An examination of yesterday's State House of Representatives journal discloses two things: (1) the debate on the Great Lakes diversion constitutional amendment (HCR CC) was more complicated than it seemed, and (2) our news media are incapable of covering anything deeper than a soundbite.
Turns out the minority Dems did offer a creditable amendment or two. Parliamentary maneuvering by the majority denied an up-or-down vote on them, but -- Rep. Kathleen Law offered the following:
(a) "Diversion" means a transfer of water from the Great Lakes basin into another watershed outside of the Great Lakes basin including, but not limited to, the transport of water intended for commercial sale as bottled water.
In other words, she was calling the sponsors' bluff -- are you really against shipping water out of state, or not? The vote on whether to allow debate on this was 42 aye, 59 nay. That's 42 House members who support substance over posturing. Too bad the wires and most newspapers and electronic media acted as if this debate never happened. I guess they figure the populace of Michigan would be bored by detail.
Read for yourself:
http://michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003-2004/journal/house/htm/2004-HJ-09-29-083.htm
Although I appreciate the even-handed temperament of Detroit News columnist George Weeks -- a calm voice in a shrill chorus of right-wing screamers in that paper -- his column today on the Bush and Kerry campaigns and the Great Lakes is frustrating. If you knew nothing about the issues, you'd read it and come out thinking that Bush may have a slight edge in terms of commitment. When in fact the choice on environmental issues is clearer than it's ever been -- in favor of Kerry. He actually has a detailed plan on the Great Lakes which Bush's people have been unsuccessful in mocking, especially given their nearly four years of abuse and neglect of the environment. If any environmental-loving voter can be bought off by a campaign-year announcement of a cleanup with which Bush had nothing to do, then we're in worse trouble than we think.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0409/30/a15-288880.htm
From Associated Press comes this news late today:
"The Michigan House on Wednesday signed off on a measure that would allow voters to decide in 2006 whether to change the state constitution to ban the diversion of water from the Great Lakes.
Although the House voted 94-10 to put the constitutional amendment to voters in the next general election, a number of Democrats criticized it for not going far enough to protect the Great Lakes."
The amendment is a fraud, and gives anti-environmental legislators, chiefly in the majority (Republican) party, a tissue of environmentalism to hold up when it is pointed out they are squandering our Great Lakes heritage.
Meanwhile, the Democrats who voted for it are apparently afraid to vote no on apple pie -- even when it's poisoned.
This Detroit News article tells of a much-deserved award going to Terri Swier, one of the sparkplugs behind the battle to stop Nestle Corporation from taking Michigan's water for sale. I'm looking forward to seeing Terri at next week's event in Detroit.
"The leader of a Mecosta County environmental group trying to block a company’s pumping of water from underground wells has been honored for her work by a statewide coalition of environmental groups."
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0409/29/c10-287609.htm
Courtesy of Jordan F. Lubetkin, the Regional Communications Manager of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes Natural Resource Center, come these nominations for state "natural landmarks" or "Michigan monuments," which I solicited on this blog a few weeks ago. It's an interesting selection from which the Governor could choose.
Proposed Landmarks, via NWF Great Lakes staff:
Brockway Mountain in the Keewenaw
The Yellow Dog Plains
The Huron Mountains
Jordan River Valley
Headwaters of the Manistee (the Pine and Little Manistee Rivers)
The alvars of Drummond Island
The St. Clair Flats and St. John's Marsh (a freshwater delta)
Portage swamp (headwaters of the Grand River, from M-52 west to Jackson - home habitat for Michigan's sandhill cranes.)
Gravel and limestone reefs of Detroit and St. Clair rivers (spawning habitat for lake sturgeon)
Black, Crooked and Burt lakes (inland sturgeon)
Watersmeet (western UP - where the Mississippi and St. Lawrence River drainages meet.)
At least one landmark of significance to historic tribal culture - maybe lands of the Potowatami in southwest Michigan (near Niles, Three Rivers)
Sand dune complex from Ludington north to Nordhouse Dunes
Whitefish point (maritime and avian significance)
Groundwater (everywhere in MI)
Renovated Ford Rouge plant
Good Free Press editorial on the phony anti-water diversion state Constitutional amendment. But it doesn't say how an amendment to the amendment, could actually be good policy, by forcing the Legislature to pass water conservation legislation.
"A proposed constitutional amendment to keep Michigan's share of Great Lakes water within the Great Lakes basin would accomplish little beyond puffing up its sponsors."
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/elakes28_20040928.htm
Although the methodology is a little loose, news of this study from the Associted Press to be released tomorrow is heartening.
"Nearly 5 percent of all jobs in Michigan are linked to environmental protection in some way, according to a report that contends what's good for nature does not have to be bad for the economy."
The study estimates that about 215,000 jobs in Michigan are attributable to mandates or voluntary initiatives.
Too few candidates and officeholders make "the environmental industry," rather than a smoke-belching factory, their target for economic development.
