Ecologies of Repair: A Green New Deal Superstudio by Mae Murphy

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL CAROLAN ANNA PETER MAE TARA

HOFFMAN LOSEN MILLER MURPHY TILSTRA

ECOLOGIES OF REPAIR

Designers have a history of engaging with ecological issues through technological innovation, design solutionism and picturesque aesthetics. The design professions, and their longstanding techno-pastoral fantasies, appear incapable of operating outside of an essentially western and entrepreneurial imaginary, even in the face of the existential crises that currently confront it. Informed by the proposals set out in the Green New Deal, this studio seeks to approach this existential climate crisis through alternative practices of care, maintenance and repair.

of its agricultural and industrial transformation, and the prospects for its socially equitable and ecologically viable remediation. Rethinking normative design approaches to environmental issues in the process, the studio will situate the standard discourse of site and project in relation to broader historical, geopolitical, materialist, queer, and decolonial perspectives. We will critically reflect on the representational apparatus of architecture and explore how this might be repurposed to ends other than those of anxiety-assuaging fantasies and the production of purely economic value.

Focused on the historical, environmental and geological conditions of Iowa, we will explore the question of how to respond to the troubled legacy of the occupation and settlement of the land, the toxic consequences

The studio will adopt a multidisciplinary approach and our proposals will be focused on the notoriously toxic and water polluting site of the DICO plant in Des Moines, recently purchased for development by the city.

Water is life. Mní Wičóni. When the glaciers retreated, the land which is now the Midwest of the United States was left with a network of connected water bodies and fertile soil. The appeal of these resources brought settlers West and shaped the landscape into our familiar agrarian grid. The rivers, streams, and vast expanses of relatively flat land which ferried crops to markets and settlers to homesteads, now transport nitrates in fertilizer runoff to the Gulf of Mexico, and shale oil from the Northern Dakotas to the Pakota Oil Terminal. Any Green New Deal, or transformational climate policy, would need to seriously address this toxic transit system, finally heeding the call from Standing Rock: “Water is life. Mní Wičóni.” DSN S 546/602, A GREEN NEW DEAL SUPERSTUDIO DOUGLAS SPENCER, PHD. LIZA WALLING

First white settlement in Iowa within the Black Hawk Purchase

Sac and Fox Treaty of 1842; Removal of Sauk and Meskwaki tribes begins

Fort Des Moines No. 2 is constructed at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers

Des Moines is officially incorporated as a city

The first railway connecting Des Moines to the eastern United States is completed and contributes to rapid industrial expansion in the city

The Des Moines Foundry and Machine company is built for steel, gray iron, brass, and bronze production on the current location of the Dico site

Dairies Industry Company, renamed as Dico, purchases the foundry property and facilities

TCE (Trichloroethylene) is discovered in the Des Moines water supply and the Dico site is later determined to be the primary polluter

The EPA adds the Dico Plant to the National Priorities List as a Superfund site

Groundwater recovery and treatment system begins operations and pesticide contamination is discovered on the Dico site during its construction

Titan Tire International, Inc. acquires Dico

Remedial action addressing pesticide contamination in buildings and soils is completed. Interior building surfaces are cleaned and sealed, and an asphalt cap is placed over all soils with residual contamination. Routine maintenance, periodic sediment testing, and land-use restrictions are ordered

All production is stopped at the Dico plant

Buildings #4 and #5 are demolished by a contractor hired by Titan without notifying the EPA, resulting in contaminated materials discarded improperly

Fifth five-year Superfund Review finds remedial operations are successful in short-term, but recommends action for long-term protection

1842

1843

1851

1866

1920

1940

1975

1983

1987

1993

1994

1995

2007

2013

First settlements established near the confluence of what are now the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers

Wisconsinan Glacier retreats north creating the Des Moines Lobe

PHASE 1: PAST

1833

5000 BCE

~12,000 BCE

p.10

Conclusion of remediation is monitored by Post-Toxicity Trustees

Post-Toxicity Trustees oversee the ecosystem and community centered intervention on site

Similar processes occur throughout the United States on other Superfund sites

2030-2050

2040-2080

2021-????

Alternative soil remediation begins with bio-remediation and monitored natural attenuation

2022

Dico site is transferred to the Non-Extraction Zones list and the first Post-Toxicity Trustees are appointed

Toxic building components on site are demolished, but non-hazardous materials and structures remain

2022

2030-2040

Water treatment system at Dico site is updated, and walking path connects Gray’s Lake and downtown DSM

2021

Site remediation is monitored by EPA until toxicity levels are low enough to transfer the Dico site from the National Priorities List and to the Non-Extraction Zones list

Non-Extraction Zones program is created through Green New Deal policy

2021

2022-2040

PHASE 3: FUTURE

p.78

Discussion with Drake Law Dean Jerry Anderson, an expert on environmental law, about the EPA, toxic sites, and remediation

April 7

Creation of our section based on the relationships of water, toxicity, industrial agriculture, history, and political power with the Dico site

March 29

Viewing the film Natura Urbana: The Brachen of Berlin

Second visit to the Dico site

March 26

April 5

First visit to the Dico site

March 12

PHASE 2: PRESENT

p.36

Ecologies of repair Superfund project and research begins

Court settlement is decided with Titan/Dico responsible for $11.5 million in fines, and the city of Des Moines will take possession of the Dico property after the EPA demolishes and removes contaminated structures

2021

March 10

Krause Group proposes USL Championship League soccer stadium to be built on the Dico site along with other development projects in the area including a plaza, hotels, offices, residential buildings, and a brewery

2020

PHASE 1: THE PAST

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

INTRODUCTION 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

PHASE 1: PAST

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.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL SITE MAP

Interstate 235

Downtown Des Moines

Terrace Hill

Dico Superfund Site

DSM Water Works

Grays Lake

PHASE 1: PAST

Iowa State Capitol

East Village

Des Moines River

Raccoon River

North

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL HISTORY OF THE DICO SITE

Industrialization of Des Moines

Landscape Formation

Indigenous Displacement

2013

2007

1995

1994

1993

1987

1983

1975

1940

Monitoring the Site

1920

1866

1851

1843

1842

1833

5000 BCE

~12,000 BCE

Legal Battles

PHASE 1: PAST

Superfund Designation

Flooding

Establishment of Des Moines

Production History

2021

2020

Proposed Futures

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

Des Moines

LANDSCAPE FORMATION

1851

1843

1842

1833

5000 BCE

~12,000 BCE

Sometime between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago the Wisconsinan glacier retreated north creating the Des Moines Lobe landform region. The glacier shaped the present-day landscape of Iowa by leaving a fertile glacial till and carving the present course of the Raccoon river.

