Frequently Asked Questions
Shouldn't we dredge the river to allow shipping, clean up the river AND support businesses upstream?
Yes, we support dredging! It will clean up the river and if done right, will protect people and wildlife. In fact, the environmental community has pushed for dredging the Dow dioxin contaminated areas of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers. And, yes, we support ship transport as an environmentally sound approach. The issue we have is the location that was selected for placing the dredge spoils.
So what's wrong with the Zilwaukee site?
After two efforts to find a site for Upper Saginaw River spoils failed, state and federal politicians were determined to find a cheap, easily accessible location. Unfortunately, the site chosen was productive farmed wetlands in a floodplain of the Saginaw River in Zilwaukee and Frankenlust townships. In 1986 it was under water. It is located near residents and a state game area that includes a wildfowl flyway. The present plan calls for a slurry pit -- an exposed pond that State regulators admit will have odor and fugitive dust problems. The water in the pit will expose game, ducks and people to toxics. In fact, ecological studies by the State have shown that even small levels of toxics concentrate in animal life. The present plan calls for no water treatment. And unlike all other similar facilities in the Great Lakes, this site did not undergo a full environmental review. It was simply decided to find some place on the cheap and this site fit the bill.
Who has ultimate liability for the site should it leak or need repairs?
Although the project is under the supervision and direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a local sponsor is necessary. The local sponsor for this site is Saginaw County, and has been championed by Jim Koski, Saginaw County's director of public works. Saginaw County's attorney has told its Commission in writing that the taxpayers of Saginaw County are liable for the project in perpetuity -- that is forever.
Are there any alternatives to this site?
Yes. Only two other sites were explored, but both had advantages over the existing site. The first alternative site was an existing General Motors landfill that with added water treatment would have been ideal. It was near the river and posed none of the human or ecological problems of the Zilwaukee site. However, font-family:Arial;">no one including Dow Chemical would release GM from liability for the toxics (dioxin) in the sediment and GM was not prepared to accept the responsibility for Dow's contamination. The other site was located in an isolated farm field in Buena Vista Township, a site which did not flood in 1986, but it would have required hauling and bit more expense. Another alternative was the use of GEOTUBES which would allow the land to be returned to its native state after sediments were dewatered and treated in a contained bag system.
Hasn't the EPA approved the site?
No. But they don't have too. As part of the federal system the EPA can advise the Corps of Engineers and provide comments, but the Corps is independent. In fact, the EPA filed pages of criticism on the site and the proposed construction. Their concerns were numerous and included concern about disruption of the sediment, washing toxics downstream, and the inadequate height of the dikes. Recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have turned up EPA documents that remain critical of the Corps, and ask in writing for a more complete environmental review.
Why didn't the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers do the full environmental review?
Good question. Although all major federal projects, particularly those that have major impact, are expected to undergo an environmental review, there is a shortcut. Instead of the full review or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the agency could do an Environmental Assessment (EA). This is far less intensive and frequently results in the advocate for the project simply declaring a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Corps did an EA in Zilwaukee. The EPA, in documents recovered through FOIA, has questioned the factual basis for the Corps' position. The Lone Tree Council, a local environmental group and one of the sponsors of this website, is presently in federal court arguing that the Corps should have done the more complete review. The Council, represented by attorneys with the National Wildlife Federation, is also contesting the lack of water treatment.
But isn't this site intended only for navigational dredgings?
Yes. The Corps' Environmental Assessment said that the scope of the project was only navigational dredgings. The agreement between the Corp of Engineers and the Saginaw County Board of Commissioners says this site is for navigational dredging. However, recent documents from EPA make clear that the Corp and the Dow Chemical Company are discussing the company's use of the site for the more elevated levels of dioxin found in the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers, a result of Dow Chemical processes upstream. Dow, according to the documents, would provide funding for improvements in the construction of the site in exchange for its use in a possible cleanup. That is part of the written record. It also needs to be noted that the navigational spoils themselves will contain enough dioxins to question both the location and the operational plan. However, the site was not designed for highly toxic waste. This site isn't built to the safety and standards of a landfill that takes household waste.
What's wrong with using the site for a cleanup, doesn't that kill two birds with one stone?
It may appear that way, but, in fact, the pit was not designed for highly toxic waste. In addition, it would set a dangerous precedent --if we allow the placement of high levels of toxic chemicals in a navigational dredge site -- a site not built to the standards of a regularl landfill or a hazardous waste site -- then this could occur throughout our watershed! This site also puts the environment, and Saginaw County taxpayers at risk when something goes wrong. The Corps' Environmental Assessment did NOT evaluate the site for use with more highly contaminated sediments.
Isn't it only a rumor that Dow Chemical Company intends to place dioxin contaminated sediment from the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers into this site?
No, it is far more than rumor. EPA documents clearly the Corp of Engineers talking with Dow Chemical in terms of the use of this disposal site. Moreover, DEQ communications show Dow's engineers and attorneys frequently at the site. And a spokesperson for Dow has publicly stated their interest in using the site for their contaminated sediments which are thousands of times higher than the state or federal government consider safe.
Isn't this just a bunch of anti-business environmentalists who want to halt progress like that owl business out west?
No. Environmentalists are not anti-business. Both locally and statewide, many people have objected to the location of this site. Frankenlust Township was not even notified by Saginaw County that their township would share the burden of the site. When made aware, they opposed the location based on their master zoning, and appealed to District Court for an injunction. Zilwaukee Township, similarly, has contested the site, and is overwhelmingly opposed to its location. In January 2006 the East Central Michigan Planning Commission in agreement with the townships passed a resolution stating:
........FINALLY BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed Saginaw River dredging spoils site must comply with the Frankenlust Township Planning and Zoning regulations, the Zilwaukee Township Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance and all other federal, state, and local regulations and that said compliance should include all necessary and required due diligence including but not necessarily limited to the completion of an official Environmental Impact Study of the entire subject and project area.
Choosing between jobs and the environment has always been a false choice. A healthful environment is absolutely critical to the long-term viability of our community, and attracts business. Studies have shown that places with great environmental quality have more vibrant economies.
