[Above: MEJO Vice President Touyeng Xiong, who grew up in the Truax neighborhood next to Starkweather Creek, speaks to the Dane County Lakes & Watershed Commission, July 2018]
*****
This is an addendum to my previous post…
Last night (Aug. 3), the Lakes & Watershed Commission decided to increase the proposed budget amount for “engaging and educating public communities affected in these areas about fish contamination and levels of PFAS in the waterways” from $3000 to $5000.
Should we be thankful and thrilled about this proposed boost in funding? No. This is beyond a slap in the face–it’s a punch in the gut. A total insult. How much “engagement and education” do these commissioners think can be done with this amount of money? Perhaps all they have in mind is more shoreline signs? This is what their discussion last night indicated. Is this what “engagement” means to them? Signs? Are signs the only way these white, privileged people can imagine engaging the mostly low income, largely non-white people fishing on shorelines here? What about engaging the other “public communities,” such as the 80-90% non-white Truax and Darbo-Worthington neighborhoods downstream of the PFAS-soaked airport/base? Do they think we should post some PFAS signs in these neighborhoods and call it engagement? Apparently so, since that is all that our city-county public health department (PHMDC) has done to date–posted some signs along the creek and lakes.
Shoreline fish advisory signs are small (and necessary) components of communicating with at-risk people about PFAS exposures, but posting signs is not public engagement. Posting signs does not involve anyone actually directly talking with people, face-to-face in real time. Engagement means listening to people, conversations with people (in other words, two-way) on shorelines and in their communities about how they interact with waterways and fish, how they might be exposed to PFAS, potential health effects, how they can prevent exposures, what people personally–and collectively, politically–can do about these problems. When people learn about PFAS risks and how they are exposed, naturally they want to know what can be done about it. If engagement is genuine and respectful, the learning and education go both ways: the “engagers” learn as much (or more) from those being engaged than the other way around.
Meaningful engagement, which must be ongoing and long-term to be effective, is challenging and requires a lot of time, skill and resources. It cannot be done with $5,000.
But maybe these commissioners can’t even imagine engaging low income people of color in this way–via in-person conversations on the shoreline, in their communities, or anywhere?
Or, hmmmm…maybe they realize that if people are meaningfully engaged in this way, and actually educated on relevant PFAS issues (beyond limited consumption advice on a shoreline sign) and what might be done about them, these educated and empowered people might show up at their future meetings and make demands of them–and Dane County, responsible for PFAS discharges–as we did in 2018? (see below). And again in January 2020?
Or, as I speculated at the end of my piece below, “maybe they just don’t care?”
After watching last night’s meeting, the answer is more clear to me than ever: They. Do. Not. Care.
*****
In January 2018, MEJO learned that PFAS was used at Dane County-owned Truax Field, at the Air National Guard base. That spring, data was released showing alarming groundwater and soil PFAS levels there, raising obvious questions about how much PFAS was discharging into Starkweather Creek and Lake Monona and building up in fish.
After investigating the potential sources and environmental justice implications of PFAS oozing from Truax Field, on July 19, 2018, MEJO’s Starkweather team testified at the Lakes & Watershed Commission budget meeting. See MEJO testimonies here (supporting map here), here, here, and here. [1]
We asked for funding for PFAS and other contaminant testing in Starkweather Creek downstream of the airport and base, as well as resources to inform and engage people affected by this pollution, especially low income and minority communities along the creek.
As I pointed out in my testimony, the Lakes & Watershed agenda said at the top: Consider: Who benefits? Who is burdened? Who does not have a voice at the table?” How can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences?”
All county agendas still say this, in line with the county’s purported commitment to racial equity and social justice. Does the Commission ever address these questions, or consider them when discussing issues on agendas? Not that we can tell.
Testifying to ignorance & disinterest
In July 2018, MEJO and other activists spoke to a group of blank and disinterested faces. The Lakes & Watershed Chair and other county officials appeared to know nothing at all about PFAS; they apparently hadn’t heard of it before. Original meeting minutes called it PFAF (until we corrected it). Commissioners seemed generally unconcerned—disinterested, in fact– about the issues we raised. Our recommendations were ignored. Our testimonies were not attached to the original meeting minutes, but we later demanded that they be attached (and they were).
[Above right, MEJO’s Vice President Touyeng Xiong, who grew up in the Truax apartments next to the airport/base, testifying to the Commissioners in July 2018]
Four years later, commissioners have learned what PFAS is!
