‘Mount Trashmore’ Could Give the Visitor’s Center a Run for its Money:Recapping Our Recent WGVA Appearances with Ted Baker

For those of you who missed our last two regular appearances on WGVA radio with Ted Baker, we thought we might re-visit what we covered by connecting two seemingly disparate issues in one post: the Visitors’ Center and leachate. Our purpose is to keep our readers thinking about the public policy priorities of our region, and, more importantly, how they ought to be determined.

Back in April, Ted talked with us about the realignment of Geneva’s elementary schools, which we viewed as a done deal, following from a flawed process, with a pre-ordained outcome orchestrated by school district officials. We had run a series of posts concerned with the objective research on the likely negative educational outcomes of realignment and the rapidly eroding public trust in the wake of shaky, shifting arguments given by the district in support of its decision.

At the close of the interview, Ted asked us about the $4 million member item that Senator Nozzolio earmarked for some as-yet-to-be-determined destination project on Geneva’s lakefront. It appeared that the project had shifted from the Chamber of Commerce’s initial proposal for enhanced offices and Visitors Center-- unveiled to the public as Building 12 of the infamous Bergmann Report-- to a true regional attraction with a direct tie-in to the lake.

Despite word from the Senator’s staff that the money had been ‘frozen’ in the midst of the State’s fiscal crisis, the City Council named a community-based planning committee to review the project ideas and bring their recommendations back to the public. What emerged was a proposed partnership with the Finger Lakes Boating Museum, a group dedicated to showcasing and in many cases, reviving the art of boatbuilding in the Finger Lakes tradition. In taking this step, the committee has clearly endorsed the policy (recommended in the Bergmann plan) of promoting Geneva as a hub of regional tourism.
While we still expect the Council to exercise due diligence in examining the feasibility, financials, and visitor projections of the Museum as proposed, we find it at least conceptually, to be a major improvement over the idea of an exclusive tower of condos. on the lakefront.

In our May appearance, we talked with Ted about the proposal of Ontario County and Casella (who leases and operates the County landfill) to construct a direct sewer line from the City’s system, through the Town of Seneca, to the landfill to pipe in leachate. Once again, concerns about transparency and accountability arose when a long lost contract between the City and Casella to treat leachate mysteriously appeared just hours before a vote on the project.

On air, we pointed out the inherent tension, if not an outright contradiction, in pursuing leachate treatment, and thus promoting the waste management industry which threatens the perception and the reality of the Finger Lakes as a major tourist region. To put it another way: promoting the growth of the County landfill would seem to inhibit the growth of tourism. Will Geneva be seen as a ‘Gateway’ to the Finger Lakes, or to the landfills?

(By the way, we believe Geneva should retire the ‘Gateway to the Finger Lakes’ slogan anyway, because it suggests that one should only pass through Geneva on the way to some other destination, but we’d prefer that it be given up in favor of something more flattering, not less!)

But, wait—maybe there’s an angle we’ve been missing here! In Virginia, the State Tourism Board does an excellent job of promoting “Mount Trashmore” as a premier destination. According to their website, “World-renowned Mount Trashmore Park is 165 acres, 60 feet high, over 800 feet long, and was created by compacting layers of solid waste and clean soil. Recognized for its environmental feat, the park features the Water Wise demonstration garden that boasts xeriscaping where you can learn how to create a beautiful garden with minimal water requirements.” There’s a picnic area, playground for the kids, basketball court, and more. They even allow fishing in the ponds!

Now perhaps we’re being unfair to Virginia. After all, you may say that they’re just making the best of a bad situation. That may be true, but there is a lesson to be learned here: A failure to set and maintain community priorities and standards can lead to the pursuit of mutually exclusive endeavors.

Either we want to protect our water, our vistas, and the wine/tourism industry they support or, we want to pursue any and all revenue sources, even if they are linked to industries that are inconsistent with our community vision. Either we want to be known as the community that understands and promotes sustainability, or we want to be the place where people send their waste so they don’t have to deal with it themselves. Either we want to be Geneva, a community that invests in its downtown-lakefront amenities, or we want to be Mount Trashmore, inviting people to fish on the land where their garbage is buried.

