- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Place Half-Million Tons of Garbage Here?
That's the annual plan for historic Ashcroft Ranch, targeted for the GVRD's big city waste.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District’s plan to create a landfill with a proposed 100-year lifespan on the historic Ashcroft Ranch, in the Interior, has divided residents of Ashcroft and the surrounding area.
By accepting a half billion pounds of urban garbage a year, the pastoral local community may keep more than 100 local jobs and get $1.5 million annually.
But First Nations bands surrounding Ashcroft Ranch, landowners adjacent to the property and environmental groups oppose the landfill, fearing it will pollute the pristine land, air and water in the area. As well, family members of the previous owners vehemently oppose heaping garbage onto the productive ranchland of their former homestead.
Faced with the likelihood that Cache Creek landfill will reach capacity in 2008, the GVRD purchased the nearby 4,200-hectare Ashcroft Ranch for $4.5 million in 2000. It has since put forth a proposal to use 200 hectares for a new landfill that would likely service the same municipalities currently using Cache Creek. Apart from the GVRD, these include the regional districts for Nanaimo, the Cowichan Valley, the Thompson-Nicola Valley, Powell River and the Fraser Valley. In addition to Ashcroft Ranch, the GVRD would continue dumping solid waste at its landfill on the edge of Burns Bog and burning it at its Burnaby incinerator.
The Ashcroft Ranch Landfill proposal is currently being reviewed for approval by the provincial Environmental Assessment Office.
The GVRD in Ashcroft
The GVRD owns 850 cows and calves and 40 bulls that graze the pastures at Ashcroft Ranch. As well, the ranch includes cultivated hay fields and a farmer sublets some land to grow ginseng crops. According to Jonn Braman, Project Manager for Ashcroft Landfill, the ranch has turned a profit, particularly on the hay side of the business, which were invested back into the property to improve the buildings and fencing.
Braman says the site was selected for its semi-arid climate, which is considered an ideal environment for a landfill, because there is less opportunity for leaching into groundwater. As well, a leachate collection system on top of the synthetic liner planned for under the landfill will collect runoff and recycle it on top of the garbage to keep dust down. The GVRD will also install a methane collection system that will contain the methane created in the garbage to reuse as fuel. A similar system is currently used at the Burns Bog dump to fuel greenhouses in Delta.
Braman says only small sections of the landfill will be exposed at any one time, which should help keep odors in check. As they finish using sections, they’ll be covered in topsoil, revegetated and returned to ranchland.
Garbage to fund water upgrade
Keeping a landfill in the Cache Creek/Ashcroft area will preserve 110 jobs, which equals approximately $5 million in direct wages and benefits. As well, Ashcroft, with a population of 1,800, will collect a fee of $3 per tonne of garbage. At a forecasted 500,000 tonnes per year, the village stands to generate $1.5 million a year, which it will share with Cache Creek.
“What better way of maintaining those jobs?” said Village Administrator Tom Clement. “Every local government is looking for an alternative to raising property taxes.”
Ashcroft is faced with doing some expensive sewer and water upgrades required by the Ministry of Health. It includes a new water filtration system. Clement says most municipalities need to make similar changes. Council supports the project only if it won’t harm the area. “If there are problems, it will come up during the environmental review,” Clement said.
In a show of support for the landfill, Ashcroft residents approved expanding the village’s boundaries to include Ashcroft Ranch during a referendum last year. It passed with 90 percent approval. However, those living closest to the proposed landfill, in Area I of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, were not eligible to vote – and most of them oppose the project. This includes local First Nations bands and other neighbours who have formed the Cornwall Watershed Coalition.
Concern for well water
A hydrogeologist hired by the Cornwall Watershed Coalitions says the lifespan of the synthetic liner is 150 to 350 years at best, which is particularly alarming for the surrounding First Nations bands. Greg Blain, Chief of the Ashcroft Indian Band, is concerned that runoff from the dump will further pollute the band’s water supply. He notes that the landfill will be an eyesore that will be seen from the band office.
“They will ruin the land for the sake of Vancouver getting rid of its garbage,” said Blain who also works as a corporal at the Kamloops RCMP detachment. “It will contaminate our water more – they admit that. The same consultants said the Cache Creek dump won’t leak, but it is. Over the next 200 years this will destroy the whole area.”
He added, “For the people of Ashcroft, if it gets bad they can move. We can’t – we have title to this land.”
Blain recently took his opposition to the polls when running for mayor of Ashcroft in last month’s by-election, called after longtime mayor Andy Kormendy quit because council was unhappy with his handling of affairs with the GVRD. In short, Kormendy signed an agreement between the GVRD and the village without it going through council or to the landfill committee, of which he was a member.
Of the four candidates running to replace Kormendy, Blain was the only one opposed to the dump, and placed third with 60 votes. “I ran mostly to raise awareness about problems with having a landfill there.”
