Citizens Against the Dump Historical Timeline

Citizens Against the Dump (CAD) is a coalition formed with the sole purpose of opposing a landfill permit application (MSW-2282 Juliff Gardens) at the Fort Bend/Brazoria County line at the intersection of Hwy. 521 and County Road 56.

August,1999 - Iowa Colony residents were notified that Juan and Edward Pupo had obtained an option to purchase a 522-acre tract of land located on the Ft.Bend and Brazoria Co. line, at the intersection of Hwy. 521 and C.R. 56, and had applied to TNRCC for a landfill permit. There were several meetings held at the Iowa Colony Community Center. The Pupo's were present for two of those meetings. They made presentations and answered questions. In addition to our obvious objections, it was troublesome that the applicants' answers changed from one meeting to the next. And the plans they outlined in the meetings were different from the conversations they'd had with developers, home owners and property owners in the area. And different still, were the facts outlined in their application once it was placed on file at the library in Angleton.

February, 2000 - A group of determined citizens came together to form a coalition called Citizens Against the Dump. Or CAD. During March and April, meetings were held in Fort Bend Co. and Brazoria Co., and CAD quickly raised the funds needed to begin operations.

April, 2000 - TNRCC set a public meeting date of May 2nd. CAD hired the law firm of Blackburn & Carter in Houston, geologist, hydrologist and a land use expert.

May 2, 2000 - First TNRCC Public MeetingWe had a host of elected officials from both sides of the county line, a fistful of resolutions passed by local government entities and approximately 300 citizens present. Anyone who attended the May 2nd public meeting would have to say that we represented our position well.

With the public meeting behind us, we began to press toward the inevitable hearing before the local council of governments: the Houston-Galveston Area Council. There had been only one other time that a council of governments in the State of Texas had ever found a landfill permit application to be inconsistent, but we believed that portions of the application fell short of the goals and objectives that HGAC had outlined for our region. We set about proving those deficiencies with the help of local developers and businessmen.

October 17, 2001 - We heard the words we needed to hear when 23 board members voted unanimously that a landfill at this site was "inconsistent with HGAC's Regional Solid Waste Management Plan". With good reason, we were encouraged.

November 28, 2000 - In spite of the "inconsistent" finding, and in flagrant violation of the Texas Administrative Code and the Texas Health & Safety Code, TNRCC deemed the application technically complete and prepared a draft permit.

TAC 330.51 (b)10 The applicant shall submit demonstration of compliance with regional solid waste plan.

TH&SC 363.066 (a) On the adoption of a regional or local solid waste management plan by commission rule, public and private solid waste management activities and state regulatory activities must conform to that plan.

The notice we received regarding the draft permit stated that the executive director of TNRCC would hold a public meeting if requested by a local legislator or if there was a significant degree of public interest. In addition to three local legislators'requests, CAD supporters made sure that TNRCC had evidence of public interest. We were granted a public meeting to be held on February 15, 2001.

February 15, 2001 - Second Public Meeting Approximately 150 of us met with TNRCC staff. We presented several new issues regarding shortcomings in the application. We made sure that TNRCC and the applicant knew that we would pursue the law regarding the council of government (HGAC) finding that the application was inconsistent with the Regional Solid Waste Management Plan. We raised during the meeting, signed 150 letters to mail to elected officials and added 20 new email addresses to CAD's email update list.

June, 2001 - The applicant filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of the State of Texas seeking to have the amendment declared "unconstitutional". This lawsuit was set for a dispositive hearing in mid-August. While we were not parties to the suit, we observed. We have been advised that this week, a well-known Texas environmental group, Texas Campaign for the Environment, has intervened in the suit and provided additional evidence that the statute is constitutional. The court NEVER ruled on this issue.

August 29, 2001 - The applicant filed an amendment to their permit application in an effort to change the footprint of the landfill and remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the amendment.

April 2, 2002
CAD is refocusing after having just completed the Third TNRCC Public Meeting and public comment process on April 2nd. These events require a great deal of preparation and groundwork. By any measure, our efforts paid off bountifully as we witnessed a very successful third meeting attended by over 150 people.

We are now entering the public hearing phase. Discovery and depositions over the next six months. Possibly beginning the legal hearing in October.

We are represented by the best environmental lawyers in the state (Blackburn and Carter), land use expert (Peter Brown), hydrologist (Larry Dunbar) and geologist (H. C. Clark). All will be called upon for depositions and eventually for testimony in the legal hearing.

The applicant represented by Vinson & Elkins attorney Molly Cagle objected to the Sienna Point Homeowner's Association participating as an affected party in the lawsuit. The judge overruled her objections and allowed the SPHA to participate.

We're meeting now with developers, real estate investors, large property owners, city and county governments, etc. Those capable of substantial contributions. When we have an idea what to expect from those entities, then we will know what is needed from the rest of us. We will communicate that need to all of CAD.

Newspaper Article re: April 2,2002 TNRCC Public Meeting

By Carlos Armintor
The Facts

Published April 03, 2002

After being criticized by local politicians for his operation of a transfer station at a public meeting Tuesday, the owner of a proposed landfill said the criticism was an effort to boost a competitor and drive him out of business.

Eduardo Pupo, vice president of Sentinal Resources, a trash disposal company, charged that Fort Bend County Commissioner Tom Stavinoha spoke out against the landfill because he was pressured by Sprint, a company that owns landfills in that county.

"What he said in there was because he was paid off by Sprint," Pupo said. "They have the monopoly in Fort Bend County. All of these politicians are anti-competitive sources."

