Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: Glendale HomeCollections

Community Commentary:

Landfill extension unfair to residents

January 14, 2008|By Gerry Rankin

In his article published Tuesday, Glendale News-Press columnist Carl Raggio identifies some of the major problems facing Glendale in 2008 and provides some creative solutions to these problems (“Community should lead by example,” From The Other Side, Jan. 8).

I am particularly interested in the most mundane of the problems — trash disposal. As Raggio notes, “there are limits as to how high and how wide we can pile trash in Scholl Canyon.”

That caught my attention, since I live in Scholl Canyon or, as it is more commonly called, Glenoaks Canyon.

Raggio applauds the Glendale City Council for contracting with Los Angeles County to study the environmental impact of expanding the capacity of the Scholl Canyon Landfill. Assuming that it continues to receive trash at the current level, the Scholl Canyon Landfill (referred to by neighboring residents as “the dump”) is designed to operate until 2020, at which time it is expected to be full. A preliminary report states that a number of other operating landfills in the area will be closed by 2020 and “a shortfall of in-county disposal is expected.”

Advertisement

According to the preliminary report, the city is considering plans to raise the height of the Scholl Canyon Landfill by a substantial but unspecified number of feet or, alternatively, to both raise the height and expand the width of the landfill. The former option would add an estimated 12 years to the life of the landfill, while the second would add 15 years.

Raggio indicates he approves of these options on the grounds that both would “buy time” for the city, but he urges the city to look for a more comprehensive solution that would do more than merely “buy time.” His recommended solution is to convert “our waste cleanly to energy.” That is the part of Raggio’s article that I really appreciate.

I strongly oppose expansion of the Scholl Canyon Landfill. That course of action would give the city an excuse to put off adopting a serious, long-lasting solution.

I believe, without a doubt, that the appropriate solution has two prongs: 1) achieve a reduction in the production of waste through a program of economic carrots and sticks; 2) dispose of whatever waste is produced through converting it into energy, as Raggio recommends.

Glendale News-Press Articles
|
|
|