While the Town of Mono says the acquisition or, if necessary, expropriation of a property adjacent to the town's landfill will proceed as planned, council has agreed to a peer review of a Burnside & Associates strategic assessment presented to the town in October.

The 28-hectare (66-acre) property on Concession 4 EHS (East of Hurontario Street), has been the property of Jane Laurie and Laurie Mills for the past 15 years. The town wants to use the property to extend its landfill's contaminant attenuation zone (CAZ).

In this case, a peer review will be a second opinion from an independent group of environmental consultants.

The call for a peer review has come from a group of Mono residents opposed to both the planned expropriation and the town's method of operating the landfill.

There are concerns that the natural attenuation process, wherein a large-enough CAZ can supposedly contain and absorb contaminants, is a risky proposition.

The CAZ's opponents are worried that the make-up of the land is not conducive to containing contaminates, for example.

They are also not comfortable that the landfill, with the additional land, can operate for 53 years, as the town and Burnside contend.

The Burnside report notes that the town has estimated it can acquire the property, which includes two houses and a barn, for only $425,000.

"I'm surprised at how defensive council has been, (considering) it's a community issue," says Graeme Thom, whose

property will abut the landfill once the acquisition of the heating up Laurie/Mills property is completed. "We're only asking the questions council should be asking."

Mono Mayor Lorie Haddock told council she would not object to a peer review.

"I have no problem with the (Burnside) report being reviewed," said Mayor Haddock, "if it's at a nominal cost and puts more people at peace."

Councillor Ken McGhee added: "As council, we have to be responsible. If new technologies are on the horizon that can be effective, we have to look at them."

There is a condition to council's approval, however. The cost of the review, it has determined, cannot exceed $3,000. The amount drew instant objections from residents in attendance who argued that a comprehensive review could not be done for that little money.

Councillor Jean Castel pointed out that the town's landfill plan was "in full conformity with existing laws. There may always be something better, but we have to put a stop somewhere."

He also questioned how willing Mono residents would be to support more effective, and expensive, technologies if it meant a substantial increase in taxes.

"You can't have your cake and eat it, too," summed up Mr. Castel.

(See editorial, Peer review? Good money after bad!, page A8)