The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) held a workshop Tuesday, October 22, to consider revisions to the ordinance that governs the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). Most of the proposed revisions address SWAC membership.
SWAC is a combination of two state-mandated committees for counties hosting regional landfills. One of the committees monitors the landfill, while the other is a citizens committee focused on solid waste in general. Currently SWAC has seven members, two of which represent the two solid waste companies that serve the County, Waste Management and Recology.
The proposed revisions would expand citizen membership by two, with one of the additional slots reserved for a student. Other members called out in the proposed revision include business and recycling representatives, in addition to the two County franchisees. Citizen members are to be selected with "due regard" to geographic representation.
The proposed ordinance amendments would also require SWAC to make its minutes and agenda available at least 72 hours before meetings, which would now be monthly instead of quarterly.
The proposed amendments were not made available to the public, but interested persons in attendance were invited to address the Commissioners. Both Susan Watkins and Maggie Cross urged the BOC to make industry representatives non-voting. Commissioners, however, noted that the ordinance already prohibits the two members from voting on matters that "directly" affect their companies' bottom lines.
Though Watkins and Cross both pointed out that everything SWAC does affects waste haulers and the landfill in some way, the BOC expressed the hope that the addition of two community members would dilute industry's dominance on the committee.
The BOC also relied on the fact that SWAC is an advisory committee, with no power to take action on its own. However, as Watkins pointed out, industry members have dominated the process for nominating new SWAC members, thus retaining a strangle hold on the committee.
County Counsel was asked to revise the proposed amendments and return them to the BOC for action at a meeting in early December. The BOC will vote on the measure as an emergency ordinance, ie, one that will take effect immediately, allowing new members to be appointed to SWAC in early January.
In the meantime, five candidates' names have been on hold since last spring. No one from the County has contacted them, though Solid Waste Manager Ashley Watkins said she would soon.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Saturday, October 12, 2019
What Next for Riverbend?
Now that the Court of Appeals has rejected Riverbend Landfill's appeal in the never-ending effort to expand the dump, what happens next?
The timing is controlled by ORS 215.435, which establishes a basic 120-day window for the County to act on a land use application (eg, to expand the dump) when, as here, the case has been remanded to the County by the Land Use Board of Appeal. If, however, Riverbend appeals the latest Court of Appeals (COA) decision to the state Supreme Court, the 120 days will start to run from the date of final resolution of the judicial review.
The COA will not formally enter judgment before 35 days after the date the Court issued its decision (September 11) in order to give appellants time to appeal. In Riverbend's case, the 35 days expires October 16th. Even if Riverbend doesn’t appeal, the judgment could be entered as late as November 20.
But--even once there is an appellate judgment, the 120-day period for County action still does not begin until the applicant requests in writing that the County proceed with the application. The applicant--Riverbend--has 180 days in which to file this request. Only if no request is submitted within the 180 days may the County consider the application terminated.
The ball is therefore in Riverbend's court (so to speak). Only Riverbend can move the application forward; the County cannot begin the process on its own. The landfill could appeal to the Supreme Court, request County action on its existing application, withdraw that application and perhaps file a new one, or let the 180 days expire and perhaps submit a new application.
Assuming Riverbend does not appeal and the COA enters its judgment on October 16, the 180-day period would end April 13, 2020. The 2020 primary for County Commissioner--a position currently held by someone skeptical about the dump's continued viability--falls in May. Depending upon the outcome of that primary, we may see a "new and improved" application to expand Riverbend filed the following January, when a new Commissioner might be taking office.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
County Board to Review New SWAC Bylaws
On Tuesday, October 22, the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) will hold a work session to review proposed new bylaws for the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC). SWAC, a citizens' committee mandated by state law, advises the BOC about waste hauling and disposal rates and other matters related to solid waste collection and disposal.
Currently, SWAC operates under provisions in state and County law. The new bylaws are expected to "fill in the gaps" between those statutory requirements and operational practice, such as filling vacancies. In the past, the County has often filled SWAC vacancies by soliciting recommendations from industry members on the committee. This has led to a committee weighted in favor of industry interests.
By local ordinance, industry representatives fill two voting positions on the committee. The other five positions are reserved for citizens, who must fit into one of several broadly described slots, such as "local organizations" whose members are electors or property owners in the County or "residents residing near or adjacent to a regional disposal site." Nothing in the ordinance requires citizens to have demonstrated any knowledge of or interest in solid waste issues.
