Reopen Search for New Landfill, Grand Jury Says : Environment: Panel specifically rejects proposed Gregory Canyon site. Some cry politics; others see it as a victory. Supervisors are to vote on the issue today.

On the eve of today’ scheduled County Board of Supervisors’ decision on where to place a new landfill in North County, the County Grand Jury on Monday recommended that the board reopen its search for a site because of concern that the ground water at the three prime sites might be contaminated by garbage toxins.

The four-page report, produced on the grand jury’s own initiative, also specifically recommended against the Gregory Canyon site in Pala for a variety of reasons.

Reaction to the report, which the supervisors are not required to heed, was mixed.

Two county supervisors, Brian Bilbray and John MacDonald--whose district is North County--said they would give no additional weight to the grand jury’s recommendations than it would to any other citizens’ group.

But Supervisor Susan Golding, who said she might miss today’s meeting, said the grand jury report echoed her concern that the landfills might contaminate ground-water basins below each site. She said she was leaning towards rejecting the recommended sites for that reason.

Carol Metzger, a leading opponent of the Gregory Canyon site, hailed the grand jury’s recommendation to reject that site altogether as “another nail in the coffin” to a private company’s plans to privately develop the landfill.

But Rick Daniels, special projects director for Waste Management of California--which already owns the site in partnership with others--scolded the grand jury.

“We weren’t aware that they were studying this,” he said. “I would have thought that, if they were really serious in their quest for knowledge, they would have invited us to answer any questions, or to present the other side of the story.”

He said the report appeared to be “politically motivated” because it focused heavily on the liabilities of the Gregory Canyon landfill site.

“I guess we’ll have to check the addresses of the members of the grand jury, to see who lives next to Gregory Canyon,” he said.

Grand Jury Foreman Reno J. Testolin would not elaborate much beyond the contents of the report. He said he didn’t realize when he released the report Monday that the board was taking the matter up today, when it is scheduled to decide whether zoning changes should be ordered to accommodate a future landfill.

Testolin would not, for instance, explain whether the grand jury was urging rejection of the Aspen Road landfill site in Fallbrook, or the Blue Canyon landfill site near Warner Springs, because of ground-water concerns.

Rather, the report recommended simply that the supervisors “authorize an additional landfill site selection survey in an attempt to find alternative sites not near or adjacent to major ground-water sources.”

“We prefer not to elaborate,” he said. “The report speaks for itself.”

The report said the investigation into the landfill sites was prompted by “citizens’ concerns” that were presented to the 1989-90 grand jury. Because of time constraints, the issue was passed on to the current jury.

Ruth Harber, another Gregory Canyon opposition leader, said she and Virginia Buonarati had approached the previous grand jury last spring with concerns about the Gregory Canyon site and Waste Management’s possible operation of it.

“After we met with them, we left feeling very disappointed. We felt they shot us down. We never heard anything again after that. Now I’m thrilled,” she said.

The grand jury noted that 1,400 “complaint letters” were sent to the county about the three proposed sites, leading the jury to meet with county officials, study environmental impact reports and visit other landfill sites and recycling centers.

The report noted that the San Diego County Regional Water Quality Control Board was concerned that all three sites were “in important ground-water basins,” and that the county Planning Commission already had voted to recommend rejection of all three sites.

It specifically noted that the federal Bureau of Land Management owns the Warner Springs site, and it would take an act of Congress for the land to be released, and that the Fallbrook site is in the Santa Margarita River ground-water basin that feeds Camp Pendleton its water.

But the bulk of the report focused on Gregory Canyon. It noted state Department of Fish and Game concern about impact on the endangered least Bell’s vireo, a bird species, and of BLM and county staff concern about impact on sacred Indian land at Gregory Canyon.

Finally, it noted that a utility power line across the landfill site would have to be relocated, at a cost of $8 million to $10 million, and that “unstable boulders” at the site would have to be secured or removed at “considerable expense.”

The jury’s environmental management committee visited the existing San Marcos landfill and “observed no significant unpleasant odor or negative visual impact.”

The report closed by hailing recycling efforts in other communities, and the jury’s final recommendation was that “a number of material recovery facilities” be authorized in North County.

Bilbray said he found “nothing new” in the report and was especially curious why the panel was so opposed to the Gregory Canyon site. “I think this was a response more to the effectiveness of the opposition” to that site, Bilbray said.

Golding, who is considered among landfill opponents to be their biggest ally among the county supervisors, said she may miss today’s meeting because she is a member of Governor-elect Pete Wilson’s transition policy council, which is holding its first meeting today in Sacramento.

Today’s meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m., and supervisors have said they hope to make a final decision before day’s end.