Vernon County scrambles for landfill space as DNR continues to stretch permit timeline

March 10, 2026

VIROQUA Wis. – The Vernon County Infrastructure Committee met March 10 and continued to grapple with the space limits at the Vernon County Landfill. The extreme space conservation measures being considered are the direct result of an agonizingly slow state permitting process for the proposed expansion. The county voted to pursue the expansion in October 2023, but began the process of applying for a permit to expand by another five acres around 2019. The project remains bogged down in regulatory reviews over karst geology and groundwater safety.

All the delays in the process have left the county between a rock and a hardplace. Estimates show the facility likely does not have enough space to take all of the 10,000 tons they recieved last year before a new cell can be built, which could take several years. But the county is exploring options to get them from here to there.

One option is to recapture space that has too much cover or dirt on it and use that space to handle additional waste. The other option is to transfer waste to other facilities (like La Crosse or Monroe County) temporarily while the new cell is constructred. Or, do both. Both options likely have slightly increased operating costs, but they could also have some savings to offset some of that cost.

Summary Timeline of the Vernon County Landfill Expansion

• October 2023: The Vernon County Board of Supervisors voted to pursue a major expansion of the existing 9.5-acre landfill facility. The proposed expansion seeks to add over 427,000 cubic yards of space, which equates to roughly 340,000 tons of new airspace. Worth a projected $20-$25 million in revenue.
• December 2024: Following the submission of the initial feasibility report, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) issued a first notice of incompleteness.
• March 2025: The DNR issued a second notice of incompleteness on March 11, 2025, requesting more extensive data regarding the underlying karst geology and hydrogeology of the site.
• April 2025: The county board approved moving forward with the installation of a final monitoring well to gather the required data. In a parallel regulatory track, the Town of Viroqua Landfill Siting Committee submitted a comprehensive 32-page proposal for a Town Host Agreement.
• Spring/Summer 2025: The county and its consulting firm, SEH Engineers, drilled the new monitoring well and conducted extensive water sampling, a time-consuming process that requires a 30-day waiting period between each sample.
• June – August 2025: A joint meeting involving county officials, state legislators, and DNR representatives was held in June to bridge communication gaps regarding the stability and monitorability of the landfill. The county experienced a bureaucratic delay, not receiving the notes from this meeting until August.
• September 2025: The Vernon County Infrastructure Committee returned a 15-page counter-proposal for the Town Host Agreement, removing many of the town’s requested stipulations, which led to a prolonged stalemate.
• Late 2025: The Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey (WGNHS) provided a memo analyzing the geology, and SEH engineers documented the rock faces at nearby quarries to illustrate the subsurface conditions. SEH submitted a preliminary geological narrative to the DNR in early December to get feedback before filing the final feasibility addendum.
• March 2026: County officials and SEH met with the DNR on March 9. The DNR requested additional “slug testing” to check the hydraulic conductivity between existing monitoring wells, aiming to address variances in historical data. The DNR also informed the county that they want to send their own staff to physically inspect the neighboring rock quarries.

Key Hurdles That Have Slowed the Process

• Geological Concerns (Karst Topography): The landfill sits above fractured bedrock known as karst, making groundwater highly vulnerable. Resolving the DNR’s concerns required analyzing nearby quarries, involving the WGNHS, and performing time-intensive well drilling and water sampling.
• Parallel Regulatory Tracks: The county is bogged down trying to secure both the technical DNR permit and a local Town Host Agreement. The town negotiations are deadlocked over demands for strict contractual protections regarding groundwater liability, property values, and truck route enforcement.
• Staffing Shortages: The DNR has experienced long-term staffing reductions, which officials noted has contributed to the sluggish review process. Delays were also compounded by the workload of the county’s engineering firm, SEH.
• Bureaucratic Delays & New Demands: The timeline was further derailed by compounding state-level delays, such as waiting months just to receive meeting notes. Recent DNR requests for physical quarry inspections and additional hydraulic “slug testing” (costing an extra $15,000 to $20,000) have added to the timeline and frustrated local officials who feel they have already provided the necessary engineering data.

