Gregory Canyon Landfill in San Diego County
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 14367
Gregory Canyon Landfill
Since the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill was unveiled two decades ago, it has been embroiled in controversy. The project is meant to ease waste disposal in San Diego County and tame the high cost associated with disposing of waste out of the county. However, debates regarding environmental protection, the project viability, as well as socio-cultural implications continue to rage. This paper explores the arguments presented in favor of the landfill and those that dispute.
The encroachment threats are immense. They include both direct physical intrusion and possible destruction from other activities such as blasting originating externally right-of-way of the CWA. The Engineering and Operations Committee requested Gregory Canyon Limited to establish a plan for addressing potential impacts of blasting to the aqueduct, access roads, landfill leachate (a fluid, usually contaminated, which is a byproduct of bleaching), streambed alteration, gas, slope instability, as well as result to the landfill in case a pipeline burst. The data derived from such a plan may likely establish whether the CWA pipelines realignment or security are in place (Waireng 58).
It has been feared the landfill most likely may go over water pipelines. Obviously, this has been an area of major concern for San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). Through its Engineering and Operations committee, the SDCWA has repeatedly warned of the potential impact of the landfill on the pipes. The landfill is going to occupy an area within the Municipal Water District boundaries, which is outside the confines of CWA, but one of its aqueduct passes through the Municipal Water District of San Luis Rey between the Valley Water District and Rainbow Municipal Water District. Angered by insistence the landfill holds far more importance than any other consideration, the manager of water resources, an expert in protection of natural resources, warns that the extent of the adverse impact to the pipelines may not be easily predictable (plowman 64).
To environmental groups and the Native American tribes, the interest is not only the impact on natural resources. Their worry is that the project is gradually going to move into Chokla or Gregory Mountain. From time immemorial, Gregory Mountain has been seen as the resting place for Takwic, a tribal spirit for American Indians. Close to the mountain, there also lies a rock from which water with medicinal value flows. That rock has been marked with pictographs of Native Americans and risks unwarranted destruction if the developers make good their threat and roll out the project. These are genuine concerns because areas with cultural significance are strategic and deserve preservation for the sake of satisfaction of the Native American tribes. The developers are not justified to site the garbage dump near the mountain as its location can be changed, but the tribes cannot move their sacred mountain. In fact, the Luiseno people consider it irresponsible to construct a garbage site next to a sacred place such as Gregory Mountain, which is so important to them spiritually (Whitney 42).
Local planners never initially approved the site of the landfill. Indeed, the garbage site was severally rejected by San Diego county officials because of potential non-immitigable impact resulting from its proximity to River San Luis Rey and aquifers. That was why proposition C of the landfill investors became necessary. Doing away with the proposal is, therefore, the only direct and clear way of ending the ill-advised debate. Once the proposal is shunned, policy makers can then move on to establishing effective options of waste management and pollution prevention that do not pose the glaringly apparent threat to natural resources.
San Diego County residents use San Luis Rey River, the banks of which Gregory Canyon project is to be located, for clean water. Local hearings on the project usually attract more than 300 residents including tribal leaders of the Pala and general Luiseño tribes. Many come with picket placards and signs and wear t-shirts written ‘Save Gregory Canyon, Stop Dump Proposals.’ Official representatives who speak on behalf of Luiseño include chairpersons and tribal Historic Preservation Officers. Public testimonies go on for many hours, but one speaks in favor of the landfill. Several organizations have collaborated with Luiseño to oppose the landfill including the Riverwatch, National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Health Coalition, the Pala/Pauma planning group, Sierra Club, and Surfrider. Army Corps of Engineers has now taken the public testimonies and noted comments received on the project prior to publishing a draft alternative proposal next year. Not a single permit for any project by Army Corps has ever been denied though the law allows such denial. Additionally, because the Luiseño Community is not going to relent on steadfastly opposing the project, continuing its construction is not merited.
