Table of Contents
The High Cost of Human Health from PCB Damage
The $40 Million Fox River Deal
Industry Manipulation of Science
The GE Study - Misdirected Cancer Research
Good and Bad News in the State Budget
The High Cost of Human Health from PCB Damage
The government has never estimated the total human health care
costs due to PCBs in the Fox River, Green Bay and Lake Michigan.
Such a
study would be very difficult and expensive, and too much is still
unknown
about individual exposures over time. It really isn't possible
to do with
completeness.
This lack of financial information has caused most people to
neglect the enormity and significance of these costs, both in dollars
and
in human suffering.
The 7 paper companies can complain about specific dollars they will
be expected to pay, while the rest of us are left in the dark about
our own
extra medical costs and loss of productivity due to their PCB pollution.
Millions of people have been PCB poisoned in our region.
Because the 7 paper companies did not clean up right away and have dragged
their feet for decades, the PCBs have spread, and many more people
have
been poisoned over longer periods of time.
An international study gives some indication of how high the costs
could be. A Canadian research team recently estimated U.S. and
Canadian
health care costs for just 4 diseases which are suspected of being
caused
by exposure to toxic chemicals such as PCBs. (Please see the
Human Health
Effects section of our new website.) The diseases are Diabetes,
Parkinson's Disease, Hypothyroidism; and lost intelligence (IQ).
The researchers reviewed findings on actual social and economic
costs, constructed estimates of some costs, and provide hypothetical
examples based on published evidence. (Many detailed costs
are
fragmented, and missing in coverage and jurisdiction.)
The cumulative costs identified are very large, totaling $514-$711
billion per year for Canada and the U.S. combined. Specifics include:
Diabetes (U.S. and Canada) - $112 billion/yr; Parkinson's Disease in
U.S. -
$13-$28.5 billion/yr; Hypothyroidism is endemic, and
including estimates of costs of child- hood disorders evidence
suggests are linked, amounts to $55-$113 billion/yr for the U.S., and
$2
billion/yr in Ontario; loss of 5 IQ points cost $30 billion/yr for
Canada,
$283-$333 billion/yr in the U.S., and hypothetical economic impacts
run
another $19-$92 billion/yr for the U.S. and Canada combined.
According to the researchers, reasoned arguments based on the
weight of evidence can support the hypothesis that at least 10% and
up to
50% of these costs are environmentally induced or from $51 billion
to $356
billion per year.
A significant portion of these costs is likely due to PCBs.
Note: these costs underestimate true health costs, because they do
not include costs for treatment and lost productivity due to cancer,
heart
disease, mood disorders, immune damage, reproductive damage, or other
health problems linked to PCBs.
The next time the industries complain about the cost of clean-up,
remind them of the costs they've imposed on the public for 45 years.
Source: MUIR, T. and ZEGARAC, M. "Economics of Health Costs due
to
Environmental Disease." Presented at 2001 Conf. of the Intl. Assoc.
of
Great Lakes Research. Author: Great Lakes Env. Office, Environment
Canada -
Ontario Region, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, ON, L7R 4A6.
The $40 Million Fox River Deal
Local citizens have once again been blindsided by a backroom government
and industry deal which undercuts the comprehensive NRDA plan proposed
last
fall by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as compensation for severe
PCB
damages to the Fox River and Green Bay. It also undercuts
the sediment
cleanup plan due for release in one month.
The Intergovernmental Partnership (which is now uniformly
Republican at both the state and federal level) has announced a surprise
$40 million proposed "global settlement" with Appleton Paper and NCR
Corporation, which they call a "down payment" on the companies'
long term
liabilities. $20 million would be used to start cleanup. The
other $20
million would start NRDA restoration and compensation.
In exchange, they
will not be sued for more for 4 years and the NRDA will not be finalized
during that time.
Specific objections to this deal:
Far Too Little Money
Appleton Paper and NCR Corp. are responsible for up
to 70% of the PCB contamination. (They created the PCB-coated
paper, the
others recycled it.) The sediment cleanup has been calculated by DNR
to
cost $400 to $700 million, and the NRDA compensation and restoration
would
cost an additional $177 to $333 million, according to the U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service. The combined total would be $577 to $1,033
million.
The Appleton/NCR share of this (at 70%) could be $403.9 to $723.10
million.
This means the $40 million is less than 10% of even the low range
of what the final settlement should be for these two major polluters.