Geoligical Concerns And Engineers Responses

Local residents, heavily supported by testimony from retired geology professor Kelvin Rodolfo, have expressed severe reservations about expanding the landfill due to the region’s highly vulnerable geology. Their primary concerns include:

• Siting on Karst Topography: Residents argue that the landfill sits atop karst geology—a landscape characterized by highly soluble dolostone and limestone that contains voids, fractures, and sinkholes. They fear the massive weight of a new, expanded waste cell could trigger a sinkhole or subsurface collapse, causing a catastrophic failure of the landfill’s protective liner.
• Rapid Hydraulic Conductivity: Opponents argue that the county’s consultants originally used antiquated equipment that drastically misrepresented how fast water moves through the local rock. Rodolfo cited independent studies showing that groundwater (and potentially toxic landfill leachate) can move through the fractured bedrock at rates of up to 87 feet per day, which is tens to hundreds of times faster than consultants claimed.
• Unreliable Monitoring: Because water travels unpredictably through “fractured and preferential flow” paths in karst systems, residents point to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) incompleteness letters, which noted that these geological conditions make traditional monitoring well data unreliable. If a leak occurs, the monitoring wells might completely miss the contamination plume.
• Rejection of the “Saprolite” Buffer: Residents actively dispute the consultants’ claim that a protective layer of deeply weathered rock, known as saprolite, shields the bedrock. Rodolfo argued that saprolite is formed exclusively in tropical and subtropical environments that are humid year-round, making it scientifically impossible for such a layer to exist under the Vernon County site.
• Visual Evidence of Fractures: Opponents point to the nearby Seas Branch quarry—located less than a mile from the landfill—as visual proof of the area’s instability. They argue the quarry’s rock faces clearly show vertical fractures and dissolved horizontal layers that would allow rapid downward percolation of contaminated water.

Counter-Arguments for Site Safety from SEH Consultants (Melanie Niday and Brian Kent)

Hydrogeologist Melanie Niday and engineer Brian Kent from SEH maintain that the site is highly stable, monitorable, and engineered with extreme redundancies. Niday stated that out of all the landfills she has worked on nationwide, “this is the most protective one I’ve ever worked on”. Their defense of the site includes: You can read our story about Niday’s presentation to the county board here. And you can watch her whole presentation here.

• It is “Pseudo-Karst,” Not True Karst: Niday argues that while the region features karst, the specific landfill site lacks classic karst characteristics such as sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, or springs. Because the bedrock is buried very deep, it lacks the necessary interaction with air and water required to dissolve the rock into massive caverns. She classifies the site as a “pseudo-karst” environment where fractures are much smaller and created mechanically rather than through large dissolution cavities.
• Deep Bedrock and Groundwater Separation: The site features massive separation distances to protect the environment. The bedrock is between 25 to over 60 feet below the surface, and the regional groundwater table is over 75 to 100 feet deep.
• Highly Protective Natural Soil Layers: Niday identified a thick layer of unconsolidated soil called “residuum” (up to 80 feet thick) sitting above the bedrock. Because this layer is 76% silt and clay, it acts as a natural, highly cohesive sponge. If a leak were to ever breach the engineered liners, this thick clay layer would absorb the moisture and restrict vertical movement before it could reach the bedrock.
• A “Perched” Water Table Allows for Accurate Monitoring: Water percolating through the soil hits a natural barrier above the regional aquifer, creating a “perched” water table. Niday explains that this trapped, perched groundwater flows predictably to the east, which makes the site highly monitorable because they know exactly where to place wells to catch any potential contamination.
• Clean Historical Data and Slug Testing: SEH has drilled over 100 borings and installed 28 monitoring wells across the site. Recent “slug testing” on 14 new wells showed no evidence of rapid or turbulent water flow through the rock. Furthermore, semi-annual testing over the last 30 years has shown zero evidence of leachate-related contamination in the groundwater or the leak detection systems.
• Engineered Redundancies Exceeding Standards: In addition to the natural geology, the site utilizes an engineered design that exceeds state and federal standards. This includes a 60-mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic liner that is electronically tested for pinhole leaks, sitting on top of a 5-foot compacted clay liner (the state only requires 4 feet). Above that, a heavily graded leachate collection system actively pumps liquid out of the landfill so it cannot pool and create downward pressure on the liners.