First Nations groups also oppose the landfill on the grounds that 84 archeological sites protected under the Heritage Conservation Act are in the study area. If the proposed landfill goes ahead, these sites will be disturbed and almost half will be destroyed completely.
Endangered grasslands and toads
A report submitted to the EAO by the provincial Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (WLAP) identifies some environmentally threatened red-listed riparian and grassland ecosystems as one of its concerns, and the removal of breeding habitat for endangered species of tiger salamanders and Great Basin Spadefoot Toads as another.
As well, the report asked a number of questions regarding the possibility of toxins from the landfill leaching into the groundwater. The single synthetic liner proposed by the GVRD to protect the ground from any leaching is the minimum requirement, said hydrogeologist Kevin Bennett at the WLAP regional office in Kamloops. He added that any long-term development would require a mandate to protect and manage groundwater, which would be tested regularly.
But Bennett added that in general, “Nobody in this office identified any environmental show stoppers.”
Responding to complaints that the Cache Creek landfill has created leachate that has escaped into the water system and fears the same could happen at the Ashcroft Ranch landfill, provincial authorities say the leaching has only been minor, and that such low quantities naturally dissipate.
Rancher would ‘be sick’
Members of the Cornwall Watershed Coalition aren’t willing to take any chances, particularly when they have such deep roots in Ashcroft, which was named by their ancestors Henry and Clement Cornwall, who established what was once called Cornwall Ranch in 1862, where they served meals at Ashcroft Manor house to miners headed through the Cariboo to Barkerville during the gold rush.
Clement Cornwall served as Lieutenant-Governor of BC in 1885, and when the CPR built a station near the ranch in 1886, they named the surrounding village Ashcroft, which was the name of the Cornwall estate in England.
Margot Landels, great-granddaughter of Henry Cornwall, grew up in the old manor house and is a founding member of the Cornwall Watershed Coalition.
“My mother was a Cornwall and I have an emotional attachment to the ranch, but even if there was no connection to it we’d be horrified,” she said. “The thought of the desecration to the environment and the heritage is offensive. I don’t understand what people downriver in Ashcroft are thinking. For a few jobs and a few tax dollars they’d sell their souls.”
In 1946, the Cornwalls sold the family homestead, with the exception of the manor house, to a neighbouring rancher, Alan Cameron. Cameron’s daughter Mary Grimwood is appalled by the landfill proposed for her father’s beloved ranch, which he sold to BC Hydro in 1977 when he retired. Grimwood and her family make annual trips up to the ranch. Three years ago, they spread her father’s ashes on the lush farmland he loved so much.
From her home in Tsawwassen, Grimwood says her father would “be sick” if he know about the landfill planned for his ranch. “That was my dad’s pride. He loved the land. All he wanted to do his whole life was be a rancher. He had other businesses, like a motel, but it was always to support the ranch.”
Grimwood wants to GVRD to explore alternatives to creating a new landfill. “I feel strongly that we are not doing enough for recycling.”
Targeting manufacturers of waste
Both the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation (SPEC) and the David Suzuki Foundation agree that not enough is being done to reduce solid waste and are opposed to creating a new landfull. Ivan Bulic, Coordinator of SPEC, wants to see the GVRD crack down on solid waste.
“To be fair, the GVRD is doing as good a job as any municipality in trying to educate the public in reducing solid waste,” Bulic said. “But we’re investing in business as usual to truck garbage away so we don’t see it instead of dealing with the problem. We have an opportunity now, rather than investing another 100 years in this system, to come up with some creative solutions.”
Bulic added that most solid waste is packaging, organic waste and electronic equipment. He complains that the GVRD does not have a central composting program. “Instead we’re paying to ship valuable compost material to a landfill.”
He suggests implementing a producer responsibility program, whereby the producer of electronic items would be responsible for taking back the equipment for recycling, instead of the taxpayers bearing the burden.
‘Release valves’
At the David Suzuki Foundation, Ann Rowan seconds a call for such a program, complaining that commercial packaging is an increasing problem. She urges looking “beyond the blue box” at other waste reduction and recycling initiatives.
“Our basic criticism is that landfills are release valves,” Rowan said. “There is no indicator to most residents or businesses that there is a problem with how much waste is being produced. We’re simply moving the problem out further.”
While recycling programs for paper products, glass and metals have taken off over the past 20 years to help reduce solid waste, Coquitlam Mayor Jon Kingsbury says that if more people were vigilant about recycling just those materials, solid waste would be reduce by at least 30 percent. Kingsbury, also Chair of the GVRD Waste Management Committee, added the region is proposing the Ashcroft landfill as a last resort, and that the GVRD is budgeting “a significant amount of money” for exploring alternative technological means for disposing of solid waste.
