Comparing Chiquita, Elsmere Landfills

* Re: “Why do landfill opponents care so much about Elsmere and so little about Chiquita?” (Valley Perspective, Oct. 22.)

As general manager of the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, I may be able to help answer the question. First, one must understand that state law mandates the county have at least 15 years of accessible disposal capacity. According to Jack Michaels, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, the county currently does not meet this mandate, and could face daily disposal capacity shortfalls as early as 1999. Decision-makers, even local ones, are aware of the need for disposal capacity. For many, expanding Chiquita Canyon (and building recycling facilities there) is a necessary step in complying with the law.

Second, a comparison of Elsmere and Chiquita is needed. The Elsmere site would occupy 2,700 acres, 1,643 of which would be removed from the Angeles National Forest. Chiquita Canyon occupies only 592 acres on privately owned property. Elsmere would use 720 acres for disposal, Chiquita Canyon just 337 acres.

There also is tremendous disparity in the environmental impacts of the proposed projects. According to the environmental report on Elsmere, the project would have 20 significant environmental impacts in seven different areas (even after incorporating mitigation measures) including permanent loss of sensitive biological resources, such as oak trees and a wildlife corridor. Elsmere’s mark on the landscape would greet all freeway travelers entering the Santa Clarita Valley. At Chiquita Canyon, there are no precious oak trees or sensitive animal habitats. With mitigations, Chiquita Canyon has only four significant environmental impacts in two areas: air quality and landform alteration. These impacts would likely occur regardless of the landfill’s location in Los Angeles County. At Chiquita Canyon, however, the air quality impacts will not pose any unreasonable risk to any community, according to South Coast Air Quality Management District standards; and because of how we’ve designed the landfill, it will not be visible to our neighbors in Val Verde.

While no one can predict how Elsmere would be operated, we can point to a very respectable record at Chiquita Canyon. The landfill undergoes monthly and annual inspections by regulatory agencies to ensure regulatory compliance. The results show that Chiquita Canyon has been a well-operated, safe landfill.

You conclude that decision-makers may care less about the community of Val Verde than Santa Clarita. That is certainly not the position of Laidlaw Waste Systems. The concerns of all our neighbors are important to us. We have been conducting a thorough bilingual public participation program. We have held 44 meetings with residents, conducted 18 presentations and 15 site tours, and hosted a public workshop. Laidlaw also produced a Spanish translation of the executive summary of the project’s draft environmental impact report, and has offered to assist the local community through a special agreement with the Castaic Union School District. It’s not that people care more or care less. I firmly believe that community and business leaders have acted responsibly, investigating and understanding the differences between the two projects, including the concerns of the community. They also recognize the need for solid waste disposal solutions and will not just say “not in my back yard” to the expansion and building of recycling facilities at Chiquita Canyon. Therein lies an answer to your question.

RODNEY WALTER II

Valencia

Walter is general manager, Chiquita Canyon Landfill .