If you spent the evening at Yamhill County’s March 19 public hearing on Riverbend Landfill, you would have heard a lot about smelly garbage, unsightly garbage and garbage residue dribbling into a brook that meanders across Ramsey McPhillips’ farm.
But you would have had to stay well into Friday morning before hearing testimony from the opponents’ legal eagles.
Sid Friedman of 1000 Friends of Oregon and Bill Kabeiseman of the Portland firm Garvey Schubert Barer fired the latest rounds in an ongoing legal argument with Riverbend over the approval criteria on which the Yamhill County commissioners are required to base their votes.
Oregon land-use hearings sometimes resemble a highly structured popularity contest.
When Riverbend presented its case this month, for example, company officials made much of the fact that more than 1,000 people had signed cards of support. And on Thursday, they announced that more than 100 local business owners had pledged support.
But there actually are specific legal criteria under Oregon law that go beyond the results of a community-wide show of hands.
“It’s great that Riverbend is a good community neighbor, it’s great that George participates in Turkey Rama,” Friedman told commissioners, referring to landfill manager George Duvendack. “But those aren’t really relevant factors to your decision.”
The criteria are spelled out in multiple sources packed with legalese — Oregon statutes, Oregon administrative rules and the Yamhill County zoning ordinance.
The set that Riverbend and its opponents have zeroed in on, in a series of written arguments dating back to December’s planning commission hearing and now running nearly 100 pages, relates to farmland and the goal exception process.
Oregon land-use law establishes 19 goals. Goal 3, which took effect in January 1975 and has been amended four times, specifies, “Agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for farm use, consistent with existing and future needs for agricultural products, forest and open space and with the state’s agricultural land-use policy,” as spelled out in statute.
Riverbend needs a zone change for its expansion site, tucked between Highway 18 and the South Fork of the Yamhill River. But it also needs an exception to Goal 3.
That means it must make a case for why the state land-use goal for that chunk of land should not apply to the proposed expansion at that location. Under the law, that requires findings that:
n Other parcels not requiring an exception can’t reasonably accommodate a landfill operation of like size.
n Potential long-term damage resulting from the expansion will not be significantly worse at the chosen site than it would be on another site requiring an exception.
n The proposed use is “compatible” with nearby adjacent uses — or could be made so with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.
On behalf of 1000 Friends, Friedman has been jousting with Riverbend’s consultants on those questions since November.
In essence, Friedman says, the law asks whether other sites could meet the need without requiring the applicant to jump through the goal exception hoop.
Because most of Riverbend Landfill’s garbage comes from outside Yamhill County, he and other critics maintain that Riverbend’s owner, Waste Management Inc., cannot limit itself to searching only within the county’s 718 square miles for a suitable alternative. Given the broader parameters of Oregon’s solid waste market, he argues, alternatives “are too numerous to list.”
Much of Friedman’s testimony — and conversely, much of Riverbend’s response — deals with possible alternatives.
The leading site is Gilliam County’s Columbia Ridge Landfill, owned by Waste Management. It is generally referred to under the name of the nearest town, Arlington.
The landfill sprawls across more than 2,000 acres, 700 of which are active, according to Waste Management. Garbage is shipped there not only from Portland, but also from Seattle, 320 miles to the north. And still, it has the capacity to handle the current flow of garbage for another 107 years.
That’s not economically viable, Riverbend says. Hauling waste from McMinnville to the Eastern Oregon community of Arlington would boost local disposal costs by $4 million a year.
What that means for customers is difficult to pin down.
For Riverbend, “100 percent increase” has become almost a mantra. But it’s not that simple.
How much rates would actually increase depends on multiple factors — how far the garbage is hauled, and how much garbage is thrown away.
On behalf of Waste Management, consultant ECONorthwest crunched the numbers a couple years ago and concluded residential customers would see their garbage bills go up 12 percent. But Riverbend says commercial and industrial customers, particularly big customers like SP Newsprint and Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, would get hammered.
Both companies are currently facing dire financial straits. And officials from both testified to the accuracy of Riverbend’s analysis during this month’s hearing.
Critics say Riverbend is blowing the rate increase argument out of proportion.
McPhillips cites discussions he’s had with Waste Connections Inc., one of Waste Management’s competitors. A manager there said Friday that while he doesn’t buy all of McPhillips’ arguments, the Riverbend foe is right about garbage rates.
