Adopt Zero Waste Goal for Dutchess, Contract Zero Waste Expert, Close County Incinerator!
Adopt Zero Waste Goal for Dutchess, Contract Zero Waste Expert, Close County Incinerator!
The Issue
Sign this petition if you agree with Working Class Dutchess, Breathe Free Dutchess, Zero Waste Dutchess and the 2023 Zero Waste Dutchess County Candidate Pledge-- candidates for county and local office vowing to adopt a zero waste goal for Dutchess, contract out an expert to map out a comprehensive county-wide plan to rapidly move towards zero waste, and end the harmful practice of garbage incineration in the county.
As Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network has proven, "Incineration is the most expensive and polluting way to make energy or to manage waste. It produces the fewest jobs compared to reuse, recycling and composting the same materials. It is the dirtiest way to manage waste-- far more polluting than landfills. It is also the dirtiest way to produce energy-- far more polluting than coal burning." https://www.energyjustice.net/incineration
The Albany Times-Union disturbingly reported this Aug. 8th: "A 2019 report by the Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School ranked the Dutchess County incinerator as among the most polluting in the U.S. Dutchess County’s planning and political leadership remain committed to incineration. The county plans to begin looking at different incineration-adjacent technologies over the 10-year timeframe of the plan for a potential replacement facility, including newer combustion technology along the same lines as its current system as well as a pyrolysis or a gasification system — technologies that heat trash to form synthetic gas." https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/dutchess-county-solid-waste-management-plan-18282574.php https://ww2.newschool.edu/pressroom/pressreleases/2020/TishmanCenterWasteIncinerators.htm?fbclid=IwAR3VaB6fGLG0X-8nj3bfFruk75BkmxVy3UB8CObhbzkKGeT1ZH2TgeawZCg
This shouldn't be a partisan issue; 14 years ago in March 2009, GOP Dutchess County legislators Rob Rolison, Dale Borchert, Gary Cooper, Angela Flesland, John Forman, Suzanne Horn, Marge Horton, Gerry Hutchings, David Kelly, Jim Miccio, and Rob Weiss all voted unanimously together with the Democratic caucus to support a resolution requesting that the county seek ARRA funding for zero-waste planning for Dutchess after Neil Seldman of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance made a presentation to this effect in the Legislature's chambers. https://ilsr.org/waste-to-wealth/
Imagine the recycling rate Dutchess could have been at now if the county's leaders had actually followed through on bipartisan passage of that zero-waste resolution and the recommendations of the county's 2009 Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management-- which literally called for, all the way back then, county government facilitating the creation of several food-waste composting operations across Dutchess. https://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/07/re-zero-waste-for-dutchess-missed.html
Just four years ago as well Democratic Dutchess County Executive candidate Joe Ruggiero hit the nail on the head when he said this: “The incinerator has a capacity and, right now, there are other methodologies that are being used. There are only 73 incinerators left in the United States, and they’re being closed. And, right now, the operator of our incinerator, Wheelabrator, just recently had their incinerator in Maryland closed. So you need to relocate where the garbage goes, and there’s no law requiring that it has to be burned.”
https://www.wamc.org/hudson-valley-news/2019-10-18/dutchess-county-executive-candidates-bring-differing-views-to-a-forum
Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network ( http://www.energyjustice.net ) recently confirmed that seven (7) pounds of mercury each year are emitted by the Dutchess incinerator in Poughkeepsie-- enough to contaminate literally 63,420 20-acre lakes-- one gram can contaminate a 20-acre lake; one pound is 453 grams. https://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/mercurylake.pdf
Ewall also found this DEC data-- the county-owned incinerator run by Wheelabrator in Poughkeepsie releases more pounds of health-damaging air pollution than any other facility in the county (2017 emissions data listed first-- then 2018 data): Global Warming Pollution (in tons of CO2 equivalents): 109,085; 93,554.[rest of data listed here below in pounds] Nitrogen Oxides: 296,925; 272,523 [triggers asthma attacks, chronic respiratory disease and stroke] Sulfur Dioxide: 12,890; 4,310 [triggers asthma attacks; chronic respiratory and heart diseases; stroke]. Carbon Monoxide: 180,912; 137,808 Hydrochloric Acid: 4,112; 13,977 Volatile Organic Compounds: 46,418; 45,571 Particulate Matter: 589; 5,669 Chromium: 6.4; 6.2 Lead: 5.8; 4.3 Arsenic: 0.4; 0.4 Cadmium: 0.4; 0.5 [Lead and dioxins also have no “safe” level; dioxins are the most toxic chemicals known to science – 140,000 times more toxic than mercury – and incinerators are a major source: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ .]