Now, lo and behold, four years later, commissioners (several of whom were there in 2018) appear to have learned a bit about PFAS and realized that perhaps it should be a priority for the county. See their draft budget recommendations, which will be discussed in a public hearing on Aug 3 (today). Here are their PFAS recommendations (pasted verbatim):
PFAS Testing. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are an emerging human-made contaminant as they are harmful “forever chemicals” that build up in the body and environment over time and have serious health effects. There are no standards for PFAS contamination. However, the state Department of Health Services has recommended a combined groundwater limit of 20 parts per trillion (ppt) for two of the most toxic PFAS variants, PFOS and PFOA. The state Department of Natural Resources expanded the existing advisories limiting consumption of those fish caught in the waters of the Yahara Chain from Starkweather Creek downstream to the Rock River. Because of the high levels of PFAS most recently found to extend through the entire Yahara Chain and elsewhere in the county (from an old landfill near Cross Plains), the LWC recommends continued support for County related PFAS activities such as, but not limited to, funding for increased testing of sediment and fish in Starkweather Creek and other areas where PFAS may be found, continued monitoring of PFAS in areas including Starkweather Creek and development of a mitigation plan for contaminated areas and also allocation of $3,000 for engaging and educating public communities affected in these areas about fish contamination and levels of PFAS in the waterways. Prioritization will be given to messaging and signage targeting areas that are heavily fished with all public outreach materials provided in multiple languages (English, Spanish, and Hmong). As a new effort the LWC recommends that the county sample all wells located in county parks for PFAS. This will provide data to assess how widespread PFAS contamination is throughout the county. (bolding was in the original document)
Wow, $1 million proposed for aquatic weed cutting! How much for PFAS? Well…
We are pleasantly surprised to see some general recommendations for PFAS in the draft. But it’s not at all clear what this very vague language means. What do “recommends continued support” and recommends “continued monitoring…development of a mitigation plan” mean? Is this simply support for funding that has already been approved in the past?
Further, there are no dollar amounts attached to these recommendations. Other items in the draft recommendations have specific dollar amounts—for example, $1,000,000 for “Aquatic Plant Cutting” in the lakes. How much does Lakes & Watershed recommend that Dane County spend on PFAS testing and mitigation plans? Everybody knows that “no funding” means “no action.”
But wait! The draft does attach a dollar amount to one recommendation–one of our key recommendations back in 2018: more public engagement on PFAS! They clearly think this is very important, suggesting a whopping $3,000 for it! Perhaps a few thousand brochures and a few signs can be created with this giant pot of funds? (Where’s the sarcasm emoji?)
Finally, the draft proposes: “As a new effort the LWC recommends that the county sample all wells located in county parks for PFAS. This will provide data to assess how widespread PFAS contamination is throughout the county.” (It’s not clear, but this may be the only new recommendation; the others likely reflect continued support for previous years’ recommendations).
Any private well testing in the county is a promising step forward. But again, no funding is attached to this recommendation–so does it mean anything?
Moreover, why are they proposing to test wells in county parks? We have been asking that Dane County sample private drinking water wells in the county for PFAS for years—especially wells downstream of known PFAS sources, and in/near agricultural fields spread with PFAS biosolids from the Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District–wells that provide drinking water to thousands of Dane County residents, including pregnant women and children. One private well in Madison has already been contaminated by PFAS, very likely originating from Truax Field–but nobody is talking about it.
If the county really wanted to protect public health, private wells here would have been tested already (years ago, in Marinette/Peshtigo, at DNR’s request, JCI sampled private wells near areas spread with municipal biosolids).
Why are Lakes & Watershed Commissioners proposing to start by testing wells in county parks? How will this “provide data to assess how widespread PFAS contamination is throughout the county”? Are any of these parks near known PFAS sources? How will this investigative strategy answer this question? Who came up with this strategy and on what basis?
If PFAS is found in these wells in county parks, will it lead to private well testing in the county? How long will that take?
MEJO recommendations?
I have testified at Lakes & Watershed meetings several times over the years, often with MEJO members and collaborators. To date, all of our recommendations have been dismissed or ignored. Given this, attending another meeting and humiliating myself one more time seems pointless.
If I did attend and testify, what might I recommend?
A substantial amount of funding should be allotted to thoroughly test Starkweather sediments, water and fish (DNR testing to date hasn’t been very comprehensive–NO Starkweather sediment testing has been done to date, despite our repeated requests). Relatedly, the county should investigate and clean up the Dane County-owned burn pits asap, as DNR has required for years-especially now that the Air National Guard has said it will not do so. Private wells in the county near known PFAS sources (downstream of airports, in areas where MMSD’s PFAS contaminated sludge has been spread, landfills such as Rodefeld and Refuse Hideaway, etc) should be tested as soon as possible. The airport mitigation the county has initiated so far–lining/televising storm pipes and experimental pilot treatments–have proven to be ineffective to date. The county should fund and implement more sophisticated, state-of-the-art technologies for PFAS plume mitigation. I’m not an expert on the costs of these things, but taking a stab at it, it seems that $1,500,000 (probably much more) should be allotted to the above actions, to start anyway.