Four Year Delay in the Compensation Plan
The NRDA has been in development for 8 years already, after 5 years
of
start-up delays before that (due to state obstructionism). The
U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service held 5 public hearings last November and December
where hundreds of people attended to show support for major compensation,
though the vast majority of testifiers felt the proposed compensation
dollars were too low. It is unacceptable to stop the NRDA
process cold
and make us wait 4 more years for final resolution. This will
dissipate
momentum which has built for action.
Legal Time Lag
In 4 years, Appleton/NCR could refuse to pay the rest, which means
the governments could be forced to sue. But the legal process will
be started 4 years late, making the bulk of the settlement come that much
later. Will a Statute of Limitations run out during this
time? Do we have an absolute guarantee it won't? Does it
matter that
thousands of people will continue to be poisoned while we wait 4 more
years
for the cleanup dollars?
Aging Statistics
In 4 years, will the economic, biological and sediment models still
be considered current enough to stand up in court, or will Appleton/NCR
argue that the data is too old and we need new studies? The industries
have already claimed the Green Bay Mass Balance study data is too old,
because it was collected 10 years ago (at a taxpayer cost of
over $13 million).
Pre-emptive Action
The public was expecting to be asked to review the final comprehensive
sediment cleanup plan in about a month (the Remedial Investigation Feasibility
Study -- several inches thick). We had been promised extensive
public involvement with plenty of background
information about final total costs and remedial options. Instead,
this
$40 million deal has been announced out of the blue, which takes the
major
two polluters out of the picture for 4 years. The public
is expected to
submit written comments about the $40 million deal within 30 days,
BEFORE
getting a chance to review the final comprehensive plan. It's impossible
to make informed comments under these circumstances.
Broken Promise, Possible Illegality
We were promised the federal government, (and U.S. Fish & Wildlife
in particular) would not (and legally could not) sign any settlements until
after the Record of Decision is
complete on the comprehensive Fox River cleanup plan sometime this
winter
or early next year. This would have allowed the public
to review the
agreement in the context of the larger comprehensive plan details.
Unknown Projects
The government/industry partnership announced this deal
with no details about how the money would be apportioned.
What projects
do they envision? What percentage is for sediment cleanup?
Or for
compensation? This was just a media release with no details,
and the true
detailed proposal has yet to be announced a month and a half later.
Appleton's Workers at Risk
This delay tactic may hurt the workers at Appleton Paper because they
may be getting a false picture of their true liability when they take over
ownership of the company in the near future. It would be healthier for
them to have the full financial picture now.
Undeserved Positive Publicity
Appleton Paper representatives claim this is a "no strings attached"
agreement, which is absolutely false. They've purchased a 4 year
delay in the bulk of their responsibility (~90%). In addition,
this corporation has caused over a billion dollars of economic
damage (not including human health care costs) while poisoning millions
of
people. They don't deserve to be painted as generous heroes
in this
settlement. If they were good neighbors they would have
stopped using
PCBs as soon as their workers showed health effects (probably within
the
first year of use.) Or cleaned up the river right away without
being
asked. Instead, they've dragged their feet for nearly 50
years.
Public Confusion
The final comprehensive river cleanup plan will be big and complicated
enough for the public to absorb and understand without throwing in this
added complexity. They're deliberately creating chaos at a critical
time in the public involvement process.
No Public Hearing
The Intergovernmental Partnership refuses to hold even
one public hearing on this issue. At a recent scientific
conference,a DNR
official boasted that they've had many months of "non-stop daily
collaboration" with the paper mills on the Fox River issue. Yet,
these
same government employees are unwilling to hold even ONE face-to-face
meeting with the public who provides their paychecks. They refuse
to
publicly answer questions, discuss the issue in front of the news media,
or
hear a public debate on the issue.
Anti-democratic Trend
This is just the latest in a long series of cases where our government
has refused to hold hearings or give advance notice of major decisions
they're making. They've abandoned even the pretense of listening to public
concerns before making multi-million
dollar decisions. Examples:
1. No public hearing on the huge new PCB dump/sediment processing facilityRadical Change Under Bush
on the west shore of Green Bay (to landspread river PCB sludges on
farmland, etc.)2. No public hearing or prior awareness of the $10 million settlement
contract between the state and 7 paper companies (1997), which brought us
the disastrous first season of the dredging demonstration at
Site 56/57, and the duplicate/competing state NRDA which cheats the public
of fair compensation for PCB damages.3. No public hearing or prior awareness of the $2 million supplemental
settlement contract with Fort James for additional work on the disastrous
first season of the dredging demonstration at Site 56/57.4. No public hearing or prior awareness of last fall's $7 million
compensation settlement with Fort James Corporation (Georgia Pacific) for
the Natural Resources Damage Assessment5. No public hearing on the Fox River Coalition meeting process from
1992-97, when the state wasted years begging the mills to donate the PCB
cleanup dollars (with no attempt to collect compensation at all).
