Aside from the officials, Dart staff, the media and the two Government MLAs, virtually everyone in attendance on Tuesday evening was opposed to Dart’s Bodden Town (BT) dump plan.  The meeting, held at the BT Civic Centre, was billed as the first of two “public consultations” to sound out the public about the proposed Terms of Reference (TOR) for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).  A slideshow presentation by Dart’s hired contractors aimed at dominating the evening, was interrupted by angry heckling.  The audience ignored organisers’ attempts to focus input on the TOR, and all comments – some very passionate – were voiced against the dump plan itself, with one speaker accusing Dart of being “the devil”.

“What did they expect?” asks Coalition leader Mr. Vincent Frederick.  “They announced the dump plan at the Civic Centre in August 2011, and Minister Scotland promised to consult us ‘within two months’.  Now, 15 months later, we’re being ‘consulted’, not about the real issue, but about the technical terms of reference for an assessment of only Dart’s proposal and only the dump site Dart selected.  We have never been consulted on the need to close the GT dump, or on relocating it in our district.”

The Coalition had previously denounced the proposed TOR and EIA as a “crippled and biased sham, forced on a muzzled Environmental Advisory Board (EAB).  The EAB was blatantly ordered by Government Ministers to draft a severely restricted TOR tailored to accommodate Dart’s plan.  It was ordered ‘to not identify the best waste management solution for our country’.”  Added Mr. Frederick:  “They muzzled the EAB and they tried to muzzle those attending the meeting.”

First to speak from the audience at Tuesday’s meeting was Coalition leader and Midland Acres (MA) resident Ms. Arlene Whittaker, who questioned why a recycling programme was not part of Dart’s “Phase 1”, all that Dart would be paying for at the proposed new dump.  “No money” was the response from officials and from Minister Scotland, who admitted that Government is “unable to borrow for at least three years”.

“They wasted a good part of the evening touting a ‘Master Plan’ for the proposed dump, complete with pretty ‘artist’s renderings’, but Dart’s ‘Phase 1’ is nothing but a single lined pit, at which the island’s trash would be piled up and left to create a new Mount Trashmore,” claims Ms. Whittaker.  “Government has no plans, no money and absolutely no intention of adding anything else; certainly not completing the ‘Master Plan’.  ‘Phase 1’ is nothing but a clone of the George Town dump.”

According to Ms. Whittaker, Dart aims to “get the GT dump out of Camana Bay’s backyard”, with no concern for BT residents, business owners or property owners like herself.  “According to an evaluator, the value of our home in MA has already dropped drastically, and the dump is not even here.  Residents like myself are awakened at night and subjected to the noise of drilling, blasting and heavy trucks.  The folks in Midland Acres are all hard working people with families, pets and many of our older residents are retired and enjoy sitting outside to enjoy the quiet and breeze.  The proposed dump has us all worrying about increased traffic, noise, air pollution, and contamination of our water.  Are we not important?”

Mr. Gregg Anderson, another Coalition leader, raised several irregularities and questions of conflict of interests:  “How can the consulting firm Cardno Entrix (CE) be involved in formulating the TOR for the EIA, and then conducting the EIA?  Why was the selection of a consulting firm not put out to tender?  CE stated this evening that they’ve been involved in this plan since last May.  How come the public knew nothing about this?  Who is paying CE?”

In response, CE’s Ms. Wendy Swindell admitted that her consulting firm is being paid by Dart, and that it was indeed “unusual” for environmental evaluators to be paid by proponents of the project to be assessed.  However, Ms. Swindell implored the audience to “have confidence” in her firm’s “qualifications” and in her own “independence”!  When the speakers were queried as to who chose CE, it was disclosed that Dart is not only paying CE, but that Dart also chose CE!  Dart picked the firm from a “short list” of three such firms approved by the EAB.  But further questioning revealed that it was Dart who assembled the list of three candidate companies in the first place!

Mr. Anderson questions other irregularities surrounding the BT dump deal: “The EAB was set up at the request of Minister Scotland.  But, a board can only act on behalf of Government if it is legally entitled by law to do so, and I’ve found no gazetted decision by Cabinet to this effect.  The disturbances, which MA residents have to put up with, are apparently the start of the EIA, but CE claims that they have nothing to do with it.  Who then is conducting the drilling, and how can the EIA begin before the TOR is discussed and adopted?”

After a slideshow presentation by Ms. Sharon Niemczyk of CE touting the firm’s experience and international reach, Coalition leader Mr. Alain Beiner challenged her and asked:  “If CE is so qualified, why were they not hired to evaluate and identify the best waste management solution for Grand Cayman?”  However, Mr. Beiner lauded the courage and honesty of Ms. Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Director of the Department of Environment and Chairwoman of the EAB.  When asked if she was comfortable, personally, with the very limited EIA imposed by Government on the EAB, Ms. Ebanks-Petrie admitted that members of the EAB “…had recommended an EIA which considers all alternatives for solving our waste management problem…”, but Government’s response was that focusing on just the Dart proposal was “Government policy”, leaving the EAB with no choice except to comply.

Coalition leaders learned that Dart had done its best to format the November 20^th “consultation” as an “open house” with no question-and-answer period at all, and no risk of protest.  But faced with objections from Ms. Ebanks-Petrie and other EAB members, Dart was forced to concede a “15-minute period” for open comment.  After angry objections from the audience, Ms. Ebanks-Petrie assured them that this restriction would not be enforced.  “Dart is using every trick in the book to force its dump deal on Bodden Town, regardless of our comments, concerns and opposition,” added Mr. Beiner.  “But, with the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility (FFR) now adopted into law, Government is obliged to submit such major public projects to tender.  According to the rule of law, they can no longer ‘wheel and deal’ behind our backs, and violate transparency and due process.”