The state Department of Environmental Quality could have to explain in court why it denied a permit to Gordon’s Landfill LLC or risk having to pay damages to its owner Gordon Doerle.

Doerle filed a formal appeal of the decision in the 19th Judicial District Tuesday afternoon. An agency representitive said this morning that because DEQ has not yet been served with the lawsuit he could not comment on the appeal.

The agency said objections from the Federal Aviation Administration and a history of noncompliance were the two reasons for denying the permit request.

Advertisement

The appeal states DEQ’s permit denial based on airport safety concerns and compliance history is beyond the agency’s scope of enforcement, is not supported by evidence and unconstitutional.

“They denied my permit off of what proof?” Doerle said. “There are no studies, no documentation to say my landfill would cause bird problems. It’s just all hearsay. You can’t just say it might happen. I think (the decision) was political and taking it to court takes all the politics out of it.”

Doerle said what puzzles him about the most recent decision, and is cited in the appeal, is the fact he worked hard 14 years ago, alongside the DEQ to choose the site on Louisiana 88, where his landfill is located. He said at that time he chose eight sites in the area as potential landfill locations and DEQ officials said the landfill’s current site was the best option.

DEQ advised him to purchase a large swath of property presupposing eventual expansion because expansion permits are easier to get than new operational permits, Doerle said he was told.

In addition, Doerle said he was told the agency has never denied a permit for a construction and debris landfill, which makes him question why his situation is any different.

As far as impeding future economic development at Acadiana Regional Airport, Doerle said when the site was chosen 14 years ago, it was “a hole in the middle of a cane field,” and there is no proof its existence there for more than a decade has affected the airport in any detrimental way.

“They have a seaway on the east side that attracts birds, they farm sugar cane right off the runway, they wanted to put a sewerage plant on the south side, they’re talking about building a warehouse for explosives on the west side, they have Spanish Lake, a haven for birds, in their flight path but they’re worried about my C and D landfill limiting development and attracting birds,” he said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

Doerle’s compliance history was also a reason DEQ claimed it denied his permit request and is being challenged in the appeal. He said the several pages of compliance problems listed for his landfill mostly stem from a concentrated period 10 years ago. He said at that time, he had little experience with new discharge regulations coming out of state and federal agencies. He said he would have the discharged water from his landfill tested and everything appeared fine with reports sent to DEQ in a timely manner.

Two years of those practices elapsed before DEQ notified Doerle there was a problem, slapping him with more than 60 violations at one time. He hired an engineering firm familiar with the regulations and said he has not had similar problems since.

He also said the average landfill is inspected by the DEQ three times a year and in the first five months of this year, he has been inspected more than 30 times.

“I’m monitored more than any landfill in the state,” Doerle said. “This is a scenario of me being harassed by the neighbors. They call for any little thing and by law DEQ has to come out and investigate. If they are coming out here 30 times as opposed to three, they’re going to find something sometime.”

Doerle said if the district court overturns DEQ’s decision and he is granted his landfill permit, he will be for the most part satisfied. If the judge upholds DEQ’s decision, Doerle said he will likely file a lawsuit seeking damages.

“Somebody’s liable for something,” Doerle said. “DEQ recommended that I develop out there so they’re going to have to pay me for what I invested. That’s why I’m still fighting all of this. This is a major investment I made based off of their recommendation.”

In addition, the longer Doerle’s landfill remains closed, the amount of lost revenue increases. He said after the permit denial, he was forced to resort to layoffs, trim workers to a four-day work week, pay notes on millions of dollars of equipment sitting idle on his property that he cannot use, but cannot sell until he knows his landfill closure is permanent and take a $80,000 per month hit on his bottom line.

“We had to go through all the steps to get to the appeal process,” Doerle said. “This has been going on for five years, I’m tired of talking about it. I’m definitely tired of spending money on it. The sad thing is state agencies and politicians can play these games because it doesn’t cost them anything, it costs the taxpayers. It’s almost like they hope you run out of money and give up. But I won’t. Every accomplishment we’ve made on this has been inch by inch. This is my livelihood.”

Doerle was unsure when a hearing in Baton Rouge on the matter would take place.