June, 2003
Vol. 7, No. 5

Subscribe!

---

Table of Contents

Landspreading Toxic Sludges

The PCB Criteria Was Dropped Because It Was Too Honest
Concerns About the Landspreading Rule
What You Can Do
Important Public Hearings
Please send WRITTEN COMMENTS

What You Can Do

Serious Public Process Problems
New Policy By-Passes the Public 
Conclusion 
What You Can Do

Some Gains Were Made

Landspreading Toxic Sludges

by Rebecca Katers

For 4.5 years, I’ve participated on a DNR Citizen Advisory Committee which was created to help develop a PCB Soil Criteria, a “safe” PCB level, which would regulate how much PCB-contaminated waste could be spread on soil. 

The meetings were frustrating because the committee was dominated by municipal sewage treatment plant operators, harbor managers, paper companies, and their lawyers.  In addition, during the last 2 years, the DNR staff were generally eager to appease these people.

More than 98% of the human sewage sludge in Wisconsin is landspread on farm fields, with minimal oversight.  The DNR staff person who manages DNR’s current regulations of landspreading previously worked for Madison Metropolitan Sewage District. (In fact, he still seems to work for them.  He argued for their viewpoint continuously.)

Harbor managers who need to dispose of huge quantities of river and lake sediments each year are very interested in having lax landspreading rules.   Paper companies, who generate large amounts of sludge, are also very interested.

The PCB Criteria Was Dropped Because It Was Too Honest

Despite the pressures to allow continued or increased landspreading, the Wisconsin Division of Health was a strong positive presence on the committee.  They worked diligently on wildlife and human health risk assessments to be used to develop an honest PCB soil criteria.  As a result, their final proposed number was strict.  Only extremely low PCB levels could be considered “safe.” 

As it became obvious that most sewage sludges, and many harbor and paper sludges, would fail the criteria and landspreading would have to be prohibited, the pro-landspreading committee members went into hyperdrive, lobbying against the criteria.   Years passed as they railed against the calculations of PCB health effects.  On their behalf, the DNR aggressively opposed the Wis. Division of Health risk assessment.

When the DNR couldn’t convince the Division of Health to weaken the criteria, the DNR made a purely political choice:  They dropped the effort to develop the criteria, and instead are proposing new rules to control the rate of sludge application on land (bypassing the criteria.)

The resulting DNR rule proposal just happens to be adjusted enough to allow sludge landspreading practices to continue at roughly current levels, though perhaps spread more thinly.

This means that the committee met under false pretenses.  We had to drive to Madison at our own expense every few months for 4.5 years, with the belief that we were working on a soil criteria, but when that criteria was developed, the DNR changed the committee’s direction, over the objections of several members.

Concerns About the Landspreading Rule

At almost every meeting, I tried to raise the following concerns, but the DNR just shrugged them off: 

1.  Fails the Criteria   The rule allows landspreading at rates which increase soil PCB levels above levels deemed safe by the health experts.

2.  The Public is Already Dangerously Contaminated with PCBs   The state’s toxicologist told us that the average Wisconsin resident who does NOT eat Great Lakes fish is already 3 times over the threshold for beginning health effects due to PCBs, due to widespread background PCB contamination in our food supply and environment.  Great Lakes fish eaters are at much higher risk.   We need to reduce public PCB exposure, not increase it.

3.  Thousands of Chemicals Spread, Not Just PCBs  If  sludge spreaders can’t pass ONE risk assessment for just ONE chemical, they certainly won’t pass additive risk assessments for the THOUSANDS of chemicals found in sewage sludges and other wastes.  Just think of all the chemicals dumped down the sewer by homeowners, businesses and industry.   The state has never attempted a combined risk evaluation and has no intention of doing one.

4.  Ignores Volatilization   The criteria and proposed rule both ignore the fact that PCBs volatilize into the air, especially from damp soil.  Land- spreading contributes to global redistribution of PCBs via the atmosphere, with significant impacts on people and wildlife in cooler climates, in the arctic and mountaintops, where the PCBs fall out and reconcentrate.

5.  Ignores Run-off   The critieria and proposed rule both ignore field soil erosion, which will lead to  lake and stream contamination with PCBs.

