Sierra Club and Sierra Club of Canada call on Governors and Premiers:
Protect Our Great Lakes from Sale or Diversion!
The Sierra Club (U.S.) and the Sierra Club of Canada today released a joint statement on the proposed Great Lakes Annex. The two leading environmental organizations in the United States and Canada have unequivocally stated opposition to diversions and increased water withdrawals in the Great Lakes Basin. The Sierra Club (U.S.) and Canada urge the Governors and Premiers to come forward with a new version of the draft Annex -- one that is based on maintaining the ecological integrity of the Great Lakes, one that confirms the essential role of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the International Joint Commission, the U.S. Water Resources Development Act, and one that confirms that the waters of the Great Lakes should stay within the Basin, with only very limited exceptions for existing diversions and communities that straddle the basin boundary.
The first draft of the agreement was put forward for public consultation in mid-July, 2004 by the Council of Great Lakes Governors. For the Annex negotiations, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec also participate in the Council of Great Lakes Governors. In October, both national organizations of the Sierra Club urged the Governors and Premiers to allow more time for review, due to the distractions of the summer months and the U.S. presidential election during the public consultation period. On February 1, 2005, the Sierra Club representatives from both countries' key chapters and national committees met in Chicago to develop a consensus position between the two organizations. That statement, "The Chicago Consensus," is attached to this release.
"We are very pleased to stand together, representing thousands of environmentally concerned citizens on both sides of the political boundary that runs through this incredible global treasure, and say firmly, 'NO' to diversions," said Jan O’Connell, Treasurer of the Sierra Club Board of Directors and resident of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
"The Great Lakes are an extraordinary part of the planet, with fully 20% of the planet's fresh surface water. We cannot afford to take the Lakes for granted. The coming decades pose huge threats to the Lakes, from climate change impacts to increased threats from agriculture, major industries, water privatization schemes, and thirsty communities. By acting now, we can protect the Lakes for future generations," said Amelia Clarke, President of the Sierra Club of Canada Board of Directors.
Both Sierra Club (U.S.) and Sierra Club of Canada are organizing members in the Great Lakes Basin to work for an agreement that increases the conservation of water in the Basin, protects it from Diversions and ensures that water is recognized as a human right, not a commodity.
"Right now, nothing short of bloody revolution can keep these bastards from building," he said.
http://www.mlive.com/news/sanews/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1112111464101130.xml
The siting of this mess is a contemptible action by a gang of local and federal bureaucratic losers.
"If we allow it to go unchallenged, how long will it be before we have a 1,000 Nestles exporting public water?" Holtz asked.
http://www.cadillacnews.com/articles/2005/03/29/news/news01.txt
If the Great Lakes states allow companies to claim ownership of, and make a profit from, our water -- the Great Lakes will become corporate canteens.
(In case you don't know the story of Blackbeard, here it is:
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/blackbea.cfm )
Another exotic species of fish is threatening to wreak havoc on the lucrative Great Lakes fishing industry. But, even though the threat is real, experts aren't sure exactly how to stop it.
Sometimes growing to more than 120 pounds, the Asian Carp are considered a bold, destructive invader species, capable of devouring all the food needed by native species.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1112054534389_74/?hub=SciTech
Michigan, Wisconsin and other states should consider this kind of highway redesign, especially in the north country:
When the Minnesota Department of Transportation planned to rebuild Highway 61 along the North Shore, engineers spent most of their time thinking about what would be riding on top of the roadway.
Now, they're also considering what might pass beneath.
As the section of the North Shore highway over Palisade Creek is rebuilt this summer, what had been planned as a steep culvert impassable to coaster brook trout, steelhead and other fish instead will be a bridge under which fish can swim easily.
Moreover, the bridge has been designed to encourage wildlife -- such as deer, wolves, bear and lynx -- to pass underneath rather than walk across the road. And anyone who has driven the North Shore highway, especially in the dark, knows keeping deer off the road is a good thing.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthtribune/news/local/11243206.htm
This week brings an opportunity to speak in two different states on the future of the Great Lakes. The many threats plaguing the Lakes, and the many governments struggling to deal with them, inevitably lead to issue fatigue on the part of citizens. Which in turns allows politicians to proclaim a love for the Lakes while slowly killing them. Three basic steps -- dealing with invasive species, the threat of water commercialization and exports, and harmful toxic chemicals -- are all within reach. They aren't politically easy, but the generation before us didn't take the easy road either. Details to come.
In Michigan, a state official further confuses the problem of dioxin in the Saginaw River Basin:
The city of Bay City and a local General Motors plant may share the blame for dioxin contamination in the lower Saginaw River and Bay, a state official says.
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-4/111192212317830.xml
This is the "message discipline" that the state supposedly seeks by shushing lower-level officials? The fact is, the vast majority of the dioxins in the river basin upstream of Bay City are likely to have come from Dow Chemical Company -- and wherever it comes from, it needs to be cleaned up.
In Minnesota, the Legislature trims back a program virtually everyone supports to buy and protect wildlife habitat:
A proposal to significantly boost Minnesota's wildlife management area system -- popular public wildlife lands heavily used by hunters -- was whittled down last week at the Legislature.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5313453.html
This is the most apt reaction: "We understand it's a tight budget. But it's always habitat or the environment that gets cut first," said Lance Ness, president of the Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance.
But it is spring, and there is still hope for the renewal of the political process as well as the natural world.