The Toronto Star points out the "cop-out" route taken by the International Joint Commission on the pending Great Lakes water export pact:
"Since the release of the governors' and premiers' draft agreement, the IJC had the perfect chance to help Ontarians, Quebecers and residents of the Great Lakes states conduct an informed discussion of the issues. In a new report on protecting the Great Lakes waters, the IJC could have offered its own critique of the governors' and premiers' draft agreement.
Instead the IJC chose not to get into a political debate, masking its evident disappointment with the draft accord in language urging governors and premiers to follow the recommendations it made in its 2000 report.
That's a cop-out. We have a right to know exactly what the IJC thinks. The future of the Great Lakes is too important — and too fragile — to be decided without the benefit of the best, independent advice available."
What's the point of having a watchdog with no teeth or bark?
EPA announced today that it will put some money into cleaning up toxic bottom muds in the Detroit River. Good. But where is the EPA and the President on supporting the $4-6 billion Great Lakes restoration bills in Congress that would clean up a lot of these sites? Nowhere.
Here's the story:
One of the Detroit River's most toxic hot spots will be the first contaminated sediment site to be cleaned up under the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday.
Dredging at the site will begin in mid-October and the project will be completed using $4.2 million in Legacy Act funds and $2.3 million from the state's Clean Michigan Initiative. The project is expected to be finished by mid-January.
Is it any coincidence that the EPA Administrator has established temporary residence in the Great Lakes region recently? Election years can do wonders for a politician's apparent environmental commitment. It's what happens in the off-years that hurts.
****************************************
You are invited to attend a meeting with EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt on Tuesday morning, September 28, 9:00 AM at the mouth of the Platte River in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Administrator Leavitt has visited a number of Great Lakes states over the past few months, and his extensive outreach continues, per the Great Lakes Executive Order signed by President Bush on May 18, 2004. This Executive Order created a Great Lakes Interagency Task Force, led by EPA, and which includes ten Federal Agency and Cabinet offices to provide strategic direction on federal Great Lakes policy, priorities and programs. The Administrator is encouraging maximum state and local participation and input in the formulation and development of a complimentary process of regional collaboration, and other activities aimed at addressing challenges in the Great Lakes, as directed by the Executive Order.
Administrator Leavitt's outreach meetings provide an opportunity for him to brief State and local elected officials about the implementation of the Executive Order, and particularly the need for their nvolvement. It is also a great chance for the Administrator to hear from the officials about priorities in their areas as they relate to the Great Lakes. Information on the Executive Order and other relevant background materials are attached.
Draft Agenda for Sleep Bear Dunes Event:
URL for the park map, so you can see the roads and locations noted below: http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/slbe/ppMaps/SLBEmap1%2Epdf
9:00 a.m. Informal discussion of Great Lakes issues with EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt. Meet at mouth of the Platte River (as it enters Lake Michigan). This is at the end of Lake Michigan Road on the map. (The south side of the road is Lake Township Park. The north side is in Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. The park side is where we will meet). Fisherman are there fishing for the salmon which are running up the river from the lake at this time of year.
9:30 a.m. Drive north up Hwy 22 to Esch Road. Left on Esch about 5 minutes to the air monitor. Short talk by EPA on the air monitoring plans and air deposition issues.
9:45 a.m. Continue north up Hwy 22 to Pierce Stocking Scenic Drive (15 minutes). Take the shortcut out to the scenic overlook. (5 minutes). Continued discussion about Great Lakes issues.
10:30 a.m. Event ends, Leavitt departs for Traverse City.
The linked editorial below from the White Lake Journal is based on heartening sentiments, but it also shows the influence of the Western water lawyers that former Governor Engler and others hired to evaluate water export law a few years ago. The entire debate over the so-called "Annex 2001" flows from assumptions those lawyers made that the veto that all eight Great Lakes governors have over new water diversions is unconstitutional. But there's a strong case to be made that the veto is lawful and should remain.
Still, the editorial says:
"Under trade agreements and the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, water is considered to be a commodity or a product. Under their terms, we cannot just say no to those who want to use a product in the same fashion that we do. We use water for drinking, so under the commerce clause and trade agreements, others may be entitled to enter into trade for water to drink."
When we use water from the tap here in the Great Lakes Basin, it is NOT a product. Most of that water -- through obvious means -- is also returned to the Basin. Not so when water is bottled, sold and taken away from the Great Lakes.
The Western water lawyers did their job well -- of convincing us to draft rules that would let their thirsty states compete for our water. Some would say that's paranoid, but just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12961074&BRD=2052&PAG=461&dept_id=388728&rfi=6
The exchange quoted below pretty much sums up what's going on with the proposal now on the State House floor to amend the Constitution to ban diversions -- something that a law has done for 20 years.
"Noah Hall, senior manager of the Great Lakes Water Resource Program of the National Wildlife Federation, said the resolution isn't needed because it duplicates an existing law.
