June, 2000
Vol. 4, No. 3
Table of Contents
ANTI-DREDGING PROPOSAL MOVES IN CONGRESS
SUPERFUND BENEFITS ARE ALREADY HERE
1 in 100 CANCER RISK FROM DIOXIN
RIVER DREDGE DEMO TO BE FINISHED
DRINKING WATER THREAT IN CONGRESS
REFORM OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Water-based Wildlife Most Threatened
ENDANGERED SPECIES
RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DISSOLVED
ANTI-DREDGING PROPOSAL MOVES IN CONGRESS
Clean Water Action Council has signed on to a national letter
of
concern from citizen groups around the U.S. because polluting corporations
are pushing through Congress a new federal prohibition against dredging
contaminated sediments.
General Electric (GE), which polluted the Hudson River in New
York
with PCBs, had language inserted as a "rider" into legislation funding
the
U.S. EPA, which would prevent EPA from making any remedial decisions
regarding dredging until the U.S. National Academy of Science completes
its
"Risks of Remediating Contaminated Sediments" study this fall, and
the
study's findings are "incorporated into EPA decision-making processes."
This "process incorporation" can take many months, even years, because
EPA's standard rule updating process generally requires several steps
and
public involvement. In the meantime, EPA could be prevented
from taking
even emergency actions to protect public health.
So far, Congress is playing along with corporate delay tactics.
In
fact, Congress required the NAS study in the first place at the
request of
polluting corporations. In essence, Congress is saying they have
no faith
in EPA's technical expertise or judgement on the contaminated sediments
issue, and Congress prefers a do-nothing approach even when years of
study
have proven that toxic wastes in rivers and lakes pose serious threats
to
public health and wildlife.
The EPA has said the rider is unnecessary because they will
automatically consider the results of the NAS report when dredging
projects
are proposed in the future.
It's worrisome to note that several members of the NAS committee
are aligned with polluting corporations, so we have no confidence that
the
final NAS report will be fair.
While General Electric is seeking mainly to prevent dredging
that
would cost it hundreds of millions of dollars on the Hudson River,
the
language would block PCB dredging at toxic sites all across the nation.
So far, the polluters are winning. The GE rider
has passed the
House of Representatives (by a vote of 216 to 208, with Republicans
tending
tofavor the GE rider and Democrats tending to oppose) and is now being
considered by the U.S. Senate.
Our two Representatives from Northeast Wisconsin voted in favor
of the corporate rider -- Rep. Thomas Petri (R) and Rep. Mark Green
(R).
They said the rider would have no impact on the Fox River cleanup,
because they assume the Wisconsin DNR will lead the cleanup.
(Apparently,
they don't care about other contaminated sediment problems around the
country.) But we have counted on Federal dollars and Federal
enforcement authority to keep the Fox River cleanup process moving.
(The
Superfund threat will force the polluters to the bargaining table.)
If
the 7 polluting corporations know that the EPA is powerless, the polluters
will be in a stronger bargaining position against the state and we
will get
a weaker cleanup plan.
Members of Congress should realize this.
SUPERFUND BENEFITS ARE ALREADY HERE
The Fox River has been nominated for Superfund status, but the
EPA
has not granted or enforced a final Superfund designation.
If a
negotiated settlement with the paper companies occurs in a timely fashion,
EPA says the final step will be unnecessary.
Many local people fear the Superfund process, because the polluting
corporations on the Fox River have effectively lobbied and brainwashed
legislators, the news media and many innocent citizens into thinking
Superfund would be the worst possible solution for the Fox River cleanup.
The corporations have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars
on
local advertising to make the federal government, Superfund and
river
cleanup sound awful.
But much of the progress we've seen in recent years on the Fox
River issue has been due to the EPA, the federal government, and Superfund.
It's time to show a little gratitude. For example:
1. The EPA provided roughly $11 million for the Green Bay Mass
Balance
Study which identified the sources of PCBs and tracked the PCB movement
down the river and into the Bay. Thousands of PCB
samples were taken of
the sediments, water, air, and wildlife. We now have some
of the best
data sets in the world to document the contamination and sources.