6.  Wildlife Sacrificed   Even the criteria were a compromise allowing increased PCB health risks for sensitive wildlife such as mink, otter and weasels.  Predatory birds may also be at risk.  The proposed rule will be even worse.

7.  Horrid Weak Standard for Products  The rule would prohibit the “public distribution” of bulk or packaged wastes if they contain more than 1 ppm PCBs, so wastes slightly less would be legal, with no warning required.   1 ppm is roughly a thousand times higher than the stifled soil criteria.  Example products:  Brown County Harbor Commission wants to sell or give away bulk sediments dredged from the Fox River and Green Bay.  Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District wants to bag and sell local sewage sludge, like Milorganite from Milwaukee sewage.  Grantek already sells huge quantities of PCB contaminated sludge from the old Fort Howard Corporation mill (Georgia-Pacific) in Green Bay, for kitty litter and as a carrier for pesticides and fertilizer.

8.  Ignores Paper Sludge and Sediment  For years I pestered the DNR to provide the committee more detail about statewide PCB contamination in paper sludges and harbor sediments, so we could know the impact of the rule proposal.  They ignored me and acted as if it was a new idea each time.   The only data finally discussed were 5 samples voluntarily provided by the paper industry.

9. Waits for Federal Rule  The DNR says they’re waiting for the federal EPA to propose dioxin landspreading rules sometime next year, but many toxic PCBs do not behave like dioxins.  Also, the Bush Administration is unlikely to propose a good rule.  The national proposal has been embroiled for several years in controversy.  A concerned whistleblower in EPA was recently fired, and Congress members are calling for an investigation.  There’s no reason to delay Wisconsin’s better PCB criteria.

10.  Poorly Monitored and Enforced  The DNR’s budget is being cut drastically, which will further weaken the lax oversight DNR maintains over their landspreading program.

11.  Easy, Cheap Disposal   It’s disturbing that the sewage plant operators, who are supposedly public servants, would be so opposed to health protections.  Their only goal seems to be easy, cheap sludge disposal. 

12.  Landuse Changes Not Included  The rule ignores risks of changing landuse.  If a farmer sells his land for houses, after using his fields for sludge spreading, will homeowners be unwittingly growing root-crops and vegetables in contaminated soil? 

13.  False Concensus -- Not Controversial?  All of the concerns above were debated many times by the committee.   Initially, the process seemed open and honest, but as the sludge generators became more agressive, the DNR began inserting weakening changes, ignoring the objections from the minority.  It’s amazing now that the DNR falsely claims “consensus” (unanimous approval) from the committee in support of their proposal.  The DNR also claims, in writing: “This rule package is not expected to be controversial even though there is at least one member of the Advisory Committee who believes that the proposed maximum annual application rates should be lower.”

Please attend the hearing and write to the DNR

Important Public Hearings 

Tuesday, June 17, 9:00 a.m.

Your help is needed!  Please try to attend one of the 5 public 
hearings the DNR is holding to take citizen comments on their 
PCB landspreading proposal.  This is a “video conference 
hearing” held simultaneously across the state.

Room 021, GEF #2, 101 South Webster St., Madison
Room 618, State Office Building, 200 N. Jefferson St., Green Bay
Room 139, State Office Building, 718 W. Clairemont Ave., Eau Claire
Conference Room, DOT District 8, 1701 N. 4th St., Superior
Room 127, DOT Offices, State Office Building, 141 NW Barstow, Waukesha

Please send WRITTEN COMMENTS, 
to be received no later than June 30, 2003.  Mail to:

Mr. Kevin Kessler, Div. of Air and Waste, AM/7
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707

Also write to the Governor and your legislators to let them know how you feel. 

Write to:

 Governor Jim Doyle
 Room 115 East, State Capitol
 Madison, WI  53702

 Senator                    , 
 P.O. Box 7882 
 Madison, WI  53707

 Rep.   (Last Name, A thru L) 
 P.O. Box 8952 
 Madison, WI  53708

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 toll-free Legislative Hotline at 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays, between 8:00 and 5:00) 

Please encourage friends and family members to do the same!

