Long-Term Problems of Garbage Disposal

Two articles (Editorial Pages, May 8), “Soon No Site Will Be Off-Limits for Garbage Disposal,” by Terry B. Friedman and Marian W. LaFollette, and (Editorial Pages, May 18), “Garbage Imperialism Must Stop,” by David Morris, paint a confusing picture about responsibilities and alternatives for long-term solid waste disposal.

Assembly members Friedman (D-Los Angeles) and LaFollette (R-Northridge) present the opinion that the only effective solution to waste disposal problems is to place future landfills in remote areas. On the other hand, Morris argues that the answer lies in mandatory close-in disposal. As Times readers should know by now, neither is an especially satisfactory solution in the South Coast Basin.

Residents of the South Coast Basin have been particularly barraged by public debate over where and how to manage the area’s long-term waste disposal. Like similar debates going on all over the country about waste disposal, Los Angeles’ debate is emotionally charged and the participants are prone to embellish the facts to suit their arguments.

Even our elected officials are susceptible to such temptation. Friedman and LaFollette see landfills as “seething caldron(s) . . . (from which) some of the most toxic substances known are creeping into the ground water.” Such statements are not based on fact. They are simply histrionic crowd-baiting aimed at turning public opinion toward the authors’ position.

The authors attribute such “conditions” to an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to waste disposal. At best, their solution--to ship the waste to remote areas for disposal--would perpetuate such blind-sightedness. The very landfill operations Friedman and LaFollette seek to curtail were once remote from public use and development; but, their location alone couldn’t protect them from the pressures of urbanization.

Friedman and LaFollete would have the Legislature prohibit disposal facilities in certain areas. Morris takes the opposite view: He would require all waste to be disposed of within 10 miles of where it’s generated.

This would certainly inspire the fish-or-cut-bait approach advocated by many local jurisdictions that insist that their neighbors should provide a fair share of the area’s waste disposal capacity. Yet, the solution doesn’t seem practical in Los Angeles where, in a distance of 10 miles, you’ve passed through half a dozen jurisdictions and, quite likely, still haven’t come upon enough open space to accommodate a disposal site.

Since 1972, California counties have maintained solid waste management plans that are supposed to detail disposal plans and facilities 20 years into the future. Los Angeles has such a plan. And, even though efforts to get officials in Los Angeles County to agree on the specifics of future waste disposal operations haven’t always been productive, the responsibility for those decisions should stay at the local level.

It’s hard enough to find and develop suitable areas for waste disposal in California. State law already rests the prime responsibility for waste management on local government. Let’s not tie the hands of local officials by trying to dictate where such facilities can or cannot be placed.

Recently, the resource recovery plant proposed in Irwindale by Pacific Waste Management was abandoned. Opponents of the project, including many small cities in the San Gabriel Valley, hailed the action as a major victory and vowed to renew their battle against other projects. Indeed, if similar proposals (Puente Hills, Spadra, and Lancer) are aborted and if future landfilling is prohibited in areas (Santa Monica Mountains and Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor) that now accept nearly one-half of metropolitan Los Angeles’ waste, the county will find itself up the proverbial creek.

Islip, N.Y., tried to find a home for 3,000 tons of garbage. Once. Los Angeles generates 42,000 tons of garbage. Every day.

SHERMAN E. ROODZANT

Chairman, California Waste

Management Board

Sacramento