On the other hand, I was disappointed to hear that the Governor had asked Superior Services to withdraw its bid and the accompanying decision to cancel Wednesday’s scheduled public hearing on this issue.  Let me explain.  For one, I was looking forward in anticipation to see a potentially massive outpouring of concerned people for the hearing.  It would have been great to see us all gathered speaking in one voice.

We were also looking forward to raising some critically important technical issues with the landfill scheme that have to date not been addressed by either the DNR or the high-powered consulting firms hired by the Fox River Group (the polluters) to provide the DNR with such information.

It does not seem that the DNR has on file any epidemiological evidence that the proposed landfill spreading is safe for our community.  In fact, a Ph.D epidemiologist was ready to provide convincing evidence to the contrary before Wednesday’s hearing was canceled.

The Leader Telegram’s Sunday front page illustration showed clearly the intent to collect PCB-rich volatile organic compounds from the landfill site and vent them to the atmosphere in a low-temperature open burn flare.  I can think of no faster way to distribute these materials into the surrounding community where they can concentrate in the fatty acids of both our dairy industry and mothers milk.  No discussion of any of these environmental health risks is included in the DNR’s documents on file at the LE Phillips Library.

We were also prepared to submit into the public record over 150 pages of evidence documenting the political influence that went into this demonstration project as outlined in the 16-page report DRN-Watch written by Rebecca Katers of the Clean Water Action Council.

We had also hoped to have the opportunity to refute some of the claims made by Secretary Meyer at the legislative breakfast last week.  Mr. Meyer implied that they had no option to reject the Sevenmile Creek Landfill because the EPA gave a blanket approval for municipal landfills in the state to accept PCBs. This is true, but only because in 1994 the DNR petitioned the EPA for such a determination because they knew they had a massive cleanup on their hands in the Fox River Valley.  This does not make a municipal landfill suitable for accepting hazardous wastes in general.

Mr. Meyer made a particularly deceptive statement when he compared the 8,300 pounds of PCBs coming into the Chippewa Valley to the 8,590,461 pounds of hazardous waste that we ship out to approved hazardous waste disposal sites.  First of all, the locally generated wastes could not be disposed of at the Superior site because the EPA allowance for PCB disposal does not cover these other materials. The 8,300 pounds of PCBs is just those compounds themselves as if they were separated from the balance of the riverbed sludge.  In fact, almost 100,000 tons (92,500,000 pounds) of PCB-laden sludge was destined to be sent here.

And most outrageous of all was Mr. Meyer’s statement that the municipal garbage that we dump into this landfill is many times more hazardous than the PCBs.  Could Mr. Meyer please tell me which component of my wastebasket is restricted down to .03 parts per billion toxicity standards?

With regard to the most important element of the decision-making on this issue, Secretary Meyer was absolutely correct. He told the local legislators that under the law, this was not a political issue.  The DNR is required to be responsive to only three criteria: the law: the scientific evidence relating to the proposed disposal plan, and the mandate to protect our health and environment for us and our posterity.  Secretary Meyer and his local officials
were proceeding according to these three objectives.

It was only when Governor Thompson realized that his political favor in this part of the state was at risk so close to an election, that he stepped in and went over the Secretary’s head in making environmental policy.

Yes, we in the Chippewa Valley won; the PCBs won’t be dumped in our backyard—at least for now—but the misguided dredging process may still continue and some less-politically powerful community will receive the burden of these toxins. It doesn’t matter whether that political influence comes in the form of $200,000 campaign contributions from the polluters and their supporters or whether it is a well-orchestrated grass roots campaign in an election year by a community that feels it was unjustly selected as a dumping site.

While we won locally, we lost on a statewide level big time. Politics rather than science is determining our environmental policy.  It is business as usual at the DNR; local agents and officials are trying to perform their roles with fairness and professionalism, but those with the political power (we in this case) get to call the shots because we managed to get the Governor’s attention.  The political will of the people should be heard when it comes to large-issue environmental concerns (like requiring the polluters to be responsible for their legacies). But reelection politics should not be the sole deciding factor in local day-to-day decisions regarding the preservation of our environment.