If Riverbend were to close in 2014, said Dean Large, sales manager at Waste Connections’ Wasco County Landfill, his company would surely pursue the county disposal contract.
“Long-hauling solid waste out of Yamhill County should not and likely would not increase costs to customers,” he said. “In my opinion, it would be a modest increase in price.”
Wrapped up in all of this are two simple words loaded with various interpretations: “need” and “reasonable.”
Zone change criteria include an “existing demonstrable need” for whatever it is that an applicant wants to build. And settling the goal exception issue requires asking if the proposed use could be “reasonably” accommodated elsewhere.
The problem with “reasonable” is fairly clear. Reasonableness, like beauty, may be in the eye of umpteen beholders.
Certainly, what is reasonable to Riverbend is unreasonable to immediate landfill neighbor Ramsey McPhillips and many other farmers.
The interpretive problems raised by the question of an applicant’s “need” were made clear in January by Planning Commissioner Chair Daryl Garrettson prior to the planning commission’s unanimous “no” vote on Riverbend.
If the need is for space to dump Yamhill County’s garbage, he said, the existing location would be sufficient for some 15 years without an expansion. Because the need is generated in large part outside the county, Riverbend is obliged to consider a much larger map.
Whose need is relevant? Oregon law gives no guidance on that question.
“I am not aware of an objective definition of ‘need’ within the land use morass,” says local developer John Abrams, who serves on the planning commission. “It is applied differently in different circumstances.”
And, obviously, by different parties.
Can market demand be equated with a public need? Some think so, but a couple years ago, when commissioners considered a proposal for a luxury hotel, some opponents said that while there might very well be sufficient demand from high-end clientele, that didn’t necessarily mean that the county “needed” such an operation.
“It is an interesting, albeit not well-defined subject,” said Planning Director Mike Brandt. “At least not in my opinion.”
Without really saying so, Friedman acknowledged the difference between arguments related directly to legal criteria versus the sort of grassroots populism that both sides have brought to the case.
He noted that while he was asked to testify on behalf of 1000 Friends, he was also speaking as a Yamhill County resident.
Momentarily wearing his “resident” cap, Friedman offered this succinct argument:
“I oppose the dump expansion,” he said. “It’s not 1950, it’s not 1980. It’s time that we stopped tossing our trash on the riverbank.”
Monday, March 30, 2009
Riverbend rests on legal issues
Friday, March 27, 2009
Landfill issue is framed as an ‘us vs. them’ battle
By Ramsey McPhillips (Guest Editor, Newberg Graphic— March 28, 2009) Why have we been pitted against each other in a landfill fight ... the paper mill and steel mill against the local Yamhill County farmers, vintners and elected land and water stewards? Why have our county commissioners been made to look like this land use decision is about either saving jobs and garbage rates or saving century-old farms, tourism and the river? Who created this artificial wedge between good local folks that has resulted in a monopoly aimed at controlling the profits for our solid waste dollars? The landfill opposition group acknowledged and testified in front of the commissioners to the hardships that closing Riverbend Landfill could bring to the workers, businesses and residences of Yamhill County. That is why they offered so many positive, commercially-viable Riverbend alternatives that would not raise our garbage bills. They were viable solutions that save and create more jobs, lower garbage rates and save the farms, many of which are more than 100 years old. Why destroy the farms, risk the river and double the height of the garbage mountain if all it provides is a huge profit for a big Texas company? What are the farmers and tourism sacrificed for? Not lower garbage rates, that is for sure! Advocating that Riverbend is the only option for stable, cheap business garbage service is a propaganda ploy the commissioners will surely see through. I want a formal apology from those who have claimed that our garbage rates will go up 250 percent if we close Riverbend in 2014. Waste Management paid out-of-county people to knock on our doors and frighten us with this statistic. They have spent over a million dollars on this campaign. The record is now clear; Waste Management's competitor has weighed in on the public record and said they could reasonably compete for our garbage rates in 2014 if Riverbend closes. This competitor is bidding on Yamhill County business garbage contracts today. Waste Management has enjoyed a monopoly in Yamhill County, but because of our efforts we now have some very healthy solid waste competition. The land use application is for today but the problem of actually closing the landfill is five years off. No one at the steel mill or the paper mill is losing his or her job today because the landfill may close in five years. However, dump nuisance conditions are running farming families off their property today and will destroy even more if allowed to expand. The law protects the farms from expanding regional dumps onto state agricultural land. Has anyone who advocates expansion visited the 40 or 50 farms that are experiencing loss? The answer is no. Now that we know the garbage