Throughout history, during eras of growth and expansion, of manufacturing innovations, of use and abuse of land, the economy has won out over the environment. That is, until the past few decades, as we have been painfully slow to recognize our responsibility for damaging the planet from which we harvest life-sustaining elements. It is in that spirit that we recommend more work before Yamhill County makes a final decision on long-term expansion of Riverbend Landfill.
Some will characterize this as supporting denial of the Riverbend application. We consider it a call to action. Despite mounds of documentation from both sides of this debate, the time just doesn’t seem ripe for a final decision.
We know and respect the people on both sides of this issue as friends, neighbors and business associates — those with whom we share this beautiful county. Each of the camps laid out strong and persuasive arguments. But in the end we had to ask, why the rush? In asking that question, we consider the following:
The current landfill has an estimated five more years of life, which could be extended by reducing outside waste. We believe this decision should be connected to any future long-term business agreement between Riverbend and the county, which isn’t the case today. This is a “metropolitan problem,” and we are concerned that alternative “metropolitan solutions” have not been seriously considered. We see the need for more investigation into environmental factors that could affect the health of valuable agricultural lands and waterways for generations.
Riverbend Landfill and its parent company, Waste Management, have met the federal, state and county land use criteria in two of the three expansion application sections: flood plain development, and the plan amendment and zone change, although the planning staff struggled with the second issue.
The third part, site design review, left planners unconvinced that Riverbend could adequately buffer the view of the proposed landfill height topping 250 feet above ground level. Landfill officials since have moderated the height and buffering components of the plan, with results of that change going to the commissioners at the next week’s hearing.
———
First, let’s weigh the economic issues as we understand them.
There has been some confusion surrounding the cost of closing the landfill and shipping waste to another site, such as Columbia Ridge in Arlington. In a study by ECONorthwest, which was part of Riverbend’s expansion application, it states that the annual cost of total “solid waste service” in Yamhill County will increase an average residential bill by 12 percent, or approximately $2.89 per month. That figure has been verified by Western Oregon Waste.
However, the increased cost in “disposal rate per ton of waste” will more than double, from $30 per ton to $70-75 per ton. That’s confusing, because the disposal rate per ton is just one component of waste disposal costs.
Altogether, ECONorthwest estimates there would be an increase of approximately $3.4 million per year in disposal rates for hauling waste to Arlington, or about $36 per year for each man, woman and child in the county.
There are other economic factors, none of which should be discounted, such as licensing and host fees to the county, 24 jobs per year and regional expenditures by Riverbend.
———
We share the business community’s economic concerns, but we also share opponents’ concerns about our environment and the compatibility of an expanded landfill with the surrounding farms, vineyards and the Yamhill River.
Opponents cite other Waste Management “waste-to-energy” plants as a possible option to burying the waste here. Although quite efficient in other areas of the country, the current economic investment and payback for Riverbend does not pencil out at this time. One major reason, according to Waste Management’s Vice President of Public Affairs Kent Stoddard, is that Oregon does not consider the energy produced by the combustion of municipal solid waste to be “renewable energy,” and therefore it does not qualify for renewable energy credits that electric utilities are required to purchase in order to meet the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.
It makes sense to further examine modern solid waste disposal alternatives being developed, and also to lobby Oregon legislators to reconsider the definition of renewable energy.
There is a strong core of support for expansion of Riverbend from respected local individuals and business interests. There is strong opposition from such significant groups as the Yamhill County Farm Bureau and Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, citing risks to the river system and elimination of top-quality farmlands. It’s hard to argue with YCSWD, whose job it is to monitor the health and safety of local soil and water resources, about the wisdom of siting a landfill in the Yamhill River flood plain.
Another opponent is the Willamette Valley Wineries Association, representing an important local agricultural enterprise and tourism industry. Wine production in this area has doubled in the past decade, and tourism has grown threefold since the early 1990s.
———
There are honorable people on both sides of the debate, and we think they might find ways to work together on a solution for local solid waste disposal that will be cost-effective, environmentally safe and suitable to the character of the local economy. The environment, where our decisions will affect generations to come, must be high on that list of factors.
We don’t envy the county commissioners their task. They naturally will feel an obligation to make a decision now, but we think there is room for more work before finalizing something so important to so many.
0 comments:
Post a Comment