Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montezuma County seeks party status in state landfill rulemaking after consultants warn of millions in compliance costs
Summary
County staff and consultants told commissioners Colorado's proposed Regulation 31 would force local landfills to install costly gas-collection systems or begin expensive quarterly air monitoring; the board approved submitting a deadline-driven letter to obtain party status in the rulemaking so the county can participate.
Montezuma County agreed to seek formal party status in a Colorado rulemaking after staff and consultants said a proposed update to state landfill rules (referred to in the packet as Regulation 31) could require either large gas-collection systems or regular, costly monitoring — both potentially unaffordable for rural landfills.
At a briefing, landfill staff and a consultant warned the rule, as proposed, could apply to landfills that fall within new waste-in-place thresholds and impose either quarterly air-monitoring programs or installation of a gas collection system. “There's no way we can comply with these rules,” one landfill staff speaker said in the meeting, citing the scale of required equipment, monitoring and staffing.
Presenters gave preliminary cost examples from consultants: a single anemometer installation and instruments used for monitoring can cost on the order of $20,000 apiece; quarterly monitoring would add recurring instrumentation and sampling costs; a professionally engineered landfill gas‑collection system for a facility of this size could cost “three to five million” dollars, not including additional engineering, staffing or peripheral costs.
Meeting participants cited numeric thresholds discussed in the presentation. As stated at the meeting, the rule's applicability sits in part between certain megagram thresholds; presenters said the county currently estimates waste in place near the higher end of the range discussed and described an example figure of “844 megagrams per year” as part of the presentation. Presenters also cited examples from other counties, including Mesa County, where regulatory noncompliance led to near‑loss of insurance because of a reporting error.
County legal staff explained the procedural implications of obtaining party status: a party would be required to attend a status conference, file a prehearing statement before an August hearing, could submit alternative proposals, and would have the right to offer testimony and rebuttal. County legal staff said the deadline to file the minimal letter to secure party status was imminent (the letter in the board packet required submission by Wednesday).
Commissioners and staff agreed it is better to “be at the table” than to be limited to public comment after the fact. The board directed staff to sign and submit the party‑status letter and to raise the issue with state legislators scheduled to meet the board later in the week.
Commissioners asked staff to seek more detailed cost estimates from engineers and consultants and to press state representatives and senators for funding or alternatives that would reduce the financial burden on rural landfills.