Up to Top

Huge Cuts in DNR Budget 

In the 1990s, Republicans gutted the DNR.  In 1995 alone, the DNR suffered severe budget cuts and lost 450 staff.   The Wisconsin Public Intervenors Office was eliminated. Two reorganizations shuffled DNR departments and staff, creating chaos.  Morale plummeted, causing high turnover in technical employees.   The DNR really hasn’t recovered from this assault.

Now, Governor Doyle’s proposed budget would cut another 114 DNR staff, while Republicans would cut much deeper.  The Legislative Finance Committee, controlled 12-4 by Republicans, now proposes to cut $17 million from the DNR, which is $9 million more than Doyle proposed.  That’s a 14 percent reduction from current spending. 

The Republicans also denied Doyle’s increased fees for outdoor recreation, hunting and fishing, which are long overdue, even though most leading conservation and environmental organizations support the increases.  This will slash DNR wildlife programs even further.

The Republicans’ proposed budget would also cut the Stewardship Fund severely, reducing the Fund’s annual land acquisition by 90% over the next 2 years.   In addition, they ordered the DNR to sell up to 27,000 acres of existing public conservation land, such as state parks. 

What You Can Do

Please write, as soon as possible, to your Governor and elected representatives in the state Legislature and tell them what you think about proposed State Budget changes.

Write to:

 Governor Jim Doyle
 Room 115 East, State Capitol
 Madison, WI  53702

 Senator                    , 
 P.O. Box 7882 
 Madison, WI  53707

 Rep.   (Last Name, A thru L) 
 P.O. Box 8952 
 Madison, WI  53708

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 toll-free Legislative Hotline at 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays, between 8:00 and 5:00) 

Up to Top

Purple Loosestrife & Phragmities Survey 

Last year Wisconsin Wetlands Association, a Madison-based non-profit organization, surveyed 13 counties for an invasive plant species, purple loosestrife, which crowds out more desirable native plants and wildlife.  Volunteers found 600 infested areas that are now posted at www.glifwc-maps.org.

This summer, WWA is offering free training sessions in the coastal counties plus a couple dozen non-coastal counties throughout WI for volunteers who would like to help in our 2003 survey.  These sessions will educate volunteers on invasive species like Purple Loosestrife and Phragmites australis, also called Common Reed Grass.  This year’s purple loosestrife focus is along waterways and WWA is partnering with paddlers, anglers, and outfitters, to map the distribution.  Several canoe and kayak outfitters are making it easier for volunteers to participate by offering special discounts on boat rentals for survey volunteers.

If you would like more information and/or training date sessions, please contact:  Davina Halvorson  (920) 465-3006, Davina@wiscwetlands.org or Derek Strohl, (608) 250-9971, Derek@wiscwetlands.org

Up to Top

Chequamegon Forest Faces Logging Risks

A nationwide coalition of environmental groups report that Chequamegon National Forest in Wisconsin is one of the 10 most threatened national forests under the Bush Administration’s changes in forest management. 

Among other things, Bush is attempting to eliminate public oversight of environmental laws. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning author, Dr. E.O. Wilson of Harvard University joined the groups to call for an end to logging in these national treasures.

“Scientists have reached a deeper understanding of the value of the National Forest System that needs to be kept front and center,” said Dr. Wilson. “National forests represent a public trust too valuable to be managed as tree farms for the production of pulp, paper and
lumber.  The time has come to free national forests from political partisanship, and to use their treasures to benefit all Americans.”

Forests were selected based on several criteria, including water quality, road construction, the presence of endangered and threatened species, timber sale volume and economics, and the percentage of remaining old-growth and roadless areas. 

The report, “Endangered Forests, Endangered Freedoms,” provides the American public with a detailed and scientific account of the current ecological
state of the National Forest system,” said Jake Kreilick, Project Coordinator of NFPA.  It cites direct evidence of environmental damage and paints a grim picture of mismanagement. 

Specific actions taken by the Bush Administration to achieve its pro-logging agenda include:

• limiting the public’s right to participate in decisions affecting their public lands;

• using stealthy administrative rule changes to undermine fundamental
environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act;

• using the threat of wildfires to give timbers companies access to remote intact forests for logging;

• dismantling rules that protect forests from roadbuilding and commercial development; and

• turning over large tracts of National Forest land to logging companies under the guise of “Stewardship Contracting.”

