Here is the letter written by local dump opponent Richard Cook to the Nevada AG seeking an advisory opinion concerning several issued surrounding the Jungo Dump:
Catherine Cortez Masto, August 1, 2012
Nevada Attorney General
100 North Carson St.
Carson City, NV 89701-4717
Re: Request for Advisory Opinions
Dear Attorney General Masto,
In spite of the fact that previous correspondence to your office has gone unanswered I am writing in hopes of getting advisory opinions that might help resolve the Jungo landfill dispute in Winnemucca, possibly protecting the community and saving San Francisco based waste management company Recology millions of dollars in the process. One has only to look to Yucca Mountain to see what can happen when some entity tries to cram a hazardous project down the throats of an unwilling population. A July 25, 2012 survey of Humboldt County voters was unchanged from a survey conducted in November 2009: Oppose landfill = 76%, Favor landfill = 17%, Undecided = 7%.
My questions are:
1. Does the 2010 Humboldt County Ballot Initiative limiting the size of landfills to one-and-a-half times the amount of waste deposited in the Regional Landfill (approximately 15,000 tons per annum) apply retroactively to the proposed Jungo Project? I am unaware of any limit on retroactivity for legislation pertaining to public health and safety. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products 511 U.S. 244 (1993) the High Court moved the, “Clear Statement Rule,” to the “Discernable Legislative Intent Rule,” regarding retroactive legislation. The Ballot Initiative was clearly intended to apply to Jungo.
2. Did the County Board of Commissioners have the authority to confirm that Ballot Question One does not apply to Jungo? It appears that they are in violation of NRS295.180 by making the ballot initiative inoperative.
3. Has the County Board of Commissioners acted contrary to their responsibility to protect public health and safety when in agreeing to the resolution they are effectively ignoring the conclusion of their own contracted landfill expert, G. Fred Lee, PhD that the project as proposed will result in health, welfare, groundwater resource and financial consequences for the current and future people of Humboldt County and the State of Nevada?
4. Is a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) not subject to the “Takings” clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments when a project is deemed to be a threat to the health and welfare of the community?
5. Did the Humboldt County Board of Commissioners engage in a conflict of interest when they agreed to resolve a lawsuit in which they had been named as a board and as individuals? At their July 9, 2012 meeting the District Attorney had each of them acknowledge that they understood that they were indemnified and would not have to personally write checks in their individual lawsuits and therefore there was no conflict of interest. In fact, they had already been negatively impacted by the lawsuits with one complaining that he was unable to get an agricultural loan due to the suit against him and another unable to get a new car loan. The individual lawsuits appear to have been coercive in intent brought by corporate bully Recology a company with a history of corruption that retired California Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp recently referred to as an “untrustworthy company” and a “virtual criminal enterprise.”
6. In their lawsuit (US District Court of Nevada case number 3:10-CV-00257-ECR-VPC) Recology complaints include: procedural irregularities, open meeting law violations and deprivations of Recology’s legal and constitutional rights by the Board. If Recology drops these complaints because they get what they want does your office not have the responsibility of investigating said complaints in the interest of justice? This case is fraught with procedural irregularities including the original issuance of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) in April of 2007 prior to the County Code being amended in November of 2007 allowing for landfills other than the Regional Landfill. Was the original CUP not invalid when it was issued because the County Code did not permit landfills other than the Regional Landfill?
7. Is the operating permit issued to Jungo by the Nevada Dept. of Environmental Protection not invalid because the scope of the project (4000 tons per day for 95 years) was made illegal by the November 2010 ballot initiative (15000 tons per year maximum) prior to NDEP issuing the Operating Permit in 2012?
Enclosed please find copies of: Resolution agreement; July 9, 2012 statement to the Board by Richard Cook; June 25, 2012 letter to HCDA by Richard Cook; Summary of expert report by G. Fred Lee, PhD; Initiative Petition stating the initiatives intent to “preserve the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Humboldt County and the State of Nevada;” John Frankovich April 29, 2010 letter to the Humboldt County Clerk; May 2, 2010 Initiative Petition Committee response to Frankovich letter. In addition to the enclosed documentation I would like to submit longer documents electronically such as the landfill expert G. Fred Lee, PhD November, 2011fifty-five page report to the Humboldt County Board of Commissioners soundly condemning the entire project and Nevada Case #3:10-cv-00257-ECR-VPC Recology’s fifty-nine page lawsuit against the County and Board of Commissioners individually.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
4320 Paradise Ranchos Dr.
Winnemucca, NV 89445
Copies: US Dept. of Justice, Bob Dolan Law, Nevadans Against Garbage, Clean Desert Foundation, Humboldt County District Attorney, Humboldt County Clerk, Judge Quentin Kopp