rates need not be higher if Riverbend closes, we hope the steel mill and the paper mill join the farmers in asking for a denial of this land use application. One thing is for sure. Until this decision is finally made there will be very powerful out-of-state entities aiming their destructive bottom line at some of the oldest farms and most vulnerable waterways in the state. That is why all the elected Yamhill County Soil and Water district members voted against expansion. Look at the actual record of lost property value, lost property sales and mounting nuisance claims and then you will understand why the planning commission voted 7- 0 to deny. Does anyone really believe all seven planning commission members would have voted no if they thought their was truth to the Waste Management claim that they would be voting to take people's jobs or raise their garbage rates five years from now? The county commissioners are going to have a hard time approving a landfill plan that has universal rejection by the two county advisory bodies that have already voted for denial. Go out to the landfill, stand on any surrounding farm, and then picture the landfill twice as high (from the road). What you see is why the Yamhill County Planning Department rejected Riverbend's site plan. Denial of the site plan mandates a rejection of the entire land use application. Twice the landfill size will bring twice the profits for Waste Management, but twice the problems for Yamhill County. We want to save the farms and our garbage rates. We believe the landfill inhibits jobs. We are working to create jobs to replace those working at the landfill while adding a lot more with new technology and zero waste cost savings. We have urged our commissioners to deny the land use zone change application and find a solid waste solution for all the businesses in the county; steel workers, mill workers, retail workers, landfill workers, homeowners and farmers alike. Waste Management needs a winner-takes-all land use victory. But Yamhill County needs a community land use mission in which everyone wins; a local mission, not a rate-baiting fight to secure a monopoly. A local mission that follows the law, keeps our garbage rates low and concludes in fairness. Why destroy the farms, tourism and risk the river if it isn't necessary? We have five years to embrace the future and we really urge the county commissioners to join all the previous votes to deny the application. As the students from George Fox College said in their testimony to deny the Riverbend application: "We are willing to recognize that we, as people who throw away trash, are just as responsible for environmental damage as those who store it." We hope the Commissioners agree. Ramsey McPhillips is owner of McPhillips Farms near Riverbend Landfill |
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Attend Thursday's Meeting!
Energy From Our Garbage
One technology that many are enthused about is Plasma Arc technology. It uses an electric arc much like lightning that creates high temperatures virtually destroying waste and converting it to gases and inert materials that can be used to make useful products. This is all done using only part of the energy from the waste itself. The rest is used for productive purposes.News Register Editorial — March 14, 2009
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.
Letters to the Editor - March 14, 2009
Our valley is unique
As a fourth-generation farmer living on the parcel of land south of Riverbend Landfill, I am adamantly opposed to expanding the current dump. McMinnville has shouldered its share of the burden when it comes to trash disposal. Making the dump larger is foolish - better ways are available. We are stewards of the land. Creating an even more enormous problem is not the best use of the land. Expanding will destroy farmland, wetlands, downstream salmon habitat, reduce air and water quality and devalue property.
Moving creeks will change the footprint of Yamhill County and affect Oregon's future generations. I am against the expansion because I believe it is not in the best interest of local people; it is in the interest of out-of-state corporations that do not care what happens to those who make their homes here. This valley is unique rural America - but not with a colossal-sized landfill spoiling the landscape and water systems. Our responsibility is to leave this land in the best condition we can for generations to come.
Carl Bergstrom
McMinnville
Make right decision
The Yamhill County commissioners will hold a hearing on the proposed Riverbend Landfill expansion at 1 p.m. Thursday, Mar. 19, in Room 103 of the McMinnville Community Center at 600 N.E. Evans Street.
The commissioners will have the opportunity to say No to the expansion and to leave a legacy of change for the better for the future of the county. It is a crime against nature to have a huge, regional landfill located on prime farmland bordering a river. Additionally, do we really want to pass on the inevitable cleanup of this dump to the next generation?
The landfill is a travesty that can never be explained away or justified, no matter how much money is involved on either side of this issue. The landfill and its proposed expansion is a moral and ethical issue. The commissioners' decision should not be based on matters of short-sighted interests and greed that exploit the earth. Their decision needs to be based on what is right for the earth and for our children. Now is the time to step up to the plate and make a positive difference.
