Lawsuit Limits?: trouble for environmental law - 08.17.04 - Detroit Free Press
Industrial plant awaits cleanup - 08.17.04 Detroit News
MORRISON: Wetlands criminals 08.26.04
County puts wetlands on map 08.30.04
Advocates for the environment still needed 09.06.04
Study will settle the dioxin question 09.19.04
MGTV hosting dioxin information program 10.03.04
State won't fund dioxin study 10.03.04
Court weighs dioxin issues 10.07.04
Detroit Free Press
LAWSUIT LIMITS?: Two rulings signal trouble for environmental law
August 17, 2004
Two recent state Supreme
Court decisions bode ill for environmental protection in Michigan, as the
slimmest majority of justices came to the brink of overruling a historic
section of Michigan law.
The Michigan
Environmental Protection Act, which has its roots in the 1970s, says that
"any person" can go to court to protect "the air, water and
other natural resources and the public trust in these resources." The four
justices in the majority, who normally tout their faithfulness to the plain
language of the law, went through contortions to explain why they'd prefer to
ignore the words that say anyone can sue.
Basically, they said,
the legislative branch of government can't just dump off every crackpot dispute
that comes along onto the judicial branch; separation of powers requires more
than that, they say.
Fortunately, the
majority backed away from outright declaring that provision of the Michigan
Environmental Protection Act unconstitutional. Instead, they found enough
instances of potential direct impact that justified going forward with a suit
against an Upper Peninsula mining expansion. But the opinion will have a
chilling effect. The court has basically announced that common folk -- or
environmental groups with statewide constituencies -- shouldn't bother to sue
unless the people involved can prove they're personally at risk.
In the second case, over
mining of a critical dune in Berrien County, the court said no one can use the
Michigan Environmental Protection Act to challenge permits granted by the state
Department of Environmental Quality; complaints have to be filed as permit
appeals. Apparently, though, the activity allowed by the permit can still be
challenged under the act (via the now narrowed access in the other ruling).
This may seem like
hair-splitting, but it clamps one more major restriction on the rights that the
public once had to defend the public trust from assault.
Pasted from <http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/emepa17_20040817.htm>
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Industrial
plant awaits cleanup
Pinckney
could hear today if state will OK grant for $585,000
By Jon Zemke / Special to
The Detroit News
What's next
* The village of Pinckney is close
to winning a $585,000 grant from the state of Michigan to clean up the
abandoned Patterson Lake Products industrial site. The village's application has
been recommended for approval to the executive board of the state's Department
of Environmental Quality. A decision could come as early as today.
PINCKNEY — The village is close
to securing a $585,000 state grant to clean up the site of the abandoned
Patterson Lake Products industrial plant, said Pinckney Village President Pat
Dewey.
If approved, an official
announcement can come as early as today, Dewey said.
The state Department of
Environmental Quality’s finance department has recommended to the agency that
the grant be approved, said Cindy Denby, legislative aide to state Rep. Joe
Hune, R-Hamburg Township.
The Patterson Lake
Products Industrial plant site sits on 78 acres on Patterson Lake Road on the
village’s south side. It was built in the late 1960s but has been closed since
1988, when Patterson Lake Products shut the bolts and screens manufacturing
plant. Oils and other fluids leaked into the ground, contaminating the site.
The village won a
$500,000 grant from the state’s Clean Michigan Initiative to clean up the site
for redevelopment a few years ago. But Pinckney has not received any of the
money it was promised and was told in March that the state fund was being
dissolved, Dewey said.
If the DEQ approves the
$585,000 grant, the building could be torn down and the site cleaned up by
fall, Dewey said. That would allow the village to sell the land for
redevelopment. A few developers have approached the village about the land,
Dewey said.
The village would not be
required to repay the grant or come up with matching funds, Dewey said.
The village’s request
for the money says the projected redevelopment would be designated as mixed-use
zoning with light commercial, low income housing and a community park.
Members of the Pinckney
Village Council also have expressed an interest in the village keeping a small
portion of the property. That would allow the village to have the option of
expanding its sewer plant, which is adjacent to the site.
