Landfill Proposes Lopsided License Extension

"Fifty thousand a year or nothing."

That was how Waste Management PR specialist Jackie Lang described the "deal" that Riverbend Landfill offered the County last week:  Give us what we want, and we'll pay you a flat fee of $50,000 a year -- or we will pay nothing.  Nevermind that the current license agreement requires the landfill to pay upwards of a quarter million dollars a year on a sliding scale.

What Riverbend wants is a complete giveaway by the County:  a 20-year agreement, the flat fee, and Riverbend to have both total control over what waste it accepts, including volume, kind, and source, and the exclusive right to terminate the agreement.  The County and its residents get nothing.  Oh, except more litter, crop-ravaging birds, noise, dirt, heavy truck traffic, and polluted water and air.

The Board of Commissioners questioned Lang and WM attorney Tommy Brooks closely about the landfill's decision to refuse waste from self-haulers.  Riverbend had told the state Department of Environmental Quality that it would be accepting ordinary municipal solid waste from time to time, but Lang and Brooks explained that the waste would come only from Waste Management's hauling subsidiary in Newberg -- not from locals or from Recology, the other hauler in the County.

Lang and Brooks also dangled the elusive "green tech" that Waste Management has promised the County for years, although Brooks admitted that no specific green tech would be identified until Riverbend expands.  When pressed by Commissioners, they refused to identify any successful technology developed or implemented by Waste Management on a large scale, pointing only to decades-old investments in InEnTec (pyrolysis) and Agilyx (reverse engineering plastics into oil), both of which operate on small scales.

Lang and Brooks also touted the renewable energy Riverbend provides by processing methane, a climate-threatening landfill byproduct, into electricity.  McMinnville Water & Light uses the electricity the landfill generates, but, according to Riverbend officials, has in the past refused to accept more even though the landfill could produce more.  Excess methane is flared away.

Riverbend also emphasized its investment in its physical plant, $18 million over many years plus a claimed $1,000,000 recycling area (which consists of a concrete platform people drive onto and then toss their recyclables into bins down below, usually with no assistance from Riverbend personnel).  This actually seems puny, far less than a modern landfill requires to function well.  A 2005 study of landfill construction costs estimated that costs could run as high as $800,000 per acre on flat, cleared ground, which would require a minimum $64 million investment at Riverbend.

No mention was made of the timing of Riverbend's request, with the Court of Appeals' ruling on its expansion denial appeal due within weeks.  Nor did the Board consider sending the proposed amendment to SWAC, the County's Solid Waste Advisory Committee, for comment and recommendation.

The Board of Commissioners eventually asked County Counsel Christian Boenisch to negotiate a proposal with Riverbend.  They hoped he could bring one back to the Board at its July 29th meeting, but the matter is not included on the Board's posted agenda.

Citizens can weigh in by sending written comments to BOCINFO@co.yamhill.or.us or by US mail to 535 NE Fifth Street, McMinnville, OR  97128.

Oregon's Recycling Dilemma: The NYTimes Has Noticed!

Remember when the New York Times reported that after the Big One hits, everything in Oregon west of I-5 will be "toast"?  Well, the paper has done it again with a new report about our recycling conundrum.

In its May 29th issue, the Times reports that a whole lot of what we as garbage company customers think we are recycling is actually going into the landfill.

Some Oregon communities are advising customers to put items like plastic, glass, and paper in the trash.  Others want customers to continue to recycle on the theory that if we stop recycling now, we won't start up again when (or if) the markets for recyclables pick up.

Very few, including local companies Waste Management and Recology, seem to be educating us about what can, and cannot, now be recycled.

A recent visit to the Recology recycling depot in Mac showed the same old signs along the walls, with no information posted at all about what Recology can or cannot actually recycle.  When staff at the depot have been asked about particular items, they have in the past opined that #1 plastic is always recyclable along with containers that are shaped so that the top and bottom are different sizes. A little bit of food waste in a glass or plastic container is also OK, they've said.

At the same time, staff have also said No to clamshells, even though many are #1, and the Times lists yogurt containers -- think shape -- as no longer recyclable.

