August, 1997
Table of Contents
We Won! Kidney Island Expansion has been Stopped!
13 Year StruggleClean Air Bill Under Attack
Judge Agreed Water Quality Could Be Threatened
Second Win
Wasted Money and Time
Sour Grapes
Costly Stubborness
It’s a Mistake to Ignore Citizen Concerns
Polluters Should Pay
Corps Data Unreliable
Bay is Already Oxygen Depleted
It’s Not Really Over1. Leakage Repair
2. Contingency Plans
3. Surface Land Use
4. Alternative Projects
Is Air Pollution Affecting Local Health?Republicans Use State Budget to Attack Environment
DNR Defends Mining Companies (Again)1. Industrial Pollution SecrecyWhat You Can Do
2. Erosion Control Eliminated
3. Toxic Liability Weakened
4. Air Monitoring Cut
5. Light Rail Killed
6. Electric Ratepayer Representation Slashed
7. Sustainable Ag Killed
8. Floodplain Houses Encouraged
9. PERC Clean-up Inadequate
10. Cuts Wetland Replacement
Call the news media!
FalloutWetlands Alert
Please Write a Letter
Exemption ProposedThank You!
Please Write a Letter!
We Won! Kidney Island Expansion has been Stopped!
We’re all walking on clouds after finally winning our legal action to
stop the huge expansion of this toxic sludge dump offshore from Bay Beach
Amusement Park in Green Bay.
Brown County and the U.S. Army Corps have announced they won’t appeal
the decision. They are finally looking for alternative disposal methods
for contaminated sediments dredged from the Green Bay Harbor shipping channel.
The battle began in 1984 with the release of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ Environmental Impact Statement for the expansion, which was
criticized as grossly inadequate by many natural resource agencies (including
DNR, EPA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
For a few years, as the Corps applied for permits, it seemed DNR was
certain to deny the project, but the political winds changed, Gov. Thompson
was elected in the fall of 1996, and DNR caved in.
After 13 years, the project supporters were still proposing the same
old island design, and still could not answer basic questions about a final
land-use plan for the island, long-term care costs, contingency plans in
the event of major storms, how they intended to monitor for leakage, or
what they would do when leakage is detected. (...not if --- when...)
The DNR’s wastewater discharge permit for the island proposed to allow
the expansion and then see if it could meet permit limits, because DNR
wasn’t at all sure the island could meet state standards.
We weren’t allowed to challenge the solid waste permit, or the wastewater
discharge permit, but we did challenge the Water Quality Certification
permit --- and this was enough.
Judge Agreed Water Quality Could Be Threatened
Judge Jeffrey Boldt confirmed that the project supporters couldn’t prove
that water quality would be protected to state standards if the island
were tripled in size. The oxygen levels in the water could drop below healthy
levels --- because the expansion would block the river currents flowing
into the bay,
creating pockets of stagnation along the East Shore.
This is the same case which citizens had already won back in 1988, through
the leadership and hard work of attorney Thomas Dawson, former Wisconsin
Public Intervenor, back in 1988. In court, during cross-examination, Dawson
exposed an effort by several high-level DNR staff to knowingly use
faulty calculations to claim the island was safe.
The DNR used the same key staff person to issue the new permit last
year and to testify in court as an“expert.” The judge wouldn’t allow us
to challenge his trustworthiness during the trial, but the judge’s decision
comments were critical of the agency’s actions in this case.
This case provides another example of the Department of Defense’s wasteful
habits and mismanagement.
It’s rumored that the Corps wasted over 1 million dollars developing
the new, highly complex computer model and extensive reports on water currents
and chemistry around the island, but they refused to calibrate and verify
the model with real-life data from the Bay.
Our expert said the model was much more complex than necessary and
the Corps should have focussed more on actual water quality and current
measurements.
The data which did exist showed the Bay is already having dissolved
oxygen problems and the island could make it worse.
The Corps also spent scads of money flying a lawyer and experts in
from all over the country to oppose us in our trial. One of their experts
was irate, because they didn’t even use her once they got her here. It
would be interesting to know how many taxdollars were wasted on misguided
staff promotion of this boondoggle over the past 13 years.
