1988 Comments - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

April 28, 1988 Page Three The Draft EID states at p. 2-11 that "with the recent approval of Flying Cloud Landfill adequate system capacity may be provided without expansion of this landfill." This statement is inaccurate. It is our understanding that the Flying Cloud Landfill is not currently accepting waste, and the status of its expansion is unresolved. Moreover, the Draft EID fails to point out that the issue of need for the expansion was thoroughly addressed and considered in connection with the Metropolitan Council's issuance of the certificate of need for the expansion. This evaluation by the Metropolitan Council included consideration of the Flying Cloud Landfill and other landfills as potential alternative system capacity and concluded that the expansion should nonetheless go forward. 2. The Draft EID fails ect the adverse The expansion of the Anoka positive environmental effects; Landfill will have several for example, substantially decreased infiltration and corresponding decreased leachate generation (estimated at 40.6 million gallons over 20 years) as a result of increasing slopes and improved final cover design. These environmental benefits will be lost if the proposed project precludes the expansion. The Draft EID does not address this potential adverse impact of the project. 3. The Draft EID fails to address the fact that the ion project con The Draft EID contains a discussion of Metropolitan Council aviation planning policy at pp. 2-15 through 2-18. However, there is no mention whatsoever of state law and Metropolitan Council planning policy on solid waste management with which the project conflicts. For example, Minn. Stat. § 473.806, subd. 1 establishes a development limitation to prevent development (such as airport or residential development) which would jeopardize the availability of a proposed landfill site (such as Site P) until the site selection process is completed. That statute provides: