Header art for pima.gov

Public Comments Received by Pima County Regarding Marana Landfill


Pima County

-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Meissner [mailto:robinmeissner@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 11:33 PM
To: malvarez@azleg.gov
Cc: council@marana.com; Brian Varney; rclanagan@marana.com; rziegler@marana.com; jpost@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; maranaplanning@marana.com; Sharon Bronson; Chuck Huckelberry; Suzanne Shields; DSD Planning; jdwallace@kold.com; aginfo@azag.gov; marcos.huerta@mail.house.gov; mherreras@tucsonweekly.com; joel@tucsonsjolt.com; akelly@azstarnet.com; dperry@explorernews.com; gdingrando@kvoa.com; bluemoon@dakotacom.net; kzopf520@comcast.net; ehonea@marana.com
Subject: Senator Alvarez

Senator Alvarez,
The attached document is my response to your letter addressed to me dated May 12, 2010. I appreciate your time.

For those who did not receive a copy of the Senator's letter, I have included it on the last page of the attached file.

Robin Meissner
A proud member of the Marana Regional Landfill Opposition Group www.nomaranadump.com

Pima County


From: Robin Meissner [mailto:robinmeissner@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:48 PM
To: jpost@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; rclanagan@marana.com; rziegler@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; ehonea@marana.com
Cc: kzopf520@comcast.net; bluemoon@dakotacom.net; gdingrando@kvoa.com; dperry@explorernews.com; akelly@azstarnet.com; joel@tucsonsjolt.com; malvarez@azleg.gov; mherreras@tucsonweekly.com; marcos.huerta@mail.house.gov; aginfo@azag.gov; jdwallace@kold.com; DSD Planning; Suzanne Shields; Chuck Huckelberry; Sharon Bronson; maranaplanning@marana.com; Brian Varney; council@marana.com
Subject: Ordinance No. 2010.08 Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation
Mayor Ed Honea and Council Members,

I urge you to vote "No" to Ordinance No. 2010.08 allowing the annexation into corporate limits of the Town of Marana, that territory known as the Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation.

I understand the rationale some of you may employ that voting to annex this land is not logistically voting to re-zone the property. Nor is it a vote to approve the development of a landfill.

The Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan has been proceeding simultaneously with the annexation process. Therefore, it is undeniable the only purpose for the land, identifiable today, is for the development of the Marana Regional Landfill.

Will you vote "Yes" on Tuesday and then present a semantics argument, suggesting your agreement to the annexation is NOT a re-zoning vote or an approval for the landfill vote?

The imminent reality is voting to annex the land is a necessary step to developing the landfill. Please know, it is the perception of the public that a "Yes" annexation vote is indistinguishable from approving an atrociously irresponsible landfill development.

The reality is, this land can be annexed at anytime!

Please consider annexing the land when it is NOT associated with the landfill. Annex the land when it is associated with a development that will enhance Marana's economic and social vitality. Vote "No" on Tuesday.

Don't allow DKL Holdings to be encourage they are 1 step closer to "Wasting Marana". DKL Holdings has continually deceived the public. If they have been misleading us, do you have any assurance in the reliability of the information they have provided to you?

What have you been told?

Here's what we've been told and I'm happy to forward you the documentation to support my statements....

"The Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan data is backed by extensive, technical reports." We now know those reports don't exist.

"Residential property values are not adversely impacted by landfill proximity." When we urged DKL to produce this source, a report was presented during the Commission meeting. However, the document was created after the date of the initial assertion and reference. The original report referenced has never been produced. As you know, a credible, objective appraiser presented a contradictory analysis using quantitative, statistical data. This appraiser concluded residential values are adversely impacted by landfill proximity.

We asked for a site selection process and were told DKL reviewed "sales, market price and lot premium value data". We never received the requested analysis. Of course, DKL's response confirmed the only criteria for the selected site was financially motivated.

"The zoning ordinance and Development Agreement will permanently and forever restrict against even applying for a hazardous waste permit." No documentation has ever been provided to us detailing this agreement.

"The floodplain is not an issue and can easily be mitigated." Mr. Racy told me this verbally, so I have no documentation. However, it has since been a recurring theme by DKL. Yet, Susanne Shields, Pima Co. Director and Chief Engineer, explained DKL does not have enough information in the MRLSP to support their conclusions.

"The facility will be designed to protect it from a 500-year storm event." There is no documentation that supports this assertion.

Plus many more.....

Personally, I don't oppose a landfill.

I oppose DKL, a distrustful company that is potentially not financially sound, developing a landfill on the Vice Mayor of Marana's site, located in a high risk floodplain, on an aquifer with water levels rising, and 2,000 feet from people surrounded by low density residential land.

British Petroleum's drilling in the Gulf of Mexico was permitted and approved. Mentioning mitigation efforts have been slow, is an understatement. The blow-out occurred April 20th.

The New Orleans disaster was arguably less Katrina-naturally caused as it was man-made due to poor maintenance and design of the levy's.

The either greedy oversight of financial analysts or incompetent risk ratings of mortgage back securities has been a leading cause in devastating our national and local economies and around the world.

You can close your eyes and pretend it isn't so, or accuse me of being an alarmist. I need no further information to conclude the economic, social, and health risks associated with DKL Holding's proposed landfill far outweigh the benefits. 

You can't assure me the permitting process of a landfill guarantees anything.

You can't assure me the man made liner will provide me protection.

The one thing I can be sure of, the risk associated with this development is not being adequately or objectively analyzed if you vote "Yes" on Tuesday.

I really appreciate your time in considering my comments.

Thank you!

Robin Meissner

Pima County


From: wilber2000@comcast.net [mailto:wilber2000@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 8:15 PM
To: jpost@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; rclanagan@marana.com; rziegler@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; ehonea@marana.com
Cc: kzopf520@comcast.net; bluemoon@dakotacom.net; gdingrando@kvoa.com; dperry@explorernews.com; akelly@azstarnet.com; joel@tucsonsjolt.com; malvarez@azleg.gov; mherreras@tucsonweekly.com; marcos.huerta@mail.house.gov; aginfo@azag.gov; jdwallace@kold.com; DSD Planning; Suzanne Shields; Chuck Huckelberry; Sharon Bronson; maranaplanning@marana.com; council@marana.com; District5; Hakanson, Gretel; District4; Ann Day; Chuck Huckelberry; DIST2
Subject: TOM Council Meeting May 18, 2010 - Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation Ordinance No. 2010.08

May 14, 2010

Mr. Mayor and Council Members,

In reviewing agenda items for the May 18, 2010 Town of Marana Council meeting, the Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation (Ordinance No. 2010.08) would appear to be in conflict with Mayor Honea's speech only days ago at the Ritz-Carlton, Dove Mountain.  There is only one reason to annex the Kai property and that is to establish the Marana Municipal Landfill at some point in the future.