One of the most alarming things we recently discovered is the fact that the Baltimore incinerator was found to be the cause of literally $55 million a year in health problems. Do the math folks-- the Baltimore incinerator burns 2250 tons of garbage a day-- that's 821,250 tons of trash each year. The Dutchess County incinerator (according to page 21 of the proposed Dutchess County Solid Waste Management Plan) burns 149,000 tons of garbage each year (45% of 331,203 tons of municipal solid waste generate). Therefore, the Baltimore incinerator burns about five and a half times what the Dutchess incinerator burns. If the Baltimore incinerator causes $55 million worth of health problems annually and burns 5.5 times as much trash as the county incinerator in Poughkeepsie, it seems logical to deduce that the Dutchess County incinerator causes literally $10 million worth of health problems each year. https://www.dutchessny.gov/Departments/Solid-Waste-Management/Docs/Draft-Dutchess-County-LSWMP-Plan.pdf https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/study-baltimore-trash-incinerator-causes-55-million-in-health-problems/ https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2017/maryland/cbf-study-baltimore-incinerator-causes-55-million-in-health-problems-per-year.html https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/community-led-zero-waste-baltimore/
Recycling rates in Seattle (with Recycle app), San Francisco (over 80%), and Los Angeles (almost 80%) put Dutchess County to shame (at a 35% recycling rate); Paul Connett's The Zero Waste Solution (2013) definitively laid out ten definitive steps that any community can take to reach a recycling rate of at least 90 percent. https://wasteadvantagemag.com/the-top-15-greenest-cities-in-the-world-for-recycling/
https://www.zabbleinc.com/blog-post/11-u-s-cities-leading-the-way-to-zero-waste
https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-zero-waste-solution
Mike Ewall also recently reminded us that if we're serious about moving Dutchess County towards zero waste, the county incinerator needs to be confronted directly-- and shut down-- due to the "put or pay clause" in the current DCRRA (Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency) contract with Wheelabrator to run the incinerator. To wit-- page 20 of that contract states: "Section 3.03. Obligation of County to Deliver Solid Waste. The County shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Facility a minimum of 120,000 tons of Solid Waste per year at a minimum weekly schedule of 2,000 tons, and at a maximum weekly schedule of 2,800 tons or such lesser amounts as may be determined to be applicable pursuant to Article 9 of the Construction Agreement." In 2020, Dutchess County sent about 150,000 tons to the incinerator, so if they reduce waste by more than 20%, the county is penalized. The current contract that the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency has with Wheelabrator to run the county incinerator in Poughkeepsie ends 12/31/27 (with possible extensions for one year, then another, then six years, then five years, to go all the way up to 2039).
Consider as well the great example of what some folks in politics are doing about the Wheelabrator-run incinerator just a bit south in Peekskill/Westchester-- the following candidates for office have taken the 2023 WASS (Westchester Alliance for Sustainable Solutions) Zero Waste Candidate Pledge-- all seven people listed here have made a public commitment to do two things in office: – adopt a zero waste goal for Westchester County and the contracting of an expert to map out a comprehensive county-wide plan to rapidly move towards zero waste – ending the harmful practice of garbage incineration in Westchester County
-Ximena Francella, Candidate for Westchester County Legislative District 11
-Emiljana Ulaj, Candidate for Westchester County Legislative District 9
-Brian Pugh, Candidate for Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson
-Margaret Fountain-Coleman, Candidate for Mayor of Yonkers
-Shatika Parker, Candidate for Yonkers City Council District 1
-Lianne Merchant, Candidate for City Council District 3 New Rochelle
-Margaret Chadwick, Candidate for City Council District 3 New Rochelle
Vanessa Agudelo of WASS, former Peekskill Councilmember and New York Organizing Director for the Energy Justice Network, has been crucial in making the Zero Waste Candidate Pledge happen in Westchester County; she joined Ewall, Tyner and others for a Zoom meeting on the Dutchess incinerator recently; see: https://wasspeekskill.org ; https://www.facebook.com/WASSPeekskill
[Thanks as well to Manna Jo Greene, Ulster County Legislator and Hudson River Clearwater Environmental Director, for joining Mike Ewall and Tyner for years now in our efforts on this issue; she has long made it publicly clear that she feels the Dutchess incinerator should be closed as soon as possible, appearing a press conference with Ewall, Tyner, et. al. several years ago on this at the DCRRA offices.]
The report that Ewall and the Energy Justice Network prepared for Montgomery County, MD is perfect model for Dutchess follow too:http://www.energyjustice.net/md/beyond.pdf
[that report convinced the County Exec to shut down their incinerator there not just for environmental reasons-- but economic reasons]
Mike also convincingly made the case to pass stringent local-level air quality legislation for the plant to clean up or shut down (similar to bills already passed on a local level in Baltimore and the Albany County Legislature; see:
https://www.cleanairbmore.org ).
On that note-- legislation passed in Oregon is model for action in Albany on state level-- or local level in Dutchess (NYS is home rule state so this is possible!):
"In Oregon, Senate Bill 488, a precedent-setting bill to continuously monitor toxic emissions from waste incineration, passed into law with the governor's signature on August 4, 2023. See the latest news coverage in Waste Dive (8/3/2023): Oregon becomes first state to require continuous emissions monitoring at incinerators.
The law requires the state's only trash incinerator (Covanta Marion) to have to continuously monitor for dioxins/furans, PCBs, and toxic metals for 12 months. They'd be the first in the nation to have to use this modern technology, and it'll likely expose that actual toxic air emissions are far higher than what is shown by once-per-year self-administered "best behavior" tests. Continuous testing at incinerators in Europe has shown that dioxins, the most toxic chemicals known to science, are emitted at rates 32 to 1,290 times higher than we think they are in the U.S. when we test just once a year.
This will have national implications once that data comes out. It's the first time these toxic chemicals will be tested continuously in the U.S., and should put to rest the claims that the testing technology is not available.
Requiring continuous emissions monitoring is one of the key strategies we've been using to prevent air polluting industries with local ordinances and to hold existing ones accountable. It's one of the key points we raised in a 274-group strong October 2022 letter to the White House Council on Environmental Quality about EPA's bad policies relating to waste incineration.
If we regulated motorists the way we do most pollutants from smokestacks, it would be akin to enforcing a speed limit by allowing drivers to drive all year with no speedometer. Once a year, a speed trap would be set on the highway with signs warning "slow down... speed trap ahead," and the driver's brother would be running the speed trap (companies choose who they pay to conduct the test).
For nearly everything with a smokestack in the U.S., continuous monitoring is only used for three pollutants, and none of the toxic ones. As we change this reality and find that we're exposed to far more than we realize, it could be a game changer for getting these toxic industries closed for good."
More from https://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/ :
"According to the waste industry itself, incineration has always been more expensive than landfills. They are inherently more complicated to operate and the cost gap increases over time as the enormous expense of pollution controls keeps incinerators expensive as air regulations gradually tighten. The cost of the 1,500 ton/day incinerator proposed for Frederick, MD (defeated in Nov 2014) climbed over $500 million -- actually around $1 billion, including the interest on the bonds. A strong zero waste program could be developed for a fraction of the cost, diverting at least as much waste from landfills, as incinerators only reduce the tonnage going to landfills by 70% (about 90% by volume).