Now, the County and Corps are trying to make the public think that just
a small group of extremist environmentalists blocked a wonderful and essential
project, and this will cost Brown County taxpayers dearly.
It’s odd how they can turn an issue on its head.
We proved in court twice that 3 government agencies can’t be trusted
to abide by the law and protect water quality --- yet they make it seem
the fault of “environmentalists.”
They’re ignoring the thousands of petition signatures, letters, yard
signs, and testimony from ordinary local citizens who could never be described
as radicals.
The truth is that the inflexibility of these government agencies led
to high costs and years of delay. For 13 years, local citizens and the
Intervenor office urged the Corps and County to look for alternatives,
but it seemed that pure stubborness and pride kept them locked into only
this project --- at all costs.
The Corps never seriously tried to move the $20 million in federal
funds from the island expansion to any other alternative project. They
simply dug in their heels and refused to budge for 13 years. If this means
that Brown County taxpayers will have to pay more for harbor maintenance,
the Corps and County are responsible, not “environmentalists.”
Our Congressional representatives should demand an investigation of the Corps’ behavior. County voters should demand a hard look at the Brown County Harbor Commission.
It’s a Mistake to Ignore Citizen Concerns
In addition, the agencies refused to hold public hearings to allow citizens
to express their strong opposition. Years of effort and millions of dollars
could have been saved, if the agencies had simply been more open to public
discussion and more responsive to local voters.
Unfortunately, they are continuing bad behavior patterns, with the
creation of a “Citizen Advisory Committee” which County officials have
stacked with hand-picked people they are comfortable with. Such committees
are no substitute for a public hearing and true community outreach efforts.
The County could easily spend a lot of money and time on a proposed land-use
plan for the existing island, only to be shocked later to discover that
this “Citizen Advisory Committee” does NOT represent the full range of
strong concerns in the community.
This is foolish, and leads to the kind of waste and confusion we frequently
see in our government.
Another annoying aspect of the County and Corps claims is that they’re
essentially blaming “environmentalists” (ie: local citizens) for the high
cost of sediment disposal for maintaining the Harbor.
First, they claim taxpayers will have to pick up the costs because
the Federal dollars won’t be as available --- but the Federal dollars are
our taxdollars too. This is like taking money out of one pocket to compensate
the other pocket of the same pants.
Second, they keep ignoring the fact that “environmentalists” aren’t
responsible for causing the sediment disposal problem. The polluting industries
along the Fox River are responsible. The polluters should be paying every
penny required to clean-up the Harbor sediments. Taxpayers shouldn’t get
stuck with this unfair cost.
In fact, Brown County and federal taxpayers should be reimbursed for
all the extra costs they’ve already experienced over the past 30 years
due to the pollution.
Third, County officials have been unwilling to conduct a comprehensive
cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it even makes sense to continue
maintaining this port at current operation levels.
If industries like Fort Howard Corporation are so dependent on this
harbor for their survival, let them pay for cleaning up the toxic chemicals
they dumped which have damaged their Harbor. They soiled their own nest.
An interesting sidelight of a recent public presentation by Fox River
clean-up parties, were some extremely blunt comments made by a DNR sediment
expert concerning the Corps’ chemical analysis of harbor sediments. The
Corps and County have been claiming recently that environmentalists are
exaggerating the toxic dangers of the channel dredgings. The Corps claims
sediments are much cleaner now --- yet the DNR’s expert on sediment announced
that the Corps’ data was highly questionable and unreliable.
It’s unfortunate DNR couldn’t have said this during our Kidney Island
trial --- the DNR attorney was too busy defending the Corps against citizens.
But at least this reinforces our arguments about the need for better scrutiny
of Corps projects and careful handling of the sediments.
Now that two demonstration projects are planned next summer up-river,
it’s possible that some hotspot sediments may be disturbed to flow downstream.
This may result in some temporarily higher readings in the channel, requiring
careful disposal of dredgings.
Bay is Already Oxygen Depleted
Our legal case challenging Kidney Island highlighted another concern.
