Council Approves Landfill Ban in “Historic Vote”

NORTHAMPTON — The City Council late Thursday gave final approval to a measure that specifically prohibits landfills within water supply protection districts here.

Ward 4 councilor Pamela Schwartz sponsored the resolution, along with councilors Narkewicz, Labarge, and Tacy. File photo.

The landmark vote caps 10 years of controversy over plans to expand the city-owned regional landfill on Glendale Road.

The decision, which could be overturned by a future council vote, now puts the kibosh on a planned landfill expansion launched by city officials in 1999, when the city first filed an Environmental Notification Form with state environmental regulators.

In 2008, the city’s Glendale Road landfill gained special dispensation from the state to expand, despite its location over an aquifer recharge area. As part of the agreement, the city created a water supply protection district over the mapped recharge area, but granted the landfill special permission to keep operating there.

Northampton has been the only community in Massachusetts to make an exception for a landfill within a water supply protection district.

The resolution, sponsored by Councilors David Narkewicz, Pamela Schwartz, Marianne LaBarge and Eugene Tacy, changes Chapter 325 of the city’s Code of Ordinances to add a drinking water protection provision.

Thursday’s vote was 6-2, with Councilors Jesse Adams and Angela Plassmann joining the measure’s sponsors voting “yes.” Councilors David Murphy and Maureen Carney voted “no”; Councilor Paul Spector, who voted against the measure on first reading, was absent.

Activists, a “Gag Order” and the Ballot Question

The ordinance-change measure, spearheaded by an activist group called Water Not Waste, was introduced in June of this year after an attempt to use zoning regulations to kill the landfill expansion languished in committee. Zoning changes require a two-thirds vote of the city council, whereas changes to the code of ordinances require only a simple majority, or five votes.

Mayor Mary Clare Higgins has been a staunch supporter of the landfill expansion throughout her entire term in office.

The text of the ordinance says: “No new landfills or open dumps as defined in 310 CMR 19 as amended, or expansions of existing 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.”

In 2005, during the permitting process for the expansion, regulators determined that the Glendale Road landfill sits within a so-called Zone II recharge area for a section of the Barnes Aquifer that feeds the Maloney Well, a back-up drinking water supply for the neighboring City of Easthampton.

The Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), in the wake of this discovery, granted the city a waiver of state regulations banning landfills within such Zone II recharge areas. In its decision, the DEP referred to a “contaminant transport model” commissioned by the city that predicted “no measurable impact” upon the well if the new landfill’s liner failed. (See Science or Politics, The Valley Advocate, August 2008)

An arcane battle ensued between activists and city officials, featuring lawsuits, health studies, professional odor-sniffers, and a so-called “gag order” adopted by the city council.

In May of 2008, Shutesbury lawyer Michael Pill advised the council not to have off-the-record conversations with residents on the topic of the landfill. Pill said that the council must act as a “panel of judges” because they would be deliberating on a special permit for the expansion. No special permit application from the BPW ever emerged, even as councilors voluntarily adhered to what became known as the “gag order.”

But in March of this year, the city’s planning department issued an opinion stating that the special permit was unnecessary in the first place, rendering almost two years of judge-like behavior moot. Activists charged that they had been deprived of representation on the landfill topic during that period.

In a non-binding referendum promoted by Water Not Waste on last November’s ballot, 64 percent of city voters said “no” to the expansion. Landfill advocates, including the Board of Public Works (BPW) and some other city councilors, criticized the wording of the resolution, saying it used leading language.

BPW member Michael Parsons, a consulting engineer, argued to his colleagues in February that the landfill's Solid Waste Enterprise Fund can not support any more expenses related to the proposed expansion.

The BPW’s Eye Toward Privatizing the Landfill

In 2010, after a series of financial hits — including a $1.2 million lawsuit settlement with landfill neighbors — drained the city’s Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, the BPW agreed to spend no more money from the landfill account on the landfill expansion’s permit process without a vote of confidence from the City Council.

“We don’t even have enough money to pay for another engineering study,” BPW member and consulting engineer Michael Parsons told fellow board members earlier this year in arguing for the halt.

In March, after the BPW statement was released, the City Council formally advised the BPW to terminate all efforts toward permitting the expansion and to focus instead on future planning to deal with the city’s solid waste.

Mimi Odgers, the force behind Water Not Waste, collecting signatures for the non-binding landfill closure resolution in the summer of 2009.

Mimi Odgers, spokesperson for Water not Waste, said Thursday that, despite statements from the council and the BPW that landfill planning should stop, the measure passed on Thursday was necessary.

“Without this ordinance change, there are still loopholes,” Odgers told this reporter. “The Board of Public Works is still interested in the expansion, and could find a way to make it happen.”

In fact, the BPW’s Terry Culane and James Dostal spoke out against the landfill ban at a special public hearing in July, saying that the measure was “too restrictive.” Dostal, speaking for the board, argued that the measure would prohibit the city’s leasing the facility to a private landfill operator, an arrangement he said would continue to generate cash for the city.

To date, the BPW has taken no votes to pursue the privatization idea.

A Fork and a Task Force

Despite the BPW’s interest in exploring private control of the landfill, Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Carney opposed the measure on Thursday, saying that it was “unnecessary.” She cited a recent citizen’s comment that the resolution amounted to an attempt to “stick a fork in it to see if it’s dead.”

“The landfill expansion is dead,” said Carney. “I find it unnecessary and certainly premature to pass this in an attempt to prove that we’re not going to be expanding the landfill, when we haven’t had discussion within this body, this chamber, about what we’re going to do as an alternative. For that reason I’m going to oppose this ordinance.”

Audio: Carney opposes landfill ordinance

Ward 6 Councilor LaBarge, whose constituents include landfill neighbors, expressed her support and relief: “I need to look at quality of life for every resident around the perimeter of the landfill and in the city of Northampton — we’re looking at an aquifer, and water is very, very valuable. So I’m supporting this. This, right now, is a historic vote in the city.”

Audio: LaBarge supports landfill ordinance

During the council’s public comment session Thursday, Odgers pledged to “devote the same energy to finding alternative waste options for the city that I have to stopping the landfill’s expansion,” and expressed a willingness to “work with the City Council” as a member of a solid waste planning task force.

Audio: Mimi Odgers makes pledge

Higgins told councilors Thursday to expect an announcement “within the next month” about the formation of a task force to start planning for the city’s solid waste future. But at this point, she added, she would “not make any promises” about the group’s membership.

The Northampton landfill is slated to reach capacity and close in 2012, according to public works officials. By then, the city will have to have a new plan in place for dealing with trash from the city’s homes, businesses, and institutions.

Meanwhile, a bidding snafu around the BPW’s attempts to sell 981 Park Hill Rd., a home acquired by the city as part of the $1.2 million landfill lawsuit settlement, has resulted in a lawsuit of its own. Read the story on MassLive as reported by Diane Lederman.