The model for the $4-6 billion "Great Lakes restoration" legislation introduced in Congress the last two sessions is a similar-sized package of goodies Congress approved for the Florida Everglades in 2000. Observers say we Lakes backers suffer from "Everglades envy." Judging by this news report, it should be Everglades pity. One clear lesson: don't put the Army Corps of Engineers in charge of Great Lakes restoration.
Glades Project in Disarray, Feds Say
By Curtis Morgan
The Miami Herald
A top federal official is worried that construction delays, a ballooning
budget and a skeptical Congress could hurt Everglades restoration.
After five years, the federal agency in charge of restoring the
Everglades is behind schedule, over budget and at serious risk of losing
congressional support.
That withering assessment doesn't come from outsiders who have long
criticized the $8.4 billion-and-rising effort - but from inside the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers itself.
Gary Hardesty, the top Everglades manager for the Corps in Washington,
D.C., laid it out in a blunt internal memo leaked to the Public Employees
for Environmental Responsibility, which released it Monday.
He warns of questions about lagging science studies, a projected budget
that has ballooned by almost $1 billion for the first handful of projects
alone and a perception in Congress that the ambitious original vision of
restoring the River of Grass "is dead."
"We haven't built a single project during the first five years,"
Hardesty wrote in the March 7 memo. "We've missed almost every milestone."
While largely echoing concerns raised for years by environmental groups,
the Miccosukee Tribe and others, the memo powerfully underscores that a
project launched in 2000 with great fanfare may be foundering at what
Hardesty calls "a critical juncture" as the federal budget tightens and
political priorities shift.
Corps spokesman Dave Hewitt said the memo wasn't intended as a policy
statement, but only as an internal "caution" to an interagency team
preparing a five-year report to Congress.
It will be the first comprehensive report lawmakers will see on the
Everglades project.
There is little optimism in the three-page document.
Amen, for Michigan and Minnesota:
Woody Allen said 80 percent of life is just showing up. Yet the story of conservation in Minnesota to date has been that too few among the literally millions of state residents who value our songbirds and ducks, clean water and clean skies have done even that.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/533/5312265.html
Interesting juxtaposition of news about Nestle's various water grabs...
In Michigan, enviro groups ask the Governor to intervene --
ENVIROS, TRIBES ASK GRANHOLM TO STOP EVART WATER PROJECT
Several Michigan tribes and environmental groups have sent letters to Governor Jennifer Granholm urging her to take action against the city of Evart's plans to sell municipal water to the Nestle Corporation for its Ice Mountain bottled water. The governor has not promised action, but a spokesperson for the Governor Jennifer Granholm said the pleas are being considered.
Four environmental groups, including the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan and Clean Water Action, invoked a 2001 opinion by then Attorney General Granholm that said Nestle's original water bottling plan in Mecosta County was subject to the federal Water Resources Development Act.
The tribes said the Nestle deal would violate a 2004 Tribal State Accord to "protect the shared water resources of this state."
Both groups have said Ms. Granholm has the right and responsibility to stop the Nestle deal from going forward, and both are calling for better state legislation to deal with future water withdrawal issues.
The environmental groups wrote in their letter, "Allowing the Evart project to proceed without regional review, then, is plainly unlawful. For the same or similar reasons, the diversion of water for sale in bottles or any other sized container or conduit violates Michigan's own Great Lakes Preservation Act."
"This case highlights the need for state water use management laws," said Kate Madigan with the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan.
The contract with Evart is expected to be enacted by the end of March.
In California, the courts at least temporarily block a Nestle deal.
http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51//03-24-2005/f9c000165b55e31c.html
The fate of our waters is being decided case by case. The fundamental issue: do we own all water in streams, lake and the ground, or can corporations own it? We simply cannot allow the privatization of the public's water in any way, shape or form.
On Eve of New Shipping Season, Great Lakes Remain Unprotected from Aquatic Invasive Species
Ann Arbor, MI (March 24) – On the eve of the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, conservation groups are urging U.S. and Canadian governments to stop the introduction of aquatic non-native organisms into the lakes and to protect the region’s $4.5 billion world-class fishery.
“It is unacceptable that, more than 15 years after the discovery of the zebra mussel in the Great Lakes, we are marking the opening of the 2005 Seaway season without any new protections in place from the invaders carried by ocean-going ships,” said Andy Buchsbaum, director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Natural Resource Center in Ann Arbor, Mich.
The No. 1 pathway for non-native aquatic species to enter the Great Lakes is through ballast discharge from ocean-going vessels originating in foreign ports. Since the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1959, one new aquatic non-native species has established itself in the Great Lakes every eight months from all pathways, further disrupting the aquatic food web and threatening the region’s fishery.
“Every time an ocean-going vessel enters the St. Lawrence Seaway it’s like playing Russian roulette with the health of the Great Lakes,” said Jennifer Nalbone, Habitat and Biodiversity Coordinator for Great Lakes United. “Ocean-going vessels constitute a small fraction of the region’s shipping traffic; yet, these are the vessels that are introducing new aquatic invaders into the Great Lakes and jeopardizing the aquatic food web and world-class fishery.”
International import and export constitutes only about 7 percent of traffic on the Great Lakes, according to Amy Corps of Engineers data.
