In an initiative unprecedented in Massachusetts, Northampton's Mayor Clare Higgins supports expanding the city's regional landfill into a recharge area for the Maloney well, which is in a Zone II water supply protection area over the Barnes Aquifer. The aquifer provides water for the cities of Holyoke and Westfield and the town of Southampton, and is the sole source of water for Easthampton. Should the landfill expand, it would be the first landfill in the state to be exempted in a Water Supply Protection Overlay District. The City Council approved the creation of the overlay district less than a year ago.
The Council must vote Yes on whether to grant the Public Works department a special permit for a "heavy public use" when it submits its application to expand the landfill, or the proposed expansion will not occur. This leaves councilors in the position of making a choice between protecting a water supply and cashing in on the waste of other communities for short-term gain. Forty-four municipalities have formal memorandums of understanding with Northampton allowing them to dispose of their refuse in the city's landfill. As corporations like Nestle have moved to commodify water in the Valley, Northampton decisionmakers could make a facile decision to treat clean water as if it were an expendable resource.
In a curious move, at the March 6 City Council meeting Higgins announced that Attorney Michael Pill was hired as a special municipal counsel to advise councilors regarding the special permit for the proposed landfill expansion. The hiring is curious because the DPW has not yet formally applied to the Council for the special permit and ultimately may never do so. At the meeting Pill acknowledged that his services had never before been secured this early for such a process.
(Does this set a precedent suggesting that in the future the city will hire a special municipal counsel to advise the Planning Board when it may be charged with deliberating a special permit application? Considering the outcome of the recent Hilton Garden Inn permitting process, that might be a wise move.)
Pill addressed the Council that evening and advised its members, who in this case form what he described as a "quasi-judicial body," that they must now document their every communication and avoid attending gatherings that are not posted as public meetings by the city. The Council also lacks a budget to perform independent research and analysis of the issue. Higgins faces no such limitations, however, as she does not have to disclose her records and is free to utilize taxpayer-funded public servants and outside contractors to perform research regarding the proposed expansion.
As a result of Pill's opinion, councilors Michael Bardsley and Marianne LaBarge cancelled plans to attend a meeting scheduled for the next day with Laurie Burt, Massachusetts DEP commissioner, regarding the proposal. Bardsley reasoned, "If we (councilors) can't attend forums sponsored by private organizations on the landfill, why would I think that I could attend a private meeting in Boston arranged for the same purpose?" He added, "I did not attend [the DEP meeting] because I did not want to jeopardize the legality of any future decisions that the Council might make."
LaBarge said, "I am very upset that we cannot attend any meetings that are not posted open public meetings. We were told by Mayor Higgins and (planning director) Wayne Feiden that the only time this would be in force was after the DPW presented its application for a special permit to the Council. I'm very upset that all of the citizens of Northampton have no ward representation before a special permit has even been applied for."
When faced with this criticism during the Council meeting of March 6, Mayor Higgins said that things have changed and that this was all new to her, too. Originally arranged by Senator Stan Rosenberg at the request of Northampton resident Dr. Jo-Anne Bessette, the DEP meeting was arranged to give Northampton and Easthampton city councilors, Northampton residents, and Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee representative Dr. Robert Newton the chance to discuss the expansion proposal with Burt. Instead, the DEP invited Higgins and Easthampton Mayor Michael Tautznik to attend the meeting. Mayor Tautznik did not attend but Higgins did, and brought along with her DPW subordinates Ned Huntley and Jim Laurila.
According to Dr. Bessette and Linda Hiesiger, members of Citizens United For a Healthy Future, Dr. Newton disagreed with some of the cheery findings of Stantec, a consulting firm hired by the DPW that until recently employed Laurila. Newton graphed the same data Stantec cited as showing improving water conditions in Hannum Brook, a spring-fed tributary adjacent to Northampton's landfill, and showed that the water quality in the brook is actually deteriorating.
Laurila has conceded that the Stantec report was "sloppy." Of course, the Council was privy to none of this dialogue.
Moreover, Pill's opinion may also have served to quash Council involvement with a planned public forum. The Paradise City Forum had arranged with Council President James Dostal to co-sponsor a public forum with Citizens United for a Healthy Future. The PCF had requested that the forum be posted as a public meeting so that councilors could attend, and to keep the process in compliance with Open Meeting Law guidelines. (There is some precedent for this as a February 18 gathering of residents held at the Florence Civic Center was listed as a public meeting by the Northampton Planning Department. Posted for the Nonotuck Street History Project, the notice reads in part, "This is the second meeting of a group of interested citizens focused on saving the house at 225 Nonotuck Street. There will be a quorum of Northampton Historical Commission members on the [ad hoc] sub-committee, therefore the posting.")
Though Pill's advice stopped short of limiting public discourse of this nature, Dostal pulled out of the forum, stating in an email, "In light of all of the recent developments, I believe that it is wise for me or any other councilor not to be involved in co-sponsoring any forum about the landfill. I believe the DPW will get all of the information out at its monthly meetings."
So how did the city promote the landfill meeting? It was not listed on the city's online calendar or mentioned in the print and broadcast media that week, nor was it posted to the Planning Department's email list, in Higgins' or Councilor Narkewicz's email updates, or in messages to persons who signed up for notices at the February 28 landfill odor meeting. The only effort at outreach the Advocate could discover was an obscure sentence on the DPW's webpage: "Monthly informational meetings are held for the public on the third Wednesday of each month, 7-8 p.m. at Ryan Road Elementary School." In the end, only two members of the public attended, and no councilors were present.
Holding public gatherings is precisely the kind of practice that the Council should be engaged in. It's becoming increasingly clear that clean water is a precious resource which society cannot afford to squander. Yet the decision to risk this resource may rest solely with nine persons entrusted to act on behalf of Northampton citizens, if not in the interests of its neighbors who draw water from the aquifer. In the end, the Council's decision should rely on sound political ethics, not the manipulation of public process.