"A constitutional amendment does nothing except give politicians a chance to speak about the issue in an election year," Hall said. "It doesn't provide additional legal protection."
But Rep. Dave Farhat, a Republican from Fruitport who introduced the resolution, said it's important to put the measure in the Michigan Constitution so state lawmakers could not change it in the future. Only a vote of the people can change the constitution.
"What we have now is state law, which can change in the legislative process at any time," Farhat said. "Great Lakes diversion doesn't have to be at the whim of the seated Legislature."
********************************
Suggestion: in addition to the alternative language suggested in a response to the last post, why not amend this proposal simply to say "diversion and/or export"? That would bar any more water bottling facilities like Nestle's Ice Mountain in Mecosta County that export Great Lakes Basin water. Oh, that's right -- we can't do that, because it would actually mean something and protect the environment, and offend a corporation.
News from the Michigan House this morning...a committee approved a very popular proposed Constitutional amendment (House Concurrent Resolution CC) that pretends to protect the Great Lakes, but will do nothing that current law already doesn't do.
The amendment affects no one in Michigan, and probably never will. If you want to divert Great Lakes water, you don't go to Michigan, which is in the middle of the Lakes. You go to Illinois, where a diversion exists, or Ohio, where a diversion exists, etc...
But a water conservation law -- which would really demonstrate good stewardship by Michigan and strengthen our case against diversion and export -- now that would offend industries, including manufacturing and agriculture, who would then make things difficult for legislators at future elections. So the Legislature has a choice between empty symbolism, and meaningful action. Cross your fingers.
Language of the proposed amendment below:
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 55. Except for lawful diversions existing on the effective date of this section, the waters of the Great Lakes within the boundaries of this state shall not be diverted out of the drainage basin of the Great Lakes. The legislature shall provide for the protection of the waters of the Great Lakes from diversion out of the drainage basin of the Great Lakes.
Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be submitted to the people of the state at the next general election in the manner provided by law.
Since the 1970 mercury "scare" on Lake St. Clair, Michigan has issued printed fish consumption advisories because of chemical contaminants. For the first time in all those years, the state has discontinued printing the advisory this year. It's a disgrace -- another sign of a government too pauperized to fulfill its basic responsibilities. In this case, to women of child-bearing age. There is some small hope that the state health budget for the fiscal year beginning next week will earmark a small amount of federal money to get the printed advisory to low-income women participating in the WIC program.
This Free Press editorial today is exactly right:
"It's not news that fish tested in virtually every Michigan lake have at least some mercury. But a ranking of the lakes by how much mercury is in them only underscores the danger Michigan is courting this year by not printing fish advisories. "
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/elakes23_20040923.htm
Fine sentiments in the news release below. The same wise commissions expressed them 14 years ago and precious little has happened. Why will it be different now -- has someone figured out a way to overcome the resistance of the shipping and port lobbies?
NEWS RELEASE
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
IJC and GLFC Urge Bi-national Action to Prevent Invasive Species
U.S and Canada Should Ratify IMO, Develop Stricter Rules for the Great Lakes
Ennis, Ireland – At the 13th International Conference on Aquatic Invasive Species, the International Joint Commission (IJC) and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) today released a document detailing progress in preventing the introduction of aquatic alien species in the Great Lakes. The document, Then and Now: Aquatic Alien Invasive Species and the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Ecosystem, highlights the urgent need for more action on the part of the governments of the United States and Canada.
The two Commissions recommend that both countries ratify and implement the International Maritime Organization (IMO) convention on ship’s ballast water and sediments, pursue development of more stringent and more timely regional measures for the Great Lakes, and for the U.S. Congress to fully fund the electric fish dispersal barriers that are designed to keep the invasive Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.
"Aquatic alien invasive species pose one of the biggest threats to the future of the Great Lakes, but the government's slow actions to date are not sufficient to protect the biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem," said the Rt. Honorable Herb Gray, chair of the Canadian Section of the IJC.
Then and Now is a follow up to a 1990 report (Exotic Species and the Shipping Industry: The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Ecosystem at Risk) issued by the two Commissions that made a series of recommendations to prevent the introduction of invasive species to the Great Lakes via ballast water discharge. Of particular concern is invasion via canal such as the Asian carp species moving up the Illinois River and towards the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, giving these voracious plankton feeders unfettered access to the Great Lakes.
“The Asian carp threatens to devastate a $4.5 billion commercial and sport fishery in the Great Lakes,” said Dennis Schornack, chair of the U.S. Section of the IJC.
Featured in Then and Now is a timeline of key milestones in the history of invasive species in the Great Lakes, ranging from the introduction of the sea lamprey in the 1830s to the first report of a zebra mussel in the lakes in 1988 to actions by authorities through the Great Lakes in 2003 to prohibit the sale and transport of live Asian carp.