2. The EPA provided $500,000 towards the cost of the dredging
demonstration project at Little Chute and Kimberly, which has shown
that
PCB-contaminated sediments can be removed with a hydraulic (vacuum-style)
dredge with very little risk of stirring up pollution or causing downstream
drift. (The paper mills' bad demo at Green Bay is another
story.)
3. The EPA nationally has spent millions to assemble, conduct
or contract
for many of the studies documenting health effects of PCBs on wildlife
and
humans. They've also published studies of many of the remediation
techniques for cleaning up PCBs. All this background
information has
been essential to the Fox River cleanup.
4. The Superfund program has provided roughly $4 million to the
Wisconsin
DNR to write the final health risk assessments and engineering for
the
final comprehensive river cleanup plan (the Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study -- or RIFS). The state pretends that
it's theirs alone
and that the plan will provide a "local solution" but it wouldn't have
been
possible without the federal Superfund money. For
15 years, CWAC has
watched local officials and Wisconsin DNR committees begging
for crumbs of
money from the polluting corporations with few results.
Without the
planning dollars, the DNR was stymied. The Superfund money
has made all
the difference.
5. The companion cleanup process called the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment, spearheaded by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service, has
also
poured millions into expert documentation of the damages and
cleanup
opportunities. This information and leadership has been
extremely
valuable.
6. And finally, the fear of Superfund and federal involvement
is useful,
or the corporations wouldn't be fighting it so hard. Superfund
is the
"gorilla in the closet" or the stick in the "carrot and stick" approach.
If the polluters don't negotiate a fair settlement with the state after
the
plan is final, they know they face substantial additional penalties
under
the Superfund law, and years of legal wrangling with federal lawyers
and
experts. And they know they'll lose because the proof of
damage here is
overwhelming. For decades, the polluters were able to prevent
an enforced
cleanup by threatening their workers and intimidating local politicians
in
Wisconsin. They can't be so sure with the federal government.
The reality is that many of the benefits of Superfund are already
here. It won't matter so much whether the final Superfund
designation
goes thru, if we can get a good negotiated settlement from the polluters
instead. The state is already following the federal Superfund
process of
writing an RIFS, holding public hearings, and issuing a final Record
of
Decision.
Now it's the job of local citizens to study the proposed options
and show strong support for the best possible plan.
We know the
polluters will fight tooth and nail for the least cost option -- so
we must
be alert and strong.
1 in 100 CANCER RISK FROM DIOXIN
After 9 years of delay, the U.S. EPA has finally released a draft
assessment of the health risks posed by dioxins,furans and PCBs.
Not surprisingly, the EPA concludes that dioxin is a known human
carcinogen. Dioxin has also been linked to learning disabilities
in
children, birth defects, endometriosis, and diabetes. Dioxin
also weakens
the human immune system (like a weak form of AIDs) and decreases levels
of
male hormones.
What is surprising is that dioxin is 10 times more toxic that
previously believed. The average American has a 1-in-100
to a 1-in 1,000
risk of getting cancer from average dioxin exposures. At the
lesser risk,
that's 4,000 people in the U.S. per year. In addition,
the average
American is vulnerable to the other non-cancer health effects.
Some kinds of PCBs and furans behave very much like dioxins,
and
Northeast Wisconsin is cursed with high levels of all 3 chemicals.
This
means our local risks are higher than the averages cited by EPA.
Over the 9 years that the reassessment was being prepared, EPA
actions to eliminate dioxins, furans and PCBs from the environment
have
been weak. When corporate lobbyists call for more studies,
this weakening
is the usual result. Studies delay action.
Even now, the EPA and news media seem to be soft-pedalling
some
clear results of the study:
1. Vegetarian Benefits --- EPA and the news media seem reluctant
to offend
the food industry. They should clearly state that consumers
can greatly
reduce their exposure to dioxins by eating a vegetarian diet.
No meat,
dairy, fish or eggs.
2. Dioxin Pollution is Serious--EPA is lulling citizens to sleep
by saying
EPA has reduced dioxin pollution sources since the 1970s.
