Response to NRDC Misleading and Inaccurate Statements

RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL (NRDC)

 MISLEADING AND INACCURATE STATEMENTS

The statements made below by the NRDC are, at best, misleading and at worst are not based on established facts.  Those facts have been completely documented and vetted through the California Court system. The Local Enforcement Agency, (LEA) which in this case is the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, (DEH) has issued the Solid Waste Facility Permit and that action has been confirmed by Cal Recycle, which is the agency of the Governor’s Administration charged with that responsibility. Those actions have in every way refuted and dismissed all of the allegations listed below and have affirmed that the mitigation measures required by the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the permits issued and affirmed will mitigate appropriately for the impacts associated with the landfill. The NRDC and other opponents have chosen to employ outrageous tactics in order to mislead the California Legislature into thinking they should vote to support SB 833.

   

Statement by NRDC:

You should sign this bill because it will block the construction of a 300-acre garbage dump that would threaten the San Luis Rey River, desecrate one of the most important sacred sites of the Luiseño people, jeopardize a vital imported water pipeline, and destroy wildlife habitat.

Response:

The landfill footprint is more than 1300 feet south of the San Luis River and has been designed to ensure that no potential contamination could reach the river or the aquifer associated with it. The project has committed to a  double composite liner consisting of five barrier layers, three of which are impermeable membranes, and two of which are geoseynthetic liners, and a standby groundwater treatment plant if ever needed.  This design exceeds exponentially all federal and state requirements for landfill liners.

Claims of destruction to the San Luis Rey River and its underlying water supply aquifer are grossly exaggerated, as noted by Dr. David Huntley, Professor Emeritus, San Diego State University, who stated “I am unaware of any alluvial aquifer which has been contaminated by releases to an adjacent fractured rock aquifer.”  One of the key stated purposes for the legislation finds no credible scientific support.

The landfill site (182 acres) and its facilities (126 acres) on a 1769 acre site will, in the final design, not be within 1000 feet of any known or objectively verifiable sacred site. Landfill opponents did not challenge the finding in the EIR that the project had no significant impacts on any Native American resources based on objective measures.  Despite two attempts, the National Park Service declined to find either Gregory Mountain or Medicine Rock eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

With regard to the County Water Authority’s (CWA) water pipeline the EIR provided for the relocation of the pipeline in order to avoid any impacts to the pipe itself, and that mitigation measure will be implemented if determined to be necessary with the concurrence of the CWA staff.

The best source to refute the misstatement “destroy wildlife habitat” is to refer to the 2009 USFWS Draft Biological Opinion which stated expressly that the implementation of the landfill project and its mitigations will improve water quality and “support the recovery” of the three threatened or endangered species present on the site.      

Statement by NRDC:

The landfill developer circumvented the normal siting and approval process with a ballot initiative, so that no elected official has had the opportunity to vote on the proposed project.

Response:

Every elected official in San Diego County, for that matter anywhere, if put to the test of whether to find the political will to site a landfill or allow the people to have the opportunity to make that decision will, if given the opportunity, follow the will of the voters. This is especially true when the voters have spoken clearly not once but twice. It is important to note here that in 2004 the opponents spent almost $6,000,000 trying to get the voters to reject the landfill and lost by a landslide. It is not possible to believe what opponents have said that the voters were mislead when their spending greatly exceeded the amount spent by the developers defending our project.  San Diego County tried without success to site a new landfill in the County for more than 2 decades and it was well understood by the community that asking elected officials to make that difficult choice would not end successfully. Voter approval is the only viable mechanism available in San Diego County to make these difficult land use decisions. 

Statement by NRDC:

The ballot initiative overrode the county supervisors’ objections to the proposed site, took away the county’s discretionary authority to deny the project, and misled the voters by describing the dump as a recycling and collection center.

Response:

The answer to this assertion is similar to the previous response except that the Board of Supervisors did make a formal vote to select Gregory Canyon as a desirable site for a landfill in North San Diego County and the public voted (twice) to support that decision.

NRDC’s claim regarding the lack of discretionary authority is a misstatement of the law. The Director of the County Department of Environmental Health had the discretionary authority to deny the project by declining to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

With regard to the recycling and collection center, this landfill is conditioned by the Solid Waste Permit to provide for the collection and recycling of all materials that by law are not allowed to be disposed of in any landfill except for hazardous waste for which there are existing available facilities.

