Army Corps drops plan for expansion of Lake Michigan dump after opposition from Illinois EPA and community advocates
Over the next two decades, the proposed 25-foot vertical expansion along the Lake Michigan shoreline would have taken in an additional 1 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment dredged from the Calumet River — the Corps' solution to the disposal site's now-full 45 acres.
'This is very good news and a victory for Chicagoans and all of us who care about protecting healthy communities and Lake Michigan,' said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center and lead attorney for community groups in litigation against the Army Corps.
After denying the Army Corps all of the state water quality permits needed to proceed, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency sent a letter saying the proposal was contrary to some environmental regulations, including an Illinois law that prohibits the construction of new landfills or the expansion of existing landfills in Cook County.
Learner said the agency's proposal 'defies common sense.'
In a news release, the Army Corps said it will work with the state, the city and the Illinois International Port District to explore 'sustainable and feasible alternatives.'
The Army Corps has argued it needs somewhere to dispose of the sediment that has to be routinely dredged from the Calumet River so that commercial ships can pass through waterways connecting the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River basin.
When Alliance of the Southeast and Friends of the Parks sued the Army Corps in 2023, the community organizations claimed that the federal agency didn't consider alternative locations for a new dump or adequately assess the risks of expanding the current site.
In the Tuesday news release, the Army Corps said it 'remains committed to maintaining a safe and fully operational navigation system in Calumet Harbor and the Calumet River.'
The agency's plan to manage dredging operations in the waterways and ensure commercial navigation was approved in 2020. The next year, Congress allocated funding for the vertical expansion of the disposal facility.
'The Corps remains committed to maintaining commercial navigation in the Calumet Harbor, Calumet River, and the Cal-Sag Channel,' said Col. Kenneth Rockwell, commander of the Chicago District. 'We will work closely with federal, state, and local partners to explore alternative solutions that balance environmental considerations, economic needs, and the long-term viability of these waterways.'
In the Illinois EPA letter, acting director James Jennings urged the Army Corps 'to explore alternative means to manage dredged materials,' including its disposal at permitted landfills or even 'upland beneficial use,' which would entail its use on dry land for habitat creation, land reclamation, soil enhancement or even construction materials.
'The Army Corps will now need to find better and more sensible alternatives that are outside of Cook County and reduce the dredged waste to the extent practicable,' Learner said. 'There are better solutions and better alternatives to the Corps' flawed approach.'
Since 1984, the Army Corps has been dumping toxic sediment dredged from the Calumet River into the containment site, which contains mercury, arsenic and polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. After reaching capacity or after 10 years, whichever came first, the property was to be returned to the Chicago Park District to restore as a park for the largely Black and Latino community.
Four decades later, the property hasn't been turned over.
'The Army Corps, Park District and City of Chicago should now work together to restore the site and transform it into the long-delayed new lakefront park for the public to use and enjoy,' Learner said. 'Chicago's lakefront is for people and parks, not toxic waste dumps.'
adperez@chicagotribune.com
Check back for updates.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
2 days ago
- Business Wire
The Army Corps of Engineers is Reviewing the Petition Filed By Green Oceans and A Coalition of Tribal Nations, Fishing Organizations, and Conservation Groups to Revoke Revolution Wind's Permit
LITTLE COMPTON, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Army Corps has confirmed it is reviewing the Green Oceans' petition to revoke Ørsted's Revolution Wind permit. The petition cites a deeply flawed Public Interest Review that fatally tainted the Revolution Wind approval process and failed to comply with federal law. The petitioners include Green Oceans, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head/Aquinnah, Narragansett Indian Tribe, Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Fishermen Against Offshore Wind, and the Rhode Island Commercial Fishing Association, as well as Save the East Coast, Protect Our Coast Long Island NY, Save Our Bay, Brayton Point, ACK For Whales, Save Greater Dowses Beach, and Protect Our Westport Waters. The petition raised three red flags: The Corps ignored the project's repeated discharges of arsenic, which exceeded 1000% of allowable levels, and other toxic chemicals, into Narragansett Bay and surrounding wetlands. The Corps disregarded interference with the only East Coast early warning radar system for ballistic missiles, as well as airport surveillance radar critical for aviation safety. It misrepresented the economic impacts—never accounting for lost jobs in the fishing industry or the economic harm from increased electricity rates this project will impose on New Englanders. 'This petition demands environmental justice and accountability from a government that fast-tracked these destructive projects without following the law,' said Dr. Lisa Quattrocki Knight, President of Green Oceans. The petition, filed in June, says the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) relied heavily on the Corps' Public Interest Review for its Record of Decision and final permit authorizations. The flawed review violated the Corps' statutory responsibilities and tainted BOEM's decisions. 'Revolution Wind threatens our environment, burdens ratepayers, -- particularly working families and those on fixed incomes -- and undermines national security,' said Dr. Knight. 'It devastates the marine ecosystem without any proven benefit to the climate. This project isn't sound policy; it's political theater at the public's expense.' Green Oceans is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, community organization dedicated to combating climate change without jeopardizing the health of the ocean or the life it sustains.
