Not Such a “Great Deal” After All
(or) A Trashy Deal

Lewiston has reached a historical crossroads--a time for making a decision that will affect our children and our children’s children. Do we continue our progress as an All-America City--sprucing up our downtown, attracting new businesses, and improving economic, educational, and social opportunities? Or do we change our city’s goals--accepting the role offered to us by Casella Waste Systems as a major hub for the importation of trash?

Casella’s proposal would greatly expand Lewiston’s landfill. The “footprint” would increase from 15.8 acres to 80 acres, its capacity would increase from 694,000 cubic yards to 10,000,000 cubic yards, and its height would be raised to 400 feet (slightly lower than Apple Sass Hill, the highest point in Lewiston).

Despite its larger size, the landfill’s “life” would be dramatically reduced. According to Lewiston officials, our landfill will last at current usage for 620 years, but it would be depleted under the Casella agreement in, at most, 30 years. To date, no one has answered the critical question: What about Year 31? Where will we deposit our waste once the Casella contract expires?

The composition of the landfill will also be changed significantly. In a recently televised debate, City Administrator Bennett explained that the materials put into the landfill would simply be “more of the same”: ash residue from Lewiston and Auburn’s municipal waste, and Lewiston’s construction and demolition debris (C & D). This is very misleading. Under the proposed “deal,” Casella would allow us to deposit locally-generated materials into our own landfill, but Lewiston’s C & D and Lewiston/Auburn’s ash would amount to a mere 5% of the total. The remaining 95% would be C & D from other sources, most of them out of state.

If the Casella plan were approved, Lewiston’s image would be altered greatly. Mr. Bennett stated that the appearance of the expanded landfill would not be noticeably different. True or not, this has little to do with Lewiston’s image. An estimated 42 trucks a day (at minimum) rolling into Lewiston with newly-imported debris, and smells similar to those emanating from Casella’s other “projects” would certainly inform people of our new role in the Northeast’s waste disposal system. Lewiston would become known as a major destination for trash.

Last, but certainly not least, there are some very real health concerns associated with construction and demolition debris. Although C & D may sound more palatable than the “green garbage bags” to which Mr. Bennett refers, it is important to remember that C & D contains all of the materials found in old buildings: e.g., lead paint, asbestos, arsenic-treated wood, mercury and other metals, plastics, and gypsum. These materials remain hazardous despite incineration, and, according to the EPA, they can leak into the soil, even when a landfill meets state and federal standards. The landfill in Hamden (which is nearing capacity 13 years ahead of Casella’s projection in their license application) has leached into the groundwater. Casella is providing bottled water to nearby residents, but this action is clearly not a satisfactory or long-term solution to a very dangerous situation.

Our concerns are real: a dramatic increase in the size of our landfill coupled with an equally dramatic decrease in the landfill’s “life”; Lewiston’s altered image from All-America City to All-America Dump; and the health hazards associated with the importation and landfilling of C & D. Yet, some city officials are still encouraging us to enter into a 30-year contract with Casella to save, at best, a few dollars on future property taxes. The “pro forma” numbers touted by Mr. Bennett during the televised debate include some overstated savings (e.g., Casella will reimburse the City the legal costs of finalizing our contract with them--an expense that would not be incurred if there were no contract). These numbers also include income derived under Casella’s best-case scenarios (e.g., if all permits are allowed). Also included in the “pro forma,” but not highlighted, are Lewiston’s very real losses of current income: money from recycling (approximately $390,000 per year) and profit from our trash-to-ash arrangement with MMWAC (estimated annually at $167,000).

There are too many unanswered questions. The Solid Waste Task Force needs more information before making a recommendation to the City Council, the City Council needs more information before designing a referendum question to be put to a vote, and we, as the citizen owners of our Lewiston landfill, need much more information before making a decision that will dramatically impact our city for generations to come.

We are not in competition with any other municipality for this “great deal” being offered by Casella. What’s the big rush? Why can’t we take the time to have our questions answered? And why can’t we wait for the State legislature to finalize a comprehensive plan for the disposal of Maine’s waste (a task already scheduled for the upcoming session) before launching into a 30-year contract that involves the importation of out-of-state waste? This “great deal” with Casella is certainly a big deal, but it may not be so “great”!

Elaine Makas
Representative, District 71 (part of Lewiston)
10 Sheffield Ave., Lewiston, ME 04240
(h) 784-5726 (cell) 212-6625