landfills –a highly inefficient and environmentally degrading system.

Click on the links in the article for a detailed and revealing look at what could be happening in a place like Humboldt County. Then jump up and down and clap your hands as you yell “oh boy, oh boy, we’re getting a dump”. No recycling or waste to energy here.

Scheduled for Monday, October 15 at 2:15pm: Possible amendments for Chapter 17.68 Conditional Use Permits concerning the procedures for applications for conditional use permits, including planning department staff review and recommendations on the applications, the Planning Commission review and recommendations or final authorization of the applications, the Board of County Commissioners review and final authorization or appellate review of the applications, and the vote required for action by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners on the applications at each stage of the process, and direction to the planning department staff and the Planning Commission to draft any proposed amendments – Discussion and for Possible Action

The short story: We got the name wrong on the permit, but we have the authority to change it and so we will. And, (rev01) they did.

The state reps go on to say that things are fine and we here in Mayberry don’t need to worry…they know what they are doing. NDEP is fully staffed, knowledgeable, and will oversee the construction and operation of this dump from start to finish. Should Humboldt County have any concerns, they will be Johnny on the Spot to address same.

Is any of this believable? We have our opinions and serious doubts. For those who care and couldn’t make the meeting, view the video and make up your own minds.

Scheduled for 1:30 on September 4 in the Humboldt County Commission Chambers, NDEP, possibly with help from the Nevada AG’s office, will attempt to answer questions submitted by the county and by individual residents. This will prove to be interesting as NDEP was advised in writing well before the issuance of these permits that the names were incorrect. NDEP responded that everything had been checked out and the paperwork was in order and correct. It obviously was not. Nevadans Against Garbage knew about the sale and did a post on December 13, 2011. Why didn’t NDEP know? This sale was one of the largest, if not THE largest, land sales in US history.

77. Some commenters expressed confusion with land ownership, name of official applicant, names on permits and the responsible party financial assurance.

The Division investigated these concerns. Nevada Land and Resource Company, LLC is the Land Owner,Jungo Land and Investments has leased it from them and Recology is the Authorized agent, which is consistent with the submitted Financial Instrument (Trust Fund).

The feeling here as to the answer: “No big deal. We’ll just get the Wite-Out and fix it.” We’ll see.

At the Monday, August 20 Humboldt County Commission Meeting, Commissioners took up the matter of major name discrepancies on permits issued by NDEP for the Jungo Landfill. They and several citizens were concerned both about the names and about the financial responsibilities should something go wrong. All of the problems associated with the Operating Permit were pointed out to NDEP well before they issued said permit, and they still seem to have gotten things wrong. This does not instill confidence. What else is wrong? Why did they not know about changes in ownership when WE DID?

There are several questions regarding these discrepancies, but no answers. NDEP wants written questions and supposedly will show up at the September 4 meeting to provide some answers. Anyone can submit questions, but they have to be submitted by 3pm Wednesday, August 22 to the County Administrator’s Office.

Please view the three videos below to see what this is all about.

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.

Sincerely,

Richard Cook
4320 Paradise Ranchos Dr.
Winnemucca, NV 89445
Richard_cook99@yahoo.com
775-304-2043

Copies: US Dept. of Justice, Bob Dolan Law, Nevadans Against Garbage, Clean Desert Foundation, Humboldt County District Attorney, Humboldt County Clerk, Judge Quentin Kopp

As you may have read recently in the Humboldt Sun, a new Dump Survey questionnaire featuring the same questions as the first survey back in 2009 has been conducted by Richard Cook, the same person who did the original survey. The questions were the same: Are you in favor, do you oppose, and are you undecided. The results are in and they are virtually the same as in 2009. In spite of Jungo’s lobbying efforts, PR campaigns, site tours and litigation efforts, the vast majority of citizens still are opposed to this landfill. The initial survey was: Favor = 14%, Oppose = 78%, Undecided = 8% with an 8.5% margin of error.

Here are the results of the most recent survey:

There are 6937 registered voters in Humboldt County (List acquired from County Clerk)
A list of 525 voters was selected by a Gaussian random sampling computer program and mailed a questionnaire.
Of those 525 selected…

56 were returned as undeliverable by the US Postal Service.
246 did not respond.
223 did respond to the survey.

Of the 223 respondents…
37 responded “In favor” – 17%
170 responded “Opposed” – 76%
16 responded “Undecided” – 7%

Confidence Level – 95%
Margin of Error – 6.46%

So, between 69.54% – 82.46% are opposed to the dump
and between 10.54% – 23.46% are in favor of the dump
and between 0.54% – 13.46% are undecided. – Because of the margin of error.

Democracy and Representative Government took a nosedive Monday afternoon, July 9, 2012 in Humboldt County, Nevada. At stake was the proposed settlement agreement formulated by a bunch of lawyers and a Ninth Circuit Court Mediator for approval or not by the Humboldt County Commissioners. There were several speakers on both sides of the issue. Those against approval felt the commissioners had a conflict of interest in that they would be out from under lawsuits brought by Jungo against them if they voted in favor of settlement. These people also urged the commissioners to follow the wishes of 70% of the voting public as evidenced by Question 1, the Initiative, in the 2010 General Election. They were outraged by the actions of Jungo over the last several years, and more than a couple referred to Jungo as a Corporate Bully.

People wanting the commissioners to approve the settlement virtually to a person did so out of FEAR. Gone were those claims of high paying jobs, added revenue to the community, how safe modern technology has made landfills, and what an asset Jungo would be to the area. No, it was all about the fear of losing. The fear of legal judgements against the county and the possible financial liability that could follow.

So at the end of the day, that Corporate Bully people referenced who opposed the settlement seems to have done it’s job well…well enough to cower enough of the local citizens and enough of the commissioners into accepting the settlement by a 3/2 vote in favor. Voting against: Fransway and French. Voting in favor: Bell, Amos and Cassinelli.

