land Use Compatibility Statement to the Division of State Lands.
The Green Technology facility is years down the road (Yamhill County said seven, after expansion receives all approvals), but if they fill up the landfill expansion area before that, then they won't have to build the facility at all.
To add to the uncertainty, Waste Management (Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner) has already publicly stated that while local management would like to build a green technology facility, it is up to corporate management to actually fund the project and there are no guarantees, especially this far away from Oregon's centers of population.
Just what is a "Green Technology Facility"? What I heard was a facility that takes paper and cardboard and other burnables to make pellets for an energy plant to burn. There was no mention of a garbage burner at the site, so the pellets would have to be hauled somewhere. Maybe we should just recycle the paper and cardboard to make more paper and cardboard, instead of burning it.
Is all of this a good reason to build the access road this summer? Or is there an unstated motive.
The site the proposed road will access was home to Mulkey's RV Park, which made 85 sites available for RV hook-ups. Waste Management recently closed it. Gone are 15 tourist sites and 70 affordable long-term sites. If the proposed road is mainly to support the Green Tech facility, they could have left Mulkey's open another 7 years.
So what is the reason for Waste Management's actions?
I think that they need dirt.
The existing landfill will reach capacity next year and needs about a half million cubic yards of dirt for final cover, but since the landfill is surrounded by water and Highway 18, they can't get it on site. Even the 27 acre expansion will be boxed in by water and Highway 18.
The dirt they need to close the existing landfill equals 95 acres of farm land mined three feet deep. The new landfill will need hundreds of thousands of cubic yards more for perimeter berms, daily cover, and final cover.
They certainly cannot get that much dirt out of a 27 acre site and cover it with garbage at the same time. But perhaps they could from the RV park area and the rest of the adjacent farmland they own, including the Green Tech site.
The Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) already gave Riverbend blanket approval for their entire site, wetlands, farm lands, uplands, and lowlands. Yamhill County doesn't regulate dirt mining.
If you feel that your vision of Yamhill Wine Country (voted the world's best wine tourist location) doesn't include a larger mountain of garbage and more acres of devastated farm land, please take the time to just tell the Oregon Division of State Lands "NO".
It takes just a couple of minutes. Click on the link below, and you can comment on line with no fuss, no muss.
Thank you.
Leonard Rydell, P.E., P.L.S., W.R.E.
DIVISION OF STATE LANDS
Application No. APP-0059053, Yamhill County, Southern Tributary of South Yamhill River, Township 5 South, Range 5 West, Section 1
An Oregon Regulatory project application has been received by the Oregon Department of State Lands for a project at the location described above.
We are interested in your comments on this proposal. The comment period on this application ends at 5:00 pm on December 17, 2016.
You may view the application details on our website at:
http://statelandsonline.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Comments.AppDetail&id=59053
You can read and submit comments or download a copy of the application via the web site. You can also submit comments or request a copy of the application by fax (503-378-4844), by phone (call 503-986-5200 and ask for the resource coordinator assigned to this project), or via US Mail.
All comments will be evaluated and carefully considered before making the authorization decision. Copies of the applicable laws and rules are available on the Department's web site.
We would be pleased to answer your questions or provide additional information. Please do not hesitate to call the Department of State Lands.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Waste Management to Stop Accepting Metro Waste
It's official. Riverbend Landfill is pulling the plug on waste from Metro. (Metro is the agency that handles garbage for Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas Counties.) After years
of ignoring citizens' concerns about the leaking, stench-producing
dump, Metro appears to be admitting that January 2017 will be the last month its garbage will be
deposited next to the South Yamhill River.
Waste Management (WM, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner) told Metro earlier this week:
"Because of legal issues and emerging capacity limitations, Waste Management has decided that Riverbend Landfill will no longer be an available option for Metro-area waste for at least the next few months and, potentially, years. WM is seeking to prolong the life of Riverbend until its legal appeals and lateral expansion have been resolved. WM also intends to serve its local, coastal and Willamette Valley customer base while these legal issues are resolved."
The waste involved comes mainly from Washington County, but represents about 2/3 of the waste deposited at Riverbend in any given month (about 320,000 tons). If this waste were to continue to come to Riverbend, the landfill would reach capacity around July 1, 2016. Restricting waste to Yamhill County and coastal areas will add an additional ten months to the landfill's life.
Waste Management (WM, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner) told Metro earlier this week:
"Because of legal issues and emerging capacity limitations, Waste Management has decided that Riverbend Landfill will no longer be an available option for Metro-area waste for at least the next few months and, potentially, years. WM is seeking to prolong the life of Riverbend until its legal appeals and lateral expansion have been resolved. WM also intends to serve its local, coastal and Willamette Valley customer base while these legal issues are resolved."
The waste involved comes mainly from Washington County, but represents about 2/3 of the waste deposited at Riverbend in any given month (about 320,000 tons). If this waste were to continue to come to Riverbend, the landfill would reach capacity around July 1, 2016. Restricting waste to Yamhill County and coastal areas will add an additional ten months to the landfill's life.
Metro staff interprets WM's statement to mean that "Riverbend will only be available during a transitional period to Columbia Ridge (ending on
about February 1). Riverbend will remain available but only in the case of an emergency or
unusual circumstance after February 1." Metro is in the process of making arrangements to send garbage to either Columbia Ridge or Coffin Butte landfills after that date
Although Waste Management is only now acknowledging that the landfill will have to shut its doors if waste keeps pouring in, that particular bit of handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time. The Oregon Court of Appeals is currently considering appeals by both WM and landfill opponents of a County-approved expansion. Any decision by the COA could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, a process that could take years. Then, should WM win its appeals, it must still obtain approvals from several state and federal agencies.
While Metro develops plans for a more responsible solution to its waste disposal needs, McMinnville
waste hauler Recology is moving forward with construction of an
advanced transfer station. A local transfer station will enable
Recology to take waste to any appropriate disposal site.
It is past time for the Yamhill County Commissioners to recognize reality, stop being bull-dozed by the largest garbage company in the world, and start making plans for an environmentally sound alternative to disposing of the county's waste.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Dump de LUCS
While the state Court of Appeals (COA) continues to mull over dump appeals filed by Waste Management (WM -- Riverbend Landfill's Texas-based corporate owner) and the Stop the Dump Coalition and allies, WM has been quietly securing Yamhill County's sign-off on related land-use issues.
Specifically, since the appeals were filed in August, WM has at least twice asked the County Planning Department to sign official statements asserting that the dump complies with County land use law. At least twice, County Planning Director Ken Friday has signed those statements.
One of the statements, called a "Land Use Affidavit," accompanied an application WM made to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and the federal Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The application seeks permits WM needs in order to proceed with its proposed 29-acre dump expansion.
The problem is, that expansion is on appeal. Until the Court of Appeals rules, the County has no idea whether the expansion complies with its land use laws. Planning Director Friday, who signed the affidavit, apparently tried to hedge his claim by checking the box that says the proposed work will comply when the landfill obtains its site design review and floodplain development permits -- which would of course be "never" if dump opponents win the lawsuit.
The second statement is a "Land Use Compatibility Statement" (LUCS) WM submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in November when WM asked DEQ to allow it to dump 490,000 tons of additional garbage on top of the waste already in place, including in the three original unlined cells.
The problem is, under state law, an existing landfill cannot be enlarged unless the County first finds that the enlargement will not cause a significant adverse impact on local farming practices or costs. Yamhill County made no attempt to examine this issue before issuing the LUCS. Moreover, adding waste atop existing cells also is part of the expansion currently on appeal.
It's not clear whether the County Planning Department is trying to mislead state agencies or merely doesn't understand state law. Stop the Dump has asked its attorney to investigate.
Specifically, since the appeals were filed in August, WM has at least twice asked the County Planning Department to sign official statements asserting that the dump complies with County land use law. At least twice, County Planning Director Ken Friday has signed those statements.
One of the statements, called a "Land Use Affidavit," accompanied an application WM made to the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) and the federal Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). The application seeks permits WM needs in order to proceed with its proposed 29-acre dump expansion.
The problem is, that expansion is on appeal. Until the Court of Appeals rules, the County has no idea whether the expansion complies with its land use laws. Planning Director Friday, who signed the affidavit, apparently tried to hedge his claim by checking the box that says the proposed work will comply when the landfill obtains its site design review and floodplain development permits -- which would of course be "never" if dump opponents win the lawsuit.
The second statement is a "Land Use Compatibility Statement" (LUCS) WM submitted to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in November when WM asked DEQ to allow it to dump 490,000 tons of additional garbage on top of the waste already in place, including in the three original unlined cells.
The problem is, under state law, an existing landfill cannot be enlarged unless the County first finds that the enlargement will not cause a significant adverse impact on local farming practices or costs. Yamhill County made no attempt to examine this issue before issuing the LUCS. Moreover, adding waste atop existing cells also is part of the expansion currently on appeal.
It's not clear whether the County Planning Department is trying to mislead state agencies or merely doesn't understand state law. Stop the Dump has asked its attorney to investigate.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
by Susan Meredith, Riverbend Landfill neighbor
November 24, 2016
Once again, the South Yamhill river is flooding. The fields next to Hwy 18 southwest of Riverbend Landfill were flooded by Thanksgiving Day. From my house I can see the floodwaters as they pile up against the perimeter berm at Riverbend, and the river has not even crested yet; that will not happen until tomorrow (Friday) night. This flooding has become nearly an annual event; in some years the river water rises several times during the same year.
