Addressing the objections

With increasing attention around the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in groundwater in addition to other reasons residents oppose landfills near their homes, it is not getting any easier to build a greenfield landfill or to expand an existing one.

In Waco, Texas, the Waco Tribune-Herald newspaper has reported that the Waco City Council is resorting to paying residents who object to a new landfill the city wants to build. The proposed landfill would replace the city’s existing landfill, which will run out of space sometime in 2025. Altogether, the payments to residents who have signed a petition objecting to the landfill total $1 million, according to the Waco Tribune-Herald.

Not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) objections to landfills and even recycling facilities are nothing new to the waste and recycling industry, but concerns surrounding PFAS and the rise of environmental justice (EJ) legislation and policies in combination with traditional concerns (odor, dust, traffic and unsightliness) likely are making landfill expansions more difficult.

In the article “The long game,” I spoke to Michael Magee, a managing partner at Capitol Heights, Maryland-based WB Waste, about the challenges of landfill expansion. In addition to the complex engineering-related planning necessary for any expansion project, Magee says landfill owners and operators must maintain a constant dialogue with stakeholders, including residents, city and county officials and state environmental regulators. Transparency and openness about landfill operations are necessary to maintain the trust of residents who live near landfills. Being transparent also could ease the approval process for expansion projects.

As many small-town journalists can attest, residents often raise passionate objections to developments that are much more innocuous than landfills. Landfills, material recovery facilities (MRFs), compost facilities and other waste and recycling operations all can face approval challenges at the local level related to NIMBY objections, which might or might not be valid. Waste and recycling professionals need strong communications to help counter those objections.

As is the case for MRFs and transfer stations, the farther a landfill is from the community it serves, the more difficult it could be for municipalities and haulers to control transportation costs. Although some municipalities or companies could try to absorb those additional costs, that might not always be possible. That’s a key piece of information for communities to grasp, and landfill operators probably can present the fiscal benefit in a positive light rather than sharing the real possibility that rates could rise if transportation costs for haulers increase.

States drafting EJ laws and policies and cities, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, that pass local ordinances making it more difficult to develop or expand landfills, should consider the costs associated with having to site facilities farther away.

While environmental concerns associated with some waste and recycling facilities are real, particularly in communities with an abundance of heavy industrial businesses, locally-based waste and recycling facilities can offer communities environmental and fiscal benefits.