Ford Twin Cities Plant Area C - Feasibility Study - Remediation

Submitted By

113 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Anneliese Tatham

2/04/26 @ 12:49 AM

See attached. Thank you!

Anneliese Tatham
Saint Paul, MN

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Lucy Heegaard

2/03/26 @ 9:54 PM

My husband and I will soon be among the nearest neighbors to Area C. By summer of 2026, when we move into our new home in Highland Bridge, we will be directly across the street from the toxic waste dump. We are already able to see from our future bed...↓room window the tall lights atop the parking lot that caps the waste pile.

We have been tracking the Area C problem since we made the decision to buy a lot in Highland Bridge and build a single family home along the river. We strongly advocate for Alternative 6, full removal of all toxic waste. This is the only solution that allows for the possibility of future use of the land so that it will be unrestricted by environmental covenants and could be traversed safely by the general public in the future.

In addition, Alternative 6 seems the most realistic of all the options in terms of cost. Every other option requires long-term monitoring in addition to restrictive covenants. Long-term monitoring under these plans is termed as 30 years. But in truth, as long as toxic waste remains under the soil, monitoring will need to continue. So the costs estimated for all options except Alternative 6 are significantly underestimated since they do not provide reserve funds to support regular maintenance and monitoring in perpetuity. Further, they do not have adequate provisions to hold Ford Motor Company responsible for even the 30-year time horizon of costs if those costs have been underestimated by Arcadis, which in all likelihood they have been. The report has been under preparation for so long that it is hard to determine if the costs estimates are accurate to the actual time of release of the report rather than several years ago when the report was first scheduled to be released.

Thus, while Alternative 6 seems far and away more expensive than the others, it is our opinion that it will be not only the most cost effective option because it will handle all costs upfront and forgo the need to fund long term maintenance and monitoring, it will also prevent a future quagmire of responsibility. There could likely be a lot of finger pointing and dodging of responsibilities if, for instance, the Army Corps of Engineers makes changes to Lock and Dam 1 after only a small remediation is done at Area C. The whole playing field could change for the toxic waste that remains and the responsible parties could use the changed circumstances to argue that they are no longer responsible. Even MPCA itself could become culpable in such a situation with the question arising of whether the agency adequately safeguarded public health and environmental well being when the Area C remediation choice was made.

Or, environmental issues could come to bear that have not yet been predicted by current monitoring. For instance, the monitoring wells that provide information on what to expect in terms of toxic waste leach in response to river flooding are based only on 10-year flooding events, not a 100-year event. Based on the monitoring done for the plan, we have no way of adequately predicting what the potential toxic impact would be on the river and soils if and when we experience a 100-year flood event. This is just one of many short sighted aspects of the plan we have before us.

All this being said, these are simply some of the numerous concerns that arise for my spouse and me as we think about the possibility of leaving toxic waste behind at Area C. In addition to the concerns we've outlined, we would also like to stand 100% behind the February 2, 2026 letter written by Colleen O'Connor Toberman, Land Use & Planning Director for Friends of the Mississippi River. Toberman has outlined far more issues than are within our capacity to document and enumerate. We'd like you to consider her letter and the concerns she has outlined and documented as appended to our comment.

Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: David Zumeta

2/03/26 @ 9:47 PM

The Ford Area C Feasibility Study is fundamentally flawed in that it included only an analysis of a 100-year flood event as opposed to including both a 100-year flood event and a 500-year flood event. I did a Google search asking the question: "Whe...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Louisa Harstad

2/03/26 @ 9:44 PM

I understand MPCA believes Ford Area C only currently causes "minimal threat/risks" to people and the river. I'm curious if and how much MPCA has considered how they are contributing to the structure of colonization. Colonization does not exist only ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Matthew Crellin

2/03/26 @ 7:10 PM

My family and I have used Crosby Farm Park, Hidden Falls Park for over 40 years and I have lived on the east bank of the Mississippi River at the Upper Landing for 2 years and know a little bit about the life cycle of the river. I believe that the MP...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joan Cochran

2/03/26 @ 6:18 PM

I support all of the comments submitted by Colleen O'Connor Toberman of the Friends of the Mississippi River on the draft feasibility study, and I support Alternative 6, Removal of All Wastes and Site Restoration.

