The stakes · 3 minutes
The records show 18.5%–24.1% of LA’s commercial waste confirmed diverted.
A fair question. Waste is a small slice of the city’s emissions, and everyone is tired of being told everything is a crisis. So here is the case, made almost entirely from official records: the city’s own numbers say the problem is 90% addressable, the law already demands fixing it, the harms are local and current, and the money isn’t where the mandate is.
or just scroll
The concession
Start with the concession. In the city’s own greenhouse-gas accounting, waste is about 6% of community-wide emissions (2023 shares: stationary energy 58%, transportation 36%) — roughly 1.3 million metric tons of CO2e a year, derived from the city’s published shares; the 2020 inventory books “solid waste generated in the city” at 1,260,000 MT CO2e against a citywide 21.1 million. Small next to buildings and cars.
“Solid waste disposal at landfills accounts for over 95% of this sector’s emissions.”— City of LA 2020 Community GHG Inventory (LASAN, April 2022) · fetched 2026-07-05
But look at what the city says that six percent is made of.
Scope: the inventory line is citywide — all waste, residential included. The audit behind this series covers the commercial franchise stream within it. The two are labeled apart everywhere in this piece.
Pillar one · addressable · the city’s own table
This is not our analysis — it is the city’s. Paper and organics are the two materials every blue and green bin exists to capture, and the city’s inventory says they cause 90% of its landfilled-waste emissions.
“Paper and cardboard constitute 23% of the City’s waste but are the largest contributor of the City’s landfilled waste emissions at 53%. Organic waste is the largest waste component at 26% and is the second largest emissions contributor at 37%. Together, these two categories account for 90% of the City’s total landfilled waste emissions.”— City of LA 2020 Community GHG Inventory (LASAN, April 2022) · fetched 2026-07-05
The emissions come precisely from the divertible fractions. That is what “addressable” means — the city’s inventory makes the diversion argument itself.
Scope: these shares describe the city’s overall waste stream, not the audited commercial stream’s composition — no characterization of the franchise stream is public.
The clock
Methane is short-lived but ferocious. The convention is to average its warming over a century: a ton of landfill (biogenic) methane traps about 27.0× the heat of a ton of CO2 over 100 years. Over the twenty years current climate policy actually targets, the same ton traps about 79.7× — roughly eighty times.
Same gas, same science — the choice of clock is a policy choice, and SB 1383 exists because California chose the short clock for methane. Neither horizon is “the right one”; they answer different questions.
For consistency with the state’s inventory, LA’s own inventory uses an older 100-year value — AR4 GWP = 25 — so every waste figure in the previous scenes is on that basis.
The measurement gap
The official numbers assume most landfill gas is captured. EPA’s guidance: collection efficiencies “typically range from 50 to 95 percent, with an average of 75 percent most commonly assumed.”
When scientists measured from aircraft — surveys spanning about a fifth of open U.S. landfills, 2016–2022 — they found point-source plumes at 52% of surveyed sites, many persisting across revisits, and aerial emission rates about 1.4× what facilities report to the federal registry.
Readers of the findings piece will recognize the shape: reported numbers are a floor’s-eye view. The inventory line in the sector bar above is, if anything, generous.
Scope: a national study of the measurement system — not a claim about any specific facility.
Pillar three · local · the pivot
Everything so far is citywide and national. Here is where it lands. Over the three audited years (Jan 2022 – Dec 2024, 4,828,942 tons), the commercial stream’s single largest destination was Chiquita Canyon Landfill in Castaic: 795,780 tons — about 796,000, one in six tons of everything the records track (16.48%).
Close behind: Simi Valley Landfill (777,259 t), Sunshine Canyon Landfill (769,638 t), Frank R. Bowerman (354,554 t). Of the full stream, 892,209 t is confirmed diverted; the remaining 3,936,733 t (81.52%) is landfilled or unconfirmed. Within that, 1,072,909 t (22.22%) dead-ends at transfer stations, endpoint unconfirmed; 46,859 t (0.97%) stays unknown.
Chiquita Canyon closed to new waste on January 1, 2025. Its neighbors already know the name.
The regulator record · Chiquita Canyon
In the regulators’ records the story runs like this. EPA: “Since approximately May 2022, the Landfill has been experiencing a significant Subsurface Elevated Temperature (SET) event…” — a reaction across roughly 30–35 acres of the landfill’s northwestern portion. Leachate production rose “from approximately 150,000 gallons per week in January 2022 to over 1,000,000 gallons per week in December 2023” (EPA). In April 2023 odor complaints surged, and inspectors traced the odors to the landfill (CARB / SCAQMD).
“…a subterranean chemical reaction causing elevated temperatures beneath the surface of the landfill is increasing odors in an older closed section of the landfill.”— California Air Resources Board, facility investigation page · fetched 2026-07-05
Regulators locate the reaction in an older, closed section of the landfill — not the active cells where incoming waste went. Nothing in the record ties the city’s commercial waste to the event’s cause. The record simply shows where the tons were going while it burned underground.
