|
Chairman Gillmor, distinguished members of the Committee, ladies and
gentleman. Good Afternoon. My name is Andrew Lanza, and I am the New York City
Councilman representing the South Shore of Staten Island. Most of the Fresh
Kills Landfill is located within my City Council district. I am also a member of
the New York City Council's Committee on Sanitation and Solid Waste Management.
For many years, the Fresh Kills Landfill was the only repository for
municipal solid waste within New York City. The Fresh Kills Landfill was an
un-permitted open dump that was not in compliance with any relevant federal and
state laws or regulations governing landfills. Fresh Kills grew into the world's
largest landfill, was the Nations largest emitter of man-made produced methane
and leaked millions of gallons of leachate.
The story of fresh kills is, I believe, relevant to the proposed legislation
before you. For many years, New York City either ignored alternatives to the
Fresh Kills Landfill, or the options simply did not exist. The lack of
alternatives led to the development of a policy that was short sighted and
created an unprecedented environmental disaster on what had once been a pristine
wetland covering hundreds of acres.
Following the development of the regional landfill system in the mid-1990's
it became economically feasible for New York City to ship its waste out of the
City. This economic alternative allowed New York City to close the Fresh Kills
Landfill and begin a long overdue environmental cleanup. New York City now
disposes of its refuse in facilities that meet legal guidelines required of
landfills and through a series of host community agreements pays local
jurisdictions for the right to do so. These agreements have spurred economic
development and provided towns with monies to pay for services that might
otherwise be unavailable.
By allowing the free market to operate, municipalities have been given a
broad range of alternatives to dispose of solid waste in a manner that is
conducive to good environmental and economic practices. In order to create these
alternatives, the free market must be allowed to continue to offer options on
both ends of the commerce transaction. The bills before the subcommittee today
would reduce the options available to municipalities. By restricting
alternatives, municipalities will be forced into bad decisions that will
increase the economic and environmental costs in the long-term. Also, host
communities will lose an important revenue stream that they may be unable to
replace. In short, this legislation could be the first step in re-opening the
fresh kills dump, and in creating scores of harmful dumps like it across the
nation.
This is not a New York issue by any means. Today, we sit in a city of 500,000
that exports all of its waste. Where in Washington D.C. would you start dumping
garbage tomorrow. Is the District of Columbia in a position to change its waste
disposal policies in a short amount of time? Does the District of Columbia have
the space to create landfills or incinerators? Does the District of Columbia
have the financial wherewithal to implement such drastic policy changes? These
questions are asked of Chicago, Philadelphia and many cities across the nation.
The passage of legislation restricting interstate waste shipments will impose an
unfunded mandate in times of budgetary peril. Furthermore, this legislation
would force municipalities to dispose of its waste in unsuitable locations.
Our Constitution was formed to allow for the free flow of commerce, people
and ideas. The strength of our Nation and its economy is dependent upon the
preservation of these principles. By restricting the ability of municipal solid
waste to be shipped in interstate commerce, we take a dangerous step toward
weakening the principles embodied in our constitutions's commerce clause. What
next?? Should the interstate shipment of coal be stopped because of the
pollution it causes? Should the export of autombiles be restricted because the
tens of thousands of Americans killed in auto accidents each year. Why not limit
the interstate sale of meat products because of fat content that may lead to
heart disease. Silly propositions? Maybe, but so is suing McDonalds because
you're overweight. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that you do
not pass the legislation before you. Again, thank you for the opportunity to
testify and I will be more than happy to take whatever questions you may have.
|
