Riverbend Appeals Expansion Denial

Riverbend Landfill has filed a timely notice of appeal with the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).  The appeal challenges Yamhill County's denial of the landfill's expansion request.

That request, originally filed in 2014, would allow the dump to add some 29 acres and move far closer to Highway 18.  The expansion application also enabled Riverbend to dismantle a fully-occupied mobile home park and would require the company to -- eventually -- establish an "alternative" waste processing plant at the dump site.

In rejecting the request, the County Board of Commissioners found that a landfill was no longer required nor sustainable at the present site (between a major tourist highway and a river that is a drinking-water source for several communities) and also that Riverbend could not prevent litter from contaminating neighboring fields.

The notice of appeal starts a legally-mandated clock.  The County must first prepare a "record" of the case (i.e., gather all the paperwork) to ship to LUBA.  Then Riverbend must submit its initial written argument (by October 11 or thereabouts).  The County then has 21 days to respond, and Riverbend gets 21 more days to rebut the County's counter arguments.

Riverbend can be expected to argue that its untested plan for containing litter is effective and sufficient and that the County's other grounds for rejecting its application went beyond the scope of the proceeding.

The County's arguments will likely be prepared by expansion opponents, including Stop the Dump Coalition, Friends of Yamhill County, and McPhillips Farms (the farm most affected by litter), all of which have previously filed legal briefs opposing expansion.

In the meantime, visitors to the dump report that Riverbend is no longer requiring loads to be tarped (a County legal requirement) or supervising dumping of small waste loads.  This can result in mixing of recyclables and dump waste, turning otherwise recyclable materials into dirty trash.

To learn more, contact info@stopthedumpcoalition.org.

Will Riverbend Appeal?

Riverbend Landfill must decide by September 10 whether to appeal Yamhill County's denial of its application to expand.  If the landfill doesn't appeal, the application it originally filed in 2008 is dead, and it is not clear whether a new application could be successful.

That's because the County's denial was based on Riverbend's failure to show that expansion of landfill activities would not adversely affect farming practices and costs in a significant way -- a requirement of expansion under state law.

The state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) -- which would hear any appeal -- has already made plain that expansion in and of itself significantly harms at least one nearby farm, mainly through litter that escapes from the landfill and from trucks hauling waste, but also in combination with nuisance birds like seagulls attracted to the landfill's generous supply of food waste.  Unless the landfill can come up with foolproof ways to keep litter from escaping and to discourage birds, expansion would not be allowed under state law.

The landfill claims it has already adequately addressed birds by using falcons to haze them.  The County Board of Commissioners noted, however, that even the falconer admitted the falcon program took time -- ie, years -- to work.  In the near future, birds would continue to wreak havoc on nearby grass and hay fields.

Riverbend did propose a Rube Goldberg-style scheme to rein in litter, but the Commissioners rejected the proposal as based on "unrepresentative" and "selective" data and "conjecture" about the effects of that data.

Moreover, the Commissioners took note of a Notice of Violation (NOV) issued against Riverbend by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.  The NOV alleges that the landfill has violated air quality requirements for at least four years.  Riverbend did not tell the County about the NOV, maintaining that it was confidential even though the charges have been posted on the EPA's website* for some time.

Given this history, the Commissioners were understandably skeptical about Riverbend's assurances that their litter-trapping scheme would work.

You can find Board Order 20-284 and the Commissioners' Findings here.

*Enter "McMinnville, OR" in the search bar; this will bring up a map.  Select the red number 3 on the map for a list of local businesses; scroll down to Riverbend and select.  This will call up a detailed report, including a chart detailing violations.

EPA Accuses Landfill of Environmental Violations

 In a Notice of Violation (NOV) sent to Riverbend Landfill back in January 2020, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) accused Riverbend of violating a slew of environmental laws.

Among the charges:  

• failure to discover and report "multiple exceedances of 500 PPM methane" during required Surface Emission Monitoring (SEM); 
• failure to report or inspect "areas of cracks or seeps in the cover" that keeps waste from blowing away as well as "areas of distressed vegetation and cracks or seeps in the cover"; 
• failure to maintain landfill cover integrity; 
• allowing water to equal or exceed 50% of well height at multiple wells; 
• failure to maintain cover "to the extent practicable" to collect and control landfill gas; and
• failure to "monitor well RVBDV210 for pressure, temperature, and nitrogen between October 2016 and October 2018."

