Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, June 19, 1993 TAG: 9306280268
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ANDY KEGLEY
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Approaches to solving this dilemma have been multifaceted, expensive, contradictory and finally are reaching the sorting-out stage. The rationale local governments used to arrive at their decisions has been underreported. In Southwest Virginia, taxpayers deserve an accounting of these decisions.
The perception is that Salem City Council has tweaked regional cooperation on the nose in signing a contract to haul its municipal solid waste more than 100 miles east to a private landfill in Amelia County, rather than pay $15 a ton more for the in-county public-landfill alternative under construction at Smith's Gap.
However, reality is that what Salem has done is similar to the actions of most local Southwest Virginia governments, which amounts to nothing less than a win-win-win situation - financially, politically and environmentally.
I base this conclusion on the fact that our county is one of those in the same position. Why Wythe County signed a contract recently with a privately run landfill near Winston-Salem is instructive, not only to Wythe County taxpayers but to those in the broader region who have bucked the original advice offered by engineers, legal consultants and environmentalists.
The Roanoke Valley has committed to a massive $30 million-plus project for the ambitious rail haul and landfill there. But only four counties out of 17 west of Roanoke are opting to seek permits for in-county public landfills. This is not to say that all the rest of us didn't first exhaust the in-county possibility, at tremendous expense to taxpayers.
When I first took a seat on the county board 3 1/2 years ago, the significance of solid-waste issues was just emerging. We had a citizens' landfill-siting committee hard at work scouring Wythe and Bland counties in search of a suitable site. We had the far-off goal of needing a solution by October 1993, when more stringent federal guidelines would kick in. We had a good engineering firm assisting us, and were like most other counties, looking internally but talking regional cooperation.
Forty sites were narrowed to one; engineering tests on the soil, bedrock and ground water were all conducted and options procured. By early 1992, the first part of the required two-part state application was submitted to Richmond.
Financially, we were into our in-county site to the tune of $300,000, but all in paper work and testing.
Politically, we had already heard from citizens opposed to the landfill being sited in their backyard, and rumors circulated about rare, endangered shrimp living in a nearby cave.
And environmentally, we thought we had the best site in the county, all things considered. Because of the underlying limestone bedrock, and the accompanying shallow, unfiltered ground water, we realized how expensive it might be to construct a landfill in this hilly area. We realized we couldn't assure taxpayers of the future costs associated with the project in an area basically not as well suited for landfill construction as other sites not very far away. With only 80 tons of trash per day from our two-county service area, we realized that our landfill design and infrastructure cost wouldn't be that different from a landfill accommodating 800 tons per day, or 8,000 tons.
So, we asked ourselves how badly we wanted to own and operate an in-county public landfill. The answer came in responses to our advertisements seeking private, out-of-county disposal alternatives. Although there is some merit to the argument that building many, smaller landfills is a better way of spreading around the risks associated with solid wastes, the opposite is as true. Building fewer, larger landfills, and trusting the current technology to contain and treat leachate, will mean that properly managed and regulated private landfills should pose no greater risks than the smaller, publicly operated landfills.
Our two-county public-service authority had actually negotiated with two major players in the solid-waste business. When talks broke down, and learning that a better deal was obtainable at an out-of-state landfill (once the Supreme Court reaffirmed interstate transportation of solid waste last year), we re-advertised. As a result, we have a contract for hauling and disposing of our trash at $35.50 per ton. And we have a cost-of-living escalator clause built in and the option to renew the contract for two more five-year installments. We think these are assurances above and beyond any we could give our businesses and taxpayers had we maintained the financially, politically and environmentally expensive route we originally had taken.
This is the right thing, especially in the short run, as we are beating the costs for closer landfills by upwards of $20 per ton, similar to Salem's deal.
Two points of interest related to pending federal legislation and regulation reform deserve comment. As most Southwest counties are shipping out of the region to private landfills, there is a degree of irony about legislation being pushed by 9th District Congressman Rick Boucher. While we are grateful that future landfills will need local-government approval for receiving out-of-state trash (should the legislation be approved), local governments are depending themselves on exactly that sort of landfill. Too much of a good thing might return local governments to building expensive landfills in our own backyards.
And with another congressional initiative, extending the Environmental Protection Agency's deadline for implementing new landfill standards beyond October, those local governments that have worked diligently and at great expense to comply with the original deadline may have done so in vain. While money might be saved by operating an existing landfill under a variance or extension, we can rest easier with the assurance that our solid waste will be disposed of in a lined landfill, complete with ground-water monitoring and leachate collection.
As the short run pans out to the long run, I believe these contracts will still be a sound decision. But the economics of transferring millions of dollars a year of previously circulated in-county money could pose a future problem. The basis for this is that over the past century, Appalachia has witnessed several devastating and well-documented flights of resources. First, coal was mined, followed shortly by the depletion of our timber resources. And in decades following World War II, people - our most valuable resource - fled looking for better economic prosperity in nearby urban centers. Strip mining of coal brought further resource depletion through the '60s and '70s. Then, oddly enough, a reversal: Solid waste was actively imported into our area from Northern industrial states - again, with little or no local benefit.
Time will tell whether the in-county public or out-of-county and out-of-state private solution is the wiser move.
\ AUTHOR Andy Kegley, news editor for the Bland Messenger, is a member of the Wythe County Board of Supervisors and chairman of the Wythe-Bland Joint Public Service Authority.
by CNB