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
Chicago expert raises alarm as U.S. EPA seeks to walk back greenhouse gas regulations
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday announced it plans to walk back a declaration in the Clean Air Act that determined greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The U.S. EPA declined CBS News Chicago's request for an interview. But the Illinois EPA said it reviewing the proposal to rescind the declaration issued back in 2009 under President Barack Obama. Meanwhile, climate experts in Illinois and around the country are concerned about the ramifications. Lee Zeldin, President Trump's pick to head the U.S. EPA, announced Tuesday from an Indiana auto dealership that the agency wants to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding. "If finalized, today's announcement would amount to the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States," Zeldin said, "a proposal to eliminate to the endangerment finding, to eliminate greenhouse gas standards — all the regulations that came out, including the electric vehicle mandates, all of the greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty." The 2009 finding that Zeldin is proposing eliminating determined that six specific greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆) — endangered public health and welfare. The finding set the platform for actions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. "it's the fundamental linchpin of the Clean Air Act," said Howard Learner, chief executive officer and executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. Learner called the U.S. EPA proposal a denial of both climate change and "fact-based determinations" about greenhouse gases. "Climate change is real. It's happening," he said. "That can't be denied as a basis of scientific fact." Learner said the impact in the Chicago area and elsewhere in Illinois would be dirtier air and more contributions to climate change. "It's showing up in our weather. It's showing up in health risks. It's showing up in the Great Lakes. It's showing up in ways that change our lives here in Chicago and across Illinois," Learner said. In a news release, the U.S. EPA said the 2009 finding paved the way for electric vehicle mandates, and led to "significant uncertainties and massive costs" for the American people and automakers related to "general regulations of greenhouse gases from vehicles and trucks." The proposal, according to the EPA release, would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, starting with the EPA's first greenhouse gas regulations set under the order in 2010, and including "off-cycle credits like the much-hated start-stop feature on most new cars." CBS News Chicago asked if Zeldin's proposal could also eliminate vehicle emissions tests in Illinois. The Illinois EPA said it is too early to say, while Learner said this is the time the state can make a difference. "We're going to be looking for Illinois to step up to make sure people here have healthier, clean air," said Learner. The news release said if finalized, the proposal is expected to save Americans $54 billion in costs through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards — including the Biden EPA's electric vehicle mandate. "If Congress wants to amend Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and tell us that they want us to be regulating the heck out of carbon dioxide, methane, and these other greenhouse gases, then we will follow the law," said Zeldin. The U.S. EPA proposal is not a done deal yet. "We'll go through a public comment period," Zeldin said. "We'll see what the American public has to say about everything that we put out right now — on all of this." The public comment period on this starts now and will last 45 days. Meanwhile, environmental groups are expected to take the U.S. EPA to court to challenge the rule.
Chicago Tribune
4 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gov. Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.
