Friday, July 11, 2008

Journalists: "Open the Freezer"

Photo: Howard Schneider, Dean of the Journalism Department at Stony Brook University in New York and former reporter and managing editor with Newsday.

The New England News Forum

Photo: Doug McGill, Journalism professor at Carleton College, former New York Times staff reporter and International Bureau Chief with Bloomberg News

The Community Radio Hour recently attended a one-day workshop sponsored by the New England News Forum. "Sharing the News: Fresh Approaches to Reaching Students and Training Citizens" was held at UMass Lowell on June 28. The NENF is headed by Bill Densmore, a professor of journalism at UMass and the project director/editor of the Media Giraffe project.

I was captivated by the words of two of the speakers, both veteran journalists who have moved into academia: Minnesota-based Doug McGill, formerly with the New York Times and Bloomberg, and Howard Schneider, who did his time at Newsday before founding the journalism school at Stony Brook University in New York.

McGill encourages reporters to "Welcome Xenia" and to "Talk to Strangers," while Schneider insists that his students "Open the Freezer"--referring to the story of a New Orleans Times-Picyune reporter who failed to verify second-hand information about dead bodies with his own eyes.

Thanks to Bill Densmore, who agreed to let me record this event, and thanks to blogger Tish Grier who encouraged me to attend.

howieschneider (#01).mp3

dougmcgill2 (#01).mp3

dougmcgill (#01).mp3

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Lawyers to the ZBA: Yadda Yadda

It was not for the faint of heart. For a full three and a half hours on June 26, lawyers representing the Northampton Department of Public Works, Ameresco Energy Services Company, and a group of 42 Appellants addressed the Zoning Board of Appeals.
(First Photo: Thomas Mackie for the DPW)

The issue? Building Commissioner Tony Patillo has denied a request for code enforcement from the appellants, represented by Boston lawyer Peter Koff, who maintain that the regional landfill on Glendale Road is operating without proper permitting. The appellants wish the ZBA to overturn Patillo's ruling.
(Second Photo: Peter Koff for the Appellants)

The DPW, represented by Thomas Mackie, and Ameresco, represented by Arthur Krieger, disagree. (Ameresco operates the gas-to-energy facility at the landfill.) For a good overview, read Fred Contrada's article here.
(Third Photo: Arthur Kreiger for Ameresco; Huntley and Laurila from the DPW)
For a definition of the Laches defense, used by Atty. Mackie, check this out.
(Fourth Photo: City Soliicitor Janet Shepard)

As many of you know, the policy wonk community in Northampton can always count upon the large, well-paid staff at the Community Radio Hour to show up with a microphone, a stand, an xlr-to-5mm cable, and a digital recording device when the situation really calls for it. Here are some highlights from this compelling event, as broadcast on the CRH.

If anyone is super-interested, let it be known that I have a recording of the entire event. I'll burn you a series of CDs. Some people actually like this kinda stuff.











Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Kollmorgen Trumps Master Plan

When I invited independent journalists Mike Kirby and Mark Roessler to the radio studio to talk about their objections to the siting of Kollmorgen Electro-Optical on so-called Village Hill (the old Northampton State Hospital site), and the concomitant change in the Village Hill master plan that was approved to expedite moving the plant from its cramped King Street location, part of me wondered: is it reasonable, in such difficult economic times, to protest such an accommodation? Listen to the Radio Show Here:

The original plan, developed by the well-known "new urbanist" Peter Calthorpe's design team in California, showed a complex, permeable, village-like, and human-scale development. The new master plan, approved unanimously on May 22 by the Northampton State Hospital Citizen's Advisory Committee for Village Hill (The "CAC") portrays quite a different concept: a big-box defense manufacturer with a 450-car parking lot, surrounded by a fence. A prime piece of Northampton real estate, with river and mountain views, which many had hoped would host a community of small businesses, had sadly succumbed to realpolitik--but, maybe, as the CAC members seemed to concede with their vote to change the plan, there was no other way.

Was the original plan pie-in-the-sky?

Northampton Mayor Clare Higgins, who is the chair of the CAC, has explained that Kollmorgen, a defense contractor, would have left Northampton without this accommodation, taking 330 jobs and almost half a million dollars in tax revenue. It has been very difficult to market the mixed-use commercial development on the hill as planned, she explained, and it is time to become pragmatic and not miss out on the opportunity to retain an important employer. There has been enormous support for this venture from the business community and boosterism from the traditional press: The Daily Hampshire Gazette, Northampton's local daily, printed this glowing and uncritical editorial: In Our Opinion: A Boost for Northampton.