Dirty containers are also unacceptable, whether the right shape or material.  Waste Management's Jackie Lang is quoted in the Times as asking customers to "Keep food and liquids out" by washing out food scraps.

In Seattle, customers must sort items into several bins (remember the famous Portlandia episode with all the little tiny bins?) or face a fine.  All that sorting may help prevent the kind of contamination that has caused China to reject US recyclables.  And in parts of the Bay Area, customers are asked to put all items that touched food (and are not cleaned afterwards) into a "compost" bin.  Here we'd call that the "trash."  While that particular bin may not actually make it to compost, it may well keep other recyclables clean.

We would like to see our local waste haulers do a lot more to educate us about what and how to recycle.  No one (except maybe Waste Management) wants to see more of our used items end up in the landfill.  But we need to know what and how to separate to make large-scale recycling possible again.

McMinnville Considers Diverting Waste from Riverbend

At 7:00 PM on Tuesday, November 28th, the McMinnville City Council will hold a Public Hearing regarding a change to the way garbage collected from City residents and businesses is handled.

Under the proposed change, the City's waste hauler, Recology, will no longer take waste it collects in McMinnville to Riverbend.  Instead, Recology proposes to haul the waste to Headquarters Landfill in Cowlitz County, Washington.

To comment on the proposal, one can attend the hearing at McMinnville Civic Hall, 200 NE 2nd Street, or email City Councilors and the Mayor ahead of the meeting.  To find out who your Councilor is or to obtain their email addresses, go to https://www.mcminnvilleoregon.gov/citycouncil.

The change will require a proposed 10% rate increase, to take effect in January, 2018. A customer with a $22.00/month garbage bill (which is what at least one small business on Third Street pays) would see its bill rise to a little over $24 a month.

Moreover, as part of the City proposal, Recology would forego the CPI (inflation) rate increase normally due 2018, so the actual increase to customers will end up being somewhat less than the 10% projected.

The proposed destination dump, Headquarters Landfill, is owned by Cowlitz County, Washington.  The County purchased the landfill from Weyerhaeuser in March, 2014, and proposed surrounding it with a community forest to buffer landfill activities from neighbors.  At 380 acres, Headquarters is nearly 4 times larger than Riverbend and has about 100 years capacity.

At the time of purchase, the landfill was said to be "beautiful" and "well-kept" with no "bad smell."  Moreover, the County was treating waste materials that contained hydrogen sulfide to further reduce odors.  However, the landfill is in a watershed that drains into a lake, and nearby residents expressed concern about potential leaks.

Last month, Cowlitz County put the landfill up for possible sale due to changes in Washington State environmental laws that require reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.  Complying with new state rules could cost the County--which makes a profit of about $4million/year from landfill operations--up to $5million/year.  Waste Management--of course--is one of those expressing interest in buying the landfill.

Just Say No

The City of McMinnville is considering pulling its garbage from Riverbend Landfill.  Not garbage already buried in Trash Mountain, but all garbage generated by the City and its residents and businesses going forward.

This Tuesday, September 26, the McMinnville City Council will hear a presentation from Recology about the possible effects of this anticipated City decision.  Recology (formerly Western Oregon Waste) is the company that picks up McMinnville garbage and hauls it to the dump.

Although Recology is expected to tell the Council that garbage rates may rise (a little) if McMinnville follows through on its proposal to keep new garbage out of Riverbend, the City would actually benefit by no longer contributing to a current economic and liveability liability and a potential environmental disaster on its doorstep.

It would be a huge victory if McMinnville were to just say "no" to sending more garbage to Riverbend Landfill.

If you are a McMinnville resident or operate a business in McMinnville, please attend the City Council meeting!  Tell the Council you support its plan to stop sending your garbage to the leaking, smelly, seismically unstable dump by the river.

WHAT:   McMinnville City Council Meeting
WHEN:  Tuesday September 26th, 7:00 PM
WHERE: McMinnville Civic Hall, 200 NE 2nd St
WHY:     To support the plan to stop sending McMinnville's trash to Riverbend Landfill

If you can't attend the meeting, contact your Councilor at http://www.mcminnvilleoregon.gov/citycouncil to let her/him know the City should stop sending your trash to Riverbend Landfill.