Most expensive way to make energy
Trash incineration is the most expensive way to make energy, even though they get paid to take their fuel. This is true for the cost to build incinerators as well as the cost to operate and maintain them. Incineration is 2.7 times as expensive than coal to build and 11 times as expensive to operate and maintain. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy and trash incineration is still 1.5 times as expensive to build and 4.2 times as expensive to operate and maintain than nuclear. This is according to the latest (April 2013) analysis done for the Energy Information Administration.
Incineration is not "waste-to-energy"
Waste-to-Energy is a PR term. Trash-to-steam is also a lie (there is more in trash than water, thus more in incinerator pollution than water vapor). The reality is that incinerators waste 3-5 times more energy than they recover, if you compare the energy produced through incineration to the embodied energy lost by not recycling and composting those materials, which must then be produced again from raw resources.
Dirtiest way to manage waste (worse than landfills)
The cleaner you make the air (with more pollution controls), the more toxic you make the ash (as the highly toxic fly ash caught in the controls is mixed with the bottom ash before landfilling). For every 100 tons burned in an incinerator, Incineration makes landfills more toxic by dumping highly concentrated toxic ash into the landfill instead of the less-toxic larger volume of unburned waste. Air emissions from incinerators far exceeds air pollution from landfills, and groundwater contamination from ash landfills is likely to be worse than from landfills full of unburned trash due to toxic metals being more available, and due to new pollutants having been created during combustion.
A 2017 life cycle analysis of incineration vs. landfills showed that, for Washington, DC, incinerating trash in Fairfax County, Virginia was worse by most measures than trucking the trash 2-4 times as far to southeastern Virginia landfills. On a majority of the 10 environmental measures evaluated, incineration turned out to be worse than landfilling, even counting the extra emissions from diesel trucks hauling waste further to reach landfills. In fact, emissions from trucking were insignificant compared to those from the waste facilities. Incineration proved to be worse than landfills when it comes to global warming pollution, and pollution from nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, toxic chemical releases, acid gases, and smog. On a 7th measure (eutrophication), they were about tied, and on three of the smallest measures of types of chemical releases, landfills proved to be worse. See our factsheet on how incinerators compare to landfills (and coal). To get direct to the summary data, see slides 26-59 in this presentation.
Dirtiest way to produce energy
To make the same amount of energy as a coal power plant, trash incinerators release 65% more carbon dioxide (CO2), as much carbon monoxide, three times as much nitrogen oxides (NOx), five times as much mercury, nearly six times as much lead and 27 times more hydrochloric acid (HCl). (See documentation here: Trash incineration worse than coal)
Incineration by any name (including various staged incineration or "waste conversion" technologies, such as plasma arc, gasification or pyrolysis) is not clean or safe, despite industry claims. Even with the increased requirements for pollution controls that came into effect since 2000, incinerators are STILL dirtier than coal in terms of air emissions. Incinerators still turn trash into toxic ash and toxic air emissions. This reality is inescapable, as even with the most modern pollution controls, pollution levels still exceed coal by nearly all measures.
According to the latest EPA data, trash incineration releases 2.5 times as much CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Even if you discount the "biogenic" fraction*, burning garbage is still 50% worse than coal for CO2 emissions. Continuing the use of existing trash incinerators or supporting the creation of new ones undermines any effort by a community to "green" itself and to reduce global warming emissions, if they're accounted for properly.
(* Discounting the "biogenic" fraction disregards IPCC accounting protocols that advise that such smokestack emissions cannot be assumed to be "carbon neutral." Such discounting also disregards the fact that natural carbon sequestration and storage capacities are significantly diminished, and that trees are not being replanted specifically to offset and store these emissions (rather than being cut back down to supply more paper, crops, etc.). Discounting these emissions assumes that trees and crops instantly suck up the extra pulse of CO2 released by burning paper, food scraps and other organic material in waste instead of taking several decades to do so, as they do in natural ecological cycles. The decades it would take to overcome the CO2 emissions from burning trash and "biomass" is time that we do not have if we are to avoid critical global warming tipping points.)
Bad for recycling and composting
The huge economic resources that need to be put into incineration are better spent on zero waste programs, which can reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by more than the 70% reduction in tonnage that incinerators accomplish -- and can do so at lower cost. Once a incinerator is built, "put-or-pay" contracts discourage recycling and composting by charging local governments the same, even if they produce less waste.
Trash incinerators are unpopular and declining
No new commercial trash incinerator has been sited, built and operated at a new site in the U.S. since 1995. One large new one, however, was built in West Palm Beach, Florida in 2015, adjacent to an existing large incinerator. Some smaller ones have also been expanded or rebuilt. Despite hundreds of attempts to build new incinerators, community opposition has been the main force preventing them from being built. Overall, the number of operating incinerators in the U.S. has declined. In 1991, there were 187 trash incinerators in the U.S. At the turn of the century, there were 114. As of early 2021, not counting some truly tiny ones, there are just 71, the lowest number since 1981."