But many of
these actions were slow in coming and far too limited (due largely
to
corporate pressure campaigns through politicians.) Dioxins are
persistent
and don't break down easily. We're still exposed to the
past dioxins, and
EPA (thru our politicians) is still allowing significant new sources
of
dioxin pollution to continue and add to the background risks.
Thus,
dioxin exposure is continuing and possibly worsening, not getting better.
Where Do Dioxins Come From?
Dioxin is a byproduct of the manufacture and burning of products
that contain chlorine. These products or processes are
avoidable and
should be stopped. Some key sources:
* Plastics or Vinyl made out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
* Paper bleached, deinked or delignified with chlorine or chlorine
compounds. Numerous paper and recycling mills in Northeast
Wisconsin
still used huge quantities of chlorine compounds, adding to our area's
buildup of dioxin.
* Incinerators that burn municipal or medical wastes, sewage sludges
(Green
Bay and DePere), or paper mill sludges which contain chlorine compounds
or
plastics. We've seen a proliferation of paper sludge incinerators
in
Northeast Wisconsin --- at Minergy, Fort James Corp., Thilmany Paper,
etc.
* Chlorinated pesticides or herbicides. Our area suffers
from high
residues of DDT from the past, which came contaminated with dioxins.
* Home trash burn barrels in back yards are a huge continuing source
of
dioxins. These usually burn incompletely and with no pollution
control
equipment to filter the emissions.
* Fossil Fuels ---Diesel, oil, coal etc. We should push much harder
for
efficiency and renewable energy.
* Miscellaneous --Some steel mills, cement kilns, fertilizer manufacturers,
wood treatment facilities, etc.
Think of it as constant fallout. Airborne dioxin falls on
farms,
settles on plants, and works its way up the food chain.
Dioxin also gets
into the water from industry discharges and stormwater runoff from
air
fallout. Dioxin is now pervasive in fish, beef, milk, cheese,
poultry,
pork, eggs, and human breast milk.
Complaints About Tighter Standards
Corporate lobbyists originally pushed EPA to do a reassessment
of
dioxin,and aggressively worked to prove dioxin was less dangerous than
EPA
claimed, but a first draft report in 1994 showed risks were actually
higher, and this 2000 report even higher still, as new rigorous studies
have found more types of risk.
The science of toxicology is relatively new and health studies
are incredibly expensive, so we've seen this pattern repeated many times
--- with mercury, lead, arsenic, pesticides, etc. The more
we study chemicals, the more we learn about
their health effects even at low levels of exposure. This
means that new
government health standards for chemicals usually become tighter and
tighter as the years pass.
Industries often complain and drag their feet against this
tightening of standards, but at the same time they call for "sound
science"
to drive environmental decision-making. They can't have
it both ways.
It's unfortunate that taxpayers are usually stuck paying for the
multiple expensive studies, the rule-making procedures, and for the
expensive regulatory agencies which allow the government to protect
public
health from these toxics --- when it should be the responsibility of
the
industries to pay the costs of proving and regulating safety BEFORE
discharging their chemicals into our air and water.
Taxpayers are the ones who should be outraged. We
subsidize
corporate polluters in multiple ways.
Ignorance is no excuse. If industries don't know the full
health
effects of their chemicals, they have no business risking our
health by
releasing them into our environment.
RIVER DREDGE DEMO TO BE FINISHED
EPA has announced that a consent order has been signed with Fort
James Corp. in Green Bay to finish the Fox River dredging project at the
site called "56/57" which had been left so disastrously incomplete last
fall.
Three acres of hazardous waste levels of toxic PCBs were left
exposed to currents on the river bed's surface, when they should have
been
removed last fall.
The consent order is a partial victory, but several concerns
remain:
1. Too Little --- The EPA is
simply requiring the completion of the project originally allowed by
DNR.
Only 80,000 cubic yards of the 120,000 cubic yard hotspot will be removed
when they're done. Last year, roughly 30,000 was
taken out, now another 50,000 will come out. This leaves 40,000
still
unaddressed.
2. Too Late ---The work won't start until late August or September,
which
means the hotspot will have been exposed to the river for 10
months
without emergency measures by the company or any level of government.
