Why Felisa?

SOMETHING SMELLS

Negros Daily Bulletin

By Agnes T. Jalandoni

I am confused. Bear with me and hear me out. 

Since I started to educate myself about the importance of knowing where and how our garbage is handled, I have plowed through documents that leave me amazed at how we have allowed the non-compliance of basic guidelines spelled out by Executive Orders and ordinances. Why did our City officials choose Brgy. Felisa as our dumpsite? 

Sec. 40 of R.A. 9003 the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act clearly defines the criteria for Siting a Sanitary Landfill. I am referring to the area that still has to be prepared by our city government while they close the existing open dump in Purok Acacia, Brgy. Felisa. The Safe Closure and Rehabilitation Plan submitted to the DENR by the City states that this area “is a stone’s throw away from the existing dumpsite.” The existing dumpsite was the subject of controversy when the Felisa residents blocked the passage of the city’s garbage trucks last Oct. 2008. It was apparent that the residents did not want any more garbage dumped in the dumpsite, much less, the proposed landfill. 

Letter (d) of Sec 40 states that - The site must be chosen with regard for the sensitivities of the community’s residents; and (e) states - The site must be located in an area where the landfill’s operation will not detrimentally affect environmentally sensitive resources such as aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed area; 

If the residents of Felisa protested then they must have good reason. Moreso, if there was a protest, why did the City buy the property in the same area when there was a protest in the first place? Before the property for the landfill was purchased, an ECC or an Environment Compliance Certificate must have been secured by the City. One of the requirements to secure this certificate is the approval of the residents and the stakeholders in the area. This would have necessitated several consultations and approvals from them. Their protest on the streets was loud enough for us to hear and hopefully, pay attention. 

What bothers me even more is item (e). As early as Jan. 5, 2005, before the garbage dump was officially opened, then BACIWA Manager Atty. Vicente Petierre, Jr. wrote to then DENR Regional Executive Director Vicente Paragas about the existence of five BACIWA wells near the open dumpsite. The area is a designated aquifer - a rich source of water and hence, a designated protected area. Common sense dictates you don’t put your garbage dump near your source of water! The dumpsite was opened anyway. What is even more alarming is the fact that in Oct. 7, 2008, BACIWA Manager Atty. Juliana Carbon wrote to DENR Regional Executive Director Claudio, expressing her concern over the danger of contamination of five BACIWA wells in Brgy. Felisa. 

In November 17, 2008, DENR Regional Director Bienvenido L. Lipayon wrote Atty. Carbon furnishing her a copy of the Water Quality Assessment Report on the Ground Water Wells of BACIWA Pumping Station # 36 and Cabura Creek Water Sampling in relation to the Felisa Dump Site and the proposed Sanitary Landfill Facility for Bacolod. Per the laboratory result of Ground Water Well # 2 it is not advisable to be used as potable water by the end users. He further recommended that necessary measures be implemented to prevent health related problems by the usage of underground water extracted from the mentioned well # 2. 

The independent water sampling studies commissioned by BACIWA also cited that the bacteria count for drinking water was above the 500/CFU ml standard. While the fecal coliform count results were more than the 1.1 standard. 

Surely, BACIWA has treated the water adequately enough before it reaches our tap? Surely? Why of all places did the city put a dumpsite in the area designated as an aquifer? Why did the city continue to purchase property in the same area when the stakeholders were not consulted properly and the results of water sampling already show that the water may already be compromised? Why Felisa?*