The ONW is reporting that the Clean Water Action Council lawsuit against Utica Energy has been resolved, with Utica agreeing to the following:
- - To come into compliance with water regulations and to stop the illegal "discharging zinc, sediment, and other pollutants into Sawyer Creek"
- - Pay the city of Oshkosh $25,000 and Winnebago County $25,000, in addition to payments to the EPA and to the Clean Water Action Council.
.
This of course isn't the first issue with the Utica Energy facility. According to Midwest Environmental Advocates, in October 2009 "the plant came to an agreement with the State of Wisconsin in which Utica agreed to pay $280,000 in forfeitures and costs to the State and to invest $200,000 to connect to the Oshkosh wastewater treatment plant and cease discharging to Sawyer Creek by March of 2011."
.
People in general perceive Utica's production of corn-based ethanol to be a more environmentally-friendly alternative to regular fuel purchased at the gas station. We even have the Renew E85 gas stations popping up all over the area, selling ethanol from this facility. This is good - local energy production creating local jobs while helping our farmers stay in business and slightly reducing the emissions from fuel use.
.
The bad is that the practices of this company have proven to be anything but environmentally friendly. Irresponsible discharge of pollutants is bottom-line unacceptable. You'd think any company that operates anywhere near the fox river these days would know that. In fact, Zinc operates much like PCBs in the environment, in that it accumulates in organisms and is not easily broken down which results in "bio-accumulation" in larger species of fish and predators. Zinc is highly toxic to smaller organisms, and fish populations in polluted waters tend to have high toxic levels. Animal studies have shown that high levels of Zinc exposure can lead to infertility, while human studies have shown that high exposure can cause stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, anemia, and decreased levels of good cholesterol. Note that I do not have information on if the Zinc discharge was a compound such as zinc arsenate or zinc cyanide, which are far more damaging to environmental and human health.
.
We commend the Clean Water Action Council for working to protect our health and our waterways, and we congratulate them on the success of their effort to correct the environmental damage being done by Utica Energy. This is another example of the vulnerability of our local water system, and should be another wake-up call to the real need for our community to develop a comprehensive water quality protection plan that includes a strong monitoring and enforcement element. Numerous other communities across the state and region have implemented such plans, which often go to great length in detailing how the municipality is going to closely work with major water users and polluters. This is another call for our community to move beyond simply being "on the water" to becoming stewards of the water.
2 comments:
Ethanol is not better than gasoline. Burning food raises other food prices. Artificially inflated corn prices make plowing Conservation Reserve Program lands desirable. These areas are often marginal and highly erodible lands. Land that once supported grassland birds and other species now supports only one. Grassland birds are on the decline everywhere.
E85 is a scam.
Fair enough - sort of. There are pluses and minuses. Higher corn prices doesn't require removal of conservation lands. I stand by the points that it isn't a bad idea for farmers to make a profit, and for energy sources to come locally. And the emissions are slightly cleaner than gasoline.
Yes there are better alternatives for environmentally-friendly fuel sources, but none that are a readily-available option here unless you can afford a hybrid or comparable.
And let's be reasonable: birds are not on the decline everywhere because we have an ethanol plant here.
I don't really think it is much of an improvement over the current system though, and strongly support alternatives that are far more sustainable.
Concerning CRP, aren't CRP lands under contract if federal assistance is involved? Even if it was profitable, wouldn't the land owner need to wait till the end of the 10 or 15 year deal?
Again, I do not endorse ethanol as the saving elixer of our environment, and I do endorse the EWG's recommendations to:
- Phase out tax credits for corn ethanol and subsidize other biofuels only if they show clear promise to meet strict climate and environmental protection standards.
- Rebalance the U.S. renewable energy and energy conservation portfolio to favor options that do the most to reduce fossil fuel use, safeguard the environment, spur more widely-shared economic development and increase energy security.
That being said, concerning "renewable energy gains", studies have shown an energy investment gain of about 1.5, meaning "the ratio of the total energy contained in a liter of ethanol to the nonrenewable energy
consumed during production of the same amount of ethanol, including cultivating crops, transporting
them, and converting them into ethanol."
A good report is available by googling Natural Resource Defence Council and Ethanol titled Ethanol, Energy Well Spent.
Feel free to continue discussing this, although I'm out of the conversation as this topic is well beyond the scope of our city, unless you somehow tie in that those higher land values are helping to preserve farmland instead of changing it into industrial pits, parking lots, and malls on the outskirts of the city.
~ J
Post a Comment