CSWD gets second option on Williston landfill future

Chittenden Solid Waste District gets second option on Williston landfill future
by Art Edelstein
At a May 23 meeting with his board of directors, CSWD General Manager Tom Moreau proposed a two-pronged approach to the planned Williston Landfill.
This project, 20 years in the planning, has been under legal attack from Williston residents who claim it is not needed, and could be a potential health hazard. Two citizens groups are opposed to the landfill. One, based in the Ledgewood Drive subdivision, a small community of 34 homes closest to the proposed site, has filed a lawsuit against CSWD. Thirty-seven plaintiffs living and owning lots on Ledgewood Drive are seeking to invalidate a 1992 agreement in which town officials promised the town would host a regional landfill. The group represents 20 households.
The other, Vermont Organized Communities Against Landfills (VOCAL), is a local citizens' group. VOCAL, is against the landfill for a variety of reasons.
Some of the residents fighting the landfill proposal live close enough to the 60 plus-acre site to have strong concerns about their property values, which have stagnated if not fallen.
In a memorandum to the board dated May 21 Moreau stated: "I propose that the CSWD staff and Shaw Environmental complete the conceptual design and the economic model of the proposed regional landfill for CSWD that fits within the constraints of the Williston Host Town Agreement. Staff and the CSWD Board should go over the design and model and make any appropriate changes. The model should then go out for public comment and input then be revised if necessary. I propose that CSWD then have the landfill ready for all permit applications but not actually file for any of the permits until January 2009. Shaw Environmental should be prepared to redo the economic model should the tonnages that we estimated change by more than 10 percent."
Moreau also offered a second approach to waste issues in the county. He wants CSWD to study a nine-point proposal that would essentially lower the amount of waste going into existing landfills. The proposal includes taking the next 18 months doing in depth investigations into the following areas:
"Construction & Demolition (C&D) material recycling and diversion. Biodegradable organic material recycling and diversion, both collection and processing. Improvements to increase the recovery rate for curbside recyclables. Improvements to address other non-curbside recyclables such as scrap metal and textiles. Implementation of a Pay-As-You-Throw system. Consideration of the pros and cons of a county-wide franchise collection system for trash and recyclables. Continuation of the work on product stewardship or Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). Landfill pre-processing technology to remove certain items for recycling, or energy generation. Alternative technologies in collaboration with third parties involved with energy generation and sale."
"What's undecided is whether the board will agree to a pause on the landfill in terms of applying for its permits, or do they just want to apply for the permits now?" said Moreau.
At this stage, CSWD should be ready to apply for its permits by next February at the latest.
Moreau said CSWD is on solid financial ground in terms of the planned landfill, so that is not a concern. As he explained, with the Vermont Supreme decision this April that set the value of the Hinesburg Sand & Gravel property (the owner of the proposed landfill site) at $4 million for the land and the value of commercial real estate in the years since the suit was filed, CSWD now knows its financial exposure. "Once we understood that, it appears that the district has sufficient funds set aside," he said.
Before the court decision the cost could have been $4 and $16 million. CSWD has funds exceeding $5 million set aside for the land purchase. "Had it been significantly more we would have had to pick up the pace of development because we would have had to pay interest on the loan," Moreau explained. "We have a little time because it appears, although it is being petitioned for re-argument. Unless the court decision is overturned, we will be able to afford the land payment."
According to Moreau, with the land issue costs decided there is less pressure on CSWD to act immediately. As a result, he feels CSWD can "give our attention and resources to getting as much of the material out of the waste stream as possible."
"It is my job to bring it to the decision makers," said Moreau, "to see if we can set up an effective program and see if it is more or less than a landfill."
According to Moreau, "things tend to go in waves, we did single stream recycling now it is organic material and construction and demolition (C&D) debris." He said studies show nearly 20 percent of the C&D debris in Chittenden County landfills comes from asphalt shingles. If a way can be found to recycle this material, for example, there will be less going to the landfill.
He is not sure his board will decide to take this two-prong approach to the landfill and, its decision won't come before July, he predicted. At this point, he said, his board has "asked what kind of resources CSWD would need to do both approaches simultaneously."
Moreau said he is not bending to pressure from those who oppose the landfill. "There's 58,000 households in the county and there are 40 in Ledgewood Drive. I'm going to look out for the 58,000 families."
However, he added, "the smaller the landfill the less obtrusive it will be."
On a philosophical note, he said, "sometimes government has to take a risk. The low hanging fruit has been picked in terms of recycling, now we have to look at more difficult issues. You have to make the landfill as unobtrusive as possible. You have to do everything reasonable to make it that way."