This $40 million announcement is a radical policy shift from the promises
made last fall by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its final compensation
plan under the Natural
Resources Damage Assessment process. This is a betrayal of the
public
trust.
Industry Manipulation of Science
The Fox River polluters are fond of calling for "Sound Science" as
an answer to all environmental concerns raised, but they frequently
don't
use it themselves. Instead, they give the appearance of using
science to
defend their positions or to attack government regulatory decisions,
while
skewing information to their benefit. They often demand
more studies, as
a delay tactic, while their money stays safely invested in profit-making
ventures. This tactic has worked well here for 30 years,
from the time
the DNR started investigating PCB pollution in the Fox River in 1971.
Recent examples:
Deliberately Skewed Damage Assessment
In November 2000, the DNR and Fort James Corporation announced
they
had reached a $7 million settlement as compensation and restoration
for PCB
damages to the Fox River and Green Bay. This settlement was based
in large
part on a scientific assessment performed by a consulting firm chosen
by
the Fox River Group of paper companies (see Thompson Defends Fox River
Polluters). Recently, this assessment was challenged by
the Science and
Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) for the Fox River/Green Bay Remedial
Action Plan. The STAC submitted detailed comments to the
DNR stating that
the consultant's assessment was based on seriously flawed science.
A quote
from the STAC letter:
"Problems with misinterpretation and omission of relevant facts are
not the
only reasons for concern. In at least one instance a false statement
is
made ... It is clear to us that the State's proposal substantially
understates the ecological and human use service losses [due to PCB
pollution]."
Obscuring the Real Issues in Sediment Cleanup
The Fox River Group used another consulting firm to write "scientific
reports" to deliberately mislead the public about the significance
of the
PCB dredging demonstration projects. They focus attention
on the day to
day (transitory) surface concentrations before and after dredging to
claim
that little benefit was seen, when the truly important benefit is mass
removal of large quantities of PCBs, to prevent future releases
permanently. The surface residue immediately after dredging is
relatively
insignificant compared to the total mass removed. As an example, here's
a
quote from the Fox River Group's webpage:
"The BBL report, Fox River Dredging Demonstration projects & Environmental
Monitoring Report, shows that average PCB concentrations in surface
sediments increased from 16 parts per million (ppm) before dredging
in 1998
to 21 ppm following dredging in 1999 on Deposit N's west side, where
most
of the PCBs were located. BB&L analyzed surface sediment samples
taken
before, during and after dredging."
Misleading Use of Monitoring Data
The Fox River Group, and General Electric in New York, deliberately
cite sediment monitoring data before dredging projects are complete
to make
dishonest claims that dredging made the sediments more polluted.
As we
all know, serious errors were made (deliberately) at both Deposit N
and
Site 56/57 dredging demos, which left both sites exposed over the winter
before they could be completed. This allowed the companies
to take
samples after the first dredging season and claim that dredging made
the
PCB concentrations worse. As an example, here's a quote from
the Fox River
Group's webpage:
"Dredging would not reduce the concentration of PCBs in surface sediment.
In fact, data available from the Deposit 56/57 dredging project show
dredging increased PCB concentrations in surface sediment. Samples
taken in
December 1999 showed that average PCB concentrations in the 11"subunits"
dredged increased from 3.6 parts per million (ppm) to 75 ppm. December
1999
samples also showed that targeted "cleanup passes" in four small areas
had
reduced concentrations of PCBs a minimal amount from 3.5 ppm to 3.2
ppm.
However, samples taken in February 2000 from these targeted "cleanup
areas"
show that concentrations have increased from 3.2 parts per million
to 26
ppm in the past two months."
Economic Study Manipulation
The Fox River Group convinced the DNR to use a well-known industry
consulting firm, Triangle Economics Research (TER), to assess the economic
damage caused by PCBs. TER has a long history of serving corporate
interests all across the country. TER's own webpage
(http://www.ter.com/projects.html#newnrda)
cites more than 50 Natural
Resource Damage Assessments where they've helped polluters limit their
liabilities, by using the most conservative economic methods possible.
