COMMS 522 FSU Week 5, Topic 5.1 ~ Beaver Dam Scenario comms
Review this correspondence
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality State of Michigan Grand Rapids District Office State Office Building 6th Floor 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341 cc: John Engler Governor Russell J. Harding Director, Department of Environmental Quality Hollister Building, PO Box 30473, Lansing MI 48909-7973 December 17, 1997 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Ryan De Vries 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339 SUBJECT: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023-1 T11N, R10W, Sec. 20, Montcalm County Dear Mr. DeVries: It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond. A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A review of the Department’s files shows that no permits have been issued. Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream locations. We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted. The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all unauthorized activities at this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the strewn channel. All restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 1998. Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action. We anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions. Sincerely, David L. Price District Representative Land and Water Management Division December 19th, 1997 2088 Dagget Pierson, MI 49339 Mr. .David L. Price District Representative, Land and Water Management Division The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality State Office Building (6th Floor) 350 Ottawa NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2341 Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N, R10W, Sec 20; Montcalm County Dear Mr. Price: Your certified letter dated 12/17/97 has been handed to me to respond to. You sent out a great deal of carbon copies to a lot of people, but you neglected to include their addresses. You will, therefore, have to send them a copy of my response. First of all, Mr. Ryan De Vries is not the legal landowner and/or contractor at 2088 Dagget, Pierson, MichiganCI am the legal owner and a couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of constructing and maintaining two wood “debris” dams across the outlet stream of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their skillful use of natural building materials “debris.” I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam determination and/or their dam work ethic. As to your request, I do not think the beavers are aware that they first must fill out a dam permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity. My first dam question to you is: (1) are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or (2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said dam request? If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through the Freedom of Information Act I request completed copies of all those other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued. Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, annotated. I have several concerns. My first concern isCaren’t the beavers entitled to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute and are unable to pay for said representation, so the State will have to provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department’s dam concern that either one or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event causing flooding is proof that this is a natural occurrence which the department is required to protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone rather than harassing them and calling their dam names. If you want the stream “restored” to a dam free-flow condition, please contact the beavers. But if you are going to arrest them (they obviously did not pay any attention to your dam letter, being unable to read English), be sure they are read their Miranda rights first. As for me, I am not going to cause more flooding or dam debris jams by interfering with these dam builders. If you want to hurt these dam beavers, be aware I am sending a copy of your dam letter and this response to PETA. If your dam Department seriously finds all dams of this nature inherently hazardous and truly will not permit their existence in this State, I seriously hope you are not selectively enforcing this dam policy, or once again both I and the Spring Pond Beavers will scream prejudice! In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water flows downstream. They have more dam right than I do to live and enjoy Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection lives to its name, it should protect the natural resources (Beavers) and the environment (Beavers’ Dams). So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until 1/31/98? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them then. In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention a real environmental quality (health) problem in the area. It is the bears. Bears are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! (The bears are not careful where they dump!) Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam office via another government organizationCthe dam USPS. Maybe, someday, it will get there. Sincerely, Stephen L. Tvedten cc: PETA The Detroit News April 5, 1998 And it’s Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) employees who need some good public relations, blasted as they were in a Wall Street Journal editorial last Monday and mocked on NBC News last Wednesday evening. The truth is, however, that they got off easy. It all started simply enough. Last July, David Hughes noticed flooding on his property and traced it back to a dam on his neighbor’s stream. He complained to the DEQ on July 28, according to the agency. The agency responded with a letter to the offending land owner. The letter, from David Price, a local DEQ official, was blunt. The “construction and maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond” was “unauthorized.” The letter ordered Stephen Tvedten, the land owner, to “cease and desist” under penalty of “elevated enforcement action.” From there, things got very complicated. In nearly every contact with the now angry land owner and the press, the DEQ has changed its story. DEQ spokesman Ken Silfven said, “This (flooding) was a threat to health and safety. It’s what we are here for, especially when there is damage to someone else’s property.” But the first time the DEQ tried to do anything about this “threat” was five months after the complaint was filed. Why wait so long? Silfven didn’t have an answer. According to Tvedten, the DEQ official he talked to says the agency knew it was a beaver dam when it wrote the letter. But the original certified letter, so detailed it cites the specific sections of the law being violated, never mentions the word beaver. In addition, the DEQ letter states, “We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be permitted.” Beaver dams “cannot be permitted” by state law? Silfven told the press “It probably would have been a good idea to do the inspection before we sent the notice.” But according to a follow up letter from Price, “We had an opportunity to conduct a second field inspection of the dam on January 14, 1998.” Presumably when there is a second inspection, there’s got to be a first. In his second letter to the land owner, DEQ official Price said that people living on the property were “actively maintaining the dam in the absence of the beaver” and that was the problem, not the original construction of the dam. Why then did Price demand in his first letter that the dams be destroyed and that Tvedten “restore the stream to a free-flow condition”? Price didn’t return phone calls and the DEQ spokesman doesn’t know. The DEQ ultimately dropped the issue after six months. But the DEQ still won’t just say sorry: it keeps spinning the story and blaming others for the farce. It is a humorous situation, but it’s also scary. If the DEQ had decided to prosecute for the beavers’ unauthorized dam, the fine could have been $10,000 for every day the dam remained up after January 31. By now that’d be $ 630,000. SOURCE: Washington Post, 29 December 2000, page C10 NOTE: The ABeaver Episode@ is reproduced for instructional use only. Correspondence reconstructed from news accounts, cartoon from Washington Post. Edwin G. Sapp, Communication Studies, University of Maryland University College
(a real situation) and answer these questions:
- According to the documentation, how much did Stephen Tvedten owe in fines by April 5, 1998? Even if he were to belatedly comply with the order by the April date, did DEQ given him any way to avoid this bill?
- DEQ would not respond to Mr. Tvedten’s phone call, so did his letter of December 19, 1997 have any other purpose than to annoy David Price? (Please read the April 5, 1998 item from The Detroit News carefully before responding.)
- How could “debris” on the shore of a STREAM (not a river) cause additional damage in December in Michigan? If the dams are not rebuilt (the neighbors killed both beaver families), and thus are not holding back the stream, what would cause additional flooding on the lower landowner’s property?
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.