The landfill has so far refused to answer questions about the alleged violations, maintaining that the NOV and ensuing negotiations are confidential.  However, a list of the violations in the NOV can be found on the EPA's website.

Riverbend also stonewalled the public about the NOV.  Earlier this year, in April, Riverbend canceled its scheduled public Air Quality meeting, notifying landfill neighbors instead that Riverbend was "continuing" its gas well management and even adding new wells.  There was no mention of past failures to satisfy the standards of its permits or of future actions the landfill might take to correct those failures.

There's an opportunity coming up to ask Riverbend personnel about its past and future actions.  On Wednesday, August 19, the landfill will hold a virtual Air Quality meeting for the public.  The meeting is set to begin at 6:30 pm.

 To attend you must register, by contacting Kendra Thompson at Waste Management.  Her email is KThomp19@wm.com.

 "See" you there!

We STOPPED the DUMP!

The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 this morning to DENY Riverbend Landfill's expansion onto 29 acres of farm-zoned land adjacent to Highway 18.

We expect an appeal, but the Commissioners pointed out that Riverbend left unanswered many questions about the impacts the expansion is expected to have on County farms.

Commissioners also noted that Riverbend has been cited by the federal Environmental Protection Agency for violating terms of its air quality permit over at least the past five years.  If the landfill can't meet those terms, Commissioners said, it's unlikely that they can meet the complex conditions they propose for mitigating anticipated expansion impacts.

Watch this blog for more information!

Commissioners to Decide Expansion on August 6th

The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners has set Thursday, August 6, 2020, as the date it will debate and vote on expanding Riverbend Landfill.

Riverbend first filed this particular expansion plan in 2014, after its earlier "twice as wide, twice as high" plan failed in the courts.

The current plan, as amended by various court decisions, the County, and Riverbend itself, would add 29 acres to the 88-acre dump, adjacent to Highway 18.  A steep 80' berm topped with a roadway would run along the Highway, with only a 50-foot buffer between the roadbed and the foot of the berm.  The RV court that once existed south of the landfill has already been removed; that space would be used for "operations support."  An area between the old RV court and the Highway has been reserved for a future "green" waste processing technology that may or may not ever be built or even invented.

(Map from Riverbend materials; note that the 8-acre area to the north has been removed from the plan.)

The Commissioners have already gotten an earful from citizens opposed to dump expansion.  Now it is Riverbend's turn to try to persuade them that it can safely handle the additional waste without adversely affecting area farms.  The Commissioners have given themselves until the 6th to digest all the new material, as well as five and a half previous years of evidence and court decisions.

One question hovering over the proceedings is whether an expansion of any size is warranted.  Data from 2015 showed that well over 500 years of landfill capacity already existed in the NW Oregon area.  Clearly, there is no need to add more.

Landfill opponents plan to meet outside the County Courthouse (where the Commissioners meet) at 9:15 AM on the 6th.  To learn more, contact info@stopthedumpcoalition.org.

Appeals Court Upholds "Footprint" Expansion

Back in 2016, Riverbend Landfill asked the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for permission to "regrade" the top of the landfill to add an additional 10 feet of waste.  Landfill contours are set by engineering, not laws or contracts; to win DEQ approval, Riverbend had to show that the additional 10 feet would eventually subside.

DEQ agreed with the concept but required a LUCS -- a "land use compatibility statement" -- from Yamhill County before it would allow Riverbend to add the waste.  A LUCS tells DEQ whether the proposed project -- essentially expanding the dump vertically -- is legal under state and local zoning rules.  The County issued the LUCS, without holding a hearing or soliciting any public input, and DEQ allowed Riverbend to proceed.

The basis for the County's decision was a 1992 opinion from its legal counsel that any work related to waste storage (ie, what a landfill does) within the original landfill footprint did not require a hearing.  Waste Not of Yamhill County (now known as Stop the Dump Coalition) sued, alleging that under the current zoning, a hearing is required whenever the landfill is "maintained, expanded, or enhanced."  Waste Not also argued that the new garbage would be added in some of the same areas covered by Riverbend's larger expansion plan, and therefore the Supreme Court decision in that case should control.

