Landfill battle far from resolved

• By JOHN A. COLVIN
• River Parishes bureau
• Published: Jan 12, 2009 - Page: 1B - UPDATED: 12:05 am

• Print
• Email
• Save
• Reprints
• Twitter
• Share

• Del.icio.us
• Digg
• Facebook
• Reddit
• 

NAPOLEONVILLE — Neither company officials wanting to build an landfill in Assumption Parish nor residents and groups opposing the effort seem ready to give up.

A state permit authorizing an Assumption Parish landfill was reissued in July. However, it is the subject of a lawsuit in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge even as the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality conducts an internal administrative review on whether the permit should have been issued again.

“It just won’t quit,” said David Hartman, registered manager of Donaldsonville-based Belle Co. LLC, the company that wants to build the landfill. “I thought we would begin construction this spring.”

In the latest court battle, Concerned Citizens of Assumption Parish, the Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department, the Louisiana Environmental Action Network and two individuals are suing DEQ.

“It’s a struggle, but you have to fight when you are right,” said Jane Boudreaux, a member of the Concerned Citizens of Assumption Parish who lives less than three miles from the proposed site.

Boudreaux and others want to block the landfill because the site would create health hazards and reduce property values for the nearby residents, she said.

The lawsuit, which seeks a judicial review of Belle’s permit, alleges that DEQ erred in issuing the permit for a number of reasons. It also outlines how Belle allegedly has not complied with the state’s emergency response statute.

Since DEQ first issued the landfill permit in August 1997, community activist groups have asserted that Belle’s permit application did not address the statute that requires an applicant seeking a landfill permit to verify local emergency providers and medical facilities are competent to respond to a hazardous material incident. A 1998 ruling in 19th Judicial District Court — upheld by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001 — determined the assertion was correct.

An exemption to the law allows an applicant to demonstrate its ability to handle an incident, and, after losing an appeal, Belle submitted additional documentation in an attempt to show compliance using the exemption.

DEQ officials concluded in September 2005 that Belle’s permit application was incomplete and discontinued its permit review.
A letter explaining the decision to Belle officials stated the application neither resolved deficiencies regarding wetlands use and compliance with local zoning laws nor did the application include a recent environmental assessment statement, which was done when the company first applied for the permit in 1994.

In response, Belle attorneys sought a court order to force DEQ to make a decision,  leading to a second appellate court ruling in December 2007 restricting DEQ’s permit review to aspects concerning the disputed emergency response statute.

Given the limitation, DEQ determined the company’s application demonstrated an ability to meet the minimum levels of competency to respond to a hazardous situation, DEQ attorney Donald Trahan said in July when the permit was reissued.

The current litigation was filed in August with the help of the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic.