It is 15,178 kilometres from the famous 5,000-year-old original, but the Esperance Stonehenge replica on Western Australia's south coast is the closest you will get to the real thing.

But the giant 2,500-tonne pink granite tourist attraction might end up on the scrap heap after the local shire purchased the land next door to build a new rubbish tip.

Esperance Stonehenge owners Kim and Jillian Beale said the only way their astronomically aligned Stonehenge could stay open was if someone bought it after they retired.

Mr Beale said the property came with 330 hectares of farmland, which could be contaminated if the tip went ahead.

"We need to retire somewhere along the line and if we get too puffed and too buggered, well yeah, we're going to shut the thing down," he said.

"That's about what'll happen if we can't sell it [because of the tip]."

Esperance's Stonehenge replica sits on 330 hectares of farmland, which owner Kim Beale says could be contaminated by the proposed tip. ( ABC Goldfields-Esperance: Christien de Garis )

Opponents of the tip said the land was extremely volatile, putting pressure on the lining put down to contain the rubbish, and a leak would be inevitable.

"It's a karst landscape, which is basically like a honeycomb underneath; cavities, voids everywhere, water going in all directions, a very complex water system," Mr Beale said.

"All the information we've got, they basically say if you build them on the wrong landscape, they will leak.

"They leak anyway, but they're bound to leak if you put them in the wrong spot."

Shire denies likelihood of catastrophe

Esperance Shire chief executive Matthew Scott denied a leak in the lining of the new tip would be an environmental catastrophe.

"All the information we have to date, which has been verified by other agencies, indicates it would take hundreds of years before any contaminant within the landfill would reach those sensitive areas," Mr Scott said.

Opponents say the proposed tip site could threaten nationally significant wetlands. ( ABC Goldfields-Esperance: Christien de Garis )

Esperance needs a new tip site because the current one, built in sand dunes near a beach, has reached the end of its life and poses a significant environmental risk.

"The landfill facility will be best practice that Australia has at the moment," Mr Scott said.

"We are meeting all the requirements of the guidelines required when developing a landfill."

Internationally recognised wetlands at risk

A waterway that flows past the tip site runs into the internationally recognised Ramsar wetlands, which is home to unique and fragile wildlife and fauna.

"I've been involved in land care for 50 years, and I can tell you I couldn't think of a worse site to put a tip," neighbouring farmer David Johnson said.

Farmer David Johnson says the site for the tip is a bad choice. ( ABC Goldfields-Esperance: Christien de Garis )

The farmer said if the tip lining leaked, it would decimate surrounding water bodies.

"The ones that are connected to the tip site will become contaminated, that's the concern," he said.

"They become contaminated with stuff which we don't even know what's in there."

Project marred by council vote controversy

The site of the proposed tip has split Esperance councillors, and the decision to buy the land only passed on shire president Victoria Brown's casting vote.

However, opponents said the vote should never have gone ahead because it was held while a councillor, who was vehemently opposed to the purchase of the land, was out of the state on a holiday.

"Legally there's nothing wrong with what they did but morally it's just ridiculous," Mr Beale said.

Mr Scott said it was "pure speculation" how the vote may have gone if the absent councillor had been involved.

"It's not appropriate for councillors to say how they are going to vote until they've actually heard both sides of the argument at the council debate," he said.

The Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority is deciding if it will examine the project.

Senior officers visited the site last year and are close to making a decision on whether they will get involved and what level of scrutiny would apply if they did.