The controversy over the extension of the Northampton landfill is historic—an historic collision between the garbage and water, probably the most dramatic collision of that kind that the Valley has seen. It comes very close to embracing all the Valley, because towns from Northfield to Westfield send solid waste to the Northampton landfill, while the aquifer underlying the affected area—the Barnes Aquifer, one of the largest in the state—reaches from Hampshire into Hampden County.
Northampton hasn't yet officially decided to extend the landfill to an area above the Barnes' Maloney Well, but given the money spent on studies and consulting, it's by no means certain that protest will keep the city from backing down from a measure it believes will extend the life of the landfill by as much as 20 years.
Whatever happens—even if the extension is implemented, even if it does give over 40 Valley communities a reprieve from the intimidating question of what will happen after that—what no one seems to be talking about yet is that this only postpones that question. The time to think about it is now.
Say Northampton goes ahead with the landfill extension. Given the price of that—the risk to the Maloney Well and the priceless Pleistocene water underneath it, which is the sole water source for Easthampton and a backup source for Southampton, Holyoke and Westfield—the next 20 years of the landfill's life shouldn't be managed on the same terms as the last 20 years.
Northampton should crack down.
Communities sending waste to a landfill that will be hanging out over a pure, vital groundwater source like the Barnes should be doing everything in their power to reduce their waste streams. They should be doing that, too, because Northampton's is one of only four municipal landfills in Western Massachusetts that will be active after 2009. Again the ominous question: After Northampton, what?
All towns whose waste comes to this landfill should have pay-as-you-throw garbage collection. They should have active recycling programs with targets that move upward as higher rates of recycling are achieved. Since the Materials Recycling Facility in Springfield is run on a profit-sharing basis that returns money to the towns, that would profit the towns as well as reducing waste streams.
The towns should have, or be developing, composting programs. In Massachusetts, food waste makes up about 10 percent of the waste stream by volume, and perhaps more by weight; as Franklin County Solid Waste Management District Executive Director Jan Ameen points out, "Wet waste is heavy." Whately and Northfield have composting programs that let people who don't have yards in which to put compost piles take their compost to transfer stations, from which it's taken to local farms.
And towns should brainstorm about other ways of downsizing the waste stream. As Ameen told the Advocate, "If Northampton could come out and say, 'We could extend the life of our landfill by another 10 years if people would change their buying habits'—if Northampton could put a prohibition on usable items going into their landfill—wow!"
Northampton, for its part, should export models based on its success with institutional recycling and composting programs. It should not give waste haulers reductions in tipping fees for bringing in high volumes of waste. It should talk tough to the towns and haulers about reducing waste and getting as many years as possible out of the landfill. In the meantime, Valley planners and Valley residents should begin now to tackle the daunting question: After Northampton, what?
