The group "Citizens Awareness Now" (CAN) opposed the
ECDC land fill and filed a lawsuit in 1992, They represented a large majority of EC citizens. This ultimately led to the Supreme Court's decision to pave the way for the landfill.
At the time East Carbon officials spent the local tax payers money, even though they opposed the plan, defending against the lawsuit.
Attorneys and ECDC shareholders entered into a disposal agreement to dump 75,000 tons of 'soiled waste' per year for 20 years. The contract also contained options for four and five years to renew "only solid municipal waste''. It was stated that the landfill would not accept toxic or hazardous waste.
However, shortly thereafter, ECDC did just that. And did ECDC employees discover the Hazardous waste? No, they accepted the materials and covered them up. The shipper of the hazardous waste was the one that notified ECDC. The materials were dug-up and returned to shipper for disposal. Imagine digging up PCB's a known cancer causing carcinogenic that hitch hikes rides on dust particles? We wonder how many more mistakes have been overlooked by ECDC employee inspectors.
Then there's the batteries, endoplasmic, nuclear, chromosomal tailings, damaged leaking plastic liners to name a few problems accepted by ECDC. The latest occurrences of 90 plus Colorado licensed trucks lined up around the scales at four o'clock in the morning. First we were told they didn't exist, after a slip by a ECDC manager in the planning meeting they confirmed, "Tainted Soil". What part of toxic or hazardous matter does this fall under?
Citizens concerns in 1994 have become a reality. Ignore the reality of effects to the environments, endangered wild life, the danger to our children, our grandchildren, and the elderly's health and well being. Do the supporters of ECDC dump only wish to enhance their coffers and the city's in spite of the dangers.
It surely is not a matter of integrity by my critics but a matter of their own job security with ECDC..
Robert L Warren, East Carbon
I would like to reply to Jerry Anderson's letter to the editor "I remember when..." that was published in the Sun Advocate (Jan. 10, 2012).
His praise for the richest 1 percent who through their hard work are providing everything that all of us peons get is wrong. We work hard for what we are receiving.
I have always had nothing but praise for the late Sam Walton who started Wal-Mart, I switched over to shopping there from the stores competitors when I could not find anything that was made in the U.S.A. At the time Wal-Mart had a big red, white and blue sign that said shop the U.S. A. at the store. Now his heirs are running the company and are some of the richest people in America. They probably never worked a day in their lives.
I have always had great respect for John Huntsman Sr. whom was honored recently as one of 19 world billionaires that have contributed over a billion dollars to causes. That is 19 out of one thousand world billionaires.
Anderson's praise for the 1 percent (of which these 19 billionaires are 1.9 percent of that 1000) have spent much of their tax cuts moving their operations and our jobs across the border and overseas. It was the unions, not the richest 1 percent that create the middle class.
I was born in 1930 and every one that I grew up with supported a family on one income. Many of the younger families I know today are middle class, but they have to work three or four jobs or of overtime or both to stay there.
I take my hat off to the Occupy Wall Street crowd. They seem to be drowning out the Tea Party.
I believe the government was created to serve the people. I do not believe God created people to serve the government or big business. Anderson criticizes the New Deal for creating an unsustainable Social Security System. A lot of people don't understand Social Security. It was never a savings plan, although it has run a surplus. It is an absolute entitlement program because those that are working are paying the retired people and when those people retire they will be entitled to draw it as well.
Reaganomics (take from the poor and give to the rich) was designed to create an oligarchy. If you want to see one in action cross our southern border.
Mexico is not a poor country. They have all the resources or maybe more than we do and also have a surplus of labor. The rich in Mexico don't have to hire people to make more money, because they already have it all.
The rich claim they don't believe in income redistribution, but it has been reported that the United States, starting with Ronald Reagan, has had the largest income redistribution than any other nation in the history of the world. A distribution from the middle class and the poor, to the rich.
Marilyn "Joe" Stock, East Carbon