Our View: Homeowner Fairness Act needs some tweaking

Editorial: Midland Daily News 11/06/2005

As the Homeowner Fairness Act progresses through the state Senate, we think at least one objection brought up by a representative of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality deserves further consideration by lawmakers.

DEQ spokesman Robert McCann questioned a section of the bill that would allow a facility designation to remain attached to a property where the homeowner, liable party and state agree that contamination is present and should be cleaned up.

The DEQ has the power to give a property the "facility" designation if it believes it is contaminated. In the mid-Michigan area, the issue has come up because, knowing that levels of dioxin within the Tittabawassee River flood plain are higher than normal, the DEQ has deemed the area a facility. Once so designated, property owners must disclose the problem if they choose to sell their home or land. The label, though not so acutely defined, also exists for parts of Midland, where testing has shown that some areas have levels of dioxin higher than the state’s clean-up level.

 In April of last year, the DEQ in correspondence with Midland City Manager Karl Tomion wrote that: "Based on existing information ... data is already present to make the reasonable inference that large areas of Midland should also be identified a "facility"."

Midland lawmakers reacted, bringing about the Homeowners Fairness Act in an effort to protect properties from the stigmatic, blanket labeling because they happen to be in an area where a contaminant such as dioxin is expected, but is not certain, to be found. Instead, soil tests would have to be taken and contamination confirmed on a property before it could be designated a facility.

We suspect many homeowners support this aspect of the law. But we can understand the DEQ’s concern about the segment of the bill that allows the liable party at the table to determine if a facility designation should remain attached to a property.

"What’s the incentive for the liable party to agree to that," McCann asked, referring to the potential for a cleanup. "You don’t put the administration of the law into the hands of the person who broke it."

We agree. The decision on whether to keep the facility designation and proceed with a property clean up should rest with the homeowner and the state, not the liable party, whether it be The Dow Chemical Co. with the dioxin problem or some other company elsewhere in the state.

Lawmakers should fix this part of the legislation before deciding on whether it should become law.

©Midland Daily News 2005
 

For additional articles like this one, go to the Tittabawassee River Watch web site www.trwnews.net for complete coverage of the Tittabawassee River Dow Chemical dioxin contamination saga. . The Newspaper / Media page of our site contains an extensive archive of media articles dating back to January 2002. The source organization's web site link is listed to the right of the article, visit often for other news in our area. The Newspaper / Media page may be accessed by scrolling down to the bottom of the CONTENTS section and clicking on the Newspaper/Media link.