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.