The Great Lakes commercial and sport fishery is valued at $4.5 billion annually, and the annual economic impacts from fishing in the Great Lakes states total $7 billion, according to 2001 data from the Fish and Wildlife Service. By comparison, $7 billion in economic benefit is attributed to the movement of bulk goods such as grain, iron ore, coal, steel and other cargo across the Great Lakes navigation system during the 2003 navigation season.
“This is a tale of two industries, both of which are vital to the region’s economy,” said Buchsbaum. “Currently, these industries are on a collision course, and they don’t have to be. We need policies that support both.”
The opening of the Seaway comes as the U.S. Coast Guard is reviewing its ballast water program which exempts more than 80 percent of the vessels entering the Great Lakes from regulation, and as two Michigan lawmakers are introducing legislation to have states regulate ballast water discharge, due to inaction by the federal governments.
“By making no immediate decisions,” said Nalbone, “the U.S. and Canadian governments are in fact deciding the fate of the Lakes.”
Meanwhile, aquatic researchers have identified more than a dozen potential invaders to the Great Lakes.
“The question we are confronted with is not if new invaders will arrive in the Great Lakes, but when will they come and how much damage they will cause,” said scientist Anthony Ricciardi of McGill University in Montreal, whose research focuses on species predicted to invade the Great Lakes. “In that context, we have to ask ourselves, ‘Which new species will become the next zebra mussel?’”
Potential invaders that threaten the Great Lakes fishery include a freshwater shrimp, dubbed the “killer shrimp” because of its ferocious feeding behavior, and the monkey goby, an aggressive bottom-dwelling fish that completes with other small fish for food and space, like its cousin, the round goby.
“The U.S. and Canadian governments, and the shipping industry itself, have a responsibility to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species,” added Nalbone. “The economic and environmental costs of inaction are simply too high.”
Immediate Release: March 24, 2005
Contact:
Jordan Lubetkin, National Wildlife Federation, 734-769-3351, ext. 49; lubetkin@nwf.org
Jennifer Nalbone, Great Lakes United, 716-213-0408, jen@glu.org
Dr. Anthony Ricciardi, McGill University, 514-398-4086 ext. 4089#; tony.ricciardi@mcgill.ca
This one deserves its own post:
FYI, on March 3, 2004, a formal written recommendation was made by the MESB (Michigan Environmental Science Board) to the Governor's Office to have the MESB scientifically evaluate the environmental and human health concerns associated with pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)in Michigan.
Environmental releases of PPCPs occur through several avenues including, wastewater treatment plant discharges, direct discharge of raw sewage (storm overflow events and residential straight piping), discharges from confined animal feedlots and facilities that treat medicated animals, and from land-applied sewage sludges. The constant introduction of PPCPs to the state’s surface and ground waters impart a persistence quality to PPCPs in the environment. Little is known regarding the environmental or human health hazards that are posed from the resulting chronic, sub-therapeutic level exposures of these bioactive substances or their transformation products. Background scientific information was provided in the request to support the concern for and the need to look at this issue.
Despite two telephone calls and three email reminders to the Governor's office of the submitted issue (over a period of two months), there was no response back to the MESB of the issue or request. Through other sources, it was subsequently found out that the MESB request was dismissed. Consequently, no charge was given to the MESB to evaluate this issue.
Keith G. Harrison
Former MESB Executive Director
1992-2005
EPA ignores own research in creating mercury rule
The U.S. EPA may have grossly underestimated the health benefits of
mercury-emission reductions, according to a study commissioned by,
uh, the EPA. When the Bush administration's new mercury rule was
released last week, administration officials claimed that it would
yield only $50 million a year in health benefits, while costing
industry $750 million a year to implement. This poor cost-benefit
ratio was used as justification for not requiring greater reductions.
But an EPA staffer has recently revealed that a study conducted by
EPA and Harvard scientists estimated the health benefits of the rule
to be some 100 times greater -- worth some $5 billion a year in
health savings -- because of mercury's effects on cardiac health.
Agency officials said the study was submitted too late, but
interviews and documents reveal that to be, uh, not true. They also
say the study had unspecified "flaws." But they now acknowledge that
no one can say "definitively" that the costs outweigh the benefits --
just that they outweigh the "quantified benefits." Perhaps if they'd
quantified all the benefits ...
Washington Post, Shankar Vedantam, 22 Mar 2005
http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4610
From the introduction to a paper received last week from some accomplished Great Lakes experts:
OVERVIEW
There is wide agreement that the Great Lakes are under extreme stress, that changes have already occurred, and that those predicted for the future are unacceptable. While there is general acceptance of the notion that a piecemeal approach will not result in significant restoration of the lakes, policymakers and stakeholders are struggling with the question of how to systematically construct and implement a strategy that will protect and restore the human values associated with this unique freshwater ecosystem.
New stress factors have emerged and in combination with the residual from older stresses have resulted in new symptoms, or in some cases a return to the adverse conditions once thought to have been permanently remediated. It now appears that the Great Lakes ecological response to the human stresses is resulting in what might be termed, adaptive pathological syndrome leading to ecosystem meltdown in the most affected areas of the basin. As the term meltdown implies, the synergistic feedback of stress factors have triggered a chain reaction process of degradation.