PHASE 1: PAST

INDIGENOUS DISPLACEMENT We begin this reference guide with an acknowledgment of the people who occupied these lands before their colonization, and the nations who were displaced by the expansion of the United States. The oldest known human settlement near the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers was established roughly 7,000 years ago. The Dico site is located on the ancestral lands and former territory of the Baxoje, or Ioway Nation. In 1842, the United States obtained the land that includes present-day Des Moines through a treaty with the Sauk and Meskwaki nations. Fort Des Moines No. 2, a military fort, was established at the confluence of the Des Moines and Raccoon Rivers to oversee the removal of the Sauk and Meskwaki nations between 1843 and 1845. This fort was soon after incorporated as the city of Des Moines and became the state capitol in 1857. We wish to recognize our obligations to this land and to the people who took care of it, as well as to the 17,000 Native people who live in Iowa today.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL INDIGENOUS DISPLACEMENT

Fort Des Moines 1844

The Sac and Fox Treaty of 1842

“Proceeding we crossed the Des Moines at the junction and Capt Allen appeared to consider the point between the two streams to be well adapted for a military position.”

1851

1843

1842

1833

5000 BCE

~12,000 BCE

Agent John Beach, 1842

PHASE 1: PAST

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

Des Moines Plan, 1854

ESTABLISHMENT OF DES MOINES

1920

1866

1851

1843

Fort Des Moines was officially incorporated as a city in 1851, and just five years later, the seat of the state government was moved to Des Moines from Iowa City because of its central location. The first railroad connecting Des Moines to eastern US cities was completed in 1866, and soon after, several other important rail lines were completed that connected the state to cities and industry on both coasts. The railroads created an industrial corridor southwest of Downtown Des Moines isolated by the Raccoon River to the south, in which the present-day Dico site is located.

PHASE 1: PAST ARRIVAL OF THE RAILROAD

Railroad Map of Iowa, 1881

C. & N. W. Depot, Des Moines, 1888-1926

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL INDUSTRIALIZATION OF DES MOINES

Des Moines Plan, 1899

1940

1920

1866

Des Moines, 1914

PHASE 1: PAST

“As the city developed, the commercial center moved north to Court, Walnut, and Locust streets. The former fort area became a warehousing and industrial area. The Des Moines Valley Railroad crossed the Des Moines River along Market Street in 1866, and the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad tracks were built a little farther to the south by 1880. Because the area was low and subject to flooding, fill had been brought in earlier to raise the elevation, so the mid19th-century surface lay underneath a protective layer of fill.” Kathryn Gourley, 2005

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

1920

1975

1940

1920

1866

CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUNDRY

PHASE 1: PAST

Dico Site, Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, 1956

1946

PRODUCTION HISTORY In 1920, the Des Moines Foundry and Machine company constructed a foundry for steel, gray iron, brass, and bronze production on the current location of the Dico site. In the 1940s, Dairies Industry Company, later renamed as Dico, purchased the foundry property and facilities for their own production. From the 1940s until 1995, the site and facilities were used to produce a variety of commodities including freezers, ice cream machines, steel wheels, and pesticides.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

1978

1981

Preliminary Site Assessment Site Sketch, 1981

SUPERFUND DESIGNATION

1995

1994

1993

1987

1983

1975

1940

In 1975, TCE (Trichloroethylene) was discovered in the Des Moines water supply, and the Dico site was later determined to be the primary polluter due to their production processes involved TCE as a decreaser. After further investigation, the EPA added the Dico facilities and surrounding land to National Priorities List as a Superfund site in 1983. A remedial investigation followed, and in 1987, the groundwater recovery and treatment system began its operations, but during its construction, pesticide contamination was discovered on the site. This resulted in further remedial efforts of capping and sealing to minimize harm to public health.

PHASE 1: PAST

1985

1993

Water treatment system, March 2021

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL SPECIAL FLOOD EDITION

Monday's Forecast July 12, 1993: Mostly sunny, high in the low ous, ngnt northerly winds.

HIGH

Sunrise 5:43 a.m., sunset 8:41 p.m.

LOW

233

1993

Price 35 cents

Des Moines, Iowa July 12, 1993

Col OT u

Downtown may lack electricity for a week I

More than 1,000

',!

residents waited for water Sunday at the

Hy-Ve-

Volunteers fight to save W.D.M. water By KEN FUSON

and

.....

.!..-

fcIM

GARY

-i-

"'Vf'le

T1nin.iiZi

Or! I

Cis.,

Moines history.

FLOOD Please

turn

Fort Des Moines, Flood of 1851

By DAVE BROWN

Reoister Staff Writer

Where is the water not safe to drink? Disaster officials say water in these communities is contaminat-

Central Iowa's lifeline of water and electricity may be cut off for a week in the wake of the worst natural disaster in Des

Hy-Ve-

FANDELTllE REGISTER

Questions, answers on surviving flood crisis

JOHN CARLSON

"We really don't need to panic," said Jack Porter, a member of the Des Moines City Council. "There will be adequate drinking water coming into the community." Here were the major developments Sunday in what Gov. Terry Branstad described as "the worst flood in the history of the state of Iowa": Truckloads of water safe for drinking and other purposes, such as washing, were hauled to central Iowa. Distribution centers were estabe Food Stores and lished at 29 stores operated by Dahl's Food Mart, Casey's General Stores. Residents were asked to bring their own containers. L.D. McMullen, Des Moines Water Works manager, said he hopes water service can be restored in seven days, but that water in the city water pipe system won't be fit to drink until a few weeks after that. Des Moines officials asked all businesses to stay closed today. "The city of Des Moines is still in a disaster mode," said Mayor John "Pat" Dorrian. But state employees were told to report to work today. They were told to dress casually, however, and bring their own water. The city of Des Moines had little water to fight fires. Des Moines hospitals reported problems in securing enough clean water for drinking and other hospital uses, such as sterilization, but those problems abated as the day progressed. The U.S. Department of Defense said it would supply 40 water purification systems for the Des Moines area. Every hospital requested one. Evacuations continued in central Iowa as the pressure of historic

on Fleur Drive. Park and recreation employees helped distribute two gallons to each person.

As many as 300,000 residents of Des Moines and surrounding commirnities in Polk County were warned not to drink or use water after record floods along the Raccoon River Saturday night swamped the Des Moines Water Works. An estimated 30,000 to 35,000 customers of Midwest Power remained without electricity Sunday. Officials of both utilities predicted service would be disrupted for some of those customers for a week. States of emergency remained in effect Sunday in Des Moines and West Des Moines as officials urged residents to remain calm.

ed: Des Moines, Clive, Urbandale, Windsor Heights, Waukee, Johnston, Berwick, Norwalk, Cumming, Lakewood, Saylor Township, Polk City Rural Water Association and the Warren County Rural Water Association.

Where is the water safe? Water supplies are safe to drink in these communities: Altoona, Anke-nBondurant, Grimes, Runnells, West Des Moines, rural Southeast Polk, Adel, Carlisle, Colfax, Perry, Mitchellville, Indianola, Polk City and Pleasant

Amy Raskey,

left, and Kimberly Starmer celebrate after securing drinking water.