The village took over
the site in the late 1990s after the company did not pay its taxes. Over the
years, various developers have proposed projects for the land — from a hockey
arena to new homes — but contaminants must be removed first. The site is gated
and locked.
The Pinckney Village
Council has been trying to figure what to do with the site for several years.
Neighbors have complained about it, calling it a blight on the community.
Redeveloping the site would remove one of the village’s biggest eyesores.
Jon Zemke is a Metro
Detroit free-lance writer.
Pasted from <http://www.detnews.com/2004/livingston/0408/17/b05l-244324.htm>
Local News
Thursday, August 26,
2004
By Joyce Morrison
OPINION -- Do Illinois
landowners want to join the "wetlands criminals of the United States of
America"?
Landowners across the
nation are being treated worse than common criminals when accused of wetlands
violations. Just ask people like Ocie Mills of Florida, who spent 18
months in jail because he put a few loads of fill on a lot where he planned to
build his home.
Then there is Bob
Brace of Pennsylvania, who has lost millions of dollars in the value of his
property where he raises vegetables.
John Pozsgai of Pennsylvania tried
to improve a lot he bought that was filled with 7,000 old tires.
Bill Ellen tried to create a
wildlife sanctuary in Maryland.
There are many more
accused of wetlands violations, and Illinois landowners don’t want to be named
with the so-called criminals.
Mamie Webb in southern Illinois
knows about wetlands. She didn’t even know she had wetlands until she wanted to
trade 20 acres to a neighbor. The 20 acres her father had inherited from his father
had grown up, because he was unable to take care of it due to disabling
injuries he received in World War II. This became Mamie’s property, and a
neighbor wanted the land to farm, as it would square up a field that bordered
Webb’s 20 acres.
She found her property
was worthless. If it were cleared to be farmed, it would have violated a
wetlands law. Mamie said, "The only creek or stream on the 20 acres might
float a little paper boat after a big rain. It is not even wet - it is not a
wetlands."
Why do farmers and
landowners oppose more wetlands regulations through state regulation? The
answer is mainly because there are already wetlands regulations. There is a lot
of junk science being used, and it is another way of controlling property
rights. It is also in violation of the 5th amendment, which requires just
compensation for "takings." They are taking the use of your property
away from you.
Illinois is sitting on
a bill that will increase regulations on private property and tighten controls
on wetlands to the point that every landowner will be threatened. If this bill
passes, you will be taking the risk of accidentally disturbing a wetland if you
move any dirt on your land, and then you will be facing a $10,000 per day fine.
A wetlands bill has
passed the Illinois House, and HB913 was moved Aug. 24 to the Senate
Rules Committee. Chicago legislators sponsor this bill, but the
Chicago area is exempt from the bill. Downstate will bear the burden of more
wetlands regulations.
John Rapanos, a 68-year old Michigan
resident, is charged with a wetlands violation. The government is asking for
civil damages against Rapanos in the shocking amount of $10 million in fines,
forfeiture of 81 of his 175 acres, and $3 million in "mitigation
fees," all on top of the earlier ordered fine of $185,000 that Rapanos
already paid.
Rapanos’ story was told
in a WorldNetDaily.com article written by David Stirling,
vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, who represented Rapanos
in a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Court
declined to take the case.
Rapanos purchased 175
acres of farmland in the 1950’s, according to Stirling’s article in WND.
Apparently he was preparing to sell the property as a commercial development
site. He removed tree stumps and "was moving sand around" when he
began the biggest nightmare of his life.
"John Rapanos’
story is a chilling example of what can happen when government loses all
respect for property rights and starts looking at private land as a community
asset" wrote editor Nolan Finley of the Detroit News.
What is encouraging
about this story is there are still a few good judges left. Judge Setoffs
has had to hear this case three times, because he has refused to sentence
Rapanos in accordance to the Justice Department’s prosecution orders.
Stirling quoted Judge
Zatkoff as saying, "So here we have a person who comes to the United
States and commits crimes of selling dope, and the government asks me to put
him in prison for 10 months. And then we have an American citizen who buys
land, pays for it with his own money, and he moves some sand from one end to
the other, and the government wants me to give him 63 months in prison. Now if
that isn’t our system gone crazy. I don’t what is. And I am not going to do
it."
