The Landfill that Won’t Die

By Editor | July 14, 2026 |

The Landfill that Won’t Die

Cumberland Clear, Rock Properties files another suit against Roberta

By Shane Gilreath
SCN Contributing Editor
[email protected]

After more than a year of dealings on the proposed Roberta II landfill – and each body of the Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC) voting to support litigation – a new lawsuit has been filed over the controversial waste management project. The suit, the first of two filed this week, is brought by Cumberland Clear and Rock Properties International, thus intensifying a citizen-led fight surrounding the project that has given rise to deep environmental and public health concerns in both Tennessee and Kentucky.
The first of the two lawsuits filed last week in a Davidson County Chancery Court was a joint venture that ultimately requests a declaratory judgment concerning the landfill’s permitting process. The suit follows an earlier Chancery Court challenge filed by Rock Properties and its proprietors Michelle and Ralph Trieschmann. That suit remains pending. The Scott-McCreary Environmental Coalition (SMEC) has filed to become a party to that particular case (see article A1).
At the core of the Cumberland Clear, Rock Properties request is whether Tennessee laws ultimately allow a landfill permit that was issued in 2010 for a project that was never constructed to be revived through the recertification process despite expirations, outdated engineering plans, and significant changes to the site itself. According to the complaint, the Roberta permit was contingent upon obtaining an Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP), which was originally issued in 2012 but expired in 2017 without construction ever beginning on the landfill. Sixteen years after the original permit’s approval, opponents argue that there is effectively no valid, lawful permit for TDEC to recertify. In fact, that ARAP was denied by TDEC in April 2026, but currently sits under appeal.
In the complaint filed by Nashville Attorney Elizabeth Murphy, who has long represented Cumberland Clear, the plaintiffs claim that Tennessee’s recertification rules were intended for immediate projects with a delay of roughly a year and not for projects that have been dormant for more than a decade. It’s been an argument long made against the project.
As the future of Roberta lingers in the balance, the landfill proposal remains one the most contentious issue to hit Scott County in recent memory, generating vocal opposition and citizen activism from residents throughout both Tennessee and Kentucky. Their concerns are driven largely by fears over public health, environmental impact, the economic effect that Roberta could have on local economies and the tourism industry that both states have long struggled to build.
Many of those same concerns led governments in Scott County – both county and city – and the McCreary County Fiscal Court to publicly oppose the project, forming SMEC. The Oneida Industrial Development board and the Scott County Chamber of Commerce have also publicly opposed Roberta. The McCreary County Tourist Commission has also issued a public objection directly to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC).
The McCreary County Tourist Commission’s statement of non-support, which passed the board in July 2025,specifically cited fears that the project would denigrate the tourism industry, despite a recent rebranding of Roberta as a family friendly ecology park: degradation to the environment, economic harm to local businesses, and reputational risk that could do permanent damage to local tourism. The statement cited, in part, “the irreversible consequences this development could pose to our environment, economy, and community image.” It went on to say, “We remain committed to supporting initiatives that enhance, not diminish, McCreary County’s appeal as a tourism destination in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”
Those concerns are not without merit. The proposed site sits atop headwaters that ultimately flow toward the Big South Fork watershed, which contain a slew of protected species, and runs into the Big South Fork, recognized as a Kentucky Wild River under the state’s guidelines, as well as Outstanding Natural Resource Water by both states. Residents have feared that any future contamination from landfill runoff would move downstream into McCreary County’s water supply while simultaneously threatening one of the region’s most valuable economic assets, the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BSFNRRA). McCreary County’s largest tourism draw, Big South Fork Scenic Railway, runs as a concessionaire, taking the historic Kentucky & Tennessee Railway tracks into the National Park.
BSFNRRA itself attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors annually across the two states for hiking, horseback riding, paddling, camping, and outdoor recreation, serving as a cornerstone of the tourism economies of both Scott and McCreary Counties. As a result, the Roberta II issue has attracted the attention of the National Park Service, which issued a strongly worded letter expressing serious concerns about the landfill’s potential impact.
Despite those objections, the developers behind Roberta II continue to pursue the project and maintain their claim to the Scott County site, irrespective of local outrage.
As previously reported by SCN, additional streams, wetlands, ponds, and water features have been discovered on the site since the original engineering work was completed in 2010. That alone makes up a portion of the argument against the project’s ARAP. Because of that, earlier this year, TDEC determined that the project would require a new ARAP application after citing newly documented streams, changes in site conditions, and changes in environmental regulations that have occurred during the previous sixteen years. Despite those claims, the state has continued to treat the original landfill permit as if it’s eligible for recertification, and it’s that position that now finds itself being challenged in court.
“Our goal has always been simple, make sure the law is followed,” Jennifer Shockley, President of Cumberland Clear, told SCN in a statement. “When projects of this size affect our families, property owners, businesses, and natural resources, the public deserves a transparent process that follows Tennessee law.”
Shockley, who is running for Scott County Mayor, told SCN that her organization seeks transparency in the process and that lawfulness is the rule of the game.
“This case is about ensuring that Tennessee’s environmental laws are applied as written and that the permitting process remains transparent, lawful, and accountable,” Shockley said. “The complaint raises important legal questions that extend beyond Scott County and could affect how other long-dormant landfill permits are handled across the state.”
According to a statement from Cumberland Clear, the organization remains committed to protecting the Big South Fork region, preserving the Cumberland Plateau’s natural resources, supporting responsible economic development, and ensuring that decisions affecting local communities comply fully with state law.
The fight over the project has also spilled into the legislative arena in Nashville, where legislators attempted to block the landfill development through House Bill 2202. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kelly Keisling, a Republican, and Rep. Justin Jones, a Democrat, would have expanded scenic river protections to the entire Big South Fork of the Cumberland River in Scott County, designating it a Class II Pastoral River Area and adding it to the Tennessee Scenic Rivers system. However, the legislation stalled in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee after committee chairman Rep. Chris Todd halted the first vote,at a time when SCN is assured the bill had the votes to pass committee. The vote failed a week when Todd finally called the vote, prompting heavy local criticism for Todd and the waste industry lobbyists who took on the issue.

While future legislation remains an option, such measures currently find themselves on the back-burner, as the project and various lawsuits meander through the court system, leaving both landfill proponents and opponents awaiting court decisions and TDEC’s action on the ARAP appeal.