THANK YOU for your help.  We are making progress!  If you have questions about this exciting new development, contact Ilsa Perse, President of the Stop the Dump Coalition, at info@stopthedumpcoalition.org.

Metro Dumps Riverbend

Today Metro sent a strong message to Waste Management when the Metro Council voted to prohibit sending waste to Riverbend Landfill after 2019.

Dump expansion opponents have been working toward this day for years and were gratified that the Metro Council voted "to do the right thing."

According to Stop the Dump Coalition President Ilsa Perse, Metro Councilors Stacey, Chase, Harrington, Collette, and Craddick all spoke eloquently about their belief that it was time Metro stopped contributing to current and future environmental issues at Riverbend.  The Councilors acknowledged that landfilling may be the cheapest way to dispose of waste, but argued that cost savings don't make it right to dump that waste at a landfill in an environmentally sensitive location.

Councilor Harrington added that her vote reflected her values.  She stated that her constituents in Washington County do not want to continue using Riverbend.

The new ordinance prevents Metro from sending waste to any landfill that must expand (or be built) in order to accept that waste.  The prohibition goes into effect when Metro enters into new hauling contracts beginning in 2020, but applies to any landfill that expands or is constructed after today.

The Metro Council was convinced that its commitment to a "green" future was in jeopardy if it sent future waste to an expanded landfill, given that nearly 500 years of landfill capacity already exists within easy reach of Metro's boundaries.

Metro's decision may not keep Waste Management from pressing forward with its expansion at Riverbend.  The company is on record as saying that without Metro's garbage an expanded landfill is not financially viable.  However, at a meeting earlier this month, WM's lobbyist told the Metro Council that Riverbend would expand with or without Metro's garbage.  The expansion, of course, is tied up in court.

Perse said Stop the Dump Coalition and its allies "are so thankful for the support of those five councilors."  Stacey especially worked hard to develop information that would convince his fellow Councilors that continued use of Riverbend would undermine Metro's ideals.  These Councilors deserve the hearty thanks of all who want to see Riverbend close.  You can thank them at metrocouncil@oregonmetro.gov.

First Federal Community Voting Opens

Vote for Waste Not of Yamhill County!

Every year First Federal Savings and Loan asks customers to vote for the nonprofit organizations they think contribute the most to quality of life in Yamhill County.

Organizations receiving at least ten (10) votes receive a donation from First Federal.  The bank has a long history of supporting Yamhill County organizations, giving more than $2.4 million to County charities since 1999.  First Federal has pledged to distribute $40,000 in this year's voting.

You can support the Stop the Dump effort by voting -- for Waste Not of Yamhill County.

The Stop the Dump Coalition was originally known as Waste Not of Yamhill County, and that is how the organization is listed on the ballot.  "Stop the Dump" more closely communicates the organization's mission, so the name was changed.  Waste Not has received a donation every year it has appeared on the First Federal ballot.

Every dollar Waste Not/Stop the Dump receives pays for legal advice and expert scientific analysis to guide the fight to keep Riverbend Landfill from expanding.  For example, Riverbend's most recent attempt to add 29 acres to the landfill and creep closer to Highway 18 is currently on appeal in the Oregon Court of Appeals, led by Stop the Dump attorneys -- who have also taken the County to Circuit Court for issuing a Land Use Compatibility Statement for another expansion atop the existing dump, even though that issue is part of the Court of Appeals case.  Meanwhile, Stop the Dump's hydrology and seismic experts are reviewing the landfill's current and potential impacts on river and ground water quality.

This is an easy way to support the Stop the Dump effort.  If you have an account with First Federal, you are eligible to vote.  If you did not receive a ballot in the mail, ask for one at the bank!

Commissioners To Decide Landfill Fate Thursday

The County Board of Commissioners has scheduled a vote on whether Riverbend Landfill can expand for this Thursday, February 18.  The meeting will be held in Room 32 of the Courthouse basement.  The Courthouse is located on the corner of 5th and Evans in McMinnville; enter off 5th.