At the annual State of the Town breakfast, the Mayor spoke about ensuring sustainable water supplies and how this has been and will continue to be a top priority, and the reason Marana was incorporated.  The Mayor even admitted that water is a precious resource.  Why then would the Town Council want to facilitate establishment of a landfill in an area directly on top of our most precious water source?  Is the Council more interested in preservation of the waste water facilities than preservation of a rising fresh water aquifer directly below the proposed landfill site?

When one thinks about the billions of dollars we have all spent to move Colorado River water into our area via the Central Arizona Project (CAP), one can only conclude that it is irrational to risk future contamination of the water supply - the most valuable resource in the desert.  Although Colorado River water may not be forever assured, water in the underground aquifers beneath the proposed area of annexation is already ours.  At some point in the future, if the landfill is established, the liner will fail and the water will become contaminated.

Mayor Honea did indicate that Marana wears a 'yes' face in his speech.  Does this mean 'yes' to Kai, 'yes' to DKL Holdings to establish the landfill, and 'yes' to any scheme to make money for the town?  Please re-focus on the idea that Marana would like to attract business partners that complement the community vision and values.  Focus on providing good, quality jobs for the residents of the Town.  Do not approve the annexation that will move one more step toward the trashing of Marana.  Do not let the proud residents of Southern Arizona look down on the Town as a garbage dump.

I urge you to withdraw your support for the Avra Valley Road-Kai Annexation Ordinance No. 2010.08.  Give the Town something to be proud of and show the people that their future health and welfare, and the preservation of our most valuable water source, is much more important than the money a few people will make, and the future tipping fees Marana will receive.

We want to see leadership in times of adversity.  We have heard it - now we want to see it.  Please don't waste Marana.  Vote no on the annexation.


Steve Storzer


Pima County


May 10, 2010

Nicholas J. Wood, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, AZ 85004

Mr. Wood,

Thank you for your call on Friday, May 7, 2010, and the frank discussion about your client, Mr. Larry Henk. The information you provided regarding deed restrictions and Mr. Henk's desire to work with us was very informative and appreciated. As agreed, the information you provided was shared with a group of people who, like me, oppose the establishment of a Municipal Landfill in Marana on Vice-Mayor Herb Kai's property. With no desire to influence the group, my opinion about your offer to meet with us was not initially shared with them. However, once discussed, the response was unanimous and in line with my own opinion; there is no desire to further discuss Mr. Henk's offer.

During the past two months, over 700 people signed petitions expressing opposition to annexation of Herb Kai's property and the establishment of a Municipal Landfill on that site. Those people were not emotionally charged, but passionate in their collective belief that the proposed site is unacceptable for a municipal landfill. There is too much at stake to gamble with our family health and welfare, and the future availability of the desert's most valuable resource - water.

Mr. Henk would obviously not negotiate away the landfill option and apparently only wants to appease those in opposition with a few deed restrictions that may or may not stand up in court. The opposition is not willing to settle for appeasement when so much is at stake. Some of us have experienced devastating results of ground water contamination and are unwilling to trust anyone who insists that a municipal landfill in a floodplain on top of a rising water aquifer near drinking water wells is a good idea.

It is understandable that those involved will make a lot of money with the sale of the land and establishment of the landfill. Tipping fees may influence some. Money for the school district will influence others. And perhaps political gain may influence some others. Unfortunately, when the landfill deteriorates and begins contaminating the ground water, all those who made the money will be long gone. Too often in situations like this, years pass before funding is secured to clean up contamination and much of it may never be cleaned up.

Billions of dollars have been spent to bring water to this area via the Central Arizona Project. The goal is to provide a sustainable water source during periods of drought. Local aquifers are being recharged and even with the drought conditions over the past ten years, the aquifers are rising. It is incomprehensible that anyone would want to gamble with the lifeblood of the desert - water.

Thank you, but no thank you. We will not discuss this further with Mr. Henk or any of his representatives.


Steve Storzer on behalf or the
Opposition Group (700 Strong and Growing),
Silverbell West, and Neighboring Communities in
Pima County, Arizona, USA

Pima County

April 26, 2010

Linda Morales
The Planning Center
110 S Church Ste 6320
Tucson, AZ 85701

Ms. Morales,

Thank you for the information you sent in your letter dated April 19, 2010. Once again we hear the same old rhetoric from you, the company you work for and Michael Racy. I am in full agreement with the letter you received from Robin Meissner and want all those questions answered.

Regarding the first bullet in your letter that the proposed landfill will be privately owned and operated I have 1 additional comment and question. When Michael Racy gave his presentation to us at the Sky Rider café he was asked in no uncertain terms if trash would be trucked in from out of county or out of state. He tried talking around the question and when he was finally pressured by the room full of people to answer the question his answer was “NO”. This has been recorded and I have a copy of the DVD. He also stated that the landfill would turn a profit based on the waste generated in the area. HMMM were these truthful statements? Can you explain to me how DKL Holdings plans to get around the Federal Commerce Clause? And not allow out of county, state or for that matter country refuse from being trucked in? Here is a small excerpt of that clause if you are not familiar with it.

Article I, section 8 of the U. S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations, between the states, and with Indian tribes.

In response to the issue of whether the interstate movement of waste consists of commerce, the Supreme Court held that "all objects of interstate trade merit Commerce Clause protections; none is excluded" (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 622). In a previous ruling on the case, the New Jersey Supreme Court found, in conjunction with several prior Supreme Court rulings, that states can prohibit the importation of some objects because they are not legitimate subjects of trade and commerce. However, in City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court found that the state court had misinterpreted previous case law: "In Bowman and similar cases, the Court held simply that because the articles' worth in interstate commerce was far outweighed by the dangers inhering in their very movement, States could prohibit their transportation across state lines. Hence, we reject the state court's suggestion that the banning of `valueless' out-of-state wastes by...[the New Jersey statute] implicates no constitutional protection" (City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 617, 622). Therefore, under the Court's interpretation, all objects of interstate trade -- including trash -- fall under the Commerce Clause and are thus subject to constitutional scrutiny.

As a result of court decisions, importation of household and hazardous waste will continue into states with privately owned facilities. Additional fees on out-of-state generators are illegal. Exportation is encouraged since it cannot be easily blocked due to interpretations of the Commerce Clause.