Efforts to treat the symptoms without diagnosing the problems will lead to poor allocation of scarce research and management funds. Restoring ecosystem integrity will require joint consideration of all stresses and their effects singly, jointly and cumulatively. Certainly, new resources being sought to restore the Great Lakes should be directed toward addressing those stress factors that singly or in combination continue to push toward ecosystem meltdown. Restoration of the Great Lakes ecosystem requires not only a documentation of symptoms, but also a careful diagnosis of underlying, interrelated causes, and a detailed prescription of remedies needed to protect and restore its future health.
In early 2005, a group of internationally-recognized scientists, some with over 50 years experience in studying the Great Lakes, tackled these questions head-on, and the result is this paper. The scientists involved in its preparation readily admit that this model doesn’t explain everything that has happened to the Great Lakes. However, they believe it has utility in guiding restoration efforts by providing a context within which priorities can be focused on the type of activities and target areas that will have the most significant positive impact for the lakes as a whole.
Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act suggest that the City of Evart and State Senator Michele McManus promoted a land swap between the City and the Michigan DNR without notifying the latter that the deal would also benefit Nestle Corporation, allowing it to move ahead with plans to purchase some of the city's water supply wells, transport, bottle and export the water as a product outside of the Great Lakes Basin.
The February 7, 2005 minutes of the city's council meeting include a resolution approving a land transaction application with DNR that says: "Whereas, the City expects to subsequently transfer all or a portion of the newly acquired DNR property to Nestle Waters North America Inc. while reserving an airway navigation easement to enable the City to make greater use of its airport facilities; and Whereas Nestle is willing to contribute a significant portion of the estimated costs of the construction of the replacement facility for the DNR..."
Oddly enough, in correspondence to DNR, the City Manager and Senator McManus do not mention the Nestle interest.
Probably not this one:
Environmentalism is society's way of keeping the toilet from backing up. Without it we'd be awash in our own poop.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/3/15/17352/7538?source=daily
Interesting that the top 3 candidates proposed by this writer are a store, a city of chicken dinners, and the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village.
At least the Dunes make the runners-up category.
http://www.freep.com/features/travel/creager20e_20050320.htm
The discovery that European and North American rivers and streams contain a witch’s brew of pharmaceuticals at low concentrations has raised obvious questions: What are the environmental effects, and should these drugs be regulated?
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2005/mar/science/pt_pharmdata.html
The debate over The Death of Environmentalism, and NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof's reaction to it, continues.
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/031705EA.shtml
The publication and wide dissemination of the essay "The Death of Environmentalism" is a healthy indication of a movement engaging in useful self-examination and vigorous debate - unless you're Nicholas Kristof, in which case it's an indication that "the movement is in deep trouble."
Kristof, who apparently did not read beyond this sentence, interprets this as an admission that environmentalists have lost credibility due to crying "wolf." Examples: Caribou herds are thriving despite enviros' warnings about the construction of the Alaska Pipeline, the ban on DDT to save bald eagles "has led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths," and the dire predictions made in the 1960s around the burgeoning growth of global population have not come true.
The only problem with this damning thesis is that it is wrong on all counts.
It's hard to read this:
http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=76906
The downturn of the rodent population in the Canadian forest sent the grey owl population south into Minnesota, searching for food to survive the winter. They found nourishment, but also civilization, and increased danger from cars, and other obstacles that are increasingly in their flight paths.
A few years ago, Nestle's first plant, operating in Mecosta County, sparked a statewide discussion about how the state regulates water use. The conversation was a good one, and although it ultimately resulted in some action, the state is still far away from a plan.
That's a mistake.
http://themorningsun.com/stories/031605/opi_editorial001.shtml
*Thousands Write State Lawmakers:
‘Keep Michigan’s Waters In Michigan’*
LANSING, MI—Clean Water Action today announced that more than 7,300
Michigan members have written lawmakers demanding action to protect the
state’s waters and urging bipartisan support for ending Michigan’s
vulnerability to large-scale water withdrawals.
Of the top 16 of 47 state lawmakers receiving constituent letters, 11
are Republican and five Democrat.
"Starting the day after the current class of lawmakers was elected to
the Michigan House, thousands of Clean Water Action members have sent
personal letters to lawmakers from both parties asking them to keep
Michigan’s waters in Michigan by controlling large-scale water
withdrawals,” said Cyndi Roper, Clean Water Action Great Lakes Policy
Director.
“Today one Michigan city—Evart—is preparing to sign a deal selling off
the public’s water to the Nestle Corporation, and throughout Michigan
our Great Lakes and groundwaters remain vulnerable to other wholesale
water grabs,” said Roper. “Michigan—the Great Lakes State—is the only
Great Lakes basin state without laws on the books to prevent the
diversion and export of our water resources for private sale. This is
asking for trouble.”
Since March of 2004, when the proposed Water Legacy Act was introduced,
the Republican majority has failed to hold even a single hearing on this
bill, she said. The Water Legacy Act would, for the first time, give the
state tools to manage new large water withdrawals while putting into
place conservation practices to sustain Michigan’s waters.
“This bill is the only serious proposal before the legislature,” said
Roper. “And while we believe the Water Legacy Act falls short of what we
need, we can’t allow partisan politics to leave Michigan’s waters in
this vulnerable place. We hope over the coming weeks to see a renewed
bipartisan effort to keep Michigan’s waters in Michigan.”
