Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 26, 1991 TAG: 9102260409
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Eighteen additional months, he said, can be used for better solid-waste planning as well as for spreading out the cost of compliance.
To environmentalists, 18 months' delay means 18 months' more leakage and runoff from landfills that lack adequate protections.
"There are still some poorly constructed landfills out there in Virginia," says Cynthia Bailey, director of the state's Department of Waste Management. "The sooner we can get them out . . . and into modern facilities, the better we can prevent ground-water pollution, surface-water pollution, methane, the whole gamut."
Bailey says her agency already has authority to grant variances for economic hardship on a case-by-case basis; it isn't necessary to give one to everybody by legislative fiat. So why did the General Assembly do it?
Sen. Virgil Goode, D-Rocky Mount, author of the bill granting the delay, cites the financial factor: "The counties were told they were going to get money for public education and other areas that they're not getting." Localities are pleading that they can't afford to do everything because of cutbacks in state aid.
That kind of plea carries weight in the legislature, where Goode's bill passed both houses by large margins. It goes to the heart of a dilemma in government relations these days: The state, like the federal government, continues to issue mandates without providing the funds to pay for compliance. The mandates are mostly wise, but local governments have no one to pass the costs onto, except taxpayers.
In tight budget times, delay is pragmatic for politicians and convenient for localities. It begs, however, the question of safety: If the regulations are sound and needed now, delay doesn't make them less so. Local governments have known about the July 1, 1992, deadline for more than two years.
Indeed, compliance can involve more than money. Local officials plan to open a landfill at Smith Gap in western Roanoke County in 1993. Meantime, there is the existing (and rapidly filling) site, which must accommodate more than 800 tons of trash a day, and its operation must be stretched until the new landfill is available.
Kit Kiser, director of utilities for Roanoke and a member of the regional landfill board, said a variance had been sought from the 1992 regulations for a section of the existing landfill. Why? Because, he said, it has been difficult to get the state's approval for plans to put the regulations into effect.
The Roanoke operation is considered well-run. Has it not done its homework this time? Or is this a case of bureaucratic foot-dragging? Whatever, the Goode bill pleases Kiser.
It may not please some smaller localities that have been working hard to meet the deadline; had they known the General Assembly would be so accommodating, they might have saved energy and money.
Deadlines need not be graven in stone - especially when the legislature refuses to help reduce everyone's solid waste by passing a bottle bill. But neither should they be written on water.
Given this precedent, unless there's dramatic improvement in the economy and the fiscal situation, in a year or so some local officials will be asking for yet another delay. The governor could do worse than veto this one.
by CNB