“We keep saying reduce, reduce,” Kingsbury said. “This is a backup. It would be nice not to use it at all.”
Final hurdles
A lengthy public consultation term ended on October 15, and the GVRD has until November 12 to respond to concerns raised by the public and government officials. After then, the Environmental Assessment Office will complete its large-scale assessment that includes the issues. Once an Environmental Assessment Certificate is issued, provincial ministry staff will review its findings before making a final recommendation to the ministers for WLAP, Small Business and Economic Development, and Community, Aboriginal and Women’s Services. The GVRD expects to learn the results of this by mid-February.
Kingsbury says if the landfill is not approved, the GVRD will have to look at alternatives, such as a new incinerator.
More information is available online about the Aschcroft Ranch and the Ashcroft Ranch Landfill Project.
Brenda Jones is a Vancouver journalist and frequent contributor to The Tyee. ![]()



11
Login or register to post comments
rockerbiff (not verified)
7 years ago
Be interested to see where the NDP sit on this one.
Peter Dimitrov (not verified)
7 years ago
Nothing new here - the coast gets the preponderance of the cash from the resources of the regions to improve life for city dwellers, leaves the environmental & social costs behind, returns a pittance to the regions, and what the hell - ships out the garbage too. Isn't that an'ole familar tune' in BC. Imagine if the regions had historically been able to keep 25% or more of revenues leaving to diversify their economies, improve their schools, hospitals, roads, superb day-care, women centres, low cost or free post-secondary education---do you really think we would have the same level of traffic, pollution, garbage and congestion problems that we currently experience on the 'coast'. No way. Regardless of who wins the next elections...the 'frame' remains the same...no equity between regions, too much fiscal and political centralization, no provincial constitution to sort out the 'garbage -in- garbage-out'. Anyhooo..Remember ...Remberance Day...all those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we could....
foucaultvsfuckall (not verified)
7 years ago
don't call ahcroft pastoral, its a redneck hellhole, i grew up in that area, there are brawls, inter-racial violence and lots of crack... as far as the dump goes i dont see why all these yuppieass city slickers don't keep there garbage within thier own regional district. as far as the jobs for ashcroft.. so what? more crack, snowmobiles and nice little consumerish items for the "hard working" white folk in town. when the chaos comes all these city slickers are gonna be coming out to the interior to look for food etc. haha pick em off like flies from the hillsides with some unregistered guns. frick
shirin (not verified)
7 years ago
"I feel strongly that we are not doing enough for recycling.†- this is the most pivotal statement made. I was appointed as one of the "public monitoring committee" for Solid Waste Management of the GVRD - and I was extremely frustrated by the stratefied layers of beaurocracy that have been implemented so no one is left holding the accountability bag. I was appalled that the dairy industry could lobby the provincial government so that they aren't held responsible to recylce their milk containers where every other beverage industry does. Any new suggestion or idea went nowhere at the meetings I attended as a newbie to gov't workings - the GVRD can't control the garbage collection/recycling for each of the municipalities that they are associated with - and industry responds to larger gov't powers - either the Provincial or National level - they aren't going to implement product stewardship with the GVRD alone. Zero-waste is a totally realistic dream if our priority as citizens was not making life lucrative for irresponsible and lazy industries where the profit margin and not the landfill is the bottom line. It would be so easy to have packages picked up and reused within business districts, to have an efficient "materials exchange list" (like the best kept secret of RCBC - free listing of wanted and available materials that no one seems to know about), to compost all organic waste produced, to make computers for which the hardware remained the same and only the software needed upgrading etc etc - but that would be more inconvenient to implement as policy than to open another landfill costing millions of dollars that will leach toxins into our water and further poison the livestock we feed upon. Life is short anyways.
relayer (not verified)
7 years ago
I lived in Ashcroft for almost 10 years, and I can tell you that driving by the Cache Creek landfill on a hot summer's day on a motorcycle, the stench could just about blow you off your bike. On the other hand, Cache Creek benefitted bigtime from their landfill, which is right next door to the proposed new site. Among other things like jobs, both at the landfill and at the adjacent wood chip plant (the trucks that bring GVRD garbage, leave full of wood chips), CC got a state of the art water treatment system with the money for garbage scheme, along with other much needed civic improvements. Don't forget that when the Coquihalla highway went in, all the towns from Spuzzum to Cache Creek took a HUGE economic hit. In one sense, I can't blame CC for jumping at the chance of economic survival. In another, it was short term gain for long term environmental disaster.