The groups highlighted an alternative to Bush’s logging plans, the National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (H.R. 2169), which would end the costly practice of taxpayer-subsidized logging in national forests while providing relief to areas threatened by wildfire. 

The National Forest Protection Alliance (NFPA), which includes Greenpeace, is a coalition of 120 grassroots conservation groups from all over the U.S. committed to ending the commercial exploitation of federal public lands, beginning with the federal timber sale program. 

The report is available online at
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org

Up to Top

“Public Participation” By-Passed by Trustee Council Spending Millions of PCB Compensation Dollars

by Rebecca Katers

On June 3, 2003, the Natural Resource Trustee Council met publicly for the first time, hosted by the Oneida Nation at their Radisson Hotel complex in Green Bay.  They also held an evening “Open House.” 

The Council’s purpose is to evaluate and choose restoration and PCB compensation projects for the Fox River and Bay system, as a conclusion of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) process.  This council includes government representatives of the States of Wisconsin and Michigan, the U.S. government, and the Oneida and Menominee Nations. 

The Council distributes funds gained through settlements with the 7 companies who dumped PCBs in the system.  According to the Damage Assessment, these polluters owe the public $333 million in compensation (separate from sediment cleanup costs.) 

At this meeting, the council adopted their mission statement, project selection criteria, and public participation process, and approved a block of 17 restoration projects already underway.  Nearly $9 million is budgeted for the projects over the next 6 months. 

The Council has roughly $20 million available from the interim partial NRDA settlement with Appleton Paper and NCR Corporation 2.5 years ago.   Other NRDA settlements with other companies may be announced at any time, but our legal challenge of the first final settlement with Georgia-Pacific Corporation may have slowed this somewhat. 

At the meeting, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service announced that the final Restoration Plan has just been completed and signed by all the governments.  It includes the “Responsiveness Document” (Chapter 7) where the agencies respond to citizen comments made during the 30 day written comment period last year.  (Of course, they rejected most concerns and refused to hold a public hearing.)  It will soon be posted online at http://midwest.fws.gov/NEPA.  In addition, the Service is creating a new website for the Trustee Council which should be complete by July, 2003, where the public can view the Restoration Plan, acceptability criteria for projects, and details of the application process.  Approved projects will also be listed on the website.

Serious Public Process Problems 

Prior to the meeting, the Trustees claimed that  “Public attendance is encouraged at both sessions.  The Trustees hope that by participating in their meetings, people will have a better understanding of the process, which would encourage better restoration project proposals and produce a restored environment that addresses the public’s needs.” 

Unfortunately, the Trustees mishandled the event, making public involvement difficult and meaningless.   For example: 

1.  Public Forum was Too Late  The Council scheduled a “Public Forum” for citizen comment opportunities at 3:30 p.m., after the Council had conducted its business and voted from 1:30-3:30 p.m.   Because decisions were already made, public comments were pointless and a waste of time. 

2.  Public Misinformed of Actual Meeting Time   We were told the Council would meet from 1:30-3:30 p.m., but they actually met for the entire morning and through the lunch hour.   A lot of business was conducted privately before the so-called “public meeting” occurred.   We had been promised several times previously by Trustee representatives that “the Council meetings would be completely public,” but the Council’s excuse now is that the morning and lunch meetings were an “executive session” discussing land purchases, which can’t be open to the public.   We weren’t allowed to attend, so we have no idea whether this was truly the case.   Our trust in the “Trustees” has grown very thin. 

3.  News Media Weren’t Properly Informed   According to a local news reporter, they received a news release about the Tuesday meeting from the Oneida Tribe late Friday, but she didn’t see it until the weekend.  A second reporter didn’t remember seeing any news release.  A few days prior, Clean Water Action Council had contacted the Green Bay Press Gazette and Green Bay News Chronicle to give them meeting details, but the resulting articles were printed too late to allow citizens to plan much in advance or inform others.   The larger paper’s article appeared the actual day of the event.  If readers waited to read the article after work, it would have been too late.  One TV station carried it on their Tuesday supper-time news giving citizens just one hour to make it to the Open House from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.  This is not proper publicity. 

