State officials repeatedly said they opposed the very concept of compensation,
and preferred to reserve all funds for cleanup costs only --- as if the
polluters could not afford both. (see The
Corporations Can Afford It.) Essentially, they opposed
basic law enforcement and restitution for the victims of pollution.
Now that Bush is in control, the federal government has abandoned the
principles outlined in this comparison factsheet written in 2000.
State DNR staff have said, "We're not following the federal plan."
The federal government and tribes seem to simply sign-on to the state's
initiatives now, ignoring the 8-year, $10 million federal NRDA research
results.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
(Last year's settlement,
not finalized)
|
U.S. FISH and WILDLIFE SERVICE, STATE OF MICHIGAN,
NATIONAL OCEANIC and ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), and the
ONEIDA, MENOMINEE, and LITTLE TRAVERSE BAY BAND of
ODAWA INDIANS.
(Last year's position
plus changes this year.)
|
| Settled for $7 million from Georgia Pacific’s Fort James Mill (which
released 22% of the PCBs). If all 7 companies settle at the
same rate, this means Wisconsin would receive only $32 million in total
compensation from 7 companies, in spite of the state’s weak economic analysis
showing the public suffered $70 to $190 million in damages. |
Proposed final compensation would range from $176 to 333 million, depending
on how aggressive the sediment cleanup plan is. These are conservative
economic figures.
|
| Addresses only Wisconsin resources. |
Addresses federal, Wisc., Michigan and Tribal resources. |
| Claims that only the state government has jurisdiction over vast majority
of natural resources within the state’s borders. (Attempts to exclude
most tribal and federal rights.) |
Acknowledges shared jurisdiction between the states, federal government
and tribes.
|
| Official NRDA process started in 1998, after surprise 1997 cooperative
agreement signed with 7 companies. |
Official NRDA process started in 1994, after several years of trying
to convince the state to join them in a joint NRDA effort. |
| Planning and consultants paid for by 7 companies who dumped PCBs. |
Planning and consultants paid for by federal, state and tribal governments. |
| Consultants chosen by 7 companies. |
Consultants chosen by governments. |
Consultants have history of representing corporate interests.
|
Consultants and agency experts have history of representing primarily
government and public interests. A few have mixed histories
of working for both corporate and government interests. |
Key consultants have conflict of interest, financial ties to one or
more of 7 companies.
|
Key consultants and agency experts have no
conflicts of interest. (But now, the
head of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, controlling U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, and the head of the U.S. Dept. of Justice, are both pro-corporate
and anti-environmental. (see Corporate
Takeover) |
| No public meetings to explain the release of 4 key documents.
(1997 Agreement, 1998 Preassessment Screen, 1999 NRDA plan, or 2000 Settlement
with Fort James) |
Several public meetings held following release of many of 14 key documents
and major reports, over a period of 3 years. |
| No public hearings were held on any stage of state NRDA process, despite
repeated public requests for hearings. |
Five public hearings were held last fall in Oshkosh, Appleton, Green
Bay, Sturgeon Bay, and Escanaba, on the final compensation proposal. |
| Settlement consent decree with Fort James (Georgia Pacific) was signed
before any public comment period opened. Citizen comments may
be meaningless.
|
Plan won’t be finalized until the EPA issues a “Record of Decision”
on the final river sediment cleanup plan, sometime later this year, after
citizen comments have been considered.
(The federal partners have broken this promise, and are going along with
the state's backwards order.) |
| The public and news media were unaware that a settlement was near,
so it was a surprise. |
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service says no federal settlement is
possible until after the plan is finalized.
(The federal partners have broken this promise.) |
The public was led to believe that DNR would issue a proposed
detailed NRDA plan, and economic assessments, and take public comments
(as is normal under the NRDA law) before any settlements would occur.
|
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is following the federal NRDA
process in detail, and released their final proposed “Resource Compensation
Determination Plan” as expected last fall, followed by a public comment
period and several hearings. (Since Bush
was elected, the federal partners have deviated from the formal process
several times.) |
Bulk of settlement dollars used for human recreation projects, rather
than wildlife or habitat.
|
Bulk of settlement dollars used for wetlands and wildlife habitat,
non-point (runoff) pollution control, and only a small percentage for human
recreation projects, based on public preference surveys.
(The federal partners have broken this promise.) |
| Fort James settlement funds will be used for recreation projects in
the near Green Bay area, with remaining 14% used for wetland purchase in
Peshtigo. No funds would benefit Door County or other bay areas impacted
by PCBs.
|
Settlement funds would be used for critical habitat and other projects
all along the Fox River and Bay, including Door County, Oconto County,
Marinette County, and bayshore areas of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan
--- all areas damaged by PCBs. (The
federal partners have broken this promise in the G-P settlement.) |
Economic damages assessed using “revealed preference” analysis ---
focuses on options people actually choose, such as how far they drive to
fish in clean water instead of contaminated sites.
|
Economic damages assessed using “stated preference” analysis --- focuses
on options people say they prefer, such as valuing toxic cleanups over
new boat ramps. Because the river and bay have been polluted for
decades, economists couldn’t measure the difference between actual fishing
activity before and after the PCB contamination. Therefore, they
estimated the economic value of current and some potential fishing activity
based on public preference surveys. (The
federal partners are settling for only 20% of their promised amount.) |
Estimated value of recreation lost by anglers due to fish-consumption
warnings since 1980.
|
Estimated value of recreation lost by the public due to fish-consumption
warnings since 1976, and total losses due to all PCB injuries to fish,
birds, and water in the future. (The federal
partners have abandoned this formula.) |
| DNR surveyed anglers in the eastern two-thirds of Wisconsin, including
many inland lake anglers who don’t fish on the Fox River or Green Bay. |
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service surveyed lower Fox River and Green
Bay anglers. Also randomly surveyed residents of a 10 county area
near Green Bay and the Fox River. (The federal
partners have ignored the damage data gathered from this effort.) |
| DNR credits Fort James with providing $55 million in economic benefits
for only a $7 million investment, using projections of increased economic
activities as a result of the recreational investments. |
Service proposals are firm investment figures, not based on multiplier
factors. The federal experts do not agree that Fort James’ $7 million
settlement is worth more than $7 million. (The
federal partners have abandoned these positions.) |
DNR argues that settling early and low will prevent litigation and
delays.
|
The federal, tribal and Michigan governments are more likely to be
stuck in litigation and delays because the state’s settlement undercuts
their efforts. (It’s very likely the state settlement will end up
in court anyway, unless they settle for extremely small amounts.
But then they risk citizen suits.) (The
state process is now prevailing, but lawsuits are still possible.) |
DNR is pursuing their individual NRDA settlements, regardless of the
wishes of all the other governments.
|
The federal, tribal and Michigan governments feel a unified bargaining
effort would be stronger, more successful, and less likely to result in
litigation. Therefore, they work cooperatively to address all
trustee concerns and settle their differences privately before issuing
unified proposed plans or starting unified negotiations. (It
appears the feds have become so cooperative, they might as well be sleeping.
They're letting the state ignore all the federal NRDA research --- about
$10 million worth.) |