4. What types of waste would be subject to restrictions? Most interstate waste bills have been written to apply to municipal solid waste (MSW). MSW is not a term currently defined in the Solid Waste Disposal Act, however, so the types of waste covered are those specified in the definition given this term (or such other term that may be used) by a bill's drafters. The definitions used vary from bill to bill; in many cases, however, they do not include construction and demolition waste, medical waste, nonhazardous industrial waste, and other wastes that are shipped across state lines for disposal, in many cases at the same facilities that accept MSW.

I have another concern Ms. Morales and that is the financial stability of DKL Holdings to actually be able to fund this project. Since this will be a privately owned and operated landfill am I correct in thinking that it will not be funded by Marana or any other local government?

Here is just one example I found regarding the enormous costs involved.

Footing the Bill

In most cases, building landfills is the responsibility of the local government. Once the environmental impact study is completed, permits must be obtained from the local, state and federal governments. The cost of building a landfill varies according to location, application fees and engineering cost.

For example, a MSW landfill in Kentucky will run approximately $500,000 to $1 million for the application and design engineer cost, but this fee doesn’t include the construction of the landfill liner. That will cost $75,000 per acre. Generally, the money is raised from taxes or municipal bonds. So, it’s possible that funding for the landfill could come from taxpayers’ pockets. But the upside to using public funding is local approval is required in order to continue with the construction of the landfill.

A contained landfill (one that accepts Municipal Solid Waste) will cost in the neighborhood of $750,000 to $1.2 million for the application This includes design engineer's cost and the permitting fees. A contained landfill will cost in the neighborhood of $150,000 to $250,000 per acre to construct the liner system and the cap. This does not include the operating cost. Most contained landfill owners charge $25-$30 per ton to recoup costs and to make a profit.

I hope you find my information helpful.

Melissa Rohlik

A Member of Marana Regional Landfill Opposition Group
650 people strong and growing

Pima County

April 24, 2010

The Planning Center
110 S. Church, STE 6320
Tucson, AZ 85701
Attn: Linda S. Morales

Subject:  April 19, 2010 Letter - Marana Regional Landfill

Ms. Morales,

Thank you for the information provided in your letter. Regarding your '"very good and informative discussions with neighbors" after the April 6 Town of Marana public hearing, can you share with us where those discussions took place, who and how many attended? I believe very few if any people from Silverbell West would actually want to discuss this situation with you. Honestly, we have seen your representative Mr. Racy in action and he did what be gets paid to do. Listening is not what you would pay someone like him to do I am sure.

I would like to clarify and provide comment to your 12 bullets as follows bullet for bullet:

  • You are mistaken if you believe there are no commercially viable alternatives in the region. Remember, Marana supported the Pinal County Durham Landfill. Ground water at that site is 300 feet deep. Tipping fees to Pinal County (perhaps $25 million dollars over the life of that proposed site) may have tempted those associated with the proposed Marana Regional Landfill. This really is all about money anyway, is it not? Mr. Kai, The Planning Center, and Marana stand 10 make a lot of money at the expense of others if this plan is approved and a landfill is established. Additionally, the Tangerine landfill should not be classified as "impending closure" as you state. Something that is "impending'" is something that is imminent or about to happen. Current estimates of closure in 2020 do not seem impending" to me or anyone else who can understand this is all about money that those involved stand to gain.
  • No comment to your second bullet
  • If you think anyone can permanently restrict this proposed landfill to only Municipal Solid Waste, you are mistaken. It sure sounds good but you really have no control over the interstate commerce that will eventually provide additional garbage of every kind being dumped in the Marana landfill. Just because you restrict hazardous waste does not mean it will not end up in the landfill. Even municipal waste produces lleachate as toxic as that produced in a toxic waste landfill.
  • We are familiar with the requirements for the 6O-mil HDPE geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay liner. We understand thal there are three types of liners. You did not mention a composite liner but the combination of the HDPE geomembrane and the geosynthetic clay liner may be assumed to be a "composite" liner. All of these liner systems may be compromised during installation. Unfortunately there are also problems with all three types of liner systems that occur after installation:
    • Clay liners can crack and fracture. Many organic chemicals like benzene will diffuse through a three-foot thick clay landfill liner in approximately five years and some chemicals can degrade clay liners.
    • HDPE (high density polyethylene) liners are very hard plastic. Many regular household chemicals can and will degrade HDPE. HDPE will often soften or become brittle and crack. Simple items like margarine, vinegar, ethyl alcohol (booze), shoe polish, peppermint oil, and other housebold materials will break down the HDPE Liners.
    • A Composite Liner is a single liner made of two parts, a plastic liner and compacted soil (usually clay soil). Reports show that all plastic liners (also called Flexible Membrane Lin rs, or FMLs) will have some leaks. It is important to realize that all materials used as liners are at least slightly permeable to liquids or gases and a certain amount of permeation through liners should be expected. Additional leakage resuJts from defects such as cracks. holes and faulty seams. Studies show that a lO-acre landfill will have a leak rate somewhere between 0.2 and 10 gallons per day. A 495 acre landfill could leak almost 5,000 gallons per day or 1.8 million gallons per year. Of course this will all happen after we are all long gone so why worry about it now when the actors can gain so much money now'? Have you thought about the children, pregnant women, and older folks who will be the probable first victims of water contamination?
  • A leachate system wiJl be installed to intercept and remove liquids and that sounds great. However, how do you mitigate against common leachate collection system problems such as clogging of the collection pipes, microorganism build-up in the pipes, damaged or crushed pipes from the tons of garbage piled over 200 feet high. and pipes that corrode and weaken from the chemicals they come in contact with? And how will the LandfiU Operator get to the pipes to inspect or replace them? Who would pay? Will it be most cost effective to ignore the problems and not even report them?
  • No comment to your sixth bullet
  • The East Branch of the Brawley Wash should not be restored. It houJd not be altered from its natural stale in the first place. Leave it alone. U'you believe the wash or the riparian habitat wiJl not forever be negatively impacted you are wrong. Heavy equipment moving around the 1,200 acre site. focusing on the 490 acres of the dump will have a severe impact on everything including the neighboring land and home owners.
  • No comment to your eighth bullet
  • The proposed network of monitoring wells will n ver be enough. Contamination from landfills often cannot be detected for many years and once detected, many more years pass before any kind of mitigation can be implemented It will be all about money and who will pay for the cleanup and delays will result in illness and pos ible death to people in the area.
  • We agree that landfill associated groundwater contamination is obvious with the older landfills built under old and inadequate standards. However, building a new landfill under the new requirements onJy postpones the groundwater contamination for many years, it does not prevent it. The philosophy or strategy to take the money now because "later" does not count is irresponsible, especially when the landfill is proposed for an area above a valuable rising aquifer, in a floodplain, near drinking water wells and a subdivision with one hundred families. [rresponsible is not a strong enough word. The lust for money sometimes does bad things to good people.
  • Regularly sdleduled air service at the airports is definitely in Marana's future plans. The rush to implement a landfill now is an effort to bypass the regulations that would prevent the landfill after the expansion of the airport and implementation of scheduled flights. Quite obvious.
  • A viation related mitigation is not in the interest of the Landfill Operator so why would he pay? Aviation related mitigation will be needed by the Town of Marana after a landfill is installed and air service is desired. Marana will have to pay and will expect the tax payers to fund the mitigation efforts.

