Monday, January 31, 2011

Political Lunacy - Carl Luna's observations on California politics

October 17, 2004
Local ballot propositions from A to Zzzzz

With Proposition B, county voters get to deal with Gumby's mean kid brother, NIMBY (e.g. Not In My Back Yard). Supporters of Proposition B argue that continuing with plans to put a landfill in Gregory Canyon – plans that voters approved by 70 percent a decade ago – will diminish their quality of life. Opponents argue the only quality of life at risk is that of gamblers who would have to share the road on their way to a local casino with big trash trucks heading to the landfill. Unless you want go through the nightmare of finding another landfill site – perhaps the Children's Pool in La Jolla? – then you might want to vote No on B, and let the trash trucks roll.

Letters to the editor

October 10, 2004

Common sense tells us that we must 'own up' to our disposable way of life. It seems hypocritical that those who support Proposition B, which halts the development of a regulated, safe, landfill and recycling center in North County, are the very same folks who own a gambling casino that generates tons upon tons of garbage each year. I am thankful to those who are willing to go through the enormously daunting process of environmental impact studies and plan approvals required by our county so that I will have an environmentally safe disposal site. 

Vote no on Proposition B. 


Landfill fight a costly proposition | Pala Band opposes Gregory Canyon site; [2,6,7 Edition]

Elizabeth FitzsimonsThe San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Oct 8, 2004. pg. B.3

Gregory Canyon Ltd
Elizabeth Fitzsimons
Column Name:
Publication title:
The San Diego Union - Tribune. San Diego, Calif.: Oct 8, 2004.  pg. B.3
Source type:
ProQuest document ID:
Text Word Count
Document URL: VType=PQD&sid=3&index=9&SrchMode=1&Fmt=3&did=000000710222191 &clientId=9477

Abstract (Document Summary)
The deep-pocketed investors who have spent $20 million over the past decade to develop the controversial Gregory Canyon Landfill in Pala have met their match: the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the major financial backers behind Proposition B on the Nov. 2 ballot.

The money the tribe has reported spending is four times what the landfill developers spent in 1994 on mailers favoring Proposition C, which changed county zoning to allow a landfill in Gregory Canyon. The turnaround is a dramatic reflection of the political power the tribe has gained through its prosperous casino, which opened in 2001. Gregory Canyon Ltd., an investment partnership, is intent on not wasting the millions it has spent developing the landfill.

The landfill developers say it would be a quarter-mile from the edge of the aquifer and that its state-of-the-art liner would make it the safest in the state. They also say the Pala Band is motivated by concerns about its casino, which is on the other side of Gregory Mountain from the landfill site.
Full Text (765   words)
Editions vary

The fight over a proposed landfill in a little-known North County canyon is a battle of titans that will rank as the most expensive ballot measure in county history.

The deep-pocketed investors who have spent $20 million over the past decade to develop the controversial Gregory Canyon Landfill in Pala have met their match: the Pala Band of Mission Indians, the major financial backers behind Proposition B on the Nov. 2 ballot.

The two sides have spent a total of $2.8 million so far, according to the most recent campaign financial statements, and more spending is certain. Both sides say they will spend whatever it takes.
"It's in a league all its own. That's an unprecedented amount of money in a local initiative," said political consultant Jennifer Tierney.

Documents filed this week with the county Registrar of Voters show the campaign for Proposition B, which would overturn a 1994 measure allowing a landfill in Gregory Canyon, spent just over $2 million through Sept. 30 to persuade county voters that it is the wrong place for a dump.

"This is not about money spent. It's about education," said Dennis Lhota, spokesman for San Diegans for Clean Drinking Water, the pro-B campaign.

"Our side is prepared to spend as much money as necessary to educate the people . . . so they can make an informed decision."

The pro-landfill side, Citizens for Environmental Solutions, has spent about $800,000 and says it plans to spend much more.

"We're on track to spend about 2 1/2 million. We haven't spent it all yet, but that's what we've been planning on spending," said Richard Chase, project manager for Gregory Canyon Ltd., the group of investors developing the landfill.

Jack Orr, campaign consultant for the Pala tribe, said there was no limit to what his campaign would spend. He said he doubted that the anti-B campaign, funded primarily by Gregory Canyon Ltd., had spent only $800,000.
"They're either lying or incompetent," Orr said. "Right now when I'm looking at the television buy, I'm being outspent on NBC and ABC."