Arguing in support of the project, the developers have shown intention to consider the concerns raised by indigenous tribes. It is apparent all of the required environmental conservation standards are going to be met (Madison 140). With San Diego running out of space for trash disposal, it is rational a landfill is allocated some part of the vast land. The need for the landfill is, therefore, long overdue and there is no place as suitable as the 1770 acre-land. It is true the tribal spirit is claimed to have lived on the mountain, but that was not the only place he has been reported. Some Luiseño people have claimed the soul was extremely mobile and moved from place to place. The developer’s conclusion is that the spirit cannot say their deity’s residence was Gregory Mountain because it was traced in other locations, in the county (“Gregory Canyon Landfill” par. 5). Nevertheless, they acknowledge the cultural importance of the mountain to the Luiseño people, but assert that this does not justify putting off a project that is of great public interest. It has not been documented whether the Luiseño people use the mountain top for any of their ceremonies and no verifiable archaeological artifacts were found anywhere near the site of the proposed project when Gregory Canyon team visited the site. In any case, the highest peak of the mountain, where the deity was reportedly seen, perching in traditional times would be spared; the project uses only 308 acres of the 1770-acre land. The project, from the time it was initially proposed, also recognizes the area as a natural habitat for endangered species. Indeed, there are provisions in the design plan of the project that proportion of the 308-acre land is going to be left permanently open for wild bird and other animals to rest. The river is going to have its banks guarded well and any possible contamination from the garbage is going to be tightly prevented (Glynn 39). In the developers’ minds, the area is going to become an appealing place, with environmental conservation measures being observed more strictly than is the case presently. The concerns raised by opposing environmentalists therefore do not hold water (“Gregory Canyon Landfill” par. 3).
According to the Gregory Canyon developers, the project comes with notable environmental protection advantages. To start with, San Diego uses heavy trucks to ferry waste out of the county. The damage these trucks cause on the roads is obvious. The trucks also guzzle fuel worth millions of U.S. dollars. With a dumpsite within the county, many fossil fuels would be saved, which would go a long way in conserving the environment. Often, trucks carrying waste contribute to annoying traffic snarl-ups that add up to person-hours wasted on a daily basis on the way to workplace. Lastly, the emissions from the exhaust systems of large waste trucks are especially heavy. These contribute to harmful gases to cause a greenhouse effect, but with waste being disposed of within the boundaries of the county, the result is considerably reduced (Drake 217).
San Diego residents have voted twice to arrive at a unanimous decision whether or not to have the landfill in the county. The first poll was held in 1994. Intensive campaigns had been held prior to the casting of the votes. Either side had their own reasons for supporting or opposing the proposal, but political interests seemed to overwhelm any other motive for strongly campaigning either for or against the proposal. The group supporting the landfill’s construction won meaning that the county residents had ratified construction of the landfill in their county. They felt responsible for safely disposing of wastes on their land (Timmis 80). In 2004, a decade after residents had overwhelmingly voted in support of the construction; the opponents of the construction formulated a second initiative, dubbed Proposition B, which they fully sponsored. The voter initiative sought to invalidate the general initiative that had been arrived at in 1994. Most people remember the latter election owing to the huge amounts of money that was wasted locally on such an insignificant initiative. It has been estimated the sponsors spent a whopping 6 million U.S. dollars. In spite of that wastage of funds, the supporters of the construction won again, and even this time it was a landslide win. Observers later noted that despite using large sums of money, Proposition B sponsors could not win as the voters had received sufficient civic education through the mass media. The inference any rational thinker would make is that San Diego County residents felt a responsibility to manage the BY-generated waste. Rather than the unfortunate approach of ‘dump it elsewhere,’ the county residents felt the need to manage the waste locally. The electrolyte was also aware that, in spite the propaganda that was increasing day by day, the project site ultimately would provide ideal environmental controls. Approval of the project is, therefore, justifiable because the residents of the county it is going to be constructed on were not coerced to have the project there; it was a feeling of genuine obligation to have it located on their land (Herner 23).
The majority of San Diego residents apparently support the construction of a landfill on their soil. Nevertheless, a small section of this population, particularly the Luiseño people are vehemently opposed to the project citing socio-cultural importance of the site to them. The developers of the project rationally justify the project, while acknowledging concerns raised by Luiseño people and environmentalists and assuring to consider them as they construct the landfill. Both sides give plausible arguments for their case with those in favor of the construction being apparently many, but the strengths of the positions taken somehow match.