The lower Bay of Green Bay is already suffering from repeated bouts
of low oxygen in the water, according to research data presented during
our trial. Oxygen sags can result in fish kills and other unpleasant
water conditions.
This raises serious questions about the way DNR issues pollution permits
on the Fox River. DNR assigns industries “rights to pollute” (called Wasteload
Allocations) and argues that the river can handle a certain level of pollution
without violating statestandards, because the flowing water carries pollution
“away.”
But DNR ignores the fact that this pollution ends up in Green Bay,
which has far less circulation to stir oxygen into the water. And
Lake Michigan flushes through only once every 99 years or so. Essentially,
it’s a closed system --- the pollution isn’t going anywhere.
DNR must re-think its permits to better restrict dumping of wastes
which use-up dissolved oxygen.
Land run-off from streets, construction sites and farmland also need
better controls if we hope to solve this oxygen loss.
Even though we won this case and stopped the expansion, we still need to keep an eye on the existing Kidney Island. A 55 acre toxic island is already there and many questions are still unanswered:
1. Leakage Repair --- Now that the
expansion plans are over, the Corps plans to “finish” the island and turn
it over to Brown County for long-term care at local taxpayer expense.
Before this happens, the Corps should be required to seal the leaks
in the island, otherwise the County could be liable for expensive repairs
later. The Corps has acknowledged now that the island was designed to leak.
The walls are simply interlocking sheet-metal pilings held up with large
rip-rap rocks. A gap was deliberately left along the bottoms of the wall
to allow the island to be dewatered as it filled. As wet sludge is piled
on top, the water squeezes out the bottom, carrying toxic contaminants
with it into the Bay.
A dye-tracer study has never been done to document leakage from Kidney
Island, but dye-tracer studies at four similar islands built by the Corps
at Wisconsin harbors along Lake Michigan showed extensive leakage, with
up to 90% of the water flowing directly through the walls into the Lake.
They leaked like sieves. Repairs were required at those other sites,
but nothing’s been done in Green Bay.
For years, the Corps tried to tell us all the drainage water went through
filter structures built at one end of the island, but their deliberate
lie has been exposed.
If the expansion required a pollution discharge permit and was
required to meet Wisconsin’s water quality standards, then the existing
island should be required to meet those standards as well. This is the
Corps’ responsibility and they shouldn’t be allowed to avoid it. They might
argue that the existing island pre-dates Wisconsin’s standards, but none
of the other old existing industrial or municiapal pollution sources are
exempt.
2. Contingency Plans --- The
County still lacks a clear plan on how much money County taxpayers will
be asked to set aside for regular maintenance and storm damage of the island.
Though the County is responsible, they seem determined to rely on the Corps.
In a pinch, it’s possible the island could be spilling its toxic contents
into the bay while the agencies wrangle over who’s responsible.
(See page 2 --- “Polluters Should Pay”)
All this concern about sediment leakage may seem silly now --- afterall,
the sediment came from the bay, so what difference does it make if some
escapes back into the bay? --- but we need to think about the future. Hundreds
of millions of dollars may be spent to clean-up the Fox River and Bay.
In 20 years, the water could be much cleaner. If the island breaks apart
this could ruin the Bay clean-up effort and anglers and wildlife could
be affected again until the system finally buries or disperses the toxic
chemicals.
3. Surface Land Use --- The existing island has become a major nesting site for colonial nesting birds, including some rare species of Terns. Some biologists believe it many be better to discourge the birds’ use, because the island is too close to land, allowing raccoons and foxes to cross over and kill the nestlings. Others fear the birds are too exposed to eating contaminated fish in the lower Bay (though with the river clean-up we could hope this will be fixed.). Many human recreational uses have been proposed, and local citizens should beware of uses or improper capping which could increase toxic exposures. We will study proposals and report more on this later. We’ll be pushing for public hearings and written public comment periods --- to allow citizen input.
4. Alternative Projects --- The County still wants permission to land-spread contaminated sediments, or to bag and sell them as fertilizers or soil conditioners to unsuspecting customers. They’re also looking at building other islands out in the bay or to “restore” the Cat Island Chain. These projects must be watched carefully.
