Landfill Conclusions

I am writing in response to the Sept. 9 editorial, “Planners’ Rejection of N. County Landfill Sites Is Far Too Hasty.” The editorial was written as if the County Planning Commission held a meeting on Aug. 31 and rejected the three north county landfill sites and the EIR after a brief hearing. In fact, the Planning Commission held three hearings over several months totaling about 15 hours of testimony and deliberations. During that time they heard from more than 200 speakers and reviewed more than 2,000 pages of information. Much of the public testimony in opposition was well researched and brought forward troubling questions.

As for the EIR, its length or number of years in preparation is not important. The question is: Does it address all of the important issues? This EIR is not complete. It fails to adequately address such issues as health risks at the Aspen Road Site, potential ground water impacts, and sources of cover dirt. In some cases, letters expressing public concerns received insulting responses in the EIR.

Also the method used to reduce a list of 168 possible dump sites to three finalists is questionable, especially the requirement that a site have a minimum size of 30 million cubic yards. Would a better criteria be that landfills should be downstream of dams and near to urban areas even if they are small to medium in size?

The Planning Commission’s decision wasn’t “hasty” or without basis.

Soon the Board of Supervisors will hear the landfill issue. The board is made up of very good people who are committed to site a North County landfill. Whether they choose from the three proposed sites or direct staff to look for smaller sites that are closer to urban areas, as is being done in the East County landfill study, I have confidence in their decision making ability.

GORDON SHACKELFORD

El Cajon