An important consequence of this flooding is a concomitant rise in the groundwater table beneath the dump, especially in the area of the original unlined cells. These cells, on the dump's river side, are not lined with the now-required high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners, only poorly compacted soil. This provides no barrier to the floodwaters, which now will be HIGHER than the lower level of the waste in these cells.
As a result, floodwaters are now, and for the next several days, will continue to "flush through" the decomposed waste in these cells, carrying whatever toxins are in the waste downstream. Tim Steiber, the former Executive Director of the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, first pointed this situation out to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) more than 6 years ago. The problem was further confirmed by Mark Yinger Associates, the hydrologist who authored the Yinger Hydrology Report on Riverbend in July 2015.
This situation is unconscionable; it impacts every farmer, person, and animal using this river water downstream, and will continue forever because the only remedy is to remove all the waste in these cells and close them off permanently.
Neighbors, the Stop the Dump Coalition, and our allies have repeatedly raised this issue to Waste Management (WM), Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, but our concerns have fallen on deaf ears. WM is not about to do anything about water contamination, and, apparently, neither is DEQ. What ever happened to "using best practices" as required by the landfill's DEQ operating permit?
Update: Leonard Rydell, Engineer of Record for Riverbend Landfill during the time Cells 1, 2, and 3 were under construction, has notified us that those cells were not "poorly compacted" as author Meredith believed; the soil lining those three original landfill cells was in fact not compacted at all. DEQ was aware of this but gave the landfill's owners a pass.
Editor's note: Contact DEQ (Bob Schwarz at schwarz.bob@deq.state.or.us) and Waste Management (Nicholas Godfrey, current Riverbend District manager, at NGodfrey@wm.com) to let them know that this situation is intolerable.
November 24, 2016
Once again, the South Yamhill river is flooding. The fields next to Hwy 18 southwest of Riverbend Landfill were flooded by Thanksgiving Day. From my house I can see the floodwaters as they pile up against the perimeter berm at Riverbend, and the river has not even crested yet; that will not happen until tomorrow (Friday) night. This flooding has become nearly an annual event; in some years the river water rises several times during the same year.
An important consequence of this flooding is a concomitant rise in the groundwater table beneath the dump, especially in the area of the original unlined cells. These cells, on the dump's river side, are not lined with the now-required high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners, only poorly compacted soil. This provides no barrier to the floodwaters, which now will be HIGHER than the lower level of the waste in these cells.
As a result, floodwaters are now, and for the next several days, will continue to "flush through" the decomposed waste in these cells, carrying whatever toxins are in the waste downstream. Tim Steiber, the former Executive Director of the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, first pointed this situation out to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) more than 6 years ago. The problem was further confirmed by Mark Yinger Associates, the hydrologist who authored the Yinger Hydrology Report on Riverbend in July 2015.
This situation is unconscionable; it impacts every farmer, person, and animal using this river water downstream, and will continue forever because the only remedy is to remove all the waste in these cells and close them off permanently.
Neighbors, the Stop the Dump Coalition, and our allies have repeatedly raised this issue to Waste Management (WM), Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, but our concerns have fallen on deaf ears. WM is not about to do anything about water contamination, and, apparently, neither is DEQ. What ever happened to "using best practices" as required by the landfill's DEQ operating permit?
Update: Leonard Rydell, Engineer of Record for Riverbend Landfill during the time Cells 1, 2, and 3 were under construction, has notified us that those cells were not "poorly compacted" as author Meredith believed; the soil lining those three original landfill cells was in fact not compacted at all. DEQ was aware of this but gave the landfill's owners a pass.
Editor's note: Contact DEQ (Bob Schwarz at schwarz.bob@deq.state.or.us) and Waste Management (Nicholas Godfrey, current Riverbend District manager, at NGodfrey@wm.com) to let them know that this situation is intolerable.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Thanks to YOU!
Even though ...
* Waste Management (WM) last week asked the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to allow it to dump 490,000 additional tons of waste atop the dump -- without notifying neighbors;
* WM asked the Yamhill County Planning Department to send DEQ a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) approving the additional garbage;
* Both the County and WM are parties to a lawsuit brought by the Stop the Dump Coalition (STDC) and its allies that challenges, among other activities, adding new garbage to old cells atop the landfill;
* The Oregon Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals in the lawsuit;
* State law, ORS 215.296, requires a County to find that some uses, including garbage dumping, will not force changes in or increase costs to surrounding farm practices before approving those uses;
* Per STDC's lawyer, Jeff Klein, "[I]t would be improper to sign off on or transmit a LUCS when [the County does] not have a new land use application before [it] or essentially the same subject matter remains under appeal, much less both. Accordingly, the new application for LUCS must be denied or at least held in abeyance until [the County has] legal authority to process it."
* The County granted WM's request anyway -- with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Even though ...
* We must still continue to fight....
We have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, namely that the 96-acre expansion WM originally proposed in summer 2008 will never be built!
THANK YOU to all the neighbors, businesses, community leaders, County residents, tourists, and visitors who have made this victory possible! We're almost there!
* Waste Management (WM) last week asked the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to allow it to dump 490,000 additional tons of waste atop the dump -- without notifying neighbors;
* WM asked the Yamhill County Planning Department to send DEQ a Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) approving the additional garbage;
* Both the County and WM are parties to a lawsuit brought by the Stop the Dump Coalition (STDC) and its allies that challenges, among other activities, adding new garbage to old cells atop the landfill;
* The Oregon Court of Appeals has yet to rule on appeals in the lawsuit;
* State law, ORS 215.296, requires a County to find that some uses, including garbage dumping, will not force changes in or increase costs to surrounding farm practices before approving those uses;
* Per STDC's lawyer, Jeff Klein, "[I]t would be improper to sign off on or transmit a LUCS when [the County does] not have a new land use application before [it] or essentially the same subject matter remains under appeal, much less both. Accordingly, the new application for LUCS must be denied or at least held in abeyance until [the County has] legal authority to process it."
* The County granted WM's request anyway -- with no notice, no hearing, no findings.
Even though ...
* We must still continue to fight....
We have a lot to be thankful for this Thanksgiving, namely that the 96-acre expansion WM originally proposed in summer 2008 will never be built!
THANK YOU to all the neighbors, businesses, community leaders, County residents, tourists, and visitors who have made this victory possible! We're almost there!
Friday, November 18, 2016
Pink Martini v. The Dump!
On November 16th, at a Portland concert promoting the band's wonderful new album Je Dis Oui, Thomas Lauderdale of world-renowned band Pink Martini spoke out forcefully against the expansion of Riverbend Landfill.
Thomas asked everyone in the audience who lives in the Metro region to email or call their Metro Councilor. Tell them, Thomas said, that you don't want your garbage going to a leaking landfill sitting on a river in a seismic hazard zone.
Metro trash makes up 70% of the waste that comes to Riverbend Landfill -- 70% of the garbage that covers the best farmland in the Willamette Valley, which means in the world.
One impact that Riverbend has on its Yamhill County community will soon be studied by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) -- the horrendous odor. Riverbend will be only the third odor emitter in the state to be investigated by DEQ since Oregon adopted its Nuisance Odor Strategy a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the study is expected to take a full year.
Once investigators establish that the dump does, indeed, smell, then a panel will determine the steps Waste Management, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, must take to reduce or eliminate that smell.
However, other key metrics are not being studied: (1) how well the landfill will fare when the Big One -- the 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone quake -- strikes (some of the landfill was built to withstand a 7.25 quake and some without regard to seismic considerations at all); (2) the affect of leachate leaks on ground and river water; and (3) the full character of the gases emitted by the dump.
The Stop the Dump Coalition has urged DEQ and the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners again and again to look into these matters. They aren't listening -- but you can ask Metro to listen! Ask your friends in Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties to contact their Metro Councilors now!
And a HUGE THANK YOU to Thomas and to Pink Martini!
Thomas asked everyone in the audience who lives in the Metro region to email or call their Metro Councilor. Tell them, Thomas said, that you don't want your garbage going to a leaking landfill sitting on a river in a seismic hazard zone.
Metro trash makes up 70% of the waste that comes to Riverbend Landfill -- 70% of the garbage that covers the best farmland in the Willamette Valley, which means in the world.
One impact that Riverbend has on its Yamhill County community will soon be studied by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) -- the horrendous odor. Riverbend will be only the third odor emitter in the state to be investigated by DEQ since Oregon adopted its Nuisance Odor Strategy a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, the study is expected to take a full year.
Once investigators establish that the dump does, indeed, smell, then a panel will determine the steps Waste Management, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, must take to reduce or eliminate that smell.
However, other key metrics are not being studied: (1) how well the landfill will fare when the Big One -- the 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone quake -- strikes (some of the landfill was built to withstand a 7.25 quake and some without regard to seismic considerations at all); (2) the affect of leachate leaks on ground and river water; and (3) the full character of the gases emitted by the dump.
The Stop the Dump Coalition has urged DEQ and the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners again and again to look into these matters. They aren't listening -- but you can ask Metro to listen! Ask your friends in Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas Counties to contact their Metro Councilors now!