As a frequent visitor to the Missi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Naomi Nickel

2/03/26 @ 5:56 PM

The toxic waste in Area C will remain there until it is cleaned up. That means that it will pose a risk to all future humans and wildlife until we make an effort to clean it. While the waste is somewhat contained now, it will not be forever. Why not ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Susan K Schmidt

2/03/26 @ 5:56 PM

See attached letter for my comments. Please send email acknowledging receipt. Thank you.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jim and Diane Schrack

2/03/26 @ 5:37 PM

We are providing public comment regarding the Ford Twin Cities Plant Area C Remediation Study.

Ford Area C, which is contaminated with long-buried toxic waste, sits next to the Mississippi River. Unless that waste is completely removed this site wi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Steve Regnier

2/03/26 @ 5:22 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Ann Laughlin

2/03/26 @ 5:20 PM

I urge the MPCA to choose Alternative 6: Removal of All Waste and Site Restoration as specified in the Ford Area C Remediation Feasibility Study for the following reasons:
*Ford must be held fully accountable for a full cleanup of the toxic waste at ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Peterson

2/03/26 @ 5:18 PM

As a Girl Scout, many years ago, I was taught to leave my campsite in the same condition - or better - than when I found it so the space would be ready for the next camper. After gaining large profits from the use of the Mississippi River and nearby...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dan Krivit

2/03/26 @ 5:06 PM

Dear MPCA Staff:
Please download, review, and acknowledge that my attached letter has been successfully uploaded and entered into the official record. Please send an email response.
Thank you, in advance, for your careful consideration of my commen...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Owámniyomni Okhódaya... (Shelley Buck)

2/03/26 @ 4:50 PM

Dear Ms. Hadiaris,
On behalf of Owámniyomni Okhódayapi, a Dakota-led nonprofit in Minneapolis, I write in response to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) proposed cleanup plan for Area C of the former Ford Twin Cities Plant. We respectful...↓ly urge the MPCA to select Alternative 6 — removal of all wastes, and site restoration as the final remedy.
Owámniyomni Okhódayapi is leading the restoration of a five-acre site at Owámniyomni (St. Anthony Falls), adjacent to the Upper Lock on Ȟaȟa Wakpá (Mississippi River) in Minneapolis, along with three additional acres managed by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The site at Owámniyomni and the entire Mississippi River is a place of deep cultural, spiritual and ecological significance for the Dakota people. However, through industrialization and commercialization, much of the original land was destroyed. We are restoring this sacred place for ecological renewal, cultural education, healing and reconnection. Allowing hazardous industrial waste to remain in or near this landscape undermines Dakota people's fundamental understanding of our relationship with the land as kin.
While we appreciate that the MPCA has taken steps toward cleanup and has proposed Alternative 4 as an improvement over Ford Motor Company's preferred Alternative 3, we are deeply concerned that Alternative 4 may still leave significant volumes of contaminated material in place. A remedy that relies on partial removal, stabilization and long-term containment does not adequately protect the environment, public health or culturally significant lands. In contrast, Alternative 6 is the only option that fully removes the waste and restores the site, addressing the root cause of contamination rather than managing its continued presence.
As climate-driven flooding becomes more frequent and severe, leaving hazardous waste in place poses increasing risks to the Mississippi River and surrounding areas, including at Owámniyomni. Complete removal offers the most durable and protective solution in the face of these changing conditions, ensuring the health and strength of the River for generations to come.
Selecting Alternative 6 is also a critical environmental justice decision. The MPCA has publicly committed to addressing inequities in pollution exposure and ensuring fair treatment and meaningful involvement for Black, Indigenous, communities of color and low-income residents. Dakota people have endured disproportionate harm from industrialization and commercialization along the River. Choosing a remedy that leaves toxic materials behind perpetuates these historic injustices. Selecting Alternative 6 would demonstrate the MPCA's commitment to listen to Indigenous voices and act in alignment with its environmental justice mission.
Although Alternative 6 carries a higher upfront cost, it is the most fiscally responsible option over the long term. Partial remedies shift risk and potential future cleanup costs to taxpayers and future generations, particularly as environmental conditions change – a burden they should not have to carry. The extensive and long-standing damage to Area C requires an equally comprehensive solution.
For these reasons, Owámniyomni Okhódayapi respectfully urges the MPCA to adopt Alternative 6 as the final cleanup plan for Area C and to require full funding and accountability for cleanup and restoration. We also encourage the agency to continue meaningful consultation with Dakota Nations, ensuring that cultural values, ecological integrity and public safety guide decision-making at every stage.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important issue and for considering a path forward that fully restores the land, protects the River and honors Dakota homelands.