As predicted, members of Congress have introduced two bills which
would block the new, stronger Clean Air Act standards for soot particles
and ozone smog which were recently proposed by EPA and finally approved
by President Clinton.
The Senate Bill is S. 1084 and the House Bill is H.R. 1984. Both bills
reinstate the old weaker air standards, and require only more research.
The House Bill already has more than 109 sponsors, and the Senate sponsor
insists he can get more than 60 (out of 100) Senators to support him. This
means the rules are seriously threatened and the polluters’ lobby
is having its desired effect.
Clean Water Action Council helped organize two press conferences last
week to provide information on air quality problems, and counteract the
misinformation.
As part of the press conference, we featured one of three 10-foot tall
tombstones which are touring the country to call attention to the 15,000
people who die each year from the amount of air pollution which would be
cut by the new regulations. (Imagine if an airplane crashed and killed
15,000 people and how much media attention this would generate.)
Is Air Pollution Affecting Local Health?
We were very pleased that Judy Friedericks, the Director of the Brown
County Health Department joined us at the press conference in supporting
the new standards, as did Taku Ronsman, Coordinator of the Tobacco Free
Coalition. David Neuman, of Wisconsin Citizen Action and the national
group, Environmental Information Center, were instrumental in bringing
the tombstone and initiating the press conference.
In addition, Marcia Lee, a Registered Respiratory Therapist with Aeromed
Home Health Care Services gave sobering testimony about her experiences
in treating local patients.
She reported that based on her 6 years of experience at St. Vincent
Hospital and now Aeromed, she believes the number of local asthmatics and
other respiratory cases has risen considerably. She added that local patients
who used to medicate themselves successfully are now needing more extensive
medical care in hospital emergency room s, they’re spending more money
for medications, and they’re staying in the hospital longer. The number
of patients needing home therapy services is also increasing.
She said, “Children are a great portion of those affected. And this
is what we are seeing --- greater numbers of children afflicted with asthma.
This makes sense because children breathe more air per pound of body weight,
spend more time outdoors, and are less likely to be aware of air pollution
warnings.”
She reported that the #1 killer of infants less than one year in 1993 was lung disease, nationally. This covered 32% of infant deaths that year which were not caused by prematurity.
Republicans Use State Budget to Attack Environment
Two years ago, the Wisconsin State Budget was a disaster for our environment
when Republicans, in a straight party-line vote, decided to include large
policy changes, such as the elimination of the Wisconsin Public Intervenor
Office and giving the Governor control of the DNR.
Now, they’re doing it again. Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Sierra
Club, League of Women Voters, and Wisconsin Citizen Action have compiled
a Top Ten List of Republican Amendments to the Budget that threaten
our environment:
1. Industrial Pollution Secrecy
The Republicans support an Environmental Audit Privilege which allows
industry to conceal pollution reports and gives industry immunity for civil
and criminal prosecution for environmental pollution if they discover their
own pollution.
This undercuts the legitimate right of citizens to seek information
on how industries can prevent pollution and reduce air and water contamination
of poorly regulated pollutants that affect the health of our families and
communities.
This amendment exempts construction sites from any non-point source water quality or performance standards established by the DNR or local government ordinance. One or two family homes are regulated by the Dept. of Commerce, but larger construction sites such as subdivisions would not be regulated as required by federal law. These sites are a major source of erosion and water quality degradation, as nutrients cause excessive algae blooms and the soil clogs fish spawning beds, boat harbors, and shipping channels.
It’s not fair to hold farmers to a high standard for protecting water quality, while giving developers a green light to allow tons of soil to run-off building sites.
Amendments release industry from clean-up requirements at industrial, so-called brownfield sites, despite a consensus on liability provisions negotiated between the Governor’s Office, the DNR and industry. So much for Trust.
Amendments were passed which will reduce the state’s ability to monitor smog and other pollutants which sacrifice public health. One amendment eliminates ozone (smog) monitoring sites, which are required under the Clean Air Act, in the parts of the state where smog related health problems are the worst.
An amendment removed $2 million over the biennium for preliminary engineering
for a light rail system in the east-west corridor near Milwaukee.