And a HUGE THANK YOU to Thomas and to Pink Martini!
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Riverbend, O Riverbend
As anyone who has driven near Riverbend Landfill lately (or, Heaven forbid, lives or works nearby) knows, the dump smells even worse than usual this fall. While we wait for the Court of Appeals and Metro to act (the Court is considering appeals by both landfill opponents and owners, and Metro must soon decide whether to continue pumping waste into our County), a poetic reminder of why we fight:
Riverbend, O Riverbend
by Arnie Hollander, landfill neighbor
If they build it, it will come: garbage and trash and junk galore
From Portland and Tillamook, Japan and more.
Up from the Valley Mt. Trashmore grows where sky and clouds do meet.
Gone is our farm land. Polluted our air. This is not good. This is not neat.
What is black? What is brown? What consumes our precious ground?
Riverbend, O Riverbend, up so high with views unbound.
Don’t let them build it nor have it grow with garbage and trash and junk galore.
Protect our farm land. Protect our air. Keep them from sending in even more.
To file a report about the landfill smell:
Call Waste Management directly. They promise a response within 30 minutes:
1-855-888-6800
Or email the dump's environmental manager, Jeff O'Leary:
JOLeary@wm.com
File a written form with the state Department of Environmental Quality:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/complaints/mcomplaint.htm
Contact Yamhill County Solid Waste Coordinator Sherrie Mathison:
Mathiss@co.yamhill.or.us
Let the Stop the Dump Coalition know you reported the smell!
Riverbend, O Riverbend
by Arnie Hollander, landfill neighbor
If they build it, it will come: garbage and trash and junk galore
From Portland and Tillamook, Japan and more.
Up from the Valley Mt. Trashmore grows where sky and clouds do meet.
Gone is our farm land. Polluted our air. This is not good. This is not neat.
What is black? What is brown? What consumes our precious ground?
Riverbend, O Riverbend, up so high with views unbound.
Don’t let them build it nor have it grow with garbage and trash and junk galore.
Protect our farm land. Protect our air. Keep them from sending in even more.
To file a report about the landfill smell:
Call Waste Management directly. They promise a response within 30 minutes:
1-855-888-6800
Or email the dump's environmental manager, Jeff O'Leary:
JOLeary@wm.com
File a written form with the state Department of Environmental Quality:
http://www.deq.state.or.us/complaints/mcomplaint.htm
Contact Yamhill County Solid Waste Coordinator Sherrie Mathison:
Mathiss@co.yamhill.or.us
Let the Stop the Dump Coalition know you reported the smell!
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Air Quality Meeting Coming Up
Waste Management, Texas-based corporate owner of Riverbend Landfill, has scheduled an air quality meeting for Tuesday, November 1, 2016, at the Senior Center in McMinnville.
Air quality meetings are required semi-annually under the terms of Riverbend's permit from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
The meeting begins at 6:00 PM with "free pizza and conversation," with the main presentations getting underway at 7:00 PM. Representatives from DEQ customarily attend.
These meetings are always lively, since so many people live, work, or drive near the dump and therefore smell it frequently. Riverbend has a reputation within WM as one of the company's consistently stinky dumps. Though WM claims it has worked on solving the smell problem, the odors, which increase in cooler weather, never diminish and are as bad this fall as ever.
A new wrinkle this season is that DEQ initiated an odor investigation earlier this year after more than a dozen people complained within the requisite 60-day period. DEQ investigates only if 10 or more people from different home or businesses addresses complain they smelled odors from the same source while at their address, all within 60 days of each other. This policy has discouraged many from complaining because they know their complaints will be counted only once every other month.
Whether an investigation will prompt any changes at the dump is questionable. Current DEQ rules require no more than that an odor source use "best practices" to control the smells. Riverbend claims that is what it already does.
Recently, however, Bullseye Glass and some moss in Portland have focused the state on air quality (at least in Portland). New air pollution rules have been proposed, but the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) is not expected to vote on the new rules before the end of next year -- 2017.
The investigation and the new rules are sure to come up for discussion at the air quality meeting. Bring your questions, odor reports, and proposed solutions to the meeting:
Tuesday, November 1, 6:00 pm (7:00 pm for presentations)
McMinnville Senior Center, 2250 NE McDaniel Lane, McMinnville
See you there!
Air quality meetings are required semi-annually under the terms of Riverbend's permit from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
The meeting begins at 6:00 PM with "free pizza and conversation," with the main presentations getting underway at 7:00 PM. Representatives from DEQ customarily attend.
These meetings are always lively, since so many people live, work, or drive near the dump and therefore smell it frequently. Riverbend has a reputation within WM as one of the company's consistently stinky dumps. Though WM claims it has worked on solving the smell problem, the odors, which increase in cooler weather, never diminish and are as bad this fall as ever.
A new wrinkle this season is that DEQ initiated an odor investigation earlier this year after more than a dozen people complained within the requisite 60-day period. DEQ investigates only if 10 or more people from different home or businesses addresses complain they smelled odors from the same source while at their address, all within 60 days of each other. This policy has discouraged many from complaining because they know their complaints will be counted only once every other month.
Whether an investigation will prompt any changes at the dump is questionable. Current DEQ rules require no more than that an odor source use "best practices" to control the smells. Riverbend claims that is what it already does.
Recently, however, Bullseye Glass and some moss in Portland have focused the state on air quality (at least in Portland). New air pollution rules have been proposed, but the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) is not expected to vote on the new rules before the end of next year -- 2017.
The investigation and the new rules are sure to come up for discussion at the air quality meeting. Bring your questions, odor reports, and proposed solutions to the meeting:
Tuesday, November 1, 6:00 pm (7:00 pm for presentations)
McMinnville Senior Center, 2250 NE McDaniel Lane, McMinnville
See you there!
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
EQC Names Richard Whitman Acting Director
The Oregon Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) today named long-time state environmental advisor Richard Whitman to head the agency the Commission oversees until a permanent Director is named. His tenure begins October 15.
"Richard Whitman's expertise in Oregon's natural resources and experience working with a spectrum of stakeholders to resolve complex challenges is unmatched,” Governor Kate Brown said in a press release issued today. Whitman served as natural resources advisor under Governors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber before serving with Brown. He also served as the state Department of Justice's top environmental lawyer and as Director of the Department of State Lands. Before entering public service, Whitman practiced environmental law in Portland.
Whitman should be familiar with most issues faced by his new agency, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), including Riverbend Landfill. Several years ago, members of the Stop the Dump Coalition met with one of Whitman's aides in an attempt to bring environmental issues at the dump to his attention. STDC will continue to press its case that the dump is a catastrophe, not just waiting to happen, but already happening in terms of harm to water and air quality.
"Richard Whitman's expertise in Oregon's natural resources and experience working with a spectrum of stakeholders to resolve complex challenges is unmatched,” Governor Kate Brown said in a press release issued today. Whitman served as natural resources advisor under Governors Ted Kulongoski and John Kitzhaber before serving with Brown. He also served as the state Department of Justice's top environmental lawyer and as Director of the Department of State Lands. Before entering public service, Whitman practiced environmental law in Portland.
Whitman should be familiar with most issues faced by his new agency, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), including Riverbend Landfill. Several years ago, members of the Stop the Dump Coalition met with one of Whitman's aides in an attempt to bring environmental issues at the dump to his attention. STDC will continue to press its case that the dump is a catastrophe, not just waiting to happen, but already happening in terms of harm to water and air quality.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
DEQ Under Attack
Several environmental organizations including the Stop the Dump Coalition have asked Governor Kate Brown to give Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) a thorough review, top-to-bottom.
The request comes as the agency that runs DEQ, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), meets to finalize a job description for a new agency Executive Director. Stop the Dump also asked the EQC to narrow the Director's duties so that the new department head can focus on DEQ's core mission of protecting the environment and Oregonians.
Stop the Dump was joined in its request by Friends of Yamhill County, a land use watchdog, and several Portland area groups that monitor air quality. DEQ's efforts to protect and enhance air quality have come under severe criticism in the wake of reporting irregularities involving Intel and unchecked releases of potentially injurious gases from glass manufacturers in Portland. In addition, several neighborhoods (in addition to the Masonville area near Riverbend Landfill) have been imploring DEQ for years to rein in odors and possible toxins emanating from manufacturing plants in Portland.
The letter to Brown asks the Governor to convene an independent task force to conduct the review, which would focus on " the way DEQ is funded, managed, and held accountable." "Nothing," the groups demanded, "should be off the table." The organizations cited DEQ's dependence on permit fees for a large part of its funding. "Questions of corporate favoritism naturally run high with this anomalous funding structure.... It is time Oregon decouples the monetary relationship of the regulators from the regulated."
-->
The organizations also took exception to DEQ's practice of allowing permit holders to hire their own environmental monitors and testing labs, rather than paying fees to the state and then having DEQ itself hire the monitors. The concern is that, under current practice, the lab or consultant will view the permittee as the "client" to be pleased -- not the state. The letter asks Brown to review this practice.
The EQC meets today (September 21) to consider the Director's job description.