Pidámayaye ye (thank you in Dakota),

Shelley Buck
President
Owámniyomni Okhódayapi

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Saint Paul City Council Ward 3 (Saura Jost)

2/03/26 @ 1:39 PM

See attached letter for comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Christine Goepfert

2/03/26 @ 10:17 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Trevor Jackson

2/02/26 @ 11:12 PM

How are we supposed to have a functional society if both people and companies just leave their trash laying around, especially in these potentially dangerous locations. Ford did its business and made its money, but now we need to act like adults and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Terry Brueck

2/02/26 @ 9:52 PM

The Ford Site was previously listed on the State's Superfund Permanent List of Priorities (PLP). Ford cleaned up Areas A and B on the main Ford Site to allow for sale to developers. The Area C dump site has not been remediated. The MPCA should reopen...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Harley

2/02/26 @ 9:25 PM

February 2, 2026

To the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency:

I am a resident of Saint Paul, and live only a little more than a mile upriver from Ford's Area C. I am also a member of Lumen Christi Catholic Community, located in Highland Village, and ...↓my comments support and amplify those submitted by our faith community's social justice committee. The river is the defining natural asset of our community and we have seen strong interest from many people in the fate of Area C.

I urge MPCA to select Alternative 6, which provides for a full cleanup of Area C. This is the only alternative that requires Ford to fully address the harm done to the river, the floodplain, and to the community. Only this alternative allows us to put the legacy of this pollution behind us and restore this precious land along the Mississippi River.

The decision to select Alternative 6 would be the only path that adequately considers climate change, future use of the site, and stabilization of the site's slopes. Both the MPCA's proposed selection of Alternative 4 and Ford's preference for Alternative 3 assess risk inadequately for the following reasons:
• Analysis of flood risk considered 100-year floods, and therefore failed to account for the reality of climate change and the increased likelihood of 500- and 1000-year floods on the site.
• Your staff's comments at the January 15 public meeting made it clear that no consideration was given for the possibility of land use changes in the near future that would require more stringent cleanup than that required to meet industrial standards. Specifically, the possibility of dam removal would impact the site and its potential uses.
• Alternative 4 would leave steep slopes that the Capitol Region Watershed District and other commenters have identified as a risk for potential instability and increased hazardous waste exposure. This instability would be greatest on the south side where hazardous waste is more likely to be exposed, increasing the risk to the Mississippi River and the public.

Given these risks and uncertainties about the future, the interests of Minnesotans would be best served by requiring Ford to clean up the site fully now, while the company has adequate resources to cover costs. However, if Alternative 4 is selected, I urge MPCA to require Ford to provide financial assurance for future cleanup funds. MPCA has asserted that it lacks authority to require financial assurance from Ford for future risks. This interpretation warrants independent legal review, including consultation with the Minnesota Attorney General's Office.

I appreciate the work of MPCA staff in considering cleanup options for Area C. At the same time, I ask MPCA to reconsider its support for Alternative 4 and instead choose Alternative 6. I know that MPCA is seeing this request repeated in comments from many individuals and organizations in our community, and I know that our elected officials in the neighborhood support a full cleanup. This call to reconsider MPCA's decision in light of risks that have been overlooked or underestimated comes from a community united in seeing the opportunity that comes with full cleanup. Only with Alternative 6, the land now called Area C will be restored to the environmental, community, and economic asset that it deserves to be.

Respectfully submitted,
Mike Harley

No attachments

Comment From: Jacqueline Petersen

2/02/26 @ 7:36 PM

As a member of the Lumen Christi Catholic Community Environmental Justice committee, I have concerns about the MPCAs decision regarding the clean-up of Area C. I attended the MPCA presentation at Hillcrest Community Center on 1/15. The agencies prese...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Margaret George

2/02/26 @ 5:20 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Catherine Day

2/02/26 @ 4:00 PM

Please take the high road and recommend and complete the full clean-up path (Option 6). I have lived near this site for 40 plus years and know both the beauty of the river and the tragedy of our environmental disregard for it. Doing a partial cleanup...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Annette Hansen

2/02/26 @ 3:46 PM

I support Alternative 6 and only 6. The area must be restored and remediation of the site is necessary. Please don't kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with. They will have enough to fix.

