08.22.07

The Landill, TCEQ Hearing & More Gattis Shenanigans – UPDATED

Posted in Bad Government Republicans, Commissioners Court, Landfill, Williamson County at 9:54 am by wcnews

From this report in THT regarding the Landfill contract vote [being] delayed, the county, WMI and their legal representations strategy appears clear. It has two main points:

• Attack anyone who’s against the landfill as an agent of TDS President Bob Gregory.
• Even though this contract is not the best deal for the county, and the citizens of the county, it’s the best their partner WMI will allow at this time.

The county all along has been working with WMI only, and not allowing competitive bidding. Which makes their stance against the citizens groups very hypocritical. And making an argument that they turned a horrible contract into one that’s a little better, is not worthy of praise or sanction by the commissioners court. Remember the only thing that makes the contract better is that the county will get more money because of the expansion of the landfill. The expansion of the landfill is the only reason WMI agreed to negotiate. They want to make the landfill bigger and needed a new contract and permit. The increase in size, taken with the fact that the landfill with become a regional facility, makes the new financial terms much less impressive – especially when what Temple and Arlington are getting [.PDF] is taken into consideration. A marginally better deal is not what they said they would do when they ran for office in 2006. They should be fighting for what their constituents want and this is not it.

The article does tell of the new stipulations in the revised contract. I’d like to highlight one of them.

Changes in the latest version of the contract include specified recycling plans, increased additional terms after the initial 40-year life of the contract and a capped amount Waste Management will spend to defend the county in a possible lawsuit to $300,000.

“We are certainly expecting to get sued on it [the contract],” Ackley said.

In the earlier version, the contract did not place a cap on Waste Management’s spending to defend the county in the event a suit is filed.

So WMI is in for $300K of a lawsuit, that as Ackley said will come, will probably last years, and cost millions. This wasn’t in the previous version of the contract. Why did our county leaders agree to that provision? There go the “Mayberry Machiavellis” again.

The article also reports on a TCEQ hearing that’s taking place about whether the expansion permit for the landfill should be granted:

Three years after the expansion permit was filed with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, two judges from the State Office of Administrative Hearings will review evidence and hear cross examination over the next eight days before submitting a recommendation to the TCEQ.

Williamson County, assisted by lawyers representing Waste Management, will defend their application saying, “We meet all the technical and rule requirements to be granted this permit,” said attorney John Riley.

Riley, a partner in Vinson & Elkins in environmental regulatory law, represents Waste Management, but said he is assisting the county’s attorney because the two parties have a shared common interest in having the landfill expand.

“..Shared common interest.”, that’s the understatement of the year. The county is being “assisted” by WMI’s lawyer Mr. John Riley. You can read his bio here. As one would expect he’s very well qualified and connected to go before a TCEQ hearing. He’s a former employee and all, back when it was the TNRCC.

Of course, those opposed to the expansion and/or the way the process has gone would like their concerns to be weighed as well:

The Hutto Citizens Group, the Heritage on the San Gabriel, Mount Hutto Aware Citizens, the Jonah Water Utility District, the Hutto school district are among the groups granted party status during a pretrial hearing last year. Parties had to own property within one mile of the landfill.

According to Marisa Perales, who is representing the Hutto Citizens and the Heritage homeowners association, the main arguments against the expansion permit will focus around Hutto’s huge growth in recent years and development making its way to the landfill.

“Primarily, there has been inadequate consideration on the impact on the Hutto community,” said Mount Hutto founder Orlynn Evans. “The fact is that they are putting one of the largest landfills in the state in an area with a burgeoning population.”

[...]

Judges heared testimony from Gattis, himself a Hutto resident, Monday. Over the course of the next two weeks, former Chamber of Commerce President Elizabeth Page, Superintendent David Borrer and Evans will testify during the contested case hearing.

“Some of the problems that have been ignored for years will be brought into the open,” Evans said. You never know what is going to come out of the court.”

Well seeing the lawyer that WMI has I’m not that hopeful.

One last thing. From what I’ve heard Judge Gattis was playing more games at yesterday’s commissioners court meeting. During the meeting Judge Gattis cut off public comments about the landfill after only one speaker. The sign-up list at the back said that up to five people would be allowed to speak on each issue, but only Jeff Maurice got to speak on the landfill even though several more were signed up for landfill comments. Ironically, that sign-up sheet was never even picked up and taken to the dais and remained at the entry to the hall during the entire commissioners court meeting. This court needs accountability.

[UPDATE]: Two more points that were received via email:

• Waste Management is trying to get on the permit as an “operator” or “site operator”, which would give them the ability to amend the permit without the county’s approval, and that is what could build the landfill to over 700 feet high (the cap in the permit is 144 feet). The contract draft also wants to call Waste Management the “operator” instead of the “contractor, reinforcing that control position for Waste Management. Waste Management would use all that extra capacity (from the height) to really make it a mega-regional landfill, which it desperately needs because it’s present landfill east of Austin is going to be full and closed in about three years. They have no place else to put the garbage.
• The above point makes the regionalization aspects of the contract very key issues. While the contract is represented as having some limits on the tonnage that could be delivered to the landfill, the fact is that the enforcement provisions are so weak that Waste Management could weedle around those limits and take all the Travis County waste to WilCo anyway. The contract lets them exceed the tonnage caps (which are very liberal to begin with), but WM can exceed the caps two out of every three years without a penalty. If they do have to pay a penalty, it would amount to less than two percent of gross revenues if a million tons a day were going into the landfill, and that’s about what it would be once the Travis County landfill closes. The penalty would be nothing more than just a piece of the cost of doing business for WM, and they would still be making more money than if they had won the lottery.

Permalink