To voice your opinion:
Contact the Governor at: https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/share-your-opinion.aspx
Contact the EQC at: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/EQC/pages/index.aspx
The following organizations signed the letter to Governor Brown:
-->
The request comes as the agency that runs DEQ, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), meets to finalize a job description for a new agency Executive Director. Stop the Dump also asked the EQC to narrow the Director's duties so that the new department head can focus on DEQ's core mission of protecting the environment and Oregonians.
Stop the Dump was joined in its request by Friends of Yamhill County, a land use watchdog, and several Portland area groups that monitor air quality. DEQ's efforts to protect and enhance air quality have come under severe criticism in the wake of reporting irregularities involving Intel and unchecked releases of potentially injurious gases from glass manufacturers in Portland. In addition, several neighborhoods (in addition to the Masonville area near Riverbend Landfill) have been imploring DEQ for years to rein in odors and possible toxins emanating from manufacturing plants in Portland.
The letter to Brown asks the Governor to convene an independent task force to conduct the review, which would focus on " the way DEQ is funded, managed, and held accountable." "Nothing," the groups demanded, "should be off the table." The organizations cited DEQ's dependence on permit fees for a large part of its funding. "Questions of corporate favoritism naturally run high with this anomalous funding structure.... It is time Oregon decouples the monetary relationship of the regulators from the regulated."
-->
The organizations also took exception to DEQ's practice of allowing permit holders to hire their own environmental monitors and testing labs, rather than paying fees to the state and then having DEQ itself hire the monitors. The concern is that, under current practice, the lab or consultant will view the permittee as the "client" to be pleased -- not the state. The letter asks Brown to review this practice.
In a separate communication to the EQC, the Stop the Dump Coalition asked the Commission to look outside Oregon for a new Director, "someone preferably from a state that actually has experience
in developing and implementing strong environmental protection policies that
are actively enforced. Otherwise, it
will simply be more of the same poor oversight and lack of enforcement that we
have seen way too much of by DEQ."
According to Stop the Dump, "'Hiring from the inside' is not a
viable option; it will simply produce more of the same, which is unacceptable."
-->
The EQC meets today (September 21) to consider the Director's job description.
To voice your opinion:
Contact the Governor at: https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Pages/share-your-opinion.aspx
Contact the EQC at: http://www.oregon.gov/deq/EQC/pages/index.aspx
The following organizations signed the letter to Governor Brown:
-->
1. Eastside
Portland Air Coalition
2. Cully
Air Action Team
3. Friends
Of Yamhill County
4. Hillsboro
Air and Water
5. Portland
Clean Air
6. Right
to Clean Air
7. Stop
The Dump Coalition
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Kerfuffle at the COA - UPDATE
The ink isn't even dry yet, and Waste Management (WM) is already in a huff about the state Court of Appeals' (COA) handling of the Stop the Dump Coalition's (SDC) current appeal.
As anticipated, SDC and its allies filed their opening brief with the COA on August 18. The opening brief begins the process of appealing the Land Use Board of Appeals' (LUBA) decision to OK most of Yamhill County's recent effort to approve expansion of Riverbend Landfill. (To learn more about the LUBA decision, see "LUBA Splits the Baby," below.)
The COA has strict page and word limits on briefs; SDC's brief was too long. The COA nevertheless accepted the brief but asked SDC to shorten it. Though SDC shortened the brief, SDC also asked the COA to allow more words than usually accepted, and the COA agreed. The COA accepted the amended brief on August 23. To avoid having two opening briefs in the case, the COA also noted that the original (long) brief "is withdrawn."
The COA's decision got WM's dander up. The Texas-based garbage conglomerate that owns the dump filed its own motion with the COA asking the Court to "strike [SDC's] ... opening briefs" (yes, both of them) and "to dismiss [SDC's] petition for judicial review in its entirety." In other words, WM wanted the COA to reverse its decision and throw out SDC's appeal. According to the August 30th Yamhill County News Register, WM actually told the COA it had no power to accept the longer brief.
In response to the News Register story, Ilsa Perse, SDC President, wrote, "Today the News Register printed a story in which they quoted Waste Management's attorney as claiming that Stop the Dump Coalition had missed the deadline for filing our brief to the Court of Appeals. This is not true. Our brief was filed on time.
"This afternoon, one day after Waste Management asked that our appeal be dismissed, Judge Timothy Sercombe, presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, denied Waste Management's motions.
"This is a yet another example of why we depend on our supporters to keep this fight going. This giant Texas garbage company will try whatever they can think of to make us go away. Their latest attempt failed, but our attorney had to spend time (and our money) dealing with Waste Management's bogus motion.
"We never know what Waste Management will try next, but we are here to stay! Waste Management hopes to wear us down, but with the community's help, we will not give up until Riverbend Landfill shuts down."
WM has until September 8 to file its own brief in the appeal. In that brief, WM can both answer SDC's arguments and file its own appeal (of LUBA's decision to send a key aspect of the County's decision back to the Board of Commissioners for further action). If WM elects to appeal that part of LUBA's decision, the SDC can file another brief in response to that argument.
UPDATE: stopthedumpcoalition.org has been assured that it is not at all unusual for the COA to grant requests to file longer-than-normal briefs (so long as they aren't too long). And there was never any question so far as the Court was concerned that the original brief was filed on time.
Also, WM has filed its brief in support of its own appeal. WM is challenging the part of the LUBA decision that told the County to take yet another look at the cumulative impacts of the dump. If those impacts are significant, the dump cannot expand.
WM and SDC have until September 8 to respond to each other's briefs. The COA will hear oral argument on September 27.
As anticipated, SDC and its allies filed their opening brief with the COA on August 18. The opening brief begins the process of appealing the Land Use Board of Appeals' (LUBA) decision to OK most of Yamhill County's recent effort to approve expansion of Riverbend Landfill. (To learn more about the LUBA decision, see "LUBA Splits the Baby," below.)
The COA has strict page and word limits on briefs; SDC's brief was too long. The COA nevertheless accepted the brief but asked SDC to shorten it. Though SDC shortened the brief, SDC also asked the COA to allow more words than usually accepted, and the COA agreed. The COA accepted the amended brief on August 23. To avoid having two opening briefs in the case, the COA also noted that the original (long) brief "is withdrawn."
The COA's decision got WM's dander up. The Texas-based garbage conglomerate that owns the dump filed its own motion with the COA asking the Court to "strike [SDC's] ... opening briefs" (yes, both of them) and "to dismiss [SDC's] petition for judicial review in its entirety." In other words, WM wanted the COA to reverse its decision and throw out SDC's appeal. According to the August 30th Yamhill County News Register, WM actually told the COA it had no power to accept the longer brief.
In response to the News Register story, Ilsa Perse, SDC President, wrote, "Today the News Register printed a story in which they quoted Waste Management's attorney as claiming that Stop the Dump Coalition had missed the deadline for filing our brief to the Court of Appeals. This is not true. Our brief was filed on time.
"This afternoon, one day after Waste Management asked that our appeal be dismissed, Judge Timothy Sercombe, presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals, denied Waste Management's motions.
"This is a yet another example of why we depend on our supporters to keep this fight going. This giant Texas garbage company will try whatever they can think of to make us go away. Their latest attempt failed, but our attorney had to spend time (and our money) dealing with Waste Management's bogus motion.
"We never know what Waste Management will try next, but we are here to stay! Waste Management hopes to wear us down, but with the community's help, we will not give up until Riverbend Landfill shuts down."
WM has until September 8 to file its own brief in the appeal. In that brief, WM can both answer SDC's arguments and file its own appeal (of LUBA's decision to send a key aspect of the County's decision back to the Board of Commissioners for further action). If WM elects to appeal that part of LUBA's decision, the SDC can file another brief in response to that argument.
UPDATE: stopthedumpcoalition.org has been assured that it is not at all unusual for the COA to grant requests to file longer-than-normal briefs (so long as they aren't too long). And there was never any question so far as the Court was concerned that the original brief was filed on time.
Also, WM has filed its brief in support of its own appeal. WM is challenging the part of the LUBA decision that told the County to take yet another look at the cumulative impacts of the dump. If those impacts are significant, the dump cannot expand.
WM and SDC have until September 8 to respond to each other's briefs. The COA will hear oral argument on September 27.
Thursday, August 25, 2016
McMinnville to Include Landfill in Emergency Planning
The McMinnville City Council heard a report from Chief Rich Leipfert and Doug Cummings of the City Fire Department regarding the City's emergency management plan last Tuesday night. The report initially made no mention of Riverbend Landfill or the impact damage to the dump by a severe earthquake could have on the South Yamhill River and Highway 18.
None of the existing landfill is built to withstand the magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake expected to shake Oregon's coast within the next few decades. This "Big One" strikes offshore every 300 years or so -- and it's already been longer than that since the last large quake. An earthquake of this size is expected to damage bridges, buildings, and other structures even farther inland than McMinnville and Riverbend. In fact, one expert has been widely quoted as saying that "Everything west of I-5 will be toast."
The landfill is riddled with gas pipes and wells (for venting gas or directing it to electricity generators) and is protected from the river by only a low earthen berm. River water already washes through several unlined cells during frequent floods. The earthquake is likely to tear apart the dump's internal structures and breach the berms, releasing millions of tons of waste, gas, and leachate, much of it toxic, into the river channel.