Main Entry: bray
Pronunciation: 'brA
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French braire to cry, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin bragere, of Celtic origin; akin to Old Irish braigid he breaks wind
intransitive senses : to utter the characteristic loud harsh cry of a donkey; also : to utter a sound like a donkey's
This is unfair, but so is Thomas Bray's column in the Detroit News today. He rails against the "no-growth, no-jobs camp" that is concerned about protecting Great Lakes Basin water, including groundwater.
I have yet to meet anyone who is no-growth, no-jobs, in the environmental community or elsewhere. If this is the kind of blurry, bigoted thinking that characterizes the conservative movement in this country, we are in bigger trouble than we realize.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0409/22/a15-280880.htm
This is probably the most succinct sentence I've seen in the media justifying the proposed water export pact among the Great Lakes states and provinces:
"A proposed compact governing the use of Great Lakes water would likely make it too costly for states to divert water out of the basin region because it would require them to both replace the water and to do an improvement to the basin, representatives from two conservation groups said..."
Good reporting. Not sure I agree with the rationale, but it's arguable.
http://www.ashland-wi.com/placed/index.php?
sect_rank=1&story_id=182717
Any comments?
"But in an election as close as 2000 – or 2004 -- issues like Great Lakes protection could supply the catfish whisker's difference needed to put George W. Bush over John Kerry, or vice versa. After all, the eight Great Lakes states send 16 senators and over 100 representatives to Washington. And they constitute a healthy141 of the needed 270 electoral votes."
http://www.minutemanmedia.org/GLM%20092204.htm
Last night's hearing on the Great Lakes pact generated more turbulence. Canada (and Ontario especially) should be Michigan's natural ally on this issue. It's to be hoped that Michigan decisionmakers pay close attention to comments like these:
"I have a message in a bottle for Paul Martin," she said as she held up an empty water bottle. "It reads: `Save the Great Lakes. Say No to Diversion.' "
http://www.onnnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=2326572
I'd heard about this a while back, but now it's public. Any comments on this unique technique for educating beer drinkers about the Great Lakes?
http://www.realbeer.com/news/articles/news-002328.php
The draft agreement now under public review courtesy of the Great Lakes governors is not getting a welcome from some north of the border:
Diversion of Great Lakes water risks environment, Cdn sovereignty: critics
Sun Sep 19, 6:10 PM ET
COLIN PERKEL
TORONTO (CP) - An American proposal to allow the diversion of water from the Great Lakes threatens both the environment and Canada's sovereignty, critics warn.
In submissions to be made at public hearings on Monday, several groups plan to argue the proposed agreement among eight U.S. states, especially in its current form, is dangerous. The proposal, known as the Implementing Agreement for Annex 2001, would end a virtual moratorium on new or increased water diversions south of the border.
Even though the legislation would allow only small-scale diversions, expert water consultant Ralph Pentland warns it would still be a very large foot in the door.
"In the business of water, once you say maybe, you say yes," Pentland said in an interview from Ottawa.
The Council of Canadians, which will present at Toronto hearings hosted by the Council of the Great Lakes Governors, also wants to make its "vehement" opposition to the proposal known.
"The eight U.S. states are forming an agreement where they're going to sell Great Lakes water," said Sara Ehrhardt, water campaigner for the group.
"It's going to open the door for the sale of water on a large scale."
Healing Our Waters, a project of the Wege Foundation of Grand Rapids, has issued a report and launched a print ad campign urging action to protect the Great Lakes. The report is available at http://www.healingourwaters.org.
This weekend, though, I'm encouraging people with Adobe Reader to click on the link below, look at the ad, and record some comments. Fire away!
http://www.mecprotects.org/printad.pdf
Interesting story from yesterday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
"Sampling reports from the Milwaukee sewerage district were cooked "to disguise the true level of human waste entering Lake Michigan," according to an anonymous complaint that's prompted a review by state regulators as well as a series of internal investigations."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/sep04/259626.asp
You wonder how often this goes on around the Lakes.
A friend in the Milwaukee area writes:
"There was a great deal of clandestine dumping going on last May. Some guy in one of the northeast suburbs videotaped a huge raw sewage bloom in the lake. It looked like MMSD was trying to sneak some sewage into the lake and got caught.
"Anytime government contracts in with private providers for environmental services, there's bound to be cheating going on. Private contractors have a profit motive to hide numbers and cook books, or this case, sewage. I just hope there's a full and fair investigation. This is a serious allegation."
Two contrasting opinions:
"We need a Great Lakes political czar to manage the affairs of the Great Lakes in the United States, as well as one in Canada."
