Statesman story on zero waste diversion is, itself, a diversion

The goal of zero waste diversion is to eliminate landfills
and convert them into clean energy-producing facilities like this

I’m willing to bet my last dollar that the lead story in today’s Austin-American Statesman about zero waste was planted by a public relations firm or possibly even a law firm representing Waste Management. Private waste haulers like Waste Management and the fossil fuels industry, which dominates the Texas and the national political landscape, are opposed to zero waste diversion and their main tactic is to attempt to turn the conversation into one involving the cost of recycling, which is what the Statesman story is all about.

Here’s the bottom line: The goal of zero waste diversion, along with bioreactor technology (which the Statesman story conveniently ignored, along with the concept of Flow Control, also anathema to private waste haulers), is to prolong the life of landfills and, ultimately to completely eliminate the need for landfills. Once achieved, this alone with save consumers untold millions in sanitation collection fees. But the ultimate by-product of zero waste diversion, which is what drives the private waste haulers and the fossil fuels industry up the wall, is that zero waste diversion will provide an extremely low cost alternative energy source.

Bioreactor technology alone has extended the life of McCommas Bluff, the state’s largest landfill, 35 years beyond its original expiration date and provided enough energy to provide low-cost electricity to more than 60,000 homes.

As the name implies, landfills eventually fill up with trash. And when that happens, the government entities or the private companies that operate these facilities have to build another one to handle the trash. Landfills are not only incredibly expensive to construct to meet established environmental standards (as much as $800,000 an acre, according to this study), finding land to accommodate a landfill is a dicey proposition. Thus, they are usually located as far as possible from any population centers, which translates into additional costs to transport the garbage. All these costs are eventually passed down to consumers in what they pay for trash collection. It is estimated that, if things aren’t changed, within 50 years, consumers will pay three times as much for trash collection as they pay for water services.

However, all those problems are solved if you eliminate the need for landfills and that’s the goal of zero waste diversion.

Countries that are members of the European Union are way ahead of us on this subject (as they are way ahead of us on transportation). The EU expects to achieve zero waste diversion in five years. That’s because at least two companies that I am aware of (both German concerns) have developed the technologies to convert trash into energy. And these facilities are being installed where the landfills used to be located. McCommas Bluff sent representatives to visit these German firms five years or so ago and plans to install one of these plants on the site of — and ultimately to replace — the landfill.

There is a catch, however. Huge amounts of trash deposits are required to make these operations economically feasible. That’s the purpose of Flow Control, which directs all collected trash to a single site. Private waste haulers have been fighting Flow Control since its inception (the Supreme Court has actually ruled twice on Flow Control, saying it’s constitutional at landfills operated by municipalities but not constitutional at privately owned landfills). The private haulers have been fighting this for two reasons. The first is obvious: Flow Control would divert product, thus income, from their smaller, independently owned landfills. The larger haulers, like Waste Management, have been the major opponents but their motive is to delay Flow Control until such time as it has developed the same technology as the European firms. They see the huge profit in this energy source and hope, within the next decade at least, be able to bid to build and operate these facilities on various municipal landfills, as well as their own.

So the fossil fuels industry and the private waste haulers will spare no expense at trying to change the subject when it comes to zero waste diversion. They even fund the research of college professors and get them to get their students off the subject. All these companies care about is their profit margins. And they don’t profit by caring about the environment or reducing the cost consumers pay for commodities and services.

Which brings me back to the opportunity the Kyle City Council missed by not addressing these subjects during the presentation by Texas Disposal Systems as Tuesday's meeting.

I am not a doctor, but I’ve seen actors play them on TV

For personal reasons I chose not to attend Tuesday’s final City Council meeting of the year, but I spent much of today going over the proceedings courtesy of the city’s Granicus system and several items jumped out at me.


ZERO ON ZERO
Rick Fraumann, director of sales for Texas Disposal System, briefed the council on the current state of the city’s contract with TDS, one of the few highly respected private waste haulers operating these days. I was struck by the fact that not one single council member had any concerns about what’s going to happen in the future and, even more important, the city’s role in determining that future.

Fraumann told the council the TDS landfill, which is located just north of the 45 Toll Road on the corner of Carl Road and Highway 1327, has approximately 25 years of life remaining. I guess the seven members of the Council figure they won’t be in any positions of authority a quarter of a century from now. Either that or they’re thinking that’s just too far in the future for them to think about. But it’s that type of thought processes that trouble me about where this city is heading. We are only dealing with the present or, at most, five years out, and are paying absolutely no regard to our long-term future. I was stunned by the fact that no one asked Fraumann whether TDS officials were planning for life after the closing of its landfill. No one asked if TDS was considering installing a bioreactor to possibly extend the life of the landfill,

But most shocking of all, no one on the council even mentioned the idea of the city instituting a zero waste diversion plan, a plan that would divert virtually all materials from landfills and incinerators. I’m not sure complete waste diversion is feasible — Austin’s plan calls for an 80 percent diversion rate by the year 2040, interestingly enough the year the TDS landfill is set for closing. But European cities are way ahead of us on this. Capannori, Italy, for instance, has earned enough from selling its former "garbage" to recycling plants that its zero waste scheme (now at more than 80 percent diversion) is self-sufficient, and even saved the local city council more than $2.7 million in 2009. The city has plowed that savings back into further waste-reduction efforts. Capannori is likely to achieve zero waste by 2020, which is an overall European Union goal.