4.  Vague on Details  A skimpy article appeared one month prior in the government’s newsletter, “Fox River Current,” vaguely describing the meeting but giving no details.  Less than three weeks before the event, when we called the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for the exact date, time and place, they referred us to the Oneida Tribe, who couldn’t give us details. This meant that our own newsletter notice was incomplete.   We learned the details a week before the Trustee Council meeting only because we attended a local Remedial Action Plan Science and Technical Advisory Committee meeting where someone asked for details. 

5.  Meeting Room Not Marked   The Radisson Hotel is a big place, yet there were no directories or signs telling the public where the Council was meeting.   The sign outside the closed doors of the meeting room said it was an “Oneida Environmental Meeting.” 

6.  People Couldn’t Hear or See   It was a large, long room, with fans in the ceiling making enough noise that it was difficult to hear.   The situation wasn’t helped by the fact that several of the Council bureaucrats mumbled and behaved as if they were having private conversations.   The projection screen was a long way from the public seating section, making it difficult to read the fine print of the visual presentation.   We were sitting in the front row and still couldn’t read it. 

7.  Scripted Meeting  It was obvious that the public portion of the meeting was carefully scripted and sanitized for public consumption.  They moved steadily through their agenda items, with little discussion or debate.  Several Council members presented pieces of the program, often reading their item, with every agency playing a part. 

8.  Real Business Conducted Elsewhere  The Council has actually been meeting informally (without public input) for at least 2 years already.   The nitty-gritty work of finalizing the Restoration Plan and evaluating project proposals is conducted by a technical work group that reports to the Trustee Council.   Clean Water Action Council asked whether these work group meetings would be open to the public, but the Trustees carefully avoided answering the question.  One Trustee mentioned that sensitive land negotiations couldn’t be opened for public discussion without endangering projects; however, other government committees have handled this type of business by structuring their agendas to lump non-sensitive discussions together for an open meeting, and going into closed session only when necessary. 

9. “Forgot” Public Forum  The Council scheduled the “Public Forum” from 3:30 to 4:30, with a one hour limit, then proceeded to restrict it to a question and answer period for half an hour.  When the questions ended, the Chair tried to adjourn the meeting.   This put a Clean Water Action Council representative in the uncomfortable position of objecting and reminding them that citizens were supposed to have an opportunity to comment.  It was very awkward.  It was obvious that comments weren’t welcome. 

10. Public Forum Left Out Public  The “Public Forum” was held at 3:30 p.m., making it impossible for normal working people to attend.   The Council also scheduled a ridiculous “Open House” in the evening when they could have provided another true “Public Forum” opportunity.   Citizens routinely ask us, “What is an Open House?  What does that mean?  What’s the point of my attending?”  We’ve protested to the DNR about such sessions in the past, because as stand-alone events they just don’t work to get the public involved in a meaningful way.   As usual, we’ve been ignored. 

11.  Taxpayer Money Squandered   Because publicity was so poor, only 2 new people attended the “Open House” who hadn’t attended the afternoon meeting.  This means 15-20 agency staff people, taxpayer funded, were standing around with nothing to do.  It’s likely that some of the long-distance government officials had to schedule hotel stays, dinner and breakfast (at taxpayers’ expense) because of the useless evening session.  They also wasted our time, because we had to leave for 2 hours then come back for the evening meeting. 

12.  Deliberate Stonewalling   For two years, the Clean Water Action Council has asked several representatives of the Trustee Council (from the DNR, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Oneida Tribe) for information on how the $40 million from Appleton Paper and NCR Corporation is being spent.   We’ve pestered them repeatedly for details on project proposals, and asked what public input process would be used.  (Generally, the agency staff people roll their eyes when we ask ... often they become openly hostile.)  We’ve been assured numerous times that “of course public input opportunities will be provided.”   Now, the Trustee Council has given final approval to 17 major projects costing nearly $9 million, with no public input.  We’re getting awfully tired of government surprises.  Our government makes us pay dearly for a war to establish democracies in countries that don’t want it, while we can’t seem to achieve a democracy here at home, despite our outspoken efforts. 

13.  Selective, Biased Consultation  When asked, the DNR representatives said they would occasionally consult with “outside experts” regarding proposed projects, but the DNR will control when and where that consultation occurs.   Comments will be invited only from people the DNR wants to hear from.   It’s interesting that they have not been willing to share the project proposals with the Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) for the Fox River and Green Bay Remedial Action Plan.   This group has been meeting 17 years on cleanup and restoration issues, but the Trustee Council has shut them out as well.   While we sometimes disagree with the STAC,  it’s amazing that even the STAC has been ignored by the Trustee Council. 

