5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

By its own logic, City's notable omission "demonstrates" that its opposition to ERL's "motion to dismiss is not well-founded." Id. at 11. City's argument otherwise inadvertently highlights ERL's laudable efforts to work cooperatively with the regulatory bodies. ERL has for over 18 months, if not longer, satisfied all of MPCA's requirements for its proposed landfill expansion. Yet, even though there is no rule barring it from proceeding with its MPCA permitting without local approvals, ERL voluntarily agreed to MPCA's staying of its public noticing of the State permit until ERL received some direction from the district court. Thus, for City to suggest that ERL was instead using the 4/2/10 Order "to secure approval by [MPCA]" is, at best, disingenuous.3 Worse yet for City, its argument also discloses its apparent complete disregard for its judicially-recognized "cooperat[ion]" obligation under the parties' 2003 Host Community Agreement (2003 HCA) by attempting to interfere with MPCA's permitting process for the landfill expansion. 4/2/10 Order at 20 ("[a]lthough the [2003] HCA does not necessarily mandate [City]'s approval of any expansion proposal, the consideration s City's attacks on ERL contravene the district court's findings of ERL's good citizenship and environmental stewardship, including MPCA's "support[]" for the landfill expansion. The district court found that, [a]t the hearing, [City's Environmental Administrator Rebecca] Haug stated that [ERL] is a ¢~od corporate citizen and that the landfill is a've environmentally sound and proactive facility.' [ERL] is also an ener~y partner with Ci -which has been the only city designated 'Energy City' by the Minnesota Environmental Initiative -and produces green power from the waste to residents. Specifically, [ERL] extracts methane and converts it to electricity for residential homes, and it plans to expand this operation if the landfill were to expand." 4/2/10 Order at 9, Finding 30 (emphasis added); id. at 27 (same). The district court added that MPCA, "the agency charged with examining environmental impacts [with the landfill expansion,] noted mitigating measures and essentiall su orted the landfill's ex ansion." Id. at 27 (emphasis added). 9