INC NEWS - Randy's e-mail on land-fill bill

Tue Aug 7 11:31:31 EDT 2007

The legislative summaries from environmental groups that I have read are 
quite satisfied with the landfill bill as it passed.  Thanks to anyone who 
lobbied their representatives.  Also thanks to some of our representatives 
who worked hard to get the thing straightened out.

The one unhappy part is a provision allowing landfill companies who will not 
be able to build their mega-landfills due to the new buffer requirements to 
receive financial reimbursement for all costs except land and lobbying.  It 
seems that every time big companies make bad decisions, they look to the 
public to cut the costs of their risks.

Regards, pat

>From: "RW Pickle" <randy at 27beverly.com>
>To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
>Subject: INC NEWS - call to action (complete)
>Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2007 03:18:34 -0400 (EDT)
>
>Sorry about the last post. No idea what happened to the rest of the text.
>Unfortunately, because I didn't realize it was missing text, this Bill
>made its way through the legislative process and was ratified yesterday.
>At the end of this email is the story on the ratification yesterday by the
>Legislature. They managed to fix some of the issues, but it ended up being
>a watered down. But it's better than it was heading out to be...
>
>The NCGA (North Carolina General Assembly) is currently considering a bill
>that has changed dramatically since it was first written (at least the
>House version has). It stands to be defeated in the Senate, but that'll
>only cause the 2 sides to get together and work on a compromise. The Bill,
>which is set to replace the moratorium on landfills in NC (enacted last
>year for one year only; it was scheduled for two but the powerful waste
>lobby had it reduced to one) that expired yesterday. If passed, it will
>put NC as the 5th largest trash importer in the USA. I can see it now,
>instead of "First In Flight", our license plates can read "Firth In
>Trash".
>
>The House substantially changed the Bill as written and stands to get
>vetoed by the Senate. this just means it'll end up as a compromise;
>something NC can not stand for. It will put the burden of cleanup or
>failure on the taxpayers and not on the waste disposal companies. In one
>community, it'll allow a dump to be built to the height of a 27 story
>building! The editorial pasted below (from the N&O) refers to it as "Mt.
>Trashmore" after a simular mountain of trash that was created in
>Virginia).
>
>The editorial is pasted below; it tells you more about the Bill. Please
>take a moment to contact your State Legislators (House and Senate; 6 of
>them represent Durham) and let them know that we do not want NC to become
>a dumping ground for trash from our industrial neighbors to the north. The
>entire east coast is in trouble when it comes to dumps (and the lack of
>them). So if NC passes this Bill, decades of trash will end up here in NC
>without the protections a watered-down Bill would provide. The same thing
>happened 15 years ago when we opened the doors to hog farming (and its
>waste). Let's not let the same thing happen with trash.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>
>Editorial: Published: Aug 01, 2007 12:30 AM	Modified: Aug 01, 2007 03:02
>AM	NewsObserver.com
>
>Mt. Trashmore?
>
>The state House has gutted a bill to regulate giant landfills seeking a
>home here. The Senate's approach is better
>
>Mountains of trash, much of it shipped in from other states, is serious
>business. Yet the state House is treating the issue like another stroll in
>the park. It's not.
>The General Assembly last year put a temporary halt to new landfills after
>private firms proposed building four mega-dumps in eastern and southern
>counties. That moratorium expires today. Instead of a comprehensive bill
>addressing the regional dumps, the House this week approved a gutted bill
>that invites confusion and provides minimal oversight.
>The House version originally was identical to a Senate bill, which takes
>the kind of comprehensive approach that's needed. Legislation passed by
>the Senate would identify ecologically fragile areas around which new
>landfills could not be built. Beyond that, it would require environmental
>studies for a proposed dump, to determine if human health or the area's
>ecology might be harmed. The House measure also would require an
>environmental impact study. But why allow a dump near a wildlife preserve
>to be considered in the first place, and then force neighbors and state
>agencies to go through the arduous study process?
>The House also stripped from its bill a requirement that garbage companies
>maintain a clean-up fund to be tapped in case their landfill fails or
>closes. If a clean-up is necessary, companies should get the bill. The
>Senate approach, which has that feature, is smart policy and it treats
>taxpayers fairly.
>Much of the pressure to water down the regulations has come from solid
>waste companies whose plans would turn North Carolina into one of the
>nation's top five importers of garbage and debris. The Black Bear landfill
>in Camden County in far northeastern North Carolina would become home to
>three million tons of trash a year, most of it from out of state, piled
>into a mini-mountain 270 feet high. The landfill surely would be visible
>from afar in the table-flat Camden landscape. What a scenic lure for
>travelers coming down from Virginia on busy U.S. 17.
>The Alligator River dump in coastal Hyde County would accept 900,000 tons
>a year; Riegel Ridge in Columbus County would take in a half million tons
>annually. Owners have dropped for the moment a proposal for a landfill in
>Scotland County whose capacity would have been 1.5 million tons a year.
>These counties all could use the jobs a landfill would bring, but not
>without careful conditions.
>North Carolina has become attractive to the solid waste trade because the
>state is centrally located on the eastern seaboard, rural land is cheap,
>and the state doesn't levy a landfill surcharge as some states do. In a
>similar way, the factory-style hog industry discovered Eastern North
>Carolina 15 years or so ago. The lack of regulation on swine farming led
>to a series of stubborn and expensive problems for the state's people and
>its environment. There's no reason to let history repeat itself.
>Another virtue of the Senate legislation is that it includes a tax on
>trash put into landfills. Part of the $1.50-per-ton fee would finance
>recycling programs in this state, and the money would also help clean up
>outmoded, unlined landfills. North Carolina cities would pay the fee as
>well, but in return would get help improving their recycling programs.
>With the Senate reported ready to reject the House version of the bill,
>legislators from both sides will try to resolve their differences. North
>Carolina cannot allow itself to go forward without strong landfill
>regulations in place, and senators must work to avoid a compromise that
>would put the state at risk over the long haul.
>
>_______________________________________________
>INC-list mailing list
>INC-list at rtpnet.org
>http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

_________________________________________________________________
Booking a flight? Know when to buy with airfare predictions on MSN Travel. 
http://travel.msn.com/Articles/aboutfarecast.aspx&ocid=T001MSN25A07001