Stavinoha could not be reached for comment late Tuesday night. However, earlier that evening he criticized Pupo at a Texas Natural Resource Conser-vation Commission public meeting on the proposed Juliff Gardens landfill.

Stavinoha said the transfer station Pupo has operated in Fort Bend County had actually been storing trash and not moving it. He said the Sprint facility has never had any problems, while Pupo has been cited for running a transfer station without a permit.

He also said that if the Juliff site is approved, Pupo could declare bankruptcy, sticking the taxpayers with the cleanup of the transfer station.

"It will cost the taxpayers of Fort Bend County million to clean up their mess," Stavinoha said. "At any time he could declare bankruptcy. It will be a big burden to the
taxpayers."

Pupo said Stavinoha's claims were nonsense.

But Stavinoha was not the only politician to criticize Pupo. Brazoria County Judge John Willy also fired away.

"Their transfer station hasn't been in compliance," Willy said. "What they want to do is get out of a bad situation over there and have one over here."

Other politicians including State Sen. Mike Jackson, R-La Porte, State Rep. D.R. "Tom" Uher, of Bay City, State Rep. Dora Olivo, D- Rosenberg, and Iowa Colony Mayor Bob Wall all stated their opposition to the landfill.

"They ganged up on the little guy," Pupo said. "It was like a pack of wolves."

Tuesday's meeting was the third and final meeting regarding the proposed landfill. Politicians, and then residents, addressed a panel from the TNRCC early in the evening. The meeting was expected to last at least several hours.

A hearing begins today on the landfill at which an administrative law judge will decide who the plaintiffs are and set a hearing schedule.

At issue is Pupo's plan to build a 258-acre Type IV landfill with a life expectancy of 44 years. The proposed landfill would be 10 to 12 feet deep and 140 feet tall. The landfill would be located near the Fort Bend-Brazoria county line.

Plans to build the landfill have been at a standstill for two years while the Pupos have sought permits from the TNRCC. A group of residents formed Citizens Against the Dump and has fought the plans for two years.

In May 2000, the TNRCC had a public meeting that attracted more than 150 people, mostly opponents of the proposed landfill.

In October 2000, the Houston-Galveston Area Council found that the permit application was inconsistent with its solid waste regional management plan.

Despite that, in November 2000, the TNRCC approved a draft permit for the landfill. The draft permit stood until the amendment prohibiting the landfill was passed last May.

There was another public meeting in early 2001.

Then in the 2001 legislative session, an amendment sponsored by State Sen. J.E. "Buster" Brown, R-Lake Jackson, prohibiting landfills within 100 feet of canals in coastal counties with more than 225,000 residents stopped the landfill

This year, the Pupos revived the application by shifting the site of the landfill 100 feet from a canal, thus making the amendment no longer applicable.


September 27, 2002

Update on status of lawsuits:

TNRCC Contested Case Hearing: We expect the discovery and deposition to take several months. However, the timeline for the lawsuit was recently suspended by the Administrative Law Judges in order for the court to filter through three other lawsuits affecting this permit application.


Mineral Interest Lawsuit: One of the individual parties opposing the permit filed a lawsuit regarding mineral interest owners rights. The Administrative Law Judges have not ruled on that Motion for Declaratory Judgment.


Constitutionality of Canal Amendment: The applicant's lawyers filed a lawsuit against TNRCC, State of Texas, CAD, et. al. regarding the constitutionality of the legislation passed in the last session regarding the proximity of landfills to fresh water canals.


Canal or Ditch?: The Administrative Law Judges decided to first hear arguments as to whether the canal in question was in fact a canal or just a ditch. That hearing is set in Austin on October 21st.

If they find that there is no canal on the property then the constitutionality of the amendment doesn't affect this permit application and the landfill hearing will continue forward. If they find that there is a canal, who knows where we'll go from there.

February, 2003:

Update on status of lawsuits:


TCEQ Contested Case Hearing: On hold until Constitutionality lawsuit decided.


Mineral Interest Lawsuit: Administrative Law Judges folded this issue into the Contested Case lawsuit to be heard during the Contested Case Hearing.



Constitutionality of Canal Amendment: Applicant appealed Travis County Court judge's ruling to the Texas Court of Appeals. We expect it to take months.


Canal or Ditch?: Administrative Law Judges have put issue on hold until Constitutionality lawsuit decided.

July, 2003:

The landfill applicant received two extensions of time to file its brief, which
now is due on July 28, 2003. The TCEQ will have at least 30 days to respond, although the local practice guideline says the appellee can file at any time before oral argument. At this time, we anticipate that oral argument would be in mid-October or November.

September, 2003

Update on Lawsuits:

TCEQ Contested Case Hearing: On September 17th, the Administrative Law Judges lifted the abatement of the contested case hearing allowing it to go forward.  Procedural schedules are due September 30th.  We will post that as soon as we have it.  

Mineral Interest Lawsuit:  Administrative Law Judges folded this issue into the Contested Case lawsuit to be heard during the Contested Case Hearing.

Constitutionality of Canal Amendment:  The only thing left is for the Travis County Court of Appeals to schedule oral argument. It's a little unusual that argument has not been scheduled already. Often the Third Court of Appeals sets the date before the reply brief is filed.  It may be (but probably isn't) that the court will submit the case on the briefs, without oral argument.

Canal or Ditch?:  In lifting the abatement on the Contested Case Hearing the Administrative Law Judges have also asked for a deadline for briefing this issue.  It was originally abated until the constitionality of "canal" legislation was decided.  Difficult to see how we can go forward until we have direction on this issue.  Their ruling was somewhat confusing so we'll have to wait until things sort out. 

January, 2004