What is really
interesting, according to Stirling, was Rapanos had no plans to, and did not
disturb, the two recognized wetland areas on his property. He did not apply for
a federal permit to fill wetlands. When government bureaucrats used expanded,
self-made definitions for wetlands without a federal permit, Mr. Rapanos
spurned their claims.
Peg Bostwick, federal wetlands
program coordinator for Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality,
admitted as much when she said that most property owners choose to "work
with us, instead of arguing. Mr. Rapanos was the exception to that rule."
It would appear the
penalties are rather extreme for those who "argue" with a wetlands
coordinator who accuses you of disturbing a wetlands when you know you are
innocent.
The Wall Street
Journal picked up on the story and said, "The Mackinac Center’s
Russ Harding, a former director of Michigan’s environmental agency who’s
actually been on the property, says that it is not a wetlands because the
drains do what they were meant to do: keep the land dry by draining the
water."
The Wetlands Desperado
article in WSJ went on to say, "Good luck. As Judge Zatkoff
knows all too well, the reason Mr. Rapanos finds himself in this preposterous
position is that our wetlands law is a hopeless swamp."
"The blame extends
all around, from the politicians responsible for the Clean Water Act,
and the federal bureaucrats who have used it to define almost any puddle as a
wetland," concluded the WSJ article.
The wording of the 1972
Clean Water Act gives the federal government authority over the "navigable
waters of the United States." The Pacific Legal Foundation says what is at
issue is whether this control extends to farmland more than 10 miles away from
the nearest such body of water.
The WSJ
article said that the Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the government lacked
authority over an Illinois wetland because it was not abutting a larger
waterway. Unfortunately, several appellate courts have since issued conflicting
rulings in other cases rendering the intent of the Supreme Court’s ruling,
"muddy."
Isn’t it ironic the
Clean Water Act of 1972, which gives the U.S. Corps of Engineers authority
over wetlands came on the heels of the United States signing the Wetlands
Treaty in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971?
"The Convention on
Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which
provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for
the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are
presently 140 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1374 wetland sites,
totaling 121.4 million hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List
of Wetlands of International Importance." www.ramsar.org
The waters of the
United States had gotten polluted and definitely needed a clean up. But should
that not have come in the way of state and federal regulation, rather than
compliance with a United Nations wetlands treaty?
Collecting articles on
wetlands acquisitions one will find a pattern, articles such as, "North
American Wetlands Conservation Act Funds 13 Wetland Conservation Projects in the
Midwest," “NAHB Blasts EPA & Army Corps Decision on Wetlands
Jurisdiction," and "Wetlands Act Funds 500th Project, land added to
National Wildlife Refuges in Three States.
Hundreds of wetlands
articles have revealed billions of dollars being spent on private land
acquisitions to make wetlands. If the land is not acquired, there are ways to
control it. Just ask Mr. Rapanos and the other wetlands criminals.
It has been proven over
and over the landowner will pay the penalty even when the violations are questionable.
Illinois is trying to add new layers of State regulations on top of the Federal
regulations that already have existed in the farm bill since the 1980s and the Federal
Navigable Waters regulations. The question is why?
Be careful when the
wetlands police come around. They are probably not checking for West Nile virus
- they probably want to make more mosquito pools.
© 2004
IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
_________
What are your thoughts
concerning the issues raised in this commentary? Write a letter to the editor
at letters@illinoisleader.com, and include your name and town.
Joyce Morrison lives in
southern Illinois. She is a chapter leader for Concerned Women for America and
she and her husband, Gary, represent the local Citizens for Private Property
Rights. Joyce is Secretary to the Board of Directors of Rural Restoration/ADOPT
Mission, a national farm ministry located in Sikeston.
She has become a
nationally-recognized advocate for property rights.
Pasted from <http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=18959>
The St. Clair County Metropolitan
Planning Commission is using new computer software to preserve quality wetlands
in the county.
By CHRIS SEBASTIAN
Times Herald
Times Herald file photo
DIGGING IN: Volunteers
transplant plants into a wetland at Goodells County Park in Wales Township.
DEFINITION
WETLANDS
- Wetlands are areas of land saturated with
water during some portion of the year. They serve a variety of roles,
including filtering contaminants from water systems, preventing erosion
and providing a habitat for birds and fish.
