Monday, April 20, 2009

Catholic Lay Forum Joins Opposition to Landfill in Felisa

By Alan S. Gensoli


Last March 31st I received a copy of a document entitled, “Position Paper on Serious Danger of Brgy. Felisa Dumpsite to People of Bacolod City” signed by members of the Catholic Lay Forum of the Diocese of Bacolod. The position paper, referred to a column written by Atty. Andy Hagad for another local daily, and to a column of mine published in this newspaper, both on Jan. 5, 2009, urging the Bacolod LGU and the DENR “to transfer as soon as possible, the city dumpsite to a suitable area far from the present Barangay Felisa area where the BACIWA wells and distribution lines are located.” The paper further recommended a site in Brgy. Cabug. 

I would like to thank very much the members of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for taking up this urgent concern. This is a boost and a boon to our advocacy on Solid Waste Management (SWM). Not to look a gift-horse in the mouth, though, how I wish that this position paper arrived at my doorsteps much earlier. That it did only on March 31, the day before the city launched its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, puts me in a jam. Much as I would like to trumpet the concern of the Catholic Lay Forum, I am wont to stand down and allow the city some room to work out its “No Segregation, No Collection” policy, which I totally applaud. 

But, the Catholic Lay Forum is right in keeping the matter about the sanitary landfill in Felisa alive, albeit hibernating for another day. 

By coincidence, last April 2nd, Jean Trebol of our alliance passed on to me some updates from Atty. Julie Carbon, GM of BACIWA. May I share these with you, but especially to the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod whose concerns may be temporarily addressed by the updates. 

BACIWA has five wells in the vicinity of the open dump in Felisa - these are Wells 36 to 40. Per Atty. Carbon, Well 36 is now operational, Well 37 will be energized by CENECO in two weeks’ time (which should be around April 16). Well 39 was supposedly energized by CENECO on April 5, thereafter to become operational, and Well 40 has been condemned after it was tested and found to contain salt. Meanwhile, there was no update on Well 38 and, as with any well threatened by fecal coliform, I guess no news is good news. 

If I recall right from my past conversations with Atty. Carbon, these five wells in Felisa are critical to Bacolod. I have the impression that they are the last of the Mohicans. While these five may be the later wells to be developed, this doesn’t mean that they are in addition to 35 older wells that are serving the city. Actually, BACIWA wells also dry up after some time, and some of the older wells have indeed dried up. So, to say that BACIWA has 40 wells does not mean that BACIWA has 40 functioning wells. 

This should concern all of us. And it should further concern us that BACIWA has already explored the possibility of importing potable water from sources in the mountains of Murcia. This means, we’re running out of water! Murcia Mayor Sonny Coscolluela may have told BACIWA that it will cost them an arm and a leg. It’s a seller’s market, you see: Bacolodians could lose more than just an arm and a leg if their drinking water in Brgy. Felisa proves to be “fecalized”. So, when the demand is high, the price goes up, and Murcia is happy. The market is efficient that way. 

Our concern shouldn’t end there. We should also be worried sick that while water supply is getting scarce, our annual population growth rate is still 2.12%. Worse, we have a squatter colony that comprises up to 60% of total population. That’s 300,000 people who may not afford to buy bottled water! If the BACIWA wells in Felisa become contaminated, we can have a cholera outbreak in our hands. Think about it. 

As far as the appeal of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod for the garbage facility to be moved out of Brgy. Felisa, the chances of this happening could be remote if only for the fact that in 2008, our city already purchased a seven-hectare property, near the existing open dump in Felisa, purportedly to build a sanitary landfill. To be able to build the landfill, the city needs to get an Environment Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR. Thus, the only chance for the landfill to be built outside Felisa, as prayed for by the position paper of the Catholic Lay Forum of Bacolod, is for the DENR not to grant the Bacolod LGU an ECC to the Felisa property. Alas, we are talking about the same DENR that looked the other way while our LGU defied R.A. 9003 for many years. 

And this brings us to a Catch 22 situation - damned if you have a sanitary landfill in Felisa, and damned if you don’t have a sanitary landfill now. Why so? Because Brgy. Felisa is an active water source, the sanitary landfill shouldn’t be there. But because the city has started collecting segregated garbage, we should already have a sanitary landfill in place. That we do not should again alarm all of us. 

During the monthly General Meeting of the Bacolod Anti-Baha Alliance last March 30, its Monitoring Committee head Norman Campos reported that they have not seen a sanitary landfill, built or being built, anywhere near Felisa. Where then will the city deliver its residual and special wastes? 

Pursuant to the program of the Bacolod LGU to begin collecting segregated garbage on April 1, the city will pick up RESIDUAL WASTE and SPECIAL WASTE only. As far as I am concerned, these are the two worst types of garbage. Residual wastes are the dirtiest of the dirty - it’s a buffet of used sanitary napkins, used disposable diapers, used toilet paper, and everything else you wouldn’t want your manicure to touch. Meanwhile, special wastes are actually household hazardous wastes, such as household chemicals. Thus, these two types of waste require a garbage facility that has an impermeable lining at the bottom, to prevent juice coming from these to seep into the ground where our potable water source could be contaminated. And so now, what good is garbage segregation if there is no sanitary landfill to bring segregated garbage to? But then, too, can we allow a sanitary landfill to be built in Felisa?*

No comments: