Table of Contents
Speak Out on Polluted Run-offRural StandardsWetland Legislation under Attack
Urban Standards
Transportation Standards
Implementation and Enforcement
State's $7 Million Deal Under ScrutinyMONTANA ComparisonTrust Us, We're Experts! Sheldon Rampton, Author
Please Write a Letter!
Guest Speaker at our Annual Banquet - March 16, 2001HERE'S AN IDEA: GREEN MILK
EPA REASSESSMENT OF DIOXINS INCLUDES PCBSPOP ACTION NEEDED NOW - Resolution For a Strong and
Effective, Legally Binding Global POPs Treaty
Stormwater run-off is a serious water pollution problem. Please
attend an upcoming public hearing and write a letter to show support
for
state rules to finally reduce this threat.
We've waited years for this.
Run-off is known as "Non-point Pollution" because it doesn't come
out of a pipe, or a single point, it flows off a broad area of land.
Examples include: livestock manure, street vehicle chemicals, lawn
fertilizers/pesticides, agricultural chemicals, pet wastes, construction
site erosion, industrial site chemicals, air pollution fallout, soil
erosion, etc. This runoff can include disease pathogens,
toxic chemicals,
and fertilizing nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that cause unhealthy
algae blooms in our lakes and rivers.
The proposed rules are over 450 pages long, but there are four main
components critical to the success of these new laws. The good
and bad
points are summarized below, with suggestions on how you might comment
in
your letter and testimony:
Support buffers of vegetation along all navigable waterways in theUrban Standards
state. Urge the state to adopt the standard of 20 to 35 feet proposed in
the rules along with a requirement for additional conservation farming
practices for at least 30 feet beyond the buffer. Conservation buffers are
strips or small areas of land in permanent vegetation that help control
pollutants and provide other environmental benefits along waterways.Support standards that restrict livestock access to rivers, lakes
and wetlands. Several common sense standards that were adopted years ago
but never implemented must be applied statewide. They include:* Limit livestock in streams only to managed access points to protect healthy fish populations.* Prohibit unconfined manure piles.
* Prohibit overflow of manure storage facilities.
* Ban the direct runoff of water from a feedlot or stored manure area into waters of the state.
* Oppose delays in implementing nutrient management plans. Support a requirement, contained in the original proposed rules, that all cropland must have nutrient management plans when the rules go into effect. The draft rules call for phasing in this requirement over the next seven years.What we need is rapid implementation of strict runoff rules in those watersheds where degradation is most severe. We need to do that now, not
seven years from now. Nutrient management plans are very cost effective and as with all other agricultural requirements, these plans can only be required when state cost share of at least 70% is available.
Support infiltration standards for stormwater runoff. These newTransportation Standards
rules will require developers to design their projects so that stormwater
stays on site instead of rushing into nearby waterways.Support buffers of vegetation of anywhere from 50 to 100 feet for all
new developments.Support a goal of an 80% reduction in construction site erosion.
This form of polluted runoff is one of the major sources of pollution in
many urban areas.
Support buffers of vegetation of anywhere from 50 to 100 feet for all new transportation construction projects.Implementation and EnforcementOppose efforts by the Department of Transportation to gain
exemptions from these standards. The DNR is the state agency responsible
for water quality standards. All other agencies should have to abide by
standards enforced by the DNR.
Support additional funding from the State Legislature to quicklyUp to Top
implement these new rules when approved. Polluted runoff is costing the
state billions in water quality degradation. We need to act now to clean up
our mess!Support adding a requirement to spend cost-share dollars for
agricultural improvements on impaired waterways. Until adequate funds are
identified to fully fund county water quality priorities, cost-share
dollars for agricultural practices should be targeted to the 2,747 stream
miles and hundreds of lakes in Wisconsin that are classified as impaired
waters.Support additional funding for County Land and Water Conservation
Districts. These agencies will be the ones most responsible for
implementing and enforcing these new standards. They need adequate funding
to do the job.Streamline the process to target impaired waters. The proposed
statewide standards are unlikely to enable already polluted waterways to
meet water quality standards. Because of this, county agencies and the DNR
should be able to target these waterways for additional protections with a
simple designation process.
Wetland Legislation under Attack
Land developers, realtors, mining companies, and other special
interests are turning up the heat on Wisconsin legislators and threatening
to block the State Assembly from voting on a bill to restore normal
wetland
protections.
This is a crisis for our state's wetlands.
In January, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, virtually
eliminated federal authority to protect wetlands. They blocked
the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers from regulating any wetland not associated
with a
navigable waterway --- lakes, streams or rivers.
Because Wisconsin wetland regulations (NR 103) are dependent on
federal jurisdiction, this ruling also eliminates most wetland protection
in our state. This has become one of the most serious conservation
threats
facing the state, and requires swift action BEFORE the start of the
spring
construction season.
The DNR estimates that from 1.5 to 4.2 million acres of wetlands
are presently unprotected in Wisconsin. Many of these unprotected
wetlands
occur in our Northeast region. Some developers have reportedly
already
initiated work to fill wetlands where such filling would normally be
prohibited.
Delay in enacting a replacement law for NR 103 will mean serious
wetlands destruction. Even under NR 103, approx. 300 acres of
wetlands
were filled each year through issued permits. The permit process
ensured
that feasible alternatives were investigated, that any permitted wetland
fills were the minimum needed, and that reasonable environmental safeguards
or mitigation measures were accomplished as permit conditions.
But without
this permit process, thousands of acres of valuable wetlands could
be
filled SOON. If this occurs, public trust resources and
the public
interest would suffer irreparable losses.
Wetlands provide significant and myriad benefits to everyone,
including flood control, water purification, groundwater recharge,
and fish
and wildlife habitats. Many endangered and rare species depend
upon
wetlands. The wetlands deregulated are the types of wetlands
most frogs
are dependent upon, and loss of these types of wetlands is expected
to
greatly accelerate the already serious decline in amphibians.
(Please visit this website for more information: U.S. Declining
Amphibian Populations Task Force,
http://www.mpm.edu/collect/vertzo/herp/Daptf/news_rel.html)
Wetlands play a major role in making Wisconsin appealing for
outdoor recreation and productive for hunting, fishing, trapping, and
wildlife viewing. This natural wealth translates into economic
wealth
given all of the tourism-related jobs, businesses, recreational property
values, and tax revenues.
(from the Wisconsin Assoc. of Lakes)
The Wisconsin legislature and governor could remedy our wetland
crisis by enacting a replacement state law to simply resurrect the
application of the NR 103 DNR regulations.
A bill has been proposed, SB 37, (with bipartisan sponsorship by
Senator Jim Baumgart (D) and Senator Rob Cowles (R), which would return
jurisdictional authority over all wetlands (including isolated wetlands
that are presently unprotected) to the state. This bill
is asking to
retain the previous level of protection for our wetlands, and is NOT
asking
for stricter protection.
The Senate Committee on Environmental Resources held a hearing
February 1 about draft wetlands legislation. At the hearing,
many spoke in
favor of the bill, but several who would benefit from the deregulation
spoke in opposition.
The bill passed out of the committee on February 8 and passed the
Senate in a 27-6 bipartisan vote on Feb. 13.
Now, we're hearing that the bill is stuck in a committee of the
Assembly and may not be released for a final vote. If this
happens, the
bill can't pass --- and it will be open-season for wetland filling
across
the state.
State's $7 Million Deal Under Scrutiny
Since our last newsletter, controversy and publicity have grown
regarding the suspicious $7 million settlement between the state and
Georgia Pacific (Fort James) as compensation for PCB damages to the
Fox
River, Green Bay and Lake Michigan.
The public comment period has been extended and it's extremely
important to send letters to show public concern (see box on page 7.)
We
may be able to convince the state to rescind the deal and join with
the
federal partners in pursing more reasonable compensation. The chart
at the
right outlines some major differences between the state and federal
efforts.
A major problem is the state's attitude. DNR staff have said
repeatedly they don't think compensation is a good idea. They
think all
money should be reserved for sediment cleanup only; however, the law
requires the polluters to pay for both compensation and cleanup.
The state
is clearly subverting the law and undercutting the federal effort when
they
argue that the federal compensation plan is a threat to cleanup and
the
economic viability of the companies.
This is ludicrous. The seven corporations can clearly afford both
and they owe us both under the law. Victim compensation is a
frequent part
of the U.S. justice system. Why should corporate polluters be
exempt from
this?
The U.S. EPA and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service are both required
by
law to analyze the companies' ability to pay before any bill is presented,
so the state's argument is baseless.
A few weeks ago, Senator Gary George (D-Milw) announced the results
of a Legislative Audit Bureau review of the$7 million deal. The
Bureau
raised serious concerns about the state's use of biased industry
consultants, paid directly by Fort James; lack of public hearings;
incomplete economic assessments; poor accounting; lack of intergovernmental
cooperation; legal problems; etc.
