Stop this toxic waste tower on the shores of Lake Michigan

In 1982, the Illinois General Assembly passed a law authorizing the transfer of properties along Lake Michigan in the southeast part of Chicago to the Chicago Park District in partnership with the Corps of Engineers of the American army. The purpose of the transaction was to construct and operate a repository on 45 acres to retain contaminated sediment dredged from the Calumet River and other nearby waterways.

By law, the land remains the property of the Chicago Park District. But it has been used for the past four decades for a 45-acre facility located beneath the water’s surface to hold riverbed materials contaminated with various toxic products, linked to an area long characterized by industrial use intensive.

And now the establishment is full.

A key part of the deal, when President Ronald Reagan was in his first term and Jim Thompson was just beginning his second as Illinois governor, was that the site would be converted into a park once the landfill would have exhausted its useful life.

But when that time came a few years ago, the Corps instead chose to redouble its efforts at the site. The federal agency, responsible among other things for maintaining navigable waters like the Calumet, proposed building another landfill there and doing so above the existing one. The facility would rise 25 feet above the ground and allow for an additional 20 or more years of dredging and disposal of contaminated materials on the shores of Lake Michigan near the mouth of the Calumet River.

A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit in federal court to stop the project, and that lawsuit is ongoing. Oral arguments are scheduled for this summer.

Besides the lawsuit, what is currently preventing the landfill from expanding is the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, which has so far refused to issue the quality permits of water needed by the body to even begin preparatory work, such as building an access road. . The arguments in federal court focus on the public use doctrine, whether the corps properly followed federal procurement rules and environmental justice law, among other things. Both sides make arguments that seem reasonable; It’s fair to say that the final outcome before U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin is difficult to handicap, much less predict.

What is clear from our point of view is this: a deal must be a deal. No one on either side of the issue is arguing that the Chicago Park District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have not agreed to restore the property for recreational use once the landfill is full. The body now says in its legal briefs that it is not actually walking back its comments. The park will still come; it will happen decades from now rather than now. The law as originally envisioned is not violated, the agency asserts.

We do not agree. What will prevent the Army Corps, in a few decades, from building yet another dump and presenting exactly the same arguments?

Opinions about how the lakeshore should be used have evolved greatly since 1982, even in the southeast section, which has long been home to industries that other parts of the city wanted to keep as far away as possible. Ald. Peter Chico, who represents the 10th District, wrote to Mayor Brandon Johnson in August urging him to stop the corps from moving forward. “My community already suffers from the burden of excessive pollution and landfills,” he wrote.

He was right. A surface dump of toxic waste on the shores of a huge lake with rising waters and subject, in an era of climate change, to more intense storms, is wrong – and unfair to the community.

The Army Corps says in its brief that it considered dozens of alternatives to this project, including other sites inside and outside the 10th District, and that none are feasible. . It rejects suggestions that it would transport the sediment to private waste treatment facilities already licensed to accept such materials, arguing that it would be too costly and questioning whether capacity is adequate.

The corps warns that its current failure to dredge the area will impede barge traffic between the lake and the Mississippi River and negatively affect commerce in the area. This is of course an important concern. These waterways are an underappreciated part of Chicago’s enviable and crucial status as a commercial transportation hub.

But that doesn’t mean we have to take the body at its word when it says there is no practical alternative to a 25-foot-tall toxic waste dump on the lakefront. In deciding on this option, the corps appeared to view the Southeast Side as a region already home to many polluting industries. So what’s one more?

For now, Governor JB Pritzker’s IEPA stands in the way.

But as we have seen on other issues (migrant shelters, poorly thought-out stadium projects), the governor must intervene while the mayor of Chicago should be the one handling this issue. After all, the Chicago Park District owns the land. It is the entity that allows the body to continue this project. The mayor controls the park district by appointing its commissioners, who are then subject to approval by the city council.

Johnson was petitioned to end this deal with the corps, and not just by Ald. Chico but also by 23 community and environmental groups, including the Environmental Law & Policy Center, the Southeast Alliance and Friends of the Parks. Those three are also plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit.

As far as we know, Johnson has said or done nothing to inform his commissioners of any concerns the mayor has about this massive toxic dump, let alone demand its rejection. This from a mayor who has made environmental justice a cornerstone of his administration’s principles. Indeed, less than two weeks ago, on May 10, Johnson issued a press release titled “Environmental Justice Makes Great Progress in Mayor Johnson’s First Year,” which praised his reestablishment of the Department of Environmental Justice. ‘Environment of the city and its commitment to tackling the problem of pollution. pollutants causing asthma and cancer in “black and brown neighborhoods.”

Guess what a “Black and Brown” neighborhood is also, according to the mayor’s language? The southeast side. About 50% of residents in the 10th Ward are Hispanic and 38% are black, according to the city.

Here’s a golden opportunity for a talkative mayor to actually speak up for environmental justice. He should have done it sooner. Better late than never.

Submit a letter of no more than 400 words to the editor here or by email to [email protected].