It’s all about good public policy and transparent, accountable decision-making. Take a listen to the radio interviews and take a moment to think about it.

How Green Is Our City (Part 1):How Clean Is Our Water?

How Green is Your City? (2007), written by Warren Karlenzig, features the “SustainLane US City Rankings” for “urban sustainability” of the 50 largest cities in the country. The City of Geneva is not on the list, but we felt Geneva ought to conduct its own assessment of just how green we are.

Karlenzig defines sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the quality of life of future generations.” (p. 1) There are 15 factors used to generate the City Rankings: city commuting, metro public transit, air quality, tap water quality, solid waste diversion, planning/land use, city innovation, housing affordability, natural disaster risk, energy/climate change policy, local food and agriculture, green economy, knowledge base, and LEED (green) buildings.

In light of all the discussion about leachate and gasification, we thought a ‘green assessment’ should take up the tap water quality issue first. The Karlenzig report relies on the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) December 2005 US city drinking water database. The EWG, in turn, relies on tap water testing data from state water offices, which ‘collects it from drinking water utilities,” as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (1974/1986/1996).

We checked out data for our own City of Geneva, and you can, too. (click here for site)

Here’s what it says about the City of Geneva tap water: A total of 14 contaminants were detected (arsenic, barium, chromium, mercury, nitrate, selenium, antimony, thallium, chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, dibrromochchloromethane, total trihalomethanes, alpha particle activity).

Breaking down the 14 by their source-- where they come from-- the largest category of pollutants was “industrial pollutants” (9), followed by “naturally occurring” (6), and “water treatment and distribution byproducts” (5), and other categories. (A contaminant may appear in more than one category.)

The EWG then looked at these contaminants from a health perspective, assessing “health based limits,” which “include enforceable drinking water limits (called Maximum Contaminant Limits, or MCLs) as well as governmental, non-enforceable health guidelines, such as Maximum Contaminant Limit Goals (MCLGs), lifetime health advisory levels, one-day and ten-day advisory levels to protect children from non-cancer health endpoints, and other government-established health guidelines for tap water contaminants.”

The EWG health summary identified “health effects or target organs of contaminants found: Cardiovascular or Blood Toxicity, Cancer, Developmental Toxicity, Endocrine Toxicity, Immunotoxicity, Kidney Toxicity, Gastrointestinal or Liver Toxicity, Neurotoxicity, Reproductive Toxicity, Respiratory Toxicity, and Skin Sensitivity.”

About arsenic, the EPA says:

“Arsenic is a semi-metal element in the periodic table. It is odorless and tasteless. It enters drinking water supplies from natural deposits in the earth or from agricultural and industrial practices.

Non-cancer effects can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.

EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic. Water systems must comply with this standard by January 23, 2006, providing additional protection to an estimated 13 million Americans.

Sources of contamination
Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards, runoff from glass & electronic production wastes”

Ironically, the percentage of pollutants over “health based limits” was highest for the water treatment category; 4 out of 5 pollutants in the water treatment category were over EWG health based limits. Is what we add to the water to keep it clean itself a health risk?

From the EWG perspective, “The top contaminants of concern for the City of Geneva are: arsenic, bromodichloromethane, and thallium.” For all three, levels exceeded EWG health limits but not legal limits. According to EWG, across the nation, they found “over 90% compliance with enforceable health standards,” but, unfortunately, the problem is “the EPA’s failure to establish health standards and monitoring requirements.” Combining all nationwide data, EWG finds 260 contaminants in the drinking water, with 141 of the 260 unregulated, i.e., without any safety standards, by the EPA.