The Court of Appeals (COA) disagreed, ruling that Riverbend could not do normal maintenance if a hearing was required each time.  So long as traditional landfill activities were limited to the original, approved landfill footprint, no hearing would be required.

Similarly, the COA held that the Supreme Court considered a different set of facts, including expansion of the landfill beyond the original footprint, and therefore did not control.

By the time the COA decision came out, the matter was essentially moot in any event as Riverbend had already added most of the new waste.

Commissioners Seek Input on Closing Riverbend

As previously reported, the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners is in the midst of a public hearing on the fate of Riverbend Landfill.  Back in 2104, the landfill asked the Board to allow it to expand to within 50' of Highway 18.  Though the Board agreed, a series of court decisions has sent the matter back to the Commissioners to take another look at two key issues:

*  whether the various impacts to area farms that have been adversely impacted by the dump's operations add up to a "significant" effect on those farms' farming practices, and

*  whether litter from the landfill can be reduced such that it will not "significantly" affect the McPhillips Farm's practices.

If the Board finds either that, cumulatively, several impacts on any single farm (including McPhillips Farm) amount to a significant effect OR that litter even when reduced has a significant effect on McPhillips Farm, then the landfill cannot expand.

Although these are the only issues technically before the Board, it doesn't hurt to let your Commissioners know how you feel about having an enormous, smelly dump in the middle of our scenic farmland.

Expansion opponents gather at the County Courthouse Thursday, July 9, 2020.  As the sign on the right indicates, they have been explaining why expansion is a bad idea since 2008.  Photo by Craig Markham.

We might be more inclined to support the landfill if we needed it.  But right now, today, there are hundreds of years of capacity in other landfills in northwestern Oregon and vicinity.  Already the City of McMinnville sends its waste to one of those other landfills, Coffin Butte.

(This chart put together by Metro, 2015.  Both Columbia Ridge and Riverbend are owned by Waste Management.)

Yamhill County doesn't need a problematic expansion; it just needs a garbage company willing to make less money.

Send your comments to Planning Director Ken Friday at fridayk@co.yamhill.or.us by 5:00 PM Thursday, July 16.  You then have another week (till 5:00 PM Thursday, July 23) to rebut any material previously submitted.

To see comment already submitted by both Riverbend and opponents, visit the County Planning website.

County Grants WM Hearing Request

The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners has agreed to hold a hearing on Riverbend Landfill's request to "proceed with its application" now that the state Supreme Court has overturned the County's previous approval of the landfill's application to expand.

To win now, Riverbend, a subsidiary of Texas-based mega waste company Waste Management (WM), must show that an expanded landfill can prevent litter from significantly affecting a single neighboring farm, and that various impacts from the landfill, when added together, will not affect any farm significantly.

"Significant" in this context is defined as somewhere between trivial and major.

To obtain the County's permission to expand back in 2016, Riverbend offered to pay farmers for costs imposed on their farms by the landfill, eg, by buying a bird-contaminated crop and by hiring workers to pick litter out of farmers' fields.  Last year the Supreme Court threw out this "pay to play" scheme, holding that mitigation of any such impacts cannot require farmer cooperation but must instead be built into the landfill's expansion plan.

The new hearing is the last -- maybe -- step toward a final decision on the application Riverbend submitted in 2014.

The County Planning Department will accept written comment on two subjects until (and including) July 9 at 10:00 AM.  Comments may be submitted by US mail to the Department at 525 NE Fourth Street, McMinnville OR 97128, or electronically to Department Director Ken Friday at fridayk@co.yamhill.or.us.  Written comments may also be submitted at the hearing, but you'll need to bring 9 copies.  There will be no oral testimony.

It's not clear whether this will be an in-person or virtual meeting; presumably the Board will make that known beforehand.

The Board of Commissioners will not decide the case on July 9 but will set a later date for deliberation and decision.  The Board may extend the comment period for purposes of rebuttal.

All comments are to be directed to one or both of the following only:

1) Whether the various impacts from the landfill as described in earlier hearings, when added together, significantly affect accepted farm practices on any farm, and

2) Whether litter generated by the landfill will force a significant change in accepted farm practices on the McPhillips farm.

To learn more, contact the Stop the Dump Coalition, info@stopthedumpcoalition.org.