TER recently merged with Blasland, Bouck and Lee (BBL), another consulting
firm which has worked for several years directly as technical consultant
and advocate for several of the Fox River Group member companies.
BBL also
works for General Electric and many other PCB polluters across the
country.
They specialize in contaminated sediment problems.
Not surprisingly, TER and the Fox River Group have been critical of
the economic methods used by the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, because
the Service calculated much higher (truer) damages and the Fox River
Group
has deliberately misled the public about the economic methods used
by the
Service.
The Fox River Group and DNR claim the Service used a method called
"Contingent Valuation" which uses in-depth surveys of the public to
determine their "willingness to pay" for lost services.
The Fox River
Group and DNR claim that a recent Nobel Laureate, Daniel McFadden,
says
that "Contingent Valuation" is a flawed method because of the potential
for
bias in the results. However, David Allen, the local Fox River
project
manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the Service actually
used an updated, improved version of Contingent Valuation called
"Conjoint
Analysis" which greatly reduces the potential for bias in the results.
TER's own lead economist, William Desvousges, uses Conjoint Analysis
and
has written numerous journal articles praising this method.
The Fox River Group and DNR also claim that a federal court has
ruled that Contingent Valuation is not a valid method, based on a pollution
case in Montrose, California. However, according to Mr. Allen,
a judge did
dismiss a case a few years ago, brought by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) against a chemical company there;
however, the judge ruled that the chemical injuries to wildlife were
not
proven. He did not reject the economic methods, but because the
economic
calculations were based on the wildlife injuries which were rejected,
the
economic methods were irrelevant. NOAA appealed to a higher court
which
reversed the lower court and ruled that the injuries were proven; however,
this judge forced the parties into settlement negotiations. The
case was
settled without any ruling on the economic methods.
During preparations however, NOAA assembled a blue-ribbon panel of
economists, including two Nobel Laureates (not McFadden), who concluded
that Contingent Valuation is a valid technique for purposes of NRDAs,
so
long as a set of standards they detailed were used to prevent bias
in the
results. (Their conclusions are printed in the 1993 Federal Register,
Vol.
58, pgs 4601-4614.) In another federal case, Ohio v. Interior,
the court
ruled that Contingent Valuation is valid. Economics methods
are evolving
each year, and anti-bias techniques are included in Conjoint Analysis,
which is the reason U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service felt comfortable
using
this method.
It's important to note, however, that the Service used the
lower-bound damage estimates, which many citizens believe are too
conservative and undervalue our economic losses due to PCBs.
This makes it
doubly ironic that the Fox River Group has succeeded in convincing
many
people that the Service's estimates are outlandishly high.
Manipulation of Health Statistics
In January 1999, Appleton Paper Company captured headlines with
the
claim that cancer rates were lower in the Fox River Valley than the
rest of
the state; and implied that the data showed that PCBs had no impact
on
cancer rates and were therefore not a health concern. They based
their
claim on a review of a 1996 cancer mortality map of Wisconsin, which
gave
death rates per county. This PR message was flawed in many ways:
1. It can be misleading to look at a map of cancer rates in Northeast
Wisconsin, to compare our region with other areas, because so many factors
must be weeded out to detect a true cancer-causing effect. Many people
move in and out of the area, some neighborhoods are dominated by older
citizens, some areas are low-income or high-income, etc. Many people
don't eat local fish, come in contact with the water or sediment, or
breathe concentrated PCB vapors near the water or sediment. A true
epidemiological study is needed of only those people with PCB exposures,
especially through fish-eating. Those people studied need to provide blood
and tissue samples to confirm levels of their PCB exposure before results
could be considered valid.2. Overall cancer rates have increased dramatically in the U.S. over the
last 50 years. Now, each of us has a 1 in 3 chance of developing cancer.
This makes it difficult to detect increased rates of cancer from one cause.
We need a full-scale epidemiological study before local effects can be
shown. Such studies have not been done in Northeast Wisconsin. People
are sick or dying of cancer all around us, but on an individual level it's
very difficult to claim a single cause.3. The Valley is heavily industrial and all of us are exposed to thousands
of chemicals in our homes and workplaces, so it's difficult to sort out the
confounding variables to determine a true effect. Results also have to be
adjusted to take into account age, level of chemical exposure, bad diet,
smoking, and drinking habits, and other exposures.4. Many cancers take a long time to develop, perhaps 20 or 30 years after
exposure to the chemical. This lag time can complicate studies. (On the
Fox River, fishing has been restored only about 20 years -- until the late
1970s the river was too polluted to support many sport fish.) It's also
possible that the children of fish-eaters may be at more risk of cancer,
due to chemically triggered PCB effects during development of the baby in
the womb. Such an effect may not appear for decades, long after exposure
occurred.5. Cancer is only one of MANY serious health risks due to PCBs. Perhaps
the most disturbing health problems are the developmental, immune and
nervous system changes caused in children of PCB-contaminated mothers.