Future Steps: Once the county has submitted all the required data to the DNR they will need to reach a feasibility decision. Following that decision (if they grant approval) there will be a public comment period and an anticipated contested case hearing. If the feasibility is ultimately approved, the county must then submit a detailed Plan of Operation for a second round of state approval before any actual construction can begin.

The Recapture Proposal and Airspace Confusion

Solid Waste Director Stacie Sanborn provided extended comments at the March meeting clarifying the results of a recently completed airspace study. She explained that the results were somewhat confusing because the engineering firm SEH categorized areas of the landfill that were previously capped with thick layers of clean intermediate dirt as being at “net fill volume”.

“The way it was worded caused me pause when I read it,” said Sanborn. “Because net fill volume is where it is showing that we are full but there is 18,000 cubic yards of waste capacity being occupied by intermediate cover”.

Sanborn showed the committee maps highlighting open areas ready for trash right now that only have a thin layer of daily cover. She explained that the county can operate in these specific sections immediately but getting to the rest of the buried airspace will require state permission and heavy earthmoving to peel back the deep intermediate soil.

“I am estimating about 7,500 cubic yards,” said Sanborn. “And this is all stuff that we can fill without doing the plan modification”.

To recapture the remaining 6,200 cubic yards on the south side of the landfill the county must submit a formal plan modification to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and pay a review fee.

Committee Chair Lorn Goede stressed that uncovering the buried space is a financial necessity even with the added equipment costs.

“At $65 dollars a ton there is $1.2 million dollars worth of remaining airspace in our landfill,” said Goede. “That cubic yardage of airspace is going to be more valuable than the hour it takes to open it up with a dozer”.

Supervisor Charles Jacobson asked for a bottom line on the survival timeline.

“So from what you just said we have about a year space just on daily cover,” said Jacobson. “And probably two years worth if we would pay to move all the intermediate cover and fill that in”.

Sanborn confirmed his assessment and is putting estimates together for both recapturing space and transferring waste.

Meeting with the DNR and Mounting Frustrations

County officials and their engineering firm SEH met with the DNR on March 9 to review the lingering environmental concerns preventing the expansion permit. During the meeting the DNR requested additional slug testing which checks the hydraulic conductivity between existing monitoring wells to address variances in historical data.

Goede noted the new testing will cost the county an additional $15,000 to $20,000 dollars but regulators want absolute certainty on the geology before facing public scrutiny.

“They are sure we are going to have a contested hearing,” said Goede. “They basically do not get caught without the answers at the hearing”.

The prolonged back and forth over environmental data sparked intense frustration from county officials regarding the pace of the engineering firm. Administrative Coordinator Cassandra Hanan noted that the county received its second notice of incompleteness from the state exactly a year ago on March 11 2025.

“I just feel like there has been no fire lit under SEH whatsoever on this,” said Hanan. “We have been dragging our feet for a year as far as getting this response done and I just want them to get moving”.

Goede agreed and pointed out that a neighboring municipality managed to successfully navigate the identical regulatory process much faster.

“La Crosse started their process the same time we did with the same engineers and they are filling (their landfill) and we are still doing paperwork,” said Goede.

Sanborn pushed back and defended the engineers, pointing out that the timeline was derailed by a compounding series of state level bureaucratic delays rather than engineering failures. Sanborn reminded the committee that after receiving the DNR comments last March the county deliberately waited to involve state legislators which delayed a joint meeting until June.