In the spring, supporters and proponents of Proposition A, the unsuccessful Rural Lands Initiative, together spent a total of about $2.2 million. The $2.9 million spent on the successful Proposition C, the ballpark measure, is believed to be the county's most expensive ballot measure to date.

But spending on Proposition B has probably already exceeded that amount, since the reporting period covered by the campaign statements ended eight days ago. If Gregory Canyon Ltd. spends what Chase says it will, Proposition B will break the record by close to $2 million.

The money the tribe has reported spending is four times what the landfill developers spent in 1994 on mailers favoring Proposition C, which changed county zoning to allow a landfill in Gregory Canyon. The turnaround is a dramatic reflection of the political power the tribe has gained through its prosperous casino, which opened in 2001. Gregory Canyon Ltd., an investment partnership, is intent on not wasting the millions it has spent developing the landfill.

"I think it's fair to say the gaming tribes are changing the ground rules in local politics," said Tierney, who ran the campaign for District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis and is managing Mayor Dick Murphy's re-election bid.
"They're upping the ante in terms of what you need to spend to win an effort like this."
Both sides say they knew the campaign would set a county record.

The landfill would occupy 320 acres of a 1,770-acre parcel, owned by Gregory Canyon Ltd., about three miles east of the Interstate 15 intersection with state Route 76, not far from the Pala Casino.
The fight, which goes back 15 years to when the county first identified Gregory Canyon as a possible landfill site, has also resulted in numerous lawsuits and court challenges.

Recently, a lawyer for the anti-B campaign asked six local stations to pull pro-B radio and television ads, saying they contained false and misleading statements. No ads have been pulled. Lhota called the charge "hogwash."
Supporters of Proposition B say the landfill would threaten the nearby San Luis Rey River and a major drinking water aquifer underneath it.

The landfill developers say it would be a quarter-mile from the edge of the aquifer and that its state-of-the-art liner would make it the safest in the state. They also say the Pala Band is motivated by concerns about its casino, which is on the other side of Gregory Mountain from the landfill site.

Elizabeth Fitzsimons: (760) 737-7578;

1 MAP; Caption: Proposed landfill (Eds. 2,7); Credit: UNION-TRIBUNE


San Diego needs Gregory Canyon landfill

October 7, 2004

A decade ago San Diego County voters approved, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, the Gregory Canyon Landfill near Pala. The project was sorely needed then. Today, after 10 years of rapid population growth in North County, it is needed even more because the area's only landfill has been closed, forcing smoke-belching trash trucks to travel long distances to disposal sites in the eastern and southern reaches of the county.

Yet in spite of the strong need for a landfill in North County, Proposition B on the Nov. 2 ballot seeks to block the Gregory Canyon project by repealing the 1994 ballot measure, which was sensibly adopted by 68 percent of voters. Proposition B deserves a No vote.
The only reason this initiative is on the ballot is to serve the interests of a nearby casino owned by the Pala Band of Mission Indians. The tribe is the chief sponsor of Proposition B, and it hopes to scuttle the solid-waste project because casino patrons would use the same two-lane road as trash trucks. The disposal site is on state Route 76, three miles east of Interstate 15, on the western slope of Gregory Mountain.

Some even have suggested the landfill should be thwarted because it is near sacred Indian sites. But that proximity certainly was no problem for Pala's casino and its 2,000 slot machines.
Let's face it. Gambling on Indian lands is now a very big business in San Diego County. The effort to stop the Gregory Canyon landfill is singularly about money – lucrative gambling revenues. It has nothing to do with the merits of the disposal project.

The truth is that Gregory Canyon would be the most environmentally sound landfill in the county. Its design includes a five-layer, five-foot-thick protective liner. The decade-long environmental review has been scrutinized by a raft of regulatory agencies. A variety of mitigation measures has been imposed. Federal and state environmental laws have been applied at every step of developing the landfill. The county Department of Environmental Health has certified the project's exhaustive impact report, which demonstrates it is environmentally safe.
If San Diego fails to establish a new disposal site in North County, the entire region will suffer from the increased air pollution and traffic congestion caused by trash trucks hauling their loads over unnecessarily long distances. With steady population growth, these problems can only grow more severe with time.

Proposition B, if approved, would obliterate years of careful environmental review and regulatory measures. Ballot-box zoning is no way to decide such a complex environmental issue. It is essential that the Gregory Canyon landfill go forward, regardless of whether it will inconvenience gamblers driving to and from the Pala casino. Vote No on Proposition B.

