Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Landfill Waste Management topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Rowan County declines to join agreed order with Waste Management over landfill odor; county seeks stronger remedies

2380233 · February 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Rowan County officials told Waste Management they would not sign a state-negotiated agreed order intended to address recurring odor and other violations at the county landfill.

Rowan County officials told Waste Management this month they would not sign the environmental cabinet’s agreed order intended to address recurring odor and runoff complaints at the county landfill.

Judge/Executive Harry Clark said the county had been included in negotiated talks between Waste Management and the state environmental cabinet but that the final agreed order offered penalties the county considered inadequate. “If we enter into an agreed order with them, we’re condoning what they’re proposing,” Clark said during the Feb. 18 fiscal court meeting.

The nut graf: Residents and county leaders have repeatedly reported offensive odors and roadway mud associated with truck traffic to the landfill. County officials said they want stronger, enforceable measures — including different daily covering methods than tarps — and more meaningful penalties to prevent ongoing nuisance impacts.

In public remarks the judge and other officials described a sequence of enforcement interactions: the cabinet issued notices of violation, Waste Management negotiated an agreed order with the cabinet, and the county was invited to participate in that order. The county declined to sign, arguing the daily penalty provisions in the agreed order (described by staff as far lower than the statutory maximum) would not deter repeat violations.

County staff said the landfill still operates without a current host or franchise agreement with the county; those agreements expired Dec. 31, 2023. Clark noted that, although host and franchise agreements are not required by law, they are the primary mechanism by which the county seeks operational commitments from the landfill operator, such as road-cleaning and truck washing.

The court discussed immediate steps: continuing to document odors and calls to the environmental cabinet, exploring local ordinance changes, and pursuing legal advice on other remedies. County officials said they are consulting an environmental attorney (identified in the meeting as working with the Resource Council) to review options for strengthening local ordinances and, if necessary, pursuing enforcement actions.

Ending: County officials urged residents who detect landfill odors to report those incidents to the state environmental cabinet so there is a contemporaneous record. Officials said they will return to fiscal court with proposed ordinance language or other steps after additional legal review.