This delay is far too long. People continue to eat fish
caught
downstream.
3. Risk of Freezing --- Because they're starting so late, the
dredges
could be stopped by the river freezing over before they can finish.
This
has already happened twice on
previous dredging efforts on the Fox River.
4. Weaker Cleanup Goal --- The EPA's cleanup goal is a leftover
concentration after dredging of no more than 1 ppm PCBs (parts per
million)
This is 4 times higher than the Wisconsin DNR's .25 ppm goal proposed
in
last year's draft cleanup plan for the river.
5. Loophole in Standard --- There's a major loophole in the cleanup
standard. EPA will require post-dredging cover with at least
6 inches of
sand if the remaining PCBs are between 1and 10 ppm. This means
they're
partly endorsing a cap instead of a total cleanup at the site.
This sets
a dangerous precedent for the rest of the river.
EPA staff claim this is unlikely, because the company has an
incentive to get below 1 ppm PCB in order to get the liability waiver
at
the site, but we fear the financial savings of the capping precedent
will
be more worthwhile to the company when it comes to the whole river
cleanup
plan.
6. Thin Weak Cap --- Though EPA thinks the capping option will
be
unlikely, we're concerned about the precedent being set.
A layer of only
6 inches of sand on the bottom of a flowing river cannot be called
a secure
cap. The EPA is requiring this same type of cover to seal
off the side
edges of the hole until the fate of the adjacent PCB hotspots can be
decided, to limit side slumping of PCBs into the hole. But again
sand is a
weak cover. Far better would be a sturdy impervious geomembrane
fabric
anchored with large rocks.
7. No Detoxification --- Though this is the most concentrated
PCB hotspot
in the entire river (up to 700 ppm PCBs), EPA is not requiring any
detoxification of the sludge before it goes to a landfill on the Oneida
Tribe's reservation. This is another disturbing precedent
for the rest of
the river. EPA staff told us they "can't" require treatment
because it's
legal to dispose of this material in a landfill, due to an EPA exemption
for the State of Wisconsin from the federal Toxic Substances Control
Act
which was quietly granted by EPA about 6 years ago (with no public
discussion of the future ramifications) -- allowing toxic waste levels
of
PCBs to be dumped in ordinary Wisconsin landfills. Only
Wisconsin has
this exemption.
It's alarming to hear the EPA claim that they "can't" require
treatment, because they're basically saying they have no choice for
the
whole river plan either, despite overwhelming proof of new technologies
which can detoxify PCBs. They're implying that citizens can provide
mountains of scientific evidence showing the benefits of detoxification
but it won't matter because of the EPA exemption years ago. Citizens
can't
allow this to stand without challenge.
8. Liability Release --- In exchange for doing this work, Fort
James will
be released from future PCB dredging liability in the grids numbered
56/57.
So Fort James will escape liability for 40,000 of the 120,000 cubic
yards
of sludge. And the hole will surely fill in again with
PCB contaminated
sediments from upstream which should also be the responsibility of
Fort
James. In essence, Fort James is being released from liability
for those
upstream sediments which escape into the hole.
9. Polluters as Heros --- The media coverage has portrayed Fort
James
Corporation as a generous benefactor in this consent order, emphasizing
that this was a "cooperative" agreement with the company.
This is hardly
warranted given that Fort James created this toxic crisis in the first
place, and has a moral and firm legal obligation to address the
consequences. This was a consent decree, not a friendly
handshake.
10. Congressional Interference Local congressmen ---Sen. Herb Kohl (D),
Sen
. Russ Feingold (D), Rep. Thomas Petri (R), Rep. Mark Green (R) ---
inserted themselves at the last minute to intimidate EPA to prevent
an
enforcement action to address this toxic disaster. They
said such actions
weren't "cooperative" enough and they slowed down EPA's decision process
by
requesting last minute meetings. (This is why work won't begin
until
August.) Instead, our elected officials should have pressured
the
polluters into a stronger, more rapid settlement, so work could proceed
more quickly.
This unhelpful congressional pressure is part of a longterm pattern
of local/state elected officials serving corporate interests only and
delaying the Fox River cleanup. We could have
had a cleanup
decades ago if our elected officials had shown more backbone and supported
strong enforcement actions.