In 1986, Congress passed the Water Resources Development Act. The Act
ensures that each Great Lakes governor can veto a diversion or export of
Great Lakes water. But, the vast majority of the Unites States' people
live outside the Great Lakes basin. And man of those live in so-called
"thirsty states." This increases the possibility that WRDA--our only
authority to block diversion--could be amended or repealed. Michigan
voters overwhelmingly support new laws to regulate large water
withdrawals, according to a recent poll. Support is strong across the
board, with Republicans (at 80%), Independents (at 83%) and Democrats
(at 75%).
Since November 3, 2004, 7,308 Michigan Clean Water Action members have
written by hand or on their computers personal letters to their state
House members. They have asked state elected officials from their
communities to support legislation that would prevent water withdrawals
to other states and countries so Michigan’s waters and jobs are
protected. The letters also ask lawmakers to prevent withdrawals from
harming nearby lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands and to support water
conservation measures.
The Top 16 Lawmakers Receiving the Most Letters from Constituents:
* Letter Written To District # of Letters*
Rep. Glenn Anderson (D) 18 775
Rep. Shelley Taub ( R ) 40 384
Rep.Chris Kolb (D) 53 329
Rep. Phillip Pavlov (R) 81 299
Rep. Andy Dillon (R) 17 290
Rep. John Stakoe (R) 44 287
Rep. Mike Nofs (R ) 62 257
Rep. Gretchen Whitmer (D) 69 254
Rep. Alma Smith (D) 54 254
Rep. David Law (R ) 39 248
Rep. Scott Hummel (R ) 93 225
Rep. Michael Murphy (D) 68 220
Rep. Glenn Steil Jr (R ) 72 213
Rep. Brian Palmer ( R) 36 210
Rep. Craig DeRoche (R) 38 184
Rep. John Espinoza ( R) 83 184
For a complete list of lawmakers receiving constituent letters on
Keeping Michigan’s Waters please go to:
http://www.cleanwateraction.org/mi/index.htm
A U.S. official for the first time in memory suggests the St. Lawrence Seaway may be more trouble than it's worth --
WASHINGTON - The St. Lawrence Seaway is not receiving enough attention from border security officials in the United States and Canada, a national security analyst told representatives from both countries Monday...
At a conference sponsored by the U.S. and Canadian governments, analyst Stephen E. Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations said the Seaway should be a higher priority because of the damage a terrorist attack could cause to the economy of the Midwest, which relies heavily on the Great Lakes for trade...
One participant suggested the cost of running and securing the Seaway may no longer be worth the risks, both of terrorism and invasive species such as zebra mussels. Citing "enormous costs," the U.S. State Department's director of the Office of Canadian Affairs, Terry A. Breese, said the countries may want to consider shutting the system to ocean vessels, which can carry invasive species in ballast tanks.
Mr. Breese cited the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers navigation study of the Great Lakes and added, "I think we need to question whether we want to have a Seaway anymore."
Reading the linked story from Channel 8 TV in Grand Rapids is an experience. It boils a very complicated issue -- including the issue of hype and spin by legislators who know better -- into a bedtime story that should reassure all us kiddies that the people who know are doing the best they can to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species. But the reality is that the Michigan legislators behind this 'plan' are actually postponing the day of reckoning, and not introducing a bill half as tough as the one that current Republican State Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema introduced four years ago.
Here's the Channel 8 story:
http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=3076381
Here's the far stronger Sikkema bill of 2000, which didn't seek a permission slip from the 7 other Great Lakes states to protect the Lakes. Of course it was watered down beyond recognition. But now that Sikkema and the governor elected in 2002 (unlike Engler) agree on this issue, they could whisk the same bill through...
Go this site and look up Senate Bill 955 of 2000:
http://archive.legislature.mi.gov/
The author of elegant and feeling essays on the landscape of the West and the effect of environmental policies both personal and political spoke at Michigan State University last night. She read from her newest book, The Open Space of Democracy. Here is the essence of her teaching:
"I do not believe we can look for leadership beyond ourselves. I do not believe we can wait for someone or something to save us from our global predicaments and obligations. I need to look in the mirror and ask this of myself: If I am committed to seeing the direction of our country change, how must I change myself?
"We are a people addicted to speed and superficiality, and a nation that prides itself on moral superiority. But our folly lies in not seeing what we base our superiority on. Wealth and freedom? What is wealth if we cannot share it? What is freedom if we cannot offer it as a vision of compassion and restraint, rather than force and aggression? Without an acknowledgement of complexity in a society of sound bites, we will not find the true source of our anger or an authentic passion that will propel us forward to the place of personal engagement. "
More from the essay is here:
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/04-2om/TempestWilliams.html
Grand Rapids Press letter to the editor:
Lame water proposal
It is great to see extensive, front page reporting of Nestle/Ice Mountain's spring water mining operations in overwhelmed Evart ("Town hopes for mountain of goodwill," Press, March 6).
The residents of Evart will be happy to learn that a multinational corporation wants to pay less than they are for their own water, and then sell this same water at many times more than what was paid for it!
Why are the leaders of Evart not entrepreneurial enough to bottle and sell their water themselves, but only within the Great Lakes water basin, to make significant profits to benefit their own taxpaying residents? Are we now a desperate, Third World state? Hoodwinked and lame.
DON ROY/Big Rapids
http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/111081518686150.xml?grpress?NELE
Bay City Times editorial:
Some Republican senators in Lansing want the state to throw the book at anyone who intentionally spreads non-native plants, insects and animals in Michigan.
Better late than never, we suppose.
But they're closing the barn door after the varmints have vamoosed.