County planners in the coming months
will be able to quickly tell developers if they can build on certain land and
what type of land it is. Planners also will know where the higher-quality
wetlands exist that need protecting.
That's good news for nature lovers.
Larry Fowler, a member of the
Bluewater Audubon Society, said protecting wetlands is crucial for bird
watchers and other outdoorsmen. He is happy the county is using the software.
"Wetlands are the foundation
for everything," he said. "There are lots of birds that live in that
habitat."
For several years, the county has
used computer-mapping software. But two months ago, it began using a new type
of program to simulate how wetlands affect the surrounding area.
"With it we can model how
surface waters flow into and out of wetlands and surface areas," said
Geoff Donaldson, county environmental planner.
That's important information for
developers. Without this technology, the companies had to rely on older maps or
just guess where wetlands exist, Donaldson said.
The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality prohibits development on some high-quality wetlands. The
state has to come out and check the quality of land to see if it is allowed to
be built upon.
"It's a very lengthy
process," Donaldson said. "Wetlands could be drained and filled
before you could even get someone out there to assess the site."
Local cities and townships don't
have the new technology, so the county plans to share the information with
them.
Email this story
Originally published Monday, August
30, 2004
Pasted from <http://www.thetimesherald.com/news/stories/20040830/localnews/1142823.html>
More From The Bay City
Times | Subscribe To The Bay City Times
Advocates for the
environment are still needed, author says
Monday, September 6, 2004
By Jeff Kart
Times Writer
As soon as 50 years in the future,
attractions on the Great Lakes may include uncovered shipwrecks exposed by
historically low water levels.
That's one of many predictions in
"On the Brink: The Great Lakes in the 21st Century," a new book by
Dave Dempsey, policy adviser for the Michigan Environmental Council and former
environmental adviser to Gov. James Blanchard.
"The real message is that the
Great Lakes are drifting toward disaster, but they can be saved if citizens
mobilize to protect them," said Dempsey, 47, of Lansing.
The book is packed with tales of past
warnings that came true, such as overfishing that helped wipe out the native
Michigan Grayling fish and overcutting that cleared forests along the Saginaw
River hundreds of years earlier than forecast.
There also are stories of recovery,
brought on by people who became vocal and outraged over issues like the
"death" of Lake Erie due to pollution and the dumping of waste into
Lake Superior by a mining company.
Dempsey said the Great Lakes need
advocates again, with ongoing climate change and growing water use and demand.
"In the past decade and a half,
people have gotten complacent about the Great Lakes," he said.
People just assume that government
and environmental groups are keeping businesses and others in check and making
sure the lakes are protected, Dempsey said. But politicians pay a lot of lip
service to Great Lakes protection, he said, and there is an unhealthy relationship
between industry and government in some areas.
The zebra mussel was first discovered
in the Great Lakes in the 1980s, for instance, but controls weren't put into
place for 15 years after objections from the shipping industry, Dempsey said.
"The environment is too
important to be left to the environmentalists," he said, suggesting that
people get active by volunteering and speaking out on environmental issues
rather than just making monetary donations to environmental groups.
Terry Miller, chairman of the Lone
Tree Council, a Bay City area environmental group, agrees that more advocates
are needed.
His group has only a handful of
active members, who have been battling with the Dow Chemical Co. over dioxin
contamination in the Tittabawassee River and advocating for controls on the
grooming of coastal wetlands in the Saginaw Bay.
When the Lone Tree Council formed in
the 1970s to oppose plans for a Midland Nuclear Plant, its membership was
around 300, Miller said.
Dempsey said today's threats to the
lakes are more subtle than in the past, when water pollution caused an Ohio
river to catch fire, for example.
"A lot of problems don't have
immediate day-to-day impacts on people's lives, but they are contributing to
the gradual and steep decline of the lakes as a healthy ecosystem and that will
have effects for our children," Dempsey said.
He said previous generations tried to
think ahead, by setting aside land for national parks, for instance, and
passing laws like the Clean Water Act in the 1970s.
"We seem to be more focused on
today and tomorrow than 20 or 30 years from now," Dempsey said.