This mass transit system is desperately needed to reduce traffic congestion
and air pollution, but the highway construction lobby gives large campaign
donations and demands that most funds be targetted to massive highway expansions
instead, creating serious environmental problems.
6. Electric Ratepayer Representation Slashed
Funds to allow, consumer, ratepayer and environmental advocates legal
representation in Public Service Commission contested cases (e.g. utility
rate cases) were reduced 80% from the Governor’s proposed $500,000 down
to $100,000 annually. This money is primarily used to advocate for lower
electric bills for residential ratepayers and environmental protection.
Without these funds, Wisconsin ratepayers will only be represented
by 3 biased commissioners on the Public Service Commission, appointed by
Gov. Thompson. Big utility companies have already spent more than
$777,740 dollars just this year on lobbying the PSC and Wisconsin Legislature
for deregulation of their industry. They also gave big campaign contributions
to our elected officials, through their top employees.
We need citizen representation to counteract this power.
Funding of the $200,000 for a sustainable agriculture program requested by the Department of Agriculture and the Governor was completely eliminated. This money would be used for farmer-to-farmer education projects to share more environmentally sound farming practices which reduce chemical use and save money. This program was especially helpful to small family farmers working with tight budgets.
8. Floodplain Houses Encouraged
The lives of rescue workers will be put at risk by allowing reconstruction of nonconforming buildings in floodplains and shoreland areas. By restricting flood flows and putting themselves in harm’s way, these building owners will increase taxpayer costs and public expenditures (rescue, emergency response, flood insurance). The 1993 floods caused over $43.6 million in public damages in Wisconsin. Almost half of these costs were paid by state and local governments.
In place of a study requested by the Governor on how best to deal with
clean-up of an as-yet-to-be-determined number of sites contamianted with
health-threatening dry-cleaning chemicals such as PERC (perchloroethylene),
special interest lobbyists have inserted a half-baked funding program,
modelled on the PECFA (Petroleum Environmental Clean-up Fund) which has
had such a troubled financial history. Under this new proposal, insufficient
funds will be collected, at worst only 17% and at best only 45% of the
total estimated cost, sites will be cleaned up at a slow pace (10-12 sites
annually) or not at all, if funding is unsufficient.
This effectively lets dry cleaning facilities off the hook from completing
clean-ups if funding is insufficient, which it most assuredly will be.
A Republican amendment would greatly reduce the acreage of restored wetlands which are currently required to offset wetlands destroyed for building highways by the Wisconsoin Department of Transportation (DOT). The highway lobby strikes again.
The Republican Budget also includes other disasters --- it eliminates urban green/open space funding, eliminates the non-point pollution motorist user fees (giving DOT even more money), eliminates Crex Meadows wildlife education center, reduces the ability for lakeshore residents to challenge permits for structures in navigable waters, legalizes structures which violate shoreland and floodplain regulations if DNR fails to discover the violations within 7 years, reduces mass transit funding by 8%, eliminates key provisions of the state recycling program, etc.
Write to your elected representatives and tell them what you think about these state budget proposals:
State Senator
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
State Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
State Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
(If you don’t know who your elected state representatives are, call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472 on weekdays.)
Demand that they publicize these issues and inform the public. How can voters evaluate their elected officials if they don’t know what they’re doing? (Look under Television Stations, Newspapers, and Radio Stations in the Yellow Pages.
DNR Defends Mining Companies (Again)
by Rebecca Leighton Katers
Clean Water Action Council organized a quick press conference prior
to DNR’s public hearing in Green Bay --- on proposed changes to Wisconsin’s
Hazardous Waste Management Codes.
We wanted to call public attention to the DNR’s continued exemption
for mining wastes under this regulation, as described in last month’s newsletter.
We were stunned by the obstructionism of DNR staff at the hearing,
as they attempted to explain-away our concerns, to make it seem to the
news reporters that we were misinformed.
In fact, the DNR Hearing Examiner refused to answer a direct question
about the mining exemption from a TV reporter, claiming that the topic
was not a legitimate part of this hearing.
When I testified on behalf of Clean Water as part of the public hearing,
the DNR Hearing Examiner again tried to cut off comments about the
mining exemption, and spent a considerable amount of time arguing with
me.