So others believe it can be done. The largest landfill in the state of Texas is the McCommas Bluff Landfill, operated by the City of Dallas and, in addition to installing a bioreactor at the landfill in 2008, the city is taking additional steps to convert the landfill into a recycling center, thus achieving close to a 100 percent diversion rate, hopefully, according to the city’s timetable, around 2030, which is 10 years before the expiration date of the TDS landfill.

So there are cities, even here in Texas, even here in Central Texas, that are concerned about the future, particularly the environmental future. I’m disappointed that Kyle doesn’t seem to be one of them. Instead the concerns here seemed to be:

Can we have recycling pickup three times a month and compost pickup only once? (Council member Damon Fogley)

Can we institute a "pay as you throw" system, which at least has a short-term diversion component but is strictly voluntary. (Council member Daphne Tenorio) Such a billing system encourages recycling and composting by charging customers according to the amount of garbage collected from their homes.

Instead of waiting for once-a-year bulk pickup, why can’t customers haul their own bulky items to the landfill? (Mayor Todd Webster). I was somewhat shocked that Fraumann didn’t address this more directly. According to TDS’s website, there is a "Citizens Convenience Center" designed just for that purpose at the landfill, a fact Fraumann never mentioned.


SHOP LOCAL
From what I gather by my frequent visits to Facebook, there is a real effort here to encourage Kyle consumers to spend their money (and the sales taxes that go along with it) in stores and with businesses located right here within the city limits. Many of these Facebook postings are made by City Council members.

I thought about that when the Council approved an item to pay Sewer Services of Texas, an outfit out of Conroe, Texas, $21,000 to clean debris, gravel and grit clogging digestors at the city’s wastewater treatment plant. And my thought was this: "Why isn’t there a company closer to home that can provide this kind of service?" Sure, Conroe (2012 population estimated at 61,533) is a little bigger than Kyle, but it seems to me that’s the kind of business that could operate successfully in Kyle and I’m wondering what our business development folks are doing to encourage those kind of start-ups here. I am also wondering how much additional weight the city gives to local businesses when it comes to awarding contracts. I’m hoping it’s considerable. I have asked those types of questions of the city and in return I received a copy of the city’s Purchasing Manual. Truth be told: I haven’t had the opportunity to go through it yet.


RETURN WITH US NOW TO THOSE GOLDEN DAYS OF YESTERYEAR...
City Manager Scott Sellers briefed the council on the effects Open Carry laws will have on operations within Kyle City Hall. He said the city is awaiting an opinion from the Attorney General (I’m assuming he means the AG’s office since the Attorney General hisownself is currently dealing with criminal charges filed against him) on whether, because City Hall also acts as a municipal court, the city is allowed to protect itself from the increasing number of deranged madmen conducting mass shooting sprees, and prohibit people packing heat from entering the building. The law specifically says when meetings that fall under the jurisdiction of the Texas Open Meetings Act or Municipal Court sessions are taking place, no gun-toting individuals will be allowed entry into the building as long as "No guns allowed" signs are posted. The law also says guns are prohibited in buildings in which staff members that support the court are employed. In larger cities, which have their own municipal court buildings, this is not an issue — guns are simply verboten in those. But the issue is multi-use buildings like we have here. According to City Attorney Frank Garza, Gov. Greg Abbott says "yes" as long as a court is not in session. But Garza added "the governor was reminded he is no longer the attorney general and could not interpret the law." He said the Texas Municipal League has informed him the attorney general’s opinion on the matter is expected next month.

It appears Sellers expects the AG to rule the way the NRA wants him to, so he asked the council to amend "our personnel policy to allow the city staff to carry in this facility." I mean, city staff needs to protect themselves against upset pistol-packing citizens, right? Why do I think this can only end badly?

In other action, the council:

• Approved the nominations of Meghan Murphy, Luke Jackson, Dalton Tristan, Destinee Cabrera and Nate McHale to the Kyle Area Youth Advisory Council. No additional information was provided about the nominees, like where they attend school, their respective ages, but I’m sure they are all fine young adults.
• Gave final approval to a zoning change along I-35 between Kohler’s Crossing and Kyle Parkway that would permit the construction of an adult book store or a strip club at the location, although the developer swears he only wants to erect a far-less-profitable self storage facility there.
• At the suggestion of council member Tenorio, discussed the notion of hiring another person to help with billing in the Water Utility Department. Council member Shane Arabie argued the addition could almost pay for itself in increasing the collection of accounts receivable but City Manager Scott Sellers asked the council to wait and measure efficiencies the city was about to put into place and then determine during the fiscal year 2016-17 budget discussions whether such an addition was warranted.
• Gave significant relief to homeowners who are part of the Bunton Creek Public Improvement District, approving an ordinance that reduces their PID assessment from $2,995 payable over a 30-year period (about $190 a year, including interest) to $1,850 over 20-years ($148.45 annually), Those who already paid the entire higher assessment will be given a refund. In addition, all the penalties assessed homeowners for non-payment under the old rules have been expunged. Like the song says, "It’s just like starting over."