I have read the Editorial of LA GACETA (4/1), “Conflict over a garbage plant in Tafí del Valle”. An Environmental Impact Study (EIA) is defined as an instrument that allows the identification and quantification of the future consequences of anthropic actions carried out in a specific geographical area. The legal conflict that exists today with the Tafí del Valle urban waste plant began in 2017, when the Provincial Council for the Economy and Environment (CPEA) and the Environment Directorate (DMA) approved the EIA presented by the municipality and They granted the Environmental Apt (Ap. A). The EIA contains serious errors, shortcomings and inconsistencies that were not detected or taken into account by the CPEA and the DMA. I reviewed it and exposed them through Note 563-620-S-17, File 708/630-S-17 and others. They were never analyzed and studied in depth. The main mistake was choosing an environmentally unsuitable site for the installation. If the documentation had been analyzed and investigated, it would have been detected that: 1- It is part of the La Puerta river, which is an alluvial fan, has several channels and the water can change course easily. 2- in the area of influence there are wetlands, with their biodiversity and landscapes. 3- No longitudinal or transverse profiles, no hydrological or geological studies, and no calicatas (wells to observe the subsoil) were carried out. 4- the histories of the rivers were not investigated. If they did, they would have found that on 12/24/67, the flooding of the Tafí River claimed the lives of 17 people. In January 1987, the overflow of the Blanquito destroyed several houses and many people had to be evacuated. On 01/25/19, in another flood, the Tafí took a life. I can affirm that the Tafinisto municipality chose the worst place to locate the project. The Achilles heel of EIAs is that poorly prepared they can be used by public authorities or by interest groups to achieve extra environmental reasons. In summary: the current conflict has its origin in the series of mistakes made by the municipality, the CPEA and the DMA. The solution will be provided by the Justice of Tucumán: if it is favorable to the environment, it will serve as jurisprudence and will show that we are interested, that we protect it and that we not only declaim it in speeches, folk songs, rituals and traditional festivals. If it is favorable to the municipality, it will serve as a precedent for any neighbor to build in areas that belong to the rivers. It is probable that the municipality built them on what was built before Ap. A., or while the precautionary measure was in effect (did it violate the laws in force?). When it works, the plant will impact the valley, just as El Mollar does: bad smells, flies, rats, water and soil contamination, etc.
Juan Francisco Segura