14.  Inaccurate Portrayal of Public Comments   Trustee Council members asked the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service representative, Collette Charbonneau, to summarize the public comments made concerning the proposed Restoration Plan.  She proceeded to claim that the public comments mostly supported the agencies’ proposals.  End of report.   Her claim was highly inaccurate and a slap in the face to everyone who raised serious concerns about several elements of the plan.   Is it any wonder that we feel public input is ignored? 

15.  Vacation Time   The Trustee Council waited to hold their public meeting during a time when the public was least-likely to attend, during the brief summer vacation months, after all the college campuses have gone on break.   This follows a pattern laid down over many years of the Fox River cleanup issue, with important meetings often scheduled in the most inconvenient seasons. (summer break, or Christmas holiday) 

Most importantly, the Trustee Council approved their final “Public Outreach”  policy at this meeting. 

They voted to not conduct their own public input process regarding project selection (...ignoring our formal written comments emphasizing how important it was to have meaningful public input.)   Instead, they voted to make applicants for project funding show proof that public input opportunities were provided regarding their project at some time in the past.   This method is badly flawed, for several reasons: 

•  Too Late, With No Time Limit   The policy means that the public opportunity process could be over already before an applicant even proposes a project. As the DNR pointed out at the meeting, many of the proposed projects have already been through some kind of public input process, so it’s already too late for the interested public to have input.  This is convenient for the Trustee Council, but a rip-off for the public.  There was no time frame stated in the policy, so a project could have been proposed many years ago and that would satisfy the Council.   They specifically cited the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process, but the last public hearing regarding that corrupt effort was held at least 10 years ago.  Some of the project ideas proposed then are outdated now or questionable.   Full public discussion never occurred on most of the RAP proposals. 

•  Uncoordinated   With hundreds of applicants vying for approval, the public would find it impossible to keep track of the permit and local approval status of all the proposals throughout Northeast Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, to ensure that they had input at the proper times.   It would be easy to miss many input opportunities. 

•  Wasting Time   Many proposals won’t get NRDA funds, so the public would be forced to waste time tracking and participating in public hearings or written comments on a lot of potential projects which wouldn’t make the first  cut in the Trustee’s process.  The very idea is ridiculous. 

•  Local vs. Regional   Many of the proposed projects may have gone through some kind of local public input process at a Town Board, or through a DNR permit process, but the larger regional population served by the Restoration Plan would be completely ignorant of the projects.   Would people in Marinette have any inkling of a project proposed in Manitowoc County?   Would it occur to them that they should participate in a Manitowoc public hearing?  Would a Marinette newspaper carry news of a local Manitowoc project?  Of course not.   A local input opportunity is not the same as a regional input opportunity.   (Also, local decision-makers often resent “outsiders” interfering in local issues, so “outsider” input would be discounted in those local processes.)   Public awareness, publicity and relevance factors must be adequate. 

•  Good Projects, but Bad NRDA Choices   Local public approval of a project is not the same as regional public approval to spend limited NRDA funds for the project.   For example, Clean Water Action Council is generally supportive of recreational and park projects.   This does not mean we support NRDA funds being used to pay for them.  It’s a matter of priority.  The Trustee Council’s public input process should include an opportunity for the public to comment on the relative priority of various projects.  Another example could be imbalance of project choices:  fisheries projects might be good, but how many fisheries projects?  A few recreation projects might be O.K., but not all concentrated in just one county (as in the Georgia-Pacific settlement.)   Overall fairness can’t be evaluated one project at a time. 

•  Legality is not Public Input  The DNR representatives at the meeting claimed that if the project complies with the law, this should be good enough for the public.  It’s not.   Just because a project is approved by the DNR (often over public objections) through a permit or “environmental assessment” process, this is not the same as saying the public approves the project as an NRDA expenditure.   In addition, many permit processes involve only one aspect of a project (such as a water quality certification), which means that public comments regarding other aspects of the project are not considered relevant (such as air quality impacts, traffic, endangered species, public use opportunities, alternatives, etc.)   An NRDA project should be subject to a comprehensive review by the public, with all aspects considered. 