"That's a recipe for the doom of the Great Lakes if it continues."
He said Michigan is the only Great
Lakes state with no real water conservation legislation, and no limits on how
much water can be taken out.
He encourages people to attend
ongoing hearings on the proposed Water Legacy Act, and call for protections
against allowing water bottling plants to ship water outside the basin.
No Legacy Act hearings are scheduled
in the Saginaw Bay area, but people can make their voices heard by calling
their state legislator, he said. Information about how to comment on a
complement to the act, an international water diversion protection proposal called
Annex 2001, is available online at www.speakongreatlakes.org.
Dempsey's book offers new ideas for
governing the Great Lakes that aim to bring citizens back into the process, by
using the Internet and creating community councils on Great Lakes issues.
Dempsey's book, published by Michigan
State University Press, is available at local book stores and online at www.davedempsey.org.
- Jeff Kart covers the environment
and politics for The Times. He can be reached at 894-9639.
Pasted from <http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1094483745257330.xml>
Name: David Linhardt
Date: Sep, 08 2004
Mr. Savage is incorrect in stating
that persons exposed to dioxin contamination have suffered no ill effects. In
1998, The Dow Chemical Company reported to the EPA that stomach cancer in TCDD
exposed workers increased with cumulative exposure. Midland plant workers with
the highest cumulative TCDD exposure had a risk of stomach cancer that was more
than four (4) times higher than unexposed workers. In addition, the elevated
risk from stomach cancer was statistically significant.
The mortality studies posted on
Dow's website provide ample evidence of other health effects associated with
dioxin exposure. However, it is extremely important to examine all the mortality
data and not just read the summaries.
David Linhardt
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12875798&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6&xb=gumij>
top
Study will settle the
dioxin question
Shirley B. Salas ,
Midland Daily News
09/19/2004
I
think all of us residents along the Tittabawassee River plain pretty much have
the same concerns
Dr.
Garabant and his unique team from University of Michigan have a mission. That
mission is to conduct a scientifically accurate sampling of dioxin in our
homes, in our properties and in our bodies. His team reports to a Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB), consisting of top dioxin experts in our nation, including
Linda Birnbaum of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a scientist highly
recommended by the Lone Tree Council and the Tittabawassee River Watch. The SAB
has power to accept, reject, advise and recommend changes in anything reported
to them by Dr. Garabant and his team. Any reports to Dow are from the
Scientific Advisory Board.
The
U of M dioxin study team also appointed a group of local citizens, highly
respected in our community, to a Community Advisory Panel. It is the function
of that group to keep us, the general public, up to speed on activities and
results of the study.
As
we have already read in the newspapers, there will be a total of 700
participants, randomly chosen by a scientifically approved computerized method.
U of M’s statistical experts will handle this portion of the study. 350
participants will be chosen locally and 350 from counties without our
dioxin-laden floodplain problem. Although many of us would love to volunteer,
including all six of my daughters, my husband and me, this would not make it a
very scientific endeavor. For that reason, much as he would like to accept
volunteers, Dr. Garabant must say no. The computer will choose the
participants.
We
the community can help! First of all, when people knock on our doors to gather
information, let’s welcome them in. Let’s answer their questions, honestly and
as completely as we can. They will need this information to complete the
database for the study. They want to interview everybody with property on the
floodplain and everybody across the street from the floodplain. If we are not
home when they stop by, they will try to contact us and come back when we are
home.
Second,
after the computer is full of information potential participants in the study
will be randomly chosen. Those families will receive letters in the mail
inviting them to participate in the study, explaining exactly what is expected
of them. Please say yes!
Local
residents in the health field will take samples. Samples will be taken of the
blood from only one member of the family, dust from your home and soil from
specific areas of your outdoor property. This is important to find if there is
a correlation between the amount of dioxin in your environment and the dioxin
in your body. Remember, all of us have dioxin in our bodies. It is stored in
the fat and basically we acquire it from the fatty tissue of animal protein in
our diets.
If
your family is chosen to participate in this study, please say yes! The
information about individuals will be kept confidential. Encourage your friends
and family to participate if they are chosen. This study is important. It
should once and for all settle the dioxin/health controversy. Just a blood
sample, allowing somebody else to vacuum your house, and a third to gather a
few small soil samples from your yard can add up to a really big contribution
to our community.