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/edik16_20040916.htm
"F.Ned Dikmen's thought-provoking commentary on how best to manage the Great Lakes suggested we need "a Great Lakes political czar" to improve protection of these waters ("Commissions need a unifier," Sept. 16). That's exactly the wrong answer."
http://www.freep.com/voices/letters/eltrs17_20040917.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 16, 2004
Contacts:
James Clift, Michigan Environmental Council, 517 487-9539
Margaret Wooster, Great Lakes consultant, 716 833-5892
Lake Erie groups promote new limits for phosphates in dishwashing detergents
Twenty-one environmental organizations from Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Ontario and New York are urging the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to promulgate a new rule limiting the phosphorous content in dishwashing detergent. If adopted, the new rule will provide greatest benefit to the state of Ohio, which is blessed with the longest Lake Erie coastline of the four bordering states, but also the most affected by pollutants in the lake.
"Excess phosphorous was a major cause in the near death of Lake Erie thirty years ago and is a significant contributor to the dead zone now," says Margaret Wooster, coordinator for a network of about 50 Lake Erie
groups. "Unfortunately, the 1977 rule that limited the phosphorous content in laundry detergent and helped bring the Lake back to life, did not cover phosphorous amounts in dishwashing detergents, which are nearly 18 times higher, and there are a lot more homes with dishwashers today."
The groups want Michigan to apply the same phosphorous content to dishwashing detergents that already applies to laundry detergents. High levels of phosphorous lead to algae blooms, high oxygen demand as the algae decays, and consequent low oxygen levels in a stream or lake. The fish die-offs in the 1970s as well as the "dead zone"discovered in the central Lake Erie basin in 2001 are signs of oxygen levels too low to support life. According to Ohio Sea Grant's studies of the dead zone, phosphorous levels in Lake Erie have been increasing since 1995.
"Michigan contributes an estimated 93 percent of phosphorous inputs to Lake Erie, largely through wastewater from facilities like the Detroit sewage treatment plant," says James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council. "By applying the stricter phosphorous content requirement to dishwashing detergents, Michigan will not only contribute to the second recovery of Lake Erie, but also send a message to other bordering jurisdictions that all parties must take aggressive action to defend the lake."
This commentary in the Detroit Free Press today recommending rejection of the proposed implementing agreements for stopping Great Lakes water exports is worthy of a close reading. The pacts can be salvaged, however, if Michigan stands strong and clearly articulates its position as the only jurisdiction of any size entirely in the Great Lakes Basin. We ARE the heart of the Lakes.
http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ehurl16_20040916.htm
The next posting will have to be about something positive -- but this one can't be. It's just been called to my attention that the state budget deal reached by the Republican legislative leadership and the Governor calls for selling off a large chunk of the 75,000 or so acres of school forest land. This is land that was once part of the state's holdings but was turned over to local school districts, usually decades ago, for forestry and outdoor education. Now much of it (31,000 acres) is being sold to pay for firefighting grants to local governments and to balance the state's general fund budget. Next thing you know, we'll be selling naming rights to the Mackinac Bridge. How does Microsoft Bridge sound to you? That would bring in some revenue, too.
If you want to read the bill, go here:
http://www.michiganlegislature.org
Type in 5313 as the bill number, and open the "As Passed by the Senate" version.
Public lands should continue to belong to the public, period.
"We must be careful not to make this a jobs-diversion plan," said Michael Johnston, director of regulatory affairs for the Michigan Manufacturers Association.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lakes15e_20040915.htm
How many jobs will Michigan have if we do not implement a water conservation law and policy? Free export of Great Lakes water could result, and that means free export of jobs.
The lack of vision on the part of some special interests on this issue is appalling. It doesn't bode well for our future economically or environmentally.
Terri Swier, representing Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, put it best in prepared comments at today's hearing:
"10. The Agreements now include a definition of diversion that excludes all diversions and exports of water for sale in containers less than 5.7 gallons (20 liters). This ignores the legal principles of WRDA and the court decision in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters, which held that when water is the product and sold out of a watershed, it is a diversion and not a consumptive use. The Agreements allow such consumptive uses not to be subject to the veto or unanimous consent requirement for diversions. Neither consumptive use nor diversion can be defined by container size."
The Detroit Free Press carries the Associated Press story on the Great Lakes quality report issued by the International Joint Commission yesterday. The IJC probably needs a message consultant.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/lakes14e_20040914.htm
The problems of the Lakes ARE complex, and not easily reduced to soundbites. Fortunately, reporter John Flesher is able to boil down the complicated to the understandable: The Great Lakes remain a dumping ground.
But from there the commissioners go off-message. The lakes have gotten "progressively better"? That not only conflicts with the lead, but also contradicts evidence of sharply rising levels of chemical fire retardants in the Great Lakes food web.
Maybe the IJC should issue a report annually, not biennially, and focus on the top three threats to the Lakes with specific solutions. Instead, it wants to spend months and months reviewing the goals and language of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement -- whose goals are fine. "Chemical, physical and biological integrity" are laudable. So tell us how to get there -- in language everyone can understand.
Which statement is more compelling about the state of the Great Lakes, A or B?
A.