In fact, when members of Stop the Dump Coalition, a local organization whose members are County electors who own property in the County, applied to fill SWAC vacancies, industry representatives led a move to reject their applications precisely because they know a lot about solid waste issues.
Other membership issues that bylaws could address are holding over and attendance at meetings. County ordinance calls for three-year terms, but members are often allowed to remain in office for many years beyond that. And members who seldom show up for SWAC meetings (only four a year, one of which traditionally is a tour of Riverbend Landfill or other waste-related facility) are not called to task for their absences.
Adopting bylaws could encourage SWAC to move more aggressively to recruit candidates with a demonstrated interest in SWAC's agenda and to populate the committee with citizens who oppose as well as support industry measures. The BOC could also be asked to amend the ordinance to make industry representatives ex officio rather than voting members.
With changes like these, SWAC could become the serious, thoughtful review board that state law contemplates.
The work session on the proposed bylaws will be held Tuesday, October 22, at 1:30 in Room 32 of the County Courthouse at the corner of 5th and Evans in McMinnville. Note: This is a discussion session only, and public testimony is not normally allowed.
Currently, SWAC operates under provisions in state and County law. The new bylaws are expected to "fill in the gaps" between those statutory requirements and operational practice, such as filling vacancies. In the past, the County has often filled SWAC vacancies by soliciting recommendations from industry members on the committee. This has led to a committee weighted in favor of industry interests.
By local ordinance, industry representatives fill two voting positions on the committee. The other five positions are reserved for citizens, who must fit into one of several broadly described slots, such as "local organizations" whose members are electors or property owners in the County or "residents residing near or adjacent to a regional disposal site." Nothing in the ordinance requires citizens to have demonstrated any knowledge of or interest in solid waste issues.
In fact, when members of Stop the Dump Coalition, a local organization whose members are County electors who own property in the County, applied to fill SWAC vacancies, industry representatives led a move to reject their applications precisely because they know a lot about solid waste issues.
Other membership issues that bylaws could address are holding over and attendance at meetings. County ordinance calls for three-year terms, but members are often allowed to remain in office for many years beyond that. And members who seldom show up for SWAC meetings (only four a year, one of which traditionally is a tour of Riverbend Landfill or other waste-related facility) are not called to task for their absences.
Adopting bylaws could encourage SWAC to move more aggressively to recruit candidates with a demonstrated interest in SWAC's agenda and to populate the committee with citizens who oppose as well as support industry measures. The BOC could also be asked to amend the ordinance to make industry representatives ex officio rather than voting members.
With changes like these, SWAC could become the serious, thoughtful review board that state law contemplates.
The work session on the proposed bylaws will be held Tuesday, October 22, at 1:30 in Room 32 of the County Courthouse at the corner of 5th and Evans in McMinnville. Note: This is a discussion session only, and public testimony is not normally allowed.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
News-Register Calls for Dump Closure
It's taken more than a decade, but the once-McMinnville, now-Yamhill Valley News-Register has finally flipped. Once endorsing Riverbend expansion as key to the future of the County's economy (in 2007), the paper is now calling for Waste Management to close the dump.
Years of effort by a dedicated cadre of neighbors, local businesses, scientists, and garbage mavens seems to have finally paid off. Public opinion turned long ago against the dump, with the City of McMinnville and many area businesses realizing that a massive garbage pile on a tourist highway leading into town was not the best way to welcome visitors.
Metro, Riverbend's biggest customer, stopped sending waste here months ago after noting that hundreds of years of capacity exist in other Oregon landfills. No expansion needed.
And the state Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month against Riverbend's attempt to void a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals that the landfill's arguments in favor of expansion were not worth the litter they were written on.
None of this effort has kept Waste Management from pursuing expansion, of course. Even as its proposal to add more square feet to its footprint has lost one court challenge after another, Riverbend obtained permission from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to add waste to the top of the dump.
That move is also being challenged in court.
Waste Management now has a decision to make: to ask the County Board of Commissioners to find that the addition of a single litter fence is enough to protect neighboring farms from litter flying off the dump, or to pull up stakes and slink away.
Let's hope Waste Management takes the N-R's editorial seriously and pulls the plug on its latest expansion bid.
Years of effort by a dedicated cadre of neighbors, local businesses, scientists, and garbage mavens seems to have finally paid off. Public opinion turned long ago against the dump, with the City of McMinnville and many area businesses realizing that a massive garbage pile on a tourist highway leading into town was not the best way to welcome visitors.
Metro, Riverbend's biggest customer, stopped sending waste here months ago after noting that hundreds of years of capacity exist in other Oregon landfills. No expansion needed.
