PARALLELS BETWEEN IRAQ WAR JUSTIFICATION AND DREDGE PROJECT RATIONALE

The public dredge town meeting in the City Hall on the proposed land reclamation and building of the amphitheatre was held, and it seems that there were many questions about which the public was interested that were not answered. A majority of the overflow crowd that went to the meeting was not opposed to the building of the amphitheatre or the adjacent businesses which might be constructed there. Their main concern and their reason for going to the meeting was the material which was going to be used to fill the mine pits, and one of the main questions was not even answered. Why did every community within 100 miles of Philadelphia refuse to accept the dredge from the Delaware and other rivers?

Originally the material was to be dumped in four sites in New Jersey, but according to CourierPostOnline.com objections by Gloucester County officials, backed by US Sen. Robert Torricelli and US Rep. Rob Andrews of New Jersey, resisted becoming the host of dredge spoils. According to the US Census Bureau statistics, approximatly 40% of the US population lives within 100 miles of Philadelphia. One of the sponsors of the dredging project is the Delaware River Port Authority and the representative from the Delaware Riverkeeper Network environmental group, Maya van Rossum, said "I think, from our perspective, no matter where you put the spoils, it’s a bad project environmentally and a bad project economically. It’s not going to provide the big economic benefits the DRPA pretends it’s going to provide."

The first hour and a half of the meeting was devoted to instructing the public and showing pictures of what the proposed buildings and the adjacent acreage would look like. Despite the fact that the room was so crowded, there appeared to be no attempt to

move the meeting to a larger room in the building to accomodate all of those who came to the hear what was happening and to contribute their opinions. Perhaps the group conducting the meeting did not want so many people to ask questions. Even with the heat and shortage in seating, the meeting contined for another two and a half hours, so those attending must have been highly motivated to endure the heat and sit on steps and on the floor. It was an answer to the mayor who said there was little interest because a low percentage voted in the primary election, which had nothing on the dredge question on which they could vote.

The report on the meeting which was published in the newspaper the day after the meeting did not answer questions which were probably raised at the meeting. The Army Corps of Engineers subsequently said that there was a possibility of the sale of the dredge material. If the material was so wonderful, why didn’t they use it for the original purpose, which was to restore wetlands in New Jersey and Delaware. Those States refused to allow them to dump the material there. It would save the Army Corps tens of millions of dollars which would have to be paid for the hauling. No explanation was given as to why the States refused the dumping. Three years ago, the General Accounting Office made an independent review and found that the Army Corps misrepresented the costs and the benefits and pointed out that there were areas which needed further review. There was nothing presented which said the GAO’s suggestions were followed. Why aren’t there many closer locations to dump the material instead of here over 100 miles away? Shouldn’t there be an investigation of the reasons for the refusal of all other municipalities and States who are less than 100 miles from Philadelphia to accept the dredge material?

There was another newspaper article about the disagreement between the mayor and State Representative Todd Eachus whom the moderator tried to silence after the State Representative spoke for about two minutes. After one speaker for the presenters spoke for a half hour without interruption, the moderator who was a representative for the presenters tried to stop the State representative who was contacted by a large number of his constituents to express their opposition to the project. The meeting seems to have been patterned after the President’s public talks about Iraq only before military personnel at their bases in order to eliminate possible objections from the media or the public.

There are many parallels between the dredge meeting presentation and the US entrance into the Iraq War. After starting the war and not finding the WMDs or nuclear devices, no one admitted to having made a mistake but it was stated that the purpose of all of the military lives lost was to make all of the Mideast countries democracies. The new project here is to fill the coal mine excavations and build an amphitheatre which might not be finished for 15 years and never even be seen by a large percentage of current residents, and at which performances could be limited to four months a year. No mention is made of the possibility of health problems caused by the millions of cubic yards of questionable dredge material, or the damage that hundreds of heavy trucks could do to our streets and highways. Once 10 to 20 million cubic yards of the materials are in the coal excavations and something dangerous is discovered, what is the city going to do? With the limited number of employees, the State would have to check all of the truckloads for years. It is probable that much of the material may not be checked even though the public is told that this was going to be done..

With the positives of the proposed amphitheatre but all of the possible dangerous negatives, the community should be involved in the decision. The people should get answers to the questions as to why all of the closer possibilities refused to accept the dredge material and have a chance to vote on approval of the project. If it were completed and then serious problems arose about the health of the people in the area, who would be making the payments to correct the problem? With a project which would take perhaps 15 years to complete, the people should be given sufficient time to voice their choice at the polls as to whether they want to be exposed to the possible hazards even if the project may have some advantages.

Bernard H. Kline, CPA

87 N. Church St. Hazleton Pa. 18201

Tel 570-455-7541