This waste could flow downstream, contaminating the Willamette River, and also dam the channel, creating upstream flooding. Large waste materials may also hang up on collapsed bridge structures downstream, further complicating rescue and recovery operations.
Audience members were surprised to hear no mention of Riverbend during the planning report, but pleased with the immediate attention given to the landfill once the matter was brought to the Council's attention. Mayor Rick Olson agreed that the landfill posed a serious threat and thanked the audience for raising the issue. Fire Chief Leipfert, who leads the emergency response effort, immediately promised to add the landfill to the "hazard list."
It was also suggested that the City ask Waste Management, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, to develop a disaster plan to assist the city in preparing for the coming emergency.
None of the existing landfill is built to withstand the magnitude 9.0 Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) earthquake expected to shake Oregon's coast within the next few decades. This "Big One" strikes offshore every 300 years or so -- and it's already been longer than that since the last large quake. An earthquake of this size is expected to damage bridges, buildings, and other structures even farther inland than McMinnville and Riverbend. In fact, one expert has been widely quoted as saying that "Everything west of I-5 will be toast."
The landfill is riddled with gas pipes and wells (for venting gas or directing it to electricity generators) and is protected from the river by only a low earthen berm. River water already washes through several unlined cells during frequent floods. The earthquake is likely to tear apart the dump's internal structures and breach the berms, releasing millions of tons of waste, gas, and leachate, much of it toxic, into the river channel.
This waste could flow downstream, contaminating the Willamette River, and also dam the channel, creating upstream flooding. Large waste materials may also hang up on collapsed bridge structures downstream, further complicating rescue and recovery operations.
Audience members were surprised to hear no mention of Riverbend during the planning report, but pleased with the immediate attention given to the landfill once the matter was brought to the Council's attention. Mayor Rick Olson agreed that the landfill posed a serious threat and thanked the audience for raising the issue. Fire Chief Leipfert, who leads the emergency response effort, immediately promised to add the landfill to the "hazard list."
It was also suggested that the City ask Waste Management, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, to develop a disaster plan to assist the city in preparing for the coming emergency.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Prime Farm Soils Not Protected in Landfill Battle
Reading about Riverbend Landfill's battle with LUBA over farmland, I find it ironic that real farm issues are not addressed. Instead we are arguing about birds and whether or not the litter on surrounding fields came from trucks hauling to the landfill or the landfill itself.
First, landfills require millions of cubic yards of soil for construction of the perimeter berms, daily cover and final cover. This dirt has to come from somewhere, but no one is asking “from where”, and Waste Management isn't talking.
You would think that with our statewide land use goals, a local comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, saving our top soil would be a concern, but this issue has not been on the radar of the Yamhill County Planning Department, the Yamhill County Planning Commission, and the Yamhill County Commissioners, even though Riverbend Landfill TWICE mined soils outside of its permitted boundary and TWICE did so without the required permit from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).
Waste Management has just evicted 70 families from the Mulkey RV park next to the landfill, so if one puts two and two together, we in Yamhill County just traded 70 affordable housing units for several more acres of valuable farmland topsoil to be mined.
This should have been obvious to the Yamhill County decision makers because the plans the County approved show an access road across wetlands and a flood plain to provide a link between the park and the dump.
by Leonard A. Rydell
First, landfills require millions of cubic yards of soil for construction of the perimeter berms, daily cover and final cover. This dirt has to come from somewhere, but no one is asking “from where”, and Waste Management isn't talking.
You would think that with our statewide land use goals, a local comprehensive plan and zoning regulations, saving our top soil would be a concern, but this issue has not been on the radar of the Yamhill County Planning Department, the Yamhill County Planning Commission, and the Yamhill County Commissioners, even though Riverbend Landfill TWICE mined soils outside of its permitted boundary and TWICE did so without the required permit from the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI).
Waste Management has just evicted 70 families from the Mulkey RV park next to the landfill, so if one puts two and two together, we in Yamhill County just traded 70 affordable housing units for several more acres of valuable farmland topsoil to be mined.
This should have been obvious to the Yamhill County decision makers because the plans the County approved show an access road across wetlands and a flood plain to provide a link between the park and the dump.
by Leonard A. Rydell
Thursday, August 4, 2016
Waste Management Appeals LUBA Decision
As previously reported, the Stop the Dump Coalition and allies recently appealed the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) decision, which delays landfill expansion yet again, to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Now Waste Management has joined the fray by filing a counter appeal. Waste Management (WM) is the Texas-based corporate owner of Riverbend Landfill.
The LUBA decision was split, with some issues decided in WM's favor and one big issue decided in favor of landfill opponents.
Issues Decided in WM's Favor
Basically, LUBA ruled that WM could compensate neighboring farmers in cash for the harm landfill expansion will cause to their farms. Because state law prohibits siting uses like landfills on land zoned for agriculture if the use will significantly harm even one farm, WM offered to pay farmers instead. LUBA's ruling was the first time an Oregon court had ruled that money compensation could be used to "mitigate" significant harm.
LUBA found in favor of WM on other issues, too, citing farmers' failure to submit evidence opposing some of WM's contentions -- such as that litter that fouled nearby fields came from the working face, not trucks hauling garbage, or that a second litter fence would help reduce litter or that birds that damage neighboring fields would come to those farms even if the landfill closed. In reaching each of these conclusions, LUBA ignored the fact that the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) refused to take evidence on these points.
Landfill opponents will likely ask the Court of Appeals to find that LUBA made mistakes in deciding these and other points in WM's favor.
Issue Decided Against WM
LUBA found that the BOC had misconstrued the process for determining whether the cumulative harmful effects of the proposed expansion on farms are significant. LUBA implied that the expansion could cause significant cumulative harm even if individual impacts are not significant when considered one at a time. LUBA told the BOC to rethink its decision that the expansion will not result in significant cumulative harm. This is the issue WM is appealing.
According to Jeff Kleinman, attorney for expansion opponents, WM will have the option of filing a separate brief in support of its cross-appeal within 14 days after opponents file their brief (which is due August 18) or combining their arguments with their written response to opponents' brief. A combined brief would not be due until 21 days after opponents file their brief. In either case, opponents will have 7 days to respond to WM.
The LUBA decision was split, with some issues decided in WM's favor and one big issue decided in favor of landfill opponents.
Issues Decided in WM's Favor
Basically, LUBA ruled that WM could compensate neighboring farmers in cash for the harm landfill expansion will cause to their farms. Because state law prohibits siting uses like landfills on land zoned for agriculture if the use will significantly harm even one farm, WM offered to pay farmers instead. LUBA's ruling was the first time an Oregon court had ruled that money compensation could be used to "mitigate" significant harm.
LUBA found in favor of WM on other issues, too, citing farmers' failure to submit evidence opposing some of WM's contentions -- such as that litter that fouled nearby fields came from the working face, not trucks hauling garbage, or that a second litter fence would help reduce litter or that birds that damage neighboring fields would come to those farms even if the landfill closed. In reaching each of these conclusions, LUBA ignored the fact that the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) refused to take evidence on these points.
Landfill opponents will likely ask the Court of Appeals to find that LUBA made mistakes in deciding these and other points in WM's favor.
Issue Decided Against WM
LUBA found that the BOC had misconstrued the process for determining whether the cumulative harmful effects of the proposed expansion on farms are significant. LUBA implied that the expansion could cause significant cumulative harm even if individual impacts are not significant when considered one at a time. LUBA told the BOC to rethink its decision that the expansion will not result in significant cumulative harm. This is the issue WM is appealing.
According to Jeff Kleinman, attorney for expansion opponents, WM will have the option of filing a separate brief in support of its cross-appeal within 14 days after opponents file their brief (which is due August 18) or combining their arguments with their written response to opponents' brief. A combined brief would not be due until 21 days after opponents file their brief. In either case, opponents will have 7 days to respond to WM.
Friday, July 29, 2016
STOP THE DUMP COALITION Appeals Landfill Decision
-->
For these reasons, the Stop the Dump Coalition, Ramsey
McPhillips, who farms land adjacent to the landfill, the Willamette Valley Wineries Association, and Friends of Yamhill
County have appealed the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
-- press release dated July 28, 2016. For more information contact Ilsa Perse, President, Stop the Dump Coalition or Sid Friedman, spokesperson for Friends of Yamhill County.
-->
On July 8th, 2016,
LUBA, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, issued its second remand in less than 11
months of Yamhill County’s illegal approval of the expansion of Riverbend Landfill. The remand returns the expansion to the County for further consideration.
LUBA ruled that County Commissioners Springer,
Starrett, and Primozich had drawn conclusions “that no reasonable decision
maker would conclude,” had once again improperly “shifted the burden of proof
to the opponent/farmers,” and had voted to approve although many of their “key premises
are not supported by substantial evidence.”
The dump, located in a
seismically unstable area by the South Yamhill River subject to regular
flooding, will reach capacity in mid-2017.
Waste Management (WM), the Texas-based corporate owner of the landfill, proposed
to expand onto prime agricultural land despite the significant impacts to
nearby commercial farms.
Jennifer
Redmond Noble farms on her family’s 5th generation farm near the landfill.
