Opinion ID: 1179643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: compliance with adams county solid waste management plan

Text: OPAL argues that the proposed landfill does not comply with the county's solid waste management plan (SWMP), as required by state statute and local ordinance. The basis for OPAL's argument is its assertion that the SWMP does not make specific recommendations for a private, regional landfill. The commissioners, however, found that the county's plan does allow for siting a regional landfill in the county and that the proposed landfill is consistent with that plan. The county first issued a draft Adams County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan 1992 Update in February 1993. Admin.R. at 4462-4708. In its section on landfilling, the draft plan included discussion of a regional landfill alternative. Admin.R. at 4558-64. The draft provided that this alternative would allow development of a privately owned and operated regional landfill in Adams County. Admin.R. at 4558. Thereafter, the commissioners approved the transmittal of the draft plan to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for review and comment. DOE asked for a specific recommendation to be made based on evaluation of the regional landfill versus continued use of Bruce or long haul. Admin.R. at 10331. In its letter approving the plan, DOE stated that its request was adequately addressed by the recommendation that operations would continue at the county landfill (Bruce), which would close if a regional facility is sited. Even if this court accepts OPAL's argument that RCW 70.95.185 and Adams County Ordinance 17.72 require that a UUP for a landfill proposal may not be issued unless the proposal conforms to the county's SWMP, [3] OPAL has not met its burden of showing that the trial court's finding and conclusion were in error. Adams County's SWMP provides for a regional landfill alternative, specifically outlining siting policies and recommending certain requirements of any operator, should the county approve a private, regional landfill. Because the commissioners' finding is supported by substantial evidence and its conclusion is not contrary to law, OPAL's argument fails.