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1110390336149290.xml
Right! Even more importantly, why don't they reintroduce the bill that their now-Majority Leader, Ken Sikkema, introduced in 2001 to require all ships passing through Michigan waters to treat their ballast water to prevent invasive species? That would do far more than a law that will never be enforced that would penalize individual recreational craft owners, or anglers.
The Great Lakes cruise industry flourished until economics, and the foul stench of pollution, nearly killed it off in the 50s. Maybe it's coming back --
********************
For about 120 years, Great Lakes cruise ships plied North America's inland seas, stopping at most major cities of the day.
On one of them in 1842 was English author Charles Dickens, headed across Lake Erie en route to Buffalo on his grand tour of North America.
Though the vestiges of that grand era ended sometime in the 1960s, Great Lakes cruising has staged something of a comeback in recent years.
In 11 years, the number of cruise passengers has multiplied 20 times from about 300 in 1993 to 6,000 last year.
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2005/03/14/story4.html
A friend and wise thinker responded to the recent news that the City of Evart in Michigan is hoping to sell its water wells to Ice Mountain, and the city manager's comparison of selling 19th Century Michigan trees to selling 21st Century water as a product, by arguing the lumber barons inadvertently gave us a better deal. "There is no second-growth water," he wrote. That is, over 100 years, with patient management, you can regrow a forest. But when you take water out of the Great Lakes Basin in bottles, most of it is lost forever to other Basins.
Rising water levels in the Great Lakes during the past year not only have delighted property owners, who prefer views of waves over weeds, but the swelling bodies also are feeding commerce and a variety of plants and animals that call the lakes home.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0503/13/metro-114717.htm
Talk about framing! "Waves over weeds." How about "waves over natural emergent wetland vegetation critical to the Great Lakes"?
But at least rising water levels will reduce the clout of the Lansing lobby that's been trying to undo the coastal wetland protection law in Michigan to allow "grooming," alias dooming -- everything up to and including tractors running over critical habitat.
Interesting conversation today on Enviro-Mich about NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's column on the status of environmentalism. Bill Collins' reaction is also interesting.
Couple of excerpts from Kristof:
"The Death of Environmentalism" notes that a poll in 2000 found that 41 percent of Americans considered environmental activists to be "extremists." There are many sensible environmentalists, of course, but overzealous ones have tarred the entire field.
Comment: And the right-wing smear machine has done a good job of making the .1 percent of enviros who are extreme into an emblem of a movement. Still, given the reality of the framing the right has done, it is best for the environmental message to be delivered by doctors, parents, scientific experts, the clergy and others who share its values.
Given the uncertainties and trade-offs, priority should go to avoiding environmental damage that is irreversible, like extinctions, climate change and loss of wilderness. And irreversible changes are precisely what are at stake with the Bush administration's plans to drill in the Arctic wildlife refuge, to allow roads in virgin wilderness and to do essentially nothing on global warming. That's an agenda that will disgrace us before our grandchildren.
Comment: Which is exactly where most groups go -- and where public support is often weakest. Immediate tangible threats motivate people far more than something that might happen in 50 years. The point is, we have to work on both.
'I Have a Nightmare'**
*By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/opinion/12kristof.html?hp
.................................................................
I have to agree with the article. I think he's very fair. I'm still waiting for the "Decade of the Environment" that was supposed to happen in the 90's. From our perspective in trying to protect regionally significant natural habitats, it sure feels like things are dead. I don't know if it was ever alive as most people don't get it. At best, their awareness is limited to a "Last Great Places" mentality.
On the other hand, "environmentalists" can hardly be blamed when they are up against big money and its greedy servants, whose brains squirm for a buck. The basic nature of most species seems to be an immediate preoccupation with consumption and reproduction, so it may be inevitable. To disguise the resultant destruction as a private right above all else, upheld by leagues of "professionals", only makes it disgusting. At least bacteria and viruses don't seem to know any better.
Another problem is that many threats to the environment come up repeatedly, so we are using resources to defend the same things time after time. The other side only needs to win once. Bush said something like that about terrorists. How many times has ANWR been targeted in the past few years? For these issues, there should be a law that puts them to rest, unless something substantially changes. Even criminals are protected from double jeopardy.
Anyway, talk about permanence, the posting by Frank Ambrose on March 8 about Mountain Range Removal in the Appalachians is a good chance for the environmental community to come together on a big issue that most people should be opposed to. Maybe the environmental community could reawaken and gain new life this year by coming together for Mountain Justice Summer. After we protect ANWR of course.
Bill Collins
Great commentary from the news editor of the Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun.
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/031105/opi_eric001.shtml
Evart's city manager was more blunt, alluding to the lumber rush that swept up the state more than 100 years ago. Water, he said, is just like the trees that were mowed down and sent elsewhere.
It's as ironic as it is apt.
The greed that prompted the timber rush from 100 years ago caused people to recoil in horror, and foresters to rethink management practices. It also helped influence the fledgling conservation movement. Today, the lumber rush is generally thought to have been something of a mistake, and the land still bears the scars.
Conflict of Interest: Minn. Official Tied to 3M Drags Feet on Teflon Testing
10 MAR 2005 | A top Minnesota environmental official who worked for 3M is refusing to monitor the state's water supply for contamination from the company's dumping of a toxic Teflon chemical. EWG urges her to sever financial ties with 3M and let state scientists do their job.
