Fox River Clean-up Timeline
This history shows that official cleanup efforts and meetings have been pursued by the DNR staff for more than 12 years, without results.
1986 --- DNR started the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process for cleaning up the Fox River and Green Bay, with planning committees including more than 80 citizens from business, the community, academia, and agencies.8 In December, Rebecca Katers, an environmental group representative, circulated a memo urging the RAP committees to support Superfund enforcement and funding for Fox River cleanup.9 The RAP committees rejected Superfund, saying litigation would delay cleanup for another 10 years.
1986 --- Thompson began his first term as Governor.
1988 --- The RAP document was finished and the implementation phase started. Public hearings drew hundreds of local citizens enthusiastic about the plan which called for cleanup of PCB contaminated sediments in the river.8
1989 --- On January 26, Governor Thompson appointed his fourth member of the Natural Resources Board, giving his appointees majority control over the seven-member Board which sets policy for the DNR. At that time, the Board controlled hiring and firing of the DNR Secretary.
1989 --- The DNR and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service met to discuss legal actions to enforce cleanup of the Fox River. The DNR began investigating a possible state NRDA. A top-level DNR Administrator, Lyman Wible, wrote to DNR Secy. Besadny, "we will need to request the Governor's approval" before any legal action.10
1990 --- An internal memo mentions the DNR Administration's intent to pursue enforcement actions to recover costs of the demonstration project at Little Lake Butte des Morts, before more demonstrations would be attempted.11 This legal action never occured.
1991 --- The only active Fox River environmentalist on the RAP committees, Rebecca Katers, was removed by the DNR from the RAP implementation process because she promoted enforcement actions, the "polluter pays principle," and more aggressive RAP activities. This left committees dominated by paper industry, business, local government representatives, and academics.
1991 -- The EPA urged the DNR to join with them in an
enforcement lawsuit requiring Fox River cleanup.13, 17
Ron Nicotera, head of DNR's Bureau of Endangered Resources, wrote an internal
DNR memo stating, "We would be remiss to pass up an opportunity to support
EPA's proposed lawsuit ... to mitigate the specific pollution concerns
in the Green Bay area."12
Nevertheless, the state told EPA that the state would address the issue.
DNR memos mention an "unwillingness to get involved in a lawsuit where
EPA takes the lead, but we do all the work."13
1991 --- The DNR hired two NRDA experts, Tom Eggert and
Peter Jopke, to help plan a state Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA).
Several Bureaus within the DNR were asked to assign staff to a team working
on the issue.15 In November, the
U.S. Dept. of Interior held a 2-day workshop explaining NRDA process details,
attended by 26 DNR employees, including Lyman Wible.16, 17
1991 --- The DNR held several meetings with paper industry
representatives.13 DNR staff expressed
a reluctance to endanger their "good working relationship" with the paper
industry.14
1992 ---The DNR reassigned NRDA staff elsewhere and cancelled all enforcement plans. Instead, the DNR created the Fox River Coalition to pursue a "voluntary cooperative approach." 20 Fourteen paper industry representatives participated.21 No environmental groups, conservationists or ordinary citizens were represented. No public hearing was held over the following 6 years, despite repeated requests from citizens.
1992 --- DNR Secy. Besadny told U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that WDNR intended to "exhaust cooperative solutions" instead of pursuing an NRDA. He also stated that the DNR provides "customer service" to the paper industry and that legal confrontation and publicity should be avoided as much and for as long as possible.17
1993 --- The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service wrote to DNR Secy. Meyer, formally inviting the DNR to work with the FWS as a co-trustee in an NRDA.18 DNR declined. The FWS proceeded despite the state's lack of support. For the next 5 years, the Governor and DNR objected and lobbied against the federal NRDA.
1994 --- The DNR received approval from EPA for state exemption from the federal Toxic Substances Control Act to allow hazardous waste levels of PCBs in ordinary Wisconsin landfills.24 A public hearing was held in Madison, but not in any other parts of the state where the actual PCB landfilling would occur.25
1994 --- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service publicly announced plans to start a federal NRDA.
1994 --- Thomas Dawson, Wisconsin Public Intervenor in the Wis. Dept. of Justice, wrote to congressional members and several federal parties, urging support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NRDA.22 He also began indepth research of the Fox River Coalition and DNR actions on the Fox River.65
1994 ---The DNR participated in Fox River Coalition press conferences and news releases announcing the start of a river cleanup.23 The cleanup never happened.
1995 --- Gov. Thompson and the Republicans in the state legislature, in a straight partyline vote, gave the Governor control over the hiring and firing of the DNR Secretary --- effectively taking DNR control away from the citizen-based Natural Resources Board.
1995 --- Gov. Thompson and the Republicans in the state
legislature, in a straight partyline vote, also abolished the Wisconsin
Public Intervenor Office.
1995 --- The DNR's budget was cut substantially, 200
staff positions were eliminated, and the DNR began a re-organization process
which, over the next 2 years, dramatically shuffled staff assignments across
the state.
1995 --- After more than 3 years of preparation, the DNR dropped plans for a demonstration project to clean up Deposit A in Little Lake Butte des Mort near Neenah, after P.H. Glatfelter Company backed out of a deal to pay for part of the cleanup. (A major portion would have been paid by state taxpayers.)
1996 --- Gov. Thompson and the DNR continued to formally
oppose the federal NRDA, and lobby Congress and the Clinton Administration
against it.