Fight over landfill may boil down to water fears

By Elizabeth Fitzsimons
September 28, 2004

PALA – People have been fighting against a landfill in Gregory Canyon since the county first proposed putting one there 15 years ago. 

Opponents, now led by the Pala Band of Mission Indians, have raised one argument after another for why the canyon was ill-suited for a dump.

There were the garbage trucks on a two-lane highway; an invasion of birds and rodents; the damage to sacred Indian land; and the habitat for a wide range of animals.

Now, the landfill's potential to pollute North County water supplies has become the rallying cry for Proposition B. If approved by voters countywide next month, it could be the death knell for the landfill, proposed for a canyon about three miles east of where Interstate 15 and state Route 76 intersect.

Proposition B
If approved, it would: Overturn a 1994 measure allowing a landfill in North County's Gregory Canyon.

Major arguments for: Landfill would threaten important water supplies; there are much better locations for a landfill; landfill opponents say the 1994 measure misled voters about environmental dangers.

Major arguments against: Modern landfills have extensive environmental protections; North County has no landfill now; Proposition B opponents say Pala tribe is trying to protect its casino, not the environment.
The campaign by San Diegans for Clean Drinking Water can be summarized in a few words: Gregory Canyon is a bad place for a dump. Supporters say the canyon's proximity to the San Luis Rey River and a major aquifer underneath it would endanger drinking water used by the tribe and several North County cities. 
"The moment you say it sits on top of an aquifer right near a river, they say, 'Get out of here,' " said Jack Orr, Pala's political consultant.

Describing Proposition B as the Pala tribe's way of protecting its lucrative casino is a major focus of the campaign against it. A television ad that began airing last week has images of gambling chips being moved across a green, felt-covered table.

"Nobody wants a landfill in their back yard. I don't want a landfill in my back yard," said Richard Chase, project manager for Gregory Canyon Ltd., the investment partnership that has spent $20 million over a decade on the landfill's development.

Chase said the Pala band knew that distaste for having a landfill nearby would not go far with voters. So it turned to water, he said.

"It's a direct lie that this landfill is on top of an aquifer," Chase said. "The edge of the aquifer is at least a quarter of a mile away."

If approved, Proposition B would overturn Proposition C, a successful 1994 initiative funded by Gregory Canyon Ltd., that amended the county's General Plan to allow a landfill in Gregory Canyon. In other words, a vote for Proposition B is a vote against the proposed landfill.

If built, Gregory Canyon would accept a million tons of trash a year for 30 years. North County, which now has no operating landfill, currently produces about 800,000 tons of garbage a year, Chase said – an amount that is expected to increase.

The environmental protections required of modern landfills, and the county's growing population and shrinking dump space, are the other major elements of Gregory Canyon Ltd.'s effort to defeat Proposition B.
They were among the factors considered by the board of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the measure.

"The board felt satisfied with the safeguards for any leaks," said Mitch Mitchell, the chamber's vice president of public policy and communications. Board members "felt they should continue in their support of their original position in supporting the landfill," he said.

The San Diego County Taxpayers Association, county Supervisor Dianne Jacob and Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network, are among 10 organizations or individuals who have lent their names to the campaign against Proposition B.

Last week, Chase toured the partnership's 1,770-acre property, 320 acres of which would be landfill. The rest would be a wildlife preserve.

From Route 76, Chase pointed out two nearby sand and gravel operations, and the Pala casino on the other side of Gregory Mountain.

"Without the landfill, it's hardly a pristine site," he said.

On the partnership's land, Chase stopped his sport utility vehicle on a small bridge and pointed through his window at dried brush in a shallow gulch.

"This is the river, in case you were wondering. It's a little hard to see the water," he said.

It was the dry season, he added, and at times water would be flowing over the river bed.

Appliances and pieces of garbage were scattered on the landfill site. A bobcat loped on the dirt road leading to the site and coyote scat was evident, signs of the wildlife in the canyon.

Gregory Canyon Ltd. contends that a state-of-the-art liner and an elaborate leachate collection system would make the landfill among the safest in the state. They also tout the $100 million insurance policy, with a premium of $100,000 a year, against any environmental damage.

"Obviously, there's no such thing as absolute perfection," Chase said. "But if you look at the Gregory Canyon system, it's 2½ times more protective than (the) Sycamore and Otay" landfills.

Both of those landfills, Chase added, are near rivers.