Here is the entire text of resolution #209072 which unanimously passed through the Dutchess County Legislature on March 10, 2009:
"IMPLEMENTING A ZERO-WASTE APPROACH TO RESOURCE RECOVERY IN DUTCHESS COUNTY
Legislators TYNER, DOXSEY, WEISS, and WASSELL offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, the federal stimulus package legislation that just passed through Congress in February contains a $3.2 billion appropriation for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants that were authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; under Section 544, Item 10, the funds may be used for “activities to increase participation and efficiency rates for material conservation programs, including source reduction, recycling, and recycled content procurement programs that lead to increases in energy efficiency”, these funds are available to counties like Dutchess County by direct application for federal block grants, and
WHEREAS, this presents an opportunity for Dutchess County to get federal dollars with other area counties for collaboration on a pilot regional comprehensive zero-waste plan proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NYS Department of Conservation similar to what has been successfully developed for the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District, and
WHEREAS, a zero-waste approach to resource recovery in Dutchess County will save tax dollars, create green jobs, lower carbon emissions, and help clear up local air quality; Greenway Environmental Services has provided an excellent working model of this type of intense composting and recycling approach already at Vassar and Marist colleges, and
WHEREAS, a zero-waste approach to resource recovery in Dutchess County will also create a track for good–paying jobs, as the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has successfully done in Hartford and other cities across the U.S., working with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Laborers International, Sheetmetal Workers, and Teamsters, and
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development and Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency work with Representatives John Hall and Maurice Hinchey and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer to bring federal funding to Dutchess County by direct application for federal block grants for a new zero-waste planning approach for resource recovery, regionally if possible with other counties, from the national stimulus package legislation passed in February containing a $3.2 billion appropriation for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development Commissioner Roger Akeley, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency Executive Director William Calogero, Ulster County Executive Michael Hein, Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi, Orange County Executive Edward Diana, President Barack Obama, United States Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressmembers Maurice Hinchey and John Hall, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Governor David Paterson, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Alexander “Pete” Grannis, NYS Deputy Secretary for the Environment Judith Enck, Senators Stephen Saland and Vincent Leibell, and Assemblymembers Joel Miller, Kevin Cahill, Greg Ball, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados."
Here below is the text of resolution #209386 that passed through the Dutchess County Legislature on December 7, 2009 by a 13-11 margin (12 Democrats and 1 Conservative voting yes; GOP voting no):
"REQUESTING VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DUTCHESS COUNTY GREEN RIBBON TASK FORCE ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Legislators TYNER, DOXSEY, and WHITE offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, recently the Dutchess County Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management issued its recommendations after many months of meetings and much public input, and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County’s unemployment rate is still about twice what it was two years ago, with about ten thousand local residents out of work; recycling and composting (a zero-waste approach to resource recovery) creates ten times more jobs than incineration or landfilling, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and in Austin (TX), Seattle (WA), Portland (OR), and many other communities across the country a zero-waste approach has also saved tax dollars compared to a burn-or-bury approach, and
WHEREAS, on a national level, over two-thirds of the materials we use are still burned or buried, despite the fact that we have the technical capacity to cost-effectively recycle, reuse, or compost 90% of what we waste; the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility puts 3700 tons of carbon emissions into the air every year, and
WHEREAS, Rockland County recycled 41,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at their Materials Recovery Facility, with a population almost identical to that of Dutchess County (about 290,000), while Dutchess County recycled only 8,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at our Materials Recovery Facility, and
WHEREAS, that the Dutchess County Legislature believes that the current governance arrangements for waste management in Dutchess County (basically all duties delegated to the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency) have failed on many levels, especially by virtue of the fact that costs incurred by the Resource Recovery Agency at the expense of the taxpayers are far in excess of industry standards, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the new PLAN must evaluate and identify new and better options, such as a new Dutchess County Waste and Recycling Management Authority, or more active participation of the County’s Public Works Committee or Solid Waste Commissioner, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature urges better mechanisms of oversight and transparency which are critical to the success of the PLAN and must be clearly outlined by the County’s SWM consultant, and the County Legislature calls for the power of budgetary review over any new government mechanism, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature, in light of the extraordinarily high costs, inefficiency, and mismanagement recently documented at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, recommend that the new PLAN give careful and thorough consideration to the phasing out of the waste-to-energy facility over a 2-4 year time horizon and the phasing out or complete transformation for the Resource Recovery Agency over the same period of time, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the PLAN and the Consultant chosen to advise the legislature thoroughly examine the possibility of setting countywide mandated recycling goal of 70% of all municipal solid waste generated in Dutchess County by the year 2020 by substantially increasing our food waste composting infrastructure, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature also issues a Request for Proposals for a report from several nationally known zero-wasted experts who have indicated an interest in helping Dutchess County on this, for detailed cost analysis and implementation outlines for a Dutchess County Zero-Waste Pilot Program to be implemented as soon as possible, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature authorizes the development of several pilot programs around the county, dedicated to the advancement of research and assess the feasibility of a cutting-edge resource recovery park to create jobs recycling current resources that are disposed of: food waste, fats, oils, greases, glass, electronic scrap, mattresses, and construction and demolition debris, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency work with the Dutchess County Sheriff, Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, Dutchess County Supervisors and Mayors Association, Dutchess County Small Business Committee, and others to make sure recycling bins for cans and bottles and office paper are placed next to all trash receptacles in the county, and make sure that, as county law and the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency website state, that “the following materials are required to be kept separate from trash: office paper (copy paper, stationery, computer paper, ledger), newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass bottles and jars (clear, brown, and green-colored), metal cans (tin/bi-metal/aluminum); aluminum pie plates and foil; PETE and HDPE plastic containers (except automotive product containers), and major appliances, tires, yard debris,” and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Dutchess County Executive, Dutchess County Solid Waste Commissioner, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, Dutchess County Sheriff, and the Dutchess County Association of Supervisors and Mayors."
Joel Tyner/Working Class Dutchess, Zero Waste Dutchess 324 Browns Pond Road, Staatsburg, NY 12580 845-464-2245 tynerjoel@gmail.com
12
The Issue
Sign this petition if you agree with Working Class Dutchess, Breathe Free Dutchess, Zero Waste Dutchess and the 2023 Zero Waste Dutchess County Candidate Pledge-- candidates for county and local office vowing to adopt a zero waste goal for Dutchess, contract out an expert to map out a comprehensive county-wide plan to rapidly move towards zero waste, and end the harmful practice of garbage incineration in the county.
As Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network has proven, "Incineration is the most expensive and polluting way to make energy or to manage waste. It produces the fewest jobs compared to reuse, recycling and composting the same materials. It is the dirtiest way to manage waste-- far more polluting than landfills. It is also the dirtiest way to produce energy-- far more polluting than coal burning." https://www.energyjustice.net/incineration
The Albany Times-Union disturbingly reported this Aug. 8th: "A 2019 report by the Tishman Environment and Design Center at The New School ranked the Dutchess County incinerator as among the most polluting in the U.S. Dutchess County’s planning and political leadership remain committed to incineration. The county plans to begin looking at different incineration-adjacent technologies over the 10-year timeframe of the plan for a potential replacement facility, including newer combustion technology along the same lines as its current system as well as a pyrolysis or a gasification system — technologies that heat trash to form synthetic gas." https://www.timesunion.com/hudsonvalley/news/article/dutchess-county-solid-waste-management-plan-18282574.php https://ww2.newschool.edu/pressroom/pressreleases/2020/TishmanCenterWasteIncinerators.htm?fbclid=IwAR3VaB6fGLG0X-8nj3bfFruk75BkmxVy3UB8CObhbzkKGeT1ZH2TgeawZCg
This shouldn't be a partisan issue; 14 years ago in March 2009, GOP Dutchess County legislators Rob Rolison, Dale Borchert, Gary Cooper, Angela Flesland, John Forman, Suzanne Horn, Marge Horton, Gerry Hutchings, David Kelly, Jim Miccio, and Rob Weiss all voted unanimously together with the Democratic caucus to support a resolution requesting that the county seek ARRA funding for zero-waste planning for Dutchess after Neil Seldman of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance made a presentation to this effect in the Legislature's chambers. https://ilsr.org/waste-to-wealth/
Imagine the recycling rate Dutchess could have been at now if the county's leaders had actually followed through on bipartisan passage of that zero-waste resolution and the recommendations of the county's 2009 Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management-- which literally called for, all the way back then, county government facilitating the creation of several food-waste composting operations across Dutchess. https://dutchessdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/07/re-zero-waste-for-dutchess-missed.html
Just four years ago as well Democratic Dutchess County Executive candidate Joe Ruggiero hit the nail on the head when he said this: “The incinerator has a capacity and, right now, there are other methodologies that are being used. There are only 73 incinerators left in the United States, and they’re being closed. And, right now, the operator of our incinerator, Wheelabrator, just recently had their incinerator in Maryland closed. So you need to relocate where the garbage goes, and there’s no law requiring that it has to be burned.”
https://www.wamc.org/hudson-valley-news/2019-10-18/dutchess-county-executive-candidates-bring-differing-views-to-a-forum
Mike Ewall of the Energy Justice Network ( http://www.energyjustice.net ) recently confirmed that seven (7) pounds of mercury each year are emitted by the Dutchess incinerator in Poughkeepsie-- enough to contaminate literally 63,420 20-acre lakes-- one gram can contaminate a 20-acre lake; one pound is 453 grams. https://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/mercurylake.pdf
Ewall also found this DEC data-- the county-owned incinerator run by Wheelabrator in Poughkeepsie releases more pounds of health-damaging air pollution than any other facility in the county (2017 emissions data listed first-- then 2018 data): Global Warming Pollution (in tons of CO2 equivalents): 109,085; 93,554.[rest of data listed here below in pounds] Nitrogen Oxides: 296,925; 272,523 [triggers asthma attacks, chronic respiratory disease and stroke] Sulfur Dioxide: 12,890; 4,310 [triggers asthma attacks; chronic respiratory and heart diseases; stroke]. Carbon Monoxide: 180,912; 137,808 Hydrochloric Acid: 4,112; 13,977 Volatile Organic Compounds: 46,418; 45,571 Particulate Matter: 589; 5,669 Chromium: 6.4; 6.2 Lead: 5.8; 4.3 Arsenic: 0.4; 0.4 Cadmium: 0.4; 0.5 [Lead and dioxins also have no “safe” level; dioxins are the most toxic chemicals known to science – 140,000 times more toxic than mercury – and incinerators are a major source: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ .]
One of the most alarming things we recently discovered is the fact that the Baltimore incinerator was found to be the cause of literally $55 million a year in health problems. Do the math folks-- the Baltimore incinerator burns 2250 tons of garbage a day-- that's 821,250 tons of trash each year. The Dutchess County incinerator (according to page 21 of the proposed Dutchess County Solid Waste Management Plan) burns 149,000 tons of garbage each year (45% of 331,203 tons of municipal solid waste generate). Therefore, the Baltimore incinerator burns about five and a half times what the Dutchess incinerator burns. If the Baltimore incinerator causes $55 million worth of health problems annually and burns 5.5 times as much trash as the county incinerator in Poughkeepsie, it seems logical to deduce that the Dutchess County incinerator causes literally $10 million worth of health problems each year. https://www.dutchessny.gov/Departments/Solid-Waste-Management/Docs/Draft-Dutchess-County-LSWMP-Plan.pdf https://chesapeakebaymagazine.com/study-baltimore-trash-incinerator-causes-55-million-in-health-problems/ https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2017/maryland/cbf-study-baltimore-incinerator-causes-55-million-in-health-problems-per-year.html https://blog.ucsusa.org/science-blogger/community-led-zero-waste-baltimore/
Recycling rates in Seattle (with Recycle app), San Francisco (over 80%), and Los Angeles (almost 80%) put Dutchess County to shame (at a 35% recycling rate); Paul Connett's The Zero Waste Solution (2013) definitively laid out ten definitive steps that any community can take to reach a recycling rate of at least 90 percent. https://wasteadvantagemag.com/the-top-15-greenest-cities-in-the-world-for-recycling/
https://www.zabbleinc.com/blog-post/11-u-s-cities-leading-the-way-to-zero-waste
https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-zero-waste-solution
Mike Ewall also recently reminded us that if we're serious about moving Dutchess County towards zero waste, the county incinerator needs to be confronted directly-- and shut down-- due to the "put or pay clause" in the current DCRRA (Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency) contract with Wheelabrator to run the incinerator. To wit-- page 20 of that contract states: "Section 3.03. Obligation of County to Deliver Solid Waste. The County shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Facility a minimum of 120,000 tons of Solid Waste per year at a minimum weekly schedule of 2,000 tons, and at a maximum weekly schedule of 2,800 tons or such lesser amounts as may be determined to be applicable pursuant to Article 9 of the Construction Agreement." In 2020, Dutchess County sent about 150,000 tons to the incinerator, so if they reduce waste by more than 20%, the county is penalized. The current contract that the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency has with Wheelabrator to run the county incinerator in Poughkeepsie ends 12/31/27 (with possible extensions for one year, then another, then six years, then five years, to go all the way up to 2039).