“And then there was additional waiting on the notes from that June meeting that were not received until I think it was August,” said Sanborn. “So there has been a lot of delay I know the DNR is very short staffed also”.

Sanborn added that state regulators did warn during the meeting about carefully managing the remaining room at the existing facility.

“The DNR reiterated that overfilling the current landfill is not an option,” said Sanborn. “If that the county may be subject to the bad actor statute if overfilling occurs”.

The county must still submit there data, wait for a DNR decision, navigate a contested case hearing and then submit a detailed plan of operation before construction can even begin.

Waste Diversion and the City of Viroqua

To stretch the remaining space the county is actively pushing to divert waste to neighboring counties. The solid waste department recently lost its biggest municipal client which actually helps the immediate space crisis.

“The City of Viroqua as of March 1 we are no longer receiving their waste,” said Sanborn. “Their waste represents about 12 percent of the annual waste volume of last year so that now is no longer being delivered here”.

The city opted to allow its commercial hauler GFL to take the municipal waste to a different transfer station and then ultimatley their facility near Eau Claire. Sanborn noted that losing Viroqua will cost her department roughly $75,000 dollars in revenue this year but admitted the county desperately needs the physical room.

“It is a double edged sword,” said Sanborn. “It sucks for my budget but it is buying us 1,200 ton of airspace for the rest of this year anyway”.

To handle the rest of the diversion the county submitted paperwork and fees to the DNR to formally license the existing recycling building as a transfer station. Once approved the county will start hauling its own excess garbage to La Crosse County or Monroe County.

Sanborn explained that switching the building back to a transfer station will require minimal effort because the facility previously operated under a similar model when they used to bail garbage.

“Our facility at one point was a solid waste processing facility,” said Sanborn. “They used to actually drive trucks in here dump garbage on the floor but they would bail it”.

The bales were then placed in the landfill as a method of coserving space. Sanborn noted that the new transfer operation skips the bailing process entirely.

“The way we will transfer waste without making huge capital purchases at this time is trucks will back into the building,” said Sanborn. “They will dump and I have two different loaders that that material will be loaded into one of our 50 yard roll offs that we already own”.

Sanborn explained that the department will utilize its existing water truck to haul one or two loads a day out of the county. She warned that tipping fees will need to increase in April to cover the external disposal costs. La Crosse County quoted a rate of $79 dollars a ton with a 9 percent rebate for municipal partners while Monroe County is still finalizing its rates.

Goede pointed out that transferring waste avoids paying the state environmental fees on those specific tons which helps offset the trucking costs.

“The DNR fee will pretty much cover the trucking of diversion,” said Goede.

Sanborn stressed that all of these logistical hurdles and unbudgeted expenses are entirely designed to buy the county enough time to reach a final verdict from the state regarding the future of the facility.

“If the county does expand we are going to launch a garbage cell,” said Sanborn. “We are probably looking at two years till we are actually constructed with the expansion”.

Public Opposition and Financial Concerns

Some residents voiced their opposition during the public comment period of the meeting this week..

Resident Tom Lukens urged the committee to review the audited financial statements and abandon the expansion arguing that the solid waste department routinely loses money while only the recycling side shows a profit.

“When you lose $150,000 dollars last year you want to borrow three to four million dollars to do this thing,” said Lukens. “You look at the numbers and it just does not work”.

Kyle Kruizenga who lives adjacent to the landfill criticized the recapture plan noting that peeling back the intermediate dirt will unleash horrible odors that nearby residents will be forced to endure.

“You open that side up again your landfill is not a good neighbor,” said Kruizenga. “I do not know how the DNR would allow you to do that because I cannot imagine it smells like roses after sitting down in there”.

There will be a joint meeting of the Infrastructure Commiitee and the Finance Committee on March 17 specfically to discuss the future of the county landfill.