Proposed Colorado landfill methane rules could cost Garfield County millions, consultants and commissioners warn

Garfield County heard a technical briefing and discussion about proposed statewide landfill methane rules and their potential local impact, including estimates that compliance could cost the county millions in upfront capital and increase annual operating costs substantially.

SCS Engineers consultants presented the draft Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment rule language under consideration by the Air Quality Control Commission and warned the rules, as drafted, would expand monitoring and control obligations to many more landfills across the state. The county has joined a coalition of municipal and county landfills and retained outside counsel to participate in the upcoming rulemaking and prehearing process.

Evan Guillen of SCS Engineers summarized the main regulatory changes the state has proposed and how they differ from current federal- or state-level practice. Under the prior standard used by some jurisdictions, a landfill gas system typically was not required until a site had received about 4,300,000 tons of waste; the proposed draft would lower that screening threshold to roughly 450,000 tons and would require earlier engineering, monitoring and, if methane is detected, much faster installation of collection systems. "With the old regulations... you wouldn't even have to be considered to install one until you have about 4,300,000 tons of waste," Guillen said. "Now, it is cut in almost a tenth to where 450,000 tons is the cutoff."

Consultants and county staff outlined several consequences the county could face if the draft rules remain unchanged: a requirement to expand or install gas collection systems soon after hitting the lower threshold; yearly expansion assessments even without physical cell expansion; weekly gas-system monitoring where monthly monitoring has been typical; replacement of open "candlestick" flares with fully enclosed flares; and new surface emission monitoring (SEM) thresholds that are lower and more intensive. Guillen said the draft SEM standard would treat readings above about 200 parts per million as significant (compared with a historical 500 parts-per-million action level used in many places) and would reduce sample spacing to about 25 feet, substantially increasing labor and equipment needs for monitoring.

SCS Engineers and county operations staff gave rough cost estimates for Garfield County’s site based on the draft requirements. The consultants presented an order-of-magnitude estimate of $2 million to $3 million in upfront capital to design and install a gas collection system and enclosed flare, with long-term annual operations and maintenance estimates that could range from several hundred thousand dollars to close to $1 million per year under the draft requirements. Guillen also warned that the state's modeled bio-cover requirement — a compost-based intermediate cover that must be kept moist to function — would require far more compost than Colorado currently produces and could create both supply and cost risks.

Commissioners and county staff said such costs would likely raise tipping fees, could encourage increased illegal dumping or offsite disposal by residents and haulers, and might push some smaller municipal landfills to close or to consolidate into larger regional sites. Commissioner Jankowski described the draft rules as onerous to rural communities and said the county would work through the coalition to seek changes. "I will just note that I am not a fan of the Air Quality Control Commission," he said. "They make rules and regulations for the state of Colorado. They're onerous to the rural communities."

County staff said Garfield County has roughly 600,000 tons at its landfill (a county figure provided during the briefing) and therefore would fall above the draft 450,000-ton screening level. SCS Engineers said that under current practice only about a dozen landfills in Colorado have the advanced SEM and gas-collection systems the draft would effectively require at many more sites; the draft would expand that number to an estimated 35–40 facilities statewide.

County staff and the consultants described immediate next steps: continuing participation in a multi‑county coalition, retaining outside legal counsel (the coalition has already done so), collecting defensible fiscal-impact data for the prehearing record, filing party status where appropriate, and advocating for regulatory changes or delays. SCS Engineers said it had filed party status on behalf of some clients and that the state’s own fiscal analysis — as presented to the county — materially understates likely costs. County legal and policy staff said they expect to press for additional time to develop alternatives and for the state to consider transportation and consolidation emissions in the rulemaking record.

How this matters: proposed changes would increase capital and operating costs for many smaller and mid-size landfills, likely raise tipping fees for residents, create operational staffing effects (additional monitoring and maintenance), and could prompt consolidation of landfill sites or increased hauling distances with attendant transportation emissions. The county will work with the coalition and attorneys to seek modifications during the rulemaking process and will return to the board with proposed positions and testimony.