Opinion: Beware of landfill developers bearing gifts

“The site Casella chose for the GSL landfill is essentially in the middle of a sand and gravel pit, a location that hydrogeologists and soil scientists say is just about the worst possible place to put a landfill,” writes Wessler. Monitor file
Published: 06-25-2024 6:00 AM |
Eliot Wessler lives in Whitefield and works with a number of grassroots organizations in New Hampshire’s North Country.
As Adam Sexton made clear in his WMUR broadcast of June 18, all four of the major declared candidates, from both parties, running to replace Gov. Sununu, have come out in opposition to Casella building a giant new landfill (the GSL project) in Dalton.
We’re not surprised! We think opposing GSL is a no-brainer decision for anyone in New Hampshire who prioritizes public health and environmental quality over corporate profits. The candidates will of course speak for themselves during the campaign, but suffice it to say there is now a strong consensus that this is the wrong time and the Dalton site is the wrong place for a giant new landfill. Moreover, given Casella’s business model, permitting the GSL project will likely put New Hampshire on a glide path to becoming the trash dump for all of New England.
The GSL landfill project would be a disaster for New Hampshire. First, our state has plenty of landfill capacity and we won’t need a new landfill for decades. Under the most conservative assumptions, landfill capacity will last for at least ten years, and under realistic assumptions, our state has enough landfill capacity so that we may never need to permit a new landfill in New Hampshire. That is not stopping Casella. It has been on a merger and acquisition binge, buying up trash collection businesses all over New England, and now needs a place to dump all that extra trash. And because New Hampshire has the weakest landfill regulations of all New England states, our state has a target on its back.
Second, the site Casella chose for the GSL landfill is essentially in the middle of a sand and gravel pit, a location that hydrogeologists and soil scientists say is just about the worst possible place to put a landfill. As a result, the GSL site would put the water supply systems in the Ammonoosuc/Connecticut and Merrimack River watersheds at undue risk for PFAS contamination. By its own admission, Casella chose that site because it found a landowner willing to sell for cheap, and because Dalton is one of only 14 towns in New Hampshire without a zoning ordinance, making it an easy target.
And third, New Hampshire is already awash in out-of-state trash and the GSL project will make matters worse. Just short of half of all the trash that is currently landfilled in New Hampshire comes from other states, primarily from Massachusetts. GSL has told environmental regulators that up to 49% of the trash landfilled at GSL would come from out-of-state sources; but based on analysis of data in GSL’s permit applications, that figure may be more like 60%. If we allow GSL to be built our state is very likely to go past the tipping point where we can’t stop New Hampshire from becoming the de facto dump for all of New England.
Casella’s response to Adam Sexton (from its director of communications) was essentially that Casella will hold hostage its plans to build a new recycling center in southern New Hampshire to the approval of the GSL project. In other words, Casella is willing to gift New Hampshire with a new recycling center but only if it can ram its misbegotten GSL landfill project down our throats. This is a grotesque use of hard-ball political tactics, it is inconsistent with reasoned environmental regulation, and may possibly be illegal. We hope and expect that New Hampshire decision-makers, including town officials, state legislators, and gubernatorial candidates won’t fall for the political pressure that Casella has telegraphed it is going to use.
Casella has been telling our state that it is committed to “sustainability,” but it’s only now that it is having trouble getting support for the GSL project that it plans to build a new recycling center. This begs the question — why doesn’t Casella commit to building a new recycling center in southern New Hampshire without a quid pro quo for a badly sited and unneeded landfill in the North Country?
Article continues after...
Yesterday's Most Read Articles
As Casella begins its promised “candidate education” tour we trust the gubernatorial candidates will not be swayed by its strong-armed tactics, gifts and broken promises. Candidates need to look no further than Casella’s extremely poor operating track record at its NCES landfill, and its penchant for heavy-handed lobbying and litigation in its dealings with the town of Bethlehem to understand exactly who they are being “educated” by.
So here is a public service message to New Hampshire’s next governor and other decision-makers: Beware of landfill developers bearing gifts!