Here is EWG summary of the situation in Geneva:

“An Environmental Working Group analysis of tap water tests from 2001 through 2002 shows that customers of Geneva City drank water containing up to 14 pollutants. Geneva City is one of 65,000 water suppliers across the country wrestling with treating water polluted by sprawl, sewage, factory.”

The EPA maintains a “Consumer Confidence Report” website with annual drinking water quality reports from water suppliers who voluntarily list themselves. The City of Geneva is not on the list.

Before you run out and buy water from another source, know that most bottled water, for example, is not legally required to be tested, and when it has been tested, it has been shown to be not necessarily safer than tap water. Instead, we point out that the conclusion of the Assessment of National Tap Water Quality is “utilities need more money to monitor for contaminants and protect source waters.” In the context of the leachate discussion, where the nature and quantity of pollutants entering our treatment plant and exiting into our source of drinking water is not clearly understood, this seems wise counsel for the City Council.

Setting the Table For a 'No' Vote:25 Unanswered Questions About the Leachate Contract

Last week, a motion was brought forward for Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with Casella for a possible leachate line from the Ontario County Landfill to the City of Geneva Waste Water Treatment Plant. In our previous post, we had called for a tabling of the motion, and, Wednesday night, it was tabled.

At the time, the table seemed the only responsible vote for Council-- at least in light of the last minute disclosure of a contract between the City and Casella that had been assumed not to exist. The City Attorney and City Manager had told both the public and Councilors that no contract existed in the weeks leading up to the proposed ‘renegotiation’.

Turns out, there are so many unknowns, and so many risks, and so many questionable aspects, for this whole deal that the resolution ought to be simply voted down—defeated. Period. To prove our point, we came up with 25 questions—actually, we stopped at 25- that individually raise enough doubts to call the whole thing off, and collectively warrant calling the whole issue a ‘fiasco’:

1. Why in the world would anyone allow a garbage dump to pour its leachate into the water they drink without knowing for sure what is in it?
2. Does the City have any existing policy for environmental sustainability?
3. Why would the Council, in 2005, authorize the City Manager to “negotiate and execute” a contract, but not hold a discussion of the provisions of the contract?
4. Was the 2005 contract in the City’s best interest?
5. Why did the City never provide the specific “parameters” for the chemical composition of the leachate it received from the landfill, as it said it would in the now-found 2005 contract?
6. What, exactly, are the current parameters, including all substances tested for and amounts?
7. What toxic substances are not tested for?
8. What toxic substances should be tested for, given known composition of landfills?
9. What is the comparative cancer rate for the City of Geneva?
10. Must the City accept leachate from the Casella under any conditions?
11. Does the City have to agree to a sewer line for the leachate if Casella calls for one?
12. Why would the current City Attorney not know of the existence of such a contract?
13. Why would the current City Manager not know of the existence of such a contract?
14. How could anyone be talking about authorizing the current City Manager to enter into negotiations with Casella about a leachate line and have no knowledge of the current contract?
15. Where was the current contract found?
16. Who found it?
17. Why was it not brought forward sooner?
18. What other unknown contracts are there?
19. Why did it take sustained community based inquiries to bring all this to light?
20. Why do citizens appear to be doing more due diligence on these issues than the elected and appointed officials?
21. Why was there so little outrage expressed about the missing contract by Councilors at Wednesday night’s meeting?
22. Who in the administration is accountable for this fiasco?
23. Why is that not one private citizen came forward at the meeting to speak in favor of the leachate deal?
24. Why is that City staff and Casella seem to be the only ones in favor of the leachate deal?
25. What are the exact, net revenue amounts, per year, for the City of Geneva from Casella? (This means taking what’s billed and subtracting the costs of treatment, including chemicals, energy, staff, and administration costs in appropriate, proportional amounts.
    

Councilor Alcock put it well: “No one wants this, so why are we even discussing it?” Given the justifiable public outcry, and the mountain of missing information, there is lots more to discuss in terms of accountability and the leachate itself. Let’s put a moratorium on leachate until these 25 questions, and all others, are answered to the community’s satisfaction.