No attachments

Comment From: Friends of the Mississippi Riv... (Colleen O'Connor Toberman)

2/02/26 @ 3:23 PM

Thank you for your consideration of the attached comment letter from Friends of the Mississippi River.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Highland District Council (Kathy Carruth)

2/02/26 @ 2:45 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Matt Nienstedt

2/02/26 @ 2:36 PM

I am writing to strongly urge the MPCA to reject the proposed partial cleanup options and adopt Alternative 6.

Leaving hazardous industrial waste on the banks of the Mississippi River, as in other alternatives, is not a sustainable or just solution...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Friends of the Mississippi Riv... (Jenna Hawkes)

2/02/26 @ 1:28 PM

Please see the attached petition with 701 signatures calling for a full cleanup of Area C.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Mike Powell

2/02/26 @ 12:14 PM

I believe we should opt for "Alternative 4 - Removal of Accessible Waste and Site Stabilization".

BUT with a contingency that if ground water at the test wells ever deteriorates, we hold Ford accountable to execute "Alternative 6 - Removal of all Wa...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Katie Tuma

2/01/26 @ 11:02 PM

Please please in these crazy times do not rush to just take off a few feet of gunk that does not address the real problems just so you can feel good about it just because you have money to spend right now when the Ford Dam is gonna be released in the...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: David Ayd

2/01/26 @ 4:31 PM

I believe Option 6 is the only acceptable choice for our families' futures!

No attachments

Comment From: Brett Smith

2/01/26 @ 2:12 PM

I support Option 7, Full Cleanup. All of the other options leave industrial and potentially hazardous waste in the ground beneath the river. These options are unacceptable for the protection of a river as economically, recreationally, historically, a...↓nd culturally as important as the Mississippi. This is a blot on our history and reputation as a state that cares. We should not leave garbage under the river. Period.

Your estimates of the risks and costs of the various options are questionable. First the estimate of cost was essentially done by a contractor hired by Ford as I understand it. Given the history of corporate overestimation of the costs of various safety or other environmentally protective measures, it is hard to believe they are not gross overstatements. Before making the choice of another option, I urge you to take another look at those costs. I see no reason to believe they are not inflated to make the cleanup too expensive.

Regrading the costs of cleanup to Ford, I also urge you to take into account the profits that the corporation and its stockholders have made because of their failure to take cleanup action prior to now. Given the value of dollars earned over the past many years in today's dollars, given the power of compounding, the benefit to the company has been huge. It dwarfs to cost of the cleanup now.

Your estimate of risks is also questionable. Given our lack of knowledge about the human and environmental effects of chemicals, your estimate should have had a large margin of uncertainty. Also, it is my understanding that you did not fully take into account the changing picture with respect to flooding given the new climate impacts. When looking at a future as uncertain as we now face, with respect to human and environmental risks from chemicals buried under a river it would be wise to take the cautions and careful approach and completely remove the threats. You defend your choice by a seemingly arbitrary comparison of risks, measured in environmental and human impacts with costs, measured in dollars. This is an unacceptable approach.

Finally, I believe your approach to the cleanup is too limited in its scope. As a state agency you should be looking at creative ideas to improve the state's environmental quality. Perhaps, by your calculation, you cannot force Ford to do a full cleanup. I disagree with your calculations and ask why did you not consider the broader value of a totally cleaned up site. The potential for recreational, cultural, and educational value of a clean river should have been a part of your thinking and calculations. You failed on this count.

Finally, I note, as others have, that this ground and water is the historic home of the indigenous communities which still live in the area and enjoy and utilize the river as they have for centuries. You also fail on this count.

I strongly urge you to choose the full cleanup option. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

No attachments

Comment From: Brent Christensen

2/01/26 @ 10:05 AM

I urge MPCA to elect Alternative 6. I understand the need for balanced approach to remediation and responsible use of funds, however it is impossible for me to rationalize lesser treatment and cleanup than the full extent at this site so immediate t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joseph Maternowski

1/31/26 @ 6:21 PM

As a St. Paul Highland Park resident and an environmental lawyer who represented the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) I have closely followed developments related to MPCA's review of Feasibility Study prepared by Ford Motor Company evaluatin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lumen Christi Catholic Communi... (Lumen Christi Catholic Community Justice Ministries)

1/31/26 @ 9:40 AM

Summary Statement
As members of Lumen Christi Catholic Community Justice Ministries, we approach the cleanup of Ford Area C guided by Catholic Social Teaching and Pope Francis's call in Laudato Si' to care for our common home, protect human health, a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Melanie Peterson-Nafziger