It's wrong to focus only on cancer due to PCBs.6. PCBs are only linked to certain kinds of cancer, not all kinds of
cancer. Therefore, an overall map of all cancers in entire counties could
miss true clusters of increased cancers of one type.
The GE Study ---
Misdirected Cancer Research
The Fox Valley paper industries hailed a major study released
in
1999 by General Electric (GE) of more than 7,000 of its workers because
it
supposedly shows that PCBs do not cause cancer. However, the
study was
flawed and its results misrepresented.
1. The study was based primarily on inhaled PCBs. Inhaled PCBs or PCBsScientists Critique the GE Study
absorbed through the skin tend to be the lighter weight types of PCBs (out
of 209 possible) with fewer chlorine atoms attached -- not the
highly-chlorinated versions more strongly associated with cancer. Airborne
PCBs are more likely to produce nervous system damage or other health
problems, with cancer a lesser risk, so the researchers were looking for
the wrong types of health problems.This is important because the more carcinogenic forms of PCBs tend to
accumulate in fish, ducks and other animal-based foods selectively, while
the lighter PCBs go airborne. Those who eat fish from the Fox River and
Green Bay need a cancer study which specifically examines fish-eaters'
cancer rates. (We haven't found a single study of this type, which is
disturbing after all these years.)2. The study actually showed some increases in 3 of the 6 types of cancer
investigated, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, but the company downplayed these results.3. GE paid a chemical-industry-funded research group to hire private
detectives to find every GE employee who worked at or near the PCB plants
in Hudson Falls and Fort Edward in New York state, which creates a
potential selection bias affecting which people they chose to find [ie:
those without cancer?]4. Many of the people in the study worked at GE less than a year. The
researchers only required a work history at GE of at least 90 days.5. The study did not account for the lag time (latency) which can occur
between the time of PCB exposure and the development of cancer. The lag
time can often be 15 or 20 years after exposure.6. The study included thousands of people who never came into physical
contact with PCBs. If every worker who did come in contact with PCBs died
of cancer, the mortality would not have been "statistically significant"
because their numbers would have been swamped-out by the large number of
non-exposed people in the study.7. The study did not look at the incidence of cancer, just mortality.
Every single former GE employee could have been battling cancer for twenty
years with no impact on this GE-funded study, because GE didn't count
cancer sufferers or survivors, only the dead.8. The study did not look at long-term health effects in workers'
children, which may be significant.
Scientists are highly critical of the "no cancer from PCB" claims
being made as a result of the GE study. For example:
"Most of the workers didn't work in areas where PCBs were used,
and
those who did were there on average only a couple of years," said James
Cogliano, PhD, chief of the Quantitative Risk Methods Group for the
EPA.
"Some classified as exposed had PCB blood levels in the low range of
background levels in the general public. Others were classified as
highly
exposed if they worked with PCBs for only a short time. Those kinds
of
things can dilute results, and create enormous potential for uncertainty."
Michael Thun, MD, Vice President of Epidemiology and Surveillance
Research for the American Cancer Society, said, "The bad news is PCB
exposures were not well characterized, the study was too small to detect
small risks for uncommon cancers, and the results may not be relevant
to
PCB exposure through food. Also there was a borderline association
with
colorectal cancer in women. That needs a closer look."
Officials from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
say the study does not support the company's claims that PCBs do not
hurt
people because it suffers from exposure misclassification (by including
individuals who worked at the plants but had little to no exposure
to
PCBs), failure to account for the latency period between exposure and
appearance of cancer, and other biases. PCB levels were actually measured
in only 200 of the over 7,000 people in the study. "Nevertheless, the
study
did find excesses in three of the six cancers of interest," the ATSDR
officials noted in a published letter criticizing the study.
"It's noteworthy that the GE-funded study is the only one of the
major occupational PCB exposure studies that did not find some
statistically significant elevation of incidence of cancer," says Dr.
