Landfill Ban Supported on First Reading, 6-3
Landfill opponents Mimi Odgers and Dr. Joanne Bessette celebrating the moment with Ward 6 City Councilor Marianne L. LaBarge. The Glendale Road landfill is located within LaBarge's ward.
NORTHAMPTON —Longtime landfill foes surely celebrated this weekend.
In a move that’s been more than 10 years in the making, the Northampton City Council voted Thursday night to prohibit the siting of landfills in water supply districts (see related story). The decision effectively puts the kibosh on the expansion of the city’s regional landfill on Glendale Road, a plan launched in 1999 when an Environmental Notification Form was first filed by the city with state environmental regulators.
The vote won’t be official until approved on second reading at the council’s August 19 meeting.
The text of the ordinance, as amended by recommendation of Ward 4 Councilor Pamela C. Schwartz on Thursday, says: “No new landfills or open dumps as defined in 310 CMR 19 as amended, or expansions of existing facilities (landfills) or new landfill cells, shall be allowed over aquifers, or in the Zone II protection area of an aquifer, or any area zoned as a Water Supply Protection District.”
By replacing the word “facilities” with “landfills,” Schwartz said, the measure would ensure that the ordinance would not prohibit recycling and other waste-management activities at the site.
In 2005, it was determined that the Glendale Road landfill sits within a so-called Zone II recharge area for a section of the Barnes Aquifer, which feeds the Maloney Well in Easthampton, a back-up drinking water supply for that neighboring city.
The resolution, sponsored by councilors David Narkewicz, Pamela Schwartz, Marianne LaBarge, and Eugene Tacy — a coalition of progressive and traditional voting blocs — changes Chapter 325 of the city’s code of ordinances to add a drinking water protection provision.
The ordinance campaign marked the latest strategic move by landfill opponents. Over the years, these efforts have sometimes veered into Saul Alinsky-style tactics — a handful of landfill neighbors flooded a dedicated “odor response hotline” with calls over the course of months, draining the city’s Solid Waste Enterprise Fund by more than $320,000 since October of 2008, each call requiring an inspector’s response. Key among these activist neighbors was a couple who lived at 981 Park Hill Road, a property purchased in 2009 by the city as part of a $1.2 million lawsuit settlement.
The landfill permitting battle has been arcane, featuring contested scientific studies, zoning wars, lawsuits, a $1.2 million settlement, the imposition of a two-year “gag order” that forbade councilors from discussing landfill issues with constituents, and more.
Debate was heated on Thursday night, with councilors Maureen Carney, David Murphy and Paul Spector speaking in opposition to the ban.
Murphy, who represents Ward 5, was the most pointed in his criticism, charging that the measure amounted to nothing more than a “political maneuver,” since the landfill expansion could never be advanced without a funding appropriation from the council.
Audio: Ward 5 Councilor David Murphy: “Political manuever”
Schwartz, a first-term councilor, countered with a defense of the ordinance. “What you, Councilor, are calling a political maneuver, I am calling politics — but with substance,” Schwartz said. “There is a political reality in our community, and there is a paralysis so long as there is a sense of an open a door — and I feel convinced on the substance the the door should be closed.”
Audio: Ward 4 Councilor Pamela Schwartz: “Politics with substance”
In his statement to the council, Council President Narkewicz, who represents the city at-large, noted that Northampton is the only city in the state that makes an exception for landfills within areas zoned as water supply protection districts. The local exception was created in 2006, after the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection granted the city an unprecedented waiver of state rules that prohibit landfills within aquifer recharge areas.
Even though the City Council instructed the Board of Public Works this spring to halt its permitting for the expansion, landfill opponents have argued that loopholes remain that might allow the expansion to go forward anyway. In fact, at a public hearing earlier this month, the BPW urged defeat of the ordinance, citing the possibility that a private company could finance and run a landfill at the Glendale Road location, enriching the city’s coffers.
If the ordinance passes on second reading in August, the landfill could not be expanded by any private or public body unless the City Council chooses to overturn the measure by majority vote at some future date.
A Solid Waste Advisory Task Force, which will be charged with evaluating options for the city’s solid waste future, has yet to be appointed, Karen Bouquillon, the city’s Solid Waste Coordinator, said Monday. The current landfill cells will close in mid-2012.
The Department of Public Works maintains a web page with links to many public documents on the landfill project.
Thanks to Northampton Community Television for providing Northampton Media with an audio feed.
PDF 
I feel we should remember Mary Serreze’s tireless reporting if this issue over the last fiveyears….in various journals and with a good deal of non-partisan analysis of scientific evidence she has raised the profile of this project…….the vote as it stands has to be partly because of that. NorthamptonMedia is a local treasure.
Mr Murphy said he wasn’t voting against the landfill expansion, he was voting against the process.
The process is what it is! The voter referendum, the BPW Resolution, Council President Narkewicz (sp) and Councillor Schwartz’ resolution, Mr Feiden.s new legal opinion, the petition to change the Zoning Ordnance, Public hearings and finally a new resolution to amend the Zoning Ordnance. I probably left a few steps out but I’m puzzled as to what process Mr. Murphy voted against.
I would suggest that Mr Murphy get on the same page as his constituents, most of whom voted NOT to expand the landfill.
I would agree that Murphy’s comments can be called “heated.” Or maybe “bitchy” is more accurate. The guy openly insinuated that the City Council president and three other co-sponsors of the ordinance were playing a cheap political trick. Nice! What he calls politics, I call it listening to the public and honestly confronting the realities of where we are right now. Without the ordinance, the BPW will be forever holding out hope of another dump on Glendale Road. Congratulations to The Six for doing the right thing and killing this beast. Maybe Murph’ can learn a thing or two if he hopes to keep this job.
Finally! For a brief and fleeting moment of time, the city council actually represented the will of the electorate. Hopefully this will be more than a single environmental issue this group of councilors confronts. I can only hope they continue to stand and vote as block in the hopes of countering the pro-business anti-resident agenda of environmental terrorist Higgins.
A few things in this story I’d take issue with. I didn’t think the discussion was heated at all. Murphy asked the question, “why do we need this?” and Schwartz had a very intelligent response. None of the councilors who voted against the measure, in fact, said that they wanted to expand the landfill, but they did question the effect the ordinance would have on the sense of urgency for finding alternatives.
The other question I have is on this description of 2 councilors as “progressive” and the other two as “traditional” — what does that mean, traditional? Just curious on that point..
I think the fact that these four sponsored the ordinance shows that the council can’t be dismissed as a 6-3 council, and is a group truly thinking and working to represent their conflicted constituencies.