She worries that her “children won't be able to continue to farm our
property because of all the problems we have to deal with due to proximity to
Riverbend Landfill. Scavenger birds, horrific odors, and potential
groundwater contamination all put the future of our farm in jeopardy. We
have already had to make changes in our farming practices because of the
landfill."
While the latest ruling
should clearly signal the end of the road for what is already the largest
regional garbage dump in western Oregon, LUBA’s decision included new
interpretations of law that need further clarification for future land use decisions
as well as this one.
For example, LUBA suggested
that a non-farm use in an exclusive farm use zone can cause significant harm to
agricultural practices and farm production, so long as the corporation
compensates the unwilling farmers. “Oregon’s land use laws are designed to
protect farm land and farm production; they are not a pay-to-harm-agriculture
scheme,” said coalition attorney Jeff Kleinman.
-- press release dated July 28, 2016. For more information contact Ilsa Perse, President, Stop the Dump Coalition or Sid Friedman, spokesperson for Friends of Yamhill County.
-->
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Landfill Odors Trigger Investigation
Landfill neighbors and those who merely pass by the dump have complained for years about the stink emanating from waste deposited at Riverbend Landfill. Now the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) will have to do something about it.
Under DEQ's Nuisance Odor Strategy, once the agency receives at least 10 complaints from different home or business addresses within a 60-day period, DEQ must investigate. According to Alex Haulman, Natural Resource Specialist with DEQ, the agency received at least 10 complaints within the 60-day period ending July 22.
Haulman and his supervisor Claudia Davis met with landfill neighbors and others in McMinnville just two days prior, on July 20th, to discuss the dump's continuing odor problem. Haulman is new to this assignment, brought in partly because of his experience with bacterial solutions to odor problems in other industries, including dairies.
Haulman and Davis had already talked to Waste Management (WM), Riverbend Landfill's Texas-based corporate owner, about possible use of bacterial agents to literally eat odor-causing elements in the landfill. According to them, WM has agreed to study the possibility.
Currently, WM uses "best practices" to control odors, with little success. Those practices include efforts to keep the working face small (a relative term), covering the face every evening with a thick layer of dirt (something previous WM management did not always do), and capturing as much landfill gas as possible to burn in electricity-generating engines or to flare off.
Because there is no way to measure how much gas escapes the landfill without being captured, there is no real way to tell if WM's efforts are working -- except to smell the results. Neighbors, passing tourists and commuters, and farmers working nearby fields will tell you that the results are damning. Especially in cooler months, the stink lies like a blanket across the valley on both sides of the landfill and the South Yamhill River.
If bacteria prove able to control odors better than current practices, use of bacteria will become the "best practice," and DEQ will require WM to use the technique.
In the meantime, DEQ will send investigators into the field to determine the source (known in this case) and the frequency, intensity, duration, and offensiveness of the odors people are complaining about.
Other sites that have triggered investigations include Daimler Trucks in Portland and Amerities in the Dalles. The Daimler investigation went to a DEQ odor panel to determine whether a legal nuisance had occurred. Based on over 700 attempts to detect an offensive odor with only a 3.2% success rate, DEQ staff recommended a "no nuisance" finding. Neighbors, however, pointed to a contemporaneous private study that turned up a 20% odor rate out of 24,000 attempts.
As representative for the district containing Daimler, Speaker of the House Tina Kotek intervened, and DEQ may reconsider. Unfortunately, Riverbend neighbors have only Mike Nearman to assist them.
For a good look at the process DEQ uses in investigating (or ignoring) odor complaints, read this OPB Earthfix article.
Under DEQ's Nuisance Odor Strategy, once the agency receives at least 10 complaints from different home or business addresses within a 60-day period, DEQ must investigate. According to Alex Haulman, Natural Resource Specialist with DEQ, the agency received at least 10 complaints within the 60-day period ending July 22.
Haulman and his supervisor Claudia Davis met with landfill neighbors and others in McMinnville just two days prior, on July 20th, to discuss the dump's continuing odor problem. Haulman is new to this assignment, brought in partly because of his experience with bacterial solutions to odor problems in other industries, including dairies.
Haulman and Davis had already talked to Waste Management (WM), Riverbend Landfill's Texas-based corporate owner, about possible use of bacterial agents to literally eat odor-causing elements in the landfill. According to them, WM has agreed to study the possibility.
Currently, WM uses "best practices" to control odors, with little success. Those practices include efforts to keep the working face small (a relative term), covering the face every evening with a thick layer of dirt (something previous WM management did not always do), and capturing as much landfill gas as possible to burn in electricity-generating engines or to flare off.
Because there is no way to measure how much gas escapes the landfill without being captured, there is no real way to tell if WM's efforts are working -- except to smell the results. Neighbors, passing tourists and commuters, and farmers working nearby fields will tell you that the results are damning. Especially in cooler months, the stink lies like a blanket across the valley on both sides of the landfill and the South Yamhill River.
If bacteria prove able to control odors better than current practices, use of bacteria will become the "best practice," and DEQ will require WM to use the technique.
In the meantime, DEQ will send investigators into the field to determine the source (known in this case) and the frequency, intensity, duration, and offensiveness of the odors people are complaining about.
Other sites that have triggered investigations include Daimler Trucks in Portland and Amerities in the Dalles. The Daimler investigation went to a DEQ odor panel to determine whether a legal nuisance had occurred. Based on over 700 attempts to detect an offensive odor with only a 3.2% success rate, DEQ staff recommended a "no nuisance" finding. Neighbors, however, pointed to a contemporaneous private study that turned up a 20% odor rate out of 24,000 attempts.
As representative for the district containing Daimler, Speaker of the House Tina Kotek intervened, and DEQ may reconsider. Unfortunately, Riverbend neighbors have only Mike Nearman to assist them.
For a good look at the process DEQ uses in investigating (or ignoring) odor complaints, read this OPB Earthfix article.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
LUBA Splits the Baby
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has issued its latest decision in the ongoing fight over expansion of Riverbend Landfill. The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) approved expansion last spring after finding that the landfill would not significantly impact area farming practices. Stop the Dump Coalition and others appealed.
Major impacts cited by farmers include litter, especially plastic waste, escaping from the dump to contaminate nearby grain fields and predation by the many birds attracted to the landfill as a food source.
Although LUBA's decision stopped short of determining that the County was correct in finding that expansion would not adversely affect local farmers, LUBA decided that mitigation measures proposed by the landfill's Texas-based owner, Waste Management (WM), would reduce any adverse impacts to legally acceptable levels.
However, because LUBA also ruled that the County had not correctly determined that the impacts, even as mitigated, would not cumulatively affect area farm practices, the matter was once again remanded back to the County for further consideration.
Currently WM attempts to control litter with a fence and an occasional patrol along Hwy 18 and deploys falcons to haze birds off the landfill about twice weekly. These measures have not kept plastic waste from fouling fields and harvesting equipment or prevented birds from regrouping on neighboring fields. Birds are especially harmful to young grass fields, which are at their most vulnerable during the same time of year that most birds visit the dump.
With the proposed mitigation, a second litter fence will be installed and WM will pay for litter patrols on neighboring McPhillips Farms. The measures are not specific about either the frequency of patrols or their cost and, except for the fence, do not extend to other farmers. The BOC just heard a few days ago from farmers out in the Carlton area that waste haulers en route home from the dump are spewing plastic waste into their fields with the same adverse consequences for harvesting and baling hay. The mitigation measures do nothing to protect them.
To control birds, WM must increase the number of days falcons are flown at the dump. The thought is that the more falcons, the fewer birds, but the BOC's approval does not set limits on the maximum number of birds that can be allowed to visit neighboring farms or the time period over which their numbers, which can now reach 1,000 a day, must be reduced. Given that the expansion is expected to provide only another ten or so years of landfill life, the latter is a significant issue.
LUBA found that other impacts on farmers caused by the dump would also be cured by mitigation. However, before expansion approval can be finalized, the County must reconsider the "question ... whether multiple insignificant impacts to each particular farm operation, considered together, reach the threshold of significance for that particular farming operation." LUBA noted that "The county never attempts to answer that question."
LUBA directed the county to "consider and determine whether individual insignificant impacts, some of which may be additive and some which may not be, are cumulatively significant with respect to each farm that alleged multiple impacts to their farm practices.... [O]n remand ..., the county should not take as a given that all individual impacts are insignificant without conditions."
Any appeal of LUBA's decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals must be filed by July 29.
Major impacts cited by farmers include litter, especially plastic waste, escaping from the dump to contaminate nearby grain fields and predation by the many birds attracted to the landfill as a food source.
Although LUBA's decision stopped short of determining that the County was correct in finding that expansion would not adversely affect local farmers, LUBA decided that mitigation measures proposed by the landfill's Texas-based owner, Waste Management (WM), would reduce any adverse impacts to legally acceptable levels.
However, because LUBA also ruled that the County had not correctly determined that the impacts, even as mitigated, would not cumulatively affect area farm practices, the matter was once again remanded back to the County for further consideration.
Currently WM attempts to control litter with a fence and an occasional patrol along Hwy 18 and deploys falcons to haze birds off the landfill about twice weekly. These measures have not kept plastic waste from fouling fields and harvesting equipment or prevented birds from regrouping on neighboring fields. Birds are especially harmful to young grass fields, which are at their most vulnerable during the same time of year that most birds visit the dump.