David
Carpenter of the Albany School of Public Health. "Every international
group
of experts that has been asked to look at the issue has concluded that
they
are proven to cause cancer in animals and are probable carcinogens
in
humans." Carpenter adds that there can be no absolute proof that PCBs
(or
any other chemical for that matter) cause cancer because there's no
way to
control for other exposures. "There's just no doubt that PCBs
are
carcinogenic in the minds of any independent scientist. It's only people
with close ties to industries that have conflicts of interest that
would
make such preposterous claims. It's very akin to the smoking, cancer
and
tobacco industry story. To have a corporation like General Electric
deny
that animal research, including research done by their own laboratories
proving PCBs cause cancer in rats, is relevant to whether PCBs cause
cancer
in humans is ludicrous. Our whole system of study of disease is based
on
animal research. Unfortunately the public has become confused because
of
the message that GE and other industries have put out."
Political Use of Junk Science
GE is facing billions of dollars in clean-up costs at multiple PCB-contaminated Superfund sites around the country, such as the Hudson and Housatonic Rivers in the Northeast. They may also face numerous private lawsuits over PCB health damages in former workers and customers. GE has a vested interest in whether PCBs cause cancer.
The GE cancer study had a purpose. "They want to cause public
confusion, and make the argument appear to seem scientifically complicated,
because they know that oftentimes the public will tune out as soon
as it
gets complicated," says Judith Enck, policy advisor to New York Attorney
General Elliott Spitzer.
The study is also used to wear down third party support for the
cleanup. The claim that PCB's don't cause cancer was brought out in
April
when GE officials led by NBC president and GE vice chairman Robert
Wright
met privately with New York City Council members to lobby against a
council
bill endorsing the dredging project. GE's Albany lobbyist, James McMahon
sat in on the meeting, along with his brother Thomas, the City Council's
former finance director and a lobbyist with the Chamber of Commerce.
For more information --- about GE, political pressures, and significant
PCB
cancer risks, visit our new Fox River website:
http://www.foxriverwatch.com
Good and Bad News in the State Budget
The Legislature recently approved a compromise State Biennial Budget,
which
reconciled the differences between the two houses and added a few new
twists. It now goes to the Governor for vetos and approval.
DNR Split
The worst decision in the budget. Splits natural resources
management in Wisconsin by moving the Div. of Forestry out of the DNR
and
making it into a SEPARATE AGENCY, with a new secretary appointed by
the
Governor. This major policy change comes with NO public support-but
rather
as a deal cut behind closed doors to satisfy one legislator, Rep. Gard
of
Peshtigo. The split will cost the state more money, will reduce the
effectiveness of the DNR, and sets natural resource management policy
back
many decades. . This is a fundamental assault on the institutions
that
protect our natural resources, akin to the politicizing of the DNR
secretary and the
elimination of the Public Intervenor.
Stewardship Fund
The Fund was increased from $46 million/year to $60 million/year.
The Stewardship Fund
is our contribution to this and future generations, as these dollars
are used to purchase ecologically important lands for protection.
Comprehensive Planning Funding
This program to share the cost of Smart Growth landuse plans with local
governments was increased to $6.2 million from $3.5 million.
Lifecycle Costs for Major Highways
A significant transportation agenda items was one which would require
the DOT to estimate the total cost of new major road projects, including
not just the cost to build them but the
costs to maintain, plow, police, sign, paint and rebuild them over
20 years.
Smart Growth Data Set
Requires the state to pull together all of the information it has that
is useful for local smart growth plans in one web-based data set, accessible
to local officials and citizens alike.
Billboards
Allows billboard companies to cut down trees near their signs
on public property without a permit. This broadly written language
could
result in wholesale destruction of trees on public land.
Healthy Schools Provision
Requires schools to use the least toxic method to control pests, train
and certify all personnel applying pesticides on school grounds, notify
parents, teachers and staff before pesticides are applied, post pesticide
warning signs indoors and outdoors before spraying
pesticides, and adopt a least-toxic Integrated Pest Management plan.
Recycling
Maintains the business surtax and increases the garbage tax from 30
cents per ton to $3.00 per ton, to pay for local waste recycling programs.
The lobbying organization, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, will
be pushing the Governor to veto this
What You Can Do
Contact the Governor right away and tell him what you think about these
changes:
Governor Scott McCallum
(608) 266-1212
P.O. Box 7863, Madison WI 53707
e-mail: wisgov@gov.state.wi.us
|
|
|
|
|