And the state Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month against Riverbend's attempt to void a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals that the landfill's arguments in favor of expansion were not worth the litter they were written on.
None of this effort has kept Waste Management from pursuing expansion, of course. Even as its proposal to add more square feet to its footprint has lost one court challenge after another, Riverbend obtained permission from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to add waste to the top of the dump.
That move is also being challenged in court.
Waste Management now has a decision to make: to ask the County Board of Commissioners to find that the addition of a single litter fence is enough to protect neighboring farms from litter flying off the dump, or to pull up stakes and slink away.
Let's hope Waste Management takes the N-R's editorial seriously and pulls the plug on its latest expansion bid.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
Court of Appeals to Hear Riverbend's Appeal August 1st
The Oregon Court of Appeals has scheduled oral argument in Riverbend Landfill's continuing effort to avoid shutting down for Thursday, August 1, in Salem.
The Landfill's appeal comes after the state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Riverbend could not rely on a County approval that required nearby farmers to participate in mitigation measures that would have enabled the landfill to avoid illegal impacts on their farms. Riverbend had sought the approval in order to expand.
The Supreme Court returned the case to LUBA, the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which re-evaluated the evidence and determined that mitigation measures not thrown out by the Court were insufficient to support the County approval. The case would then have gone back to the County Board of Commissioners (BOC), but Riverbend appealed.
The appeal appears to be based on two factors: first, that Riverbend had previously withdrawn an application to expand closer to one of the farms at issue, and second, that LUBA had failed to re-evaluate all of the findings the County had made when originally approving expansion.
In response, expansion opponents point out that LUBA's original decision, the one ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, considered all the findings in detail. Opponents also ask the Court of Appeals to reverse LUBA's rejection of a claim by another farmer that her crop was destroyed by birds attracted to the landfill by poor management practices at the dump. In rejecting that claim, LUBA failed to reconcile its decision with another ruling that appears to recognize the claim.
An interesting point in these ongoing legal matters is that the County declined to join Riverbend's appeal. The composition of the BOC has changed since the expansion was approved, with voters electing two Commissioners who are skeptical of the necessity of expanding a landfill on a major tourist route in Yamhill County.
The Landfill's appeal comes after the state Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that Riverbend could not rely on a County approval that required nearby farmers to participate in mitigation measures that would have enabled the landfill to avoid illegal impacts on their farms. Riverbend had sought the approval in order to expand.
The Supreme Court returned the case to LUBA, the state Land Use Board of Appeals, which re-evaluated the evidence and determined that mitigation measures not thrown out by the Court were insufficient to support the County approval. The case would then have gone back to the County Board of Commissioners (BOC), but Riverbend appealed.
The appeal appears to be based on two factors: first, that Riverbend had previously withdrawn an application to expand closer to one of the farms at issue, and second, that LUBA had failed to re-evaluate all of the findings the County had made when originally approving expansion.
In response, expansion opponents point out that LUBA's original decision, the one ultimately heard by the Supreme Court, considered all the findings in detail. Opponents also ask the Court of Appeals to reverse LUBA's rejection of a claim by another farmer that her crop was destroyed by birds attracted to the landfill by poor management practices at the dump. In rejecting that claim, LUBA failed to reconcile its decision with another ruling that appears to recognize the claim.
An interesting point in these ongoing legal matters is that the County declined to join Riverbend's appeal. The composition of the BOC has changed since the expansion was approved, with voters electing two Commissioners who are skeptical of the necessity of expanding a landfill on a major tourist route in Yamhill County.
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Riverbend Appeals LUBA Ruling
As reported in our previous post, the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) ruled in May that evidence presented to the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) was not enough to support the BOC 's 2015 vote to allow expansion. Riverbend has now appealed that ruling to the state Court of Appeals.
To approve the expansion, the BOC had to be satisfied that a larger landfill would not "significantly impact" surrounding farms. Under state law, a landfill cannot expand into farm land if its impacts on customary farm practices or costs will be "significant," which the Oregon Supreme has said is more than "trivial" but less than "major."
Where impacts (litter fouling hay fields, bird droppings spoiling cherries) were clear, the BOC imposed conditions -- so-called "mitigation measures" -- designed to make the impacts less than significant. The conditions, however, required compliance by the farmer, and LUBA threw them out.
