Town Council uneasy with shipping trash

Endorsement of letter advocating sending out all county
trash comes with request to study ‘soft’ costs
By PETE MORTENSEN, News Editor
For the last year, Sonoma County has been in crisis mode trying
to figure out where to put its trash. The discovery of a leechate
leakage – contaminated waste entering the groundwater supply -at
the county’s Central Landfill caused the facility to be shut down
temporarily. Additionally, Petalu-ma left the Countywide Solid
Waste Management System, which reduced the revenue available to
meet the county’s long-term trash storage needs.
In 2003, the County Integrated Waste Management Plan (ColWMP)
was adopted, with the intent of meeting storage needs through 2018
and recycling 70 percent of all solid waste by 2015.
After the Central Landfill was closed, all solid waste generated
in Sonoma County began to be trucked to other areas of California –
to Contra Costa County for all users in the countywide system,
Marin County for Petaluma.
Though hauling Sonoma County trash to other areas of California
initially appeared to be a temporary necessity, it might soon
become long-term policy to take it even further away – perhaps to
Nevada, Windsor Town Manager Matt Mullan said.
&#8220There’s a landfill up in Fallon, Nevada offering $15 a
ton to dispose waste – long-term, unlimited disposal,” he said.
&#8220We’re paying $70 right now. The question is: Is a truck
or train or whatever up to Fallon going to cost $55 a ton to get it
there?”
The Sonoma County City Managers’ Association (SCCMA) is now
officially supporting a policy of carrying the area’s trash outside
the county’s borders. On April 5, Windsor’s Town Council was asked
to support a position paper that advocates long-term outhaul, as
well as the right for cities to opt out of the county waste
management system and a revision of policies related to recycling
targets. Though all five Councilmembers ultimately endorsed the
position points asked for by the city managers group, the idea of
permanently sending all of the county’s trash away didn’t sit well
with some on the Council.
&#8220My concern is just to reiterate that all of the costs
have not been considered,” said Debora Fudge, Councilmember.
&#8220The cost to the climate has not been considered. This is
only looking at money as the county is trying to look at all the
costs. This is an impact on our roadways. To me, the greenhouse gas
emissions are really big.”
Councilmember Lynn Morehouse said she felt it was contradictory
on the one hand for Sonoma County and its member cities to pass
resolutions for major greenhouse has reductions last year and now
consider an option to put its garbage on trucks and increase
emissions and traffic congestion.
&#8220It’s at such cross-purposes as far as getting vehicles
off the road,” she said. Later, she agreed to &#8220support the
positions, but I don’t like it.”
Mayor Sam Salmon suggested pushing for even higher recycling
targets, which would reduce the amount of waste storage required.
He also warned that the positions being advocated argued in favor
of shifting liability for the Central Landfill strictly to county
authorities – a process that hasn’t yielded good results
before.
&#8220If you recall, we did this with housing,” he said.
&#8220When we got out numbers, all the cities got to build 600
homes a year. In Windsor and Cotati, we said, ‘Wait a minute, we
can’t build 600 homes a year, it’s impossible.’ As cities we
wielded our power at (the Associated Bay Area Governments) and they
came back and said, ‘Probably 300 a year.’ We said, ‘We can’t build
300 a year, but it’s a whole lot better.’ What occurred is that all
the houses went to the county, and the county built 3,000 houses a
year and we’ve built less than 200. It didn’t make any sense in the
housing allocations, and it might not make a lot of sense
here.”
Despite the Council’s reservations, Mullan explained that Sonoma
County’s cities are running out of workable options for their
garbage disposal. There are few, if any sites, to build new
landfills in the county, and environmental permitting will keep the
Central Landfill closed indefinitely. At the moment, the landfill
operates as a transfer station, dispatching trucks with garbage to
points east.
&#8220From our perspective, it’s just not a good
investment,” he said. &#8220The liability and exposure of just
operating it today – even as a transfer station – the unfunded
liability is significant, in the hundreds of millions of dollar.
They want us as a partner in that, and I can’t bring that forward
and say that’s a good deal for Windsor.”
All of these issues are especially pressing in light of a
looming deadline for the Town: It’s been almost 10 years since
Windsor renegotiated its solid waste contract; the agreement is set
to expire in December 2007. Windsor has a choice ahead of it. They
could continue to participate in the county waste management system
or explore other options, as Petaluma chose to. No other city in
the county will sign a new waste management contract before
Windsor.
Though the Council agreed to support the positions expressed by
the city managers group, they did ask to consider some changes to
the statement. Currently, Sonoma County has a mandate to recycle 70
percent of its solid waste by 2015. That is believed to be an
impossible goal (the county has reached a rate of 56 percent), so
the SCCMA has asked to reduce the figure to 65 percent and make it
a non-mandatory goal. Windsor is asking to keep the level at 70
percent while consenting to the change from mandatory to a
goal.
Additionally, Councilmembers requested a more detailed analysis
of so-called &#8220soft costs” of long-term outhauling from
Sonoma County: traffic impact on Highway 101, emissions, fuel
consumption. The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to
consider revisions to the ColWMP on April 26, and the city managers
hope to be in concert by then, Mullan said.
&#8220The county is trying to deal one-on-one to divide and
conquer,” he said. &#8220We’ve acted as a group, and we’d like
to continue that way. We have greater bargaining power if we stay
together as cities.”
The Council also asked to encourage greater recycling as a
motivation to avoid outhauling.