Those arguments have not convinced several North County cities and water districts. Oceanside, Encinitas, Del Mar, the Fallbrook Public Utility District and the Yuima Municipal Water District, as well as environmental groups including the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club, are among the 252 organizations and individuals listed as opposing the landfill and supporting Proposition B.

Pala officials dismiss the notion that the landfill would adversely affect the tribe's casino. Howard Kaloogian, a former Republican assemblyman who is speaking on behalf of the campaign, said many patrons already travel great distances to visit the casino, and would not be dissuaded by a landfill.

"The people who are going to go are going to go," Kaloogian said.

Landfill opponents contend that the 1994 measure succeeded because Gregory Canyon Ltd. spent more than $500,000 on a misleading campaign. They say voters who were in favor of the landfill will vote differently once they learn the full story.

"Nobody told the voters it was above an aquifer," Kaloogian said. "I was shocked to hear Richard Chase say there is no aquifer. I'm flabbergasted at that.

"Look at a map . . . . The water is there. Where do you think these people are getting the water to drink from? That's why he's spending so much money to tout the state-of-the-art liner, because he's trying to protect the water."

In the spring, the Pala band launched its mission against the landfill. Using primarily paid signature gatherers, it circulated petitions and qualified the measure for the ballot.

The remaining weeks before the Nov. 2 vote promise to be an expensive battle. Chase said Gregory Canyon Ltd. was prepared to match the $2 million to $3 million the Pala tribe said it would spend.

Debate over Gregory Canyon landfill focuses attention on county waste disposal

SAN DIEGO ---- Does San Diego County need another place to dump its trash? The developer who has spent the last 10 years trying to put a landfill in rural North County says "yes."

An analysis of the space available at the region's five trash facilities suggests there is still room to grow, but the question is, for how long?
The county estimates the region's landfills will reach their approved capacity in less than three years, by 2007. The key word here is "approved." Four of the five landfills have additional space available, but each needs to undergo a lengthy permitting process to make use of that space.
And that's where a host of potential problems emerge. Getting county, state and federal agencies to sign off on such approvals can take five to 15 years, depending on the size of the expansion and the myriad financial, environmental and legal obstacles that can arise.

The developers of Gregory Canyon landfill find themselves in just such a pickle. The dump would be the county's first new landfill in 25 years and is slated for 320 acres on a 1,770-acre North County site near the Pala Indian Reservation, about three miles east of the Highway 76-Interstate 15 interchange.

The Pala Band of Mission Indians and several environmental groups are opposed to the landfill. They say it would cause environmental damage and could contaminate the San Luis Rey River, a source of drinking water for some North County cities.

The tribe is backing Proposition B, a measure slated for the Nov. 2 ballot aimed at overturning the 1994 proposition that approved the site as a landfill.

Landfill developers argue that the dump site is environmentally sound and is necessary to accommodate the county's waste needs.

While the debate on Gregory Canyon is focused primarily on environmental implications of the landfill's location, the issue of how much landfill space is left in the county has put area waste facilities in the spotlight.

The facilities

San Diego presently has five landfills within county limits: Sycamore, Miramar, Otay, Borrego Springs and Ramona. Miramar is operated by the city of San Diego, while the remaining four are owned and operated by Allied Waste Inc., the company that bought county landfill operations in 1997 for $184 million.

The five landfills that serve all of the county's 19 waste jurisdictions are open to the public as well as waste services providers.

The last landfill located in North County was the county-owned and -operated San Marcos landfill, opened in 1979 and closed in 1997. At the time of its closure, the San Marcos landfill contained about 10 million tons of waste.

Prior to the closure of the San Marcos landfill, the most recent North County landfill in operation was a small facility in Bonsall, which closed in 1985.

The county still owns and maintains both properties.

Where our trash goes now

Total waste generation in San Diego County increased from 4.9 million tons in 1995 to 6.9 million tons in 2001. After recycling, composting and minimal exporting, net disposal into county landfills increased from 2.4 million tons in 1995 to 3.6 million tons in 2001.

Donna Turbyfill, a deputy director for the county's Department of Public Works, said that aside from population growth, residential and commercial development was the biggest reason for the increase.

"We've had a lot of construction in the last several years, which brings up the amount of total waste generated," Turbyfill said, noting that much of the construction debris may be recyclable. "But there's a whole bunch of different ways that you can decrease waste going into landfills."