Yet dreams die hard. What happened to the new, mixed-use town center that was promised?

I have been wondering: Why doesn't Kollmorgen want to stay at King Street, and expand to the Hill and Dale Mall? Why, if Kollmorgen deemed the Hill untenable a couple of years ago, have they changed their mind? Did the marketing for the village concept not yield any real results? Why? Is it just the economy, or a failure of commitment and imagination? Is the CAC abandoning its charge by not defending the master plan, and insisting upon holding out, despite pressure from City Hall? Do we have to bend over backwards for Kollmorgen, or can we extract some leverage to ensure that the resultant design is good? And, if plans in Northampton are so easily abandoned, why even plan at all? Does this bode well for the Sustainable Northampton Plan?

Other Links:

Chad Cain, business reporter for the Daily Hampshire Gazette, has been following this issue, and reports the facts in a comprehensive manner: (The first link is from the Google cache, and does not require a subscription.)

Fred Contrada reported on the CAC vote in The Republican:

Northampton board OKs Kollmorgen at Village Hill

Mike Kirby has written about Bay State Machine, a small manufacturer, and its failed attempt to move to "Village Hill."

The Change in Plan must be approved by the EOEA--The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs--through the so-called MEPA process. As such, an opportunity exists for citizens to submit comment on the change. Here is the link to the "Notice of Project Change."

Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, via FAX, or by hand
delivery. Please note that comments submitted on MEPA documents are public
records. The mailing address for comments, due by July 1, is:

Secretary Ian A. Bowles
EOEA, Attn: MEPA Office
William Gage, EOEA No. 12629
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston MA 02114

Main Phone: (617) 626-1000, William Gage: (617) 626-1025
Main Fax: (617) 626-1181

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Dishing with Blogger Daryl LaFleur

Daryl LaFleur

The Zoning Board of Appeals and the landfill lawsuit, regional waste management alternatives, Citizens United for a Healthy Future and sixties-activist Saul Alinsky, "Poisoning the Well"--should officials attempt to discredit citizens with whom they disagree?

kudos to independent journalists; happy father's day
the zba and the regional landfill, creative thinking about regional waste

planning board member "poisons the well"
Notre Dame Charrette

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

The Landfill Waiver: Science or Politics?

The Northampton Department of Public Works is seeking to significantly expand its 39-acre regional landfill, located off Glendale Road. The plan--known as Phase 5/Phase 5B-- would add approximately 20 acres to the north, and another 10 acres piggybacked on the side slopes of the current site. The expansion is designed to add another 20 years to the lifespan of the facility, based upon a fill rate of 50,000 tons per year. If the City of Northampton does nothing, the current site will reach capacity in 2-3 years.

DPW Chief Ned Huntley and City Engineer Jim Laurila at a recent Board of Public Works meeting

The landfill has been in operation since 1969. The original unlined landfill covers a 21-acre area, which stopped accepting waste in 1990 and was capped in 1995. Just to the east of the unlined landfill are four lined cells, referred to as Phases 1-4.

An opposition group called "Citizens United for a Healthy Future" (click here for an audio interview with Jo-Anne Besette and Linda Heisiger of Citizens United) maintains a website at While Citizens United point to problems that they see with the current landfill, such as odor, noise, and the pollution of the Hannum Brook, a tributary of the Manhan River that borders the landfill property, their primary focus is on stopping the proposed landfill expansion.

A Zone II aquifer recharge area is defined as "that area of an aquifer that contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping conditions that can be reasonably anticipated."

In 1999 the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) determined that the Glendale Road landfill is indeed situated over the Zone II area for the Maloney Well, a backup drinking water supply for the neighboring city of Easthampton. In order to proceed with the Phase 5/Phase 5B expansion, the City of Northampton applied for--and, in 2006, was granted--a waiver of the DEP's siting criteria that prohibit landfill development within Zone II areas.