Patricia L. McGhehey
McMinnville
Find alternative
I would like to respectfully voice my opposition to the expansion of the Riverbend landfill and request that our Yamhill County Commissioners reject the application to double the size of the landfill. My reasons are as follows.
Landfills are outdated technology, proven to be incredibly dangerous and hazardous. We have one that already contains 7 million tons of waste. No one knows how much hazardous material the site already contains, and there is no way to prevent these hazardous substances from inevitably leaking from the site into the Yamhill River and surrounding agricultural properties. As a result, we will eventually be faced with the expensive chore of dealing with the cleanup of this site. It makes no sense to increase this problem.
There are far better technologies for dealing with solid waste that are proven to be sound and that use the garbage to generate energy. Waste Management is already using these technologies at other sites in other states.
If allowed to double in size, the expanded landfill will become a serious eyesore and a continued source of repugnant odor that will have a significant economic impact on the agricultural and tourist industries in our county.
The best solution is to use this site as a transfer station for shipping our local waste via rail to an existing approved site already owned by Waste Management in Eastern Oregon. This will have the additional benefit of eliminating all the daily truck traffic currently bringing waste in from Portland. I ask that the County Commissioners deny the request to double the size of the Riverbend Landfill next to the South Yamhill River and work with the residents of Yamhill County to find an environmentally sound and community-friendly alternative solution to our waste disposal needs.
Robert Brittan
McMinnville
Be active, informed
I am part of Waste Not of Yamhill County, a group formed both to oppose expansion of Riverbend Landfill and to promote waste disposal alternatives.
Even the best-run landfills pose environmental problems. Ours is in rain country on a river that has reached flood stage six of the past 10 years. We want the existing landfill to close in 2014 as originally scheduled and have our waste deposited in a better-sited landfill or, better yet, converted into usable fuel or energy.
When Yamhill County authorized the current landfill, neighbors were assured they would not see, hear or smell it. As anyone who drives Highway 18 - or who lives along highways 47 or 99W, where garbage-filled semis pass 70 times a day - can attest, the landfill has not lived up to this promise. The neighborhood also has changed, with new farms, businesses and homes within sight of the landfill.
The current site may support the current landfill, but it cannot support the industrial-sized, mile-long mountain Riverbend wants to add.
Some fear their garbage rates will increase 250 percent if Riverbend closes on schedule, but Riverbend's zone change application states that even hauling waste out of county will raise rates only 12 percent. Waste Not knows another landfill operator actively competing for Yamhill County businesses' garbage, at today's rates - no rate increase. This competitor's landfill sites are more than a mile from the nearest waterway, and its trucks use clean biofuels.
Waste Management Inc., Riverbend's owner, builds greener waste-to-energy plants in other counties and actively promotes zero-waste goals elsewhere. Why not here?
True NIMBYs want garbage "out of sight, out of mind." We want Yamhill County residents to be active and informed. Know where your garbage goes! Visit www.wastenotofyamhillcounty.org for details.
Susan Watkins
McMinnville
Shrink footprint
The recent emissions of noxious odors from Riverbend Landfill are a symptom of a problem that cannot be solved by bigger collection wells. The odors represent a solid waste system that is outdated and harmful to the environment. The witch's brew that makes up landfill gas is far more dangerous than it is smelly.
Methane makes up around 50 percent of landfill gas. It is a very potent greenhouse gas, at least 20 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, the next-most-plentiful component in landfill gas. Methane does not smell. As with auto emissions, what you cannot smell is worse than what you can smell.
An enormous amount of methane escapes from all landfills. Riverbend and its Texas owner, Waste Management Inc., are marketing the electricity from landfill-created methane as a "green" alternative to fossil fuels. It is not a green alternative; significant amounts of methane will still escape into the environment. Advocating for dump expansion in order to generate electricity is like advocating for destroying mountaintops to produce "clean coal."
Because burning methane is such a dirty and inefficient source of power, sophisticated plants are often built to convert methane to natural gas. This is being done at the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill in King County, Wash.
We need to get off foreign oil and use our trash to create power through one of the many innovative waste management systems that are coming on line around the country. These innovative systems do not require the creation of a mile-long mountain of garbage, as is currently being planned, in order to harvest a questionable amount of a dangerous greenhouse gas.
