Conservation Law Foundation » Maine Constitution http://www.clf.org For a thriving New England Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:23:36 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 The High Cost of Saving Millinocket’s Mills http://www.clf.org/blog/maine/the-high-cost-of-saving-millinocket%e2%80%99s-mills/ http://www.clf.org/blog/maine/the-high-cost-of-saving-millinocket%e2%80%99s-mills/#comments Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:16:40 +0000 Sean Mahoney http://www.clf.org/?p=6482 Millinocket, Maine – a town struggling to reshape its economy – deserves good jobs. Here at CLF, we watch and hope for the success of the East Millinocket mill and the eventual opening of the Millinocket mill.  However, at a closing price of $17 million, and at $250,000 for annual operations, the state’s recent acquisition of the Dolby landfill in East Millinocket has delivered these jobs at a price that is too high and set a precedent that is too dangerous to accept.

In an Op/Ed that appeared recently in the Bangor Daily News, I argued the importance of understanding all of the costs associated with the Dolby landfill. Let’s quickly review those costs.

First, a majority of the costs will be borne by all Maine taxpayers, regardless of the success of the mills. The Dolby landfill costs $250,000 per year to operate and $17 million to close. The state is now the sole entity legally obligated to cover those costs. While the Legislature appears poised to appropriate the necessary fund for operations (after a local town balked), no funds have been set aside for the $17 million in closure costs, nor is there any clear plan to raise those funds.

Secondly, acquisition of the Dolby landfill and its liabilities came at the cost of ignoring the Maine Constitution. Article IX of the state’s Constitution, a provision that has been in place for two centuries and is intended to keep state government from making rash decisions, was inconvenient to the timing of this particular deal. As a consequence, the administration did not even address the issue. Inconvenience is not an acceptable reason for ignoring those constitutional requirements.

Thirdly, this acquisition – the state’s second in the past few years – further challenges the state’s solid waste policy. The state has a statutory goal of reducing, reusing or recycling waste. The recent acquisition of another landfill in Old Town has created a new conflict between the landfills themselves, which must compete for solid waste to generate revenue to pay for operating and closure costs.

This either means that the administration’s claim that the Dolby landfill would be expanded to help pay for costs is highly unlikely — why would anyone pay to truck garbage to Millinocket if there is capacity in Old Town? — or it means that the application of the Old Town landfill needs to be re-examined.

Finally, as each of these arguments suggests, there is no strategy or vision for reducing the amount of solid waste we landfill in Maine, which would save all of us money.

For more a more extensive review of the costs of the Dolby mill, read my Op/Ed in the Bangor Daily News in full. You can also read some of my other blogs on this topic:

]]> http://www.clf.org/blog/maine/the-high-cost-of-saving-millinocket%e2%80%99s-mills/feed/ 0