…and
I’ll bet you dollars to donuts as they say, that if there is a correlation
between dioxin and the environment, all of us in the Tittabawassee River
floodplain will be checked and monitored if necessary. Come on neighbors; let’s
give it a try, okay?
Shirley
B. Salas lives on Freeland Road in Tittabawassee Township.
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12955996&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6>
MGTV hosting dioxin
information program
Midland Daily News
10/03/2004
Starting
Monday, MGTV-5 will air a special half-hour program on a two-year dioxin
exposure study expected to start in October.
"Community
Question: Dioxin" will feature an interview with Dr. David Garabrant,
project leader of a University of Michigan-led study to determine if there is a
correlation between elevated dioxin levels in soil and dust and elevated levels
found in a person's blood.
The
first viewing will be Monday at 8 p.m. Complete MGTV-5 programming guides can
be found on the City of Midland website at www.midland-mi.org.
Questions regarding MGTV-5 programming can be directed to (989) 837-3474.
To
find out more about the University of Michigan dioxin exposure study, refer to
the following website: www.umdioxin.org.
©Midland Daily
News 2004
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13058524&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=541496&rfi=8>
Kathie Marchlewski ,
Midland Daily News
10/01/2004
The
State of Michigan won’t be paying for the study that local lawmakers believe
could help resolve the debate over how much dioxin is safe to have in soil. A
proposal for a state-funded $800,000 bioavailability study was nixed by
Governor Jennifer Granholm in a line-item veto Thursday.
The
project, proposed by state Rep. John Moolenaar and approved by the House and
Senate, would have contracted with an out-of-state university or other
qualified organization to find out how much dioxin is absorbed into the body
when soil is digested.
The
state’s residential direct contact criteria for dioxin – 90 parts per trillion to
protect against health effects – is based on an assumption of how much dioxin
is absorbed. Plugging an exact rate into the algorithm used to set the criteria
could result in an shift upward – a move that has the potential to pull large
areas of Midland out of the DEQ’s cleanup plan spotlight. Many contaminated
properties are expected to have soil dioxin concentrations hovering around 200
parts per trillion.
Results
from the proposed study would have been peer-reviewed by the Michigan
environmental science board and released around June 2005. Moolenaar said the
research still needs to be done "for the future concerns of the state and
nation," despite the governor’s dismissal of funding.
"It’s
an important part of a resolution based on sound science," he said.
"At the end of the day, a bioavailability study is a piece of the
puzzle."
He
proposed funding from the Clean Michigan Initiative after recognizing that any
Dow-funded study had the potential to draw skepticism from environmental
groups. He and lawmakers wanted swift and credible results.
But
the 1998 voter-approved bond is not the place to get it, the groups argued.
"We
urged the governor to veto (the proposal)," said James Clift, policy
director for Lansing-based Michigan Environmental Council. "That is not an
appropriate use of the money."
The
money is earmarked for cleanup of "orphaned" sites, Clift said –
those that don’t have a responsible party to turn to for the expense. "In
this case, Dow is a financially viable company."
Dow
officials don’t disagree. The company already is working on protocol for a
bioavailability study and is expecting results of a half-million-dollar pilot
late this year. Conducted by the University of Missouri-Columbia, the investigation
launched as a response to contamination cleanup negotiations under Gov. John
Engler’s administration. It was stalled when Granholm took the state helm but
resumed this spring.
"I
think we agree with the governor’s action here," said Dow spokesman John
Musser. Over the next year, Dow expects to spend $1.5 million on the second
phase of the independent, peer-reviewed study.
The
Environmental Council accepts that peer reviews and state oversight can ensure
credible results of a Dow-funded study. "We trust that state toxicologists
can weed through what is a good study and what is a bad study," Clift
said.
Granholm
was not available for comment on the veto this morning, but Moolenaar said he
expects the administration to offer an explanation for the move. If the veto
was based on the argument that CMI money should not be used, an alternate state
source could be considered, he said, adding he is not opposed to Dow funding.
©Midland Daily
News 2004
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13048603&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=8>
Reader Opinions
Post your opinion and share your
thoughts with other readers!
