Residents Have Suffered Enough From Landfill

* Josette McGlynn perpetuates misinformation and draws incorrect conclusions in her Sept. 24 letter, “Closing Lopez Canyon Would Waste Money.”

First, $100 million of taxpayers’ money was not used to develop capacity in the landfill. Three-fourths of that money was spent bringing the landfill into compliance with minimum environmental, health and safety standards for the existing dump. About $24 million was spent excavating space for trash. Irresponsibly, a substantial portion of that $24 million was spent excavating more capacity than needed for the five-year permit that expires in February.

Second, there is not five years worth of capacity left at the landfill. The $24-million investment in capacity has been eaten up far more quickly than had been expected as a result of earthquake debris. The critical fact is that Lopez is scheduled to close soon, and the issue of negotiating with privately operated landfills is before us now.

As a result of a Request for Proposals I initiated in 1994, about seven alternative disposal proposals of five to 15 years are available to the city. It would be foolish and irresponsible for the city to pass up these offers, keep Lopez open until it absolutely must close, then be at the mercy of private landfills in just a few years.

Last, the letter states that “we are told that Lopez Canyon will be closed prematurely.” This is simply not the case. The permits for Lopez Landfill expire in February. Residents of the northeast San Fernando Valley were promised that the landfill would close then. An attempt is being made by the Bureau of Sanitation to extend the operating life of the dump, but that’s because they never made the effort to identify alternatives.

Residents of the northeast Valley have suffered enough from living near the dump for 20 years. Some proposals before us have little or no impact on any neighborhood. It is not clear that any of these proposals would be more expensive than Lopez, since we can never get straight answers from the bureau regarding its cost of operation. But even if it does cost a bit more, closing Lopez and opting for a better alternative would be the right thing to do.

RICHARD ALARCON

Council member, Los Angeles District 7