From Ilsa Perse: Hello Friends, Happy New Year to all. What would the New Year be without a dump-related activity? WHAT: The Planning Commission votes on Waste Managements application to expand the dump. We will not have an opportunity to say anything, but a big turnout of supporters is still important. WHEN: Thursday, January 15th, at 7:00 PM WHERE: McMinnville Civic Center, on 2nd and Baker Streets Over the past few weeks, we have been looking at all the communication that has come in to the County Planning Department from folks opposed to dump expansion. And all we can say is THANK YOU to all of you for taking the time to register your opinion. Our side was very well represented. Their side....not so much! The News Register took note of the large number of people who wrote in. We appreciate all the support. Below is the article for those who did not see it. See you on Thursday January 15th! Thank you, Stop the Dump Coalition County inundated with landfill testimony JAN 2, 2015 | LOCAL NEWS More Sharing ServicesShare By NICOLE MONTESANOOf the News-Register Deadline passes for testimony for landfill as hearing date nears Letters from 64 people, businesses and organizations opposed to expansion of Riverbend Landfill have been filed with the Yamhill County Planning Department to supplement oral testimony offered at a Dec. 4 planning commission hearing. In addition, the Stop the Dump coalition resubmitted several letters of opposition from an earlier hearing, saying they remained relevant. The department received one letter of support. It also received a neutral informational letter from the McMinnville Planning Department. Parties had until 5 p.m. Dec. 23 to enter additional testimony and 5 p.m. Dec. 31 to submit rebuttal arguments. Landfill owner Waste Management Inc. of Houston, Texas, has until 5 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 8, to submit its final written arguments, which cannot include any new evidence. The hearing will be reopened at 7 p.m. Thursday, Jan. 15, at the city McMinnville Civic Center, 200 N.E. Second St. No new testimony will be taken, but a staff recommendation will be presented. The planning commission, which unanimously opposed an earlier expansion plan, is expected to deliberate and vote then. Larry Ouja, executive director of the Yamhill Soil and Water Conservation District, said the district reviewed water rights in the area after Dayton farmer Sam Sweeney voiced concern about the impact of landfill expansion on irrigation water taken from the South Yamhill River. “According to information from the Oregon Department of Water Resources, there are 69 surface water rights that allow for 2,687 acres of irrigable land located downstream from the Riverbend Landfill,” Ouja wrote. “The impacts of the proposed expansion on the lands … are potentially significant,” he said, as farmers use river water to irrigate strawberries, blueberries and vegetable crops. “Farmers continue to face increased pressures to comply with food safety, good handling practices, and other regulations that require the use of clean water. Food processors and buyers need assurance that the food grown by local farmers satisfies their standards, and meets the consumers’ expectations for quality and safety,” Ouja wrote. The landfill argued in its written rebuttal testimony that its operations do not pose a threat to water quality. “These technological and regulatory advancements in landfill design and construction have functionally eliminated water quality impacts resulting from leachate transmission through a landfill built to modern standards,” the company said. “This conclusion is based on expert opinion that the rate of failure is effectively zero and the functional life of the design exceeds the period of time the decaying refuse represents a significant risk to water quality. “Once the landfill is closed, the volume of leachate diminishes significantly because the water cannot enter the landfill through the cap nor escape it through the liner. With a properly designed and constructed liner system built to modern standards, water quality impact potential at Riverbend Landfill is essentially limited to two sources – storm water and leachate seepage. “These two sources of potential water quality impact are analyzed in Appendix C prepared by SCS Engineering. That technical analysis concludes that regulatory requirements of ODEQ and resulting best management practices of Riverbend Landfill render significant risk to water quality from storm water or leachate seepage to be very limited,” the material states. Landfill opponent Leonard Rydell, engineer of record for the landfill in the early to mid-1980s, before resigning over concerns with construction methods, argued that some of the early cells were improperly constructed, and flood annually. In addition, he said, the river has been gradually but steadily moving toward the landfill over time. He said historical data shows that a line of vegetation along the river eroding an average of 10.5 inches per year between 1936 and 2005. “Besides the threat to the Riverbend’s perimeter flood control berm from meandering of the river channel … modification of the floodway through excavation has the potential to increase flow velocities, increasing risk of catastrophic channel change,” he wrote. Ouja said the landfill has a poor record of keeping pollutants out of the water. “Records indicate the landfill continues to experience discharges and exceed permit standards,” he wrote. “Under the DEQ stormwater discharge permit granted to Waste Management, Riverbend Landfill can and does routinely discharge E. coli, chromium, nickel, copper, zinc and other known pollutants into surface water flowing directly into the South Yamhill River. In addition to these allowed discharges, the best efforts of Waste Management have not been able to prevent repeated discharges that exceed the levels in their permit. “Within the last year, both E. coli and zinc discharges have exceeded their permit ‘benchmarks.’ The zinc concentration was more than double the permitted benchmark. The E. coli concentration was about six times the benchmark. These were not isolated incidents. Similar exceedances have occurred numerous times over the years.” For farmers, Ouja noted, E. coli is a particular concern, given its ability to cause potentially lethal illness. And he said at least one nursery owner has suffered container plant damage from heavy metals infiltrating irrigation water. “Given the landfill past history of discharges, it can be assumed that the proposed landfill expansion will result in both allowed and unpermitted discharges of E. coli and other pollutants into surface water upstream from irrigators who depend on the Yamhill River,” Ouja wrote. “The ongoing discharges by the landfill and the increased potential for continued and increased discharges to the Yamhill River put the river’s reputation at risk. The county should not approve an expansion that jeopardizes the agricultural industry in Yamhill County.” Hydrologist Mark Yinger of Mark Yinger Associates, writing on behalf of the Stop the Dump Coalition, said he had reviewed the landfill’s 2013 Annual Environmental Monitoring Report, required by the Department of Environmental Quality. “The 2013 monitoring data reveals that groundwater quality standards are exceeded for a number of parameters at several monitoring wells at the landfill,” he wrote. “Leachate from the Riverbend Landfill does impact groundwater.” Waste Management Inc. submitted a revised farm impact statement rebutting testimony by farmers during the hearing. It disputes their accounts of crop and livestock damage. The company said analyses undertaken by consultants “do not support the null hypothesis that landfill operations have been causing significant changes to the accepted farm practices in the area, or significantly increasing the cost of accepted farm practices.” It notes that farming has continued in the area over the past 40 years, and in some cases expanded. It argues that if farms are being harmed by rats and birds, it is because they are naturally present in the area or are being attracted by farming operations themselves. “Attracted birds are primarily corvids, gulls and pigeons,” the company said in the statement, “corvids” referring primarily to ravens and crows. “These birds are all mobile and are naturally prevalent irrespective of the landfill’s existence or expansion; it is not expected that the landfill has a significant effect on the overall populations of these birds in the region, and only micro-level attraction and patterns in and around the landfill are expected.” It argued that falcons brought in by Waste Management in 2012 to manage nuisance birds have “reduced gull and raven population by over one third.” Any increase in corvid numbers or aggressiveness can be attributed to urban expansion, it maintained. “As the greater Portland area population has grown, corvid populations have grown as well,” the company wrote. “Whatever marginal attractant factor the landfill might exert would appear to be as likely to attract corvids away from Redmond Farms as it would to contribute to corvid management issues.” In fact, the company argued, the landfill may actually draw birds away from local farms and vineyards. “The attraction of the landfill may attract problem birds toward the landfill and away from competing grape food sources,” it said. Numerous people complained about litter blown from garbage trucks en route to the landfill. Complaints about nuisance odors, environmental damage, seismic concerns and harm to tourism and business were also prevalent. Farmers also complained about having to patrol their farms for litter. Waste Management’s farm impact statement dismissed those complaints, saying, “Potential litter impacts for grass seed production is expected to be limited for all identified farm practices except for combine operations and cleaning and bagging the seed or hay baling. For all other farm practices, any litter appears to be an occasional annoyance … “Large volumes of litter may have a heightened potential to clog machines and slow down harvesting and cleaning operations. However, litter control is actively managed by existing landfill operations programs, including litter fences and litter collection. “CSA conducted a litter density analysis between Highway 18 and the results of that analysis indicate that Waste Management’s efforts are effective and actual observed litter densities are less than those observed on other rural roads in the area, indicating that the actual potential for litter impacts is not significant from the existing landfill operations.” Opponent Ilsa Perse wrote in response, “Grass seed production depends upon being able to combine and clean the seed. There is no reason to grow grass seed if you are not going to combine and clean it. Claiming that the only time litter might be a problem is when the seed is combined and cleaned is like saying the only time it is hard to breathe is when oxygen is sucked out of a room.” The expansion application, written testimony and written rebuttal testimony can be viewed at planning department offices at 525 N.E. Fourth St. or online at co.yamhill.or.us/planning .
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 02:23:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015