County and Chiquita claim court victory in landfill dispute

Los Angeles County and Chiquita Canyon Landfill announced a victory in court Friday over Santa Clarita Valley residents' second unsuccessful attempt to shut down the Castaic plant in court, this time after more than a year of odor-related problems the landfill.

Also on Friday, Rep. Mike Garcia, R-Santa Clarita, who has been an outspoken critic of the county's response to the landfill's problems, announced that he had introduced legislation to help residents affected by the landfill's problems to provide federal tax relief.

Los Angeles 5th District Attorney Kathryn Barger and Chiquita Canyon issued statements in response to the court ruling, which was mailed Thursday, according to Los Angeles Superior Court records available online.

“The court's decision is merely an acknowledgment that Los Angeles County is diligently monitoring the conditions of the landfill's conditional use permit for areas that actively receive waste,” Helen Chavez said in an emailed statement Friday. Barger's spokesperson. “But make no mistake – the community’s suffering is real and requires ongoing and urgent attention. The task force of federal, state and county experts will continue to do everything we can to help landfill owners stop this odor incident.”

The landfill continues to receive thousands of complaints each month about odor issues related to multiple problems at the facility. There is a subsidence problem at the landfill as well as a subsurface reaction, and these problems produce hundreds of thousands of gallons of leachate per week and a disgusting odor that is felt as far away as Valencia High School.

After Judge Stephen Goorvitch ruled that Castaic and Val Verde residents did not have timely standing to challenge county permits issued for the landfill in 2017, residents amended their claims to address the response to the landfill, which required extensive mitigation work Odor problems should be allowed.

The second complaint from residents also said the landfill was polluting the environment and that the county was not addressing the problem.

“While the Court understands and sympathizes with Plaintiff’s concerns, these issues relate to the manner in which the District exercises its discretion,” Goorvitch wrote. “Plaintiff’s remedy lies with the county, state, political process, and/or regulatory agencies with oversight of the landfill, e.g. B. the (South Coast Air Quality Management District).”

Residents' frustration

Residents seeking to close the landfill said the county should side with them in the courtroom, and some blamed the county for refusing to take action against the landfill because they feared being sued.

Shortly after the landfill received an extension to operate under certain conditions in 2017 due to local protests, the landfill sued to challenge some of those conditions, and that litigation was resolved in 2022.

The settlement included a “mutual agreement not to act,” which stated: “Except as required by law, neither party shall assist, advise, assist, coordinate, or otherwise cooperate (‘act together’). any natural or legal person who is not a party to this Agreement, in any action brought against another party in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement, except that Chiquita, with respect to claims related to the Tripartite Agreement, shall with (legal advisor ) can work together.”

It also contained a “good faith provision” that stated: “The parties agree to cooperate fully, reasonably and in good faith in the implementation of this Agreement, including the amendment of the CUP.”

Both provisions have been cited by critics as part of the county's enforcement challenge.

A representative for Barger denied that there was any such conflict in the 2022 agreement.

“Nothing in the settlement agreement prevents the county from enforcing the law and any violations of the CUP regulations and from taking appropriate administrative and legal remedies, including closing the landfill, if the facts warrant,” said a statement from Chavez.

In the ruling handed down Friday, Goorvitch said the plaintiffs failed to show that the county issued a “discretionary project” that would trigger that requirement. His ruling said the initial actions were initiated by the Air Quality Management District, not the county — even though the landfill is currently undergoing several cleanup projects, overseen by two interagency task forces involving county, state and federal agencies are involved.

Chiquita expressed gratitude for the victory on Friday.

“Chiquita is pleased with the decision to dismiss the lawsuit against Chiquita Canyon,” said a statement from the landfill, which John Musella, Chiquita Canyon spokesman, said via email Friday. “This ruling confirms that the county has completed the necessary environmental assessments and Chiquita can continue to operate. As the EPA and other regulatory agencies have consistently stated, the landfill's regular waste disposal operations do not influence or contribute to the landfill elevated temperature event.”

Regarding the claim that the county is failing to address the issue, Goorvitch notes in his ruling that the county's enforcement of its permit is a discretionary action that is outside the court's jurisdiction.

New bill should help

Garcia announced Friday that he has introduced the Chiquita Canyon Tax Relief Act.

A statement from Garcia's office explained the purpose of the bill to ensure that current and future aid payments from Chiquita are not considered taxable income.

“The Chiquita Canyon crisis has lasted far too long and unfortunately there seems to be no end in sight. Residents affected by this mess should not be penalized financially — either through surprise tax bills or through the loss of benefits like food stamps because they participate in the relief program,” Garcia said Friday in a statement emailed by spokeswoman Lexi Kranich. Mail published. “This bill ensures that payments related to this disaster are not considered taxable income, so they can keep their benefits and get the help they deserve.”

In his statement, Garcia said he has been driving the response to the Chiquita Canyon crisis “since residents first brought their concerns to him last year.”

He said he welcomed the EPA's commitment, which began earlier this year, and that he had pushed for the state of emergency and, with bipartisan support, wrote a letter calling on Gov. Gavin Newsom to act.

Kevin McGowan, director of the county's Office of Emergency Services, said the state has repeatedly communicated that such a policy is not necessary.

When asked for comment on a possible statement, Brian Ferguson, deputy director of crisis communications and public affairs for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, referred The Signal to a statement from the California EPA, which he said was made on behalf of the entire government:

“CalEPA and four of its organizations – CalRecycle, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Air Resources Board – coordinated with the U.S. EPA and local regulators as part of a multi-project to address conditions at the landfill agency task force,” said Nefretiri Cooley, assistant secretary for communications and external affairs in CalEPA’s Office of the Secretary. “Inspection and enforcement activities are underway; State, local and federal authorities are exploring all options to manage site conditions and protect the surrounding community and environment.”

Rep. Pilar Schiavo, D-Chatsworth, reached out to The Signal on Friday and said she 100% supports Garcia's bill and is working with her legislative staff to figure out how she can help at the state level.

“We are currently reviewing with our (Revenue) and Taxation Committee whether the bill has been passed into law at the federal level, whether we can follow it automatically or whether we need to draft a bill ourselves,” Schiavo said, adding the deadline for introducing legislation This session has ended, but she is already looking ahead to December.

“Ultimately, of course, these neighbors shouldn’t have to face any additional tax burden when they’re already going through so much.”