Name: Fred Stoll
Date: Oct, 02 2004
I can't speak for Enviromentlist, I
can only speak for myself, and I do not trust Dow.
But I am interested in how anyone
can say what the facts the study will find, before they do the study? If any
one is trying to bend the facts of science and public opinion to fit their own
beliefs and desires, it is people that make predictions about what a study will
show.
Concerning your comments
"greedy corporate Dow and Republican Midland has damaged their environment
and endangered the health of its citizens", I agree with your words.
I do want a totally independent
study. I don't know what it will show, but I think it is needed. Let the facts
be what they are, not what interested parties want them to be, and that my
friends.. will truly set the truth free.
Name: Michelle Hurd Riddick
Date: Oct, 01 2004
Dow is already doing a
bio-availability. A study funded by CMI money is an inappropriate use of public
dollars. CMI enabling language states the taxpayers shall not be burdened when
there is a responsible party.........that would be DOW. Also, unlike all the
other Dow funded studies a check and balance is in place; Dow cannot use the
bio-avail study for site specific cleanup unless the science passes the smell
test at DEQ. Recall that DEQ, MDCH, ATSDR and EPA all had serious issues with
Dow's bio-avail study in the Consent order of 2002. Let Dow exhaust their money
to get it right not the taxpayers.
Name: Rick Hayes
Date: Oct, 01 2004
The enviromentlist say you can't
trust a study that Dow pays for then screams Dow should pay the study.As long
as they can second guess and criticize the results of the study they will be
happy. They don't offer solutions when given a chance but are quick to point
out whats wrong whith any solution offered.
Name: daniel crummett
Date: Oct, 01 2004
It's no surprise that the leftist
administration won't fund a study that will obviously show that 90 ppt is
ridiculous. It's in their best interest to show that bad, greedy corporate Dow
and Republican Midland has damaged their environment and endangered the health
of its citizens.
The study is critical. Why is
Granholm afraid of the truth?
Remember - "the truth will set
you free".
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13048603&brd=2289&PAG=699&dept_id=472542&startrow=1&MaxRows=10>
Kathie Marchlewski ,
Midland Daily News; 10/07/2004
Michigan’s
Supreme Court will balance public health versus economic impact when it issues
an opinion to deny or allow medical monitoring to be pursued in the state’s
courts.
It’s
a matter some say has the power to damage business and open floodgates for
frivolous lawsuits. Others say the law needs to flex in this case – thousands
have been exposed to a toxic substance and shouldn’t have to pay for medical
testing to protect their health.
Plaintiffs
who live within the Tittabawassee River flood plain are asking that courts make
The Dow Chemical Co. pay for medical testing to detect diseases they might
develop because of exposure to dioxin deposited on their property by the
company’s past manufacturing processes.
Dow
says there are no injuries and there is no cause of action for a lawsuit. The
debate landed in the state Supreme Court after Dow appealed Saginaw Circuit
Court Judge Leopold Borrello’s decision last year not to dismiss the medical
monitoring claim that is one-half of a potential class-action suit involving
flood plain property owners. Plaintiffs also are suing for the value of their
property.
The
panel of state Supreme Court justices fired questions at Dow and plaintiffs’
attorneys for 90 minutes: "Is the claim legitimate?" "Is risk
evident?" and "Are lawmakers better equipped to tackle an issue with
such potentially large consequences?"
Dow
attorney Douglas Kurtenbach said the state’s resources are too scarce to handle
an onslaught of cases that could be encouraged by the dismissal of the
requirement that an injury be present in order for a person to sue. It’s a
100-year-old common law for which change should be left to the legislature, not
the courts, he said.
"You
have limited resources, limited time. That’s one of the principle reasons you
have to have an injury before you can come to court," said Kathleen Lang,
counsel for Dow.
Plaintiffs
say frivolous cases would be deterred by the fact that the medical monitoring
program could be administered by courts and wouldn’t include any monetary gain.
"I
think that when you’re talking about one of the most toxic chemicals, it’s hard
to say there’s any economic balance that would override those
consequences," said Teresa Woody, lead counsel for the nearly 170 people
signed onto the suit.
