Agenda - Council - 10/25/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

mo I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~NTRODUCTION Like power plants, airports, highways and factories, solid waste disposal facilities often cause undesirable effects on local communities. Impacts .may include risk of air or water pollution, noise, increased traffic on local roads~or taking land out of other, productive uses. Many ne§ative impacts of solid waste disposal facilities can be reduced through proper siting--for example, locating a new landfill where there is less risk of causing groundwater pollution. However, proper siting of disposal facilities cannot usually eliminate all adverse impacts. Some environmental and public health risks remain regardless of where a facil- ity may be located. ~gsource recovery facilities and transfer stations may also cause unde- sirable effects upon local communities. These facilities in contrast to landfills, pose less of a risk to public health or the environment. Potential impacts from these facilities are under greater control than landfills. In addition, benefits may accompany the development of power plants and similar land uses, such as spin-off development, large property tax pay- ments or employment opportunities. However, landfills, for example, do not usually attract other development. If publicly owned, they produce no property tax revenue. If privately owned, they don°t produce much property tax revenue because they don't involve use of much capital equipment. Moreover, landfills are usually of more benefit to a large geographic area that uses them than to the community that hosts them. Resource recovery.facilities and transfer stations are different from landfills for they may attract additional development. They may encour- age the location of other waste-related recycling or processing indus- tries. If publicly owned, they produce no tax revenue; but if privately owned, they may produce considerable property tax revenue because they can be very capital intensive, particularly waste-to-energy facilities. However, like landfills, large resource recovery facilities are usually of more benefit to a large geographic area that uses them than to the community that hosts them. In comparison, transfer stations and small resource recovery facilities tend to benefit the host community. This report examines the beneficial and detrimental effects from waste facilities on host communities. The report does not intend to suggest a diminished effort to abate land disposal of solid waste because it recom- mends compensation to the host community. Rather, it is hoped that this report will strengthen efforts to recycle and recover energy and mate- rials from solid waste by highlighting the external costs of land dis- posal. Solid waste abatement has been hampered because landfills are less expensive than resource recovery. One reason the costs of land dis- posal are less expensive is that the current free market economic system does not include:the external Costs of landfills.