COMMENTARY
Political influence destroyed promise of best landfill decision

By Bruce Anderson
Former state Health Director who was a member of the landfill panel

Landfills are not a subject people want to talk about around the dinner table. Indeed, most people don't care about where they are located, as long as it's not in their back yard. Yet the decision on where O'ahu's next landfill will be is one of the most important issues facing our community.

Currently, the island's only landfill is at Waimanalo Gulch, which is nowhere near the Windward community of the same name. Waimanalo Gulch is on the mauka side of Farrington Highway near Ko Olina resort. Although it is well managed, there is no getting around the fact that any landfill is an eyesore.

Consequently, developers and elected officials from the area have been pressuring city officials for years to close it. Finally, in an effort to appease developers and nearby residents, the city administration promised it would close the landfill — without considering the viability of alternative sites.

Mayor Jeremy Harris then appointed a 15-member blue-ribbon committee to make recommendations on where O'ahu's next landfill should be. I was asked to serve, as someone with more than 20 years of experience in environmental health and public-policy issues and landfill-siting decisions elsewhere in the Islands. I agreed, after being assured that city officials would be open to all recommendations the committee might make.

Looking around the room at our first meeting, I wondered how such a group could possibly come up with a recommendation that would consider all the factors involved in landfill siting or represent the interests of everyone on O'ahu. As members introduced themselves, it was obvious the committee had been appointed with political expediency in mind: It included a disproportionate number of community representatives most likely to be affected by the decision, those from Leeward and Windward O'ahu.

A handful of others were appointed for their experience. No one had experience managing a landfill. Nevertheless, we developed a list of criteria based on input from those concerned about potential impacts on their communities and from others aware of potential impacts.

From a list of 44 potential locations, we narrowed the list to eight. Sites with less than 10 years' capacity remaining, for example, were excluded. Then we developed environmental, social and economic criteria and a method of ranking the eight sites. Environmental criteria included factors such as the presence of groundwater that could be contaminated. Social criteria included the proximity of homes and schools. We also included economic criteria such as the cost of site acquisition, site development and landfill operations.

We made a "double-blind" evaluation of the sites to ensure impartiality. That is, committee members were not aware of how the ranking criteria would be applied to the sites, and the city's consultants were not aware of how the committee would weigh the criteria based on factors it felt were most important. The result was an objective process of ranking the sites.

Based on those criteria and available information, five sites clearly stood out. There was no disagreement that they were the best sites. The committee had gone as far as it could and was poised to make a sound recommendation.

Waimanalo Gulch appeared at the top of the list. Here's why:

• Population density near the site is comparatively low.
• It has no drinking water to contaminate, no flora or fauna to be threatened, no archaeological or other site of historical significance.
• The cost of site acquisition, development and operations is low because the site belongs to the city and the necessary infrastructure is in place.
• It is a short distance from H-Power, facilitating disposal of ash from the waste-to-energy facility, and centrally located to waste-transfer stations around the island.
• It is easily accessed from Farrington Highway, near the merger from H-1.
• The landfill has an estimated capacity of 20 years or more.

In other words, the best location for the island's new landfill was the site of the current landfill, which validated its selection in the first place.

Last week, as I was gaining confidence that the committee would submit the five sites to city officials for further evaluation, the process turned ugly. One committee member proposed selecting a single site by committee vote — throwing out the process by which we had all agreed to abide.

Realizing that he could not justify this decision, he then proposed voting to eliminate the site near the resort where he works. To my surprise, other members supported the recommendation.

Why this happened is uncertain. Some members felt bound by the city administration's promise it would not consider Waimanalo Gulch. Others were disappointed with the outcome of the process, which might result in landfill operations continuing in their back yard. One member expressed concern that a letter sent by a Ko Olina developer might result in a lawsuit targeting committee members themselves if Waimanalo Gulch were selected.

Whatever the reasons, the committee voted to remove Waimanalo Gulch from the list — the site its own process had identified as best.

The landfill selection process was designed to insulate the committee from political promises and the influence of those with economic self-interests. Yet, somehow, these influences carried the day.

As a result, I joined several others in resigning from the once-promising committee, now turned into what I considered a sham. None of the committee members has malicious intent. Indeed, they are all good people who I am sure mean well and voted accordingly. However, my initial suspicions about their ability to make an objective and independent recommendation were confirmed.

There is still hope. It is not too late for the city administration and City Council to make a decision that is in the best interests of all the people of O'ahu. They can continue evaluating the top five sites, including Waimanalo Gulch.

Land is too precious in Hawai'i to despoil another site unnecessarily. If the wisdom of our elected officials and others prevail, and if they have the courage and political will to resist efforts to influence this important decision, we still might end up with what is truly the best possible site to put our trash for the next 20 years or more.