Residents sound off in opposition to landfill, but county says there's little local government can do to stop it
A 1980s decision by County Commission appears to be at the root of the county's lack of options to stop a Chattanooga-area developer from licensing a new landfill in north Oneida
HUNTSVILLE | After nearly 45 minutes of impassioned speeches from Scott County residents opposed to a new landfill in north Oneida, things cycled back around to what seemed evident going into Monday’s County Commission meeting: the proposed landfill is not a county government project, and there appears to be little that county government can do to stop it.
Around 100 residents packed the conference room at the Scott County Office Building on Monday to voice their opposition to the proposed landfill, after a Chattanooga-area developer’s plans went viral on Facebook over the weekend. The crowd packed the room to capacity and spilled into the hallway, and — as would have been expected — no one voiced support for the idea of a new landfill.
“When we chose Tennessee to live in we chose Scott County because of its natural beauty and the opportunity for growth. The thought of trucks driving trash in is pretty heartbreaking.”
Scott McNamara
That landfill has been proposed by Chattanooga-area developer Knox Horner, who told the crowd that he represents a group of investors “who would like to construct a landfill.” Horner has signed a contract to purchase approximately 700 acres of property that are adjacent to the existing Volunteer Regional Landfill at Bear Creek. As reported by the Independent Herald on Sunday, he’s also eyeing the building a rail spur into the property to transport trash by train, and has also explored an offloading facility at the former Hartco flooring plant in downtown Oneida, where trash could be transferred from rail cars to trucks for transport to the landfill.
Several business owners in downtown Oneida — within eyesight of the old flooring plant property — were among those who spoke, including Gather Coffee Lounge owner Scott McNamara and Black Cat Antiques & Collectables owners Moe and Ella Mullis.
One after another, residents cited concerns like negative environmental impacts, detrimental health impacts, and the negative connotations the project would have on efforts to revitalize Oneida’s South Main Street and to promote tourism in Scott County.
When all was said and done, however, it seemed clearer than ever that county government will be limited in its ability to combat Horner’s plans. As 4th District County Commissioner Kenny Chadwell put it, “You’re talking about private businesses doing private things.”
Chadwell echoed concerns shared by residents.
“Myself, I wish we didn’t have the landfill we have,” he said. “It was done before I got here. If it was an up-and-down vote, we could take care of it right now but we can’t.”
Scott County Mayor Jerried Jeffers said that he had been aware of Horner’s desire to purchase the property for a couple of months, and added that he had warned County Commission that the project might be looming. But he emphasized that so far there has been nothing finalized — no final purchase of the property, and no deal with Norfolk-Southern for either a rail spur into the property or an offloading facility at the former Hartco site.
Jeffers also indicated that the Town of Oneida had likewise known it was a looming possibility.
“There is no, ‘Oh, the town wasn’t aware of this and this was all on the county.’ No, no, no,” he said. “They were aware.”
Scott County’s ability to stop a new landfill from being located within its boundaries appears to date back to a 1980s decision by County Commission. The reason why is relatively complicated.
In 1989, the Tennessee General Assembly adopted what is known as the “Jackson Law,” which gives local governments say-so over landfills located within their boundaries. Under the Jackson Law, county commissions must approve before a private landfill can be licensed, and city governments must also approve if the landfill is located within their corporate boundaries.
Scott County Commission opted into the Jackson Law in 1989. However, as reported Sunday by the IH, the county’s opt-in has since been allowed to sunset and was not renewed. A document made available by the TN Dept. of Environment & Conservation states that Scott County Commission was sent a letter in 2003 regarding a renewal of its opt-in resolution but the state did not receive a response. Consequently, the county’s opt-in of the Jackson Law expired in 2010.
It was just weeks after Scott County’s opt-in resolution expired, in July 2010, that 23 acres of property adjacent to the existing Volunteer Regional Landfill was permitted as a landfill. Those 23 acres are among the approximately 700 acres that Horner and his investors are looking to purchase.
It has been suggested that County Commission should pass a resolution to again opt into the Jackson Rule as a means of preventing the new landfill from being licensed, at least beyond the 23 acres that have already been licensed.
However, it turns out that the county’s original opt-in of the Jackson Law might not have been enough to stop the current landfill proposal even if it had not been allowed to sunset in 2010.