Riverbend Requests Hearing

Hold on to your hats, folks, the Dump Express is taking off again.

Maybe we should say the Dump Roller Coaster.  Riverbend Landfill (RLI) has asked the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) to reopen its hearing on the expansion RLI proposed back in 2014.

This is the plan we previously noted was approved by the BOC, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), remanded to the BOC and approved again, appealed again to LUBA and from there to the Court of Appeals (COA) and the state Supreme Court, which sent it back to LUBA, which remanded it to the BOC, which order was appealed to the COA, which upheld LUBA (pause here for breath).

Along that tortuous journey, many issues were resolved, so that if the BOC were to approve the expansion today, Riverbend could start dumping waste on 29 new acres adjacent to Highway 18, rising to 282' above sea level (or about 180' above the highway).  The berm surrounding this new "module" would come within 50' of the roadway, immediately rise 80' into the air, and be capped by an internal dump road.

Imagine driving into McMinnville on Highway 18 at dusk only to see headlights coming at you above your right shoulder!

The dump would also have to agree to install a "green technology" facility on the site at some nebulous time in the future.  Waste Management, Riverbend's Texas-based corporate owner, has had six years since filing its expansion application to develop this fantastic technology, with no progress in sight.  It might be that it's more lucrative for the company to promise the moon while seeking expansion and then close the dump before the requirement to actually deliver the moon kicks in.

If the BOC agrees to reopen the hearing, what would the Board hear?  Riverbend says there are two issues:  Whether a litter fence proposed by the dump catches enough plastic bags to ensure that nearby farms won't have to alter their farming practices in any significant way; and whether the minor adverse effects the expanded landfill would have on area farms add up to significant impacts.

Landfill opponents counter that the Supreme Court and LUBA (see above summary of the case so far) have already decided Q1 against Riverbend.  That is, the Supreme Court held that the only valid mitigation Riverbend proposed to minimize litter was that fence, and LUBA held that the evidence the BOC already heard in previous hearings was insufficient to show that the fence did any good.  Based on these judicial determinations, the only legal conclusion that can be reached is that Riverbend failed to prove it can expand without impacting farms significantly -- the standard it has to meet in order to win the right to expand.

Given that conclusion, the BOC doesn't have to consider Q2.  The roller coaster ride is over.  Riverbend loses.

Or are we dreaming again?

Waste Management Unveils New Proposal

By Ikidu Knott

This just in:  Waste Management, Texas-based owner of Riverbend Landfill, today asked the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners (BOC) to approve its landfill expansion application.

If you've followed the convoluted history of this proposed expansion, you know that the application was originally filed in 2014, approved by the BOC, appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), remanded to the BOC and approved again, appealed again to LUBA and from there to the Court of Appeals (COA) and the state Supreme Court, which sent it back to LUBA, which remanded it to the BOC, which order was appealed to the COA, which upheld LUBA (pause here for breath).

The upshot is that the courts gave Waste Management until May 4, 2020, to pursue the current application with the BOC.

There's been a lot of speculation in garbage circles about when and if WM would take that big step.

Those Against Big Garbage (the so-called "zero wasters") have been crossing their fingers that WM will just walk away from Yamhill County and close Riverbend down for good.

The Pro Waste contingent, meanwhile, has also been hoping WM would forgo its current application.  They look to win a second pro-garbage seat on the BOC in the May 19, 2020, election.  With a majority squarely in offal's corner, the Trash Talkers believe approving a new application would be a picnic, with plenty of room in an expanded landfill for the leftovers.

So all sides were disappointed when WM submitted its proposal to the BOC this morning.

The proposal itself is even more surprising.  Rather than approve what remains of the original proposal, which had been shorn via various court orders of 10 acres, plastic bags, seagull poop, and malodorous emanations, WM has told the BOC it intends to rely on a 1991 County Counsel opinion to cover the existing waste mountain with green tarps and erect a giant, 100-foot-tall, internally-lit, blow-up acorn on the top.

Under the 1991 opinion, WM claims, the County has no choice but to allow this enhancement.  But even if the opinion doesn't apply, WM contends its proposal will have a significant positive impact on farming practices in the region, since everyone is planting filberts now.

As you can imagine, the proposal is driving the dump's neighbors nuts...or would be if this wasn't an April Fool!