A key condition involved litter from the landfill that made its way into neighboring farmers' hay fields. Plastic bags especially foul harvesting equipment and reduce the value of baled hay. Riverbend proposed, and the BOC approved, a condition requiring the landfill to cull litter out of the hay fields before harvest. But this would have required the farmer to agree to do the extra work himself or to allow Riverbend workers to come onto his land. Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that the County cannot require the farmer to participate in a mitigating condition, and so LUBA rejected the condition.
LUBA further said specifically that other measures Riverbend could take on its own (in this case, adding an additional litter fence to the landfill itself) were not enough to reduce the litter impacts below the "significant" threshhold.
The case was set to go back to the BOC, but now Riverbend has appealed the LUBA ruling to the Court of Appeals. Landfill opponents Stop the Dump Coalition, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Ramsey McPhillips, and Friends of Yamhill County have now counter-appealed. The appeals will be argued to the court on August 1.
In a statement, Stop the Dump President Ilsa Perse saw no way to success for Riverbend: "LUBA’s remand to the County gave Waste Management [Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner] no path forward to expanding Riverbend Landfill.... Waste Management is appealing to the Court of Appeals in order to forestall having to throw in the towel and give up on expanding the dump."
To approve the expansion, the BOC had to be satisfied that a larger landfill would not "significantly impact" surrounding farms. Under state law, a landfill cannot expand into farm land if its impacts on customary farm practices or costs will be "significant," which the Oregon Supreme has said is more than "trivial" but less than "major."
Where impacts (litter fouling hay fields, bird droppings spoiling cherries) were clear, the BOC imposed conditions -- so-called "mitigation measures" -- designed to make the impacts less than significant. The conditions, however, required compliance by the farmer, and LUBA threw them out.
A key condition involved litter from the landfill that made its way into neighboring farmers' hay fields. Plastic bags especially foul harvesting equipment and reduce the value of baled hay. Riverbend proposed, and the BOC approved, a condition requiring the landfill to cull litter out of the hay fields before harvest. But this would have required the farmer to agree to do the extra work himself or to allow Riverbend workers to come onto his land. Earlier this year the Supreme Court ruled that the County cannot require the farmer to participate in a mitigating condition, and so LUBA rejected the condition.
LUBA further said specifically that other measures Riverbend could take on its own (in this case, adding an additional litter fence to the landfill itself) were not enough to reduce the litter impacts below the "significant" threshhold.
The case was set to go back to the BOC, but now Riverbend has appealed the LUBA ruling to the Court of Appeals. Landfill opponents Stop the Dump Coalition, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Ramsey McPhillips, and Friends of Yamhill County have now counter-appealed. The appeals will be argued to the court on August 1.
In a statement, Stop the Dump President Ilsa Perse saw no way to success for Riverbend: "LUBA’s remand to the County gave Waste Management [Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner] no path forward to expanding Riverbend Landfill.... Waste Management is appealing to the Court of Appeals in order to forestall having to throw in the towel and give up on expanding the dump."
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
LUBA Rules: "Reasonable Decision Maker" Cannot Approve Dump Expansion
Back in April, the Oregon Supreme Court decided that an otherwise permitted nonfarm use (eg, a landfill) cannot be allowed on farmland (eg, the banks of the South Yamhill River) if the nonfarm use forces a change in "accepted farm practices" on surrounding farms, even if the nonfarm use compensates farmers for the change.
One of the "farm practices" hotly debated during hearings in front of the County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners involved litter from the dump and from garbage-hauling trucks that had drifted into farm fields. Plastic bags are especially nasty in hay and grass fields and must be removed by hand in order to avoid fouling harvesting equipment.
To solve this problem, the County required Riverbend Landfill to pay for litter patrols on neighboring farms. These payments, the County reasoned, would reduce any litter problem below the legally-important "significant" level. With this condition in place, the County approved Riverbend's expansion plan.
Expansion opponents cried foul, charging that such a "pay to play" (or "pay to expand onto farmland") proposal ran counter to the legislature's intent to preserve farmland. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the County was wrong to consider such payments when it concluded that the dump's proposed expansion would not impact farm practices "significantly."
The Supreme Court directed the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to "reconsider whether the county correctly determined that the change in accepted farm practices was not substantial." Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County (2019) 364 Or 432, 462.
LUBA's ruling today confirms that Riverbend Landfill's proposed expansion would in fact significantly change accepted farm practices on McPhillips Farms, which operates on property adjacent to the dump. LUBA then sent the landfill expansion back to Yamhill County to reconsider its expansion approval.
