Of all 29 garbage dumps throughout Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo counties, the Tajiguas Landfill — located on the Gaviota Coast overlooking the Pacific Ocean — is no doubt the most visually spectacular. It also happens to be the most expensive, according to a survey just released by the Ventura County Public Works Department.
The Tajiguas Landfill now costs $77 a ton, and Santa Barbara County solid waste planners are aggressively pursuing ambitious long-range developments that would push the number to $97. By contrast, the new-and-improved landfill slated to open in Santa Maria will charge $70 a ton. A little further afield, the Simi Valley Landfill and the Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Castaic charge $58 and $59 a ton, respectively.
The release of these figures could prove illuminating — or inflammatory — given the sticker shock some major landfill users have expressed at the rate increase needed to cover the costs of building a major Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at Tajiguas so that recyclables and compostables can be extracted from the waste stream. In addition, county trash planners are proposing to build a vast, industrial-scale anaerobic digester that can trap the methane and other biofuels. This whole enterprise is projected to cost around $75 million and would extend the licensed lifespan of the landfill — set to expire in 10 years — by an additional 10 years.
The City of Santa Barbara, which contributes about 70,000 of the 170,000 tons of trash dumped at Tajiguas each year, has been less than enthusiastic about the county’s high-tech, high-priced plans to extend the life of its landfill. While city trash planners have not contemplated any go-it-alone strategy, Santa Barbara might be able to save as much as $2.5 million a year in tipping fees by hauling its trash to the Simi Valley or Chiquita landfills instead of signing up for the county’s MRF and Digester plan.
County trash czar Leslie Wells estimated that once transportation costs are factored in, the difference in tipping fees would shrink to $15 a ton, coincidentally the same amount the average resident generates a year in trash. “That’s $1.20 a month,” she said. For that same amount, Wells said, trash customers could support a much-improved program that recycles 25 percent of what’s now sent to the landfill and generates enough energy — via biofuel mining — to keep the equivalent of 22,000 cars off the road per year.
As for why Tajiguas costs so much even without the major changes on the drawing board, Wells said the expansion of the site now taking place — with new pits and new linings — is very expensive. Likewise, the county has to set aside enough money to ensure the site poses no environmental threat 30 years after it closes. And finally, she speculated, it could be because of the trained falcons kept on site to chase the seagulls away so the gulls don’t poop on the beach and contaminate nearby creeks. “The falcons aren’t cheap,” she said.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Sometimes to do something the right way it costs a little extra.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Not surprising that anything with the name 'Santa Barbara' attached to it is the prettiest and most expensive.
GDogMama (anonymous profile)
August 29, 2012 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah, so we technically have a pretty, expensive, dump???
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So if falcons cost $15/ton and chickens cost .69/lb or $1380/ton then the falcons are an excellent deal. Hack article.
LowerEastJ (anonymous profile)
August 30, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think they should send all garbage into space, in rockets...point them at the sun and launch.
this would be especially helpful in getting rid of NUCLEAR WASTE like spent fuel rods and bloggers
GluteousMaximus (anonymous profile)
September 1, 2012 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, space garbage idea, right...What happens when a rocket fails with nuclear material on it, or even explodes, not to mention transportation costs, air pollution to lift 70,000 tons of trash into space every year...
How about we as a society produces less waste, more reusable products? Less trash, less cost all the way around. No one sees in the article either that these "liners" are suppose to only be made to last 30 years? WTF! That right there is a huge if not major freaking problem down the road in so many ways. The trash and chemicals will be around for hundreds if not thousands of years. It is not till really the last 10 years we stopped dumping the really horrible stuff in there, heavy metals etc...
Point is if there is a way to recycle, get some use out of what we have already thrown away that is great! It is going to cost way more to start to clean all this up in 30 years and the on going cost will be out of control. The damage will be done and it will be like most government projects, throwing endless money at something they could have done something about 30 years ago. Story of my generation!
miked442 (anonymous profile)
September 2, 2012 at 10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Would you have your mom buried in some ugly canyon in Ventura or Simi valley? No, of course not. Same with trash. We have the most beautiful resting place for our trash anywhere on the planet. Just a few steps from the great Pacific ocean. Next to a pristine beach. Awesome views from a trash heap 600 feet high. Isn't that worth paying twice as much? Santa Barbarians care about their trash.
dontoasthecoast (anonymous profile)
September 4, 2012 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)