PROPOSED GREGORY CANYON LANDFILL

Why it matters to you

Presented to

San Diego Chapter, Surfrider Foundation

by: Ted Griswold Environmental Attorney, Procopio

April 21, 2010

Where is it?

Location: San Luis Rey Watershed

San Luis Rey River

Gregory Canyon

May 19, 2005

What is it?

Proposed Landfill Project Elements

• A privately constructed and operated solid waste landfill

• Operating for 30 Years; 1 Million Tons of Trash per Year

• Closure another 30 years• Line bottom of landfill with double liner• Excavation of earthen materials to a depth just

above groundwater

Project Elements (continued)

• Monitoring wells between the bottom of the landfill and groundwater

• Build Wall of Trash above the San Luis Rey• Set aside 1330 Acres of Open Space as part of

Project• “Recycling Facility”• Trash source: No Restrictions (seeking contracts

from local cities and LA, OC, Riverside Counties)

How Did a Landfill End Up Proposed for This Location?

SITING PROCESS

• Gregory Canyon was rejected multiple times as a potential landfill site by: – public process– county landfill siting studies– San Diego County resolutions

Rationale Provided for Rejecting Gregory Canyon as Proposed Landfill

Site• Danger to Water Source• Cultural Resource Impacts• Endangered and Threatened Species,

Impacts• Insufficient Size, too finite• Seismic Stability• Land Use Inconsistency

HOW GREGORY CANYON BECAME A LANDFILL SITE

• 1988 – Gregory Canyon Site purchased by proponents ($1MM)

• Proponent rebuffed in attempts to site landfill at GC, withdraws site as a candidate

• 1994 –Proponents funded Proposition C “Recycling and Solid Waste Disposal Initiative”

• December 1994 financial report concluded that proponents spent approximately $900,000

• No money spent in opposition because of poor socioeconomics of the area at that time

Why are we concerned? Why should you be concerned?

• Cultural Impacts—Sacred Sites• Water Quality—Latent Danger• Water Supply Endangerment• Endangered Species/Habitat Impacts• Air Quality• Traffic Impacts

CULTURAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT

• Destruction of Gregory Mountain (Chokla) - Sacred Mountain to the Luiseno people- Pala, Pechanga, Rincon, Pauma and La Jolla tribes, among others

• Medicine Rock- Eligible for the National Registry of Historic Sites- Registry pending

Gregory Mountain (“Chok’la”)

Medicine Rock

San Luis Rey River

Water Quality Concerns

• Proximity to San Luis Rey River• Perched over Groundwater Resource• Leakage Concerns• Seismic Stability• Loss of Tributary to San Luis Rey River

GREGORY CANYON

PROPOSED LAND USES

Water Quality

• The Liner System

Water Supply Concerns

• Endangerment of Aqueducts• Groundwater Depletion• Groundwater Contamination

San Luis Rey River

Borrow Pits

San Diego Aqueduct

Landfill Footprint

GREGORY CANYON PROJECT PLAN

Endangered Species/Habitat Impacts

• Endangered Species: Impacts to critical habitat for least Bell’s Vireo, arroyo toad, southwest willow flycatcher, California gnatcatcher, Steelhead

• Proposed Pre Approved Mitigation Area in County North County MSCP

• Direct and Indirect Impacts

Air Quality

• Degradation—Dust, fumes

• Water needed to control, but no water source

So What is The Latest on this Project?

• CEQA Challenges• 404 Permit/ ESA Section 7 Consultation• NEPA Review• Water Supply Needs• Air Quality Permits

• Double Dipping of Habitat Mitigation Area

• Traffic Impacts Not Adequately Addressed

• Water Source Not Addressed

CEQA CHALLENGES TO LANDFILLDraft EIR found Inadequate because.

. . .

The Water Source Saga

• Needed for Dust Control, Compaction• Maximum 193 acre feet per year• Not in an imported water service area• Appropriative water permit applied for in

1996, later abandoned• Riparian Water Rights attempts (limited to

parcel with rights)

The Water Source Saga (continued)

• Attempts to use of Onsite Production Wells from Dairies (Limited to parcels with wells)

• Attempt to Annex into SDCWA (rejected)• Olivenhain Municipal Water District

Reclaimed Water Agreement – OMWD Sued, lost

• Next—Using Point of Compliance Wells for production

The 404 Permit Saga

• Why Important?– 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis– ESA Section 7 Consultation– NHPA Section 106 Consultation– NEPA Review

May 19, 2005

The 404 Permit Saga (continued)

• Three Areas of Concern– Canyon Itself– Bridge to get to Canyon– “Low Flow Crossing” for Construction