Memo to Springfield: Chicago is broke. Gov. JB Pritzker has a bill on his desk that would sweeten pension benefits for Chicago's police and firefighters hired in 2011 or later, to the tune of $60 million more out of the city budget in 2027 alone and more than $11 billion over the next three decades, according to the city's own projections. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers at the end of the spring session, allowing for next to no debate and, astoundingly, was supported by every Chicago House member and senator. At the time of the bill's passage, we wrote that the entire Chicago delegation had effectively had voted to increase property taxes on their constituents. Property taxes, of course, are the main means municipalities have of financing their pension obligations to their workers. Interestingly, the governor acknowledged the conundrum last week. Asked about the bill, he said, 'One thing to consider, of course, is the finances of the city of Chicago. How will they pay for it?' The other important consideration, he said, was ensuring Chicago's first responders are 'well taken care of.' We're glad to see Pritzker explicitly state why he's mulling whether to veto despite the strange prospect of rejecting legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. By asking rhetorically if Chicago can 'pay for it,' the governor has answered his own question. Of course Chicago can't pay for it. The police and fire pension funds have a mere 25% of the assets needed to meet their current and future obligations as it stands. Since we wrote about this measure in June, the city has estimated what it would do for its woefully underfunded first-responder funds. That percentage would drop to an almost unfathomably low 18%. To those who say it's nonsensical to veto a bill with such overwhelming support, remember that GOP lawmakers mainly went along because of the Chicago delegation's unanimous backing and the fact that only Chicagoans' taxes would be affected. All the Chicago Democrats who voted yes could justify reversing their positions by saying (truthfully) they didn't have the city's projections on just how much these changes would cost taxpayers. Chicago taxpayers already are chewing their nails wondering how the city will plug a 2026 budget deficit exceeding $1 billion. The following year looks even worse. Pritzker already tossed an $80 million hot potato in Chicago's lap with his 2023 initiative to phase out the state's 1% tax on groceries, the proceeds of which had been distributed to municipalities. More than 200 municipalities have approved their own 1% grocery taxes, as the state allows them to do. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants the City Council to do the same for Chicago, which must happen by a state-set deadline of Oct. 1. There are no guarantees, given Johnson's fraught relationship with the council and Chicagoan's understandable resistance to tax hikes of any sort, that aldermen will do as he wishes. Meanwhile, this pension time bomb would cost the city nearly as much as repeal of the grocery tax and in the future will cost far more. Speaking of the mayor, while he has spoken tepidly against this bill, he ought to be forcefully urging Pritzker to veto it and Chicago lawmakers to vote to sustain that veto, despite their earlier support of the measure. The city essentially has been missing in action on this issue, and Johnson apparently is struggling to balance his political brand as an ardent union backer with his duty to Chicago taxpayers. This is no time for such timidity. At this stage, it's worth laying out the origins of this bill. In 2010, in a bid to reform Illinois' public-sector pensions, the state created a second tier of beneficiaries hired in 2011 and thereafter — so-called Tier 2 workers — whose retirement payouts were to be substantially less than the overly generous benefits of existing employees and retirees that had gotten Illinois so deeply in pension debt. Six years ago, Pritzker signed into law sweetened pension benefits for Tier 2 cops and firefighters in Illinois outside of Chicago as part of a consolidation of downstate police and fire pension funds. Ever since, Chicago police and fire unions have argued their Tier 2 workers ought to get the same treatment. In addition, proponents cite concerns that the benefits for Tier 2 workers don't rise to the level of Social Security benefits, which would violate federal law. This page has been consistent on the issue of Tier 2 pension benefits and Social Security. State policymakers should do no more than ensure they are compliant with the law and rebuff union efforts to use the Social Security argument in effect to do away with Tier 2 and pension reform altogether. As much as we appreciate and rely on Chicago's first responders, everyone who went to work for the Police or Fire departments after 2010 knew — or should have known — what their retirement benefits were. In a perfect world, their pensions would be equivalent to those earned by their counterparts outside the city. We don't live in that world. Far from it. Mayor Johnson, you should advocate for your city's beleaguered taxpayers and call on Gov. Pritzker and Chicago's Springfield delegation to do the right thing. And, Governor, adding to Chicago's fiscal crisis hurts the whole state. Whether the mayor asks or not, veto the bill.