Citizens United argues that the expansion should not go forward, and that the DEP should not have granted this waiver. Their members have spoken at numerous city council meetings with the message that landfill liners will inevitably leak, and in an era of dwindling water resources, we should be uncompromising in protecting of what we have. Massachusetts state environmental regulations prohibit siting landfills over Zone II areas. Why was the waiver granted? In private conversations, citizens from the Glendale Road neighborhood have wondered if the DEP's decision was based upon politics instead of science.

The Contaminant Transport Model: A Key Document

The contaminant transport model commissioned by the City was an important part of Northampton's application to the DEP for a positive site suitability report. Laurila explained to me that the model was designed using extremely conservative parameters--for example, it assumed a poorly constructed single composite liner, when in fact, the design calls for a carefully-constructed double composite liner with a 12-inch leak detection zone. Four compounds--zinc, manganese, methylene chloride, and a theoretical, non-reactive, non-adsorptive compound--were modeled at concentrations much higher than those present in Northampton leachate. (The theoretical compound was included to estimate dilution effects, and to determine how a fast-moving compound that is neither impeded by soils nor chemical transformation will travel through the aquifer, hence contributing, according to Laurila and Huntley, to the model's conservative assumptions.)

A "catastrophic release" of leachate was posited, and combined with the assumption of chronic liner leakage. The model was run from 50-100 years, and assumed that no capping would be present.

The model, when ran, predicted that even in the case of a catastrophic leachate release at the landfill, there would be no impact on the Maloney Well. "Near total dilution" would occur by the time water from the landfill reached the well. These findings are summarized in a September 2007 DPW memo to the City Council entitled "Background Information--Proposed Landfill Expansion and Maloney Well Aquifer."

The contaminant transport model was prepared by Dufresne-Henry (which became Stantec Engineering) in collaboration with Dr. Peter Shanahan of HydroAnalysis, Inc. The draft contaminant transport model, which can be viewed at the Forbes Library as an appendix to the September 2005 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), was signed by Mr. Laurila, who worked for Dufresne-Henry and Stantec before taking his position with the City of Northampton.

If the contaminant transport model is valid, this undermines the position of anti-landfill activists who assert that the Maloney Well will be compromised by the expansion. But if the model is weak or flawed, or if inadequate independent review of the model can be demonstrated, then the Maloney Well argument stands strong.

Ned Huntley, Director of the Department of Public Works, points out in the September 2007 DPW memo that the groundwater flow model (upon which the contaminant transport model was based) was developed in collaboration with the DEP, was approved by the DEP, and was independently reviewed by the City of Easthampton, in consultation with SEA Consultants, at the expense of the Northampton DPW. Dufresne-Henry revised the groundwater flow model when SEA and the City of Easthampton provided additional information on the aquifer. According to the memo, Dr. Robert Newton, a Smith College professor and hydrogeologist who sits on the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee (BAPAC), was invited by the DPW to review an early draft of the groundwater flow model, but that "other commitments prevented him from having time to commit to model development."

Huntley and Laurila also note that no comments regarding the draft contaminant transport model were submitted to MEPA during the public comment phase of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). While Clean Water Action and Toxic Action Center requested copies of the DEIR, neither organization submitted comment.

The groundwater flow model was approved by the DEP in 2005. The final contaminant transport model was approved by the DEP in 2006 as part of the positive Site Suitability Report.

(For Audio/Video of Dr. Robert Newton's objections to the proposed landfill expansion, click here.)

Challenges to the Contaminant Transport Model

In November of 2007, the Easthampton City Council sent a letter to Laurie Burt, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection, asking that she reconsider the site selection waiver. The letter references "two other unstudied, unlined landfills" in Easthampton, no longer in use, that "lie over the same aquifer" and maintains that the cumulative effect of leachate from all three sites should be incorporated into the model.

All parties agree that the well is not pristine, and is already marked by borderline-high manganese and iron levels. The Easthampton city council's letter maintains that the transport model assumes a pristine aquifer, and that any addition of iron or manganese would push water quality past the tipping point defined by MMCL (Massachusetts Maximum Contaminant Levels.)

But months earlier, in a June 11, 2007 letter, Easthampton Mayor Michael Tautznik had presented this exact argument, as promulgated by professor Robert Newton, to Northampton Mayor Clare Higgins. Higgins passed the letter on to DPW chief Huntley, who responded that "Dr. Newton's contention that the inclusion of the closed landfills at Oliver Street and Loudville Road would significantly alter the predicted concentrations at the Maloney Well is not valid for two main reasons," and goes on to explain that the Loudville Road Landfill is located over a clay confining layer which isolates it from the aquifer, and that the Oliver Street Landfill is partially isolated by the same clay layer.