1/29/26 @ 11:16 AM

Dear MPCA,
I appreciate you seeking public comment on this serious issue caused by corporate irresponsibility.
I write to you to urge you to require the Ford Corporation to carry out Alternative 6: Removal of all Wastes and Site Restoration.
They us...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pieta Cunningham

1/28/26 @ 8:38 PM

I feel that it is necessary to select option 6 commencing a full clean up of the river. This would ensure the safety of the river if a 100 year flood occurs, which the likely hood of is increasing as the state of our climate worsens. In addition, the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Lacey

1/28/26 @ 3:57 PM

I believe option four is the best option. Provides the most cleanup without a huge disruption, and plans for long-term testing.

No attachments

Comment From: Martin Lacey

1/28/26 @ 3:56 PM

Option 4 seems to make the most sense from a pollution mitigation and cost perspective.

No attachments

Comment From: Drew Boivin

1/28/26 @ 11:23 AM

Ford Motor Company must be held accountable for leaving a hazardous waste pile on the banks of the Mississippi River. I urge you to support a FULL and complete clean-up plan for the Ford Area C site to protect our natural resources that make Minnesot...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Gagne

1/28/26 @ 10:37 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: James Vlazny

1/28/26 @ 10:16 AM

We need area C cleaned up. Leaving the containers buried will just leave a major problem for future generations, and ensuring that a major pollution situation occurs causing death and destruction to plants, animals, fish, and people along the Missis...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Christensen

1/27/26 @ 10:18 PM

The Ford Motor Company should pay for the cost of total clean up.

No attachments

Comment From: Sean Miller

1/27/26 @ 9:55 PM

It's not fair to the locals and tourists alike for a beautiful stretch of land along the river to just sit because the company who destroyed it doesn't want to clean it up. A full cleanup Is the only option.

No attachments

Comment From: CAROL CHASE

1/27/26 @ 8:20 PM

Please clean up this area. I have boated on the river by this area and I have seen how important it is to follow through with a clean up. I also think that Ford should be responsible for leaving the campsite clean. Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Lyndon Torstenson

1/27/26 @ 2:00 PM

I have reviewed the Ford Motor Company's feasibility study and remediation plan for the Twin Cities Plant Area C, and have the following comments.

I strongly prefer the Alternative 6, "full removal of all waste and site restoration," as it is the on...↓ly alternative that conforms with the ethical precept we all were taught by our parents and in kindergarten, clean up your own mess. Such an ethic is particularly important when it relates to our common environment, and even more important when that environment is in such a naturally critical and dynamic place as a major river course. It is guaranteed that the river's course will change over time (e.g., note the recent sudden and catastrophic failure at the Rapidan Dam on the Minnesota River), and the Ford's Area C is directly in the river's course below the Ford Dam.

If the MPCA chooses the weaker remediation plan of Alternative 4, "removal of reasonably accessible waste and site stabilization," I have two key concerns:
1) the language of what is "reasonably accessible" allows for subjective weakening of the implementation plan and outcome; and
2) riprap is both ugly and terrible for wildlife such as turtles.

Regarding the first point, it will be critical for the MPCA to ensure that what is considered "reasonably accessible" is held to the highest possible standard and not a watered down standard that compromises the outcome.

Regarding the matter of riprap, MPCA and Ford must examine softer ecological alternatives to riprap and kinds of riprap to ensure best aesthetics and compatibility with wildlife needs. Following are some ideas and guidelines as it pertains to riprap.

Vegetated riprap (or joint-planting) is considered much better for turtles and other wildlife, as it combines rocks for erosion control with native vegetation that provides shade, cover, and easier access to water. Using smaller, mixed rock sizes to fill large gaps prevents turtles from getting trapped.

Best Practices for Wildlife-Friendly Riprap:
* Vegetated Riprap/Joint Planting: Live stakes of shrubs or willow can be driven into the soil between rocks, creating a stable, naturalized, and cooler bank.
* Smaller Rock/Mixed Sizing: Avoid large, jagged, deep-void riprap that acts as a trap. Filling gaps with smaller stones (10–16 inches) makes it easier for turtles to move across.
* Gentle Slopes: Use a 3:1 (Horizontal to Vertical) slope, or at minimum 2:1, to ensure turtles can climb out of the water.
* Rock Toe/Rip-rap Combo: Limit riprap to the water's edge (the "toe") and use natural vegetation or root-wad revetments above that line.
* Avoid Large Voids: Ensure the rocks are not stacked in a way that creates deep crevices where small turtles can become trapped.