| Date | Agency | Fact (as stated by the agency) |
|---|---|---|
| ~May 2022 | EPA | Subsurface Elevated Temperature (SET) event begins; ~30–35 acres, northwestern portion |
| 2022→2023 | EPA | Leachate ~150,000 → 1,000,000+ gal/week |
| Apr 2023 | CARB / SCAQMD | Odor complaints surge; odors traced to the landfill; reaction later located in an older closed section |
| Sep 6–7, 2023 | SCAQMD | Hearing Board stipulated Order for Abatement; >2,100 complaints, ~60 NOVs so far in 2023 |
| Nov 17, 2023 | SCAQMD | >5,700 complaints, ~100 NOVs (Rule 402 / H&SC §41700); leachate-system NOVs |
| 2023 tally | EPA | “almost 6,800 odor complaints in 2023” (EPA’s count) |
| Feb 21, 2024 | EPA | RCRA §7003 order — “imminent and substantial endangerment”; benzene renders leachate RCRA hazardous waste |
| Jan 1, 2025 | Operator | “closed for the acceptance of waste” (chiquitacanyon.com) |
| May 30, 2025 | SCAQMD | Five post-closure NOVs; >29,000 complaints since Jan 2023; ~340 nuisance NOVs to date |
| Jan 26, 2026 | DTSC | Non-compliance determination: Chiquita Canyon LLC and parent Waste Connections |
The regulator record · 2023–2024
By early September 2023, SCAQMD had received over 2,100 odor complaints traced to the landfill and issued about 60 notices of violation for public nuisance; its Hearing Board approved a stipulated Order for Abatement (September 6–7, 2023). By November 17: more than 5,700 complaints and about 100 NOVs under Rule 402 and Health & Safety Code §41700 (SCAQMD). EPA’s own tally for 2023: “almost 6,800 odor complaints.” The two agencies count differently; each figure carries its author.
On February 21, 2024, EPA issued a unilateral RCRA §7003 order, determining the situation “presents imminent and substantial endangerment to nearby communities”. Laboratory analysis had shown condensate with elevated benzene, “rendering the leachate a hazardous waste under RCRA” (EPA). A multi-agency critical action team formed: US EPA, CalEPA, CARB, CalRecycle, DTSC, the LA Regional Water Board, SCAQMD, and LA County departments (CARB).
The regulator record · closure and after
“As of January 1, 2025, Chiquita Canyon Landfill is closed for the acceptance of waste” (operator notice, chiquitacanyon.com). SCAQMD’s account: the landfill stopped accepting waste in January 2025 after the LA Regional Water Quality Control Board denied its request to open a new disposal cell.
The record continued after closure. May 30, 2025: SCAQMD issued five NOVs — an unpermitted thermal oxidizer and abatement-order violations — and counted more than 29,000 odor complaints since January 2023 with roughly 340 public-nuisance NOVs to date. January 26, 2026: DTSC announced it found Chiquita Canyon LLC and its parent, Waste Connections, out of compliance with environmental laws and subject to penalties.
Every entry above is the issuing agency’s own statement, quoted or attributed — nothing here is this audit’s characterization, and nothing in the record ties the audited waste to the event’s cause.
Not just one landfill
Chiquita is the extreme case, not the only one. Sunshine Canyon — the audited stream’s third-largest destination, 769,638 tons — drew 653 odor complaints in 2022, 1,721 in 2023, and 2,187 in 2024 — more than triple two years earlier, with 65 public-nuisance NOVs in 2024 alone (SCAQMD complaint & NOV summary; complaints rose again in 2025).
In April 2024 the LA County Board of Supervisors ordered an audit of the site. Landfills are not abstractions; they are neighbors.
Pillar two · already law
None of this requires new conviction. SB 1383: state law mandates organics diversion, enacted on methane and health grounds — the short clock from the two-clocks comparison; LASAN “implemented the Organics Recycling Program in January 2023” on the residential side in response. The franchise contract defines Zero Waste as “90% or higher Diversion of SOLID RESOURCES from CLASS III LANDFILLS”; the audited reality is 18.476–24.054% confirmed.
And failure already has a price. First measurement period: a required disposal reduction of 606,000 tons; haulers achieved 403,000; the city issued $12.2M in liquidated damages to five service providers (all appealed) — and the city’s own report concedes the 1-million-ton goal “most likely will not” be achieved.
The question is not whether to commit. It is whether the commitments are being delivered — and the records say they are not.
Pillar four · the money
California has appropriated $32.9 billion of cap-and-trade revenue through California Climate Investments: $7,474M to high-speed rail, $3,693M to ZEV incentives, $1,400M to transit operations… and the two CalRecycle diversion lines — SB 1383 Local Assistance, $240M, and Waste Diversion, $210M — total about $450M. The arithmetic: ($240M + $210M) ÷ $32.9B ≈ 1.4%.
Honest context: what diversion costs depends on how you count. CalRecycle’s own SB 1383 analysis projects $20.9B in gross costs against $17B in offsetting benefits — a net cost of $3.9B. Across its projected ~58.2M tons of CO2e reduction, that is roughly $67 per ton net, or $359 per ton gross (Appendix A, Table 14; arithmetic shown). The argument here does not hang on the price under either basis: California mandated organics diversion on methane and health grounds — and funds it at roughly one-seventieth of what it has appropriated overall.
Mandated, not optional — and funded like an afterthought.
Four sentences
The city’s own numbers say this problem is 90% addressable. The law already demands fixing it. The harms are local and current. And the money isn’t where the mandate is.
None of those four sentences is ours — each is a rendering of an official record: the city’s inventory, the statute and the franchise contract, the regulators’ files, and the state’s own spending report.
The companion methods piece walks how these numbers were made — and the five sentences of reporting law that would make the honest answer a query instead of an audit. The findings piece shows what the records say; the dashboard holds the full audited record.