The Bureau noted that the public comment period may be fraudulent,
because the settlement contract is already signed and makes no provision
for DNR modifications based on citizen comments. But please send
your
letters anyway, as part of the legal record --- your letters could
be very
important later.
The Village of Howard and Town of Bellevue also passed resolutions
opposing the deal, because it provides no compensation for the extreme
costs local communities face in locating a new water source.
Howard's
consultant said it would be very possible to engineer a pipe and treatment
system for Bay water, but the PCB contamination would make it cost
prohibitive. The federal partners aren't allowed to prosecute
for drinking
water losses, but the state has broader authority that the state chooses
not to use to get compensation for drinking water damages. (Several
other
kinds of PCB damages are similarly ignored.)
The Brown County Conservation Alliance, which is a coalition of 12
fishing, hunting, boating, birding and environmental groups, also passed
a
resolution opposing the deal.
To show what a state can do when it wants to, let's look at Montana, which went after just one company, ARCO, which contaminated 126 miles of Clark Fork River with mine waste. The Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) was led by the state with one tribe and minor federal involvement.
The expert consulting firm, Triangle Economics Research, was used
by ARCO against Montana claims of economic damages. (The same
company Fort
James chose to do our DNR's damage assessment.)
In 1990, the Montana legislature provided $4.9 million to form a
state NRDA program. They hired 3 lawyers, a director, 2 scientists,
administrative help, and 30 expert witnesses. Eventually,
$15 million was
provided by the state for expenses. (100 experts eventually used.)
The
state produced a 30 volume "Report of Assessment." In 1997, Montana
took
the case to trial over a period of a year. In 1998, the state
recovered $215 million in partial
settlement. This included $80 million for cleanup of one area, and
$15
million reimbursement to the state for legal & assessment expenses.
Net
NRDA gain was $120 million.
In 2000, Montana created the "Upper Clark Fork River Restoration
Fund" as an ongoing grant program for fish & wildlife habitat restoration
projects along the river. First year grants totalled $7 million,
just
using interest. Montana decided to spend only interest
funds until the
"Record of Decision" is final on the cleanup plan, so they can tailer
the
bulk of restoration funds to complement cleanup activities.
Montana is now considering pursuing the 2nd half of the case to
gain an additional $200 million NRDA settlement from ARCO.
The NRDA
compensation dollars are in addition to sediment cleanup dollars gained
through the Superfund program.
Please write and object to DNR's deals which undercut the public's
right to fair compensation for PCB damages. It's not enough to
simply
clean-up the PCBs, the corporations must make reparations for our losses
over many decades. Our state government should be fighting
for public
compensation, but the DNR is clearly doing the least possible.
Details of the DNR and Georgia Pacific agreement are online:
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/lowerfox/Sediment\fjnrdacp.html
Hardcopies can be viewed at these libraries:
Appleton Library, 225 N. Oneida St., Appleton
Brown County Library, 515 Pine St., Green Bay
Door County Library, 104 S. Fourth Ave., Sturgeon Bay
Oneida Library, 201 Elm St., Oneida
Oshkosh Library, 106 Washington Ave., Oshkosh
Written comments should be postmarked by March 21 and sent to:
Greg Hill, NRDA CoordinatorPlease urge your Friends to write too!
Wisconsin DNR
101 S. Webster St.
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Trust Us, We're Experts!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sheldon Rampton, Author
Guest Speaker at our Annual Banquet
Since arranging for Mr. Rampton to speak at our banquet, his new
book has been receiving national acclaim, because it unmasks the disturbing
and widespread methods industry uses to influence opinion through bogus
experts, doctored data, and manufactured facts.
Over the past decade, corporations and public relations firms have
seized upon a remarkable new way of influencing public opinion called
the
"third-party technique." The method is simple --- just put your
words into
the mouth of someone who appears impartial, such as a doctor,
professor, watchdog group, or an "expert" of some kind.
Written with biting humor and penetrating insight, "Trust Us, We're
Experts!" exposes the current and very effective methods of opinion
manipulation practiced by the corporate powers that be.
Friday, March 16
Please join us in welcoming Mr. Rampton, and learning more about
industry techniques which affect us every day. Bring friends
and family.
Invite your alderman, county supervisor, state legislator, and mayor
to
hear this important message. Banquet registration
details are on page 3.