To our readers The Des Moines Register was without power or water on Sunday, precluding production of the newspaper at our downtown Des Moines site. e This edition was assembled by our news staff at the University Park Holiday Inn in West Des Moines, and at The in It was printed at the Iowa City The limited press run of 100,000 copies is being distributed in the greater Des Moines area, and in Ankeny, Indianola and Ames. At present, we are unable to distribute copies of the paper elsewhere in the state. We will add additional subscribers as becomes possible during the week. Due to the altering of normal distribution patterns, along with flood conditions, delivery er rors are possible witfiin this limited area. However, twice the normal number of single copies of The Register will be made available through rack sales in the Des Moines metro area. eight-pag-

Record-Heral-

Press-Citize-

GARY

FAXDELTllE Register

and advertisers Advertising We are making efforts to resume norma operations of the Register's advertising department as soon as possible. Our representatives are attempting to contact advertisers who have scheduled business with the paper tliis week.

Telephones Telephones serving the Metro Circulation Department, the Customer Service Center, Office Pay and the Classified Advertising Department were not operating at press time. In an emergency, The Register can be reached through the general number, 284(000.

Employees Until further notice, only those downtown employees requested to come to work at The Register should do so.

Iiill.

How long will the power be out? Des Moines Mayor John "Pat" Dorrian said power may not be re-

stored for as long as a week. Where can I go for emergency

shelter?

The American Red Cross is sheltering people at Western Hills Elementary School, 600 39th St., West Des Moines. Residents needing Red Cross assistance should call (515) The number is frequently

243-405-

busy.

Where can

find information

about what highways and roads are closed? Call the Iowa Department of Public Safety road hot line: (515)

288-104- 7.

Where can I find out about federal disaster assistance?

Call the Federal Emergency Management Agency at (800) How can I help flood victims? 462-902-

ANSWERS Please

Page 2A

turn to Page

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Dico Site, Flood of 1993

FLOODING

2013

2007

1995

1994

1993

1987

Flooding has been a hazard to populations of Des Moines since the city’s establishment. A levee was constructed in the 1960s to protect the downtown area, including the Dico site, from major flood damage. The flood of 1993, however, showed that the levee could not withstand a 100-year flood, which remains an important issue for Des Moines as climate change continues to increase the frequency and severity of flooding.

PHASE 1: PAST

1995

106(b) CERCLA- dollar amounts in policies on settlements of penalty claims. Two takes on 106(b): https://elr.info/sites/ default/files/articles/23.10424.htm https://elr.info/sites/default/files articles/22.10529.htm 28 USC 1500 - The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States. 42 USC 9607 (b) - There shall be no liability under subsection (a) of this section for a person otherwise liable who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance and the damages resulting therefrom were caused solely by— an act of God; an act of war; an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of the defendant, or than one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship, existing directly or indirectly, with the defendant (except where the sole contractual arrangement arises from a published tariff and acceptance for carriage by a common carrier by rail), if the defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (a) he exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance concerned, taking into consideration the characteristics of such hazardous substance, in light of all relevant facts and circumstances, and (b) he took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions; or any combination of the foregoing paragraphs. 42 USC 9606 (b) (2) (A) - Any person who receives and complies with the terms of any order issued under subsection (a) may, within 60 days after completion of the required action, petition the President for reimbursement from the Fund for the reasonable costs of such action, plus interest. Any interest payable under this paragraph shall accrue on the amounts expended from the date of expenditure at the same rate as specified for interest on investments of the Hazardous Substance Superfund established under subchapter A of chapter 98 of title 26. 42 USC 9606 (b) (2) (C) 9606 - If the President refuses to grant all or part of a petition made under this paragraph, the petitioner may within 30 days of receipt of such refusal file an action against the President in the appropriate United States district court seeking reimbursement from the Fund. 5th Amendment – Due Process and Takings Clauses - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Tucker Act - Specifically, the Tucker Act permits three kinds of claims against the government: (1) contractual claims, (2) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff seeks the return of money paid to the government and (3) noncontractual claims where the plaintiff asserts that he is entitled to payment by the government.

LEGAL BATTLES

Patterson, Kenneth. “2020 Revised Penalty Matrix for CERCLA:.::~~106(b)(1) Civil Penalty Policy.” epa.gov, EPA, 23 Jan. 2020. “28 U.S. Code § 1500 - Pendency of claims in other courts.” Legal

Legal battles between Dico/Titan and the EPA have endured over the past three decades. Dico has disputed full responsibility for the groundwater contamination because of other proximate sites including the Tuttle Street Landfill and the old rail yard that may have contributed to the contamination. In 2007, there was a legal dispute between the EPA and Dico after the company demolished two contaminated buildings on the site without notifying the EPA. In February 2021, a legal settlement was completed that requires Dico to pay $11.5 million in fines. The property will also be donated to the city of Des Moines after the EPA demolishes the contaminated site buildings.

Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1992. “42 U.S. Code § 9607 - Liability.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1992. “42 U.S. Code § 9606 - Abatement actions.” Legal Information

Institute, Cornell Law School, 1992. “Fifth Amendment.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, 1992.

2013

2007

1995

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

PHASE 1: PAST

2018

MONITORING THE SITE

2020

Since 1993, the EPA had conducted fiveyear reviews of the Dico site to monitor the integrity of the water treatment system, maintenance of the asphalt cap and seals, conduct soil testing, and analyze the groundwater samples. In 2018, the sixth five-year review was completed along with an a preliminary monitored natural attenuation evaluation report and a building decommissioning assessment.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL “It’s just incredibly important visually to get those buildings down, and then we can talk about what the future development would be.”

2013

Scott Sanders, City Manager, 2020

PHASE 1: PAST

DEVELOPMENT

2021

What's included in Krause's plan for a downtown Des Moines soccer stadium? Kim Norvell Des Moines Register Published 2:35 p.m. CT Feb. 9, 2021

Updated 2:37 p.m. CT Feb. 9, 2021

What began as a convenience store magnate's dream of a soccer stadium has become a $550 million plan to transform a broad swath of downtown Des Moines' west side. Let's break down what we know about the plan for the development, which would cover 71 acres across two neighborhoods.

How did this get started? Kyle Krause, CEO of Krause Group, owner of the Kum & Go chain and the Des Moines Menace soccer team, has wanted to bring a high-level professional soccer franchise to Iowa for more than 15 years. In 2019, the USL Championship league said it was looking to expand to a new city that could provide a dedicated soccer stadium for its new team to play in. If the stadium is built, the Des Moines Menace will move from the fourth to the second tier of U.S. professional soccer. USL Championship teams are often affiliated with Major League Soccer clubs — equivalent to the Iowa Cubs' status as the top-level minor league affiliate of Major League Baseball's Chicago Cubs. ►More: Inside the passionate, yearslong effort to bring professional soccer to Des Moines ►More: 4 metro Des Moines projects, including hockey and soccer venues, to compete for state funding As Krause+, Krause Group's commercial real estate arm, began planning for the stadium, it became clear that to be successful, it couldn't be surrounded by vast parking lots. Instead, plans call for a multi-use district that will attract visitors year-round.

2021

2020

PROPOSED FUTURES Recently, several proposals have been considered for the future of the site including a new Des Moines police headquarters and a stadium shared by Drake University and the Des Moines School District. The current proposal for the future of the site, led by the Krause Group, involves demolishing the existing buildings, and constructing a USL Championship league soccer stadium along with three practice fields. Krause Group and two other firms are in the process of developing most of the site’s surrounding land that was once a part of Des Moines’ industrial corridor.

