NARRATIVE

“The deterioration of the world’s environment, primarily the result of human activities, has been accelerated by development. The pursuit of development through colonialism, industrialization, and urbanization has extracted a huge cost from the environment. [...] We cannot remediate ecological messes without reconsidering our purpose, analyzing the results of our past actions, and sensitizing our worldview. We must recast our research and praxis as a conversation with a world only partially known (Haraway, 1988), drawing upon detailed and nuanced localized knowledge to add essential substance and texture to this conversation.”

Karen Warren and Nisvan Erkal. Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature. Indiana University Press, 1997.

Phase 1 — Past

Forty-five years ago, the city of Des Moines discovered dangerous levels of trichloroethylene, a known carcinogen, in their drinking water. The contamination was traced to an industrial site, owned and operated by a manufacturing company called Dico, near Des Moines Water Works (DMWW) on the banks of the Raccoon river southwest of the city’s downtown. DMWW stopped collecting groundwater from the northwest portion of their gallery that was located just a few hundred feet from the toxic site. Eight years later, in 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) added the Dico site to the Superfund National Priorities List, and a series of legal proceedings and remedial efforts commenced.

To understand this site and its environmentally tragic past, we have investigated the history and present conditions to speculate about its future. Its past started much earlier than when Dico first used the land, but the company’s brief stint on the site had an immense impact.

Our objective in this phase is to understand the land before Dico’s occupation, and to get to the heart of the issues that have plagued the site and have affected its present and future. While no one can fully comprehend the immeasurable significance the toxins have had and will continue to have on this land and connected lands and waters, we believe that by studying and asking questions, one can gain an understanding of their role in the reparations that can be made.

What does the future hold for the Dico site and the hundreds of other toxic sites throughout the United States?

Will the cycle of industrialization, contamination, remediation, and redevelopment continue?

Or will this ecologically destructive habit be broken?

The answers to these questions are complex and not exhaustive. But, the act of questioning paves a way to more definitive paths of action and remediation.

Phase 2 — Present

The site currently holds the memories of the greater history of Dico and Titan Tires; it’s hard to see their presence on the Des Moines site with little more than chagrin. Wreaking havoc on the ecosystems present in these 23 acres and leaving the site while feuding with the EPA, the companies leave few memories and much disrepair. “Memory,” in fact, seems to hold more fondness for the past residents than is fitting. How do we justify “remembrance” of a place so tarnished with toxicity, in the literal and figurative sense? In a city brimming with life and future goals, it would seem easiest to forge forward without acknowledging the painful past.

The toxicity of the Dico site is clear: remediation is necessary and can no longer be ignored. Superfund sites and the toxicity left behind work against our communities, health, ecosystems, and the greater good. Cleaning them is beneficial to all but ensuring to not forget what has happened in that past is just as crucial. Forgetting about the toxicity we have let run rampant allows us to continue making the same mistakes over and over again. The remainder of this horrible history lets us learn from it to ensure it never happens again and we continue to foster healthy habitats for all living things not just humans. The Des Moines TCE Superfund site is on the list of places impacted by climate change. This context was created to help understand where and why we need to increase risk management of Superfund sites. According to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, climate change may make some natural disasters more frequent or more intense, which may damage NPL sites and potentially release contaminants.

In the preface of the following proposals for the future, we humbly admit that we cannot plan perfectly. That being said, we have been conscientious of everything written above and put great thought into these proposals. However, the city of Des Moines currently has a different vision for the site. Des Moines has proposed constructing a soccer stadium on the site. The Krause group has invested time and money to turn this point of Des Moines into an economic center ignoring the remediation of the site, opting to cover the site by capping it in concrete instead of remediating the toxins in the soil. We think there are better options for the site though we admit we do not know what will happen in 30 years. We believe it is not in our control to make future decisions but instead take care of the site and fix the toxicity until the time comes to use the land in a meaningful way.

Phase 3 — Future

There are thousands of toxic sites across the U.S. known as Superfund site. Climate change, extracted resources, exploitation of landscapes, and heavy industrialization in the country and around the globe have contributed to the surge of Superfund sites.

Superfund sites and the toxicity created can be detrimental to surrounding communities and public health. Remediating the toxic sites is beneficial to all, but ensuring to not forget what has happened in the past is just as crucial. Forgetting about the toxicity we have let run rampant allows for the same mistakes to be made over and over again.

Currently, the program sets up these sites for redevelopment, typically in ways that do not acknowledge past ecological grievances. Likewise, funding methods established in the 1980’s for remediating the Superfund sites have not been kept current, with funding depleting at an alarming rate. Time is another resource for remediation that has been mishandled, as it takes, on average, eight years from discovery of toxicity to remedial action. And, while important, human health is prioritized within the EPA to the point that the health of natural environments is undervalued in a government agency sworn to protect all ecological systems.

We propose a system supporting permanent remediation of toxic sites in the US focused on a healthy environment for the human and non human factors. After the site has been repaired/remediated/ healed, the site enters into a new classification of land and into a new era.

Like the proverbial lion and lamb, we see the coexistence of the human and non-human as the hopeful future. We envision a balance between decentering humans and allowing for equity and justice. Lessons from the past point us to a focus different from the current one held by the EPA; the whole of the land’s ecosystem must be acknowledged, appreciated, and cared for. The land will become a tangible form of redemption.

Yet without concrete plans, these hopes are simply speculative, essentially quixotic. What will make any of these sites truly a space for ecological repair and systemic change?

Through our proposal, we aim to provide examples that can inspire and be potentially implemented in other current and ‘deleted’ Superfund sites.