Please write a letter TODAY to protest a corrupt sweetheart deal
between the DNR and Georgia Pacific Corporation (formerly Fort James
Corporation.)   Tommy Thompson may be gone, but his legacy lives on. 
Last month, the state announced a surprise formal settlement with the
company, for only $7 million as compensation for severe PCB damages to
the Fox River, Green Bay, and Lake Michigan. The public comment period
ends February 21.    Our primary concerns:

1.  Far Too Little Money

All the other "governmental partners," led by the federal U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, estimate compensation requirements at between
$170 and $333 million, depending on the success of the sediment
cleanup.  Keep in mind that even these numbers are a gross
underestimate of the total damages the public has suffered and will
continue to suffer until the cleanup is complete.  The Service did not
include damages to discouraged fishers who no longer use the river or
bay, to commercial fishing businesses, to duck hunters, to property
values, or to public health.  The Service also failed to include
damage to swimming rights, drinking water supplies, harbor dredging,
or the lost subsistence food value to low income people and lost
cultural values to ethnic groups of the region.  The Service's numbers
are largely based on damages only to currently active sport anglers.
This means the DNR's $7 million settlement with Georgia Pacific is
outrageously low.

2.  A Piecemeal Approach

Prior to this announcement, the state had promised us that one
comprehensive damage assessment and compensation plan would be
presented to the public for all 6 of the polluting companies combined.
   Now, the DNR claims such a wholistic plan will be written only "if
necessary."   The DNR intends to continue negotiating secret
settlements with the other 5 companies, following no particular
overall plan.  A local DNR official admits the DNR's efforts are "less
sophisticated" than the carefully researched, documented, and
structured NRDA prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over a
period of 8 years.   But the DNR is so hell-bent on doing a separate,
weaker state NRDA that it is barging ahead to get quick settlements
with poor overall planning or preparation.

3.  Emotional DNR 

Frankly, the DNR's actions seem emotionally based and unprofessional
--- apparently due to their anger about federal "interference" on
DNR's turf, and jealousy over the high quality of the federal work. 
They seem genuinely motivated to sabotage the federal NRDA effort.  In
addition to hatred of federal "partners," the DNR staff have clearly
resented citizen involvement and comments about lack of progress on
this issue, to the point where the staff are routinely rude and
dismissive of citizen concerns.   When we call for information or talk
with them at meetings, the staff always seem angry and on the edge of
losing their tempers. They definitely don't fit the image of public
servants.  They don't want anybody questioning their work.

4.  Final Cleanup Unknown

How can the DNR sign final settlement contracts now for compensation
when they don't know how much cleanup will be done, or how quickly
we'll see results? They're putting the cart before the horse.   First,
they should negotiate the strongest possible cleanup plan, then
require compensation for past damages and any lingering damages left
during and after the cleanup.  This is how the federal compensation
plan will be handled.  The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service compensation
plan won't be final until AFTER the cleanup plan is done, because of
the range of cleanup options and timelines.

5.  Funds Wrong Projects

The deal will primarily fund 10 shoreline recreational projects. 
(Hiking trails, a nature center, fishing piers, boat launches, picnic
areas and playgrounds.)   In other words, people will be encouraged to
use the toxic waterfront and catch toxic fish.

However, public surveys by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service found
recreational improvements were the LEAST popular choices.  Most
citizens randomly surveyed felt the top priority should be PCB
cleanup, then wetland and habitat preservation, then non-point
pollution cleanup.  Most people felt we already have recreation
opportunities.  Water degradation and wildlife habitat losses were
more important to address.   The DNR and George Pacific ignored public
wishes and instead went for flashy but less valuable human
recreational projects.

A relatively small amount of money will be used to purchase 700 acres
of shoreland wetlands near Peshtigo to transfer to state control, and
will provide some funds for the Wild Rose State Fish Hatchery and
small local fish habitat projects.

6.  Assumes Island Permit

The most controversial aspect of the DNR's secret deal with Georgia
Pacific  would be funding towards the construction of a dredge spoil
disposal island to restore part of the old Cat Island Chain in the
open waters off the west shore of the Bay.   Brown County taxpayers
would be required to assume longterm ownership, liability and
maintenance costs (which will be high.)

The DNR argues that restoration of the island would eventually benefit
wildlife by protecting westshore wetlands from wave erosion.  This
would allow resurgence of wetland plants in what is now open water. 
Some scientific committees support the project for this reason.

However, we've stated before that this project is inappropriate as
damage compensation because Georgia Pacific is one of the main users
of the Green Bay Harbor and stands to benefit financially from a cheap
substandard sediment landfill located in the water.  The artificial
island would be used for disposal of harbor dredgings.   If Georgia
Pacific wants to use the harbor, they should pay for the project as a
business expense, not pass it off  as a public benefit.  The public
wouldn't need to build such expensive disposal sites if the sediments
weren't contaminated by polluters like Georgia Pacific.