Though news stories ran in both the Green Bay Press Gazette and Green
Bay News Chronicle, both articles included DNR claims that even though
mining is exempted under hazardous waste rules, we shouldn’t worry because
mining is covered by other state regulations.
The DNR Hearing Examiner specifically mentioned NR 182, the groundwater
rules, as a safe substitute --- but mining companies also get special treatment
there. Mine wastes are clearly not subject to hazardous waste standards
in that rule, because if they were, absolutely no groundwater violations
would be allowed even one inch from the tailings pond.
The reality is that Wisconsin groundwater codes allow groundwater standard
violations up to 1,200 feet away from the edge of mine waste disposal sites.
The Hearing Examiner also claimed that although mine waste disposal
itself is not covered under hazardous waste codes, “it is regulated elsewhere
by the state, and those regulations are at least as strict as federal law.”
This is partly true, but extremely misleading. The federal “law” is
actually a blanket exemption for mining wastes under federal hazardous
waste rules. So it is true that Wisconsin’s exemption is as strict as the
Federal exemption --- but this is plain silly. It would be funny if it
weren’t so serious.
The DNR Hearing Examiner also claimed that mining wastes may not meet
the legal definition of “hazardous waste,” implying that they probably
didn’t qualify, so why should we worry about it.
The reality is that the mineral-bearing rocks which will be pulverized
and may be thrown back into the mine shaft are loaded of metals which can
be extremely toxic. The rocks are also high in sulfur and form sulfuric
acid when exposed to air and water.
Similar rocks tested in other parts of the country certainly qualify,
but appropriate hazardous waste tests have not been conducted on the Wisconsin
rocks.
Why would a DNR Hearing Examiner oppose improvements in Wisconsin’s
rules to require DNR to conduct tests on the material to determine whether
it is hazardous? DNR should be fighting tooth and nail to get this loophole
closed, instead they’re obstructing citizen efforts to close the loophole.
Since the hearing, we’ve heard that DNR staff were shocked that we called
attention to the issue, and they excuse the DNR Hearing Examiner’s inappropriate
behavior by saying he wasn’t prepared to respond properly to our particular
comments. They’re using the “He’s really just a nice guy” argument to appease
us.
But unpreparedness is no excuse for this Hearing Examiner’s behavior.
It’s not his job to obstruct citizen comments at a hearing, and to use
his position of authority to mislead the news media and public into thinking
Wisconsin’s rules are strong enough.
DNR and the mining companies are fond of claiming Wisconsin’s mining
laws are the strongest in the country. But in this case we’ve shown that
Wisconsin has the weakest standard in the country.
DNR is looking into our concerns about the exemption, but they’re expected
to say it needs further study and can’t be included in this rule revision.
But rule revisions take at least two years. If the rule isn’t fixed
now, it will be too late to influence the legal decisions about the Exxon
Mine near Mole Lake.
How can DNR review the Environmental Impact Statement without knowing
whether these wastes are hazardous? How can we feel assured that DNR will
protect the environment, when they pull stunts like this?
DNR staff often complain the laws aren’t strong enough, so we shouldn’t
blame them --- but too often they block our attempts to fix the situtation.
It’s frustrating.
Gov. Thompson and DNR Secretary George Meyer need to hear from citizens about the way they conduct public hearings and explain-away important issues to reporters.
Secretary George Meyer
Wisconsin DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Governor Tommy Thompson
P.O. Box 7863
Madison, WI 53707-1212
Please refer to the NR 600 exemption for mining, in your letter.
This exemption is just another reason for the Legislature to support the Mining Moratorium. Please send your legislators a letter, too!
Wisconsin law presently provides wetland protection through the simple,
common sense approach of requiring permit applicants to look for alternatives
that avoid wetland destruction. The “avoid and minimize” sequence requires
that if the wetland can’t be avoided, steps must be taken to minimize wetland
impact. If DNR determines that the project would have a significant
impact on wetland functions and values, they deny water quality certification
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is prohibited from granting a permit.