U.S. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, co-chairman of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, has introduced the Great Lakes Environmental Restoration Act, co-sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
The five Great Lakes are a national resource that contain one-fifth of the worldwide freshwater and many globally rare species, some found only in the Great Lakes, DeWine said.
http://www.thenews-messenger.com/news/stories/20050308/localnews/2058377.html
Just one comment: before we begin restoring the lakes, can we stop degrading them? Spending money to undo what we are doing to them even now makes little sense.
This issue is heating up fast. The Evart scheme to sell public water wells and the water itself to a giant multinational corporation is a grave and present danger to all of the Great Lakes.
************
There are so many questions that require answers. The Great Lakes basin is at risk. It's time for state officials and agencies to be leaders, not sheep.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/mar/0309edit.htm
It's ironic that at the same time a community in Michigan is selling some of its public water wells to a multinational corporation for a ballfield and some free bottled water, the Michigan Supreme Court is also hearing a case that may shut off public access to hundreds of miles of Great Lakes shoreline.
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7279
Perhaps a couple of state Constitutional amendments are in order, clarifying that the public owns and always will own the Lakes and all land up to the ordinary high-water mark.
Who Owns The Water?
We (the People) Do!
Why Michigan Needs A Moratorium on Commercializing Great Lakes Water
Great Lakes, connecting waters, and all tributary lakes and streams up to the point of navigability are subject to the public trust doctrine. Under the public trust doctrine, the title to water is in the states (to be held in perpetuity) for the benefit of the public for navigation, fishing, boating, swimming or other purposes closely related to fundamental human needs.
Michigan should impose a moratorium because it is the will of the people that all of Michigan’s public trust waters and their tributaries (both surface and groundwater) continue to be held in public trust and not turned into a commodity for sale. This is important a) to assure the integrity of the ecosystem and current in-basin uses and b) to protect the public’s collective property interest in these world-class waters at a time of increasing threats of water commercialization.
The entire debate about a proposed moratorium on the sale of water has been distorted by industry claims that constitutional and case law forbids distinguishing between in-basin and out-of-basin uses, and requires that statutes and policies look only at the “natural resource impact” of a proposed use. That is flatly wrong.
Natural resource impact is important but it is not the only basis for regulation of Great Lakes water withdrawals, diversions, or uses.
Among other issues to be considered is the primary issue of control and ownership of water – whether it is ultimately to be by the public or by private parties – and the implications of private vs. public ownership. Looking at ownership issues is fundamentally important because it illuminates the distinction between using water as an ingredient or process material (in the manufacture of apple juice, potatoes or automobiles) and the sale of water itself (in bottles, tankers or other containers) for profit.
Stop the commercialization of our water -- now.
"Besides my breath, researchers at Harvard's School of Public Health examined my blood, hair, urine, toenails and bones. It's all in the name of the emerging science of body burden, a concept referring to the amount of chemicals that accumulate in the human body.
As it turns out, I am polluted. Everyone is to some degree. But as the list of toxic chemicals identified in people continues to grow, scientists are trying to figure out what the implications are for human health."
This may be the one chance in our lifetimes to protect this magnificent landscape...
Undeveloped forest land covering nearly 1 million acres in northern Minnesota is quietly being divided and sold off for development, making it off-limits to the public, say conservation and natural resources officials.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5276835.html
This article ought to send chills down the spine of every Michiganian who knows a little environmental history. Especially this quote:
Elkins recalled how the area was logged a century ago -- a local writer called it "green gold."
"The trees were shipped out of here. ... I don't see water as any different," he said. "We see them as just another customer coming on line. You use the water as you see fit."
Does the gentleman who said this remember what was left after "the trees were shipped out of here"? A ruined wasteland. But the comparison is apt in one way -- our white pine was considered as inexhaustible then as Great Lakes water is today.
The commercialization for private profit of the water we, the people own, must be stopped and it must be stopped now.
http://www.mlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-1/1110107797176840.xml
Minnesota's April 2 ducks n' wetlands rally moves ahead:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/533/5273782.html
"President George W. Bush in his inaugural address spoke eloquently about leading with his mandate from the people. While many people of faith helped vote him into office, we are dismayed and alarmed by the Bush administration's and congressional leaders' plans to reverse and obstruct programs that protect God's creation. We did not intend our vote to translate into a green light to pollute the air, the water and otherwise harm God's Earth and its creatures.
"There is a much larger mandate at stake here that we all answer to: God's mandate to protect creation."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0503/05/D08-108099.htm
On the heels of news that more bald eagles than ever are nesting in the Twin Cities comes this sorry news.
SARTELL — State and local conservation officials are investigating a report that a tree containing a bald eagle's nest was cut down near Minnesota Highway 15.
"It was horrendous," said Jane Bennett of Sartell, president of the Natural Parks and Trails Coalition. She said the site contained an oak forest and white pines, is close to the Sauk and Mississippi rivers and is likely a flyway for migratory birds.
http://miva.sctimes.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?Web/page.mv+1+local+421206
In an op-ed sent to Michigan newspapers in response to former DEQ Director Russ Harding's call for the weakening of Michigan environmental standards, current DEQ chief Steve Chester completely undoes Harding's arguments. "Harding would sacrifice human health and environmental protections for economic growth. This is a false choice." Chester calls Harding's anti-environmental arguments "an old and false canard." Bravo. Anyone who wants a copy of the op-ed should e-mail davedem@hotmail.com and will get the pdf file.
