10/12/88 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Alternatives The description of alternative actions also relies almost in its entirety on the CON application and MC's review of that application in 1986. As previously indicated, actions which were determined by MC as neither feasible nor prudent have been in place for six months. Further, the discussion regarding whether Elk River Landfill is capable of accomodating the demand forced on it by the closure of Anoka Sanitary Landfill is dated. Most of the factors which MC indicated as restricting Elk River Landfill's abilities have already been alleviated. The assessment does not take into account the impact of the restricted crossing at the Mississippi River bridge, its impacts on alternative routes or landfill destinations imposed by the bridge restrictions and, therefore, distorts the actual costs of waste hauling when com- paring alternatives to the expansion. The traffic/economic impacts created by the bridge restrictions may be readily available to MC through Anoka County's EIS on Site P. We would assume the County is evaluating haul routes with the bridge restrictions as a consideration. There is a bias which appears to underlie the EIS discussion of alternatives. It is evident on page 23 with the following paragraph: "Shifts of capacity within the Metropolitan system are likely to occur. These shifts have no bearing, however, on total need for capacity within the system. Furthe.'-more, the shift underway during 1986 (the Flying Cloud restriction on disposal) raises the likelihood of more need to dispose of waste at the Anoka landfill. Since this is the only landfill located in the northern portion of the region, any reductions in use rate at the other fills in the system will tend ~o expand the Anoka landfill wasteshed further south." would also be just as accurate to state: "Any reductions in use rate a~ ~ ...... a Landfill ~.~ tend to expand the was%esheds of other_~and=~3~s .... to =k_-= ncrth and eas% (as appropriate)." This bias uowards providing addiuicna! capaciuy at Anoka underlies the eh=ire expansion application, regardless of need, cf alternatives to uhe prcpcsed action, or of envircnmenta! concerns. On.Dace. 25 under 'i._.-= Sum3.ary of A!~ernatives, nearlY, every one of the ~i ~.- conse~aences listed are eiuher ~nccrrec%, ~ ~' · -._=a~ have occurred ._ ~-__ occur regardless cf %he proposed expansion.