Consider as well the great example of what some folks in politics are doing about the Wheelabrator-run incinerator just a bit south in Peekskill/Westchester-- the following candidates for office have taken the 2023 WASS (Westchester Alliance for Sustainable Solutions) Zero Waste Candidate Pledge-- all seven people listed here have made a public commitment to do two things in office: – adopt a zero waste goal for Westchester County and the contracting of an expert to map out a comprehensive county-wide plan to rapidly move towards zero waste – ending the harmful practice of garbage incineration in Westchester County
-Ximena Francella, Candidate for Westchester County Legislative District 11
-Emiljana Ulaj, Candidate for Westchester County Legislative District 9
-Brian Pugh, Candidate for Mayor of Croton-on-Hudson
-Margaret Fountain-Coleman, Candidate for Mayor of Yonkers
-Shatika Parker, Candidate for Yonkers City Council District 1
-Lianne Merchant, Candidate for City Council District 3 New Rochelle
-Margaret Chadwick, Candidate for City Council District 3 New Rochelle
Vanessa Agudelo of WASS, former Peekskill Councilmember and New York Organizing Director for the Energy Justice Network, has been crucial in making the Zero Waste Candidate Pledge happen in Westchester County; she joined Ewall, Tyner and others for a Zoom meeting on the Dutchess incinerator recently; see: https://wasspeekskill.org ; https://www.facebook.com/WASSPeekskill
[Thanks as well to Manna Jo Greene, Ulster County Legislator and Hudson River Clearwater Environmental Director, for joining Mike Ewall and Tyner for years now in our efforts on this issue; she has long made it publicly clear that she feels the Dutchess incinerator should be closed as soon as possible, appearing a press conference with Ewall, Tyner, et. al. several years ago on this at the DCRRA offices.]
The report that Ewall and the Energy Justice Network prepared for Montgomery County, MD is perfect model for Dutchess follow too:http://www.energyjustice.net/md/beyond.pdf
[that report convinced the County Exec to shut down their incinerator there not just for environmental reasons-- but economic reasons]
Mike also convincingly made the case to pass stringent local-level air quality legislation for the plant to clean up or shut down (similar to bills already passed on a local level in Baltimore and the Albany County Legislature; see:
https://www.cleanairbmore.org ).
On that note-- legislation passed in Oregon is model for action in Albany on state level-- or local level in Dutchess (NYS is home rule state so this is possible!):
"In Oregon, Senate Bill 488, a precedent-setting bill to continuously monitor toxic emissions from waste incineration, passed into law with the governor's signature on August 4, 2023. See the latest news coverage in Waste Dive (8/3/2023): Oregon becomes first state to require continuous emissions monitoring at incinerators.
The law requires the state's only trash incinerator (Covanta Marion) to have to continuously monitor for dioxins/furans, PCBs, and toxic metals for 12 months. They'd be the first in the nation to have to use this modern technology, and it'll likely expose that actual toxic air emissions are far higher than what is shown by once-per-year self-administered "best behavior" tests. Continuous testing at incinerators in Europe has shown that dioxins, the most toxic chemicals known to science, are emitted at rates 32 to 1,290 times higher than we think they are in the U.S. when we test just once a year.
This will have national implications once that data comes out. It's the first time these toxic chemicals will be tested continuously in the U.S., and should put to rest the claims that the testing technology is not available.
Requiring continuous emissions monitoring is one of the key strategies we've been using to prevent air polluting industries with local ordinances and to hold existing ones accountable. It's one of the key points we raised in a 274-group strong October 2022 letter to the White House Council on Environmental Quality about EPA's bad policies relating to waste incineration.
If we regulated motorists the way we do most pollutants from smokestacks, it would be akin to enforcing a speed limit by allowing drivers to drive all year with no speedometer. Once a year, a speed trap would be set on the highway with signs warning "slow down... speed trap ahead," and the driver's brother would be running the speed trap (companies choose who they pay to conduct the test).
For nearly everything with a smokestack in the U.S., continuous monitoring is only used for three pollutants, and none of the toxic ones. As we change this reality and find that we're exposed to far more than we realize, it could be a game changer for getting these toxic industries closed for good."
More from https://www.energyjustice.net/incineration/ :
"According to the waste industry itself, incineration has always been more expensive than landfills. They are inherently more complicated to operate and the cost gap increases over time as the enormous expense of pollution controls keeps incinerators expensive as air regulations gradually tighten. The cost of the 1,500 ton/day incinerator proposed for Frederick, MD (defeated in Nov 2014) climbed over $500 million -- actually around $1 billion, including the interest on the bonds. A strong zero waste program could be developed for a fraction of the cost, diverting at least as much waste from landfills, as incinerators only reduce the tonnage going to landfills by 70% (about 90% by volume).