I hope you find this information as equally helpful as that you provide to us. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about my comments. Please feel free to visit our website to learn more about this as well.


Steve Storzer
Proud Resident of Silverbell West

Pima County

April 23, 2010

Dear Ms. Linda Morales,

I want to thank you for your time in constructing the April 19, 2010 Marana Regional Landfill information letter. We appreciate your attempt to address our questions and concerns. Unfortunately, your letter exemplifies our continued frustration with regard to the quality of information the developer presents regarding the proposed landfill. We hope that our responses solicit the decision makers in this process to require a high standard for information before approving a landfill located on the site owned by the Vice Mayor, with access from an inadequate road; in a FEMA high risk floodplain; next to a significant waterway, public water wells, established and planned neighborhoods, two airfields; that in only 20 years may be just 50 feet from the largest Pima Co. aquifer with increasing water levels (per Frank Postillion CGWP Chief Hydrologist).

Ms. Morales, please provide us with an updated/revised copy of the MRLSP, as we are not able to find your corresponding statements in this document. Also, please provide us with a copy of the Development Agreement. It was our understanding this document has not been completed. Yet, the implication of your letter to the "neighbors" is that your statements are agreed upon and will be upheld by zoning regulations or in some contractual manner. Certainly you are not suggesting the "neighbors" should be appeased by unsupported statements that are not referenced in legitimate, binding documents?

Perhaps it is not clear that we have serious contentions with how events have unfolded since the beginning of February. For instance, at the Sky Ryder Café, where you were present and made no attempts for corrections, Mr. Racy made numerous inaccurate statements such as, the Marana Regional Specific Plan data was supported by lengthy, technical reports, DKL’s purchase of Herb Kai’s land is an "Arms-Length" transaction, residential home values are not adversely impacted by landfill proximity, and DKL will not accept out-of-state trash. The misinformation, lack of transparency, conflicts of interest, and the recent admission that some Marana government officials are not able to consider valid concerns objectively, compels the "neighbors"/public to demand legitimate information. Your letter does not provide sufficient evidence of your statements and we are not satisfied by those mere responses alone. They are meritless and meaningless without supporting documentation.

Please see our responses below:

  • "The proposed landfill will be privately owned and operated".
    • I and others opposing the proposed Marana landfill met with State Senator Manny Alvarez. The Senator explained that Vice Mayor, Herb Kai had been to his office as well. The Vice Mayor disclosed to the Senator the proposed Marana Regional landfill would be operated by the Town of Marana. The Senator believed this was the intention during our meeting as well. We indicated the landfill will be privately operated and he disagreed, citing his conversation with Mr. Kai.
    • On March 3rd, 2010, an article in The Marana Weekly News explained "Kai and his brother John both own land that would be purchased by the town and then leased to DKL for development of the landfill. Racy stressed the venture would make money for the town, but many members in attendance wondered how much the Kai's would profit from the deal."

Request: Please provide us with written agreements between DKL Holdings and the Town of Marana supporting your statement and signed by both parties. Please provide us a copy of the purchase agreement contract between Herb Kai and DKL Holdings.

  • "The zoning ordinance and Development Agreement will permanently and forever restrict against even applying for a hazardous waste permit."
    • The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning with conditions, but none of them included a hazardous waste permit restriction.

Requests: Please provide us with a copy of the Development Agreement and highlight the page and line item in the Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan or whatever document notes the zoning ordinance you reference.

Also, if these documents reference this regulation, please provide us evidence of how this regulation will be upheld, in perpetuity, especially if the landfill operator changes.

Please provide us with Arizona’s, Mexico’s, and each bordering State’s definition of hazardous waste. Highlight where Arizona’s definition is less stringent than each bordering state. This will allow the necessary transparency for us, the public, and decision makers to know what the facility will metamorphous into once the hazardous waste loophole is implemented.

Please provide us with an analysis for the nearest hazardous waste landfills to the U. S./Mexico border and each of the landfill’s life expectancy. We understand under NAFTA, foreign companies operating in Mexico are required to transport their hazardous waste out of Mexico.

Considering Pima County landfills are not profitable primarily due to low volume, and according to the federal commerce clause, private landfill companies may not restrict outof- state waste, DKL Holding’s will obviously operate a landfill that accepts out-of-state waste. Therefore, considering the proposed liner system, one would naturally conclude that this landfill will be accepting hazardous waste.

    • "The proposal is for a composite liner system containing two liner components….

Requests: Please provide us with the liner systems required to meet applicable state and federal laws for hazardous waste permits. Or, explain how the proposed liner system differs from one that meets these requirements.

The information provided by High Density Polyethylene manufacturer Phillip's Petroleum explains that a number of common household items can and will degrade and crack landfill liners. Please provide us with how DKL proposes to monitor vegetable oil, shoe polish, lipstick, gardening products, mothballs, cider, lard, margarine, vinegar or vanilla to ensure the long-term integrity of the liners.

Please provide us DKL Holding’s plan to avoid water contamination due to the synergistic effect. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is a federal public health agency with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, and 10 regional offices in the United States. ATSDR's mission is to serve the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances. The Synergistic effect is defined as follows:

"A biologic response to multiple substances where one substance worsens the effect of another substance. The combined effect of the substances acting together is greater than the sum of the effects of the substances acting by themselves."

  • "The East Branch of the Brawley Wash will be restored and returned to a more natural flow area, slowing normal flows, increasing channel capacity, and improving riparian habitat."
    • The Planning Commission’s recommendation of the rezoning did not include a condition which specifically addresses the Brawley Wash 2-mile wide 3 foot deep floodplain.

Requests: Please provide the page and line item in the Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan or other relevant document where this is cited.

Also, please define "more natural flow area."

Please indicate the current CFS of the Brawley Wash and the anticipated decreased levels after the landfill development.