If citizens are concerned about delays, they should first blame
the
politicians who write the laws and intimidate the agencies. The
agencies
can only be as strong and good as the leaders who control them.
It's outrageous that any politician should emphasize a "cooperative
approach" at 56/57, when this approach has failed miserably thru 15
years
of official Fox River cleanup planning. Years and
millions of taxdollars have been wasted at useless meetings, holding
hands
across the table, begging the polluters to clean up..
Meanwhile, local wildlife and thousands of people have been
continously poisoned with PCBs. A whole generation of children
has been
born with exposure to PCBs.
11. No Public Input --- Because this consent decree was written
under
emergency EPA rules, EPA isn't required to get any public input on
the
decision.
12. Backdoor Cleanup --- In essence, this will be the final cleanup
of the
worst Fox River hotspot, but it's far from ideal. Because
the agencies
originally allowed the project under the pretense that it was only
a
"demonstration," they didn't have to go through the full analysis
and
public review required under the final RI/FS (Remedial Investigation
Feasibility Study) for the whole river. So decisions about
capping or
lack of detoxification treatment have been finessed and they successfully
bypassed full public scrutiny.
13. Great PR for Polluters --- As predicted, the paper companies
are using
the bad project results as "proof" that dredging is dangerous.
Through
their extensive public relations campaign, they've convinced a lot
of
people that "maybe it's better to just leave the PCBs buried."
In fact,
some people assume we environmentalists "made" the dredging happen
and it's
our fault
that the project was a disaster. The don't realize the project
was
designed and guaranteed to fail. Clean Water Action Council
opposed this
project for 2 years but our concerns were ignored.
14. Blame Thompson First --- To be fair, EPA was stuck in a bad
position
trying to clean up a crisis created by Gov. Thompson and the paper
companies. Thompson arranged the secret $10 million deal
3 years ago
which created this project, and Thompson's weak DNR granted the permits
to
allow the
initial 56/57 project to start last year with not enough time or money
to
do decent work.
However, we are concerned that EPA felt they lacked enough
political support to step in and prohibit the project in the first
place
last year. They could predict the problems as well as we
could, yet they
felt they had to let it proceed. This EPA weakness doesn't
bode well for
the future.
What You Can Do
Write a brief letter to your
elected Congress members and
tell them what you think
about these issues:
Senator Russ Feingold
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Herb Kohl
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Congressman Mark Green
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Congressman Thomas Petri
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
DRINKING WATER THREAT IN CONGRESS
Several drinking water supplies in Northeast Wisconsin are
contaminated with unsafe levels of arsenic and radon/radium, particularly
from underground water supplies. The contamination is usually
due to
natural rocks containing these
substances. Sometimes, arsenic based pesticides or chemcial
spills are
the source.
Unfortunately, recent actions in Congress could block EPA from
implementing significant new public health protections for drinking
water.
On Wednesday, June 21, just one day before EPA proposed new,
more
stringent standards for arsenic in drinking water, the House of
Representatives passed a bill that seeks to prevent EPA from adopting
the
new standards. It even tells EPA to cease enforcement of the
current
58-year old arsenic standard, which the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS)
last year found does not protect public health and should be reduced
"as
promptly
as possible".
A rider attached to the Veteran's Administration (VA) /Housing
and
Urban Development (HUD) FY2001appropriations bill (HR 4635),
which also
funds EPA, would prevent EPA from implementing the new arsenic regulations.
Another rider to the bill tells the agency to stop its efforts
to
issue a new standard for radon in drinking water. Last-minute efforts
to
strike the language from the bill were unsuccessful, and the bill has
been
sent to the Senate for consideration.
Health Effects of Arsenic
Arsenic and radon have both been linked to cancer in humans.
Arsenic is also suspected of contributing to other leading causes of
death
and disease in the United States.
Numerous health studies and the 1999 NAS study have demonstrated
that the current arsenic standard of 50 ppb is woefully out of date,
and is
not protective of public health.
EPA's proposed National Drinking Water Regulations would reduce
acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water from the current 50
ppb to 5
ppb.
