Delaine Fragnoli
Managing Editor
11/11/2009

    County supervisors waded once more into the topic of solid waste at their Tuesday, Nov. 3, meeting and emerged more than an hour later with a less than clean course of action.
    After one failed motion, they eventually passed a second motion, on a 3-2 vote, to not modify the county’s existing ordinances on self-hauling until after they had seen a management audit (approved earlier in the session) of the county’s two solid waste franchisees. But they did direct staff to start looking at allowing self-hauling of construction or demolition debris.
    The board was divided on the issue. Supervisors Terry Swofford, Ole Olsen and Sherrie Thrall voted for the second motion, while Lori Simpson and Robert Meacher voted against it. The results of the vote on the first motion were exactly the opposite.
    Jerry Sipe, director of environmental health, drew laughs from the assembled body when he “thanked” the supervisors “for that clear direction.”
    Swofford and Olsen represent the eastern part of Plumas County, where commercial interests, mostly contractors, have complained vociferously about the costs of disposing of their construction debris through the county’s franchisee, InterMountain Disposal. Because of their proximity to Nevada, they say they can haul their waste to sites there more cheaply than they can dispose of it within the county.
    Both men said they had received numerous phone calls and complaints from constituents. Chairwoman Sherrie Thrall said the county had gotten a petition signed by approximately 116 people that protested a request for a rate increase from IMD—on hold until the audit is complete—and also mentioned exporting trash.
    Meacher and Simpson, whose districts are covered by a different solid waste franchisee, Waste Management, said they had received few if any calls or complaints.
    In his backup material for the board, Sipe explained current county codes do not expressly prohibit self-hauling of solid waste out of the county; however, contracts, policies and codes, along with customer convenience and expense, collectively limit or restrict self-hauling.
    Such restrictions are commonly referred to as “flow control” Sipe said. He enumerated the benefits of that approach as: economies of scale for the local solid waste program, payoff of expensive capital improvement projects or an increased ability to meet state mandates like minimum recycling thresholds (set to increase in California).
    The most important reason for flow control in Plumas County, wrote Sipe, is to help contain overall program costs. “By ensuring all county-generated solid waste is handled and processed through the county-established solid waste system, costs can be spread more evenly and to a wider user base.”
    Sipe noted courts have upheld flow-control laws even when they increase solid waste costs to local ratepayers.
    He went on to summarize the benefits of relaxing flow control. “The primary arguments in favor … are based on market economy principles of supply and demand, consumer choice and competition. Such principles typically encourage better customer service and help contain costs.”
    Sipe cited the difficulties of comparing costs across county and state lines. For example, Sierra County subsidizes its solid waste program through a special parcel tax.
    During the meeting, Sierra Valley residents Dave and Jane Roberti argued for relaxed self-hauling rules, citing free market concepts of “competition and choice” and “convenience.”
    Public Works Director Bob Perreault pointed out “avoiders transfer costs to others. If fees become inequitable, that will have to be addressed.” In other words, if self-hauling regulations were relaxed, other ratepayers would end up subsidizing the Robertis’ “choice” and “convenience.”
    Perreault also noted the Solid Waste Task Force endorsed keeping the status quo for self-hauling.
    He explained that diverting waste from the county’s stream could so reduce volume that it would jeopardize IMD’s proposed materials recovery facility in Delleker, seen by many as the ultimate answer to Plumas County’s solid waste challenges.
    Sipe echoed that concern in his written material: “The future materials recovery facility, one option being discussed to help Plumas County meet future state-mandated waste diversion goals, may not be cost effective without more strict flow control.”
    On the other hand, said Sipe, tougher flow control could increase customer frustration and lead to more illegal dumping, a concern expressed by others at the meeting.
    A citizen asked about self-hauling within the county. Instead of paying for a bin from one of the waste companies, could a contractor haul his own debris to a local transfer site?
    Ricky Ross of IMD said yes; his company only asked that people take the debris to one of the larger transfer sites, not the smaller ones like the one in Graeagle.
    In answer to the Robertis, Ross said his company had tried three times to staff a Chilcoot transfer site to serve far eastern Plumas, “but nobody comes.”
    Another citizen asked about hauling recyclables. Thrall said those had to stay within the county per the franchise contracts.
    Simpson said she had “health and safety” concerns about self-hauling. She didn’t think she could make a decision about the issue until after she had seen the management audit of the franchisees.
    Thrall said she was concerned about enforcement. “We would be foolish to continue to have an unenforceable ordinance.” She wondered how many people were self-hauling: “Are we talking three or 300?”
    Swofford said he thought people who were already self-hauling would continue to do so, but otherwise “I don’t think this will open the barn doors.”
    Simpson asked how many people had been cited for exporting solid waste.
    Sipe and Perreault just shook their heads.
    Meacher said one size didn’t fit all. “We should focus on a solution for that (eastern) end of the county. My folks are satisfied, rates are reasonable.”
    The normally taciturn Swofford, putting one hand to his breast, passionately declared people’s right to dispose of their own garbage. “I just feel this,” he said. “People own their garbage. They should have a right to dispose of it as they want.”
    Simpson retorted, “You can’t just do whatever you want with your garbage.”
    “Does anyone think we should allow customers to haul household garbage?” asked Thrall.
    Her question was greeted with a resounding “no,” the only definitive moment in the 90-minute discussion.
    Simpson soon followed up with the ill-fated first motion.    When it failed, Thrall rephrased it and added direction to staff to examine the possibility of self-hauling construction/demolition debris. That met with the board’s approval, barely,