Resolution - #88-190 - 10/06/1988

Home

Alternatives The descriph~i~o~ o~ alternative actions also relies almost in its entirety on t}~ CON application and MC's review of that application in 1986. As previousAy indicated, actions which were determined by MC as neither fea:~i.~[~ nor prudent have been in place for six months. Further, the (~cussion regarding whether Elk River Landfill is capable of accomodating the demand forced on it by the closure of Anoka Sanita~'y ~andfill is dated. Most of the factors which MC indicated a~ ~'e~tricting Elk River Landfill's abilities have already been The assessme~t'. ~!R}es not take into account the impact of the restricted crossing at the Mississippi River bridge, its impacts on alternative routes or ]_a~d3~ill destinations imposed by the bridge restrictions and, theref~, (listorts the actual costs of waste hauling when com- paring alte};nat~ives to the expansion. The traffic/economic impacts created by ~!~ bridge restrictions may be readily available to MC through Anok.~ {~,unty's EIS on Site P. We would assume the County is evaluating ~.~ui routes with the bridge restrictions as a considerati~:,]~ There is a }~ia~ which appears to underlie the EIS discussion of alternative5 2t is evident on page 23 with the following paragraph: "Shifhr; ~,~! capacity within the Metropolitan system are likely to occur. T~ese shifts have no bearing, however, on total need for capac~'[.y w.ithin the system. Furthermore, the shift underway durin,~ ~%~{6 (the Flying Cloud restriction on disposal) raises the ].ikel~},~c.~i of more need to dispose of waste at the Anoka landfi Iii. Since this is the only landfill located in the northe}']~ [~ortion of the region, any reductions in use rate at the other [.ill: in the system will tend to expand the Anoka landfill waste~}~;~ {~.rther south." It would a!~,~> ~. just as accurate to state: "Any reduc'kJ~ns -in use rate at Anoka Landfill will tend to expand the wastesheds ~,~ o~her landfills to the north and east (as appropriate)." This bias ~-~,wa~o.s providing additional capacity at Anoka underlies the entire e×pa}~i~} application, regardless of need, of alternatives to the propos~0 ,~i ion, or of environmental concerns. On page 25 u~,<t<.~ the_ Summary of Alternatives, nearly every one of the eight conseque~,~es listed are either incorrect, already have occurred or wi].], oc{~ ~i.}ardless of the proposed expansion.