Though nothing is brewing specifically at the moment, the revival of bird song this week (how welcome!) has revived thoughts of the fight over whether Michigan's "official bird" should remain the robin or be changed to the chickadee or Kirtland's warbler. Sure, not the world's most earth-shattering issue, but it's a relief from some that are.
Here are the reasons Michigan Audubon Society offers for the Kirtland's warbler, and they're great ones.
IT ONLY NESTS IN MICHIGAN. NO MICHIGAN, NO KIRTLAND’S WARBLER.
IT IS THE RAREST WARBLER IN NORTH AMERICA.
THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND THE MICHIGAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM SAVED THE WARBLER. IT IS A MODEL FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES ALL OVER THE WORLD.
THE HABITAT PROGRAM HELPS SUSTAIN MICHIGAN’S FOREST PRODUCTS INDUSTRY.
IT ENCOURAGES TOURIST TRAVEL TO MICHIGAN.
http://www.michiganaudubon.org/kirtlands/state_bird.html
Legislators in Minnesota have proposed a crackdown on the intensively used atrazine. The bills may not get a hearing. Whatever their merits, it is misleading at best for the manufacturer, Syngenta, to imply "atrazine poses minimal to no risk..." This is not water and soap. It is a toxic chemical. "Label instructions" are often observed in the breach.
And given who's running EPA, citing the Bush agency's inaction as an argument for continued use is hardly persuasive.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5270349.html
(Not a sports team.)
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the phenomenal numbers of Great Gray Owls and Northern Hawk Owls that had moved south out of Canada into northern Minnesota this winter. Well, the numbers and sightings continue to amaze! Never before in the recorded history of birding has something like this happened. A typical winter season may bring 30 to 35 Great Gray Owls to northern Minnesota; but in 2004-2005 (now called The Year of the Owl), over 2,500 individual birds have been recorded!
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art29221.asp
The Great Lakes restoration proposal floating around the U.S. Congress and its echoes in Canada has got to get more public attention -- and has to be more than just a gravy train. Now mayors are lining up for a piece of the action. But Great Lakes mayors and governors shouldn't be allowed to play without putting up some money first. You can't at the same time tell national governments to keep their hands off the Great Lakes, and then demand they provide 100% of funds to clean them up.
**********
"I want people to be able to go swimming at all the beaches and parks that line our 46 kilometres of shoreline. I want to take my children fishing and let them catch their supper in Toronto harbour. I want Torontonians to actually be able to dip a cup into Lake Ontario and take a drink."
But despite Mr. Miller's avowed willingness to commit Toronto to far greater involvement in cleaning up Lake Ontario, it remained unclear whether he was ready to commit municipal funds or just wanted a seat at the decision-making table.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050303/LAKES03/Environment/Idx
Below is from a Lansing newsletter. "More science..."
So the answer of Michigan's business community is to ignore the threat to control of the Great Lakes and ignore stewardship obligations until some indefinite time at which "more science" tells us all what to do?
Business/Ag Interests Pull Out Of Water Legacy Work Group, For Now
Arguing that more science is needed, a coalition of business and
agricultural interests today indicated that they'd like a preliminary
work group on Gov. Jennifer Granholm's Water Legacy Act to go into
suspended animation.
In a letter to Department of Environmental Quality Director Steve Chester, some 19 groups from the Michigan Chamber to the Michigan Farm
Bureau said they are "very concerned about the recent characterization
of our participation in the workgroup. As Michigan job providers we
attended the workgroup meetings to discuss broad water policy, not to
discuss specific legislation."
The diagnosis is correct, but not necessarily the prescription. The federal legislation described will someday be a top priority. Right now it still needs work.
But no one can seriously deny that saving the Great Lakes means "politically and economically unpopular decisions." Who will make them?
*****************
"We have reached a critical juncture in the life of the Great Lakes. These precious waters and the wildlife they support are one of the most important natural resources on planet. If we do not act now to develop a far-reaching plan for restoration of the lakes, we will soon arrive at the point where there is nothing left to restore. A bill currently pending in the U.S. Congress (Senate bill 1398) directs the states to work with the federal government to restore the Great Lakes. The bill would provide $6 billion over 5 years to set the restoration process in motion. All of us should be doing our part to ensure that this bill moves through Congress rapidly and is signed into law.
The road to restoration will not be easy. To be successful it will require bold leadership, innovative thinking, and the courage to implement politically and economically unpopular decisions. "
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2005/113-3/editorial.html
That's Michigan State Rep. John Pastor of Livnoia, who has visited DEQ offices to shout at a regulator who was holding his development project to the letter of the state wetlands law, who has consistently voted against the environment, and is now questioning the wisdom of the voters in approving Constitutional protection for the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund in the 1980s and 1990s.
From a Capitol newsletter:
"Rep. John Pastor (R-Livonia) argued the Legislature had called last year for a moratorium on new state land purchases. 'I would rather take this money and improve our park system,' he said."
Sounds reasonable. Until you realize this means Michigan doesn't buy thousands of acres of unspoiled land (UP forestland, Great Lakes shoreline) that will never be on the market again. Until you realize that to Rep. Pastor, "improve" means building parking lots and filling in wetlands. And until you realize that the voters have spoken more than once at the polls -- they want more recreational land, especially close to home.