Farmer Ramsey McPhillips, who has fought landfill expansion for more than a decade, declared, "This is a clear victory. One can finally hope that the County will deny Riverbend's application once and for all and that the county, and all those who have fought diligently to preserve the environment, our tourism, and our best-in-the-nation farmland, can get back to focusing on other important County issues."
One of the "farm practices" hotly debated during hearings in front of the County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners involved litter from the dump and from garbage-hauling trucks that had drifted into farm fields. Plastic bags are especially nasty in hay and grass fields and must be removed by hand in order to avoid fouling harvesting equipment.
To solve this problem, the County required Riverbend Landfill to pay for litter patrols on neighboring farms. These payments, the County reasoned, would reduce any litter problem below the legally-important "significant" level. With this condition in place, the County approved Riverbend's expansion plan.
Expansion opponents cried foul, charging that such a "pay to play" (or "pay to expand onto farmland") proposal ran counter to the legislature's intent to preserve farmland. The Supreme Court agreed, finding that the County was wrong to consider such payments when it concluded that the dump's proposed expansion would not impact farm practices "significantly."
The Supreme Court directed the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) to "reconsider whether the county correctly determined that the change in accepted farm practices was not substantial." Stop the Dump Coalition v. Yamhill County (2019) 364 Or 432, 462.
LUBA's ruling today confirms that Riverbend Landfill's proposed expansion would in fact significantly change accepted farm practices on McPhillips Farms, which operates on property adjacent to the dump. LUBA then sent the landfill expansion back to Yamhill County to reconsider its expansion approval.
Farmer Ramsey McPhillips, who has fought landfill expansion for more than a decade, declared, "This is a clear victory. One can finally hope that the County will deny Riverbend's application once and for all and that the county, and all those who have fought diligently to preserve the environment, our tourism, and our best-in-the-nation farmland, can get back to focusing on other important County issues."
Monday, April 15, 2019
Dump Air Quality Meeting Tuesday!
Yes, Riverbend Landfill is hosting its semi-annual air quality meeting Tuesday, April 16, at Chemeketa Community College in McMinnville. Landfill personnel will present information about well-drilling and gas collection at the dump and answer audience questions. DEQ -- the state Department of Environmental Quality -- will also have a representative at the meeting.
Big questions for the landfill center on the Odor Nuisance Study conducted there by DEQ in 2017. After spending a year sampling the air (by smelling it, using individuals trained to detect different odors and to judge odor strength), DEQ took another full year to "analyze" the data.
Mind you, this was not a lab analysis; the only data to analyze were notes on pieces of paper.
Yamhill County expected to receive the results this past winter, only to learn that the study had been put on hold after the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took an interest in Riverbend. Neither the EPA nor DEQ has been forthcoming on the exact nature of the EPA investigation, and there is as yet no word on when either agency will complete its work. Perhaps Riverbend or DEQ will have more to say at Tuesday's meeting.
DEQ has been under the gun lately after a series of articles in the Oregonian highlighted problems with the agency's oversight of industries it regulates, including those belching foul odors. You can read about these problems here.
To attend the air quality meeting:
Tuesday, April 16, 6:00 pm for pizza and chat; 7:00 pm for the presentation
Chemeketa Community College
288 NE Norton Lane, McMinnville
Building 1, Room #105
Big questions for the landfill center on the Odor Nuisance Study conducted there by DEQ in 2017. After spending a year sampling the air (by smelling it, using individuals trained to detect different odors and to judge odor strength), DEQ took another full year to "analyze" the data.
Mind you, this was not a lab analysis; the only data to analyze were notes on pieces of paper.
Yamhill County expected to receive the results this past winter, only to learn that the study had been put on hold after the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took an interest in Riverbend. Neither the EPA nor DEQ has been forthcoming on the exact nature of the EPA investigation, and there is as yet no word on when either agency will complete its work. Perhaps Riverbend or DEQ will have more to say at Tuesday's meeting.
DEQ has been under the gun lately after a series of articles in the Oregonian highlighted problems with the agency's oversight of industries it regulates, including those belching foul odors. You can read about these problems here.
To attend the air quality meeting:
Tuesday, April 16, 6:00 pm for pizza and chat; 7:00 pm for the presentation
Chemeketa Community College
288 NE Norton Lane, McMinnville
Building 1, Room #105
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Landfill to Star on Small Screen?
With its future shrouded in uncertainty as a result of the recent Oregon Supreme Court decision calling the dump's expansion into doubt, is Riverbend Landfill looking to the Small Screen to keep its coffers full?