This meeting was infuriating on many levels, and clearly violated the intent of the federal laws governing Natural Resource Damage Assessments, which state that  Trustees are supposed to be “accountable to the public for the funds.” 

The meeting also violated the Trustee Council’s own Restoration Plan which states on page 36 that “projects will be selected...through a cooperative process between Co-Trustees and partners.”  And “potential cooperators include...non-profit organizations and other appropriate entities.”  (Note: Clean Water Action Council is a non-profit organization.)   On page 37, the Plan states, “By law, the trustees are responsible to the public for the damages being disbursed to restore resources injured by the release of hazardous substances.” 

This accountability and responsiveness simply isn’t happening. 

As the years go by, we are continually amazed at the way the agencies deliberately shoot themselves in the feet.   They take simple ideas about public participation and twist them beyond recognition, thereby alienating members of the public who would otherwise be the most supportive and interested in helping their efforts. 

The Trustees should be viewing the public as a valuable information resource, but instead they seem to work overtime to exclude public input whenever humanly possible. 

It’s possible that many of this meeting’s problems can be excused as honest mistakes.   But if the Trustees can’t organize a simple meeting properly, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that they can’t design a decent public participation plan either.   After all these years they still don’t seem to “get it.”   Given that several of the people are trained public relations specialists, the mistakes don’t seem innocent. 

It was obvious from the Council’s behavior that the Wisconsin DNR is considered the leader, or more accurately, the problem to be worked around.  The DNR staff are control freaks, defiant and unwilling to bend an inch to allow meaningful public input.  A few of the other Council members seemed to be trying to moderate some of the more outrageous decisions announced by the DNR staff, with no effect.  The DNR is going to do what the DNR wants.  As always. 

The Trustee Council won’t meet again formally for another 3 or 4 months.   In the meantime, the DNR staff said the project approval process at the technical workgroup level will be ongoing, “like a revolving door.”   They’re currently considering another 54 projects, which they refused to detail.  They’re proceeding with no accountability to the public. 

Meanwhile, the DNR’s public relations guys tell us they really want to involve the public.

What You Can Do

Write to the Governor and DNR Secretary to tell them how you feel about DNR’s obstruction of public input regarding the Fox River and Green Bay restoration projects.

Governor James Doyle
 Room 115 East
 State Capitol
 Madison, WI 53702

Mr. Scott Hassett, Secretary
 Wisconsin DNR
 P.O. Box 7921
 Madison, WI 53707

Up to Top

Andersen Receives Environmental Award

At our Annual Banquet, we were very pleased to present our 2003 Volunteer of the Year award to Curt Andersen, for his amazing commitment of time and money to Clean Water Action Council and its mission.   Though we honored Curt several years ago with a similar award, his volunteer efforts have continued without pause since then.

He has served several years as an officer on our Board of Directors, faithfully attending virtually every meeting for the past 10 years.  He is a past President, and has recently served 3 years as our Vice President.  He has also chipped in as our Secretary to take meeting minutes when Steve is unable to attend.

In the community, he’s well-known as a dynamic weekly columnist for the Green Bay News Chronicle, where his environmental and political commentary is colorful and informative.  Over the past 5 years, he’s written roughly 250 individual columns!  That’s a LOT of thinking, research and writing.   He’s been a tremendous help in raising public awareness of important but neglected issues.

Curt has been one of our biggest, most reliable supporters over the years.  We’ve always been able to count on him for his enthusiastic participation in news conferences, public hearings, letter-writing, lawsuits and the nagging little organizational details that crop-up far too often.  It’s reassuring to have involvement from someone like Curt who really tackles the issues and work. 

With his frequent stories and jokes he can even make it fun...

Up to Top

Many Thanks to Our Interns!

Over the past year, we’ve been very fortunate to have the assistance of several college students who have worked as Interns in our office in exchange for college credit.   Generally, each contributed about 10 hours of work per week during their semester.