In January the Commissioners (BOC) asked the community and Riverbend Landfill Co. (RLC) for new argument (and some select new evidence) regarding ways the expansion might impact area farming.  The expansion issue was back before the BOC after the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) rejected the BOC's spring 2015 approval of RLC's expansion request.  Initial comments were submitted February 4, and then both sides were given one week for rebuttal.

Ilsa Perse, President of the Stop the Dump Coalition, describes the process this way:

"We all went to the remand hearing on the 4th.  True to the BOC's word, there was no public testimony, but our lawyer, their lawyer, and many others put in written testimony that addressed the issues that were listed in the remand  hearing procedure notice that we all received in in January.  We all got copies of what the other side put in and then had one week (til 11 Feb) to submit rebuttals, which could be made only to points raised by the other side.  [Community members] Susan, Sid, Ramsey, and our [STDC] attorney [Jeff Kleinman] put in very specific rebuttals to points made by RLC. Local farmers put in rebuttal letters as well. 

"The Commissioners may vote as early as next Thursday, the 18th, on whether or not the applicant (RLC) has made the case that LUBA told them they needed to make:  that the dump does not impact farming per ORS 215.296.

"Not sure if the vote will actually happen this week. But the "record" is tiny compared to what it was like last year, so the Commissioners shouldn't need more time to read anything."

There are some procedural rulings the BOC will have to make before they vote.  When STDC tried to submit video of birds flying from the dump onto nearby farmland, County land use attorney Todd Sadlo told attorney Kleinman that the County had requested only material that could be reduced to print and was not inclined to accept "physical objects" like  DVDs with bird videos on them.  Also, RLC asked that certain documents be stricken from the record.  And STDC renewed its motion from earlier proceedings to have Commissioner Springer recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds.  Once those, and possibly additional, motions are decided, the BOC can vote.

What are the issues?  An important one is whether nuisance birds attracted to the landfill to feed cause "significant impacts" to farming practices or costs.  Several large grass seed farms near the dump submitted letters documenting that seagulls coming from the dump are attracted to their lands just as new grass is poking up.  The gulls uproot the grass while grubbing for their dinner in the dirt below.  Fecal matter deposited by birds on fruit and vegetables near the dump is also a problem.

Litter is another big issue, especially for hay farms near the dump, which must spend time and money both picking up as much litter as possible before haying and also repairing equipment clogged by plastic waste.

Several other issues remain for the BOC to decide.  Stay tuned!

Here Come The Judge!

The Stop the Dump Coalition today filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal Yamhill County's approval of Riverbend Landfill's expansion.  The NITA (as the Notice is called) was filed with LUBA, the state Land Use Board of Appeals.

By law a copy of the NITA must be mailed to everyone who testified or submitted written testimony in the hearings the County held on the landfill's application.  The County must now prepare a "record" of those proceedings, which attorneys and LUBA judges can refer to in arguing the case.  Once the record is complete, Stop the Dump will have 21 days to file its opening brief.

Stop the Dump was joined in the NITA by the Willamette Valley Wineries Association and McPhillips Farms, Inc.


Even before the NITA was filed, however, Waste Management presented its expansion application to the state Department of Environmental Quality, DEQ.  At 824 pages, the application will make good bedtime reading for a good many bedtimes.

Fortunately, DEQ estimates that it will take several months to complete its own review of the application.  In the meantime, Stop the Dump and its allies will be busy parsing the massive document and securing experts to review it, as well.  The work ahead will be time-intensive and expensive.

You can contribute to this effort.  If you have environmental expertise and are willing to review and comment on the application, contact Susan Watkins here to receive a copy of the application (on CD-rom).

If you have an interest in Stopping this Expansion, please contribute!  Many of you have already donated in response to the fund-raising letter Stop the Dump recently sent out.  THANK YOU so much.  We have been amazed at your generosity.

If you did not get a fund raising letter, but would like to donate (gentle hint) , please take advantage of the easy-to-use donate button at the top of this page!

To all of you, thank you so much for the continued support.  We couldn't do any of this without you.

How Much Would You Pay to Close the Dump??

For a great article on the dump and the community's effort to let it reach capacity and close, see the September issue of The Connector magazine
(http://www.joomag.com/magazine/pr-for-people-monthly-september-2014/0504583001409256953).