Little birds (mainly seagulls and falcons) have dropped serious hints lately that our lowly mountain of a dump may soon be streaming on a screen near you!
Imagine twenty hardy women and men, provisioned with nothing more than machetes, canteens, hefty bags of rice, nose plugs, and the clothes on their backs, living off the land for six weeks. You've guessed it! Survivor: Landfill is expected to begin filming at the dump in November.
Sources tell us that CBS Television decided to go with a winter format to maximize contestants' misery, a hallmark of the show. Contestants can expect floods, snow, hordes of seagulls and vermin, falcon attacks, miasmic odors, and thousands of tons of garbage. They will have to dodge coyotes and well-drilling rigs and watch for toxic leachate leaks.
While participants will be forced to flee from the waste while it's being dumped, they will also be competing with mighty bulldozers, tractors, excavators, compactors, grapples, and loaders for the precious foodstuffs and textiles buried in the dumped trash. From the looks of things, they won't want for comfy furniture, protection from the elements, soft beds, or even personal waste disposal!
Photo of dump in snow by Delahanty; bottom, dump runoff enters McPhillips Creek
Contestants will be able to augment their food supplies with fish, including delicacies such as six-legged frogs, they catch themselves in the South Yamhill River across from the old leaking Whiteson dump. They can also snare the critters that frequent the landfill, including the aforementioned birds and vermin.
Participants should not lack for shelter, however, as the dump is covered with tarps they can use for tent material. And numerous methane leaks will provide a ready fuel for fire.
We're told that the winner -- the Sole Survivor -- will be honored with a special reward for surviving this ordeal: a year's free waste disposal! Of course, he or she will have to bring the garbage to the landfill themselves.
We look forward to this amazing show -- or would, if Survivor: Landfill weren't an April Fool!
Little birds (mainly seagulls and falcons) have dropped serious hints lately that our lowly mountain of a dump may soon be streaming on a screen near you!
Imagine twenty hardy women and men, provisioned with nothing more than machetes, canteens, hefty bags of rice, nose plugs, and the clothes on their backs, living off the land for six weeks. You've guessed it! Survivor: Landfill is expected to begin filming at the dump in November.
Sources tell us that CBS Television decided to go with a winter format to maximize contestants' misery, a hallmark of the show. Contestants can expect floods, snow, hordes of seagulls and vermin, falcon attacks, miasmic odors, and thousands of tons of garbage. They will have to dodge coyotes and well-drilling rigs and watch for toxic leachate leaks.
Contestants will be able to augment their food supplies with fish, including delicacies such as six-legged frogs, they catch themselves in the South Yamhill River across from the old leaking Whiteson dump. They can also snare the critters that frequent the landfill, including the aforementioned birds and vermin.
Participants should not lack for shelter, however, as the dump is covered with tarps they can use for tent material. And numerous methane leaks will provide a ready fuel for fire.
We're told that the winner -- the Sole Survivor -- will be honored with a special reward for surviving this ordeal: a year's free waste disposal! Of course, he or she will have to bring the garbage to the landfill themselves.
We look forward to this amazing show -- or would, if Survivor: Landfill weren't an April Fool!
Monday, March 18, 2019
DEQ Not Doing Its Job -- Surprise, Surprise
According to in-depth reporting in the Oregonian newspaper, DEQ, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, is not the heroic protector of Oregon's ecosystems that it makes itself out to be.
Neighbors of Riverbend Landfill, people who pass the landfill on the highway, and others who have been fighting Riverbend's expansion for years have long known what the Oregonian and the rest of the state are just waking up to: DEQ's "clients" are the industries it monitors, not the people -- or the land, water, air, and wildlife -- of Oregon.
Oregonian reporter Rob Davis notes that "[f]or years, the agency’s No. 1 internal performance measure has been providing 'good' or 'excellent' customer service to the industries it regulates."
The Oregonian's reporting focuses on money in politics, emphasizing that industries and their lobbying associations easily influence decisions at the agency by funneling campaign contributions to key legislators. These legislators in turn use DEQ's budget to keep the agency in line. As a result, the paper reports, a "deep culture of deference" to regulated industries has developed at DEQ.
Yamhill County has felt the pressure corporate money can bring to bear. Over the years, at least some pro-expansion Commissioners have accepted handsome contributions from Riverbend or its owner, Texas-based corporate giant Waste Management. And the company offered grants of $15,000 each to cities in the County. No strings attached, of course, but subsequently, only McMinnville, which rejected the grant, publicly opposed dump expansion.
