CORRESPONDENCE_1987-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Smit, 12601 N. Clements •• • said he is in strong opposi- tion to the new • This will take 320 acres • good, • • There are approximately 250 acres under ••• and • irrigation on this parcel. It was sold to the County and everything on the property looks dead and the Commission might look at the photos •, say that it looks suitable for this dump. It is unfair to • a dump in the back yard of the San Joaquin County citizens. There are other alternatives. There are several remote areas in this County where a dumpsite would be more logical. At the very end of Harney Lane there is • that is clay and • and is unsuitable for anything, and you will find hardly any rabbits either. That would have been a good alternative. The existing landfill was a good alter- native also. He questions the economics of this project. John Eilers, 21355 Walnut Drive, Linden, representing Land Utilization Alliance, made the following comments: • This project does nothing more than promote the status quo in the way that we • with our solid waste. • The EIR was certified, but he said he is still complaining about the fact that it didn't address a very gigantic area called recycling. It talked about alternatives of biomass in burning. However, we are turning into the 21st century where you are not going to see burning of garbage, you are not going to see it stuck into the ground anymore, you can't stuff it in the ground because you will pollute the water, you can't burn it because you are going to pollute the air. You are creating a site for 36 years in advance. You don't plan forward 36 years by looking behind you. We must develop a program that promotes a positive social and environmental good, and that is to build a program of recycling. Why create another island of pollution when you have plenty of room up at Foothill. He farms • Highway 26 and he has to dodge those trucks every dayl- however, it makes more sense to run it u V p there, when in the future, in the 21st century, there will be a lot less of it. You can't say that you will need this kind of ground to take this kind of farmland out of production in the 21st century when garbage is going to be passel. • There is always the argument that it is less costly for all of us to put it at Harney Lane (nevermind the cost from the loss of farmland, nevermind the cost of to possible loss of water quality). • He said we need to look at accellerating recycling. If you make it tougher for people to deal with their garbage, if you add a few dollars to it by taking it to Foothill, those costs will accellerate recycling, and they will eventually add to the reduc- tion in the solid waste by reduction in key areas like packaging. It has to go back to the people that produce the garbage and that is basically packaging. PC: 6/1/89 -4- MINUTES