The Saginaw River Watershed is the largest in the state-22 counties in part or whole, a butterfly-shaped area covering 8,600 square miles. The Saginaw River itself is a turbid, 22-mile-long waterway plagued by sedimentation from four major tributaries-the Cass, Flint, Shiawassee and Tittabawassee-and waters fouled by years of industrial use.

But nobody has given up on the river or its bay. Efforts to address the industrial pollution, particularly a $28 million state and federal government natural resources damage suit settled by GM and other polluters, recently saw PCB hotspots removed and renewed community efforts to address other impaired uses of the water. Unfortunately, it's one step forward, two back-recent sampling has uncovered high levels of dioxin in the river sediment, the toxic legacy of the Dow Chemical Company.

One river use not affected until recently is commercial river traffic. The Saginaw River is dotted with stone docks, coal piles, petroleum storage tanks and grain silos. The river has always had a vibrant river trade. A strong environmental case can be made for shipping by water, including reduced wear on roads, fuel efficiency and avoidance of accidents. The rub, of course, is that in the absence of shore maintenance, silting inevitably calls for dredging, and the Upper Saginaw has not seen any silt removal for years. The second rub is that the silt or "spoils" contain the most recently discovered dioxin and must be put someplace after dredging.

Two years ago, the Saginaw County Public Works Commissioner, James Koski, became the champion of a new effort to find a spoils site. Supporting his efforts were Upper Saginaw shipping interests organized as the Upper Saginaw River Alliance. Of some 30 potential sites, three were identified as promising: an existing GM waste facility, a site some distance away from the river in Buena Vista Township, and 537 acres of farm fields in the floodplain of the river and adjacent to the Crow Island State Game Area.

It became very clear from the onset of public meetings that there would be an aggressive push for the farm fields.

Despite the presence of toxins in the spoils, opposition of nearby homeowners, the nearby Crow Island State Game Area and the opposition by the trustees of the host township of Zilwaukee, the Corps saw the site as the cheapest and easiest to accommodate 20 years of dredging.

On November 23, media reports celebrated that the new federal budget for 2005 included $2.8 million for Upper Saginaw River dredging. The next step is a DEQ public meeting and hearing to be held at Saginaw Valley State University to determine whether the Corps has properly defended the "environmental, social and economic benefits to the construction of a proposed Dredged Material Disposal Facility (DMDF) in order to get a 401(a) Water Quality Certification under the Clean Water Act of 1977."

Unquestionably, the Corps can meet the economic parameter. Corps documents argue that the environmental benefit to the area comes from the removal of toxics such as mercury and dioxins from the river bottom. According to the Corps: "This will reduce the amount of contaminated material subjected to movement by storm events and ship passage and decrease the amount of pollutants available to bottom-dwelling organisms." While correct, an additional sentence could easily be tagged on the end-'and increase availability to top dwelling organisms.'

The Corps proposes a wide-open pond of contaminated sediments subject to evaporation, next to Crow Island State Game Area, and available to migratory wildfowl, deer and other animal life, thus creating conditions for the next State Wildlife Consumption advisory. The lesson of the existing Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) at the mouth of the Saginaw River has been known for decades-very little toxic material is required to result in uptake by birds and animals.

Does the project improve the water? No. Water would be returned to the river at background levels, thus making no negative impact, but insuring there would be no improvement either. Some deal.

But it's the social leg of the three-legged certification process where the project credibility collapses.

Not mentioned in certification language, but admitted by the Corps in recent public meetings, is that the site would smell. Organics would inevitably be part of the slurry, and in warm summer months the rank odor of decaying matter would be part of the Upper Saginaw River environment.

Citizens Against Toxic Substances (CATS), a grassroots group, has formed to fight the project and has retained legal counsel. According to Sue Cameron of CATS, "We are committed to protecting wildlife, wetlands, the 100-year floodplain and quality of the human environment and will take necessary legal action to stop the Corps from 'dredging on the cheap.'"

What is tragic is that there is much to be said for the concept. Dredging the toxic sediments from the Upper Saginaw makes good economic and environmental sense-but not on the cheap. This project requires adequate attention to a secure site away from human habitation, wildlife and wildfowl; sediment removed with care to avoid re-suspension of toxics and covered at its destination quickly to avoid exposure. This project, if done right, could have tremendous benefit to the watershed. But that means a real investment, and a real commitment on the part of the Corps to do it right.

Not surprisingly, the party most responsible for the dioxin, the Dow Chemical Company, has not volunteered to discuss financing an appropriate location and handling of these spoils. But the Corps, Saginaw County and the state should have at least made an effort to bring Dow to the table.