"I have nothing to say, and I am saying it, and that is poetry." - John Cage
I'm sure none of you will agree this is poetry; but, at this date, I FINALLY have something to say in terms of the status of the Jungo Road Landfill.
BACKGROUND (also see NAG brochure: http://bit.ly/nlKhlk)
The proposed Jungo Road Landfill would bring in 4000 tons of nonrecycleable California waste, 5 days a week, via train for 95 years. No environmental impact study was required of the site, or the transport path. The site is over an active aquifer, and it appears the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) is willing to grant an exception to this project to build closer to the aquifer than state statute allows. We know this waste would not come from San Francisco given their current policies. Which California communities this would come from isn't known (legally, Recology cannot sign up customers until they have an operating permit).
As you'll recall, the Humboldt County Commissioners (Winnemucca, Nevada) voted NOT to extend the expired 3-year conditional use permit (CUP) for Jungo Land/Investments (Recology), for 5 more years. Jungo Land/Investements (Recology) responded by suing not only Humboldt County; but the county commissioners as well.
Currently, Jungo Land/Investments has an air quality permit and no operating permit. The NDEP halted the operating permit review until the outcome of litigation beteen Jungo Land/Investements (Recology) and Humboldt County and the commissioners has been determined.
MARK YOUR CALENDARS for 1/9/12 to be in Reno:
There has not been a decision in the case of Jungo Land Investements (Recology) vs Humboldt County The judge has agreed to hear oral arguments as requested by the Recology lawyers. This is scheduled for 1/9/12, 10am, Reno Courtroom 6). You can reference the N.A.G. web site,October 4 posting for information on this item.
MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE RANCH, the California Ranch, that is
California has established stricter goals to divert 75% of their solid waste away from landfills by 2020. So why is Recology going through so many hoops to continue building the Jungo Road Landfill? Are the original planned projections of 20,000 tons per week for 95 years of non-recycleable CA waste still valid? Does Recology expect the amount of waste in CA to increase so much that the 25% that DOES go to a landfill is high enough to feed the original planned projections? Seems like the business case gets even rockier than it was to begin with.
Here's the link to the California government web site that spells out these solid waste goals. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/stateagency/requirements/
ON A SIDE NOTE, two lawsuits were filed AGAINST Recology and San Francisco:
After San Francisco Board Supervisors voted to award a 10-year, $112 million contract to send 5 million tons of the city's trash to Recology's Ostrom Road Landfill in Wheatland, three lawsuits were filed.
And a third lawsuit was also filed; involving Recology but only against San Francisco
IN CONCLUSION, my big focus is on the January 9 oral hearing in Reno. Hope to see you there. The California waste goals are admirable but could theychange the revenue projects for the proposed Jungo Road Landfill and the source of waste for the landfill? I also find the multiple lawsuits around Recology business practices intriguing; but certainly, unproven.
Hope this finds all of you well. I appreciate your visit to this blog and continued support. Ongoing thanks to the Friend of Black Rock for allowing me to publish here.
Facebook: Nevadans Against Garbage