As explained by Jeffers at Monday’s meeting, Johnny King — the original owner of both the Volunteer Regional Landfill and the adjacent acreage that Horner hopes to purchase — approached County Commission in 1986 to seek approval for a new landfill on the 2,000 acres of land he owned. Commissioners at the time signed off on the plan, amid a groundswell of opposition.
Three years later, after the state passed the Jackson Law statute, Scott County Commission attempted to backpedal and renege on the original landfill agreement. King sued both Scott County and the Town of Winfield, and the 8th Judicial District Chancery Court ruled against Scott County in 1992, saying that the county’s adoption of the Jackson Law statute in 1989 did not allow it to retroactively nullify the agreement that had been made in 1986.
“What you’re seeing now is almost mirroring what happened in 1989,” Jeffers said.
"(County Commission) can adopt the Jackson Law if you want, but if you adopt it and you vote to revoke (the new landfill proposal) you’re probably in violation of the court order.”
John Beaty, county attorney
John Beaty, the county’s attorney, said that the court ruling in 1992 followed “many public hearings and much litigation,” and said that it still applies because it involves the same parcels of property.
“It was court-ordered approved,” Beaty said of the 1992 decision. “(County Commission) can adopt the Jackson Law if it wants, but if you adopt it and you vote to revoke (the new landfill proposal) you’re probably in violation of the court order.
“I’m not making judgment; those are just the facts,” Beaty added, saying that he, too, was concerned about what a new landfill would mean for Scott County.
Ultimately, Beaty said, “County Commission is not in a position to say yes or no (to a new landfill). You do not have the authority.”
Chadwell applauded those who showed up to speak out against the project, saying “they spoke well tonight. They were very professional about their concerns. They’re concerns I as well as most of the commissioners share.” But, he asked Beaty, “We cannot have an up or down vote on whether this thing happens, yes or no?” To which Beaty responded, “You do not have this authority. County governments did not have this authority 30 years ago. TDEC is in charge. That was made clear to the county back in the prior lawsuit.”
Horner was present at Monday’s meeting and took the podium, saying his proposal for a transfer station at the former Hartco site would be temporary while he builds a permanent rail spur into the property — a statement that drew scoffs from the crowd.
Horner did not say what a rail spur would cost, but said he’s estimating that $25 million will be invested in infrastructure for the new landfill. In response to a question about where the trash going into the landfill would be coming from, Horner said he did not know. He said he intends to apply for a Class I landfill permit, which is household waste.
Under an agreement with Waste Connections, which owns Volunteer Regional Landfill, both Scott County and Oneida receive 85 cents per ton for trash deposited in the landfill. Horner said he intends to offer $1.20 per ton.
Mayor Jeffers said after Monday’s meeting that numbers provided by Waste Connections indicated that 305,000 tons of trash were deposited in the existing landfill between July 1, 2024 and March 31, 2025. That means nearly $260,000 was received by both Scott County and the Town of Oneida in host fees during that nine-month period. Based on what Horner said he was going to propose to pay in host fees, that amount would have been $366,000, assuming the same amount of trash over the same period of time.
Jeffers added that he’s researched what other counties with landfills receive in landfills. Benton County gets $1.20, he said, while Rutherford County gets $1.30 and Anderson County gets $1.70.
“We’re getting $1.70 already,” he said. “The problem is it is split between the county and the city.”
Although it was not discussed at Monday’s meeting, sources familiar with business talks have told the IH that the new landfill would be estimated to be in operation for 20 years before running out of space.
Horner himself said during Monday’s meeting that there are two separate issues at play: one is the landfill itself, which will ultimately be permitted by TDEC assuming that all requirements are met. The other is the proposed spur or offloading site that would allow a larger volume of trash to be transported into the landfill by rail. Norfolk-Southern must ultimately approve that aspect. Jeffers opined during Monday’s meeting that his gut feeling was that N-S might balk at such an approval.
Well done article. We are rethinking the downtown transfer station out of respect for the concerns of local business owners downtown.
The only correction is that Norfolk Southern has provided Letters of Intent on the Landfill site in the past. They have not provided the same for the previously proposed Transfer Station.
We appreciate the comments from the public last night and we want to say you were heard! Thank you
ok so if they cant stop the landfill because of a court order, it doesnt mean they are obligated to approve a transfer station in the middle of town, and it doesnt mean they are obligated to approve trash trucks driving thru town. they can make an ordinance forcing trash trucks to take an alternative route. which in turn would force the landfill group to build a separate route, a bypass for trash trucks, which would keep them out of the town.