While conventional riprap can act as a barrier to nesting turtles, incorporating vegetation and using smaller materials significantly mitigates these risks.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Brent Haglund

1/26/26 @ 10:46 PM

Hello,

As a south Minneapolis resident I truly value the Twin Cities and their connection to natural spaces.
The old Ford plant waste dump site must be fully cleaned and restored the best it can.
Please care for our land with care and integrity. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ian Young

1/26/26 @ 10:02 PM

I live near the river and the Ford dump site. This stretch of the river is totally unique and a state treasure that belongs to all Minnesotans. It is improper to leave the hazardous waste on this site to continue threatening the health of the river a...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Hsia

1/26/26 @ 8:32 PM

As a neighbor and person who lives in this area, I believe that Ford should be accountable for a full clean up of area C, Alternative 6, is the only meaningful option.

No attachments

Comment From: Cas Foster

1/25/26 @ 2:28 PM

MPCA,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment on this issue. Based on the feasibility study and additional materials provided by the MPCA, I strongly believe that the MPCA and Ford should move forward with Alternative 6. While Alternative 4...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Capitol Region Watershed Distr... (Bob Fossum)

1/24/26 @ 11:58 AM

Capitol Region Watershed District, respectfully submits the attached comments for consideration.

Please contact us if we can provide clarification or additional detail.

Regards,
Bob Fossum
CRWD

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Debbie Meister

1/23/26 @ 4:43 PM

I urge the MPCA to require a full cleanup and remediation (Alternative 6) of the Ford Area C for the following reasons:

1. We may not yet understand the full health and environmental impacts of the substances that have been dumped at Area C. If allo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara McKernan

1/23/26 @ 2:36 PM

Thank you for the thorough presentation January 15 on Area C. It is great to know that the present condition is not leaking pollutants into the river. But it's difficult to leave Ford Company off the hook for their decades of abusive pollution, Al...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Courtney Peterson

1/22/26 @ 12:45 PM

Alternative 4 sounds very good. But factoring in climate change, does Alternative 6 make more sense? What is a 100 year flood now may become a yearly event with climate change. Instead of doing 4 now, and then things change later and having to go bac...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Jensen

1/21/26 @ 8:23 PM

Thank you for the excellent presentation of the options at the online public meeting. It provided a good explanation of the steps, risk analysis and scientific opinions surrounding the cleanup of area C. After seeing the webinar I definitely agree wi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Gail Irish

1/21/26 @ 11:09 AM

I am part of a network of people who participate in Indigenous-led water walks or Nibi walks. We walk and pray along river banks and lake shores to express our respect, love and hope for the water and its health. In between the organized walks, we ga...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Barrett

1/20/26 @ 10:23 PM

After reviewing the documents and attending meetings, I believe the only solution is a full clean up of the site.
And we need to act now while Ford has the funding.

No attachments

Comment From: Trevor Russell

1/20/26 @ 12:42 PM

We each have an obligation to leave to future generations a world better than we found it. In my view, choosing to leave ANY portion of the Area C waste in place is a failure of that obligation.

While costly, a full and complete cleanup is the only...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Stahelin

1/20/26 @ 11:37 AM

As someone who values our natural resources and spaces, I support Alternative 4 for the proposed plan to clean up the former Ford plant.

No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Brown

1/16/26 @ 4:40 PM

Hello.

I am a certified industrial hygienist and certified safety professional with over 30 years of working for government and industry. I spent over a decade working for 3M, much of that time supporting their chemical manufacturing. I have spent m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Baker

1/16/26 @ 1:57 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Aaron Klemm

1/15/26 @ 9:14 PM

This is a once in a many-generational opportunity to do right by our children and future occupants of this area. Let's commit to the highest impact version of this project so we know we've put our best foot forward. I want to sleep at night knowing w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kara Jeter

1/15/26 @ 9:03 PM

Please consider what happens if/ when Ford is no longer in business. Science will advance and the dump may be leaking chemicals that we cannot detect now. (Example PFAS). To be safe for people now and in future generations, please consider Alternat...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Welcome Jerde

1/15/26 @ 6:36 PM

It is shocking that this waste issue hasn't already addressed by Ford. I agree that the Area C should be cleaned up, with the majority of the funding from Ford. Now is the time to take care of it.
Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Jensen

1/15/26 @ 10:04 AM

As an outdoor enthusiast and resident on Highland Bridge, I (we) definitely support the proposed cleanup effort of AreaC. It will make the land better for all users and improve water quality for all in the future. Thank you!

