Cost is another concern. Obviously, paying an attendant to

Cost is another concern. Obviously, paying an attendant to staff the container site will increase the county’s disposal costs.

However, one point discussed by the supervisors is that by opting for a tended site, the county may have additional bidders for the disposal service, thus perhaps reducing the contract cost. The county’s current contractor owns the bins and the disposal equipment and, through that arrangement, also has an inside track on the business.

With a fenced site, open at set hours and staffed by an attendant, the county at least has some control over what is deposited in our landfill.

Most surrounding counties have adopted that approach, and although it is expensive, it seems to work. The dire predictions of increased littering haven’t come to pass.

Some residents have legitimate concerns about access to the proposed site, which the county plans to locate on as-yet unnamed property on the U.S. 211 corridor near Washington. It seems obvious that the hours must be convenient for the many residents who work outside the county.

The site would also serve a dual purpose by consolidating trash disposal and recycling operations into one location, thus improving control over the recycling project.

We’re not sure how much free enterprise, in the form of garbage collection service, the supervisors’ decision will mean. But if that business increases even a little bit, so much the better for the enterprising entrepreneurs.

In short, there are bound to be complaints about the supervisors’ decision. But it really was a necessary one. The rules of trash disposal have changed a lot since every farm had an open trench or convenient gully out back.

If the supervisors provide a suitable alternative, we don’t think that the county’s residents will find the dumpsters’ closing too much of a loss.