Agenda Packets - 1985/01/02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LUEET-3. SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT (B) (cont'd) 1. Effective Planning. To the greatest extent possible, all levels and unite of government and the private sectuf should be involved in all phases of planning and managing the solid and hazardous waste streams to assure a cost efficient and environmentally sound solid waste and hazardous waste disposal system. 2. Alternatives to Landfills. The League strongly endorses abatement, recycling and resource recovery activities and programs to reduce the need for the land disposal of waste. The goal should be to eliminate the land disposal of unprocessed solid waste, and to totally avoid the land disposal of hazardous waste. The League would support the prohibition of disposal of unprocessed solid waste in landfills provided that cost efficient alternatives are developed and funding is provided to cities to implement their responsibilities in a revised solid waste management system. A tax on solid waste deposited in landfills would be supported by the League if the funds derived from the tax would be used to establish a fund to pay for post closure costs of landfills and to finance recycling and abatement programs in the particular county where the tax is derived. In order to make local waste programs viable, a process for regulating the flow of solid waste must be available to provide a sufficient source of waste for any recovery program or facility. The League also supports the concept that producers of solid waste should pay the true and full costs of solid waste disposal and commends the legislature for its forward looking initiatives during the 1984 session in which a three tiered system of fees on land disposed solid waste was established with the intent of establishing a fee structure based on the type of waste disposed of in landfills. 3. Compensation and incentives for communities. Waste disposal facilities have many undesirable impacts on "host" communities and compensation for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the community should be provided. Direct costs include such things as fire protection, water and sewer services, buffer zone design and amenities, litter clean-up, while indirect costs include such items as road maintenance, monitoring costs, end use planning and city administrative costs associated with the facility. The current authority fol landfill host communities to impose a fee on waste deposited in the landfill should not be reduced. 4. Funding for Environmental, Personal and Property Damages. Recent studies have indicated that most, if not all, landfills eventually cause ground water contamination problems. It is largely undetermined at this point what the eventual impacts will be and in contemplation of this the League supports a surtax on solid waste going into landfills which will go into a fund dedicated to compensate persons or communities injured or damaged by adverse environmental incidents caused by landfill contamination, including real or personal property damage, personal injuries, clean-up activities, and alternative water supplies. 5. Clean-up of hazardous substance locations. The clean-up and decontamination of existing hazardcus waste sites should be expedited to prevent further damage to public health, water supplies, and environment. If a responsible party can be identified, that party should be liable for clean-up costs, costs for remedial action, and personal injury damages as defined in law. -26-