• GCL Goal—Avoid Individual Permit (avoid permitting requirements)

Bridge Location

“Mitigation Area”

The 404 Permit Saga (continued)

• Original Studies showed Waters of the US in the Canyon (1996, 2003), – Accepted by GCL, Corps

• RII Case—For Landfills in Waters, RCRA Jurisdiction not 404– Would lead to no 404 permit needed, LEA has decision

– Corps and EPA Concurred. . . . Then

– Corps Guidance Letter—”but Liner Is Fill Activity”

The 404 Permit Saga (continued)

• 2005--In Response, GCL “re-defines Jursidictional Waters” in canyon – Finds No Waters in Canyon– Rejected by Corps Staff– Congressional intervention, reversal– Back to just Nationwide Permit

• Opponents push for Section 7, Individual 404 permit, NEPA Review, CEQA completion

• RWQCB Seeks to Issue 401 Certification in preparation of NWP issuance for Bridge

The 404 Permit Saga (continued)• Rapanos Case redefines the Nature of “Jurisdictional Waters”

– “Traditionally Navigable Waters of US”– Non-relatively permanent waters that flow directly or indirectly into

TNWs  – Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting relatively permanent waters

that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs  – Wetlands adjacent to non-relatively permanent waters that flow directly

or indirectly into TNWs 

• Bogus 2005 JD expires in October 2009

• New Jurisidctional Determination Required looking at TNW– Complicated by Lake Henshaw, City of Escondido diversion– Relevant—Steelhead use of River– Native American traditional canoes, rafts using river

The 404 Permit Saga (continued)

• Implications of TNW determination on the San Luis Rey

--Virtually ALL Southern California streams are ephemeral or intermittent

--If SLR is not TNW, 404 Jurisdiction lost on virtually all streams and their tributaries in Southern California

Myths

• Isn’t it already Built?– Uh, no!!!

• A Liner will protect the water source!– No lined landfill has ever not leaked

• It’s gone through 15 years of permitting, isn’t that enough?– Proof that this is a bad place for a landfill

Myths (Continued)

• It is just a special interest group against it!– Opponents to the Project include:

American Civil Liberties Union Anti-Defamation League Back Country Coalition

Buena Vista Audubon CA Catholic Conference CA League of Conservation Voters

Diocese of San Diego Environmental Defense Environmental Defense Fund

Environmental Health Coalition Fallbrook Land Conservancy Friends of Loma Alta Creek

Friends of the River Grand Jury Environmental Committee Grassetti Environmental Consulting

Greenaction Jewish Public Affairs Committee Land Protection Partners

Law Offices of Susan M. Trager National Audubon Society National Wildlife Federation

Natural Resources Defense Council Pala Mesa Resort Pala-Pauma Community Sponsor Group

Presbyterian Church of San Diego RiverWatch San Diego Audubon

San Diego Baykeeper San Diego Catholic Diocese San Diego County Ecumenical Conference

San Diego County Water Authority San Diego League of Conservation Voters San Diego League of Women Voters

San Diego Natural History Museum Senator John Burton Sierra Club

Sisters of the Precious Blood The Nature Conservancy The Trust for Public Land

Union of American Hebrew Congregations

United Neighbors of Bonsall Urban Wildlands Group

Myths (continued) Only a special interest against?

Opponents to the Site as a Landfill Include:

County Consultants: Endarra Group (1986), SCS Engineering (1988)

County District Attorney (1992) – concluded proponent engaged in undue influence on local officials, ties to organized crime

County Planning Commission (Sept. 7, 1990) County Grand Jury (Dec. 3, 1990)

County DPLU Staff (July 17, 1989, Jan. 12, 1990, June 1, 1990, 1991)

Fallbrook Community Planning Group and Pala-Pauma Sponsor Group (May/June 1990)

Fallbrook Public Utility District Federal Bureau of Land Management (April 5, 1990)

Jamul Indian Village La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians

Los Coyotes Band of Indians Metropolitan Water Authority

Metropolitan Water District Native American Environmental Protection Coalition

Pala Band of Mission Indians Pauma Band of Mission Indians

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians Rainbow Community Planning Group,

Rainbow Municipal Water District Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians San Diego County Water Authority

San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego State University

San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority

San Luis Rey River Watershed Council Yuima Municipal Water District

Myths (Continued)

• There is nothing that I can do to stop it– No!! You can make a difference– Need pressure of federal elected officials to

ensure integrity of 404 alternatives analysis

CONCLUSION

**Project Fight Continues**Allies in fight have grown, as has opposition

** Your help is appreciated—Stay Involved!!

Questions?