CLINTON - DeWitt County officials predict a higher than average turnout due to a nonbinding referendum regarding the Clinton landfill, a tight state's attorney's race, a five-way run-off for the circuit clerk's position and three contested County Board races.

Voters will be asked if they favor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approving Clinton Landfill Inc.'s application to site a chemical waste landfill in DeWitt County.

In September, the DeWitt County Board supported a plan for the landfill owners to apply for a permit to store waste with a concentration of greater than 50 parts per million of PCBs, which are a blend of chemical compounds used in a variety of industrial products. The U.S. EPA has identified polychlorinated biphenyls as probable cancer-causing substances.

A local group opposed the plan and asked the County Board to place a non-binding referendum on the ballot to gauge the wishes of residents. WATCH (We're Against Toxic Chemicals) began soliciting each of the county's townships to place the referendum on the ballot before receiving the OK from the county board in a 6-5 decision.

Although the referendum is non-binding, an overwhelming vote against the plan to obtain a permit could have an impact at the local level. The county technically has no say in the approval process, but board Chairman Steve Lobb said the board could reconsider the resolution of support that was unanimously approved in September.

"If the results from the referendum indicate the voters are resounding in their opposition to the permit, then I think we owe it to the voters to revisit our support of that resolution," Lobb said. "I don't think we have any choice if we want to be fair to our constituents. Now, I'm only one board member of 12, and in the end, we won't have any say in the matter anyway because the federal Environmental Protection Agency will make the decision. But I think we will at least discuss whether or not we want to discuss our stance on it if the vote dictates that."

That would be another victory for WATCH President Matt Varble. Earlier this month, state Rep. Bill Mitchell introduced legislation to give voters a say in the process by requiring all such permits to be approved through a binding referendum. However, that bill will not be acted upon until late spring.

"We need to show solidarity and fully unify on Election Day by telling our elected representatives and Area Disposal that the placement of a toxic chemical waste landfill above the Mahomet Aquifer is not an acceptable risk," Varble said.

The landfill sits near the aquifer, which serves as a source of drinking water for several area communities.

Other races

With Jerry Johnson's decision to not run for a third term for the state's attorney's office, Republican voters will have the choice between current assistant Andrew Killian and former State's Attorney Richard "Dick" Koritz. Killian has been Johnson's assistant since 2003 and Koritz served a term as DeWitt County State's Attorney from 1996 to 2000.

The five candidates running for the Circuit Clerk's position are Lori Berger, Mindy Sessions, Pam Barnes, Carlene Blue and Leon Owens. All are registered as Republicans.

There are three contested county board races. Republican incumbent Chuck Moore faces a challenge from newcomer Democrat Dennis Rich in District A. In District B, incumbents Ed Young and David Newberg, both Republicans, face a challenge from Democrat Dana Evans. In District C, Democrat newcomer David Taylor will try to unseat incumbent Republican Larry Martin.

---

FYI

What: Clinton Landfill advisory referendum

The question: "Are you in favor of the United States Environmental Protection Agency approving Clinton Landfill, Inc's application to site a chemical waste landfill in DeWitt County?"

What it means to you: The county would benefit financially if the permit is approved. County officials contend that if it fails, other revenue streams may be investigated in future years.

If it fails: The County Board may revisit their support of a resolution in support of the permit.

When it would take effect: The EPA will make the final decision. That decision is estimated to be two or three years away.