The article quotes neighbor Ramsey McPhillips, Stop the Dump president Ilsa Perse, and former Waste Not Board member Gary Langenwalter.

Langenwalter offers an interesting alternative to expansion:  Instead of dump owner Waste Management paying the County to keep the dump open, let citizens pay the County to close it and "quit ruining the environment" (not to mention our quality of life).  At an estimated annual license fee of $1.2 million, that's only about $12 per County resident.  Many businesses, residents, and visitors have contributed a lot more than that over the years to Stop the Dump.

How much would you pay to close the dump?

Put Hauling Contracts Out to Bid

By Brian Doyle, former member and chair, Yamhill County Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC)

Renewal of the Waste Management Newberg hauling franchise is on the agenda for the SWAC meeting next Wednesday, July 16. I recommend against renewing the franchise at this time. 

Haulers pick up garbage from residences and businesses under a special license (franchise) from the County.  At present, Waste Management serves Newberg and the north County area, and Recology serves McMinnville and the south County.  In the past the SWAC has routinely renewed the 10-year hauler franchises even when the existing franchise contracts had several years remaining. This has effectively prevented any competitive bidding for the last 40 years. 

I know that SWAC keeps in touch with other counties and so is aware of their rates and hauling practices. This helps to assure that the rates in Yamhill County are reasonable. However, no level of monitoring or auditing can replace a competitive market place. Neither Waste Management (WM) nor Recology needs the sort of long-term financial assurance that the current system provided for the original local haulers in 1973. 

WM and Recology are both able and well-positioned to operate in a competitive environment. County residents will be best served when other companies can bid on hauling services. Rather than commit to another 10-year contract, I suggest the County use the time before the contract expires to review the structure of the current franchise system.

There are several elements that I think should be revised:

1. Hauling contract duration should be shorter. The 10-year length is not reasonable. Other jurisdictions put their hauling contracts out to bid every two years.

2. Granting exclusive rights to ALL commercial waste hauling stifles potential recycling/reuse of some wastes. While it makes sense to include weekly residential routes in the franchise, some other wastes or business categories don’t need to be included. For example, large containers that are hauled directly to disposal do not need to be included in a franchise system designed for residential routes.

3. I see no reason why irregular (on demand) hauling of unique wastes should be constrained by a single franchise system.

In short, I think it is appropriate for the County to suspend franchise renewals while it undertakes a review of, and potentially revises, its 40-year old franchise system.

If you agree, contact SWAC care of Sherrie Mathison at mathiss@co.yamhill.or.us and let them know you want the hauling contracts put to bid!

Note:  Columbia County, which previously disposed of its waste at Riverbend, went to bid earlier this year; now its waste will be hauled to Coffin Butte.

Carlton Asks Metro for $$

by Susan Watkins

The tiny City of Carlton lies right on Waste Management's garbage route -- the chain of roadways that huge garbage-hauling trucks follow day in day out en route from WM's transfer station in Forest Grove to Riverbend Landfill.  Carlton calculates that the heavy semis run through town, right down main street, 8,000 times a year.

The damage the big trucks cause is extensive.  Twice in the past few years the city has had to repair sewer and other pipes underneath the streets.

Now Carlton is asking Metro to pay.

Most of the waste that rides through town comes from the Metro area, not from Yamhill County.  The trucks use ODOT approved routes, which in this case means Hwy 47, right through downtown Carlton as well as two residential neighborhoods.  Pointing to a state law that authorizes monetary compensation for jurisdictions harmed by the collection of waste into regional facilities, the city asked Metro to contribute to its road repairs.

Although Metro has given no indication that it will act on Carlton's plea, the city's plight points up an unacknowledged side effect of Riverbend Landfill:  the impact on taxpayers.  Roads throughout the County, not just in Carlton, are affected; a major hauler to the dump is Pride, which runs down Hwy 99W.  Litter abounds.  Noise, odors, traffic, lights, vectors including birds and predators all impact residences and businesses in the dump vicinity as well as travelers on Hwy 18.  The County has failed to consider these costs when evaluating the dump's usefulness.  As the situation in Carlton shows, these costs add up.