"There are a large number of problems still to be dealt with," Herb Gray, the Canadian co-chairman of the commission, said in a conference call with reporters. The U.S. co-chairman, Dennis Schornack, agreed but added that "things have progressively gotten better."
B.
Our magnificent Great Lakes are under siege. Containing over 90 per cent of America’s surface fresh water, the Lakes sustain millions of people and diverse wildlife. The Lakes are vital to the region’s economy and way of life. But we have contaminated the water, sediments, and fish; we have introduced alien invasive species that are destroying the Lakes’ natural ecology. To save our national treasure, governments, businesses, and citizens need to cooperate now in protecting and restoring the Great Lakes.
http://www.healingourwaters.org/pages/4/index.htm
If you answer A, go immediately to the back of the Great Lakes boat. "A" is from a wire story quoting the Canadian and U.S. chiefs of the International Joint Commission, a binational body that, despite diplomatic constraints, was remarkably outspoken and served as the conscience of the Great Lakes from the 70s until the early 90s. The quotes come on the occasion of the release of the IJC's biennial report on Great Lakes water quality today.
The full report is available at ijc.org.
"B" is the consensus statement of environmentalists, scientists, and others at the "Healing Our Waters" conference sonsored by the Wege Foundation in Grand Rapids last May.
If a government entity with the stature of the IJC could say it so well, we might see something actually happen to clean up and restore the Great Lakes.
Here it is -- a creditable effort by the Kerry/Edwards team to put forth something detailed and meaningful as an alternative to the Bush record of neglect and abuse of the Great Lakes. The lead on the wire services is that Gov. Granholm pointed out Bush's flip-flop on water exports. More later. If the Bush campaign outlines a detailed Great Lakes plan, I'll post it for comparison.
THE KERRY-EDWARDS GREAT LAKES PLAN:
RESTORING OUR HERITAGE
The Great Lakes are a magnificent resource. They constitute the largest body of fresh water on our planet, provide drinking water for over 30 million people , transport over 110 million short tons of goods and services every year , and provide food and recreational opportunities for millions of Americans, including over 250 million visitors to parks on the lakes. The Great Lakes are vital to the region’s $3 trillion economy and way of life.
Today, the Great Lakes are under unprecedented stress:
· Mercury emissions and other toxics from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants and other industrial sources are poisoning the Great Lakes, contaminating fish, and threatening water supplies.
· Toxic “hot spots” in sediments – a legacy of industrial pollution – continue to leach chemicals into the Great Lakes, harming fish stocks and water supplies.
· These pollutants have caused hundreds of fish advisories for the Great Lakes. These include advisories for toxics in many sport fish found throughout the Great Lakes and statewide fish consumption advisories due to mercury contamination in every one of the Great Lakes states.
· Contaminated water is routinely deposited into the Great Lakes in the form of stormwater and sewer overflows, which causes serious health risks and beach closures. In 2002, nearly 900 beaches on the Great Lakes were closed due to bacterial contamination.
· Open space and sensitive areas around the Great Lakes are subject to unprecedented development pressures.
· Invasive species threaten the ecological balance of the Great Lakes; over 160 exotic species have invaded the Lakes. Invaders like zebra mussels deprive fish of food, cause blooms of toxic algae, and overtake boats, spawning areas, and drinking water intakes. The damage caused by the zebra mussel alone is estimated at $5 billion.
· Wetlands, which serve as nurseries for fish and wildlife and act as natural filters to purify the Lakes’ waters, are being destroyed at an alarming rate. The Great Lakes have lost more than two-thirds of their original wetlands, and many more wetlands are targeted for development.
Rather than taking action to reverse these trends, the Bush administration has pursued shortsighted environmental policies have accelerated the deterioration of the Great Lakes. The Bush administration has:
· Weakened mercury standards proposed by EPA’s own scientists, which would have reduced mercury contamination by as much as 90%. Instead, the Bush plan allows coal-fired power plants to emit more mercury over a longer time period than is permitted by existing law.
· Cut funding for stormwater and sewage treatment at a time when municipalities need more federal assistance than ever. For example, earlier this year, more than 4.5 billion gallons of untreated sewage was dumped into Lake Michigan. But President Bush’s 2005 budget cuts the State Revolving Fund -- the program that address municipal sewage systems – by $170 million in the Great Lakes region.
· Starved the Superfund program and eliminated critical funding for the cleanup of legacy pollution problems in the Great Lakes. The administration has refused to reinstate the tax on oil and chemical companies to support the cleanup of toxic waste sites throughout the Great Lakes region and around the country.
· Turned a blind eye to the continued destruction of wetlands. Despite making an Earth Day pledge to restore three million acres of wetlands, the Bush administration proposed a rule that would allow the destruction of up to 20 million acres of wetlands nationally. After intense pressure from sportsmen, the administration withdrew the rule but left in place a “guidance” policy that results in the same amount of wetlands losses.
