Not surprisingly, the firm chosen and paid for by the Dart Group, Cardno-Entrix (CE), has issued a “draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)” which whitewashes the proponent’s planned landfill for Bodden Town (BT).  The “Dart Environmental Statement” encompasses 1887 pages “thereby making it impossible for any normal person to digest”, declares BT Coalition chairman Mr. Alain Beiner, “and ensuring that salient points and omissions are well camouflaged.  However, there’s no hiding the fact that the Dart Group’s so-called ‘Phase I’, the subject of the EIA, is nothing more than a clone of what we have in George Town (GT), just another dump, with a ‘lined’ pit on which the island’s trash will be dumped, piled up, and left to build ‘Mount Trashmore East’”.

But, in spite of the “expected CE whitewash”, adds Coalition leader and Midland Acres resident, Ms Arlene Whittaker, “the draft EIA admits that the proposed dump will have an impact on traffic and noise through BT, and that there will be ‘intermittent odor issues…based on weather conditions’.  The ‘odour’ problem, like many others, are glossed over with assurances that they will be ‘mitigated’ by ‘recommended operational procedures’.  However, CE fails to admit that the proposed BT dump will not be operated by Dart, but by the same department which has mismanaged the GT dump for 20 years – with even less of a budget now to do it properly”.

In terms of the impact on BT traffic, “vague references are made to the extension of the East-West Arterial and to ‘proposed improvements’ to Anton Bodden Drive”, states Mr. Beiner, “but in both cases the report admits that ‘no timeline exists for these road improvements’.  However, truck traffic through BT is already at a critical and dangerous level.  As well, substantial sections of the text allude to a future waste-to-energy facility at the dump site, for which no timeline or funds are on the horizon.  In fact, we were led to believe that Government’s lack of funds for such a facility at the present GT landfill is why the dump has to be moved”.

As to the costs and dangers of locating a dump so far from the source of most of the island’s waste, former Minister of the Environment and Coalition leader, Mr. Charles Clifford, points out that “nothing at all is said about the needless waste of travel time, truck fuel, wear-and-tear of our roads and vehicles, the increased noise, pollution and safety hazards involved in the additional truck mileage, or about the spike in illegal dumping which we can certainly expect from moving the dump so far from the island’s main population and business centres”.

“On the contrary”, underlines Mr. Clifford, “not only are these negative impacts ignored, but the report’s summary identify as ‘significant factors’ in the choice of site location, its ‘remote location’ and the ’presence of nearby quarry operations’.  One can’t help but question the values and priorities of the Dart Group and its hired help.  The substantial residential community in neighbouring Midland Acres doesn’t seem to count at all.  The proposed site is certainly ‘remote’ from Dart’s Camana Bay and from the main source of Grand Cayman’s trash, but it certainly is not ‘remote’ from these residents, nor from the thousands living in BT.”

“In negotiations over projects of this sort and in this particular case”, adds Mr. Clifford, “the government has an overriding duty to represent and protect its constituents from developers that consider our interests secondary. The government and in particular Minister Scotland and Minister Seymour have failed in their duty  to their community and have placed Dart’s interests above those of our people.  Minister Scotland claims to still support the BT dump plan, if it can be shown ‘that the landfill is in the best interests of BT residents’.  Honestly, Mr. Scotland, how in the world can that be possible?  We really deserve more from the next government.”

Other significant omissions in the CE assessment, according to Coalition leader Mr. Gregg Anderson:  “There is nothing to allay the serious and well-founded health fears caused by dumping toxic waste in such a wide-open and vulnerable area in a residential/agricultural zone.  There is no financial study as to how much the project will cost the government, nor is there information as to the expected lifetime of the proposed facility.  There is nothing mentioned about the economic and social impact on Midland Acres in particular and on the Bodden Town district in general – the certain loss in real estate and land value, the loss of new businesses, tourism facilities, new residential developments, etc.  The Midland Acres community would risk the stigma of being labeled a stagnant slum of low-cost housing and social ‘outcasts’”.

Mr. Anderson asks:  “How can the government sustain the project, let alone add another cell and enhance the proposed dump with the empty promise of waste-to-energy capabilities?  In fact, it’s highly unlikely that a government which is not allowed to borrow money will have the financial resources to even operate a new dump properly”.

The Coalition challenged the very legitimacy of the EIA process from the onset, underlining the unethical link between dump proponent and dump evaluator, the complete disregard of due process and the refusal to respect the conclusions of the Central Tenders Committee (CTC) which, after an open tendering process, had rejected Dart’s plan.  The CTC rated it the worst of all proposals to solve the GT landfill problem, expressing “serious concerns” about the impact on an “environmentally sensitive area”.

“The Coalition also protested the secrecy surrounding the deal between Dart and the then UDP government, as part of the so-called FCIA agreement”, states Mr. Beiner, “and the refusal to consult the population about the supposed ‘need’ to relocate the landfill, and the choice of BT as the new site to contaminate.  We were ‘consulted’ strictly about the Dart plan, as if no other option existed.  To this day, the people still do not know which government entity decided that the GT landfill cannot be remediated where it is, and that BT was the best alternate site, if indeed the landfill had to be moved!  As well”, according to Mr. Beiner, “the entire process surrounding Dart’s dump plan flouts the rule of law and the principles of good governance.  Regardless of what Dart’s EIA claims, the provisions of the newly adopted FFR are entirely ignored, allowing Dart to be above the law”.

Commenting on the recent ranking of the Cayman Islands as the worst of all UK Overseas Territories for environmental protection, the result, according to CNS News of “the persistent lack of political will”, Mr. Beiner claims that “reckless deals like the Dart dump plan, and the long-standing failure to properly manage the GT landfill – instead of ‘exporting’ it to BT — prove that past and present governments are responsible for our shameful environmental ranking.  Given the tiny size of our country and the extreme fragility of our environment, our next government should have as a priority that we set the environmental example for the world.”

The Coalition again calls on all candidates and political parties aspiring to be part of the next government, to stand up against the establishment of a waste management facility in BT, whether it be called an “eco-park”, a “modern waste management facility”, a “recycling centre”, or whatever.  The Coalition calls on all candidates to commit to voting against any such project should they be elected to the new LA.

According to Mr. Clifford, the GT landfill problem can be affordably fixed where it is, without contaminating a new site, and without carting the island’s trash so far from its source.  “In respect of our fragile environment, the Environmental Advisory Board (EAB), which was muzzled by government ministers and ordered to consider only Dart’s proposal, should”, continues Mr. Clifford, “be unshackled and mandated to freely look at the best waste management solution for Grand Cayman.  An open tendering process should follow so that the cost of that solution can be honestly determined, as per the provisions of the FFR”.

The Coalition considers it an “environmental and social injustice to needlessly dump the island’s waste problem on an environmentally sensitive area, where ordinary working people invested in homes with no prior knowledge of a waste management facility in their neighbourhood; rather than rectifying the waste problem where it is, in an industrial zone in GT close to the source of most of our trash”.  “To do this simply to accommodate Dart’s plan to add a residential project for the wealthy to Camana Bay, although Dart was well aware of a landfill in the vicinity when it purchased the Camana Bay land, is a travesty of justice, and of environmental good sense”, declares Ms Whittaker.