Moreover, those who have long battled Riverbend and Waste Management know that campaign money is not the only fly in DEQ's ointment. As DEQ operations are currently structured, regulated industries provide key monitoring data to DEQ. And industry, not DEQ, chooses and hires the consultants DEQ relies on to ensure that regulations are followed.
The people and environment of Oregon would be better served if state policy required DEQ to pre-qualify and hire consultants. Industry can continue to foot the bill, but the consultant's client would be the State, not industry.
To read all of the Oregonian and Rob Davis' fascinating reporting, click here. You can select Parts One, Two, Three, or Four at the top of the web page.
Neighbors of Riverbend Landfill, people who pass the landfill on the highway, and others who have been fighting Riverbend's expansion for years have long known what the Oregonian and the rest of the state are just waking up to: DEQ's "clients" are the industries it monitors, not the people -- or the land, water, air, and wildlife -- of Oregon.
Oregonian reporter Rob Davis notes that "[f]or years, the agency’s No. 1 internal performance measure has been providing 'good' or 'excellent' customer service to the industries it regulates."
The Oregonian's reporting focuses on money in politics, emphasizing that industries and their lobbying associations easily influence decisions at the agency by funneling campaign contributions to key legislators. These legislators in turn use DEQ's budget to keep the agency in line. As a result, the paper reports, a "deep culture of deference" to regulated industries has developed at DEQ.
Yamhill County has felt the pressure corporate money can bring to bear. Over the years, at least some pro-expansion Commissioners have accepted handsome contributions from Riverbend or its owner, Texas-based corporate giant Waste Management. And the company offered grants of $15,000 each to cities in the County. No strings attached, of course, but subsequently, only McMinnville, which rejected the grant, publicly opposed dump expansion.
Moreover, those who have long battled Riverbend and Waste Management know that campaign money is not the only fly in DEQ's ointment. As DEQ operations are currently structured, regulated industries provide key monitoring data to DEQ. And industry, not DEQ, chooses and hires the consultants DEQ relies on to ensure that regulations are followed.
The people and environment of Oregon would be better served if state policy required DEQ to pre-qualify and hire consultants. Industry can continue to foot the bill, but the consultant's client would be the State, not industry.
To read all of the Oregonian and Rob Davis' fascinating reporting, click here. You can select Parts One, Two, Three, or Four at the top of the web page.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Supreme Court Dumps Dump!
After more than 15 months of waiting, Yamhill County farmers, residents, and businesses finally got the message they'd been waiting for: The Oregon Supreme Court declared last Thursday that the County had applied the wrong standard in approving Riverbend Landfill's expansion plans. The decision now goes back to LUBA (the Land Use Board of Appeals) for further action.
If you have a long memory, you might recall that the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted in 2015 to approve a 29-acre landfill expansion that would bring garbage right up to Highway 18. By law, the expansion could be approved only if the County found that expanding the dump would not impose "significant impacts" on surrounding farms.
The County found no "significant" impacts, but just in case, it added conditions of approval that required Riverbend to pay some farmers for the harm their farms incurred as a result of landfill activities. LUBA upheld most of the County's decision, and landfill opponents appealed.
The Supreme Court ruled, first, that a "significant" impact is an impact that is greater than merely "measurable" but less than "major." It is not at all clear that the County applied this standard.
Next the Court held that each "accepted farm practice" on each impacted farm must be analyzed separately. Any one significant impact is sufficient to preclude approval.
Finally, the Court also held that a nonfarm use like the dump cannot get around the significant impact rule by compensating farmers for impacts or by paying them off ("pay to play").
The Supreme Court's rejection of "pay to play" is particularly important. If the Court had ruled that a nonfarm use could buy its way onto farmland, farms throughout Oregon would have been in jeopardy. There are 27 different nonfarm uses, from resorts to golf courses, that could have used this option to expand onto farmland.
What's next? LUBA could re-analyze the County's 2015 factual findings itself, or it could send the entire case back to the BOC for a fresh look under the newly-defined rules.
Stay tuned!
If you have a long memory, you might recall that the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) voted in 2015 to approve a 29-acre landfill expansion that would bring garbage right up to Highway 18. By law, the expansion could be approved only if the County found that expanding the dump would not impose "significant impacts" on surrounding farms.
The County found no "significant" impacts, but just in case, it added conditions of approval that required Riverbend to pay some farmers for the harm their farms incurred as a result of landfill activities. LUBA upheld most of the County's decision, and landfill opponents appealed.
The Supreme Court ruled, first, that a "significant" impact is an impact that is greater than merely "measurable" but less than "major." It is not at all clear that the County applied this standard.
Next the Court held that each "accepted farm practice" on each impacted farm must be analyzed separately. Any one significant impact is sufficient to preclude approval.
Finally, the Court also held that a nonfarm use like the dump cannot get around the significant impact rule by compensating farmers for impacts or by paying them off ("pay to play").
The Supreme Court's rejection of "pay to play" is particularly important. If the Court had ruled that a nonfarm use could buy its way onto farmland, farms throughout Oregon would have been in jeopardy. There are 27 different nonfarm uses, from resorts to golf courses, that could have used this option to expand onto farmland.
What's next? LUBA could re-analyze the County's 2015 factual findings itself, or it could send the entire case back to the BOC for a fresh look under the newly-defined rules.
Stay tuned!
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Calling all garbage hounds....
SWAC -- Yamhill County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee -- is looking for new members. The Committee currently meets just four times a year, for about an hour a meeting. The three-year appointments are volunteer and unpaid.
SWAC is actually two statutory committees rolled into one: a regional disposal site advisory committee and a local citizens advisory committee for solid waste issues in general. The Committee advises the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) about garbage hauling and dumping. Duties include reviewing requests for rate increases, listening to citizen comments, questions and concerns about the local dump (Riverbend Landfill), and preparing an annual written report.
The Board of Commissioners makes actual decisions, although, by statute, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is supposed to consider SWAC's annual reports when renewing a landfill's license. In practice here in Yamhill County, it's not clear that SWAC actually prepares annual reports.
With a new-look BOC and new staff in the person of Ashley Watkins (no relation to this writer), SWAC appears headed for an upgrade, with more attention paid to its work. In short, this would be a good time to apply to the Committee!
SWAC membership is dictated by statute. Members include a resident from the area near the dump; a property owner near the dump; another County resident or property owner; a representative of a local organization composed of County property owners or electors; and employees of the dump and local haulers. Other, unrestricted, members are allowed under state law, but Yamhill County has not added any.
One and possibly two positions are currently open: County resident or property owner and (possibly) property owner near the landfill.
In the past, SWAC staff have been criticized for nominating only members who support the dump and haulers. Critics are hopeful that this year may prove different. However, when the only two applications received were from landfill opponents, the landfill employee on SWAC requested and was granted additional time to scare up new applicants.
People who are concerned about the dump's potential expansion (and longer life) or garbage rates and service may want to apply. Applications are available online at https://www.co.yamhill.or.us/content/board-commissioners-committees or from 434 NE Evans Street in McMinnville. Completed applications must be returned by February 6th to 434 NE Evans Street, McMinnville, OR 97128, or by email to hintonk@co.yamhill.or.us.
SWAC is actually two statutory committees rolled into one: a regional disposal site advisory committee and a local citizens advisory committee for solid waste issues in general. The Committee advises the County Board of Commissioners (BOC) about garbage hauling and dumping. Duties include reviewing requests for rate increases, listening to citizen comments, questions and concerns about the local dump (Riverbend Landfill), and preparing an annual written report.
The Board of Commissioners makes actual decisions, although, by statute, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is supposed to consider SWAC's annual reports when renewing a landfill's license. In practice here in Yamhill County, it's not clear that SWAC actually prepares annual reports.
With a new-look BOC and new staff in the person of Ashley Watkins (no relation to this writer), SWAC appears headed for an upgrade, with more attention paid to its work. In short, this would be a good time to apply to the Committee!
SWAC membership is dictated by statute. Members include a resident from the area near the dump; a property owner near the dump; another County resident or property owner; a representative of a local organization composed of County property owners or electors; and employees of the dump and local haulers. Other, unrestricted, members are allowed under state law, but Yamhill County has not added any.
One and possibly two positions are currently open: County resident or property owner and (possibly) property owner near the landfill.
In the past, SWAC staff have been criticized for nominating only members who support the dump and haulers. Critics are hopeful that this year may prove different. However, when the only two applications received were from landfill opponents, the landfill employee on SWAC requested and was granted additional time to scare up new applicants.
People who are concerned about the dump's potential expansion (and longer life) or garbage rates and service may want to apply. Applications are available online at https://www.co.yamhill.or.us/content/board-commissioners-committees or from 434 NE Evans Street in McMinnville. Completed applications must be returned by February 6th to 434 NE Evans Street, McMinnville, OR 97128, or by email to hintonk@co.yamhill.or.us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)