Statement by NRDC: 

There is no waste crisis in San Diego County. Waste disposal has decreased by 25% since 2005. Increased recycling, new technologies for the resource-efficient management of waste, and the expansion of existing landfills make the proposed landfill unnecessary.

Response:

The NRDC has once again misrepresented the facts.  As would be expected in a recession the amount of waste in San Diego County has declined countywide; however, two factors have been purposely omitted from this claim. First, it is understood that as we come out of recession the volume of waste requiring disposal will return; and second, North San Diego County actually increased the amount of waste disposed of in landfills by 6 % during the recession even though there was a countywide decline.  From the beginning, both Proposition C and the EIR made it clear that for primary purposes for the Gregory Canyon Landfill was to provide close-in, cost effective disposal capacity for North County. Without this North County facility, up to 1,000,000 extra truck miles will be necessary to dispose of North County trash.

No other landfill is proposed for North County, and the use of another landfill at a greater distance poses its own set of environmental concerns, namely traffic, air quality, use of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions.  Moreover, it is likely that NRDC or other environmental groups will, when the time comes, mount severe and direct opposition to said expansions, making their implementation less than certain.   

Statement by NRDC:

EPA has concluded all landfill liners eventually leak. Moreover, the multi-layer liner for the landfill only covers 20% of the bottom of the landfill. It would be irresponsible to needlessly place our drinking water supply in harm’s way.

Response:

This statement is a gross misrepresentation of what the EPA has said about landfill liners. The EPA did say in 1981 that all landfills leak; however that statement applied to unlined landfills. Subsequent to that statement the EPA has promulgated regulations for landfill liners “designed to be protective in all locations” that will protect water resources well beyond the life of the landfill. Moreover, Gregory Canyon Landfill has exponentially exceeded even these requirements and, as described in a previous paragraph, has provided a backup water treatment system, hence no endangerment of the water supply.

The statement about the liner system is factually incorrect, and ignores standard engineering practices.  In fact, a multi-level liner underlies 100% of the landfill footprint. The design of the side liner is different from the bottom liner, to reflect the lesser potential for release of contaminants from sloped areas.  This is a standard engineering practice approved throughout the state by Regional Water Boards.  Remember there are strict federal and state guidelines for groundwater protection and the landfill design exceeds them all.   

Statement by NRDC:

“A dozen local, state and federal agencies” have not said that the project complies with environmental regulations. Nor have those agencies granted permits. GCL has obtained only one permit – its solid waste facility permit from the San Diego county local enforcement agency.

Response:

The project has never stated that “A dozen local, state, and federal agencies” have said the project complies with environmental regulations. The project holds the Solid Waste Facility Permit SWFP issued by the LEA and reviewed and agreed to by Cal Recycle. This is a new permit that replaces the original SWFP issued in 2005.  The permit is based upon the certified EIR for which the LEA is the “Lead Agency” The project holds the NPDES permit from the State Water Resources Board and a Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish & Game. We have reached the final stages on other Regional Water Quality Control Board permits as well as the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District permit. All of these permits are based upon the EIR mitigation measures as well as local, state and federal regulations. The main regulatory permit is the SWFP, which is the mechanism by which all EIR mitigation measures are enforced.

Statement by NRDC:   

The bill had strong bipartisan support and passed with overwhelming margins in both houses, the reasonable thing for Governor Brown to do is agree with representatives from across California to protect sacred sites and San Diego County’s drinking water.

Response:

The only reason the opposition has brought this legislation forward now is because they realize we are very close to obtaining all the necessary permits to be able to build the landfill. This is a clear end run around the state regulatory agencies, such as CalRecycle, the Regional Water Board and the Department of Fish & Game. It is very cynical of the opponents to push through the legislature a bill to kill this project after 17 years of very careful and diligent legal and regulatory study that will very likely reach the conclusion that the project is appropriate and safe. How can the legislature be expected to comprehend the 17 years of work in a matter of a few minutes of review and testimony and make a reasonable decision? The answer is, of course, relentless political and financial pressure from ruthless opponents who will say or do anything to produce the votes they need to mislead the legislature and now the Governor into supporting this bill.  Equally disturbing is that the legislature simply ignores the hard work and sound technical judgment of many highly trained and skilled local, state and federal officials over many years.