Waste or water?

WHERE to put our inert waste?

It’s a question which has been raising strong passions recently. There are several options but all of them raise legitimate objections. I’m going to analyse the main runners and riders, giving my own take on each of them, before coming down firmly on the option I prefer. Sadly, though, it’s an approach which seems to attract very little support or even consideration.

The prime contender is Spur Bay, or Longue Hougue South, to give it its official name. One can understand why this is the option favoured by the States committees involved as it is basically a continuation of the current landfill zone. It may end up as the least bad option available, but I can see at least four problems with it.

1. It is proving to be much more expensive than first predicted.

2. It is an ecologically important area of the inter-tidal zone.

3. It is beautiful. Most islanders might not really know this little bay, but as someone who often ate his lunchtime sarnies here when working for Channel Television I can tell you that at times it can be a breathtaking spot with great views out to the smaller islands.

4. I really worry that if the current Longue Hougue is phase one, and Longue Hougue South is phase two, then phase three will be to move into Belle Greve itself. It is called Belle for a reason.

The main challenger – at the moment – seems to be land reclamation to the east of the White Rock to create new harbour facilities. This seems to be attracting lots of support, but I am far from fully convinced. I think the first question to ask is whether this project should be regarded primarily as an inert waste disposal site, or a harbour extension, or as a bit of both.

It matters because if it’s mainly to dispose of Guernsey’s inert waste then we should aim to fill it as slowly as possible. The problem is that this will mean very many years of disruption and industrial activity in the heart of Guernsey’s beautiful Town. Not to mention the inevitable loss of parking on North Beach as other harbour activities are displaced.

On the other hand, if it is primarily a harbour extension we should fill the newly created bund as rapidly as possible. The obvious problem with that is where to put our inert waste once that accelerated programme has been completed? Longue Hougue South?

I also worry about what it will look like. Our Victorian harbour, built with dressed granite, is a thing of great beauty. In comparison, the rock armoured walls of North Beach and Longue Hougue are real ugly ducklings. Yet extending our harbour so that it blends in with the existing one would probably be impossibly expensive today. So expect a rock-armoured monstrosity to mar the gorgeous White Rock harbour arm.

Then there is the cost again. I somehow doubt it will be cheaper than Longue Hougue South and it may well prove to be very much more expensive.

Other options talked about have included land reclamation at Creve Coeur, which is an absurd idea, and filling in some tiny quarries in the Vale, which P&R rightly dismissed as a pointless exercise, buying very little time.

A bit like Brexit, it is easier to agree on what one is against than on what one is in favour of.

So what would I do?

While recognising that water is the most vital resource for any community, and that changing weather patterns are making water storage ever more important, I still feel we are over-planning for this strategic need at the cost of all others. I certainly would not want our storage capacity to be any lower than it is now, but do we really need a big increase?

Our population is relatively stable, domestic appliances are more ‘water efficient’ than they used to be and we no longer have a tomato-growing industry. By the way, in the unlikely event that cannabis production becomes a large-scale industry in the island, that crop requires an awful lot less water than tomatoes. Don’t ask me how I know.

There was a time when Guernsey regularly used to suffer water shortages but these days they are almost unheard of. That is mainly due to increased storage. Of course in an ideal world the amount of storage would continue to rise in order to provide us with belt, braces and suspenders, but is it reasonable to pursue that aim at the expense of all of our other strategic requirements?

We know that once Les Vardes quarry is exhausted it is going to be turned into a major reservoir. That is the right course of action. What I find hard to believe is that, given that plan, the existing water storage at Longue Hougue quarry will be absolutely required going forward. Highly desirable and important to those in charge of husbanding our precious water reserves – but absolutely essential?

So my strategy would be to earmark Longue Hougue quarry for inert waste and move away from ruining beautiful parts of our coastline by using them as dumps.

The only problem is that I have raised this idea officially through a series of questions to the States departments concerned and had it firmly dismissed. So I guess I am going to be forced to choose between two, or perhaps several, options – none of which I like.

Political responsibility can be a pain at times.