Most expensive way to make energy
Trash incineration is the most expensive way to make energy, even though they get paid to take their fuel. This is true for the cost to build incinerators as well as the cost to operate and maintain them. Incineration is 2.7 times as expensive than coal to build and 11 times as expensive to operate and maintain. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive forms of energy and trash incineration is still 1.5 times as expensive to build and 4.2 times as expensive to operate and maintain than nuclear. This is according to the latest (April 2013) analysis done for the Energy Information Administration.
Incineration is not "waste-to-energy"
Waste-to-Energy is a PR term. Trash-to-steam is also a lie (there is more in trash than water, thus more in incinerator pollution than water vapor). The reality is that incinerators waste 3-5 times more energy than they recover, if you compare the energy produced through incineration to the embodied energy lost by not recycling and composting those materials, which must then be produced again from raw resources.
Dirtiest way to manage waste (worse than landfills)
The cleaner you make the air (with more pollution controls), the more toxic you make the ash (as the highly toxic fly ash caught in the controls is mixed with the bottom ash before landfilling). For every 100 tons burned in an incinerator, Incineration makes landfills more toxic by dumping highly concentrated toxic ash into the landfill instead of the less-toxic larger volume of unburned waste. Air emissions from incinerators far exceeds air pollution from landfills, and groundwater contamination from ash landfills is likely to be worse than from landfills full of unburned trash due to toxic metals being more available, and due to new pollutants having been created during combustion.
A 2017 life cycle analysis of incineration vs. landfills showed that, for Washington, DC, incinerating trash in Fairfax County, Virginia was worse by most measures than trucking the trash 2-4 times as far to southeastern Virginia landfills. On a majority of the 10 environmental measures evaluated, incineration turned out to be worse than landfilling, even counting the extra emissions from diesel trucks hauling waste further to reach landfills. In fact, emissions from trucking were insignificant compared to those from the waste facilities. Incineration proved to be worse than landfills when it comes to global warming pollution, and pollution from nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, toxic chemical releases, acid gases, and smog. On a 7th measure (eutrophication), they were about tied, and on three of the smallest measures of types of chemical releases, landfills proved to be worse. See our factsheet on how incinerators compare to landfills (and coal). To get direct to the summary data, see slides 26-59 in this presentation.
Dirtiest way to produce energy
To make the same amount of energy as a coal power plant, trash incinerators release 65% more carbon dioxide (CO2), as much carbon monoxide, three times as much nitrogen oxides (NOx), five times as much mercury, nearly six times as much lead and 27 times more hydrochloric acid (HCl). (See documentation here: Trash incineration worse than coal)
Incineration by any name (including various staged incineration or "waste conversion" technologies, such as plasma arc, gasification or pyrolysis) is not clean or safe, despite industry claims. Even with the increased requirements for pollution controls that came into effect since 2000, incinerators are STILL dirtier than coal in terms of air emissions. Incinerators still turn trash into toxic ash and toxic air emissions. This reality is inescapable, as even with the most modern pollution controls, pollution levels still exceed coal by nearly all measures.
According to the latest EPA data, trash incineration releases 2.5 times as much CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. Even if you discount the "biogenic" fraction*, burning garbage is still 50% worse than coal for CO2 emissions. Continuing the use of existing trash incinerators or supporting the creation of new ones undermines any effort by a community to "green" itself and to reduce global warming emissions, if they're accounted for properly.
(* Discounting the "biogenic" fraction disregards IPCC accounting protocols that advise that such smokestack emissions cannot be assumed to be "carbon neutral." Such discounting also disregards the fact that natural carbon sequestration and storage capacities are significantly diminished, and that trees are not being replanted specifically to offset and store these emissions (rather than being cut back down to supply more paper, crops, etc.). Discounting these emissions assumes that trees and crops instantly suck up the extra pulse of CO2 released by burning paper, food scraps and other organic material in waste instead of taking several decades to do so, as they do in natural ecological cycles. The decades it would take to overcome the CO2 emissions from burning trash and "biomass" is time that we do not have if we are to avoid critical global warming tipping points.)
Bad for recycling and composting
The huge economic resources that need to be put into incineration are better spent on zero waste programs, which can reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by more than the 70% reduction in tonnage that incinerators accomplish -- and can do so at lower cost. Once a incinerator is built, "put-or-pay" contracts discourage recycling and composting by charging local governments the same, even if they produce less waste.
Trash incinerators are unpopular and declining
No new commercial trash incinerator has been sited, built and operated at a new site in the U.S. since 1995. One large new one, however, was built in West Palm Beach, Florida in 2015, adjacent to an existing large incinerator. Some smaller ones have also been expanded or rebuilt. Despite hundreds of attempts to build new incinerators, community opposition has been the main force preventing them from being built. Overall, the number of operating incinerators in the U.S. has declined. In 1991, there were 187 trash incinerators in the U.S. At the turn of the century, there were 114. As of early 2021, not counting some truly tiny ones, there are just 71, the lowest number since 1981."