Dr. Michael Harbut, an assistant professor of internal medicine
and
an expert on environmental health risks of chemical contamination,
will
publish a peer-reviewed letter in the upcoming July/August issue of
the
Archives of Environmental Health finding that arsenic should be considered
a risk factor for the development of many diseases, much like cholesterol
is considered a risk factor for heart disease.
According to Dr. Harbut and other experts, arsenic is associated
with several types of cancer, respiratory diseases, circulatory and
heart
disease, cerebrovascular disease, neurological disorders, gastrointestinal
disturbances, and diabetes mellitus. Arsenic occurs
naturally in
the environment, and is also widely used in various industrial processes.
Health Effects of Radon
EPA has also proposed a drinking water standard for radon, a
contaminant that is known to cause lung cancer in humans. The
proposed
standard is based on a multimedia approach, addressing sources of radon
in
both drinking water and indoor air. The final radon rule is scheduled
to
be issued by EPA in August 2000. One of the riders to EPA's appropriations
bill would prevent EPA from issuing this new standard.
Conclusion
Don't allow Congress to take away these hard-won public health
protections for arsenic and radon. Please write to your Senator
and urge
them to oppose the arsenic and radon riders to the EPA appropriations
bill. These riders will weaken EPA's ability to protect public
health from
harmful drinking water contaminants.
For more information, contact: Carolyn Poppell, Safe Drinking
Water, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 1101 14th St., NW, Suite
700,
Washington, DC 20005, phone: (202) 898-0150 x 231, fax: (202) 898-0172,
e-mail: cpoppell@psr.org (webpage: www.psr.org)
REFORM OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) has introduced the "Army Corps Reform Act
of
2000" in Congress. The bill requires independent review for large ($25
million or more) or controversial Corps projects; requires full, concurrent
mitigation for project impacts and empowers the Corps' Environmental
Advisory Board to oppose projects which have environmental impacts
which
cannot be cost-effectively or successfully mitigated; requires monitoring
of completed projects; creates a stakeholder advisory group to advise
the
Corps during project planning; and makes economic benefits and
environmental restoration co-equal goals of project planning.
The bill also ensures that Corps projects are economically
justified and environmentally sound since too many Corps projects have
not
turned out to be economically justified in reality, or have had more
serious environmental impacts than the Corps predicted.
We've experienced this firsthand with the Kidney Island and Bayport
dredge spoil disposal sites in Green Bay, which were championed by
the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. In some parts of the country,
such as the
Florida Everglades, taxpayers are spending millions to undo the damage
done
by the Corps.
For more information, please see www.amrivers.org.
Water-based Wildlife Most Threatened
Recent scientific reports warn that North America's freshwater
wildlife species --- the fish, snails, amphibians, mussels (clams)
and
other animals that live in our rivers and lakes --- are dying out five
times faster than animals that live on land, and three times faster
than
marine mammals in our saltwater oceans.
In fact, freshwater species are disappearinbg as fast as tropical
rainforest species, which are generally considered to be the most imperiled
species on earth.
Already, 17 species of freshwater fish and one in ten freshwater
mussels have gone extinct.
Today, 65% of our crayfishes, 35% of amphibians, and 67% of mussels
are rare or imperiled.
One significant cause of this decline has been the widespread
physical alteration of rivers and lakes: the construction of dams,
levees,
and stabilized river and lakebanks. Humans seem to have a hard
time
letting rivers run their natural courses, or letting lakeshores remain
wooded or brushy.
Dams built to support navigation, generate hydropower, and divert
water for irrigation also block fish migrations, disrupt the transport
of
sediment and nutrients, and eliminate natural variants in river flow
that
trigger fish reproduction and build wildlife habitat.
Levees built to control flooding destroy riverside wetlands and
eliminate important spawning and feeding areas for fish ahd other species.
Stabilizing riverbanks with rock (called "rip-rap") and channelizing
rivers
to support barges and reduce flooding eliminates islands and sand bars,
and
side channels.
Other obvious causes of aquatic wildlife losses include
agricultural chemical and soil runoff, urban chemical runoff, invading
alien species (such as zebra mussels and lamprey), and water withdrawals
for irrigation, fish farming, or water bottling. (From information
provided by American Rivers.)
