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.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)