Huntley added that even were the two Easthampton landfills deemed to be contributors, that that would not alter the contribution of the Northampton landfill--the contaminant transport model demonstrated "near total attenuation" between the landfill and the well, and the "existence of other potential sources . . . does not alter this basic finding." Huntley invited Tautznik, his staff, and Dr. Newton to meet for further discussion, and expressed willingness to alter the assumptions in the model if presented with useful information. Huntley's letter did not address the assertion that the model falsely assumes pristine conditions at the Maloney Well. Robert Newton did not respond to my request for comment.

Can A Public, Televised Scientists' Debate Be Organized?

Few individuals are truly qualified to judge the validity and veracity of such a specialized scientific model. Laypeople might reasonable ask a number of questions, however. For instance, does the posited catastrophic event--based upon a two-day leak in the force main releasing 154,000 gallons of leachate-- really represent the worst possible scenario? Do the four chemicals chosen accurately represent all potential groundwater threats from the landfill? What about arsenic, for example, which is not present in leachate, but is mobilized from the rocks and soil by anoxic (low dissolved oxygen) water-based solutions, such as leachate? Do we really have enough geological information to accurately model groundwater flow in the Barnes Aquifer at all?

Much of downtown Easthampton is located over the Zone II recharge area for the Maloney Well, and the well itself is already high in iron and manganese, two elements that are also mobilized by anoxic groundwater conditions. Is the City of Northampton, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, making a decision that we, in the interest of providing an important public utility, can risk sacrificing this well, which after all, is not the primary source of water for Easthampton, and which would already require treatment were it to be deployed?

And even if the contaminant transport model were deemed to be valid, is that really the only environmental consideration? What about the pollution of the Hannum Brook, which borders the landfill property--is this pollution attributable only to the old, unlined landfill, or can we expect more of the same from an improved facility? See Fred Contrada's article in The Republican.

And, even if the City's science is irrefutable, is expanding the landfill the best and only option for dealing with our regional solid waste?

Clearly, a debate among qualified scientists is in order. Stay tuned...We'll keep our ear to the ground. Even if the City Council continues to refuse to sponsor debate on this issue, the Board of Public Works may well step up to the plate and work cooperatively with citizens' groups to ensure that all issues have a fair and comprehensive hearing.

The Landfill Expansion: Mayor Higgins and Ned Huntley Speak

On Thursday, May 22, Northampton Mayor Clare Higgins and Department of Public Works Director Ned Huntley stopped by my studio to record an interview about the proposed landfill expansion. I wanted to give them a chance to present their reasons for supporting this project. Listen using the embedded flash player, or download two mp3s using the direct links. This interview will be aired on Sunday, May 31, at 8 p.m. on Valley Free Radio, 103.3 FM. (Sidebar: VFR now has a robust webstream up and running--so you can listen live using iTunes or any other media player on your computer.)

For the record: Here is an interview that Paolo Mastrangelo and I conducted with Citizens United for a Healthy Future, a group which is opposing the landfill expansion. Here is a audio recording of Dr. Robert Newton of the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee expressing his concerns about the project in his address to the Easthampton City Council.


Monday, May 5, 2008

Trim the Fat? What Fat is That?

"Trim the Fat!" How often have we heard these words spoken when conversations arise about funding municipal services? It is difficult not to be sympathetic with this sentiment when we read about former city employees walking away with huge windfalls upon retirement from their accrued sick pay. This loophole has been recently closed--Mayor Higgins has negotiated a $5,500 cap on this benefit with municipal employee unions. But are there more situations like this, that the average citizen is not aware of? Why are we talking about closing an elementary school? Is this just a scare tactic, meant to manipulate people into supporting a tax override?

We recorded a conversation with City Councilor Paul Spector on Thursday afternoon. His position is that we are doing everything possible to conserve, and that the city of Northampton is being put between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, we have to comply with unfunded mandates such as "No Child Left Behind," and on the other hand, we are hobbled by declining support from the Commonwealth and by an inability to levy taxes--such as a restaurant meals tax--on the local level. State support for localities has declined over the years, as had Federal support for the states, leaving towns and cities more and more on their own.