Controversies of expanding a landfill over an aquifer

The residents of Northampton and Easthampton are currently trying to vote on whether or not the Glendale Landfill (an already existing landfill) should be expanded or not. There are some controversial issues surrounding this proposed action. First of all, the landfill would be expanded over the Barnes Aquifer which is a public drinking supply for four cities and towns in the region. However, the existing landfill is said to reach capacity in 2011, and if it is expanded, it will give the landfill an extra twenty years of life. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory and the residents are all mostly in agreement that the landfill should not be expanded over their aquifer. The people who would be in charge of building the expansion of the landfill and some politicians and residents are for it. This controversial problem is described by Dan Crowley in an article called “Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday”.

The group of people who are for the expansion of the landfill take more of an anthropocentric view, because they are only thinking about the well being of humans in this situation. The expansion of the landfill would provide many more jobs for people to construct it and they are looking for a fast and simple solution as to where we can put our garbage. These people is not considering the well-being of the environment or ecosystems and habitats as it will pollute the air, diminish the amount of potable water, and destroy ecosystems. The group of people that oppose the expansion of the landfill take more of a biocentric stand when it comes to this issue. They also think that the humans are important in this case because it is the people living near the landfill that will not have as much potable water and they will have to deal with the pollution produced from the landfill. However, they are also looking at the animals that will be killed during the construction and the ecosystems that will be destroyed. Many animals will be forced to move to other habitats, since theirs will be taken over by the landfill.

The demarcation problem in this case deals with who or what counts morally. For the anthropocentric point of view, it is the humans that count morally and because of this, they believe that the landfill should be expanded to provide more jobs and have a place to put the waste for many more years. For the biocentrism view, it is all living things in this region that count morally, and in this case, that would be the people and the animals living close to the landfill.

The consequentialist’s view looks at the aggregate happiness of the people depending on which decision is taken (utilitarianism). If the landfill is built, then the construction workers, employees of the landfill, and people in charge of waste management would be happy, but the residents living near the landfill, the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee and many environmental groups would be unhappy. If the landfill is not expanded, then the opposite groups would be happy or unhappy. In my opinion there would be more aggregate happiness if the landfill is not expanded because there seem to be more people who are opposed to the expansion of the landfill and therefore they would be happy if it is not expanded. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee said that “the long-term risk to the aquifer far outweighs the short-term benefits of expanding the regional landfill” (Crowley 2009).

In terms of the non-consequentialist’s view, the rights of the different groups of people need to be considered. However it is difficult to say whose rights are more important in this situation. The residents living near the landfill should have the right to clean and accessible drinking water and a safe environment to live in, but the rights of the workers of the landfill should have the right to a job.

The issue of whether to expand the landfill or not is a difficult one because there are many different points of view that can be looked at in terms of the ethics of it. I’m not sure what the right decision would be, but in my opinion, everyone’s point of view must be looked at and considered before a decision is made.

Reference

Crowley, D. (2009). Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday. 31 October 2009. http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/10/31/controversial-landfill-question-ballot-tuesday?SESS2949f326616af77dbcbacb4be4b7bb81=gnews.

Accessed 2 November, 2009