In 1991, the Mine Reclamation Corporation proposed a giant landfill, capable of holding a quarter of all the waste generated in Southern California. It would occupy the site of an abandoned Kaiser Steel-operated iron mine. One of the first major California projects to pay major attention to air pollution resulting from solid waste handling, the proposal featured an ambitious transportation scheme that would deliver trash from 6 counties via covered railway cars.

Riverside County, site of Eagle Mountain, would be paid between 4 to 6 dollars per ton for receiving the trash. Three thousand acres of endangered tortoise habitat would be set aside to protect a species threatened by the rail lines feeding the landfill.

The project was enormous in scope. Over 20 thousand tons of trash a day would arrive at the site. Six trains and as many as 200 trucks a day would be needed. The usage fees alone would add $25 to $30 million to an area with little industry or revenue.

Whenever a landfill site is proposed, the "Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY)" concern is likely. Proponents felt that the sparsely inhabited desert would reduce this problem. They were mistaken. The proposed site was adjacent to Joshua Tree National Monument. Odors and pollution were major worries. Several endangered species lived on the site. Not all might be able to relocate on adjacent land, which might have different conditions. Many people saw this project and a series of related desert landfill plans as unforgivable threats to one of the last unspoiled wild desert areas in that part of the country. Desert land is fragile and hard to repair, once damaged. Opponents of the plan worried that the extensive transportation system required by the plan would not only damage the adjacent areas, but encourage people to travel, motorcycles and other wise disturb desert habitats that could not survive the intrusion. Local Indian tribe members joined hundreds of other people living in the area in protests. Fears were raised that the landfill would contaminate the water supply for 15,000,000 customers of the aqueduct only 2 miles from Eagle Mountain. The Riverside County board of Supervisors voted to require the landfill operators to post $1,000,000 into an anti-air pollution trust fund.

In 1992, the California Integrated Waste Management Board, the state overseer of landfill projects, determined that the environmental impact report, submitted by the project planners, was inadequate. They demanded a new, more stringent set of guidelines. Attention was drawn, for a time, to an alternate, even larger scale plan to ship California waste to a proposed huge landfill in Utah. A series of lawsuits alleged that irreparable air, land and water pollution would result from the Eagle Mountain project.

The arguments on both sides of this continuing issue reflect concerns common to the construction of new landfills. The unusual size of this project, together with its non-urban setting, make the Eagle Mountain case an interesting one.

FOR FURTHER THOUGHT AND EXPLORATION

1. Which ecosystem type might limit the negative effects of a landfill? Which would magnify them?

2. Debates: (a) Should waste be allowed to cross state lines, or should it be managed locally?
(b) Should low population areas be made to accept waste from areas of high population?
(c) Are all "unspoiled" lands too valuable to use as potential landfill sites?
(d) At what point, if any, do the needs for waste disposal outweigh the need to preserve endangered species habitat?
(e) Should alternative habitat provisions be automatic requirements for new landfill construction?
(f) Can you conceive of a potential landfill site that would arouse no opposition? Why or why not?

3. Library research: (a) What are the members of the Mojave Desert ecological community that might be likely to inhabit the Eagle Mountain Mine site? How would landfill construction affect each? How serious would the effect be on the community's individuals? on the species, as a whole?