the resources of Yuba County
The above words are positive and proactive. That is what the mission of Yuba Group Against Garbage became.
What started YUGAG was that a group of people were furious that decisions were being made behind closed doors. The Supervisors of Yuba County working with Yuba Sutter Disposal Incorporated overrode the Yuba County Planning Commission and approved three things concerning the Ostrom Road Landfill:
1) Height to 265 feet above ground level
2) Increase to accepting 3000 tons per day
3) Increase the number of trucks per day
A handful of very dedicated and very focused people were supported by SYRCL. Shawn Garvey loaned Larry Sanders to the YUGAG group. Larry and his clerk Mark Wetters pursued a David and Goliath battle with the Norcal Waste lawyers from San Francisco. Monies were raised quickly to pursue the lawsuit. Media were involved. Letters were written, and support events were held in support of the YUGAG position.
The Administrative Record was reviewed by Judge Thomas Mathews. oral arguments were presented on August 24th 2000. Judge Mathews rendered his decision on October 16th 2000.
Judge Blasts Board of Supervisors
and YSDI
Judge Thomas Mathews blasted
both the Board of Supervisors and
YSDI this week.
He ruled in favor of YuGAG (Yuba
Group Against Garbage) in their
quest to prevent the expansion of
the Ostrom Road Landfill.
“The Board of Supervisors of the
County of Yuba (1) abused its
discretion”
“Failed to provide for public
participation at every level of the
planning process”
“Deprived the Petitioners of a fair
hearing”
YSDI and the Board of Supervisors
“proceeded in a manner contrary to
law”
“The Court concludes that
meaningful due process was wholly
lacking in the formation and
proceedings of the ad hoc
committee, and in the Board of
Supervisors’ adoption of its
recommendation.”
“The net income derived by YSDI
per ton is not disclosed in the
record, but one would expect that
the enhancement to YSDI’s “bottom
line” from an increase in gross
revenue of $650,000,000.00 would
be more than de minimis.”
“Expansion would not save costs”
“no specific figures were ever
presented at any stage, nor
commitments made that cost
savings would be utilized in that
manner, rather than simply to
enhance YSDI’s profits by
capturing refuse dumping business
from far afield.”
The struggle really began years before YUGAG came into being. In 1988 the City of Wheatland had its veto ability taken away by the Chandler Bill. Measure A, an initiative to keep the landfill local, was defeated by an orchestrated political campaign. Company (Norcal Waste Systems, Inc.) spokesmen insisted in the press that the landfill would be for local use, while pursuing the company's intention of expanding the landfill as a Northern California repository.
Norcal Waste portrayed itself as “the good garbage company”. It employed public relations groups, lobbying groups, and political action associations to manipulate the public, government agencies and the media in pursuit of their bottom line aims. The company maneuver Supervisors of Yuba County. The result was that an Ad hoc committee of two Yuba County Supervisors and YSDI “met several times” behind closed doors, without the participation of the opposing side.
Norcal Waste also employed ESA, an environmental company to do the Environmen tal Impact Report (EIR). This company did a slipshod EIR, that YUGAG felt was “inadequate”.
The power of Norcal Waste Systems was manifest in its pressure on a variety of people and organizations. These organizations or people were held in an economic hostage situation by the company.
ESA - no favorable report, no future contracts
Yuba citizens - we determine your garbage rates
Selected Yuba-Sutter people - employment contracts and lease
arrangements with strings attached
Politicians - special relationships
For years there has been a a close and symbiotic association with the political machinery of the State Legislature and San Francisco. The lifeblood of these relations was soft money.
The flow of this money was demonstrated in San Bernadino County. One of Norcal Waste’s top executives was involved in a bribery and corruption scandal that cost the company $6.5 million in fines and the loss of a $20 million dollar per year contract.
The company used spin and “De-Spin” to define their position. The spin was that the 35 year executive was a “rogue”. The “De-Spin” was: not one adverse article was generated by any of the San Francisco newspapers.
Thus, Norcal Waste developed a blatant disregard for the people of a community and the environment in which they live. The company was on a roll to use and abuse the people and the environment of Yuba County for the company’s profit.
The company was going to build the largest landmark in the Sacramento Valley outside the skyline of the City of Sacramento.
The Environmental Impact Report was attacked by the YUGAG attorney.
Inadequate study of traffic effects, incomplete air studies, ground water encroachment, liner leakage, and odors were addressed. A major point that Larry Sanders made was that the statement of overriding considerations was unsupported by facts.
Larry Sanders argued that the Board of Supervisors “committed an abuse of discretion certifying the subject EIR which Petitioners allege omits relevant information and therefore precluded informed decision making and informed public participation”.
YUGAG’S contention that the “ ‘overall risks to ground water’ discussion is wholly speculative and not supported by substantial evidence” was agreed to by the Court.
Another indicator of the obfuscation by ESA is a quote from Judge Mathews: “...the Court must comment that it agrees with the Petitioners that even the canniest reader, carefully studying the record, can scarcely comprehend the EIR discussion of landfill gas issues.”
On Cumulative Air Impacts - “the EIR itself falls short of the mark”.
The Court agreed with YUGAG that the EIR failed to adequately analyze impacts of increased traffic on local resident safety. “The EIR simply leaps to the conclusion that (there) would be no significant impact on pedestrian safety. This is insufficient, and a proper safety analysis must be conducted.”
In regard to an Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Court felt that the EIR did not identify suitable alternatives, did not discuss reducing or avoiding impacts, and did not discuss feasibility. YSDI and Norcal Waste “based their findings in part on the conclusory allegation of higher cost, with absolutely no analysis of the same in the record”.
Unbelievably, YSDI and Norcal Waste argued “these significant unavoidable impacts are considered acceptable”:
1) Increased Air pollutant emissions locally
2) Increased regional cumulative air pollutant emissions
3) “alter visual characteristics”
4) Impair visual resources
Norcal tried to justify the above by saying “the ostrom Road Landfill provides an essential service”.
The Court said “the Statement of Overriding Considerations provides no clue as to how disapproval of the project would have deprived the populace of the availability of such services.” “Economic impacts unrelated to the environment cannot form substantial evidence.”
“THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS is vague, impermissibly conclusory, and not supported by substantial evidence.”
The Court ruled that the Board of Supervisors acted in excess of its jurisdiction, deprived the people of a fair hearing, and committed a prejudicial abuse of discretion. The Court concluded ‘that meaningful due process was wholly lacking in the formation and proceedings of the Ad Hoc Committee, and in the Board of Supervisors adoption of its recommendation”
In Summary:
David can win over Goliath providing that David’s issues are clear, he has a good rock, Goliath has stepped on the environment, David’s aim is good, and that David delivers his rock with strength and accuracy.
YUGAG represented a group of dedicated people, clear of purpose, intent to right a wrong, and strong enough to battle a giant force - and get an environmental victory.