They’ve been invaluable in help ing our organization keep up with many tasks, such as newsletter and informational mailings, postering, letter-writing, newspaper clipping, issue research, and organizing special programs (Nick especially on programs).  Recently, two of the Interns (Bobbie and Lori) began a project to research and upgrade our www.CWAC.net website with specific issue pages, which are currently being finished, on such topics as Non-point Pollution and Drinking Water.  The pages  should be posted in a few weeks.  We hope the site will become more useful for citizens searching for local information on these topics.  It will also be a handy reference for Council leaders!

The Interns who served last fall (and their study emphasis) were: Nick Katers (History major, with minor in Political Science and Humanistic Studies) Kristin Blankenheim (Major in Environmental Planning and Policy, and minor in Geography).  Our spring Interns were:  Bobbie Cina (Political Science and German major, with a minor in Environmental Policy), Lori Schroeder (Humanistic Studies major), Jamie LeClair (English major, with a minor in Humanistic Studies), and  Kristin Blankenheim again, all from UWGB. 

This summer, Katie VandeZande (Political Science and Sociology-Anthropology major, with a minor in Peace and Justice) is an Intern from St. Norbert College in DePere.

Kristin Blankenheim deserves special mention because she has been a volunteer as well as a more recent UWGB Intern in the office since she was in highschool in 1997 and 1998.   She has also served on our Board of Directors for many years, building experience she hopes to use in her future career.  Kristin has been enormously helpful and flexible around the office, especially now that she’s an “old hand.”

Kristin and Nick both helped us share information and events with the University student environmental organizations.

Up to Top

Setback in PCB Settlement with Georgia-Pacific

On May 13, Federal District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that Clean Water Action Council would not be allowed to intervene formally to increase the final PCB damage compensation settlement between the state, federal and tribal governments, and Georgia-Pacific Corporation. 

Clean Water Action Council had argued that citizen interests were not being adequately represented by the state and federal governments, because the settlement was much lower than the Corporation’s projected $75 million share of the total $333 million damage assessment.  That damage assessment was determined by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service two years ago after approximately eight years of study, at a cost of roughly $10 million.

Clean Water Action Council had also argued that settlement dollars were not spent on the stated priorities of the Restoration Plan and was unfairly distributed in the region, with recreation projects funded in Brown County only, and other funds only sparsely available in PCB-impacted northern communities, such as Door and Marinette Counties, or Michigan communities bordering the Bay.

“We are extremely disappointed with the judge’s ruling, and continue to believe that the governments settled for far too little,” stated Rebecca Katers, Executive Director of Clean Water Action Council.   “We did everything we could.  Our attorneys did excellent legal research and writing, and we made a strong case.”

According to Melissa Scanlan, Executive Director of Midwest Environmental Advocates and attorney for the community group, “This ruling did not uphold the settlement; it merely means that Clean Water Action Council will not be a party to the litigation.  The judge could still determine, after careful review of all the facts, that the settlement does not fairly compensate the public.

As part of his ruling, the Judge did invite Clean Water Action Council to submit an “Amicus Brief” detailing all our concerns with the settlement.  While this is good, it is not as powerful as having Intervenor status.  Nevertheless, we will work hard on the Amicus Brief and hope for the best.  Our brief is due June 30.  The governments have 30 days to respond, then the judge will rule.

Some Gains Were Made

Some important information did surface as a result of this case.   The State of Wisconsin has now acknowledged that the federal Natural Resource Damage Assessment of $333 million, rather than the state/company’s study, is the correct assessment to use in estimating the PCB damage to the Fox River and Bay.

“We expect to see the federal numbers used as a starting point for all future Natural Resource Damage settlements,” noted Katers.

On the other hand, the federal government admitted in its legal documents that the Georgia-Pacific settlement was “discounted”  (reduced) because the state had conducted their own competing Natural Resource Damage Assessment.   The state study arrived at lower PCB damage estimates.  The state had hired industry consultants recommended by the paper industry to arrive at the damage estimates, an action that  Clean Water Action Council had consistently opposed.

“We warned that the Thompson Administration was selling out the public, and this admission by the federal government proves our point,” said Katers. 

The federal government also acknowledged that the settlement was worth only $10.86 million, not the $16.1 million the agencies claimed last summer during the public comment period.  The widespread publicity about this was highly misleading at a critical time.

To view legal documents and detailed arguments (pro & con), visit http://www.FoxRiverWatch.com/nrda/georgia-pacific_news.html
For more information, call 920-437-7304.