Please provide the documentation and resources used to develop these conclusions.

Please provide us with FEMA’s recent floodplain boundary, flows and depth update; we were not aware this was completed.

Please provide copies of the documents given to the Town of Marana indicating these figures.

Please define "improved riparian habitat" including the current riparian habitat used as the benchmark to measure anticipated improvements.

Please quantify how the improved riparian habitat will influence the wildlife population in the area and how the resulting increased bird populations will not adversely impact the Marana Regional Airport located far closer than the 5 miles FAA restriction.

Please provide us with Pima County Regional Flood Control District’s approval or positive comments regarding DKL’s plans for the wash and floodplain mitigation.

Please provide us with Town Of Marana’s Environmental Engineering Department correspondence.

    • "The facility will be designed to protect it from a 500-year storm event in the East Branch of the Brawley Wash."

Requests: Please provide the page and line number for this design in the MRLSP.

Please provide the documentation that ensures this design will be adhered to regardless of the landfill development company.

Please provide us with who and how this design requirement will be measured and what documentation will be provided to ensure the development met this criterion.

    • "A network of monitoring wells is used to detect potential contamination…."
      • The fact that well monitoring is necessary provides evidence and support of our assertion that the liners will leak and result in immanent water contamination.
      • According to a local water business, intrusions into the aquifer, plumes, migrate north and such an intrusion would then jeopardize the water supply of the residents.
      • 3,100 water customers are serviced by two production wells about 2 miles west located directly down gradient. Tucson Water "has concerns that any release of contaminants into the groundwater from a future landfill at this location could result in water quality impacts to the wells serving Tucson Water’s W1 system." "…additional constituents of concern and sampling frequencies will be adjusted as needed if a solid waste landfill is ultimately constructed at the proposed site."
      • The site is estimated to be 200 feet to groundwater, with a water table rising at a rate of about 4 feet per year according to Frank Postillion CGWP Chief Hydrologist.

Request: Please provide us what mitigation the developer will agree to before any contaminants can migrate down gradient.

    • "Landfill associated groundwater contamination in Arizona is due to old…."

Request: Please provide us a list of landfills across the U. S. that currently use the same liner system DKL Holdings is proposing. Include the length of time the liner has been installed. Include the size capacity, height, and number of acres of the landfills utilizing the same liner.

Please indicate if these landfills were developed in FEMA designated High Risk Floodplains that include washes with 25,000 cubic feet per second flow rates located over aquifers with rising groundwater levels. Sources: FEMA & USGS

    • "We are in full compliance with Federal Aviation regulations."

Request: Please provide the analysis that concludes the proposed landfill will not cause hazardous wildlife to move into or through the airport’s approach or departure space based on the Marana Regional Airport’s current development and considering the future expansion design plans. Please see the FAA reference below. This FAA recommendation is not restricted by any type or use of an airport.

"In light of increasing bird populations and aircraft operations, the FAA believes locating landfills in proximity to airports increases the risk of collisions between birds and aircraft. To address this concern, the FAA issued AC 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractions On or Near Airports, to provide airport operators and aviation planners with guidance on minimizing wildlife attractant. AC 150/5200-33 recommends against locating municipal solid waste landfills within five statute miles of an airport if the landfill may cause hazardous wildlife to move into or through the airport's approach or departure airspace."

Please provide us with FAA correspondence indicating the proposed development will be in full compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations.

Please provide us with FAA correspondence that indicates FAA has reviewed the expansion plans of the Marana Regional Airport and that the landfill creates no impediments to obtaining Scheduled Air Service or State and Federal Airport Development Grants.

Please provide us with a written agreement that no entity will file an exemption to FAA regulations after the landfill has been approved and developed in order to expand the airport or receive Federal funding.

Please provide us with interviews from aviation staff, regulators, and pilots that agree the development of a landfill, slightly further than the 10,000 feet FAA regulation, is something they would support and not consider irresponsible.

Please provide us with Mr. Michael Racy’s full disclosure of his lobbying relationship with the Town of Marana, Marana Regional Airport, and any other associations with aviation industry. Please include the dates and times he made these disclosures.

    • "Any studies related to the Landfill required by the FAA will, by law and agreement, be funded by the Landfill Operator…."

Requests: Please provide us with the "law" and "agreement" you are referring.

Please explain the scenario why any future studies may be necessary or mitigation required by the FAA, especially in lieu of the previous statement that DKL Holdings is in full compliance with the FAA.

Additional Requests:

Odor: We have a concern not addressed to date, odor. Based on Pima County research, within a radius of 1.25 miles of the proposed site, there is one residential subdivision (Silverbell West), two planned residential subdivisions (Arboles Viejos and Cottonwood Ranch), and two commercial development plans, and a large lot housing area to the west of the site. Please explain how a transfer station east of the I-10 was halted due to Herb Kai’s odor concerns, yet this development is being considered and no odor issues have been addressed by DKL Holdings or the Town of Marana.

Site Selection: Please provide us with DKL Holding’s site selection process, analysis, or whatever the appropriate semantics are to have this company explain the rationale for choosing the Vice Mayor Herb Kai’s site as the best option in the entire region to develop a landfill. Please specify the sites that were also considered and the explanations concluding why those sites were deemed less viable. What were the criteria? Please specify the length of time to complete the study.

Pima County Comments: Those of us opposed to the landfill development on Mr. Kai’s site share any concerns Pima County has provided to Marana. We would like to see all documents where these comments have been addressed. We have received none to date. Please refer to www.pima.gov for the extensive list of Pima County comments.

Ms. Morales, I assume it is apparent that simple, unsupported statements in a letter to the "neighbors" from the Planning Center on behalf of DKL Holding’s are not sufficient evidence for the Marana Regional Landfill Opposition Group. We want to thank you in advance for your efforts to obtain our requested documentation and information.

Thank you for your time!


Robin Meissner
A member of Marana Regional Landfill Opposition Group
650 people strong and growing

Pima County

-----Original Message-----

From: marmy2004@comcast.net [mailto:marmy2004@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 11:08 AM
To: ehonea@marana.com; rclanagan@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; rzielger@marana.com; jpost@marana.com
Cc: bvarney@marana.com; council@marana.com; District3; RobinMeissner; maranaplanning@marana.com; dperry@explorernews.com; Suzanne shileds; Sharon Bronson; sshelton@azstarnet.com; malvarez@azleg.gov; pfleming@azleg.gov; dtevens@azleg.com
Subject: Mr Mayor you will be held accountable for your statements

In an interview Thursday, Mayor Ed Honea said the town intends to respect the entire regulatory process, including heeding federal and environmental agencies that would need to sign off on the plan.
His father, brother and nephew live in the Honea Heights neighborhood that isn't too far from the proposed landfill site, he said.
He wouldn't go along with the plan if he thought it were endangering his family, he said.
And he added that the county should stay out of Marana's business.
"I don't interfere in the county's day-to-day operations. Don't interfere in mine," Honea said.
Contact reporter Shelley Shelton at sshelton@azstarnet.com or 807-8464.