Equally worrisome: the Cat Island project hasn't gone through the
public review process yet, or received major environmental permit
approvals, but DNR has bypassed all this and given pre-emptive
approval by putting the project into this settlement before it's
legally approved.  Apparently, public input is irrelevant.   The DNR
proposes to issue "water quality certification" for the Cat Island
project without the usual WPDES wastewater discharge permit which was
required at Kidney Island (another dredge spoil disposal site we
successfully challenged in court a few years ago.)   This sets a
dangerous precedent for future proposals like Kidney Island.

7.  Inflated Benefits

Georgia Pacific is providing only $7 million as compensation for MAJOR
damages, but the DNR claims in its self-promotional news releases that
this is somehow worth $55 million in benefits, after using some
mysterious multiplier factors. Economists with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service said they saw no basis for such inflated benefit
figures.  We're not getting $55 million, we're getting only $7
million.  Period.

8.   Corporate Consultants 

The paper companies paid for the state's economic research and
recommended the consultants who were hired.  As a result, two large
corporate firms (Deloitte & Touche, and PriceWaterhouse Coopers - PWC)
oversaw the work of another completely pro-corporate consultant:
Triangle Economics Research (TER).   At DNR's press conference
announcing the settlement with Georgia Pacific, DNR Secy. George Meyer
tried to portray the consultants as experienced independent government
servants. (And the printed press packet failed to mention the Deloitte
& Touche connection at all.) 

The DNR's lead coordinator of the economic research, Mr. Dwight
Duncan, of PWC, was forced to admit at the press conference that he
had never worked on a Natural Resource Damage Assessment before and
had only a Master's Degree.   He's not qualified to evaluate the
complex economic computer models prepared by worldclass PhD experts
like TER's, or by the 4 PhD experts hired by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 

Even worse, the DNR also failed to mention that Dwight Duncan had
worked for General Electric in New York, a powerful lobbying opponent
of PCB cleanups on the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers out east, and a
major ally of the paper industry in Wisconsin.   Mr. Duncan is the
wrong man for this job.

At DNR's press conference, he stated a strong personal bias against
significant types of economic damages which the public could claim. 
His views are consistent with pro-industry consultants fighting
against legal claims on behalf of polluters.   He should be pursuing
aggressive government actions to obtain the maximum compensation
possible for damages we've experienced, but instead he's doing the
opposite.

9.  Political Interference

It seems that several DNR staff have been moved off the project when
they disagreed with decisions the state is making on this issue.  For
example:  Betsy David is a PhD economist who has worked for DNR for 23
years.  She was transferred to a different DNR department after she
disagreed with some of the consultant findings.   She was afraid to
talk with us, would not answer questions, or provide any information
--- she only confirmed that she used to, but no longer worked on the
issue.

10.  Cleanup But Not Compensation

DNR Secy.  Meyer  said, "I would rather see the greatest bulk of the
money go for cleanup rather than compensation."  But the paper
companies can afford to pay for BOTH cleanup and compensation.   It's
not enough to require the polluters to just clean the sediments, when
they've caused decades of severe damages.   The public deserves
compensation for their losses.

11.  Destroys Bargaining Power

Secy. George Meyer brags that by settling low, the state achieves a
rapid resolution of the problem and avoids litigation.  But the
state's betrayal of the federal and other partners is guaranteed to
force all of them into court now, causing years of delay and major
litigation costs.  The polluters can exploit the conflict between the
state and other governments.  This could delay compensation for years
or block it altogether.   If all the governments were unified in their
approach and bargained as one block, the polluters could be forced to
settle quickly and more fairly.   But the DNR has destroyed this
unity.

The DNR is ignoring the concerns of the State of Michigan, three
Native American tribes, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration, as well as the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, who are
all co-trustees in the federal NRDA.   DNR opposes their efforts to
achieve justice and compensation in this case.   This betrayal by the
DNR is nothing to be proud of.

12.  Nothing Local About It

The State claims this is a "local" issue which requires a "local"
solution, but the secret negotiations are conducted in Madison with no
input from local citizens.   The settlement confuses the public,
creates negative publicity, reduces political support, and wastes tax
dollars with competing federal/state plans, negotiations, and legal
efforts.

The Governor and the DNR are working against the public interest  and
helping six multinational paper corporations (most with headquarters
in other states and countries) escape their duty to compensate the
public for serious damages. 

We call on the Wisconsin Attorney General and state legislature to
investigate the Governor's actions.   We also urge the Wisconsin
Attorney General to join the Service as a co-trustee (as the Michigan
AG has) to represent the public rights of Wisconsin citizens, because
the Governor's DNR refuses to.

Rebecca Leighton Katers
Clean Water Action Council of N.E. Wisconsin
1270 Main Street, Suite 120 
Green Bay, WI 54302 
Ph: 920-437-7304 
FAX: 920-437-7326
CleanWater@cwac.net
 

CWAC.NET is designed by EarthWINS & hosted by EZWebtech