One astute speaker noted that once you give in to a bully, that’s just the beginning. You will always give in to that bully. The question is, who is this a bigger indictment of, the bully or the one being bullied?

The following assessment is offered to our readers with this caveat….we are not lawyers! We make this assessment based on our observations, common sense, and our limited understanding of the law. It is very important that each and every one of you read, understand, and form your own conclusions regarding this proposal, or, as the case may be, form your own questions.

After looking over this Proposed Settlement Agreement, three major items stand out.

1. The commissioners are being asked to vote on a matter in which they have a special interest in the outcome. If they vote in favor of the proposal, then it appears that magically the lawsuits brought by Recology against the commissioners as INDIVIDUALS just goes away. In our opinion, these individual suits should never have been allowed since no one will want to run for public office if they can be sued whenever someone doesn’t get their way.
If the commissioners vote against this settlement based on a true representation of voters wishes as reflected by the 70% initiative approval, then most likely the lawsuits and legal wrangling will resume. Insurance pool lawyers will disappear and the county will have to hire an expert legal team to represent them (which probably should have been done in the first place).

SOLUTION: The only correct thing for the commissioners to do in this case is recuse themselves as they stand to gain personally from this vote and have a conflict of interest.

2. The commissioners are being asked to set aside a 70% voter approved initiative that sets limits on any second landfill in Humboldt County. This initiative was the only oversight action available to the citizens of this county. The RPC is an appointed, unelected board. The Humboldt County Board of Commissioners was found to have no review of this RPC decision. Now Recology is asking the Board to break the law and declare the initiative as not applying to Jungo as long as their CUP is current. The law states:

NRS 295.180  Effect of approval or disapproval of majority of registered voters.
1.  When a majority of the registered voters of the county voting upon the question submitted, by their vote, approve the act or resolution, it is the law of the State, and may not be repealed, overruled, annulled, set aside or in any way made inoperative, except by a direct vote of the registered voters of that county.
2.  When a majority of the registered voters of that county voting upon the question submitted disapproves, the act or resolution is void.
(Added to NRS by 1960, 281; A 1987, 1374)

Solution: The commissioners cannot vote to declare the initiative as not applicable to Jungo for to do so would be illegal in our opinion and beyond the scope of their authority.

3. County agrees to negotiate a host agreement in good faith on commercially reasonable terms and will not use the host agreement negotiations to add to or revise the terms of the CUP. Pay good attention to the phrase “commercially reasonable”. We think that means Humboldt County uses the Recology Business Model in all its facts, figures, etc. in order to make this a profitable venture for Recology. They don’t say “on industry average terms and conditions”, or “based on regional or West Coast industry norms”. No, they say based on what’s commercially reasonable (to them, based on the facts and figures we expect they will supply). And, if Humboldt County puts up any kind of fuss, Humboldt County can expect to find itself right back in court. Bottom line, Humboldt County will have no basis for negotiations of any kind. Recology will shove any host agreement down our throats just like they have this entire dump.
Resolution 4 states that the county will pay Recology $225,000, but does not specifically state what Humboldt County gets in return. In fact, this entire Resolution is all about what the county has to do. It really does not appear that Jungo has any requirements on them at all. We question this.

SOLUTION: CALL YOUR COMMISSIONERS, WRITE THEM, AND SHOW UP JULY 9 AT 3PM TO MAKE SURE YOUR VOICES AND WISHES ARE HEARD REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT. BRING YOUR NEIGHBORS, FRIENDS, AND ANYONE WHO CARES ABOUT THE FUTURE OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY. THIS IS IN YOUR HANDS NOW. EITHER BE PREPARED TO LIVE WITH THIS COMPANY AND THIS DUMP, OR SHOW UP AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR FUTURE AND JUST SAY NO! IT’S UP TO YOU.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1) In accordance with the District Court’s December 7, 2011 Order granting Jungo’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus as amended on June 12, 2012 the BCC hereby:
a. Vacates the BCC’s decision reversing the Regional Planning Commission’s five-year extension of the Jungo CUP;
b. Dismisses the Dolan Appeal with prejudice based on the BCC’s lack of jurisdiction to hear the appeal; and
c. Reinstates the Regional Planning commission’s February 11, 2010 decision granting Jungo a five-year CUP extension, with the effective date of the extension being the date of the Writ Order, December 7, 2011.
2) County confirms that Humboldt County Question No. 1, approved in the November 2, 2010 election and certified by BCC on November 8, 2010 does not apply retroactively to the Jungo project so long as Jungo maintains a valid CUP issued by County.
3) County agrees to negotiate a host agreement in good faith on commercially reasonable terms and will not use the host agreement negotiations to add to or revise the terms of the CUP.
4) Within ten (10) days of the date of this Resolution the County shall effect payment to Jungo in the amount of two hundred twenty-five thousand and 00/100 dollars ($225,000) (“Settlement Payment”).
5) Within five (5) days of payment of the Settlement Payment, County authorizes its counsel to file with the District Court a stipulation for dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice as to each Party, with each Party to bear their own court costs and attorney’s fees.
6) Within five (5) days of approval of this Resolution, County will execute a mutual compromise, settlement and release agreement consistent with the terms set forth in this Resolution.
Adopted this 9th day of July, 2012 by the Board of County Commissioners of Humboldt County.
____________________________________
Mike Bell, Chairman
Humboldt County Commission

You can read the entire document by clicking here. You can read the HCC Agenda by clicking here. This item is scheduled to be discussed and voted on at 3pm July 9 at the Humboldt County Courthouse Commission Meeting Room.

This site will post our take and commentary on the settlement proposal once there has been more time to study it.