We will shrink our carbon footprint when we stop dumping garbage.
Ilsa Perse
Carlton
Letters to the Editor - March 7, 2009
Divulge full truth
Tom and Jan Schmidt's letter (Readers' Forum, Feb. 28) was a big disappointment to their neighbors. In their letter, the Schmidts said, "This letter of support for Riverbend Landfill may come as a surprise to some. It is from the farming family that lives and operates a successful business just across the road from the landfill."
What may be a bigger surprise to readers is that Riverbend (Waste Management) owns the farm, not the Schmidts. Riverbend purchased the farm on June 29, 2006, for $1.3 million. For the Schmidts to write a letter in support of the landfill without disclosing this financial benefit and connection is unacceptable. They even went so far as to say they are not worried about property values and that odors have not been bothersome.
This is not the first time a neighbor has benefited financially through the sale of their property and then has had the audacity to promote Riverbend Landfill without disclosing the connection. Most residents of Yamhill County received a letter last summer from another Riverbend Landfill neighbor, Jackie Brosamle, who runs Mulkey RV Park. Her letter supported the Riverbend Landfill expansion. She did not mention that Riverbend owned the land under her business.
Why would the Schmidts and Jackie Brosamle be worried about property values? They don't own the property next to the landfill. Riverbend does.
Ask anyone who has not financially profited in dealings with Riverbend and who lives within a couple of miles of the landfill, and they will tell you the truth. They are frequently bothered by the odors, and they are concerned about their property values. My guess is that for the neighbors who have sold their land to Riverbend, the enticing odor of money is stronger than the odor of trash.
Kris Bledsoe
McMinnville
Life won't collapse
From the tone of some letters to the editor about the landfill, you would think that life in Yamhill County would collapse without a local dump. Riverbend started out as a county landfill; now it brings in 75 percent of the trash from six other counties. These other governments are making more money from tipping fees at transfer stations than Yamhill County is making to store their garbage.
How are Portland and Seattle thriving without a county dump? Seattle transfers its garbage to railroad cars, which haul it to Arlington. For little more than it costs McMinnville to haul garbage to our landfill, Portland Metro can haul trash to Riverbend. Seaside, Cannon Beach, Astoria and Canby move their garbage to a transfer station, sort, compact and ship it here. Are they dying out because they don't have a local dump?
The current contract with Riverbend is until 2014; employees won't lose their jobs now. In fact, those people can be employed at transfer stations, or new technologies that deal with trash, rather than the old means of burying it in the best farmland by a river.
Responsible citizens, will you pay for the clean-up when - not if - the liners break or the toxic-leachate-lagoon leaks when Riverbend reverts to Yamhill County possession? You may save a dollar today, but what about your kids tomorrow?
Yes, Riverbend is going green, as in millions of dollars of profit. Thanks for the 10,000 gulls, the non-native poplar grove watered with toxic leachate, and the mountain of garbage that we'll have for centuries.
Jim Kreutzbender
McMinnville
Deny request
Later this month, our county commissioners will hold a hearing to approve or deny a request by Riverbend Landfill to expand greatly. We hope they will consider all the facts and testimony related to this expansion, reject the propaganda and vote No unanimously to this outrageous proposal, just as the planning commission did in January.
I doubt seriously that Sunset Magazine would have voted our McMinnville as one of the top 20 best small towns in the West if our commerce was completely centered around a 400-foot-tall (above sea level), stinky, noisy dump owned by a Texas corporation. No offense to those from Arlington, Oregon, but we don't want our "food and wine haven" to look and smell like your town.
We lived in Roundup, Mont., in the 1980s when that town's landfill was closed and garbage transferred. I don't recall hearing of any residents or businesses adversely affected by exorbitant new rates. In the 1990s, we lived in Madras, Oregon; again the local landfill was closed and garbage transferred without the town imploding over higher garbage rates.
Imagine our surprise when we moved here and there was still an operating landfill and right next to a river! Is it not the 21st century?
This local dump can continue operating until 2014 even without an expansion. That will give concerned residents and businesses plenty of time to look at the amount of waste they produce and practice being more efficient. If your household trash is picked up once a month instead of twice, you will cut your bill in half. Visit the WOW recovery recycling center once or twice a month, too. You will be able to save money and have the satisfaction of knowing that your trash is not causing misery to other residents of this community.
Pat and Tammy Devine
McMinnville