As for comprehensive, respectful community engagement (beyond some signs and brochures, which are not engagement) this would require adding at least two more zeroes onto the amount proposed–say, $300,000?–and much more for longer term engagement.
Beyond specific funding recommendations, Lakes & Watershed commissioners should:
1. Ask the county to reconsider its employment of a former corporate attorney (Amy Tutwiler) to help the county address its huge PFAS problems. Under her lead, the county’s actions are nearly identical to those of corporate polluters who use legal tactics to get out of following environmental laws. Why is purportedly “progressive” Dane County taking this approach?
2. Related to the above, drop the recent lawsuit (Dane Co vs DNR) initiated by Corporation Counsel Tutwiler, with advice from the anti-regulatory PFAS Regulatory Coalition, that is an effort to exempt the county from PFAS requirements in its stormwater permit. Follow the PFAS requirements in the recently issued WPDES stormwater permit.
3. Use the newly minted municipal stormwater “Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination” (IDDE) ordinance to target and prevent PFAS and other pollution sources and fine polluters in the county.
4. Encourage the County Board to exert oversight of county funding regarding lawsuits, PFAS testing, and fighting environmental laws. Since 2019, decisions about these issues have been made behind closed doors–in part, by a city-county-military team that includes no elected officials. No public meeting minutes. Supervisors should be involved in these discussions, not excluded. Meeting minutes should be available to the public and elected officials.
5. I could think of many more. And see below…
Commissioners: LOOK AT THE TOP OF YOUR AGENDA!!
Last but not least, the Lakes & Watershed Commission should actually address the questions at the top of each agenda in considering PFAS and other budget recommendations: Consider: Who benefits? Who is burdened? Who does not have a voice at the table? How can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences?”
The PFAS that continues to spew from Dane County’s Truax Field while the county does little to nothing about it is affecting low income and people of color who live along Starkweather Creek and eat fish from the creek and lake more than others. For years the people have also been ingesting PFAS from Truax Field in their drinking water. These exposures are cumulative. PFAS builds up in the body over time.
Yet despite staring at these questions–“Who is burdened? Who does not have a voice at the table? How can policymakers mitigate unintended consequences?”–on top of every meeting agenda, the Lakes & Watershed Commission is not prioritizing funding that would help prevent exposures to the most vulnerable people, nor is recommending funding that would engage them and help give them “a voice at the table.” In fact, $3,000 for public engagement shows what a low priority this is. It is a slap in the face–an insult– to those of us who have engaged in the past, and asked for more funding for engaging the broader affected community.
It’s disingenuous and troubling that the county puts these important questions at the top of agendas, only to be ignored by commissioners, county officials and others at county meetings. It might be better–definitely more honest–to take these questions off agendas instead of publicly flaunting such overt pretenses of caring about social equity and racial justice.
Or perhaps county officials could take higher road–the honest, ethical, compassionate and responsible approach–and actually seriously consider these questions when making policies?
But maybe they just don’t care?
*********
[1] After many years of controversies about what governmental entity—city, county, state– was responsible for addressing the increasingly obvious degradation of the Yahara Lakes by toxic chemicals, the Dane County Lakes & Watershed Commission was formed in 1989 by the Wisconsin Legislature (Chapter 33, Public Inland Waters). The “Findings and declaration of intent” for the statute begins: “The legislature finds environmental values, wildlife, public rights in navigable waters, and the public welfare are threatened by the deterioration of public lakes; that the protection and rehabilitation of the public inland lakes of this state are in the best interest of the citizens of this state; that the public health and welfare will be benefited thereby; that the current state effort to abate water pollution will not undo the eutrophic and other deteriorated conditions of many lakes; that current efforts to protect and rehabilitate the water quality of the navigable waters in Dane County, which receive intense urban, recreational and agricultural usage, are seriously handicapped by the fact that numerous governmental bodies have jurisdiction over the management of watersheds in Dane County…”
The commissioners’ duties, as outlined in this statute, were as follows: (1) The board of commissioners shall initiate and coordinate surveys and research projects for the purpose of gathering data relating to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county; (2) The board of commissioners shall maintain a liaison with agencies of the federal, state and local governments and other organizations that are involved in programs or projects designed to protect, rehabilitate and manage water resources; (3) The board of commissioners shall develop a public information and education program on issues related to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county.
