One more thing about that incinerator

     For one who has been there and done that, ad nauseum, on the waste to energy topic, it was painful to sit through the long meeting of the board of commissioners on Dec. 23, but it was necessary for them to go over it all, because it was obvious that they were hearing some things they had not heard before. Or had heard before but did not want to believe.
     To give credit where it's due, the commissioners asked some good questions, and in the particular case of David Roush, seemed to get it. Richard Rothschild shows he has a professional-sounding vocabulary, but he was obviously struggling to tailor what he was hearing into his preconceived notions, despite declarations of open-mindedness. He stated categorically during his election campaign that he had studied the issue thoroughly, found the direction the county was taking in partnership with Frederick County on a waste to energy plant wanting, and would work to halt it.
     I believed him then on the second part; he would try to stop it. I also believed he had failed to grasp some particulars that complicate the decision beyond a campaign slogan, and his responses at the Dec. 23 meeting proved it.
     Robin Frazier does not get it; but then her charm lies in her conservatism, which requires only that one ask, every so often, if there will be more figures to study later, more particulars, and isn't there a cheaper way. Haven Shoemaker reverted to the old Haven Shoemaker, the pre-candidate version, and did more listening than talking.
     Doug Howard was congenial, open, welcoming, gracious, and reassuring. A good start, and if he was aware that the topics brought forth during the public comments time had been brought forth before, and often, he treated each speaker as if new, illuminating truths had been revealed. He even seemed to believe the comment of one speaker that this was the first time that private trash haulers and environmentalist activists had been given the opportunity to speak before commissioners on this issue. This, despite the opening report from staff that a huge public information and feedback effort, including announcement, open meetings, public hearings and even a special meeting with all the private contractors had been held by the previous board.
     The newspaper reporters covering the Dec. 23 meeting were hearing it all for the first time, of course, and the impression one might get from the dialog among those attending was that several of the commissioners were hearing it for the first time, too. Fine; if you don't know, start over at the beginning, which is apparently what they are going to do.
     The most knowledgeable people in the room were the professional trash haulers whose private businesses would be affected by any policy changes the county government makes. Which is why they were invited to the table for discussions several years ago, about the same time a professional survey was contracted to lay the groundwork for staff to base a plan of action to be recommended to the commissioners at the time.
     One telling moment was when a private hauler pointed out that an option favored by conservatives and some conservationists and anybody looking for any argument against a waste to energy plant would not work county wide. He said that pay as you throw, in which each customer would pay according to how much trash they put out for pickup, was okay for high-density neighborhoods, but would not be efficient in more rural parts of the county. He also pointed out, correctly, that recycling, especially with the single-stream system (mixing all recyclables in one bin) was increasing, and that creates good news and bad news. The good news is that you see more recycling. The bad news is that it creates a problem with how to separate it on a truck, and still run a route with a full load at the end of the day, instead of burning fuel on two trucks, or two runs.
     Another private hauler, with operations both inside and outside the county, made the case that competition among haulers keeps the costs down, and he was opposed to any big-government approach, particularly one that might cut into his business.
     Understandable. The one big elephant in the room that the previous board of commissioners had to deal with -- and has not yet been noticed by the new board -- is that private solutions tend to favor contracts where the trash cans are close together; it gets less profitable when you provide the service out along the 700 miles of roads outside the towns and highly developed neighborhoods.
     If private haulers could cherry pick their customers, those with close neighbors would get a good deal, but those in the boonies would pay through the nose.
     So, how does the county comply with state laws requiring a waste management plan that allows cost controls, avoids the uncertainties of fuel charges by private landfill owners and private haulers, keeps the cost to the citizens manageable and predictable and improves the environment?
      The new board stopped short of a solution to that problem on Dec. 23, and will take a closer look at the pros and cons of a waste to energy plant partnership with Frederick County next month.  That's the one more thing, the big thing, and the thing that a narrow agenda or a political slogan does not solve.
     Stay tuned.