PHASE 2: THE PRESENT 35

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

INTRODUCTION 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

PHASE 2: PRESENT

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.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

March 12

SUPERFUND SITES IN THE US

March 10

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

March 12

TOXIC SITES IN DES MOINES, IA

March 10

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

PHASE 2: PRESENT

March 12

March 10

DICO SITE MAP 43

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

March 26

March 12

March 10

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

GPS map of the group’s site visits

PHASE 2: PRESENT

March 29

March 26

March 12

The group works on collaged photographs of the site Above: collaged facade images

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL SUPERFUND COLLAGE

April 5

March 29

March 26

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL IOWA TOXICITY COLLAGE

April 5

March 29

March 26

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL TERRACE HILL & POLITICS COLLAGE

April 5

March 29

March 26

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL NATURA URBANA FEEDBACK EMAIL Hi! I am Carolan and my group studio just finished watching Natura Urbana so we are sending our feedback! We liked hearing about the native and non-native species, especially so neutral of a take on the presence of non-native species. We are so used to hearing non-native plants characterized in a negative light, even with the term ‘invasive.’ In terms of this, we were curious and wanted to hear more about the way the native and non-native species interact in these spaces. Additionally, are native species still able to thrive in these regions with so many other plants introduced? We loved the idea of comparing the plants historically coming into Germany to the way people migrated to Germany. It was a take on plants spreading that we hadn’t considered before. A strong point of the entire documentary were the interviews with the urban ecologists and other experts who have investigated and researched the Brachen. It’s clear that many people in Berlin care about these spaces, and we were curious to hear more from the residents in Berlin who engage with these spaces. Another point we were wondering about is the situation regarding homelessness in Berlin and if there are people who occupy the Brachen as a living space. Getting rid of some of the ruderal spaces for plants might also remove living areas for these people. We were wondering if this population was considered in your research, and if so, could you expound on their interaction with the plants and the sites? Overall, we found the documentary really interesting and insightful. The ideas it brought forward were engaging, and the cinematography was executed beautifully. From beginning to end we found ourselves intrigued by the Brachen and its urban ecology, as it was something new to all of us. It gave us some useful perspectives for our own project, in which we are focusing on an old toxic industrial site in Des Moines, Iowa. The documentary is definitely something we will recommend to others to go and watch! Thank you for giving us access to this film. Have a great day! Best, Carolan

April 7

April 5

March 29

PHASE 2: PRESENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

PAMELA HOUSTON, EPA Email correspondence with Pamela Houston, community involvement coordinator, and the remedial project manager for the EPA. Were there other options that were considered and not pursued for the remediation of the site? There were multiple remedial options considered for the various cleanup remedies that were ultimately selected at the site. You can find those on the Site’s Profile Page [on the EPA website.] Will the city have to continue monitoring the cap and soil toxicity levels forever? The city will have to monitor and perform maintenance of the protective cap as long as the contaminated soils remain on site. Will any of the toxins eventually fade

or deteriorate over time? Some of the contaminants in the soil may breakdown and deteriorate over time; others are not expected to deteriorate over time. The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the groundwater will eventually dissipate over time (e.g. over many decades) due to the operation of the groundwater treatment system. Has the EPA approved any construction regarding the soccer stadium development? The EPA has not approved any actual construction plans regarding the soccer stadium, but we have been in discussions with the developer and will be working with them to ensure the stadium construction will not impact the site remedy or create unacceptable exposure pathways to contaminants that remain on site.

PHASE 2: PRESENT

What is needed to remove this site from the superfund list? This site will always remain a Superfund site because contaminants remain at the site at levels that require institutional controls. ICs are implemented at sites where the site cannot support unlimited use and unrestricted exposures. If you are referring to the possibility of the site being deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL), it is possible that one or more operable units will be eligible for deletion from the NPL in the future. With the existing cap, is the site considered safe for humans/animals?

Have Dico and Titan paid their fines? Dico/Titan and the United States have entered into a settlement to resolve judgments owed to the United States. They are in compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree and have made the first payment. Do you have a map that clearly notes the OU areas? The operable units are not identified by area. They are identified by type of contaminant and/or the impacted media. Is it safe and/or possible to remove the asphalt cap? The asphalt cap is part of

the

April 7

The existing cap prevents exposures to the contaminated soils. There is a potential for unacceptable human exposures to deteriorated building surfaces and there is a potential risk to some ecological receptors to the

sediments within the south pond, which is why EPA is performing additional cleanup work at the site in the near future.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

protective remedy to prevent direct contact to contaminated soils at the site. It is possible to remove portions of the cap to allow for development, such as building footers. However, the removed soil would need to be disposed of properly and the protective cap would have to be repaired around the installed structure. It is also possible to enhance the protectiveness of the asphalt cap by bringing in fill to place on top of the asphalt that would allow for a grassy surface to be part of the redevelopment. Is monitored natural attenuation for the site still being considered? Would that involve removing the cap? At this point in time, monitored natural attenuation is not being considered at the site. Why is more source characterization still required? If the EPA still doesn’t

understand what’s happening on the site, why are development plans allowed to begin? There are several reasons why additional site characterization may be conducted at a site after the implementation of a remedy. However, at this site, additional site characterization may be necessary to address the proposed change in use of the property. The original remedies were selected based on potential exposures associated with continued industrial use. If there is a change in the type of use at a Superfund site, it is possible that additional site characterization would be necessary to ensure that the new use would not result in an unacceptable exposure. Additional source characterization could also take place if one wanted to propose a change to the remedy that may allow for a quicker or more effective cleanup, or if the acceptable exposure levels to a particular contaminant changed over time.

PHASE 2: PRESENT

“Equivalence of ecological habitat can’t be measured in acres; ecosystems aren’t tidily fungible”

April 7

Elizabeth Dodd, Mitigations (Places Magazine)

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

April 7

PHASE 2: PRESENT PROCESS WORK - THOUGHTS

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

JERRY ANDERSON, DEAN OF Interview conducted on April 7, 2021, with Jerry Anderson, Esq, the Dean of Law at Drake University. What are the benefits of using capping as opposed to other methods of remediation? The EPA is bound by a set of criteria they have to use, the problem being that the criteria are pretty much in conflict because Congress wrote it they wanted to please everybody and so they just threw everything in there. So for example, they have a criterion that they are supposed to favor permanent remedies rather than temporary ones, so you would think that the choices would be to just cap it or do you actually excavate all the contaminated soil and then you can either incinerate it or you can take it to a RCRA landfill, a designated hazardous waste landfill, that’s going to be properly contained

presumably forever so that’s basically the choices. The permanent one obviously is incinerating it or taking it RCRA landfill and so one of the criteria is that they are supposed to favor permanent remedies but at the same time those remedies have risks associated with them. You would either have to transport all that contaminated soil off site to either an approved RCRA facility or an incinerator and that might be in Arkansas so you would have all this contaminated soil that there’s dangers of release of fumes as your digging, risk to the workers, you have risks in transportation if there’s a wreck or something and that stuff gets spread all over the highway, and then you have the risk at the other end, if it’s an incinerator you might have air pollution. There’s another criterion that says the EPA’s supposed to disfavor remedies that involve off site transportation. They are directly

PHASE 2: PRESENT

DRAKE LAW so that nobody’s going to be drinking it. If you can get the plume controlled so that it’s not going to hit the raccoon river, then those exposure pathways are taken care of and then you’ve got a cap so that nobody’s going to be eating the soil or getting it on their shoes and tracking it in their house. You maintain the cap, then you’ve got the, all the exposure pathways controlled problem is you have to do that forever. It’s going to take a long time, so that’s why Congress said, well, we want permanent remedies, but at the same time those are the countervailing considerations, I think. Then it has to be cost-effective as well, and building an incinerator onsite is hugely expensive as well and excavating all that soil is hugely expensive. So cost I’m sure is a major factor. So the word cost-effective means that it’s not just the cheapest remedy, but it’s the one that you’re not going to spend more money if it’s not going to

April 7

April 5

in conflict. Then you say okay well then we’ll just build an incinerator right on site and just incinerate it right on site well that costs a lot of money and the neighborhood’s not going to be real thrilled about having this new incinerator of hazardous waste right downtown. They have to weigh all those factors and so the capping of the site coupled with groundwater extraction and treatment which is really expensive, it’s a Cadillac remedy. It’s gone on for how many years, like 4035 years, and that costs a lot of money. What you are looking at are where are the risks? And you’ve got exposure risk from groundwater contamination, from surface water contamination, from surface soil contamination. So people eating the soil or explosions, and fire risk, all those sorts of exposure pathways that you can think of if you’ve got those controlled so that you’ve got the ground of water being sucked up

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

be any more effective than the remedy that you’ve chosen to go with. So why would we spend more money on an incinerator and excavation, if we can control the same risks, if we can get to the same risk level by just doing a cap? Are there ways to remediate the site that eliminate the toxins instead of isolating them? There is Bioremediation and Chemical Oxidation, are those used very often? No. And that’s another criteria and I didn’t mention was the Congress also suggested that they favor innovative techniques that are like that, so again that the Congress wanted everything in there, right? Bio-remediation works, I think, well for hydrocarbon sites but it’s probable and again, I’m not a total expert on TCE, but I’m guessing that that’s not doesn’t work for TCE. I haven’t looked into it, but one thing that is the problem is that they chose

the remedy for this site back in 1983. I mean, they divided it into four different operable units, which one is ground water, then there’s a couple of soil ones, then there was the buildings on the site, which had the fertilizer and stuff in it that they got rid of. But it’s a long time ago, every five years, they have to revisit, they have to do a fiveyear review of the site so it’s possible that they could revisit if there was new, innovative technology that they thought might actually work, then they could revisit their decision and decide to do something different. I know they did a re evaluation of the groundwater stripping recently. I didn’t pull that up to see exactly what they decided on that, but you know, I think they were coming to the end of the useful life of the groundwater stripping equipment so they had to figure out if they wanted to keep doing it, or if they wanted to do something else. It is possible that they

PHASE 2: PRESENT

could reevaluate it. And I just don’t know if any of those bio remediation things would work on a TCE. Who determines whether the EPA’s decision was capricious and arbitrary? Is there a checking body for the EPA? No, someone would have to take it to court and challenge it. So you would have to show that there was another remedy that was going to be more effective that did not cost more than the one that they chose and that they ignored a remedy that would be clearly better based on the criteria that they have to follow. So that would take a court action. Are there any case studies or examples you know of that provide different outcomes of toxic sites besides development?

April 7

April 5

Yeah, one of the coolest ones in

Denver, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, you know, that was a munitions, I don’t know if they were making munitions there or if it was just where they tested them but it was totally contaminated. In the suburbs of Denver, huge contamination over a huge acreage, but they turned it into basically a wildlife refuge and it has been remarkable in terms of the wildlife that are there. Apparently the contaminants are such that they’re not affecting the wildlife, but what would be problematic for humans or whatever. So that’s an example I would say but you know, the parking lot thing is actually not too bad. We’ve had some like apartment buildings built on manufactured gas plants in Iowa, and that’s bad because you get the fumes up through the floors, you don’t want people living there. You don’t want PE kids playing there, but a parking lot for a soccer stadium is actually not too bad because

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

the people are going to be there a short period of time. They’re going to just get out of their cars and walk into the stadium. And so they’re not going to be there very long. If you think that the whatever fumes or whatever it might be that is causing the problem, there’s not going to be kids eating the dirt. So it’s not like an apartment complex where if you have a crack in the asphalt, you’re going to have kids out there playing all the time and you know, so that’s always the pathway that you’re worried about. So it may actually not be that bad of a use for it. What were the motivations behind creating the National Priorities list? Well, there were 20,000, at the time super fund was passed, which was 1980. There are 20,000 or more of these sites around the country and EPA could not possibly respond to all of them at the same time. They had to have a way of

figuring out which ones were the most dangerous so they score them based on a preliminary investigation and then they score them based basically on the same exposure criteria that I talked about. You know, so if it’s affecting groundwater, is it a groundwater that people are drinking? And if so, how many people are drinking? You know, so you get to those questions, you can give that a score of five, or you give it a score of one, if it’s not affecting groundwater zero. And so you add all those up and you can tell which sites, at least a rough estimate of the sites that are the most dangerous that EPA needs to prioritize first. So Dico was one of those, obviously nearest city affecting groundwater, affecting surface water, dangerous chemical, you know? So it had a lot of the criteria that you would look for. Why is Dico still submitting appeals?

PHASE 2: PRESENT

Does it help them in any way? Well, It’s costing them a huge amount of money, you know, so millions of dollars. And I didn’t see that to see exactly what it was based on, but if they can get the court to basically say they’re done or at least limit the responses that they have to do, it’s worth millions and millions of dollars. So I imagine that’s what they’re trying to do. To what extent is the EPA an environmental protection agency as opposed to a public health protection agency?

April 7

April 5

Yeah, you could write a book on that. Definitely. I think that’s a very perceptive comment because when we look at the clean air act, for example it says that EPA is supposed to set air quality standards at a level that protects human health and the environment. Then they’re supposed to set secondary

air quality standards to protect public welfare, which includes wildlife and vegetation and so on. But everything that the EPA does in the clean air act is centered on human health. They don’t ever try to determine how much air pollution a Fox handle or, you know, an Eagle handle or whatever. So it is true, but in their defense, I think what they’re thinking is that we’re kind of the most sensitive of all in a way, right. So if we’re going to protect people from getting eye irritation from a sulfur dioxide, for example, then that’s probably going to protect the Eagle as well. It is sort of like we know the most about human health so if we can set the standard to protect human health is probably going to be good enough to protect the Oak tree or whatever. Although, you know, there’s definitely exceptions to that. There has been the endangered species act obviously is one that is focused solely on wildlife and