Mayor Honea and Council Members,

Above is the link to the entire article in the AZ Daily Star.

Since the April 6th meeting it is painfully clear that the communication problem doesn't lay with Pima County's Board of Supervisors but with The Mayor of Marana, Ed Honea.

It is appalling the arrogance you have Mr Mayor, refering "YOU" are the Town of Marana. Their are 6 other people that sit along side you making decisions for the Town and 5 regarding the "dump" issue. These people have been voted into their positions just as you have. There is no "I" in team. You say you intend to respect regulatory and enviromental agencies but you will not respect the County the town is in? There is something wrong with that picture!
As I stated in an earlier email to you and the council members, since 911 people want transperency and they want goverment municipalities to work together for the safety of people.
And God help your family Mr Honea who live in Honea Heights if you think they will not be harmed by a "privately" owned dump. I am certainly glad you are NOT part of my family if this is how you look out for yours. YOU" nor the TOM will be able to deny imported trash trucked in. IT IS THE LAW!!!

Council Members,

I hope you take the time to read the article but if not just read and re read the Mayor's statement in red. It should be perfectly clear by that statement Ed Honea could care less what any of you think just as long as you follow "BEHIND" him because you are obviously not equal to him.
It is time the rest of you put him in his place and make it painfully clear to him that you are just as important to the "day to day operations" for the TOM. Your vote is right around the corner on the annexation, and if you vote "NO" at this time, not only would you show your integrity by being "good stewards" of the land (that the young lady on the 6th asked you to be) you would definately show Mayor Honea HE is NOT "the voice" of Marana, but you all are as a collective.

Thank you for your time

Melissa Rohlik

Pima County


-----Original Message-----

From: Robin Meissner

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:28 PM
To: ehonea@marana.com
Cc: council@marana.com; Brian Varney; rclanagan@marana.com; rziegler@marana.com; jpost@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; maranaplanning@marana.com; Sharon Bronson; Chuck Huckelberry; Suzanne Shields; DSD Planning; jdwallace@kold.com; aginfo@azag.gov; marcos.huerta@mail.house.gov; mherreras@tucsonweekly.com; malvarez@azleg.gov; joel@tucsonsjolt.com; akelly@azstarnet.com; dperry@explorernews.com; gdingrando@kvoa.com; bluemoon@dakotacom.net; kzopf520@comcast.net
Subject: Mr. Mayor You are Responsible for your choices and comments

Mr. Mayor,

I want to thank you again for your time last night to discuss the proposed Marana Regional Landfill after the Council Meeting. It is apparent that you are passionate about your job as a government official to have taken that additional time with members of the opposition group. I enjoyed learning of your deep Marana roots, which likely few other residents can compete.

I found many of your comments deeply disconcerting, however and some of your responses without substance. In response to what site selection analysis DKL Holdings provided to the Town to satisfy your support for the annexation and re-zoning to allow a landfill development you said:

"There is no good site for a landfill in Marana. Pima County has been trying to find a suitable landfill site in the County for 20 years and hasn't been able to."

In response to my inquiry for what information DKL Holdings has provided to win your vote for the annexation and re-zoning of the site, you would not answer my question directly. You forecasted the annexation will be approved and then referenced the AZ DEQ and EPA permitting processes.

When I asked why you would consider re-zoning this site for a landfill development based on the numerous concerns Marana has received from Pima County Board of Supervisors and staff, the Arizona State Land Dept, Rep. Grijalva, and the public, etc...you responded by disparaging the County and staff. You emphatically said "I would never listen to anything Chuck Huckelberry has to say", "Pima County is the worse run government agency in the country". You explained that Marana has its own staff, flood control, planning, etc.

Attached for your review is the Pima County Solid Waste Landfill Comparison I referenced in my presentation last night. It is apparent from you and the Council Members that you have not been tracking Pima County's comments. Based on our conversation, I have no confidence your staff are considering Pima County's input either. The staff at Pima County should not be dismissed, especially when they have regulatory authority on the Brawley Wash.

You were also interested in conveying to the opposition group that the landfill development is not about money, "Marana will not make money on this landfill", you explained, "this is not a money issue".

You commented the process is not happening to fast and quoted the time frame for annexation. I responded, it is not the annexation process that is the issue. The Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan was submitted in December and your Planning Commissioners recommended the re-zoning in February. Two months is arguably irresponsibly quick for any entity to review a plan for one of the most noxious land uses.

Mr. Mayor, if you or the Council Members vote to annex and subsequently re-zone Vice Mayor Kai's land, you are approving and endorsing the development of a landfill. You may rationalize that you are not "permitting" the landfill, but the voters will know you approved and endorsed it.

You made the arrogant comment "Marana will take over the City of Tucson to be the biggest and best city in the area", and then went on to criticize the City of Tucson's government officials. It is unfathomable to me that this pride in your Town does not translate into your responsibility for the choices you make on behalf of its citizens.

You informed me last night Mr. Racy's contract was recently not re-newed by Marana based on an unrelated issue. I would like to clarify if Mr. Racy was employed by the Town of Marana on February 24th, 2010 during his presentation to the Planning Commission? Further, was he employed by the Town when he presented the annexation case in your meeting on January 12th?

Mr. Mayor, I would like a public statement from you explaining why you recommend a landfill in Marana. If it includes that there will be a need for a landfill, the public deserves that you substantiate that need, specifically for the region ONLY. Simply stating Pima Co. operated landfills are closing soon is not substantial, especially considering these landfills are not profitable. I'm certain it would not be difficult for me to obtain a comment from Waste Management that they are able to service the area adequately WITHOUT the need to develop additional landfills.

You offered unsolicited commentary regarding the Durham Landfill as well. You explained "that landfill will never be developed" and commented it was due to the inexperience of the developer. I have attached the Town Of Marana's May, 2008 letter of support for the development of the Durham Solid Waste Facility.

