County racing clock on landfill options

<p>Rejection of sale of the Sonoma County landfill has opponents scurrying to draft alternatives before the state forces the county to close it to future use.</p><p>“If this divestiture debate was successful at one thing, it certainly has brought an awareness, because people know more about solid waste than they did before,” said the county public works director, Phil Demery.</p><p>The issue had been largely dormant since 2005, when state regulators ordered the landfill to stop accepting trash and the county began contracting with North Bay Corp. for hauling trash to East Bay dumps.</p><p>Opponents who successfully opposed the landfill sale and want to retain county control over the dump’s operation will be under considerable pressure to quickly come up with alternatives that head off the state’s move to close the Mecham Road facility. State officials said last week that closure proceedings usually take three years.</p><p>Environmental advocates argued that the 400-acre landfill site holds assets such as a $10million methane gas production plant and a rock quarry that were too valuable to turn over to a private company. But, in the main, they contended that the Republic Services contract did little to encourage diversion of recyclable wastes and did not square with the county’s climate protection goals.</p><p>“You can tweak this contract all you like, but the fundamental flaw remains that is inconsistent with the strong environmental policies of our county to maximize diversion and minimize trash,” said Supervisor Shirlee Zane, who has emerged as the voice of environmental groups on the five-member panel.</p><p>Many advocates of local landfill control, such as former county waste manager Ken Wells, acknowledge the state’s regulatory clock is ticking and time is short.</p><p>“The cities that opposed landfill sale can’t now step back and wait for somebody else to figure it out,” said Wells, who headed the solid waste agency for 16 years.</p><p>These are some of the alternatives that will shape debate over the next few months:</p><p>Truck the trash. Currently, the county is spending $14million annually to send trash to East Bay dumps, and North Bay Corp. is putting 65 trucks on the road a day to get the job done. If there’s no prospect of landfill reopening, this greenhouse gas producing practice may continue.</p><p>Reopen the dump. The county would need to spend $21million to cap the current dump, another $40 million to monitor it and another $70 million for a liner to undercoat a new canyon at the Mecham Road facility. The cost of the new liner is a major stumbling block in the absence of an entity to raise capital.</p><p>Train the trash. Resumption of North Coast freight rail service may offer a more environmentally sensitive shipping method. However, county officials say the price tag is higher than trucking loads 100 miles to East Bay dumps.</p><p>Lease the dump. Instead of selling it, lease it for operation by a private company. This likely requires long-term commitments of trash flow from cities that balked at the landfill sale contract because it locked in ratepayer increases.</p><p>Create a trash czar. A Joint Powers Authority could manage the landfill and transfer stations and execute contracts with cities. There is an existing Waste Management Agency, but it is deemed powerless to do more than deal with composting and hazardous waste collections. Wells proposes that the cities and county vote to change the agency structure or supervisors put a measure on an election ballot that creates a better version of the agency.</p><p>You can reach Staff Writer Bleys W. Rose at 521-5431 or bleys.rose@pressdemocrat.com.</p>