If he had a really strong arm, said Bill McCauley, he could throw a rock off the bluff and hit it.

For him as for many others who live in Auburn’s Vista Pointe development on the bluff overlooking the preferred site for King County’s future solid waste transfer station in Algona, the very idea of it being there is a born stinker, reeking of government they say doesn’t give two damns about what the people it purports to serve actually think or want.

“There is absolutely no good reason to locate this thing, this … monstrosity, within shouting distance probably of 300 homes,” McCauley said. “There is no question in my mind, these people are trying to run one through on us because the property is there.”

McCauley was one of more than 100 people who came to Algona’s Filipino Hall on March 3 to pick the brains of county leaders, study maps and speak their minds.

And if the general mood in that place on that night was any indication, the county may have a helluva fight on its hands.

Here’s what the shouting is all about.

For years, King County’s Solid Waste Division has said that the 1960s-era facility at 35315 West Valley Highway should be replaced because, among its many age-related shortcomings, it is overburdened, it lacks space for recycling services, it was built on wood pilings that are degrading, it doesn’t offer the kinds of modern services customers want, and it is difficult to get in and out of, said Pat McLaughlin, director of King County’s Solid Waste Division.

Four years into the process, the county has whittled its siting possibilities to three: the preferred alternative on West Valley Highway in Algona, north of the current station; the second on C Street Southwest in Auburn, east of the Outlet Collection Mall; or leaving it where it is and doing nothing.

So says the project’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Vista Pointe resident Cheryl Sallee said she only learned about the site in recent weeks, and came away from the open house with at best vague answers to her many questions, especially those that touched on the economic drawbacks of having a transfer station with its attendant sights, smell and sounds in a city that is trying to attract business.

“It should be elsewhere,” Sallee said.

McLaughlin said the proposed 60,000-square-foot waste transfer station — plus 10,000 square feet for future expansion — the county is talking about would address many concerns: being fully enclosed it would help contain noise; its advanced air and scrubbing systems would minimize emission of odors; and its misting systems would keep dust down. Also, it would provide sufficient queuing space for customers and dedicated areas for recycling services. The overall design height could be 70 feet above the lowest level, which could be below grade.

McCauley is not impressed. The DEIS, he noted, says zip about slope stability.

“The Draft EIS said it’s not an issue. It is an issue! We’re talking about a sharp slope on an unstable geological regime … If the county has done geotechnical studies, they have not published them” McCauley said.

McLaughlin said that is a question for a later date.

“A very rudimentary assessment of the properties has been made as to the basic topography and developability of the transfer stations, but, for example, the slope stability of the Algona site should really be addressed at the design stage,” McLaughlin said. “We’re in the intermediate stage of making a determination of either taking no action at all, or siting a brand-new facility in Algona or Auburn.”

Dana Hinman, director of administration for the City of Auburn, has said Auburn leaders are not overly concerned about the station coming to Auburn.

McLaughlin said the county has completed its draft environmental impact analysis, it has the DEIS out, and last week’s meeting was one of the most important parts of the process.

“We want to hear from the constituents and stakeholders in the area what their perspectives are. It’s to help us evaluate that we haven’t overlooked an important aspect around the environmental impacts,” McLaughlin said.

In the coming weeks and months, McLaughlin said, the county will compile the comments, written, spoken and emailed, and analyze them against the work already done to ensure it hasn’t overlooked an important environmental impact aspect. This October, he said, the county expects to publish the final EIS. Once that’s done, he said, it will make a siting decision from the three alternatives.

“We want to get moving, and I would like to have siting decision later this year,” McLaughlin said.

Like most of his constituents, said Algona Mayor Dave Hill, he wants nothing to do with a project that will saddle his city with all with all of the inconvenience of a waste transfer station while delivering tax revenues to King County.

“There are serious issues. I don’t want those houses coming down the hill. … They talk about mitigation measures, but they don’t say what they are. There will be odors. It’s going to kill our economic development plans. There were developers here tonight that are waiting, and if this goes away, we’re ready to boom. We’re in an ideal location, 80,000 cars a day on State Route 167 going by your business.

“Go talk to any business major or professor at the UW and ask them if they’d want their business next to a transfer station, or as more people call it, a dump,” Hill said.