I also believe your staff has a responsibility to respond to comments made by their Pima County professional colleagues. I understand they do not have a legal responsibility to respond, but certainly this is not adequate rationalization in considering a development as risky as a landfill. I have attached the relevant documents for your review. Below are a few samples:

Suzanne Shields, P.E., Director, "There is not enough information in the Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan to evaluate their hydraulic model and claim that the actual 100-year floodplain is less than the adopted FEMA floodplain limits." "...the floodplain limits modeled for the Specific Plan are unlikely to be accurate".

Arlan Colton, Planning Director, “No information is provided in the MRLSP regarding the groundwater table.”

Arlan Colton, Planning Director, "The MRLSP (Marana Regional Landfill Specific Plan) state that the proposed landfill site is located within Planning Area boundary of the Town's General Plan and the use is in agreement with the General Plan. It does not however state the Specific Plan is in conformance with the Marana General Plan land use map."

Arlan Colton, Planning Director, "There is no information given regarding the depth of the landfill. Also, while there is a visual analysis section in the MRLSP in Section IV of the report, there are no exhibits showing viewsheds from off-site at landfill completion".

Can we expect a revision to the MRLSP prior to the annexation decision?

Lastly, I urge Marana transparency. Considering the extensive opposition outcry, including 600 petition signatures and growing, the documents related to the landfill development should be easily accessible for the public to view. A recent request for e-mails between the Town of Marana regarding the landfill resulted in this response,

"We are having an issue with our email archiving system – ArcMail. We are in the process of getting that fixed by the provider but they said it could take a few weeks to complete." Considering the Vice Mayor's conflict of interest, it would behoove Marana to provide transparency to the public.

It has been my observation when politicians make regretful statements they respond by attacking those who bring it to light or attempt to "spin it", or suggest it is out of context. Perhaps you do not regret your statements. If you do, we are waiting with bated breath to discover which tactic you will use. Not that my respect is of any concern to you, but you will certainly gain it by responding in the unusual political way by simply apologizing to those you have offended. Certainly the detailed conveyance of our conversation and your comments lends credibility to my honesty. Of course, we were not alone as well. I have no desire to fight this landfill with lies or misinformation.

I hope you and the Council Members can set aside differences with Pima County that stem from other issues, which you also sited last night, and objectively consider their input regarding the proposed Marana Regional Landfill.

Developing a landfill on the Vice Mayor's site, located in a high risk floodplain, on an aquifer with water levels rising, 2,000 feet from people, on a road that you admitted will need improvement to handle the traffic volume,.... is inconceivable. Not taking responsibility of your role in the landfill development by likely approving the annexation and re-zoning of the site, is astounding to say the least.

We, 600 people and growing, urge you and the Council Members to vote NO on the annexation of Herb Kai's site.

Thank you for your time and consideration!


Robin Meissner

Pima County
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Rogers
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 12:18 PM
To: ehonea@marana.com; herb@kaifarms.com; rclanagan@marana.com; pcomerford@marana.com; cmcgorray@marana.com; jpost@marana.com; rziegler@marana.com; bvarney@marana.com; council@marana.com
Cc: District3; malvarez@azleg.gov; pfleming@azleg.gov; dstevens@azleg.gov
Subject: Proposed Marana Regional Landfill

Dear Mayor Honea and Council Members:

I respectfully request that you vote against rezoning a 590 acre site for future use as a regional landfill. The state of the art for disposal of municipal waste is to locate transfer stations in populated areas that then "feed" landfills in more remote locations. Vice Mayor Kai's site is not remote. It lies within close proximity to the Silverbell West neighborhood and within a couple of miles of more than a dozen subdivisions along Trico Road and Avra Valley Road. Furthermore, landfills attract extensive bird populations that may create safety hazards for Marana Regional Airport and Pinal Air Park.

It is inconceivable that any town in Arizona would propose a regional landfill within floodplain boundaries on top of a precious underground water source. The proposed site is between the east and west branches of the Brawley Wash and only 2,000 feet away from the only water well that supplies fresh water to a community neighborhood.

Additionally, the Tucson Water Department has already issued concerns of possible future ground water contamination that would effect the citizens in Avra Valley due to the flow of the ground water to the neighboring communities West of the proposed landfill. Why have the residents in these neighborhood not been notified? Shouldn't a project of this magnitude be brought to the attention of all of the people in these areas? Doesn't Marana want the feedback from their residents, as well as, their neighboring communities?

Pima County officials and the State Land Department have requested that this fast-track rezoning be slowed down so that deliberate studies can be made of these and many other issues including traffic, archeology and the visual impact of a new 220 foot high landfill. Nowhere in America has a project of this magnitude proceeded to a public hearing with a Planning Commission this quickly. It would only be about 60 days after the rezoning application was filed. Additionally, it would be without a General Plan amendment process on land not yet located within the boundaries of the Town of Marana.

Thank you for your consideration.


Dan Rogers

Pima County
From: Albert Vetere Lannon
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 11:21 AM
To: Sharon Bronson
Cc: Deb Miller; Kiki Navarro
Subject: Marana Landfill

Here is a story I did for Desert Times on a straw poll conducted at last night's Citizens for Picture Rocks meeting and the whole landfill debate. Feel free to use it anyway you like.

Peace, Albert

"It's all connected!"


by Albert Vetere Lannon
Special to the Desert Times

PICTURE ROCKS—The current debate about the proposed Marana Landfill has caught the attention of the town’s neighbors. Marana’s Planning Commission voted 3-2 on February 24 to proceed towards rezoning land so that a privately owned landfill could be built on land owned by Marana Vice Mayor Herb Kai and his brother John. While Vice Mayor Kai has recused himself from any official discussions or votes on the project, it is clear that the Town Council favors moving ahead. The 1200 acres, between Sanders and Trico Roads, north of Avra Valley Road, would be annexed to the town and a 590 acre landfill built over the next two years. John Kai opposes the landfill.

Pima County’s Board of Supervisors, also by a 3-2 vote on March 2, called for Marana to slow down the process until answers are provided for a number of vexing questions, including the effect of the landfill on the Avra Valley water aquifer. The Arizona Daily Star has publicly agreed with the Supervisors, and quotes District 3 Supervisor Sharon Bronson as saying that, “We’re asking for transparency; we’re asking for the process to slow down.” The Supervisors’ action is not binding on Marana. The current county-run landfill for the area, on Tangerine Road, is scheduled to close in 2020, although many believe the closure will come sooner. Much of the land around the dump site is owned by the State, and the State Land Department has requested a 45 day delay so it can assess the potential impact.