Scientists have found high levels of a new toxic chemical in Lake
Michigan Salmon, called PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl ethers).
This chemical is widely used in plastics, fabrics and carpeting as
a flame retardant. PDBEs account for about 10% of 50,000 metric
tons of
all flame retardants used annually.
PDBEs are similar to PCBs; they are both halogenated hydrocarbons.
Chlorinated organics and brominated organics raise similar toxicity
concerns.
PDBEs are also persistent and bioaccumulate up through the food chain.
PDBEs have been linked to human neurological and immune system
problems. Some studies suggest long-term exposure to PBDEs may
result in
cancer, liver damage and thyroid gland dysfunction. Some reports
show
decreased cognition (brain function) in babies exposed to the fire
retardant.
The U.S. lags behind European countries that have been studying the
flame retardant for a decade. A study by the Swedish National
Chemicals
Inspectorate in 1999 called for a ban on all PBDEs.
A famous contamination case in Michigan in the 1970s involved
another very similar brominated fire-retardant called PBB (polybrominated
biphenyl) which got into a large batch of animal feed and contaminated
thousands of farm animals and general consumers, and sickened farm
families.
The 21 Lake Michigan salmon which were recently studied were taken
from the Kewaunee River and from Strawberry Creek in Door County.
They
carried some of the highest PDBE levels found in open water in the
world.
It is not legal to sell Lake Michigan salmon in grocery stores
(though regulations are not well enforced, and inspections are rare.)
Most
fresh salmon sold in local stores is farm-bred (but there could be
concern
about the source of the fish-meal the salmon are fed.) Canned
salmon
usually comes from the Pacific. Lake Michigan salmon already
carry
warnings for sport anglers against frequent consumption, due to PCBs,
mercury and pesticides.
The scientists theorize that PDBEs leak into the atmosphere and
fallout with rain. Direct discharges to rivers are also possible.
They're
starting a 3-year study to locate sources.
The recent research, to be published in Environmental Science and
Technology, was conducted by UW-Madison professors Jon Manchester and
William Sonzogni, and Swedish scientist Karlis Valters, and funded
by the
Sea Grant Institute and American Chemical Society. It was prompted
by a
1996 report from the Wisconsin Hygiene Laboratory.
PDBEs were discussed last fall in the PCB Soil Criteria workgroup
we serve on, because PDBEs are frequently found in municipal sewage
sludges
, 95% of which are landspread in Wisconsin on cropland. The similar
PDBEs
interfere with chemical analysis of PCBs. Perhaps the flame retardant
is
washing off our clothes and other fabrics? (PDBE may also be
absorbed
through our skin, just like PCBs.)
The chemical industry must be held accountable for exposing us to
such repeated toxic mistakes. Why does this keep happening?
The sale of "green milk" has proven a success, as test marketing in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, northern Virginia and Washington, D.C showed
that
consumers were willing to pay more for the milk produced by farmers
trying
to clean up the Chesapeake Bay by running "clean" farms. As reports
the
Lancaster Intelligencer Journal (6/25), farmers were paid an extra
10 cents
a gallon for participating in the program, and allowing their farms
to be
regularly inspected for how well they protect water quality.
Inspections
included evaluation of barnyard runoff, pesticide storage and how diligently
cows were kept out of streams. As reports the Journal, the program
is being
evaluated and may be extended or expanded to include other dairy products.
(Source: American Rivers -- www.amrivers.org)
EPA REASSESSMENT OF DIOXINS INCLUDES PCBS
On June 12, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the
key sections of its long-awaited reassessment of dioxin for scientific
review and public comment. Chapters 11 and 12 will be of special
interest to those concerned about PCBs. Chapter 11, Sources of Dioxin-Like
PCBs, includes a very detailed history of the production and use of
PCBs in
the United States, and to some extent globally, as well
as a description of the ways that PCBs have entered the environment.
Chapter 12, Reservoir Sources of CDD/CDF and Dioxin-Like PCBs, covers
a
wide range of research on the ways in which dioxins and PCBs exist
and are
transported in the environment, and includes information from inventories
of these materials in several European nations as well as North American
information.
The draft reassessment is available online in chapter sections in Adobe
PDF
format at http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/dioxin/part1and2.htm
For more
information on the reassessment overall, and on the Stop Dioxin Exposure
Campaign that pressed the EPA to release the reassessment and is keeping
the pressure on, please visit this webpage: www.chej.org
For more information on the POPs Treaty, please visit the International
POPs Elimination Networks website at http://www.ipen.org.