With the proposed mitigation, a second litter fence will be installed and WM will pay for litter patrols on neighboring McPhillips Farms. The measures are not specific about either the frequency of patrols or their cost and, except for the fence, do not extend to other farmers. The BOC just heard a few days ago from farmers out in the Carlton area that waste haulers en route home from the dump are spewing plastic waste into their fields with the same adverse consequences for harvesting and baling hay. The mitigation measures do nothing to protect them.
To control birds, WM must increase the number of days falcons are flown at the dump. The thought is that the more falcons, the fewer birds, but the BOC's approval does not set limits on the maximum number of birds that can be allowed to visit neighboring farms or the time period over which their numbers, which can now reach 1,000 a day, must be reduced. Given that the expansion is expected to provide only another ten or so years of landfill life, the latter is a significant issue.
LUBA found that other impacts on farmers caused by the dump would also be cured by mitigation. However, before expansion approval can be finalized, the County must reconsider the "question ... whether multiple insignificant impacts to each particular farm operation, considered together, reach the threshold of significance for that particular farming operation." LUBA noted that "The county never attempts to answer that question."
LUBA directed the county to "consider and determine whether individual insignificant impacts, some of which may be additive and some which may not be, are cumulatively significant with respect to each farm that alleged multiple impacts to their farm practices.... [O]n remand ..., the county should not take as a given that all individual impacts are insignificant without conditions."
Any appeal of LUBA's decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals must be filed by July 29.
Saturday, June 25, 2016
LUBA To Issue Decision July 1
The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has signaled that it will release its decision regarding Riverbend Landfill by Friday, July 1. LUBA could uphold Yamhill County's approval of the dump's expansion plan, reverse that approval (killing expansion), or remand to the County for yet another hearing.
At issue is whether the proposed expansion will significantly impact costs or practices on neighboring farms. State law prohibits certain non-farm activities, like landfills, on farmland unless potentially adverse impacts are mitigated so that they don't adversely affect farm activities.
Farmers near the landfill have identified several impacts they say adversely affect their farming in significant ways. Chief among these are huge flocks of birds, primarily seagulls and starlings, that come to the dump to feed and then continue on to adjacent fields.
Waste Management (WM), Riverbend's Texas-based owner, agrees that the landfill attracts large numbers of birds. Farmers might not object if the birds remained at the dump, but the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires WM to keep birds away from the waste, in part to protect the South Yamhill River from contamination by bird feces. When WM moves birds off the dump, they go next door, to prime farmland.
In recent years, WM has relied on falcons to scare the birds. In theory, falcon harassment should convince seagulls to find other food sources, and WM's falconer insists that overall, the number of birds visiting the dump has declined since the falcon program began.
However, the falconer concedes that up to 1,000 birds a day continue to visit the landfill neighborhood during crucial winter weeks when the young grass first appears. Nevertheless, the only mitigation WM offered to reduce the impact of birds on nearby farms is to increase falcon activity. WM's own evidence at the most recent expansion hearing emphasized that there are no proven ways to keep birds away from landfills. Paul Burns, a senior WM official who oversees Riverbend operations, has rejected a return to canons, saying they did not work well when Riverbend tried them in the past.
Litter is another key issue. Several farmers submitted examples of grain fields near the dump that had been contaminated with plastic waste. Grain harvested with plastic strips wrapped in the bales cannot be sold, and the plastic may foul harvesting equipment, resulting in costly repairs and lost production time. Yet removing the waste is a time-consuming, hands-on process.
While not conceding that litter impacts are significant, WM proposed mitigation for one farmer only, offering to patrol his fields for plastic waste.
If LUBA finds that birds, litter, or other impacts are real and significant and the proposed mitigation is inadequate, then LUBA may reverse the County's approval of the expansion. Or LUBA could remand the case back to the County for yet another hearing, which could be focused on either the actual significance of impacts or the adequacy of proposed mitigation. If LUBA finds that the impacts are not significant, or that the offered mitigation is adequate, then it could uphold expansion.
Any of these decisions could be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
At issue is whether the proposed expansion will significantly impact costs or practices on neighboring farms. State law prohibits certain non-farm activities, like landfills, on farmland unless potentially adverse impacts are mitigated so that they don't adversely affect farm activities.
Farmers near the landfill have identified several impacts they say adversely affect their farming in significant ways. Chief among these are huge flocks of birds, primarily seagulls and starlings, that come to the dump to feed and then continue on to adjacent fields.
Waste Management (WM), Riverbend's Texas-based owner, agrees that the landfill attracts large numbers of birds. Farmers might not object if the birds remained at the dump, but the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) requires WM to keep birds away from the waste, in part to protect the South Yamhill River from contamination by bird feces. When WM moves birds off the dump, they go next door, to prime farmland.
In recent years, WM has relied on falcons to scare the birds. In theory, falcon harassment should convince seagulls to find other food sources, and WM's falconer insists that overall, the number of birds visiting the dump has declined since the falcon program began.
However, the falconer concedes that up to 1,000 birds a day continue to visit the landfill neighborhood during crucial winter weeks when the young grass first appears. Nevertheless, the only mitigation WM offered to reduce the impact of birds on nearby farms is to increase falcon activity. WM's own evidence at the most recent expansion hearing emphasized that there are no proven ways to keep birds away from landfills. Paul Burns, a senior WM official who oversees Riverbend operations, has rejected a return to canons, saying they did not work well when Riverbend tried them in the past.
Litter is another key issue. Several farmers submitted examples of grain fields near the dump that had been contaminated with plastic waste. Grain harvested with plastic strips wrapped in the bales cannot be sold, and the plastic may foul harvesting equipment, resulting in costly repairs and lost production time. Yet removing the waste is a time-consuming, hands-on process.
While not conceding that litter impacts are significant, WM proposed mitigation for one farmer only, offering to patrol his fields for plastic waste.
If LUBA finds that birds, litter, or other impacts are real and significant and the proposed mitigation is inadequate, then LUBA may reverse the County's approval of the expansion. Or LUBA could remand the case back to the County for yet another hearing, which could be focused on either the actual significance of impacts or the adequacy of proposed mitigation. If LUBA finds that the impacts are not significant, or that the offered mitigation is adequate, then it could uphold expansion.
Any of these decisions could be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
The Death of Mulkeys
For years Waste Management (WM), Texas-based corporate owner of Riverbend Landfill, has been telling Yamhill County that it will evict Mulkeys RV Park and its tenants as part of its commitment to expand the landfill. Mulkeys, located on land WM owns adjacent to Riverbend, is supposed to be a transient RV stop but has instead been home for years to people with mobile homes but no land of their own.
Mulkeys has, in fact, been one of Yamhill County's most successful affordable housing projects, providing permanent, inexpensive housing for individuals and families alike.
Nevertheless, WM's master plan for the dump includes putting equipment for construction and operations on the site where Mulkeys sits. That master plan, of course, is currently in the hands of the courts and may be there a good long while. A decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals is expected on June 24, but observers widely believe that the losing side will appeal to the Court of Appeals. That will mean WM will have to wait several more months before it will know whether it can or cannot expand--or whether the County must once again consider the matter.
But even with all this uncertainty, last month WM finally made good on its promise to kick Mulkeys out. Long-term residents were stunned. The timing couldn't be worse, they said. Even if they could afford to move, local RV parks are already filling up fast for summer. And it's not certain that residents could remain even if WM rescinded its eviction notice, a move called for by the Yamhill Valley News-Register: According to that paper, Jackie Lane, Mulkeys' manager, was one of the first to depart.
WM's cold-heartedness should not come as a surprise to the County or its Board of Commissioners. County resident Marilyn Walster told the Board to expect this move, and the harsh consequences to Mulkeys' residents, back in December 2014, just before the County voted to approve a dump expansion that would throw seventy families out of their homes. Her December 21, 2014, letter follows:
Mulkeys has, in fact, been one of Yamhill County's most successful affordable housing projects, providing permanent, inexpensive housing for individuals and families alike.
Nevertheless, WM's master plan for the dump includes putting equipment for construction and operations on the site where Mulkeys sits. That master plan, of course, is currently in the hands of the courts and may be there a good long while. A decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals is expected on June 24, but observers widely believe that the losing side will appeal to the Court of Appeals. That will mean WM will have to wait several more months before it will know whether it can or cannot expand--or whether the County must once again consider the matter.
But even with all this uncertainty, last month WM finally made good on its promise to kick Mulkeys out. Long-term residents were stunned. The timing couldn't be worse, they said. Even if they could afford to move, local RV parks are already filling up fast for summer. And it's not certain that residents could remain even if WM rescinded its eviction notice, a move called for by the Yamhill Valley News-Register: According to that paper, Jackie Lane, Mulkeys' manager, was one of the first to depart.
WM's cold-heartedness should not come as a surprise to the County or its Board of Commissioners. County resident Marilyn Walster told the Board to expect this move, and the harsh consequences to Mulkeys' residents, back in December 2014, just before the County voted to approve a dump expansion that would throw seventy families out of their homes. Her December 21, 2014, letter follows:
Dear Planning
Commissioners and Staff:
I am
writing to ask that Yamhill County Planning Commission deny Waste Management’s
application for expansion.