Following a detailed presentation and discussion at the Citizens for Picture Rocks regular meeting on March 16, two dozen residents of Picture Rocks took an informal straw poll and supported the Pima County Board of Supervisors’ call for delay by 83 percent. Twenty Picture Rocks residents agreed that the landfill “should be put on hold until water, environmental and road capacity questions are satisfactorily answered.” Two expressed “no opinion,” and one said the landfill “should proceed as quickly as possible.” One person thought that impacted homeowners should be compensated.


Pollution of the aquifer, estimated at two hundred feet below the landfill site, and rising, was the focus of most concerns. Michael Racy, attorney and lobbyist for Scottsdale-based DKL Holdings, the proposed buyer and landfill developer, assured this reporter that the facility would be “state of the art,” with two 60 mil plastic liners (required by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA), a layer of clay that would swell when wet to cut off leakage, a textile membrane to contain it, and a leachate collection system of pipes to capture anything that might get through; plus regular testing. Design and engineering, Racy said, would keep nearby Brawley Wash safe. No liquid waste would be accepted. He said that the Marana landfill “would be no worse and much better than others.” Addressing concerns of homeowners just above Silverbell Road, who have turned out in force to protest the landfill, Racy said the water flow would be westward in any event, away from those homes and their well. He foresaw “no problems” for residents of Avra Valley and Picture Rocks.

Despite DKL’s assurances, many people believe that there are, indeed, problems. DKL’s owners, Racy told us, had been part of Allied Waste, the nation’s second largest waste hauling and landfill company; Allied was just fined $650,000 for problems of odors and gases at its Pennsylvania operation. The number one waste corporation, Waste Management, faces investigation at its Kettleman City, California “state of the art” hazardous waste facility due to a cluster of infant deaths and birth defects. Phillips Petroleum, manufacturer of the high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners required under landfills, warns that the plastic breaks down faster if in contact with certain kinds of waste, many of them common household items. These include solvents like benzene and toluene; aromatic hydrocarbons such as napthalene moth balls; many pesticides; food products like cider, lard, margarine, vinegar, vanilla extract; vegetable and other oils; lighter fluid, nail polish, shoe polish, turpentine; and many more. Since HDPE liners were only developed in the 1980s, there are no long-term studies as to their effectiveness over many years. The EPA has said that all liners will eventually leak.

Another issue is Brawley Wash, termed a “major surface drainage” by the Arizona Department of Water Resources. If waste water migrates west, as DKL informed us, it would soon reach the major wash just a half-mile away. Washes and rivers are the places in the desert where water most quickly soaks in down to the aquifer, the most permeable. DKL’s spokesman assured us that design and engineering would prevent waste from reaching Brawley Wash, but years of experience with monsoon storms and floods make neighbors skeptical. The Santa Cruz River, a much larger drainage, is 1-1/4 miles northeast of the landfill site.

Clearly, there are still a lot of questions to be answered, including the capacity of present roads to handle the expected additional trucks heading to the landfill and whether waste would be brought in from outside Marana, outside Pima County, or outside the state. Readers who might like to express their own opinions can phone the Marana Town Clerk at 520-382-1999, or the Pima County Board of Supervisors Reception at 520-740-8126. Supervisor Sharon Bronson can also be reached by Email at district3@pima.gov.

Pima County
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Meissner
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:22 PM
To: Sharon Bronson
Subject: Re: Constituent Concerns

Please let me know if you are interested in any of the research we have been gathering. For instance, we have a 20 page 2007 US Geological Survey study. A map in that study clearly displays the Avra Valley area is the largest area where water levels are rising. In almost all other areas in Pima County, the water level is declining.

As we've mentioned, we appreciate your time!

Robin Meissner

Pima County
-----Original Message-----
From: feedback@pima.gov
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 6:33 AM
To: District3
Subject: Constituent Concerns

Constituent Concerns

name - Steve Storzer

nature of concern - Please do not allow the town of Marana to annex part of Pima County to build a new garbage dump. The proposed site West of the airport, East of Trico, North of Avra Valley and South of Silverbell is NOT a good location for a new dump. Keep our county open areas to protect our water. The proposed site is only 2,000 feet away from our drinking water well.

Please remember that ALL DUMPS will eventually leak into the ground water. Keep our precious water source safe. Do not allow Marana to expedite the annexation process before we have time to evaluate all other options where no homes are located.

Thank you,

Steve Storzer, Linda Storzer, Juanita Storzer
Pima County
---- Original Message ----
From: Orville Saling
To: Robin Meissner ; pinalairpark@pinalcountyaz.gov; info@evergreenac.com; Jennifer Treese
Cc: Barbara Johnson
Sent: Tuesday. February 16, 2010 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: Proposed Marana Regional Landfill

Thank you for your concern. As the interim Director of the Marana Airport I support the Ford Act in prohibition of MSWL's located near alrports. I also am a pilot and have a great concern for flight safety. The present landfill locaticm Is located within the 6 mlle radius of the Marana runway. The proposed expanslon of the airport in the published Airport Master Plan would put the runways even closer to the Landflll. There is an exemption process under Section 44718(d) l wlll object to this exemptlon In writing to the FAA If I have an opportunity to do so. In conclusion as Director of the Marana Airport I do not support the present location of the proposed Landfill Site.

Orville Sailing

Pima County
-----Original Message-----
From: Robin Meissner
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2010 5:44 PM
To: pinalairpark@pinalcountyaz.gov; info@evergreenac.com; Orville Saling; Jennifer Treese
Subject: Proposed Marana Regional Landfill

To all that may be concerned:

A large group of people hiwe many concerns regarding the proposed landfill. The Marana Regional Airport and Pinal AirPark iare amongst those concerns. We've only had a short time to research issues. The process and information we are gathering is mostly foreign to us. Our goal is to have factual, objective data backing our points of opposition.

We understand that both facilities may not be affected by the landfill based on their current development status. Is this true? Will you confirm that future plans for both facilities will not be affected by the nearby presence of a landfill?

We appreciate any resources in determining if there is justifiable merit for concem regarding the proposed landfill and the Marana Regional Airport or Pinal AitPark. I have attached the reference that is being sited most often within our group. 'The concem is that both facilities are less than 6 miles from the proposed landfill, and may currently or in the future meet that specifics of the requirements of that federal regulation. Are there local regulations that may confiict as well?

If there is any detail the Ttmn of Marana council members should be aware of prior to voting on the rezoning of the proposed lardfill property. your assistance is greatly appreciated. The Planning Commission is presenting the re-zoning recommendation Wednesday, February 24th.

Thank you for your time and consideration!

Robin Meissner


Copyright ©2010, Pima County Arizona, all rights reserved.
Revised: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:03 AM

Privacy Statement / Disclaimer /