OCR Text |
Show Says BARD still very usable After having read last week's editorial concerning BARD I can understand why the author chose to remain anonymous he has a unique lack of understanding coupled with a total scarcity of facts. I probably would not have signed my name to the letter either. That matter aside, let me respond to some of the false allegations allega-tions made by the letter and clear them up with the facts: 1. BARD is not an idea whose time has come and gone. All engineering reports indicate a useful life for many years to come. ' 2. BARD is not "precariously" located. It hasn't moved from the same place it has been for 25 years, during which time it has served as the sanitary landfill for all communities. Again, engineering en-gineering studies for BARD have indicated that it is an excellent site for a landfill, due to the fact that it is downstream from any culinary water wells, is in an area where there is positive (artesian) (arte-sian) water pressure, and has a naturally formed, impervious clay liner at the bottom of the fill. . 3. EPA has never characterized BARD as the worst of possible possi-ble landfill sites. 4. The Davis County Board of Health has never declared it to be a concentrated source of ground water contamination. 5. The landfilling now being done by Bountiful will hopefully correct some of the deficiencies that existed because BARD followed poor landfilling practices. 6. Bountiful owns the land where BARD is located, and , provided it virtually free of charge to all of the other cities in South Davis County to be the solution to refuse disposal. It has served that purpose for the past 25 years. 7. There is no "disastrous wake" caused by continued land-filling. land-filling. In fact, an engineering report which was completed for BARD in June of this year, indicated that Bountiful's continued . use could save the other cities over $1 million. All of the other cities have acknowledged this in a proposal recently made in Bountiful. Boun-tiful. 8. Under both current and new regulations, any contaminants found in BARD, whether it is closed or not, are the responsibility of those who put them there. Why should Bountiful have to bear alone the burden of the pollution when most of the hazardous waste came from industrial polluters located in other communities? Bountiful is willing to pay its fair share of whatever is needed to assure that the landfill represents neither a health hazard nor an environmental blisht in Davis County. 9. BARD is no less a gamble than NARD. In fact, NARD is much worse than BARD because it is located upstream from culinary water wells. Why is it unfair for Bountiful to use BARD but fair for all of the other communities to haul their refuse 25 miles across interstate highways, state highways and local roads in Layton and Clearfield, all of which generate constant traffic, blowing debris, stench and health risks brought on by Layton and Clearfield's neighbors to the south? Finally, BARD is not a bad site. It is probably the best site v that exists in Davis County presently for a sanitary landfill. Properly operated and maintained, it can provide for a solution to solid waste disposal for the near term future. It is unfortunate that the other cities have chosen to pursue a course which has resulted in increased costs to their citizens without any additional addi-tional benefits. I would invite you as a "concerned citizen" to read the engineering reports, the water quality reports and the other information readily available about BARD so that you can separate sepa-rate fact from fiction. Tom Hardy Bountiful City Manager |