This letter
addresses the issue of Mulkey’s RV Park, sited west of the dump, and the displacement
of the people who call it home.
Riverbend’s expansion application
makes no mention of the fact that there are real people, with real families,
and real children who live permanently at Mulkey’s RV Park. This is not just a place for “overnighters”
to park their recreational vehicles.
Mulkey’s RV
Park has 85 sites available for RV hook-ups.
Seventy of those sites are held for long-term residents. Mulkey’s accepts trailers, 5th
wheels and park models (a more permanent dwelling not easily moved). Mulkey’s
RV Park is home to many Yamhill County families. Lots of little kids stand out in front of
Mulkey’s to catch the bus on school days.
Yet Riverbend’s expansion application does not address the displacement
of these families in any way. In fact,
the Farm Impacts Analysis part of the expansion application refers to Mulkey’s
as a “former RV park”, as if these families do not exist.
Mulkey’s major customer base is
permanent residents, not recreational overnighters. Residents enhance and
personalize their spaces with flower planters and yard décor. In some cases,
metal awnings have been erected for additional protection of homes.
The management requires a background
check on long-term applicants. They
complete an extensive application, and if accepted, there is a 90
day probationary period. Terms of rental
are carefully spelled out for the safety and well-being of all residents,
including the limiting of guests to 14 days per year at no additional
charge. The monthly space rental is $350
plus electricity. It is rare to have such affordable housing with the
features of Mulkey RV Park for county residents.
The Riverbend
Landfill expansion application does not address the destruction of 70 sites
that provide affordable long-term housing for Yamhill County families. Many of
the residents do not have the financial means to move their units, especially
the park models, even if they could find other affordable space. Waste
Management’s application ignores these devastating impacts. The ramifications
of closing Mulkey RV Park need to be considered in this decision. Yamhill County needs safe, affordable places for
low-income families to live.
Riverbend
likes to talk about how they contribute to the economy with 15-20 full time
jobs provided to people who live in Hillsboro, West Linn, Portland, and
Vancouver. (Very few Riverbend employees actually live in Yamhill County) There’s another side to this economic coin
that they refuse to talk about: the creation of more homeless families here in
Yamhill County because of the closure of Mulkey’s.
I
sincerely hope the Planning Commission will deny the Riverbend Landfill
expansion. However, if you believe it is
in the county’s best interest to approve the application, please require that Waste
Management recognize the existence of Mulkey’s residents by assisting them
(financially if need be) in their search for permanent affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Marilyn
Walster
Monday, June 13, 2016
Garbage Rates Go Up Again - Dump Not To Blame!
In case you missed it, the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners approved yet another hike in garbage hauling rates late last month. For years, Waste Management (WM), owner of Riverbend Landfill, has predicted that closing the dump would lead to increases in garbage pick-up rates across the County.
However, hauling rates have risen steadily over the past several years despite the fact that the dump remains open. Rates in 2008 when WM first applied to expand the dump ranged from $11.83/can in rural areas to $17.03/can within city limits. With the new increases, rates will now top off at more than $28/can.
Stop the Dump Coalition and others have long contended that WM's fear-mongering linking rate increases to Riverbend closure was a red herring. Rates are driven by costs incurred by hauling companies, and are not directly tied to gate fees at any dump. Currently, Recology, which serves McMinnville and the south County, has no contract with Riverbend and must pay the same gate fees as anybody else.
And rates must be approved by the County before they can be imposed. This spring, some members of the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee tried to convince that body to ask the Commissioners to put the hauling contracts out to bid. The contracts, which are exclusive -- meaning no competition will be tolerated -- have never been put to bid. Households in many other counties, including some without a local landfill, pay lower rates.
Rate Increase Details
Recology will get a 0.5% CPI (cost of living) increase. This is expected to add 17¢ to the monthly bill of a household with a 90-gallon can, the largest regular can available.
WM, which picks up waste in Newberg and the north County, asked for and received an increase of 3.68% CPI, adding $1.00/month to households with a 64-gallon can.
The dump also increased its gate rates. The minimum drop off fee for waste brought directly to the dump will now be $15.10.
Households can avoid increases by switching to smaller cans, reducing waste, and recycling more.
For more information, contact Sherrie Mathison at mathiss@co.yamhill.or.us.
However, hauling rates have risen steadily over the past several years despite the fact that the dump remains open. Rates in 2008 when WM first applied to expand the dump ranged from $11.83/can in rural areas to $17.03/can within city limits. With the new increases, rates will now top off at more than $28/can.
Stop the Dump Coalition and others have long contended that WM's fear-mongering linking rate increases to Riverbend closure was a red herring. Rates are driven by costs incurred by hauling companies, and are not directly tied to gate fees at any dump. Currently, Recology, which serves McMinnville and the south County, has no contract with Riverbend and must pay the same gate fees as anybody else.
And rates must be approved by the County before they can be imposed. This spring, some members of the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee tried to convince that body to ask the Commissioners to put the hauling contracts out to bid. The contracts, which are exclusive -- meaning no competition will be tolerated -- have never been put to bid. Households in many other counties, including some without a local landfill, pay lower rates.
Rate Increase Details
Recology will get a 0.5% CPI (cost of living) increase. This is expected to add 17¢ to the monthly bill of a household with a 90-gallon can, the largest regular can available.
WM, which picks up waste in Newberg and the north County, asked for and received an increase of 3.68% CPI, adding $1.00/month to households with a 64-gallon can.
The dump also increased its gate rates. The minimum drop off fee for waste brought directly to the dump will now be $15.10.
Households can avoid increases by switching to smaller cans, reducing waste, and recycling more.
For more information, contact Sherrie Mathison at mathiss@co.yamhill.or.us.
Friday, May 6, 2016
Stop the Dump Coalition Files LUBA Brief
Jeffrey Kleinman, attorney for the Stop the Dump Coalition and its allies, filed the organization's brief with LUBA, the state Land Use Board of Appeals, on Earth Day, April 22. The legal brief highlights the many errors made by Yamhill County and Riverbend Landfill Company in reconsidering Riverbend's latest request to expand its dump on the South Yamhill River.
In rejecting the County's initial approval in 2015, LUBA directed the County to require Riverbend to prove that the expansion would not significantly harm farming near the dump. The County had mistakenly put the burden on farmers to show that the expansion would be harmful.
Farmers alleged harm to their crops from litter (which fouls harvesting equipment and makes baled hay unusable), birds (especially seagulls and crows; the gulls damage newly-planted grass, the crows attack livestock, and bird poop damages all crops), noise (which stresses poultry), and odor (which discourages customers from shopping at farms downwind of the dump).
Instead of soliciting new evidence on these and other points at a new hearing the County held last February, however, the County relied heavily on new arguments based on the evidence it had rejected the year before. To no one's surprise, the result was the same: expansion approval. Stop the Dump promptly appealed.
The brief charges that the County continues to make farmers prove harm. For example, where one farmer said birds harm his fields and another said the birds don't cause any harm, the County found no harm. Legally, however, if evidence on both sides of the harm issue is equal, the County is required to find against Riverbend. That would preclude approval.
Kleinman's brief also cited Riverbend's own evidence that bird hazing methods employed by the landfill cause birds to disperse to nearby farms at exactly the crucial time of year when newly-planted grass has begun to sprout. The County liked the hazing methods so much that it required Riverbend to haze even more.
Riverbend and the County now have a chance to respond. Their written briefs are due May 13. LUBA will then hear live argument from attorneys for all parties on June 2 in Salem. The public is invited:
775 Summer Street NE (the State Lands Building), Land Board Room, 1st Floor, Salem
Thursday, June 2, 2016, at 9:00 AM
In rejecting the County's initial approval in 2015, LUBA directed the County to require Riverbend to prove that the expansion would not significantly harm farming near the dump. The County had mistakenly put the burden on farmers to show that the expansion would be harmful.
Farmers alleged harm to their crops from litter (which fouls harvesting equipment and makes baled hay unusable), birds (especially seagulls and crows; the gulls damage newly-planted grass, the crows attack livestock, and bird poop damages all crops), noise (which stresses poultry), and odor (which discourages customers from shopping at farms downwind of the dump).
Instead of soliciting new evidence on these and other points at a new hearing the County held last February, however, the County relied heavily on new arguments based on the evidence it had rejected the year before. To no one's surprise, the result was the same: expansion approval. Stop the Dump promptly appealed.
The brief charges that the County continues to make farmers prove harm. For example, where one farmer said birds harm his fields and another said the birds don't cause any harm, the County found no harm. Legally, however, if evidence on both sides of the harm issue is equal, the County is required to find against Riverbend. That would preclude approval.
Kleinman's brief also cited Riverbend's own evidence that bird hazing methods employed by the landfill cause birds to disperse to nearby farms at exactly the crucial time of year when newly-planted grass has begun to sprout. The County liked the hazing methods so much that it required Riverbend to haze even more.
Riverbend and the County now have a chance to respond. Their written briefs are due May 13. LUBA will then hear live argument from attorneys for all parties on June 2 in Salem. The public is invited:
775 Summer Street NE (the State Lands Building), Land Board Room, 1st Floor, Salem
Thursday, June 2, 2016, at 9:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)