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Jambor

1/13/26 @ 9:52 AM

I support Alternate 4 for the long term stability of containing the industrial waste, particularly due to regular flooding possibilities and the potential to affect groundwater for downstream residents. I think $9MM is a reasonable request to Ford f...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Donald Fulton

1/12/26 @ 8:07 PM

I live a short distance from the Mississippi River and take the Ford Parkway Bridge into Highland Park on a weekly basis. I believe it is Ford's responsibility to clean up the waste left behind from their plant. Future generations as well as people l...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stephen Walker

1/12/26 @ 7:16 PM

My primary concern is I would like to see the land converted to safe city or regional park land.

Fully cleaning it as in option 6 would allow for this. However any more cost-effective option where this land can later be managed as park land also has...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jared Cruz

1/09/26 @ 9:37 AM

I support Alternative 6 as the most complete clean-up option that ensures current and future clean and healthy river habitat that is also least likely to require future remediation. It makes the most sense to do it right the first time.

No attachments

Comment From: Janet Uhlenkamp

1/08/26 @ 5:23 PM

I support evaluation for the cleanup of the Ford Plant, Area C.
It is important to keep our rivers and ground water supply safe.

Thank you,
Janet Uhlenkamp

No attachments

Comment From: James Johnson

1/08/26 @ 11:33 AM

I'm a St. Paul resident. I live several blocks from the Mississippi River, near the Lake Street Bridge. I frequently use the river banks, bluffs, bottom land, and bluff-top boulevards, bike/pedestrian paths, and green space for recreation and commuti...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Lorentz

1/07/26 @ 10:23 AM

This is unacceptable! This "cover up" must go by the people who created it... The Ford Motor Company!!
They have spoiled our land, air and water... all pretty basic to our survival and the future generations of all living things. Ford has the money ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kaitlin Kramer

1/06/26 @ 10:34 PM

I have lived in Minnesota my whole life and love its beauty and spirit. However, more and more frequently we are being faced with choices that can have massive ramifications on the health of the land and it's future occupants. To perpetrate the least...↓

No attachments

Comment From: William Kramer

1/06/26 @ 6:13 PM

Please clean up this site before anymore living beings are contaminated. We the people of St Paul ask for a clean healthy environment. Please use standards that are consistent with what the experts suggest.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Hoppe

1/06/26 @ 4:52 PM

Attached three useful public records about Area C - was having issues getting pdf files uploaded even though they were well under 20MB in size

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bruce Hoppe

12/31/25 @ 3:55 PM

To whom it may concern:
I am a previous longtime resident of the Highland Park neighborhood with a fair knowledge base on the Ford site. I do assert that Ford and MPCA have incorrectly assumed a static groundwater condition under this waste site. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bruce Hoppe

12/31/25 @ 3:44 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Ken Ruge

12/30/25 @ 9:51 PM

As a new resident at the highland bridge community I hope any resolution to this clean up includes ongoing soil and groundwater monitoring frequently and far into the future. Simply burying the problem doesn't guarantee a future secure solution. Plea...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carmine Profant

12/30/25 @ 12:00 PM

I urge you to support Alternative 6: a full clean-up plan for the Ford Area C site. I am a lifelong resident of Minneapolis who has lived, walked, and observed eagles, foxes, possums, birds and other wildlife along the Mississippi for decades. The li...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jessica Anderson

12/29/25 @ 9:11 PM

As a lifelong Minnesota resident currently living in Minneapolis, I support the full clean up of Ford Area C. Ford Motor Company must be held accountable for leaving a hazardous waste pile on the banks of the Mississippi River. Partial removal is not...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Bergerud

12/29/25 @ 8:47 PM

What's in Ford Area C could affect many people (not to mention wildlife): site neighbors, visitors to the nearby popular regional parks, river lovers, anglers and everyone who uses the river or its water downstream. The public needs ample opportunity...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sherry Gwegorryn

12/29/25 @ 5:01 PM

As to Area C remediation, we owe it to future generations and all Americans who live downstream to have the Ford Motor company fully remove all industrial waste. Option 6 is the way to go!