· Refused to use the Clean Water Act to protect the Great Lakes from discharges of invasive species from their leading source, the ballast water of ships. Seven Great Lakes states are pursuing litigation that challenges the Bush administration on this negligence. In addition, the Bush administration has sat on the legislative sidelines by allowing a comprehensive bill that would protect the Lakes – the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act – to languish in Congress.
· Expressed support for the transport of bulk water supplies from the Great Lakes to the southwestern United States.
John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to restore the Great Lakes and to revive this engine of economic prosperity. Their plan is built around a commitment to restore the heritage of the Great Lakes: pure drinking water; fish that are safe to eat; and a wonderful outdoor resource for all Americans. John Kerry and John Edwards will replace empty talk with serious action to protect and restore our Great Lakes.
JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS WILL PROTECT AND RESTORE
THE HERITAGE OF THE GREAT LAKES
John Kerry and John Edwards have a six-point plan for our Great Lakes:
1. Implement a “No Toxics” Plan for the Great Lakes
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that it is time to end the “business as usual” approach to toxic releases into the Great Lakes. They will establish a “no toxics” plan for the Great Lakes that will – for the first time in history – comprehensively measure current toxic loadings, identify significant sources of new toxics, and develop an integrated strategy for reducing historic and ongoing toxic deposits in the Great Lakes and in fish and wildlife.
As a key part of their “no toxics” plan, John Kerry and John Edwards will clamp down on mercury emissions from power plants that are poisoning the Great Lakes. They will order EPA to develop new limits on toxic mercury emissions in order to protect Great Lakes residents and visitors. The Kerry-Edwards EPA will rely on science rather than special interests to protect the resource and the health of the people who enjoy it.
John Kerry and John Edwards also will target toxic legacy “hot spots” and will prioritize their cleanup. They will restore the Superfund program that has been financially starved and neglected under the Bush administration, and they will direct EPA to work through this and other federal programs to identify and clean up toxic sites in the Great Lakes region.
2. Restore Clean Water to our Great Lakes
John Kerry and John Edwards support the bi-partisan Great Lakes Restoration Financing Act, which will provide the funding desperately needed to invest in the sewage repairs, toxic cleanups, and wetlands restoration that will maintain and restore the greatness of the Lakes. As a Senator, John Kerry is already a co-sponsor of the Great Lakes restoration legislation. As President, he will work with a bipartisan Congressional coalition to assure passage of this essential legislation.
John Kerry and John Edwards also will ask Congress to restore the Clean Water Act’s revolving fund, and they will make the federal government a full partner with states and municipalities in addressing wastewater treatment and stormwater control needs. John Kerry also will vigorously enforce the Clean Water Act’s protection of the valuable wetlands that naturally filter the Great Lakes’ water and that provide important habitat for its fish and wildlife.
3. Initiate a “Great Parks and Beaches for the Great Lakes” Program
John Kerry and John Edwards will launch a “Great Parks and Beaches for the Great Lakes” program. This new program will investigate the specific causes of beach closures on the Great Lakes, and develop action plans to restore healthy beaches, working in partnership with local and state leaders.
As part of this new program, John Kerry and John Edwards will make good on George Bush’s broken promise to provide full funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund – a land acquisition and protection tool that is supported by federal oil and gas royalties. John Kerry will and John Edwards will direct a significant portion of these national funds to the Great Lakes region to create new parks, build new boat ramps, and protect open spaces and wildlife habitats.
4. Create a “Great Lakes Outdoors Council”
John Kerry and John Edwards believe that decisions involving the Great Lakes should be made with input from state and local representatives and citizens. The Kerry-Edwards administration will take an inclusive, participatory approach to all federal decisions that affect the vitality of the Great Lakes. John Kerry and John Edwards will require federal decision-makers to actively consult with a “Great Lakes Outdoors Council.” Through the new Council, federal decisions will be informed by and coordinated with actions recommended by local and state officials and citizens. Federal actions involving the Great Lakes will no longer be made in a vacuum.
5. Initiate a “No Nuisance Invasive Species” Program
John Kerry and John Edwards will address the serious problem of invasive species by taking aggressive steps to prevent the introduction of invasives into the Great Lakes. They will reverse the Bush administration’s “hands-off” attitude toward invasive species by ordering EPA to join in efforts with eight Great Lakes states to stop the discharge of invasives in the ballast water of ships. John Kerry and John Edwards also will champion the passage of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. As Senator, John Kerry co-sponsored this bipartisan legislation, but it has not been supported by President Bush.
6. Institute a “No Diversions” Policy for the Great Lakes
John Kerry and John Edwards will block any water diversion. They support the efforts of the Council of Great Lakes Governors to enact an interstate compact that will establish formal criteria for evaluating proposed diversions of Great Lakes waters. The Kerry-Edwards administration will work closely with the Governors to monitor all proposed new diversions and prohibit any out-of-basin diversions.