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

there are other examples like that but a lot of times you’re right. Fish kills, you know, we’re worried about the clean water access I mean, we want to make our waters fishable, swimmable. It doesn’t say anything about protecting the minnows or whatever. It’s about whether humans can fish, right. It’s instead of what’s good for the mollusk it’s really what are the things that we like to catch and make sure that we can still do that, which obviously you have to protect the whole ecosystem to make it fishable, but it is really focused on that human health criteria. So I would say you’re right. You know, largely correct that in a lot of ways and that’s the way the laws are written, so Congress has focused more on human health and on other aspects of environmental protection. For sure. What are your thoughts on the Green New Deal policy proposal? And with

your experience what do you think is the future of property within the GND? That’s another great question. I know, I think you also asked whether the green new deal might have anything to do with superfund, which I don’t think so. I haven’t seen anything that indicates that it really is about hazardous waste, but I think it’s much more about fundamentally changing the way that we prioritize things. When we had in the 1950s Eisenhower spend bazillions of dollars in today’s money on creating the interstate highway system that was to facilitate the car dependent lifestyles that we have. I mean, we spent money to basically subsidize the oil and gas industry so that we could make that work because it’s not going to do any good to drive and to buy a car and buy gas if you can’t drive to Los Angeles. So the government and all of us still pay millions and millions of billions

PHASE 2: PRESENT

locked into a culture that requires them to drive everywhere so the EPA really can’t do anything. The administrator of the EPA at one point said for Los Angeles to come to compliance with the clean air act, people would just have to stop driving completely. They have no power to make people do that. This is really a long time coming that we need to recognize that we need to create a different, a whole different way of living with high speed rail, you know, and with better transportation options with shifting over, to doing the same sort of investment to shift this over to more of an solar wind structure of our grid and then what we’ve created through the old investments that we’ve made, if that makes sense. It will create jobs, lots of jobs, but instead of the jobs where somebody is out there on the highway, holding the stop sign, it’s going to be somebody that’s building wind turbines or solar panels

April 7

April 5

of dollars a year to maintain all those highways so that we can facilitate the oil and gas industries, our reliance on oil and gas. So the idea that we’re going to spend billions of dollars to get off of that dependence and shift to a more sustainable lifestyle makes total sense to me, and it doesn’t do any good to say, well, why should the public pay for this? Because we have been paying for this other lifestyle and this other set of extractive industries for many, many, many years that could not exist right? I mean, we couldn’t have the automobile lifestyles that we have. So things like the clean air act are really totally unable to deal with the problems that we have today. And they’ve actually always been unable to deal with. I mean, Los Angeles has a pollution problem going back to the 1960s that passing the clean air act in 1970, did nothing to help. I mean, you can’t just mandate clean air. People are

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

or whatever. But, um, you know, it’s just going to be difficult because we’re so locked into the old structure that I don’t know how we can abandon that until, you know, it would’ve been, we’re probably never going to be able to get away from the upkeep that’s required of those highways. But anyway. What is something you think could change or should change regarding how the government approaches Superfund sites? Are they doing enough with them right now in the EPA? Yeah. I mean, we had the super fund tax that was funding the super fund for a long time that Congress allowed to expire and then never renewed. That is probably the biggest issue is the lack of funding. So for the Dico site, they rely on dico to basically fund it as they should. For a lot of sites, like if Dico were to go out of business or just be insolvent then they would have to rely

on the super fund and the super fund just doesn’t have enough funds in it to really do much with very many sites across the country. So my thought all along is that the superfund put a tax on chemical fees and things like that. That seemed to me a pretty good kind of closing the loop sort of idea that if you’re looking for how to spread the cost of this among people today and sort of dis-incentivize them to use more chemicals and that kind of thing, then taxing chemicals and Petrochemicals. That kind of thing is probably a good idea to fund this. I think there could be a lot more, you know, we know there’s billions and billions of dollars in oil and gas industry, for example, that if you just tax that and got that money, you could do so much more with remediation and wouldn’t have to worry as much about if they choose a remedy that’s too costly, then Dico’s gonna sue them, right? And say, you

PHASE 2: PRESENT

shouldn’t have chosen that you should have chosen. This one is just as good then you’re in court for 10 years arguing about it and nothing gets done, but if you could take the super fund and just go in and do it, then you can just get it done and you don’t have to worry about whether Dico likes it or not. So the Superfund sites that I was involved in, I did a lot of them when I was a young lawyer and they would spend years and years. It was eight years. It was the typical time period from site

discovery to even starting to think about remediation because people, it was just so much fighting about things that the transaction costs were just huge. And so you could cut through all that. If you had a big enough fund where the EPA could say, we’re going to get in there and we’re going to start doing stuff right now. I think that’d be better, but yeah that’s another whole book you could write on how to fix the super fund system.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL DISTANCING STUDIO

Class in person be like... site visit edition.

Microsoft Teams showing off our best faces.

PHASE 2: PRESENT

“In the Midwest, the paradox of postindustrial ruins lies most evidently in the collective desire to both remember and forget them, for it represents both prosperity and hardship for the region. The ambiguity of post-industrialism gives validity to both memory and anti-memory, however, by destroying signs of past success we may also be destroying potential for future success.” Abbey Slinker, The Contemporary Role of Post-Industrial Ruins in the Midwest

PHASE 3: THE FUTURE 77

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

INTRODUCTION 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

PHASE 3: FUTURE

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.

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL COLLAGED FUTURE

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

LEGAL

“GRAVE THREAT”

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

FORMALLY A NOID

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

EXPLOITED REMEDIAL ACTION

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

MOVEMENT

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

WATER CRISIS

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

“RIVERS CONNECT US”

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

HUMAN HEALTH

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

NOTICE OF INTENT TO MOVE

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

CONTROLLED AND TOLERANT

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

“RECOMMENDATIONS”

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

ACCOUNTABILITY

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

OPERATE AND MAINTAIN

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

SURVIVAL

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

“The Anthropocene calls to us to recognize that we are all participants in the ‘becoming world,’ where everything is interconnected and learning happens in a stumbling, trial and error sort of way. In the spirit of this participation, many offer the experiment as the only way forward” J.K. Gibson-Graham, A feminist project of belonging for the Anthropocene

PHASE 3: FUTURE

NON-EXTRACTION ZONES

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

following groups and/or professions: schools (young people); local grassroots organizations (i.e., Iowa CCI); ecologists, biologists, environmental scientists; and environmental lawyers. Criteria for a site to be classified as a NEZ requires the site to: benefit all parts of the ecosystem(s) present; not allow ‘redevelopment’ on the site; and not be owned or operated by a single organization for their benefit. Some small-scale development is allowable on the NEZ, as long as it is approved by the NEZ’s Post-Toxicity Trustees. Examples of this form of development include, but is not limited to: community gardens; land art with participatory community involvement; musical instruments; bird sanctuary; restorative prairie; walking paths or boardwalks; pollinator plots; dedicated and protected ruins.

