Tittabawassee River Watch Editorial          Back to editorial page  

WB01727_.gif (697 bytes)

John Taylor response to MDEQ concerning DOW dioxin agreement press release 01/20/05

I realize this agreement states that it is " preliminary " and presumably leaves a great deal of room for more aggressive action in the future, but the part that troubles me is that it is only addressing the flooded areas of March 2004.

I also realize that there are supposed to be meetings in the future for more public input as is stated. With that in mind, why weren't we allowed to give input during all these behind closed doors negotiations? If Dow was to address this as I feel it should be, it should be addressing the flood of 86, not only 2004.

On the positive side, at least Dow is now addressing the fact that dioxin " IS " harmful to humans, and this is a small step in the right direction, though it is small. However it does little to comfort me knowing they only intend to place a band-aid on contaminated soil and place barricades in areas that were only affected by the flood of 2004.

If it were done with genuine concern on Dow's part, I wouldn't be allowed to set foot in my front door. As it stands now, I will loose even the view of the river from what little yard I will have remaining as it will only take a short time for underbrush to reclaim what I can no longer maintain due to this interim action.

As for cleaning homes, and I would have to assume that I am one of the top priorities, I would like it clarified as to what is meant by " house cleaning "? Some of us are uncleanable. Unfortunately I do have the knowledge that dioxin can not even be acid washed from glass. So with that in mind, do they intend to replace my entire foundation? My furnace and duct work? All of my furniture, carpeting and flooring? I believe they would have to replace my entire home and contents to do it properly.

I literally have one small area in my home that is 8'x8' that may not be contaminated. My pole building was built in 89 and had to have a great deal of fill hauled in to meet code. That is the only parcel of soil on my property, other than the small amount adjacent to the road, that may not be highly contaminated and I would feel safe in. I do not intend to live in my pole barn.

I do not mean to sound insulting and I truly hope you do not take this that way. All of you at the DEQ and MDCH have my greatest respect. But I feel I must voice my concerns. This in it's context at the moment appears pretty feeble to me. I guess I would like to have a much broader view of what yours and Dow's intention are in the near future?

Also what I am reading in this is the fact that this is addressing all of 2005 and possibly 2006 and probably beyond. Does this now give all involved in these behind closed doors negotiations a two year vacation? If this is so, then that would mean that there is going to be no " near future."

As I view this at the moment I am not satisfied at all for what is intended for my property and it completely excludes the majority of the flood plain. From what I have read here, all this is accomplishing is to alleviate Dow of an enormous amount of responsibility and protect their pocket book. This does not project genuine concern for the health and welfare of the population that must reside here.

This has the appearance of more Englernomics to me. It is a band-aid and actually does more to harm my property than to make it safer. It will now become a brush heap and become bug and rodent infested. I truly wish whoever is doing this in those behind door sessions, supposedly on our behalf, would have the intestinal fortitude to speak honestly for a change.

This is not for the benefit of the community, it drags it out for a minimum of 2 more years and is benefiting no one but Dow. There are supposed to be meetings for public input to address future remediation. With that in mind, will any of the input result in any more aggressive action prior to the two years already mentioned, or will it be 2007 before any further action will be taken?

This is unacceptable to me. I could say a great deal more but I think this should be sufficient for you to realize that I and probably many others are not satisfied with this. I find it astounding that after all this time and after missing your original deadline early last fall that this is the best you could come up with.


Back to editorial page