One of those methods is disposing of trash in landfills across county or state lines, and some of the county's 19 waste jurisdictions truck their garbage across county or state lines for disposal.

Available areas include landfills in Arizona and Nevada and in Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties, according to Department of Public Works data.

San Diego County exports a relatively small percentage of its waste, only about 4 percent in 2001.

Waste exporting rates have dropped over the past several years, Turbyfill said, due to market changes.

"(Exporting waste) is really market-driven," Turbyfill said. "Where it goes just depends if it's cheaper to send it out or keep it here."

San Diego landfills accept very little waste from outside the county, only about 19,000 tons in 2001.

North County

Nine North County jurisdictions generated about 515,000 tons of solid waste in 1995, and about 783,000 tons in 2002.

Most waste generated by the North County jurisdictions stays local, going into the Otay and Sycamore landfills, though a small percentage is sent across county lines.

The cities of Del Mar, Escondido, San Marcos and Vista send most of their solid waste to the Sycamore landfill, with smaller percentages going to the Otay landfill.

The cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas and Poway send most of their waste to the Otay landfill, with lesser amounts sent to Sycamore, Miramar or out of the county. Poway also sends some waste to the Ramona landfill.

The city of Oceanside sends most of its garbage to an Orange County landfill, with the remaining portion divided among the Otay, Sycamore and Miramar landfills.

Solana Beach sends most waste to Miramar, with smaller amounts dumped at Otay and Sycamore.

Fees for waste disposal vary based on hauling and gas prices, as well as "tipping fees" ---- the charge per ton for dumping garbage in a landfill.

In 2000, tipping fees for San Diego County landfills ranged from $26 a ton at the Miramar landfill to $41 and $42 a ton at the Otay and Sycamore landfills, respectively.

In 1995, tipping fees were $33 a ton at Miramar and $47.50 a ton at both the Sycamore and Otay landfills.

Though the statewide average for tipping fees increased over the same period, the local decrease is due to the 1997 sale of the county's landfill assets, Department of Public Works officials said.

Available space

The overall picture of the county's waste disposal space can change dramatically based on whether existing landfills can expand or not.

Should local landfill expansion plans not be completed in the coming years, the county could face waste capacity problems in as little as three years.

State law requires counties to issue a report every five years identifying sufficient disposal options for the 15 years ahead, but disposal options are not limited to landfills alone, Turbyfill said.

"It's not just the holes in the ground," Turbyfill said. "It's all the means by which we can dispose of solid waste, including export and recycling. There's a lot of ways to get to 15 years."

Analysis of county landfill capacity, however, depends on more than just the physical space in the landfills themselves.

Each landfill is permitted by the county and state to take in a specific amount of waste each day, and cannot exceed that amount, regardless of the space available. Daily tonnage limits range from 50 to 5,000 tons per day for the county's five landfills.

If current daily tonnage limits do not increase, Turbyfill said, county landfills would reach approved capacity in 2007.

"We'd still have plenty of space but would reach permitted capacity by 2007," Turbyfill said.

If capacity limits were upped, however, the county's disposal needs for the future could be met, Turbyfill said.


Physical expansions of existing landfills could fill the county's need for additional space, but the often-lengthy permitting process required for expansion makes timing of the essence.

The county's long-term waste management plan identifies expansion of existing landfills as preferable to new landfill construction, generally because the process is faster and requires fewer steps, said Jim Ambroso, district manager for Allied Waste.

Still, acquiring permits needed to expand a landfill takes years.

The first steps in an expansion are obtaining local approval from the county or city, usually the most lengthy process because of state laws that often require a study on the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion before projects can move on to seek multiple state-level approvals.

Any necessary federal approvals, such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, can also add as many as four years to the process.

"We have a highly contested landfill called Sunshine Canyon in the Los Angeles area, a project that started in 1988, and we just got expansion approval this month, 16 years later," Ambroso said. "It can really depend on how much people want to fight it."

Gregory Canyon, approved 10 years ago, is still in the permitting process, due in part to opposition efforts.

Room to grow

Local landfills currently considering expansion are the Sycamore and Miramar landfills, which, at their present sizes, have lifespans of 15 and eight years, respectively. Of the two, Sycamore is the likely candidate for use in the near future.

Once expanded, Sycamore will have enough capacity to sustain the county at current trash generation rates for an additional 35 years. The landfill's expansion will likely be permitted within five years, Ambroso said.