2021

A Non-Extraction Zone (NEZ) is a former Superfund site in state of late or completed remediation that has been transferred from the national priorities list to a new category of land and property classification. After a Superfund site is removed from the National Priorities List and the EPA deems it remediated, a Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) is published. Any NOID site is subject to protection from any further land extraction or exploitation. A single organization, company, or other human-led entity cannot directly benefit monetarily from use or occupation of the site. In keeping with these guidelines, the NEZ must be overseen by a board called the PostToxicity Trustees, a group who oversees the future of the site after remediation as a NEZ. The representatives who make up this board is not limited to but may include people from the

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

100

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

NEZ’S IN THE U.S.

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

101

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

102

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

NEZ’S IN DES MOINES, IA

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

103

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

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

104

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

BIOREMEDIATION

105

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

REMEDIATION

CONFRONT THE RUINS

SITE PLAN 01 A path that cuts through the former Dico office building: the path provides a useful connection between Gray’s lake and downtown Des Moines, but creates points of confrontation with the site ruins.

106

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

RESTORATIVE PRAIRIE

107

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

CONFRONT THE RUINS

108

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

109

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

REMEDIATION TRAVERSE INTENTIONALLY

SITE PLAN 02 An intentionally slow path to traverse: walking back and forth provides an opportunity to consider the site and its remediation, ruins, and inhabitants—land that no longer belongs to humans.

110

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

BIRD SANCTUARY & POLLINATOR PLOTS

111

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

TRAVERSE INTENTIONALLY

112

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

113

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

REMEDIATION

EXPLORE THE SITE

SITE PLAN 03 A boardwalk that expands as remediation strategies repair the site: people can explore the site through a series of boardwalks, and sections of remediated soil are used for community gardens.

114

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

RESTORATIVE PRAIRIE & COMMUNITY GARDENS

115

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

EXPLORE THE SITE

116

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

117

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

EXPLORE THE SITE

118

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

119

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

120

2021-????

2040-2080

2030-2050

2030-2040

2022-2040

2022

2021

PHASE 3: FUTURE

121

GLOSSARY & INDEX

Climate Change (28, 37, 78)

Architects Not us, as we are legally not allowed to call ourselves that; A person who designs buildings.

B Brachen (56)

Global and/or regional climate patterns changing due to increasing levels of toxins in the atmosphere and world.

Collective Memory (36) The memory of a group of people, passed from one generation to the next.

German for fallowed land; The Brachen of Berlin are areas of somewhat uncontrolled urban ecologies that formed from the bombings of WWII.

Commodification (25)

Community Involvement Plan

Capping 66)

(26, 29, 31, 37, 58-60, 64-

A form of remediation; the process of placing a cover over contaminated materials like landfills and soils. Caps do not destroy or remove contaminants instead, they isolate them and keep them in place to avoid the spread of contamination.

Cleanup (58-60) An action taken to deal with a release or threatened release of hazardous substances that could adversely affect public health and the environment.

122

The action or process of treating something as a mere commodity. (58, 86)

A document that assesses a community’s concerns about the site, recommends activities to address these concerns, and suggests means to foster communication between the EPA and community.

Contaminants 58-60, 64, 65)

(10, 11, 26, 29, 37,

Hazardous waste that is effecting an area; this includes heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons, and more.

Dichloroethylene A flammable, colorless liquid that is heavier than water and moderately water soluble; Commonly used in waxes, resins, refrigerants, and more.

E EPA

(4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 58-60, 64, 68, 69, 71-73, 78, 79, 97, 99, 122) Environmental Protection Agency; An independent federal agency that sets and enforces rules/standards that protect the environment and public health.

Exploitation (97) The act of selfishly taking advantage of someone, a group of people, or land in order to profit from them or otherwise benefit oneself.

Exposure Pathways (58, 65) Route or way in which humans or the environment may come into contact with contaminants.

F Feasibility Study A study that examines information

provided by remedial investigation activities and evaluates possible cleanup methods.

G Green New Deal (4) A proposal calling for public policy to address climate change along with achieving other social aims like job creation.

Groundwater 65, 68)

(10, 26, 29, 31, 58,

Supply of freshwater found beneath the earths surface.

H Hegemonic Ruling or dominant in a political or social context.

K Kitsch Designs thought to be over done.

Krause Group (33, 37) A parent company for a diverse set of businesses; Creator of the soccer stadium proposal.

123

M Monitored Attenuation (31, 60)

Natural

A remedial process that relies on biodegradation, sorption, dilution, evaporation, and chemical reactions to reduce contaminant concentrations in soil and groundwater. It occurs at most contaminated sites, but certain conditions are required to clean toxic sites using this method.

N National Priorities List 37, 57, 60, 68)

(10, 26,

NPL; EPA’s list of the nations most serious hazardous waste sites identified for long-term cleanup under Superfund.

Non Extraction Zones (97, 101) NEZ; A new list to support superfund sites after they complete remediation and leave the NPL; These sites will be considered a new Parks system that can never be developed.

OU; Distinct areas that a site is broken up into; These can address geographic areas, specific site problems, or areas where a specific action is required.

P Palimpsest An overlay of work from many different people and generations.

Precious Of great value; sometimes things are not needed to be highly valued or precious; like sancrosanct which is too valuable to be altered.

Public Health (26, 36, 69, 78) Health of the population as a whole especially in terms of govt. Regulation and support.

Q Quixotic (79) Exceedingly idealistic to the point of impracticality.

Record of Decision

Operable Units (59)

ROD; A formal document that discusses in detail the cleanup plan

124

EPA has decided to implement at a site.

Remediation (4, 10, 11, 26, 36, 37,

Toxic/Toxins (4, 5, 10, 11, 36, 37,

64, 66, 73, 78, 79, 97, 105, 106, 110, 112) Remedying environmental damage.

Rough Fish (92)

41, 52, 56, 58, 66, 78, 79, 97)

Poisonous or contaminant with poisons.

Trichloroethylene (10, 26, 36, 66)

A term used for fish that are not “game” fish including carp, suckers, etc.

An organic chemical that is used in chemicals, such as refrigerants and metal degreasers.

Ruins (75, 97, 106, 110)

The physical destruction or disintegration of something; A reminder of the past for good or bad.

Urban Ecology (56)

Sonder Realizing that the other people you see around you have complex and unique lives just like your own.

Sorption

Scientific inquiry concerning relations betweeen all living organisms and the environment in an urban setting. V

Vinyl Chloride A toxic gas that is typically used in commercial polymers.

Absorption and adsorption in one process.

Superfund (36, 39, 51, 78, 97)

28, 29, 31, 58, 65, 68, 70, 88, 122)

A program funded by the U.S. to clean up toxic waste in sites across the country.

Water (5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 26, 27, Liquid that makes up rain, oceans, rivers, and lakes. It sustains life and is a key part of organisms.

125

When to the sessions of sweet silent thought

And moan th’ expense of many a vanish’d sight;

I summon up remembrance of things past,

Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,

I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,

And heavily from woe to woe tell o’er

And with old woes new wail my dear time’s waste:

The sad account bemoaned moan,

Then can I drown an eye, unus’d to flow,

Which I new pay as if not paid before.

For precious friends hid in death’s dateless night,

But if the while I think on thee, dear friend (earth, nature, etc?),

And weep afresh love’s long since cancell’d woe,

All losses are restor’d, and sorrows end.