Justice
Marilyn J. Kelly suggested that it’s about time the Supreme Court fully
addressed the issue.
"Times
have changed and we’re able to view diseases in their early stages. Why
shouldn’t law reflect changes?" Kelly asked. Putting a value on human life
is difficult, she added.
"To
turn our back on this is not acceptable either. It sounds like we’re saying
‘Let someone else take care of the problem that we have before us,’" Kelly
said.
The
court will not decide if Dow should pay in this case; that decision would be
left to Borrello’s courtroom. The matter at hand is only if his court erred
when it denied dismissal of that portion of the suit.
Dow
and backers from manufacturing, business and insurance sectors argue that if
the Supreme Court allows a medical monitoring claim to move forward, virtually
all people would be able to sue based on a potential risk caused by exposure to
any number of products. Kurtenbach says plaintiffs are asymptomatic and that
risks are uncertain.
Judges
questioned whether increased levels of dioxin in blood constitute injury.
"If
somebody has elevated levels of dioxin in their blood, do you consider that
‘asymptomatic?’" asked Justice Stephen J. Markman.
Kurtenbach
answered that Dow’s position is "Yes."
But
the results of a pilot Michigan Department of Community Health dioxin exposure
study – which admittedly measured the potentially "worst first" –
showed that some plaintiffs have been notified they have increased levels of
dioxin in their blood, according to their attorney.
"If anything else, that would put any reasonable person on notice they
better check themselves periodically," Markman said.
The
panel probed further into Dow’s argument of nonexistent injury: If Kurtenbach’s
own blood had high levels of the toxin, wouldn’t he want to monitor his health?
"No,"
Kurtenbach answered. "It would cause me to read the science, which is what
I’ve done."
"Didn’t
you say science is a big question?" Markman asked.
Kurtenbach
answered that a man in Austria tried to "kill his wife with dioxin."
It didn’t work.
Markman
related dioxin blood levels to asbestos particles in lungs. The presence is
recognized as a cause of action and people with the damage are known to be at
increase risk for asbestosis.
Kelly
said there are scientific tests that show dioxin is a dangerous poison. She
also pointed out the high levels of dioxin found in eggs from chickens raised
on flood plain soils. One plaintiff had been feeding those eggs to his
children.
To
avoid dismissal, Justice Robert P. Young Jr. said plaintiffs have to establish
a cause of action.
"You
can’t come into the court – unless we change the law – without first
establishing physical injury," he said, asking Woody to rundown the list
of required criteria.
She
acknowledged there is no way to tell if plaintiffs have been injured.
"We
don’t know if they do now – there isn’t medical monitoring," Woody said,
adding that because plaintiffs are aware of risks posed by dioxin exposure they
now carry the burden of expense for lifelong medical testing.
"The
economic loss is in payment you would have to make to get yourself
tested," Woody said.
Medical
community backers, including the American Public Health Association, agree that
risk for health problems related to the exposure is high.
Other
risks are high too, said Justice Clifford W. Taylor.
He
compared the problem to the struggle in creation legal remedies dating to a
hundred years ago – workers’ compensation, wrongful death and auto no-fault
laws.
"We
need to be very careful," he said. "We are entering an area that may
have a disastrous effect in Michigan’s economy."
Justice
Maura Corrigan suggested that a solution to the dioxin problem may already
exist – without involving courts. Power to require medical monitoring may
already be vested in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, she
said.
©Midland Daily
News 2004
Reader Opinions
Post your opinion and share your
thoughts with other readers!
Name: david garcia
Date: Oct, 07 2004
I have been following this issue for
some time. I find it hard to understand why a person would be suiing for
personal injury if injury cannot be proven. I do understand and believe that
the people who are suinmg due to the loss of property value have a viable law
suit. Those are the people who are attempting to move from that area and are
finding out "RIGHT NOW" that DOW has rendered their properties almost
worthless. If this were in some other area around town and a company had done
something to their property that caused your property to decrease in
value....The city would automaticly impose fines or order the other party to
make restitution. I see no movement towards finding a good ending for all those
property owners. The only solution to the property involved is to actually sell
these properties to THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY.
Pasted from <http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13091194&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=6>