According to the Detroit Free Press...
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/edwards13e_20040913.htm
Will post the whole thing with commentary once it's received.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow has asked the U.S. EPA immediately to halt cross-border shipments from Canada of Toronto trash. Although the article linked below doesn't mention it, EPA technically has the power to do this under an international pact signed years ago.
Which raises the question NOBODY has posed during the argument over how to stop Great Lakes water exports. Most observers believe the interstate commerce clause prevents states from simply banning the import or export of trash, water and other "goods" supposedly in commerce. Even if that's true, there is NO doubt that a U.S.-Canada treaty could ban water exports from the Great Lakes. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and supersede even Constitutional clauses. So why hasn't anyone proposed that the next President and Canadian Prime Minister sign such a treaty and get it ratified?
Here's the trash story:
http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1094854201249290.xml
Now that the Council of Great Lakes Industries is opposing the proposed "Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements" for "locking up the resource" and environmental groups are trying to strengthen it to lock up the water even tighter, is there hope for consensus?
And is there hope for industrial associations that can't see farther than today and don't realize that water conservation standards will actually protect Great Lakes industry?
Posted on Fri, Sep. 10, 2004
Great Lakes proposal opposed
ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHICAGO - A proposal that would require six of the eight Great Lakes governors to approve any new requests from communities or businesses within the lakes' basin to consume more than 5 million gallons of water a day could create bureaucratic chaos, a spokesman for the Council of Great Lakes Industries says.
George Kuper also testified Wednesday at a hearing held by the Council of Great Lakes Governors that the proposal could erode local control of the resource and could harm efforts to attract industry into the region.
"What we're trying to do is increase the availability of the resources for the ecosystem needs and human needs," he said.
But he said governors are actually "locking up the resource" in their efforts to protect the lakes.
Not many have noticed, but State Rep. Chris Kolb has introduced a bill (HB 6006) giving the Governor power to declare state monuments (alias "natural landmarks".) Presidents since Teddy Roosevelt have had such authority, and used it wisely to preserve the public estate from destruction. Several world-famous national parks, including Grand Canyon, were first national monuments.
This article suggests that the cliffs at Grand Ledge would make a suitable monument:
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/cliff8e_20040908.htm
Only problem is, the cliffs are on a mix of county and private lands, and Kolb's bill would apply solely to state-owned land.
But does anyone out there have nominations for a set of Michigan monuments/ natural landmarks worth preserving for all time?
A review of the new International Joint Commission update on its 2000 report on Great Lakes water uses and exports may give policymakers in Michigan, and a few other places, a pain akin to arthritis.
The report notes that water conservation, a necessary prelude to any serious effort to show stewardship by the Great Lakes states, ain't happening in Michigan -- and several other places. But it also notes that the Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley, has demonstrated real resolve by proposing to meter the water use of Chicago residents! And remember, Great Lakes jurisdictions always moan and groan about the 104-year-old Chicago flush, er diversion, of Great Lakes water.
The report also raises its eyebrow at the uncertainties associated with the so-called Annex 2001 -- interesting, since U.S. Section Chair Dennis Schornack, formerly a henchmen of gangsta Governor Engler, helped facilitate the sale of Great Lakes Basin Water to what is now the Nestle Corporation.
Read the report here...
http://www.ijc.org/php/publications/pdf/ID1560.pdf
Election years are great things...they make even anti-environmental Presidents promise to protect the Great Lakes. About whom did the Associated Press say this in 2001?
He "said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest... A lot of people don't need [the water], but when you head South and West, we do need it."
Why, Dubya, of course.
Credit for this discovery goes to David Sirota's blog:
http://www.davidsirota.com/2004/08/then-now-bush-great-lakes.html
So the Great Lakes are going to be one of the twin themes that backers of George W. Bush use in Michigan's Presidential campaign this fall?
http://www.freep.com/news/politics/michthemes4e_20040904.htm
I take back what I wrote a few weeks ago about how the environment, and Great Lakes, don't play much role in Presidential campaigns. But if W's backers think his record of shunning Great Lakes restoration legislation, rolling back wetlands protection and weakening water pollution policies are something to run on, they're dreaming. Misleading lines about opposing Great Lakes water exports are no substitute for true environmental protection.
For a binational thumbs-down on the proposed Great Lakes states/provinces' water conservation pact (alias the Annex 2001 implementing agreements), go here (be forewarned that the download takes a while on dial-up):
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/water.pdf
Canadian Ralph Pentland and American Jim Olson take turns ripping the agreements. In Pentland's words, the agreements are a "very high risk strategy" for the Lakes that could actually promote, rather than deter, water exports.
Enough serious stuff for now. A holiday weekend is upon us. How about a referendum on your favorite Great Lake? And why?
Entries that pinpoint a special place on one of the Great Lakes are also encouraged.
Lake St. Clair nominations are eligible; Lake Champlain nominations are not!