Shakespeare’s Sonnet 30

126

fore-

CITATIONS EPA DOCUMENTS Building Decommissioning Assessment Report, 31 August 2018. Des Moines TCE Community Action Plan, December 2016. EPA Superfund Record of Decision: DES MOINES TCE, 1997. Field Investigations of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites: Preliminary Assessment Inspection, 1981. Optimization Review Report Remedial Process Optimization Study: Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, OU1, September 2018. Preliminary Monitored Natural Attenuation Evaluation Report, 27 June 2018. Remedial Action Master Plan, 1984. Sixth Five-Year Review Report for Des Moines TCE Superfund Site, 5 April 2018.

REFERENCES “ABOUT IPCW.” Iowa Partnership for Clean Water, iowapartnershipforcleanwater.org/. “Climate Archives.” Iowa CCI, iowacci.org/category/climate/. “Des Moines Spending $300M for Levee Improvements Amid Flood Fears,” May 16, 2019. https://www.kcci.com/article/des-moines-spending-300m-for-levee-improvements-amid-floodfears/27486711# “Des Moines Water Works Responds to Iowa Supreme Court; Federal Permit Lawsuit Continues.” Des Moines Water Works Responds to Iowa Supreme Court; Federal Permit Lawsuit Continues | Des Moines Water Works, www.dmww.com/about-us/news-releases/des-moines-water-worksresponds-to-iowa-supreme-court-federal-permit-lawsuit-continues.aspx. “Des Moines Water Works Responds to Iowa Supreme Court; Federal Permit Lawsuit Continues.” Des Moines Water Works Responds to Iowa Supreme Court; Federal Permit Lawsuit Continues | Des Moines Water Works, www.dmww.com/about-us/news-releases/des-moines-water-worksresponds-to-iowa-supreme-court-federal-permit-lawsuit-continues.aspx. “Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy 2018-19 Annual Progress Report.” Extension Store, store. extension.iastate.edu/Product/15915. “Strategy Documents.” Strategy Documents | Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy, www. nutrientstrategy.iastate.edu/documents.

127

“Who’s behind the Bill to Dismantle the Des Moines Water Works.” Iowa CCI, 2 Mar. 2017, iowacci. org/farming-environment/whos-behind-bill-dismantle-des-moines-water-works/. Abbey Slinker, “The Contemporary Role of Post-Industrial Ruins in the Midwest,” The Significance of Ruins, December 13, 2020. https://www.abbeyslinker.com/blog/2020/12/13/the-contemporaryrole-of-post-industrial-ruins-in-the-midwest-chapter-5 Andreas, Alfred Theodore, “Des Moines 1875,” 1839-1900; Andreas Atlas Co. David Rumsey Map Collection. https://www.davidrumsey.com/ Communications, ODNI Office of Strategic. “ODNI Home.” Home, www.odni.gov/index.php/ newsroom/press-releases/press-releases-2021/item/2202-national-intelligence-council-releasesglobal-trends-report. Des Moines Historical Society Des Moines Register Archives (15 February 1920, 19 December 1920, 26 January 1978, 5 May 1985, 12 July 1993) Drake University Digital Collections Elizabeth Dodd, “Mitigations,” June 2018, Places Journal. https://doi.org/10.22269/180619. Gardiner, Allen. Des Moines: A History in Pictures. 2004: Heritage Media Corp., San Marcos, CA. Gourley, Kathryn Elizabeth, “Locations of Sauk, Mesquakie, and associated Euro-American sites 1832 to 1845: an ethnohistoric approach” (1990). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 338. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/338 Hooyer, T., & Iverson, N. (2002). “Flow mechanism of the Des Moines lobe of the Laurentide ice sheet.” Journal of Glaciology, 48(163), 575-586. doi:10.3189/172756502781831160 Iowa Public Radio News | By Clay Masters. “Bill to Break Up Des Moines Water Works Might Also End Its Lawsuit Against Rural Counties.” Iowa Public Radio, 28 Aug. 2020, www.iowapublicradio. org/state-government-news/2017-02-28/bill-to-break-up-des-moines-water-works-might-also-endits-lawsuit-against-rural-counties. J.C. and F.C. Tate, “Tate’s Atlas of Des Moines,” 1899. University of Iowa. Libraries. Map Collection. J.K. Gibson-Graham, “A feminist project of belonging for the Anthropocene, Gender, Place & Culture,” 2011. 18:1, 1-21, DOI: 10.1080/0966369X.2011.535295 James E. Young, “Memory and Counter-Memory,” Fall 1999 Harvard Design Magazine, Fall 1999, No. 9. http://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/9/memory-and-counter-me Karen J. Warren, Ecofeminism: Women, Culture, Nature, 1997. Indiana University Press.

128

Mather, David and Ginalie Swaim (2005) “The Heart of the Best Part: Fort Des Moines No. 2 and the Archaeology of a City,” Iowa Heritage Illustrated 86(1):12–21. Norvell, Kim, “Des Moines will take ownership of Dico, the city’s most notorious toxic site. Will development follow?” 10 September 2020, Des Moines Register. https://www.desmoinesregister. com/story/money/business/development/2020/09/10/dico-superfund-site-downtown-desmoines-owned-city-development/3446007001/ Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Collection, Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/collections/ sanborn-maps/?fa=location:iowa%7Clocation:des+moines Slinker, Abbey. “Chapter 6: Mingo Junction.” The Contemporary Role of Post-Industrial Ruins in the Midwest, Abbey Slinker, 2 Jan. 2021, www.abbeyslinker.com/blog/2020/12/17/the-contemporaryrole-of-post-industrial-ruins-in-the-midwest-chapter-6. Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply, 2016. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 2016. Culture of the Land. Yates McKee, “Land Art in Parallax: Media, Violence, Political Ecology,” 2010 Nobody’s Property: Art, Land, Space, 2000-2010.

129

SUPERFUNDAMENTAL

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Carolan Hoffman is a fifth-year undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Architecture program, with a minor in historic preservation. She is from Washington, IA, and her favorite plant is the cherry tree. Carolan once rode a horse on Mt. Vesuvius.

Anna Losen is a third-year undergraduate student in the Industrial Design program. She is from Des Moines, IA, and her favorite plant is the jade plant. Anna visited Mozart’s birthplace in Austria.

130

PHASE 3: FUTURE

Peter Miller is a second-year graduate student in the Master of Architecture program, and received his Bachelors of Arts in Sociology before starting the Masters program. He is from Ames, IA, and his favorite plant is the sycamore tree. Peter has dual citizenship with Germany.

Mae Murphy is a fourth-year undergraduate student in the Bachelor of Architecture program, with a minor in Women’s and Gender Studies. She is from Des Moines, IA, and her favorite plant is the Alocasia, also known as Elephant’s Ear. Mae is The Collage Queen!

Tara Tilstra is a second-year graduate student in the Master of Architecture program, and received her Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering before starting the Masters program. She is from Sioux Center, IA, and her favorite plant is the poppy. Tara loves ice cream and can do a killer moon walk.

131

Ecologies of Repair Class Collage

132

SUPERFUNDIFRAGILISTICEXPIALIDOCIOUS

133