Public Comments and Responses to the IRSWMP (Appendix I) - 2009

Home

20. Julie Jacobson from Puna "I've been following the overall issue for a little over a decade, and I think the thing that bothered me back then is one of the things that is still with us now, and I think that's the environmental threat of pay as you throw. And I think it will be because it will be invisible in our environment, owing to our hundreds and hundreds of rural roads and hundreds of rural... 55 thousand rural lots in Puna alone. I think that the rage that some people have expressed here is that if they sense it as an additional tax, an additional burden, that they're going to be angry and frankly they're going to take it out on, what they think is taking it out on the government or the world at large, but what will be affected is that place where that piece of trash falls, and we won't know it. It's going to happen hundreds and hundreds and thousands and thousands of times. It's an environmental disaster to cause that to us. If we find other ways that will prevent that phenomenon, and I generally believe people are good at heart and mean well, but I think there's a real underlying discouragement people feel now, and a rage people feel in the issues. "Having picked up trash for over a decade, and I go to the another subject: I wish we could just put the incinerator issue to rest and not say we have to rehash it every five years. I feel like we've discussed this at other meetings, but basically the directions you take and the effort you go to go to using a incinerator or something like that, are just the opposite of what you do towards zero waste, reducing waste. These types of facilities need quantity, we have a relatively small population, you'd need a lot of material to make it profitable, regardless of all the bigger economic issues, so to me it seems like we would make a solid plan and really aim ourselves at solid waste if we say we're giving it... just kind of like if we as a nation would aim towards renewable energies and not oil drilling and more extracting industries. Our whole plan should go that way, and not listen to people with an economic incentive to work towards big technology, when I see the bulk of the people benefiting from the zero waste approach. "I think there's a lot of like you say, job opportunities with zero waste, and there's a lot of room for minor engineering kinds of things to make easier, minor engineering designs for contraptions to put your waste in, to make it so it's not so stinky. If you take them so far, a lot of little things we can do to make more people participate in the zero waste approach. So I appreciate all you've done toward that goal and say if you drop pay as you throw, and you drop any thought of an incinerator or these big technologies, or the mechanical - biological treatment facilities and spread it all over the ground, which is almost worse in my mind than an incinerator, just kind of say no once and for all as a County that this is not what we want. Be final about it and don't try to walk in two camps that aren't compatible. Thank you very much." Response: The SWD recognizes the risk of increased illegal dumping that may accompany a pay -as- you -throw campaign. Over 7,000 communities have implemented pay -as- you -throw (PAYT) systems in North America, many of which were rural communities with ongoing illegal dumping concerns. The most common experience in such communities is that no substantial ongoing increase in illegal dumping occurs if education and enforcement issues are addressed properly. Thus, the IRSWMP Update recommends increasing education, improving enforcement capabilities, and allowing for a reasonable phase -in period for PAYT. The SWD will look for opportunities to provide assistance to low income residents. The SWD is also considering other funding mechanisms besides PAYT. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES APPENDIX IDOC 12