Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landfill Siting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press legislature to block proposed Wawarsing landfill; resolution opposing countywide siting fails
Summary
Dozens of residents urged Ulster County legislators to oppose landfill siting at Milk Road and Brown Road and to pursue zero‑waste alternatives. Legislators debated whether a local resolution would preempt the agency’s scientific siting process; Resolution 33 was defeated in a long‑roll vote, 8–13.
Dozens of residents from Wawarsing and nearby communities urged the Ulster County Legislature on June 17 to block proposed landfill sites at Milk Road and Brown Road and to prioritize waste‑diversion alternatives.
The public‑comment period lasted more than an hour and featured a string of speakers who described threats to water, farms, summer camps and public health if a landfill were sited near the Rondout watershed. "The cornerstone document is flawed. It's ancient. It's inaccurate," said Scott Carlson, one of the earliest speakers, summarizing community objections to the siting analysis. Several speakers presented a letter from the Ellenville NAACP and described landfill placement as an environmental‑justice concern.
Why it matters: The landfill debate touches on competing responsibilities — the countywide need to manage solid waste and the planning agency's technical siting process. Several residents and town leaders asked the legislature to send a clear, public signal that the two contested sites are off the table; agency (RA) statements that it would "indefinitely suspend" pursuit of the sites drew skeptical responses from some speakers who read agency communications differently.
Legislative debate focused on process as much as place. Supporters of Resolution 33 — a measure "opposing the establishment of a countywide landfill in Wawarsing, New York, and urging exploration of alternative locations and waste management solutions" — argued the legislature should reassure affected communities. Opponents said the siting process is properly the responsibility of the municipal agency with technical expertise and that a legislative resolution could be an undue political intervention. "That process is meant to be scientific and apolitical," one legislator said during floor debate.
Outcome and next steps: After discussion the long roll was called and the resolution was defeated by recorded vote, 8 in favor and 13 opposed. Multiple legislators emphasized continued work on zero‑waste and diversion strategies and urged partnership with the siting agency. Several speakers and legislators suggested the county should use the pause to invest in recycling, organics diversion and reuse innovation that could create local green jobs.
Claims and responses: During public comment, Lauren Salve said a May 23 agency email contradicted earlier statements that community opposition drove the decision; she urged passage of two resolutions (33 and 273) to formalize protections. Agency staff and some legislators maintain the RA's public statement amounted to an indefinite suspension of those specific sites; others cautioned that language in the agency release still contemplated future study if waste‑diversion capacity is insufficient.
What lawmakers approved instead: While Resolution 33 failed, the legislature adopted several other items on the agenda, including unanimous approval of school‑resource‑officer agreements and a $3.67 million bond for public‑works equipment (see "Votes at a glance" for details).
The meeting record shows continued public demand for a transparent agency response and for concrete county investments in diversion, education and green‑job training. The issue is likely to return to the legislature as agency studies and community proposals develop.