Thanks!
Resolution For a Strong and Effective, Legally Binding Global POPs Treaty
Recalling, that Great Lakes United has a long history of concern about
persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and other persistent toxic substances
that enter the Great Lakes food chain; become concentrated in fish,
birds
and mammals; and cause significant injury to both our ecosystem and
to the
health of its people; and
Noting with concern, that indigenous peoples and others who subsist
on wild
fish and game often suffer the greatest health injury from POPs in
the
environment; and that this in turn can also undermine traditional ways
of
life; and
Remembering that POPs mainly enter the Great Lakes from the air; that
in
many cases, their source is a location within or near the Great Lakes
Basin; but that in many other cases their source is in far away countries;
and
Recalling that the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between
the
United States and Canada commits both countries to promote policies
that
will achieve the virtual elimination of these pollutants; and that
this has
been interpreted by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in its
Sixth,
Seventh and Eighth Biennial Reports as requiring a policy of sunsetting
intentional production and use of these substances, and also altering
production processes and chemical feedstocks to prevent them from being
produced as unwanted byproducts; and
Recalling further that in its 1992, Sixth Biennial Report, the IJC noted
that POPs produced and used in far distant countries are entering the
Great
Lakes and the IJC therefore called upon the US and Canada to seek an
international ban on their production, use, storage and disposal; and
Noting that in the years 1995 to 1997, the US and Canada both took
important initiatives to build an international consensus on the need
for
an effective, legally binding, global treaty on POPs, and both jointly
lobbied the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to agree to
convene
an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) on POPs and to provide
it
with positive terms of reference; and
Noting that under the US and Canada Bi-national Toxics Strategy, increased
efforts are being made to better identify the worldwide sources of
toxic
pollutants entering the Great Lakes; but
Observing with sadness that in 1998, when formal negotiations on a legally
binding global POPs treaty finally began, the governments of the United
States and Canada began retreating from their leadership role; and,
in
conjunction with Japan and Australia have become the major voices in
the
negotiations to oppose strong and necessary POPs treaty provisions
-
provisions that are supported by many other governments and by public
interest organizations; and
Concerned that, in the final global POPs negotiating meeting, that will
be
held in December, 2000, the outcome may be a weak and ineffective POPs
treaty, or even possibly a failed negotiation, unless the US and Canadian
negotiating teams reverse a number of their bad positions; and
Concerned further that the present stance of the US and Canadian
negotiators is inconsistent with long standing commitments that exist
under
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and that if this policy continues,
the effectiveness of the GLWQA is threatened; but
Being hopeful that a strong and effective global treaty that can
significantly reduce and eliminate the presence of POPs in the Great
Lakes
and that can help to restore the health of our ecosystem is still possible;
Therefore be it resolved: Great Lakes United calls upon the US and Canadian
Federal Governments to reaffirm their commitments to a strong and
effective, legally binding global POPs treaty, and to instruct their
POPs
negotiating team to revise the stances they have been taking in a number
of
key areas:
1) Elimination. The treaty, in its operational provisions, as well asBe it further resolved:
in its preambular language, must incorporate a clear commitment to
eliminate POPs. This includes systematic efforts toward ending all POPs
production and use; a commitment to give clear priority to prevention
measures (source elimination) over control measures; and support for action
to destroy stockpiles and to remediate POPs contaminated sites by means
that leave virtually no (zero) POPs residues;2) Loopholes. Exemptions under the treaty (with the exception of an
exemption for the use of POPs as analytical reference standards and for lab
scale research) should not be general, but should be specific to individual
substances, should be precisely defined, well justified, limited in
duration and/or subject to periodic review by the Conference of the Parties.3) Precaution. The Precautionary Principle should be incorporated into
the treaty provisions addressing the criteria and procedures for adding
new, harmful substances to the POPs Convention. and4) Financial Obligation. The POPs treaty must include an obligation on
its parties to provide technical and financial assistance to those
countries with developing economies and economies in transition that could
not meet their obligations under the convention in the absence of such
assistance and when other available assistance mechanisms prove inadequate.
And
Great Lakes United will assist its member organizations, other Great
Lakes
institutions, and other organizations in efforts to convince the US
and
Canadian Governments to revise their POPs negotiating stance in advance
of
the December meeting in order to assure that a strong and effective,
legally binding, global POPs treaty is agreed.
|
|
|
|
|