The Miramar landfill has taken some extremely preliminary steps toward expansion but hasn't begun any paperwork, said landfill spokeswoman Nicole Hall. Any expansion would add about eight years of capacity.

The smaller Ramona and Borrego Springs landfills have room to grow, but Allied Waste has not yet initiated any plans to do so.

The Otay landfill recently completed an expansion that took about five years, and Ambroso said there are no plans to seek additional growth.

County estimates show that the Gregory Canyon landfill would add 30 million tons, or 30 years, of landfill space.

Recycling eases crunch

As the region debates the need for another trash dump, opponents of a planned North County landfill and environmental groups say recycling is easing the space crunch.

A 1989 state law required all jurisdictions to divert 50 percent of their waste from landfills by 2004, through recycling, composting or similar uses.

In 1995, the county was recycling an estimated 43 percent of its trash, said Donna Turbyfill, a deputy director for the county's Department of Public Works.

Turbyfill said recycling has been on the rise over the past 10 years, with most local jurisdictions near the mandated 50 percent diversion, or recycling, rate.

Right now, the average countywide diversion rate for all jurisdictions is about 48 percent, Turbyfill said, with some areas above the 50 percent requirement and others falling just short.

"It's challenging because of the fact that there is a fluctuating market for recyclables, like any other commodity," Turbyfill said. "The price people are willing to pay for paper, metal or plastics changes. If it was steady and completely market-driven it wouldn't need to be subsidized."

Innovation has helped increase recycling options, including the ability to reuse materials such as concrete and tires.

Caltrans recently began recycling concrete by grinding it up and reusing it on new projects, and the state gives grants for the use of rubberized asphalt, which is made from recycled tires.

"As technology changes, it enables people to do different things," Turbyfill said.

Where our trash goes

Miramar Landfill

Location: Marine Corps base near MiraMesa

Total acreage: 1,500

Total daily tonnage: 8,000

Expected closure: 2012

Expansion: Seeking preliminary approval for expansion.

Sycamore Landfill

Location: On border of Santee and city of San Diego

Total acreage: 340

Total daily tonnage: 3,300

Expected closure: 2019

Expansion: Permit pending approval.

Otay Landfill

Location: Chula Vista

Total acreage: 550

Total daily tonnage: 5,000

Expected closure: 2025

Expansion: Recently completed (2000), no additional expansion planned.

Borrego Springs Landfill

Location: Borrego Springs

Total acreage: 42

Total daily tonnage: 50

Expected closure: 2034

Expansion: Room to grow, but no expansion currently planned.

Ramona Landfill

Location: Ramona

Total acreage: 160

Total daily tonnage: 300

Expected closure: 2009-2011

Expansion: Room to grow, but no expansion currently planned.

Proper disposal

Vote against Prop. B and for the landfill
Union Tribune Editorial
August 28, 2004
It should go without saying that public officials, elected and otherwise, aren't in the business of poisoning the public water supply, if for no reason other than that they drink it, cook with it and bathe in it, too. 

But apparently it does need saying about the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill, now the subject of both a ballot proposition to repeal San Diego County voters' previous authorization of it and a campaign to scare voters out of their wits. Voters were smarter than that 10 years ago. They should be as smart on Nov. 2. 

In 1994, voters approved putting a new recycling collection center and solid-waste landfill at Gregory Canyon so that North County residents would be able to dispose of their trash "in an environmentally sound and economically competitive manner."
The need for these facilities is now 10 years closer. The technology to operate the landfill safely – that is, without toxic leaks – is 10 years better. The county has 10 years' more residents, almost 800,000 tons of trash a year from North County alone, and lessening space for it in landfills elsewhere. The extensive requirements of environmental regulation are 10 years stricter and 10 years closer to fulfillment. 

The orange-throated whiptail and other threatened or endangered species will not suffer. Among other preservation and mitigation measures, 1,313 acres of the 1,683-acre site are dedicated to open space for their protection. After the construction period, pollution from transporting waste will actually lessen, for the hauling distance will be far less. The landfill also will contribute to Caltrans for traffic safety improvements on state Route 76, funding not otherwise available. 

The landfill also will contribute some $50 million to county coffers. The "Multiple Rural Use Designation" alternative proposed by landfill opponents would be negligible in that regard.
Approval of Proposition B will only reward NIMBYism run amok with specious alarums. The Gregory Canyon landfill is on track to fill a growing North County need. Voting No on this proposition will keep it that way.