No attachments

Comment From: Tate Pashibin

12/29/25 @ 2:30 PM

I believe corporations should be held accountable for cleaning up and working to restore natural resources after they have polluted them. This is especially imperative for the Ford Area C site, which is in such close proximity to the Mississippi Rive...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Vant

12/29/25 @ 1:36 PM

To the MPCA,

Please proceed with Alternative 6 - Removal of all Wastes and Site Restoration. This is simply the only appropriate and responsible option.

The City of St. Paul, along with the ACOE should be held liable for their part in compounding ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anne Maley

12/29/25 @ 12:40 PM

I encourage us to pursue a full cleanup. The Ford Company is still in business. It has no political/economic ties to our city so the risk is low. The waste is theirs. They have insurance and liability for these matters. I recognize it's not as simple...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joe Downes

12/29/25 @ 11:41 AM

Please address this toxic mess. It is too close to the Mississippi to not take cleaning it up in a proper fashion seriously.

No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Steinberger

12/29/25 @ 11:08 AM

Ford needs to be held accountable for its negligent disposal of hazardous waste.

No attachments

Comment From: Rick Palm

12/29/25 @ 10:57 AM

Thank you for your request for input.
I live downstream from Ford's historic hazardous dump grounds and feel strongly that every step needs to be taken to hold them accountable for this. By dumping on the river they reduced expenses and increased pro...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Julia Rice

12/23/25 @ 7:24 PM

Please commit to fully cleaning up Area C. Ford should never have been allowed to dump toxic materials into the Mississippi River floodplain and USACE and the City of St. Paul only compounded the disruption of the floodplain by dumping construction r...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Nan Roberts

12/23/25 @ 3:26 PM

This site needs deep and extensive clean-up. I spent decades at that site walking my dogs and looking for fossils. I've seen all the debris that's visible and know about all the toxic materials that were dumped there throughout the history of the F...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mitch Vars

12/23/25 @ 11:19 AM

Don't let Ford off the hook. They created this problem and they must be held accountable for the clean up. The only acceptable plan is Alternative 6: Removal of all Wastes and Site Restoration. Protect the river, protect the ground water, protect the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dale Ulbrich

12/22/25 @ 3:37 PM

Ford made the whole mess, they should clean up the whole mess. It's their cost of doing business.

No attachments

Comment From: Laura Lomax

12/21/25 @ 8:59 PM

I support option six for full cleanup. We have a responsibility to repair the damage done to the land, water, and neighbors.

No attachments

Comment From: Jenn Pierson

12/19/25 @ 11:01 PM

The only acceptable option is Alternative 6: Removal of all Wastes and Site Restoration. It is the only just and viable alternative to maximize environmental and human health at the site and protect future generations from the consequences of this co...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kenny Niemeyer

12/19/25 @ 10:03 PM

I'm in favor of Alternative 6 - Removal of all Wastes and Site Restoration. I believe this is the option that has the most positive impact for current and future residents. At the very least, I hope that exploration of the implementablilty of Alterna...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mary Vlazny

12/19/25 @ 6:55 PM

I believe option 6 should be pursued.
This toxic situation has been passed on generationally as "sufficiently" contained when it has in fact merely been covered over making it harder to remediate. We cannot leave this mess for future generations. Lea...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sara Beckstrand

12/19/25 @ 10:38 AM

This issue simply must be addressed for the health and safety of people and the river.

No attachments

Comment From: Laurie MacLeod

12/19/25 @ 9:02 AM

The Mississippi River and its health are crucial to this state, and should never have been used as a convenient dumping site by the Ford Motor Company. They must be held responsible for leaving a hazardous waste pile on the banks of the Mississippi. ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: James Vlazny

12/19/25 @ 7:21 AM

I believe option 6 should be pursued.
We cannot leave this mess for future generations. Leaving any of this toxic waste in area C will make it harder and trickier to remove in the future.
The City of St. Paul and the Corp of Engineers should pay the...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jody Hurlbut

12/18/25 @ 5:55 PM

Clean up the mess you made Ford Motor Co. Just because so much time has gone by and it was common practice to dump your pollution wherever you wanted does not mean you get off easy. Protect our environment and use some of the billions you have to cle...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Luck

12/18/25 @ 8:52 AM

The Mississippi River is an American--and Twin Cities--icon. It provides incredible economic and ecological value, and recreation for millions of Americans. Why would we not hold Ford (along with the City of St. Paul and the US Army Corps of Engine...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]