allan (not verified)
7 years ago
Relayer, you've summed up CC's problems fairly well in noting that the 1986 opening of the Coquihalla Highway effectly tossed it and other Fraser Canyon towns into an economic tailspin. I believe then premier Bill Bennett Jr. called it "progress," so I guess it's also progress when someone else's garbage becomes the engine that feeds you. Sorta like those crowded trashheaps in India where the truly poor scrounge to survive.***Shirin, I am glad you were involved in the monitoring committee and I share your concerns about the layers of bureaucracy, which usually means the public is left to guess under which shell the pea hides. My perspective on this problem is that consumerism is the big problem as each new and improved gadget arrives with new and improved volumes of packaging. I am a Jolly Rancher sucker. I can't get enough of them, but suddenly I am having a real problem with these sweet, tangy little candies. They have until recently come in a small aluminum wrap, much like you would buy cough drops with 10 candies inside. Suddenly they are appearing in new flat packs which include a hard-selled package that slides into another hard shell of packaging and takes up probably three times as much wrapping. Being cheap, I was also astonished to learn my shiny new package of JRs holds only eight candies and costs more than the old more envionmentally friendly 10-candy pack did. I'd be more than willing to simply accept the loss of 20 per cent of the product and even pay the new inflated price if the manufacturers would simply go back to the minimal packaging they started with. Now that would be progess.
shirin (not verified)
7 years ago
allan - I know your angst completely - ironically, I was lamenting the amount of waste my cinnimon gum addiction produces from the packaging of the pellet gums in the aluminum/plastic cases (like your jollies) - within the cardboard casing. It was gnawing to me (excuse the pun...) to such an extent, I am actually in the midst of writing to the company begging them to reconsider the excessive packaging or else my conscience would find a way to end my addicition for their product. I am persistant that way - I have even written to some cooking show I had come across at some ungodly hour because the amount of organic waste they were chopping away at happily and chucking away in the garbage was grating me harder than the carrot. It's a disease for me. In regards to the PMC role for the GVRD - I realized we (the public monitoring committee) are essentially a front that is used by the GVRD saying that they had consulted with the public - in fact, they should have qualified individuals who can act as external auditors who would actually be able to verify the information that is being relayed to ensure us that, in fact, the GVRD is meeting (if not exceeding) the waste reduction targets they had set years ago. The problem is - they are aiming for the minimum of the plan that was written in 1995 - when recycling was not a norm. Those goals just don't cut it with today's development in the field - and we could be doing significantly more - but for some reason, the GVRD don't seem eager to embrace greener pasteurs. In fact, the main throw back lines would be comparisons of our waste handling to Torontos - we spent whole meetings gloating over how much less hideous our waste condition was in comparison to Toronto (like comparing your health to a terminally ill patient and saying you are relatively well-off). However, Toronto has had to put in much stricter environmental standards (surpassing ours) because they are now at a do-or-die position - which is apparently what we are waiting for before making the change.
bob (not verified)
7 years ago
so what are suppost to do with our garbage,fill up burns bog,burn it.if you can trade glass beads to the indians like the government did 100 years ago,or trade garbage for cash to a cash strapped dead community like trash creek then go for it.it makes good business sence. remember one man's junk is another man's treasure
Elli Kohnert (not verified)
7 years ago
Well, what can we say, it's the bottom line that counts and no amount of careful 'spin doctoring' will change that. It makes me think of the 'pieces of silver', for which salvation was sold out once so long ago. Nothing has changed since. Man is still greedy and if he has to sell his soul, or his clean, working environment, he will; now as then. About waste in general? With our phobia for safe packaging for instance, we will not reduce unnecessary packaging - and that is only one single part of waste overproduction. We have modern,consumer crazy society - and we will not be parted from it. Unless of course, when our natural environment crashes, which it will - some day. Vancouver dumping it's garbage in our yard - oh well, we live beyond Hope anyway - who cares -right? As long as the Hinterland' gets well paid to be a dumping ground all is well at least in the eyes of politicions and greedy little town dwellers.
allan (not verified)
7 years ago
bob, perhaps you might just buy yourself a big treasure chest and store some of that garbage/treasure in you home for quick access when the markets are more in need of putrid waste. It seems to me that could easily be perceived by some as even a better deal than palming off glass beads to Indians as you note "the government did 100 years ago." Actually it was't 100 years ago, it wasn't glass beads and it wasn't the government. It was grubby capitalists who would have traded those products, just like they traded small-pox infested blankets to the Indians. The government of the day, you see, was only morally complicit in those deadly trades, having given free enterprisers the right to do pretty much what it wanted to Indians. I'm not suggesting you are a grubby capitalist, but the trade off you champion (dumping your waste in the Interior), might just result in others thinking they've been handed something pretty lethal this time around too. In fact, bob, if you read the story above you will note local Indian bands are among those who aren't interested in your treasures.
rd (not verified)
7 years ago
The Cornwall Watershed Coalition is in the process of developing a website to express their concerns regading the proposed Ashcroft Landfill at www.cornwallwatershed.info