Dump Debate : City, County Clash at Sunshine Canyon

Where to put a city’s trash is a tricky question. No one wants to live next to a garbage dump. Los Angeles County residents produce more than 50,000 tons of trash every day--20,000 tons more per day than 20 years ago.

But over the same 20-year period, the number of major public landfills open to take that trash has dwindled from 16 to eight.

Battles over landfills across the county have been bitter affairs, often pitting residents against local officials and dump operators. Over the past 10 years, just such a fight has been waged in the northern San Fernando Valley over the future of Sunshine Canyon Landfill.

*

“Everybody wants us to pick up their trash on trash day. The problem is that no one wants us to put it down again. We can’t just drive around with it all day. . . . Like it or not, landfilling is the best technology available today.”

--Arnie Berghoff, spokesman for Browning-Ferris Industries Inc.

*

“Sunshine Canyon represents an almost unique oak woodlands conifer forest in Southern California. Although many of the trees have come down, much of the forest is left. For that reason, tearing it down for the purpose of putting trash in it is almost an obscenity.”

--Rosemary Woodlock, attorney for the North Valley Coalition of Concerned Citizens

WHAT’S AT STAKE

Browning-Ferris Industries Inc., one of the country’s largest waste-management companies, has permission from Los Angeles County to expand its now-closed garbage dump in a sensitive oak woodland north of Granada Hills.

The dump site straddles the line between Los Angeles city and county, but the expansion would take place only on county territory. The city portion of the dump, opened in 1954, has been closed since 1991.

Work on the county portion has been delayed due to various court challenges by dump opponents. If it is ultimately allowed to open, the dump will accept as much as 6,000 tons of trash per day.

Nearby residents as well as Los Angeles city officials say the landfill should not reopen. Opponents say that when the dump was in operation they were inundated with wind-blown bits of trash and dust. They also fear that if the dump is reopened, it could threaten the city’s water supply at Van Norman Reservoir, about two miles southeast of the dump.

ALTERNATIVES

Landfill opponents argue that alternatives to dumping in nearby canyons should be pursued. Trash can be burned in clean-burning incinerators, but proposals to build such facilities have been killed by protests from neighbors and environmentalists.

Proposals to haul trash by rail to remote locations have gained popularity in recent years, but costs are extremely high and some environmentalists argue that it simply fouls new areas.

TURF WARS

Even if the landfill ultimately gets built, trucks from the city of Los Angeles may be prohibited from dumping there. Because city officials refused to allow the dump to expand, county officials retaliated by imposing a condition that trucks carrying city trash could dump at the site for just 18 months. After that, they would be excluded.

Now, city officials argue that Browning-Ferris needs a special city permit to use an internal road to get to the county portion of the dump. County officials and Browning-Ferris dispute the city’s claim.

If the city agrees to drop its legal challenges to the project, it may be permitted to dump its trash at Sunshine Canyon.

A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1954: Sunshine Canyon Landfill opens.

1975: Browning-Ferris takes over the facility.

1984: Browning-Ferris proposes to expand the landfill’s capacity by 70 million tons.

February, 1991: The Board of Supervisors scales back the plan to 17 million tons and approves the expansion. The city and a coalition of neighborhood groups sue to overturn the decision.

September, 1991: The City Council refuses to renew the dump’s operating permit.

March, 1992: A judge rules that Browning-Ferris should have included information about past health and zoning violations at the dump in its environmental documentation and orders the county to have environmental experts review the project.

July, 1992: Supervisors again approve the project and opponents again take the issue to court.

October, 1992: A judge again refuses to allow the project to move forward, saying the public did not have adequate time to review new information provided by Browning-Ferris and the county.

November, 1993: The Board of Supervisors approves the project for a third time. Opponents again file legal challenges.

June, 1994: A county oversight committee allows construction to begin, but a judge halts it days later so she can review the objections of opponents. A hearing on whether to extend the work stoppage is scheduled for Aug. 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The dump would cover 215 acres. Construction will require the removal of 2,850 oak trees, but Browning-Ferris is required to replace those on a 2-to-1 basis. The company will also dedicate 950 acres for use as parkland.

*

Sources: Browning-Ferris Industries Inc.; L.A. County Dept. of Public Works; Research by AARON CURTISS / Los Angeles Times