Opinion | After green ooze, it’s time to get serious about 'polluter pay'

Sen. Jeff Irwin

Sen. Jeff Irwin (D–Ann Arbor) represents Michigan's 18th Senate district, which includes the cities of Ann Arbor, Milan (portion), Saline, and Ypsilanti, and the townships of Ann Arbor, Augusta, Pittsfield, Salem, Superior, York and Ypsilanti.

By now, most of us have seen or have heard about the “green ooze” spilling onto Interstate 696. Thank goodness the ooze was photogenic: a fluorescent green, reminiscent of the "mutagen" that transformed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles into the popular cartoon characters named for Renaissance artists.

But there's nothing comical about this ooze. It's loaded with pollutants, especially hexavalent chromium, a toxic, cancerous chemical.

Since the incident on I-696, we have learned that, for 20 years, state and local authorities routinely cited Electro-Plating Services (EPS), the company responsible for the green ooze, for improperly and illegally storing chemicals. The people entrusted to protect our water and our health have known about this environmental scofflaw for years, but they were powerless to stop the damage and bring EPS to justice earlier because of our weak environmental laws.

There was a time when Michigan had the strongest environmental protections in the country. In 1990, the Legislature put a strict “polluter pay” policy in place that imposed strict liability on those who dumped, released or discharged toxic chemicals into our air, water and soil. That all changed in 1995 when the Legislature, with support from Gov. John Engler and corporate lobbyists, weakened the “polluter pay” law. They made changes that allow polluters to leave more of their pollution in the ground or in the groundwater, especially in cases where exposure could be limited by restricting access or with physical barriers. But this ignores the complexity of how these chemicals move underground and how they affect our health as well as the fact that our water is owned by the people, not the polluters.

In some cases, the weakened law requires environmental regulators to adopt "prohibition zones" that prevent future use of the polluted land or water. The rationale 25 years ago was that if the chemicals aren't causing cancer in people now, we won't require a more complete cleanup. This is the case in my own community. Decades ago, Gelman Sciences — now owned by Danaher Corp.— released at least 800,000 pounds of 1,4 dioxane into aquifers, which has since spread through the groundwater under Ann Arbor. Rather than a robust cleanup, we have an ever-expanding prohibition zone where well water cannot be used. Meanwhile, the contamination continues spreading toward the Huron River, Ann Arbor’s municipal water source. Under the current law, if the contaminated groundwater hasn’t impacted drinking water yet, a real cleanup isn’t required. This same approach is what caused regulators to allow the green ooze to remain unaddressed. 

We can’t keep putting our heads in the sand and leaving these problems to bubble up later. That’s why, early last year, I joined with my colleague Rep. Yousef Rabhi to introduce legislation that would reinstate a strong "polluter pay" law. SB 116 and House Bill 4212 propose requiring polluters to clean up their contamination to a higher standard. According to our bills, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) would be charged with requiring every polluter to clean up any harmful releases to the extent practicable. 

Allowing polluters to focus only on limiting current exposure to the contamination allows them to walk away, leaving pollution behind for future generations. Often, like in this case with the green ooze, by the time the public finds out how bad it is, the people responsible are bankrupted or departed. We need a law that gives EGLE better tools to hold polluters accountable so that more polluted sites are properly cleaned up and so that every company gets serious about protecting their neighbors' health and Michigan’s water. I’m eager to work with my colleagues and Gov.  Gretchen Whitmer on “polluter pay” and other legislation to protect Michigan’s water.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Monica WilliamsClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Comments

Don
Thu, 01/16/2020 - 8:34am

polluter do pay!! To DEQ workers to turn their back on what is going on!!!

m. curran
Thu, 01/16/2020 - 1:28pm

Yes, Michigan destroyed key environmental protections under the GOP administration of Governor Engler. There was no excuse for that. It is time we got smart and started to regulate commercial operations to prevent hazardous pollution before it happens. That would be less expensive for the public and a much healthier option. So, what is more important: the health and safety of the public and protections for air, water and land; or commercial operations? The answer is a no brainer; it's environmental protections that are strict and operate at the front end of an enterprise, not after the damage is done. Polluters must pay not only the costs of the clean-up but also personal and private damages to the public.

Paul Jordan
Thu, 01/16/2020 - 3:44pm

Basically, 'amen'!
I am sick and tired of elected officials who think their duty is to represent businesses and not people. I dearly hope that the more competitive districts that the redistricting commission will produce will focus state representatives more intensely on the welfare of their constituents rather than on the financial interests of their donors.

Jeff
Sat, 01/18/2020 - 12:57pm

You are missing a very important fact. While Engler's motives may have been different, before he loosened the laws, almost every polluter previously never paid. Either they were out of business or they filed bankruptcy, leaving the state to clean it up anyway.

J Hendricks
Mon, 01/20/2020 - 11:40am

Not so easy to solve. One of the issues is the “everyone in the chain of title” is responsible - even if you had nothing to do with the pollution. In other cases the clean up costs are so astronomical that bankruptcy is the only way out for a company. The general result is abandonment and these brownfield sites sit growing weeds for generations while new development takes place on clean “greenfield” sites - adding to urban sprawl. If we are ever going to seriously deal with this, we need to deal with the costs and ultimately it will fall onto us -collectively - to fund the solution. After all, we all benefited from the reduced product prices resulting from lack of cleanup as the products were created.