In November, under pressure from the state, the NRDA trustees (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, EPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
and the Menominee and Oneida Tribes) proposed holding negotiations to create
a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) with the state and polluters
to avoid legal action and work for settlement of governmental claims against
the polluters.28
In December 1996, the Service sent the MOU negotiation proposal to
the state and polluters, and informed them that the Service would file
its Notice of Intent to Sue on January 31 unless an agreement could be
reached that included a "legal timeout" for the statute of limitations.28
The first negotiation between parties was held December 20, 1996
and the State made several demands for state control, which the federal
and tribal parties found unacceptable. (See "Negotiation for Power.")
The governmental parties decided to try to resolve these state control
issues before continuing negotiations with the polluters.28
1997 --- Over the month of January 1997, discussions between
the Service and the state were frequent, and several drafts of a "Memorandum
of Agreement" (MOA) were exchanged.28
At a meeting on January 9, negotiators made some progress at resolving
differences. As late as January 28, the federal and tribal parties
received another revised draft MOA from the state.28
On January 30, the Governor announced he had secretly negotiated a
"settlement" contract with the polluters.27
His announcement came the day before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
was scheduled to formally announce the culmination of their NRDA preparation:
their Notice of Intent to sue the responsible polluters. (The intent
to sue does not prevent negotiation or voluntary settlement, it simply
reserves the right to pursue legal actions if negotiations fail.)
The Governor issued press releases stating that the mills were "voluntarily
donating $10 million to clean-up the Fox River."26
Resulting media stories emphasized the companies' generosity, though
$10 million could be less than 1% of the potential total cost of clean-up.
(The Remedial Action Plan Committees have estimated the costs could range
from $300 million to $1.2 billion total, depending on the clean-up extent
and methods.70)
The Governor did not consult with any of the federal, tribal, local
government, RAP, or Fox River Coalition non-industry representatives before
signing this contract. No copies of the agreement were made
available until after press releases were issued. Prior to
the media announcements, the federal and tribal parties were unaware that
the Governor had been negotiating independently with the polluters.
The agreement contract leaves the DNR vulnerable to pressures and unusual
control from the polluters. The full impacts of the agreement are
just now being felt.
1997 --- At public events throughout the year, the Governor used the $10 million settlement to draw attention to his environmental leadership and criticize federal involvement.
1997 --- The federal NRDA was delayed with a legal "time-out" (a "tolling" agreement which prevented the statute of limitations from running out) to allow the state and other agencies more time to pursue negotiations for a cleanup plan.
1997 --- The last meeting of the Fox River Coalition was held in the summer. The polluters then formed their own coalition, called the Fox River Group.
1997 ---In the summer the EPA began talk of nominating the river for federal Superfund status,29 but held off another year to allow time for a negotiated settlement. Gov. Thompson sent a harsh and deeply critical letter to EPA and asked EPA to return to "an honest, open and respectful partnership with the State of Wisconsin." 30 The Governor's resistance was described as "unusual."33
1997 --- In the summer, the state and federal governments, and tribal agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding to work together to negotiate a settlement with the polluters.
1997 --- Fall negotiations failed. The DNR and other government agencies put an offer on the table and the paper industry walked out.
1998 ---The Governor and the DNR aggressively lobbied all winter and spring against Superfund status. The DNR proposed to hire staff to handle public education on Fox River clean-up issues, but hiring was delayed. Little outreach occurred until after most local governments passed resolutions against Superfund and called for delays until the "demonstration projects" were studied.56 The DNR staff never explained to most local governments that the DNR did not support such delays, so the local officials believed their resolutions helped DNR.
1998 --- The Governor told the paper mills he would expedite the granting of permits for the demonstration projects and assist in obtaining federal permits.79
1998 --- In July, EPA formally proposed the river for
the National Priority List for Superfund cleanup, starting a 60 day comment
period.32
The Governor attacked EPA saying "This is the height of Washington
arrogance and we will continue to oppose the EPA's decision ... the state
can do a better and more efficient job." 31
Recently --- On July 22, after strong public criticism
of the Governor's 12 years of inaction, he leveraged a new round of negotiations
in Madison between all the parties, the first negotiation since last November.
Federal and tribal government representatives were not informed in
advance as to the true purpose of this meeting. They thought they
were meeting with the Governor, but then he excused himself to walk next
door to carry their comments to the paper industry representatives who
had been warned in advance and were waiting there.
Afterwards, the Governor issued press releases to the media about the
progress made, and pledged additional negotiation meetings shortly.
The Governor's intervention was covered heavily by the media.
Meanwhile, the DNR is rapidly issuing permits for the two river "demonstration
projects" which were part of last year's Governor/Polluter agreement.
According to Superfund Report, a newsletter from Washington
DC, "some sources say they do expect an interim measure to emerge from
Thompson's effort and suggested it may be similar to a limited $10 million
agreement between the state and companies last year."
Gov. Thompson has been quoted recently saying all negotiations are
suspended until the Remedial Investigation Feasibility Study is complete.76
At the same time, the U.S. EPA will be taking public comments until
September 28, on whether the EPA should add the Fox River to the National
Priority List for Superfund.
DNR Section Reports:
Deals,
Consultants, Paper Industry Allies, and Tourism
The
Health Risks of PCBs and Landfilling Contaminated Sludge
Legislative
Connections, Paper Company Economics, and Industry Control of the Process
The
Fed's Step In
Conclusions
and Recommendations
The
Paper Money Trail - Political Campaign Contributions to the Governor
DNR
Report Study Methods
References
