State Agency Had to Restrict Landfill, Observers Say

The state’s decision to crack down on Lopez Canyon Landfill was far from the blanket endorsement of the status quo anticipated by the dump’s operator and many of its angry northeast San Fernando Valley neighbors.

But state legislators, lobbyists and other observers of the California Waste Management Board say the board’s July 7 order--to immediately reduce the landfill’s height, size and the number of trucks dumping there daily--was the predictable response of a state agency under siege.

“They did the only thing they could do, because everybody is watching,” said Hy Weitzman, executive vice president of the California Refuse Removal Council, a lobbying organization for trash haulers and handlers.

The board’s action surprised the city of Los Angeles, which runs the landfill and dumps two-thirds of the city’s residential trash there. Yet perhaps no one was more stunned than Rob Zapple, a Kagel Canyon resident who has been one of the dump’s most outspoken opponents. In the past, Zapple claimed, the board had ignored his complaints.

‘Really Confusing’

“It’s great news but it’s really confusing for us,’ Zapple said after learning of the state action. “It’s all the things we’ve been saying for so long--they’re finally giving some credence to them.”

Political scrutiny of the board has increased during the past year, ignited, some say, by the realization that California is running out of places to put its trash.

So far, the outcome of that scrutiny has been a Little Hoover Commission report harshly critical of the board’s alleged lack of leadership in recycling and the drafting of legislation that calls for an overhaul of the board.

Some critics hope to turn the current wave of disapproval into a death knell for the board.

“We’re trying right now to pull the plug on them, basically,” said Rod Miller, legislative director for Californians Against Waste.

Environmental lobbyists such as Miller have long maintained that the board has been too cozy with waste haulers and dump operators while overlooking the fears and problems of the public. They point to a past board chairman who left after questions arose about whether his financial ties to industry had influenced his votes.

Pending Bills

Pending bills by Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) and state Sen. Marion Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) seek to limit the number of board members who may have direct links to the waste industry. At present, at least two members must come from the industry, but there is no upper limit.

Many of the allegations against past board members remain unsubstantiated, according to the Little Hoover Commission report released earlier this month. But the report states that regardless of the validity of those allegations, “the potential of a conflict and common perception that there is a conflict” have eroded public faith in the board.

Board spokesman Chris Peck denied that the board has favored industry in its past votes, and he disputed claims that the board now has turned against dump operators because of the criticism.

Review of Permits

But as assaults on the board’s track record grew, its staff began a review of permits for the more than 300 landfills in the state. Peck said many of the permits, including Lopez Canyon’s, were several years out of date. Under state law, permits are supposed to be reviewed and updated every five years. Lopez Canyon was operating with a 1978 permit.

Attention soon focused on Lopez Canyon, Peck said, partly because of “the vociferous nature of local residents and their elected officials.”

All year, Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) and Assemblywoman Marian W. La Follette (R-Northridge) have corresponded regularly with the state board about perceived problems at the dump, as did Zapple and other du p ne ghbors.

Onto this political battlefield wandered Los Angeles city officials.

So confident were they of smooth sailing through a revision of the dump’s 1978 permit that the only change they asked for was an increase in the volume of trash allowed--from 8,000 tons a month, which apparently was a typographical error and never reflected reality, to the current load of 4,000 tons a day.

They did not bother to mention other fundamental changes in landfill operations since the permit was issued 11 years ago.

City Belief

That, said Deputy City Atty. Christopher M. Westhoff, is because for years the city believed that a description of landfill operations submitted to the state in a 1983 engineering report, which more closely reflects today’s operations, had become part of the permit. He said the board staff contributed to that belief.

“As late as May, we have documents from their staff that they intended to roll the 1983 limits into the permit,” Westhoff said. “Then there was an about-face. They just changed the rules on us.”

Peck acknowledges that the board was “not as diligent as it should have been” at reviewing permits over the years. But he said that three years ago staff members began questioning Los Angeles about its reliance on the 1983 limits.

City officials say their first indication that board attitudes may have changed was the July 7 order, contained in a letter to the agency that polices Lopez Canyon for the state: the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services.

The letter asked the county to force the city to scale back operations at the dump to levels approved in its 1978 permit: 400 trucks a day instead of up to 600, a maximum elevation of 1,725 feet instead of 1,760 and dump boundaries within a 140-acre area of the 392-acre site.

Cause Closing

The city claims those limits would cause the dump to close within a year and is fighting the order in Los Angeles Superior Court. The next hearing on the case is set for Aug. 4.

But Peck said the board’s concern about Lopez Canyon was heightened even earlier--in March--when two landfill workers fainted after unearthing toxic gas. Dump opponents, too, believe that may have been the turning point in their years-long struggle to get state officials to acknowledge problems at the landfill.

“My God, we had people injured. There was no way it could be ignored,” said Lewis Snow, vice president of the Lake View Terrace Home Owners Assn. “It was very advantageous for us. . . . If that had not happened, perhaps we would not be at the point we are today.”

Even after the new state order arrived, however, city officials held out hope that they would be able to persuade the board to be more lenient during its July meeting in Sacramento.

Restrictions Reiterated

Instead, at the meeting July 14, they received a reiteration of the letter’s restrictions and a reduction of their 4,000-ton request to 3,100 tons.

“When we got to the meeting it was cut-and-dried,” said Edward Avila, president of the city Board of Public Works. “The feeling was it was a done deal.”

That rebuff fresh in their memories, Los Angeles city officials now fear that they may face a similar reaction to their plans for doubling the size of Lopez Canyon and extending its life span beyond 1992.

Peck said review of that proposal will not be prejudiced by the current controversy.

But Delwin A. Biagi, director of the city Bureau of Sanitation, told the City Council last week, “I do not consider the waste management board has much sympathy for the city of Los Angeles’ problems right now.”