edi tori a I
Planning for land use is imperative The critical shortage of land for waste disposal sites emphasizes the inadequacies of random land development
N
othing makes Homo sapiens look more like some sort of giant ant than his frantic grubbing around for places to deposit his accumulated solid wastes. And few things point up the inadequacy of his public institutions, at least in the U.S., more than the institutionalized barriers that prevent him from locating disposal sites in accordance with any sort of rational plan. Several basic facts emerged recently at a symposium on solid waste disposal sites sponsored by the American Public Works Association. First, most solid wastes in this country are disposed of directly into the land. Second, the great majority of land disposal sites is grossly inadequate from the public health standpoint (94% of 6000 sites sampled by the federal Solid Wastes Management Office did not meet “even the most modest criteria” defining a sanitary landfill). Third, most urban areas have run out of space in their own jurisdictions and are experiencing great difficulty in finding sites outside their boundaries. Further, there is a disturbing trend toward restrictive local zoning which excludes landfill sites from many small jurisdictions that otherwise could accommodate them. In essence, everyone produces solid waste but no one wants it disposed of anywhere near where he lives (an understandable reaction in view of the health menace posed by existing sites). Since people live practically everywhere, this brings us to some sort of an impasse. Current alternatives to direct land disposal are really only partial solutions to the problem, since they usually give rise to large quantities of residual solids that still have to be disposed of somehow. The residue from incineration, for instance, amounts to over 50% of the solids “burned.” Since widespread recycling is still some years away, despite the intensity and sincerity of current efforts in that direction, there remains a critical need to find land disposal
sites that are both sanitary and acceptable to the public at large. The situation has public officials up against the wall. SWMO has estimated that, on the average, existing sites will last only another 4-5 years. Many officials at the APWA symposium reported that their sites have just a year or so left, and they have been unable to acquire land for future use. The situation is so desperate, indeed, that some municipalities have been forced to violate their own zoning ordinances in order to obtain a site. Assuming we are all in agreement that there is a problem-what can we do about it? It seems to us that the paramount need is for land use planning at a level above that of local government. The state level would be a good place to start. On the specific subject of waste disposal sites, not all land is suitable (by virtue of a high water table, for example), and it seems logical that a state should designate suitable areas for use only as landfill sites. Hopefully, a state would be more immune to land developer pressure than smaller jurisdictions have proved to be. While the concepts of air quality and water quality are fairly well established and lie at the heart of remedial measures designed to assure clean air and water, land quality and land management are fairly new concepts in the environmental field. A recognition of the need to plan land use and the establishment of workable mechanisms to do it are imperatives right now. For until such a time as we can reach the goal of complete recycling of solid wastes-a goal which ES&T embraces as firmly as anybody-it is only prudent that we face the facts of life and work out rational plans for disposing of the wastes that we have not yet had the intelligence or foresight to reuse.
Volume 5, Number 4, April 1971 291