The amount of money Congress is considering appropriating
for
endangered and threatened wildlife species is woefully inadequate.
A
little under $123 million was appropriated for endangered species programs
under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last year.
To paint you a mental picture, on average, less than 32
cents of
what each of us pays to the IRS goes to endangered species conservation
in
the U.S. That is less than the price of an endangered species
postage
stamp. To put that in perspective, the Air Force requests
$160
million for one of its 438 F-22s. A single Air Force base lost
$39 million
in weapons and equipment between 1991-1994. The Library of Congress
has
requested $60 thousand to produce a Braille copy of Playboy.
In fact, for the last four years Congress has actually placed
a
spending cap on how much money the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
can spend for its two most vital programs: listing and critical habitat
designation. According to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a species
is
supposed to receive critical habitat designation at or near the time
it is
listed.
Critical habitat is an area essential to the recovery of that species.
The
USFWS has woefully neglected this aspect of the Endangered Species
Act:
over 90 percent of listed species DO NOT have critical habitat.
Recently, the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee
again slipped
such cap language into the Dept. of Interior's funding bill for
Fiscal
Year 2001. The cap for listing and critical habitat designation
was set at
$6.395 million (for comparison, scientists and environmentalists believe
that at least minimum of $15 million is necessary.) This funding
level
will not even go far enough to clear up the backlog of 272 court-ordered
critical habitat designations the Service must carry out. This
funding cap
will tie the Service's hands and prevent them from carrying out their
duties as mandated in the Endangered Species Act.
Please speak up for the 1,100 endangered and threatened species
in
the U.S.,and the 327 proposed and candidate species perched on the
brink of
extinction. Contact your Senators and Congress members.
RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DISSOLVED
We must ensure that government agencies which we entrust with
the
responsibility for natural resource protection are kept fully separate
from
government agencies created to promote the use or destruction of natural
resources for business and development interests.
Yet, right now something is happening in Russia which has happened
already here in Wisconsin.
In Russia, the environmental agency was recently dissolved by
newly
elected President Vladimir Putin. He abolished the State
Committee on the
Environment, transferring its functions to the Ministry on Natural
Resources, which oversees development of Russia's oil, natural gas
and
other deposits. Putin also abolished Russia's regional environmental
agencies.
Russian non-governmental environmental organizations are extremely
concerned about this development, and have cited the need for an
independent and authoritative national environmental agency.
Putin's
action has been called "a profoundly regressive move." The five
Nordic
countries, Russia's close neighbors to the northwest, have also expressed
concern.
A similar change happened in Wisconsin in the 1960's when the
Wisconsin Dept. of Conservation was merged with the Wisconsin Dept.
of
Resource Development. Conservationists
were
outraged and marched on the capitol, because they feared development
interests would overtake conservation interests.
As a result, in 1967 the Legislature wisely set up a check and
balance system to prevent this. They created the Wisconsin
Public
Intervenor Office as a small separate office outside the merged agency
to
strongly advocate on behalf of public rights in natural resources,
and
created an independent Natural Resources Board made up of seven citizens
appointed to 6 year terms by the Governor to oversee the newly created
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources and control the hiring and
firing of
the DNR Secretary. These two precautions provided some
insulation from
political power plays, and with these two checks in place, the Legislature
allowed the merger of the two departments, and citizens were reassured.
Unfortunately, the Legislature forgot its promise 28 years later.
In 1995, the Governor and Republicans in the Legislature voted to eliminate
the Intervenor Office and they took control of the DNR Secretary away
from
citizens of the Natural Resources Board and gave it to the Governor.
Since then, many of us have seen serious problems in DNR with political
influence and DNR unwillingness to protect our natural resources from
business and development interests. In fact, DNR
staff now refer to
businesses as "clients" and "customers." The check and
balance system is gone.
The recent report from Russia brings new meaning to an old joke:
When oldtimers complained about the power of the Wisconsin DNR,
they claimed the initials D.N.R. stood for "Damn Near Russia."
|
|
|
|
|