FINAL UPDATE--PANOLA COUNTY TRANSFER STATION

Today, August 11, 2026, the Panola County Commissioners Court approved Agenda Item #21 involving the interlocal agreement with the City of Carthage and the restrictions at the transfer station.

What was said before that vote, matters.

County Judge Rodger McLane acknowledged that today’s vote wasn’t actually the beginning of these restrictions. They were already in place. Which we knew.

“The city already implemented these rules. We’re agreeing to it.”

He described the agreement as essentially “cementing” what has already been happening this summer.

That caught my attention because these restrictions have raised questions for months, especially about exactly who is being turned away.

So before the vote, I asked him directly:

“Can you explain to the public what all that commercial ban entails? So who can and cannot dump at the trash station?”

Judge McLane said anyone picking up trash for a living and providing that service cannot dump there.

He also said the County couldn’t make exceptions for certain local commercial haulers while excluding others, stating:

“That will end us in federal court. Just real easy. We’re gonna lose.”

But commercial trash haulers weren’t my only concern.

I asked about churches.

Judge McLane confirmed the City considers churches commercial under these restrictions:

“The city who owns the contract said that that is a commercial business in their mind. They didn’t waiver on that.”

He then acknowledged:

“We agreed for that for the moment to work this out.”

To me there's nothing left to work out. They unanimously voted to make the restrictions permanent for 1 year. 

That’s when I asked the question I really wanted answered.

If churches and nonprofits are included, does that mean our volunteer fire departments can’t dump there either?

His answer:

“That’s what that means, and that’s what it means.”

There it is.

Not speculation. Not something somebody heard around town.

It was asked directly during Commissioners Court, and the County Judge answered it directly.

What happened next bothered me even more.

After confirming that the restriction applies to volunteer fire departments, he explained that most churches and VFDs aren’t driving vehicles with their organization’s name on the side. He then said, “They wouldn’t know unless you spoke up and volunteered it,” when discussing how the transfer station would know where the trash came from. I’m not saying the Judge directly told anyone to break the rules, but think about what that explanation means in practice: if the trash is prohibited because it belongs to a church or volunteer fire department, it shouldn’t suddenly become acceptable simply because someone brings it in a personal truck and doesn’t say where it came from. A government policy shouldn’t depend on whether someone volunteers the information or gets caught. If we’re going to have rules, they need to be clear, enforceable, and applied equally—not rules that can effectively be worked around simply by keeping quiet.

The judge then called the issue a “non sequitur” and said it was:

“something for people to make a fuss about to seem like they’re trying to do something good for the community when in reality, there’s not really a problem.”

I don’t see it that way.

If a policy affects our churches, nonprofits and volunteer fire departments, the public has every right to ask how it works before elected officials vote to approve it.

There was also a financial argument made today, and that’s worth acknowledging.

Judge McLane said the County’s transfer-station bill has dropped by roughly $8,000, from around $23,000 to approximately $16,000 per month, because tonnage has decreased.

He argued that taxpayers shouldn’t be pushed out of a public service because commercial entities are filling the transfer station.

I actually agree with that point.

My concern is where the line is drawn and who gets caught on the other side of it.

A commercial trash-hauling company operating for profit is one thing and reasonable accommodations could have been made. 

A local church or non profit serving this county is another.

Those were the questions I was trying to get answered.

When I attempted to continue that discussion, Judge McLane ended the exchange with:

“Thank you. Appreciate you.”

Before cutting me off!

I responded:

“Thank you for interrupting me. I appreciate that.”

The Court then voted, and Item #21 passed with little to no discussion at all. 

So after today’s meeting, we know more than we did before.

We know these restrictions were already being implemented before today’s vote.

We know the County has now formally agreed to them for 1 year. 

People can agree or disagree about whether this is good policy. That’s exactly why these questions needed to be asked.

But don’t take my word for any of this. Listen for yourself.

I am attaching the recording of today’s discussion so everyone can hear the County Judge’s own words, in his own voice and in their full context.

There doesn’t need to be any confusion about what was asked, what was answered, or what was said before the vote.

The recording speaks for itself. Listen to it and make up your own mind. 

08/11/26 Panola County Commissioner's Court Recording--Agenda item # 21