Posted on

Read’s comments off the mark


Read’s comments off the mark

Social Share

I AM RESPONDING to an article which appeared in the last SUNDAY SUN entitled: Haulers Unsure About Success Of Tipping Fee.

Since it is very difficult to substantiate the accuracy of anything written in the newspaper, I write under the assumption that the writer is correct. This may be unfair to Mr Charles Read and if he did not make the published comments, I offer my apologies up front.

Firstly, Mr Read is not the chairman of the Waste Haulers Association. He does not chair any organisation called the Waste Haulers Association and so he is not speaking for the group so called. We elected Mr Reid as spokesman when we had our issues with the Government.

We decided that it would be best to nominate one person to speak on behalf of the group so that there would be a unified message, but since Mr Read no longer associates with us, he should not be referred to as head of the Waste Haulers Association. I think at this time if there is one person qualified to speak on our behalf, it would be Mr Anderson Cherry.

I contend with the sentiments that we are eluding the tipping fee of $25 and using quarries to do this. Firstly, nobody ever had a problem with a tipping fee of $25. We had a problem with a tipping fee of $25 per tonne which, in the case of construction waste, could amount to over $600 per 12-metre truckload.

Mr Read would have to be very wrong to be putting the spin that we have been using quarries to elude the $25 tipping fee. It is instructive for readers to understand that:

• Today we pay for every load of stuff that we carry to these quarries; it is not free.

• We stopped going to the landfill because we were taking a principled stand against Government’s policy.


Later in the article, Mr Read was quoted as saying: “I am not an environmentalist, but I would figure that would present some challenges which may need to be addressed.”

Hold it, Mr Read, you sat in meetings with us and we all discussed the fact that Sustainable Barbados Recycling Centre (SBRC) was a mere trans-shipment point where garbage was trucked from its holding area to Armag’s quarry in St Philip. You deliver waste to SBRC. Where does it go? It goes to the Government’s landfill (a giant quarry), to St Philip or somewhere else. Waste has been going to quarries for decades.

If one were to visit Mr Reid’s website, in his question and answer section: “Where does the content get dumped/stored once it has been taken from my premises”, the reply is: “Refuse is deposited at Sustainable Barbados Recycling Centre Inc., Armag quarry and Project Recycle”. Two of these locations are quarries. If it is going to cause environmental problems, then be responsible; do not use these facilities.

The article plants in the reader’s mind the idea that this is going to lead to some environmental problems. Don’t you think that the chairman of the Waste Haulers Association would know that it is legal to dump rocks and soil in those quarries?

Why do you think that Town and Country Planning could not stop Mr Cherry from using one of these quarries? The laws of Barbados state that after a quarry has been mined, it is the responsibility of the miner to fill those quarries back to their original levels.

Far too long they have been filled with air. So, now we are putting back rock and soil and organic matter in them. How on earth can that create an environmental problem? As a matter of fact, if these quarries are not filled, the original miners are breaking the (environmental) law.