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?
 

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. FRANK AND ERNEST BOB THAVES I DID MY ORAL REPORT ON BEAVERS-- I GOT TO SAY "DAM" ELEVEN TIMES! SOURCE: Washington Post, 29 December 2000, page C10 Q 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 www.comics.com 02000 Thaves/Dist. by NEA, Inc. E-mail BobThaves@aol.com 12-29 THAVES