Exemption Proposed
Now DNR is proposing that expansion of existing and abandoned cranberry
beds and reservoirs be EXEMPT from alternatives searches. The proposed
language under code NR 103 includes undefined concepts which could be giant
loopholes.
This highly profitable industry is already exempt from most Wisconsin
water regulations, and has already been a large destroyer of wetlands.
DNR staff will lose the ability to look for off-site alternatives when
valuable wetlands are threatened.
The practical reality is that cranberry culture is not dependent on
destroying natural wetlands.
Most modern cranberry bogs are highly artificial and could just as
well be placed on less valuable land with the same water control
features they now use.
About 10 acres of reservoir are needed to supply water for one acre
of cranberry bed. The exemption could result in the loss of thousands of
acres of natural wetlands and associated habitat for rare & endangered
species and rare plant communities (northern and southern sedge meadows).
Natural wetlands converted to shallow reservoirs change to plant communities
more tolerant of temporary water drawdown when reservoirs are used to irrigate
and flood cranberry beds. Irrigation wastewater (exempt
from regulation) from cranberry beds include insect-killing pesticides
& herbicides, phosphorus & other nutrients in fertilizers, and
sun-warmed water (up to high 80’s and low 90 degrees --- lethal to trout
and other aquatic wildlife) which will overfertilize lakes and streams
and stress or kill trout and other fish.
The exemption limits DNR review of cumulative wetland losses and serious
water quality impacts.
The DNR is taking comments on the cranberry exemption under NR 103, until August 22:
Ms. Pat Trochell
DNR FM/HP2
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Many groups and individuals helped us win the Kidney Island case, and we want to asknowledge them:
Clean Water Action Council and Executive Director Rebecca Katers coordinated the overall effort.
Clean Water members provided thousands of hours of volunteer time, and
organized several fundraising efforts to raise about $6,000 for the legal
work.
Four large rummage sales were held by Clean Water and the Bay Beach
Association ( a neighborhood group along the bay). Kathy LeFebvre, Dagmar
Kammerer and other members of the Bay Beach Association worked tirelessly
circulating petitions, staffing rummage sales, attending meetings, and
preparing and posting yard signs.
The Brown County Conservation Alliance (a coalition of hunting, fishing,
boating and environmental groups) donated $6,000. Northeast Wis. Audubon
Society donated $375.
And finally, Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade signed as a co-petitioner
and let us to hire their attorney, Larry Classen,at reduced rates to represent
us. His talents were essential to our winning.
The original petitioners were Rebecca Katers, Steve Abitz, and Bruce
La Mere (Clean Water Action Council); Annette Rasch, (Wisconsin Greens);
Charlie Frisk & Jerry Lemerond, (N.E. Wisconsin Audubon Society); Bob
LaMay, a local fisherman; Patricia Harris, (Door Co. Environmental Council);
Bill Hurrle, a local fisherman &hunter; Yana Hodkiewicz, a bayshore
homeowner; Ron Hill, an Oneida Tribe member; & Pam Porter, (Wis. Environ.
Decade.)
We are extremely grateful for the donated efforts of our key witnesses,
Dr. Kwang Lee, a world class expert in hydrodynamic computer modeling from
the UW - Milwaukee Engineering Dept. (he was subjected to nasty personal
attacks in the hearing), Mr. Thomas Erdman, our Northeast Wisconsin ornithology
(bird) expert, and reluctant (subpoenaed) expert on bay ecology, Dr. Bud
Harris, from UW-Green Bay.
A fourth engineering expert, Dr. Patricia Terry of UW-Green Bay was
prepared but not allowed to testify against the dump site’s wastewater
discharge permit, which was ruled a separate issue.
We also want to acknowledge the hard work and leadership provided by
attorney Tom Dawson, who laid the groundwork for this case back in 1987
and 1988. We wouldn’t have dared trying this case without the old paperwork
and ideas from the former Wisconsin Public Intervenor’s Office.
The Intervenors had been harshly criticized for challenging the Island
expansion, and this case was used by Republicans as one of the principle
arguments for closing the Intervenor Office. Our judge’s decision vindicates
the Intervenors and showed that they did truly represent the public’s interest
in natural resources. We need them back!
|
|
|
|
|