Here is the entire text of resolution #209072 which unanimously passed through the Dutchess County Legislature on March 10, 2009:
"IMPLEMENTING A ZERO-WASTE APPROACH TO RESOURCE RECOVERY IN DUTCHESS COUNTY
Legislators TYNER, DOXSEY, WEISS, and WASSELL offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, the federal stimulus package legislation that just passed through Congress in February contains a $3.2 billion appropriation for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants that were authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; under Section 544, Item 10, the funds may be used for “activities to increase participation and efficiency rates for material conservation programs, including source reduction, recycling, and recycled content procurement programs that lead to increases in energy efficiency”, these funds are available to counties like Dutchess County by direct application for federal block grants, and
WHEREAS, this presents an opportunity for Dutchess County to get federal dollars with other area counties for collaboration on a pilot regional comprehensive zero-waste plan proposal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NYS Department of Conservation similar to what has been successfully developed for the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District, and
WHEREAS, a zero-waste approach to resource recovery in Dutchess County will save tax dollars, create green jobs, lower carbon emissions, and help clear up local air quality; Greenway Environmental Services has provided an excellent working model of this type of intense composting and recycling approach already at Vassar and Marist colleges, and
WHEREAS, a zero-waste approach to resource recovery in Dutchess County will also create a track for good–paying jobs, as the Institute for Local Self-Reliance has successfully done in Hartford and other cities across the U.S., working with the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Laborers International, Sheetmetal Workers, and Teamsters, and
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development and Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency work with Representatives John Hall and Maurice Hinchey and Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer to bring federal funding to Dutchess County by direct application for federal block grants for a new zero-waste planning approach for resource recovery, regionally if possible with other counties, from the national stimulus package legislation passed in February containing a $3.2 billion appropriation for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants authorized by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, now, therefore be it
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development Commissioner Roger Akeley, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency Executive Director William Calogero, Ulster County Executive Michael Hein, Putnam County Executive Robert Bondi, Orange County Executive Edward Diana, President Barack Obama, United States Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressmembers Maurice Hinchey and John Hall, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson, Governor David Paterson, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Alexander “Pete” Grannis, NYS Deputy Secretary for the Environment Judith Enck, Senators Stephen Saland and Vincent Leibell, and Assemblymembers Joel Miller, Kevin Cahill, Greg Ball, Marcus Molinaro, and Frank Skartados."
Here below is the text of resolution #209386 that passed through the Dutchess County Legislature on December 7, 2009 by a 13-11 margin (12 Democrats and 1 Conservative voting yes; GOP voting no):
"REQUESTING VARIOUS COUNTY DEPARTMENTS FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DUTCHESS COUNTY GREEN RIBBON TASK FORCE ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Legislators TYNER, DOXSEY, and WHITE offer the following and move its adoption:
WHEREAS, recently the Dutchess County Green Ribbon Task Force on Solid Waste Management issued its recommendations after many months of meetings and much public input, and
WHEREAS, Dutchess County’s unemployment rate is still about twice what it was two years ago, with about ten thousand local residents out of work; recycling and composting (a zero-waste approach to resource recovery) creates ten times more jobs than incineration or landfilling, according to the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and in Austin (TX), Seattle (WA), Portland (OR), and many other communities across the country a zero-waste approach has also saved tax dollars compared to a burn-or-bury approach, and
WHEREAS, on a national level, over two-thirds of the materials we use are still burned or buried, despite the fact that we have the technical capacity to cost-effectively recycle, reuse, or compost 90% of what we waste; the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Facility puts 3700 tons of carbon emissions into the air every year, and
WHEREAS, Rockland County recycled 41,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at their Materials Recovery Facility, with a population almost identical to that of Dutchess County (about 290,000), while Dutchess County recycled only 8,000 tons of cans, bottles, plastics, and paper last year at our Materials Recovery Facility, and
WHEREAS, that the Dutchess County Legislature believes that the current governance arrangements for waste management in Dutchess County (basically all duties delegated to the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency) have failed on many levels, especially by virtue of the fact that costs incurred by the Resource Recovery Agency at the expense of the taxpayers are far in excess of industry standards, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the new PLAN must evaluate and identify new and better options, such as a new Dutchess County Waste and Recycling Management Authority, or more active participation of the County’s Public Works Committee or Solid Waste Commissioner, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature urges better mechanisms of oversight and transparency which are critical to the success of the PLAN and must be clearly outlined by the County’s SWM consultant, and the County Legislature calls for the power of budgetary review over any new government mechanism, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature, in light of the extraordinarily high costs, inefficiency, and mismanagement recently documented at the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, recommend that the new PLAN give careful and thorough consideration to the phasing out of the waste-to-energy facility over a 2-4 year time horizon and the phasing out or complete transformation for the Resource Recovery Agency over the same period of time, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the PLAN and the Consultant chosen to advise the legislature thoroughly examine the possibility of setting countywide mandated recycling goal of 70% of all municipal solid waste generated in Dutchess County by the year 2020 by substantially increasing our food waste composting infrastructure, and therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature also issues a Request for Proposals for a report from several nationally known zero-wasted experts who have indicated an interest in helping Dutchess County on this, for detailed cost analysis and implementation outlines for a Dutchess County Zero-Waste Pilot Program to be implemented as soon as possible, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature authorizes the development of several pilot programs around the county, dedicated to the advancement of research and assess the feasibility of a cutting-edge resource recovery park to create jobs recycling current resources that are disposed of: food waste, fats, oils, greases, glass, electronic scrap, mattresses, and construction and demolition debris, and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Dutchess County Legislature requests that the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency work with the Dutchess County Sheriff, Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, Dutchess County Supervisors and Mayors Association, Dutchess County Small Business Committee, and others to make sure recycling bins for cans and bottles and office paper are placed next to all trash receptacles in the county, and make sure that, as county law and the Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency website state, that “the following materials are required to be kept separate from trash: office paper (copy paper, stationery, computer paper, ledger), newspaper, corrugated cardboard, glass bottles and jars (clear, brown, and green-colored), metal cans (tin/bi-metal/aluminum); aluminum pie plates and foil; PETE and HDPE plastic containers (except automotive product containers), and major appliances, tires, yard debris,” and be it further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Dutchess County Executive, Dutchess County Solid Waste Commissioner, Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency, Dutchess County Environmental Management Council, Dutchess County Sheriff, and the Dutchess County Association of Supervisors and Mayors."
Joel Tyner/Working Class Dutchess, Zero Waste Dutchess 324 Browns Pond Road, Staatsburg, NY 12580 845-464-2245 tynerjoel@gmail.com
12
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on August 16, 2023