Another good reason for Michigan and other G.L. states to conserve water. If they don't, how will they prevail upon thirsty Chicago to do so?
The Chicago area's thirst for water will escalate a whopping 30 percent over the next 20 years, exerting pressure for big increases in withdrawals from Lake Michigan.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-thirst30.html
From the Left Coast comes a story about a golf course that has somehow managed to thrive despite reducing the use of toxic fungicides. For Michigan, which is said to have one of the highest ratios of golf courses to people in the U.S., this might be instructive.
More to the point, San Francisco is showing that reducing the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes can work, with health and ecological benefits.
It's something of a miracle that the PGA picked Harding for such a prestigious professional event, say greens experts, because city law forbids the use of the arsenal of chemical pesticides and fertilizers that keep most links around the country an unblemished green.
Yet, in a country where 17,000 golf courses use more toxic fungicides per acre than almost anyplace else, including farms, Harding is on its way to becoming an organic haven for golfers.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/30/MNGL4D0QAJ1.DTL
MILWAUKEE - A biologist from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is scouring the bottom of Lake Michigan, looking not for clams, but for bacteria and fungi that develop anti-bacterial chemicals that could be developed into life-saving drugs for humans.
Biologist Yi-Qiang Cheng and a graduate student, Melissa Barman, say the soils of the Great Lakes might harbor an untapped pharmacy — a trove of new drug agents that could be developed into antibiotics, cancer drugs and fungus fighters.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050530/ap_on_sc/lakes_drugs_1
But Olson, officials of the Michigan Environmental Council and other environmentalists are not sanguine about the developments. They're glad the DEQ admits it blew it when it said in 2001 that the Mecosta operation did not need a permit.
They're concerned, however, about Granholm's tendency to split the difference on controversies; other aspects of the state's balancing act, including how they will play out when the Court of Appeals hears oral arguments June 14 on Nestle's appeal of the circuit court ruling; and what Nestle challenge might come in the federal courts on disallowing export of bottled water out of the Great Lakes basin.
But look at the positive side. I liked the Cox/DEQ assertions that:
• "The State possesses broad authority to regulate activities that affect the waters of the State, which includes the groundwater and surface water within its borders."
• "The Circuit Court correctly applied rules of statutory construction that DEQ's administrative rule definition of 'enlarge or diminish an island lake or stream' was not consistent" with some of the 48 court rulings and 27 statutes that Cox cited in his brief.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/29/A17-196498.htm
CHICAGO, May 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Our Great Lakes, a report released recently by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Environment Canada, takes a fresh, more user-friendly look at issues of major concern to Great Lakes area residents.
The 25-page booklet addresses the state of the Great Lakes, what is being done to restore and protect them and practical ways in which everyone can help keep the lakes cleaner and healthier. It is a simplified version of the scientific 2003 State of the Great Lakes report that summarized information presented at the 2002 State of the Lakes Ecosystem conference. Our Great Lakes will debut at the International Association of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Mayors' Conference this week in Quebec City, Canada.
http://binational.net/ourgreatlakes/ourgreatlakes.pdf
1. Congratulations to Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation and its members for raising public consciousness on this issue and holding the feet of politicians to the fire on the exporting of Great Lakes water. Without MCWC's courageous efforts against long odds, Michigan would have turned its future and the fate of the Great Lakes over to greedy special interests that do not have the interests of the people at heart. This grassroots organization should be proud even though there's a long battle ahead.
2. “We have questions about how Nestle’s compliance with the restrictions on the Evart project will be monitored and enforced,” said David Holtz, Michigan Director of Clean Water Action. “Years of budget cuts have handcuffed the DEQ’s enforcement abilities. But if compliance can be assured, this agreement respects the principle that the Great Lakes waters must not be captured and sold for private profit outside the watershed of this world-class ecosystem.”
http://great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/last30days/msg16306.html
Gov. Granholm's announcement today on the Evart Ice Mountain water bottling and export project could be a major turning point in Michigan's environmental history. It will be, if the moratorium on new bottled water projects turns into a lasting policy of water conservation, and the beginning of the end of selling the public's water for private profit outside of the Great Lakes Basin.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 27, 2005
Contact: Heidi Hansen
517-335-6397
**Granholm Issues Executive Directive Placing Moratorium on Bottled
Water Permits**
//Nestle Issued Limited Permit in Evart//
LANSING – Governor Jennifer M. Granholm today issued an executive
directive that places a moratorium on permits and approvals for new or
increased bottled water operations in Michigan, until such time as the
Legislature passes comprehensive water withdrawal legislation. The
moratorium is designed to provide the state the opportunity to fully
study the appropriateness and the impact water bottling facilities have
on Michigan’s water resources.
“Michigan is blessed to be surrounded by 20 percent of the world’s fresh
water supply, and we must not be reckless in protecting it,” Granholm
said. “As stewards of the Great Lakes, we must ensure these facilities
are not causing long term harm to our most precious natural resource.”
The directive calls on the Legislature to enact comprehensive water
withdrawal legislation as outlined in the Governor’s proposed Water
Legacy Act and to give definition to what constitutes a diversion of
Great Lakes water. The act would give the state the necessary tools to
effectively evaluate proposals for the bottling of water and monitor
these operations.
“We need a comprehensive framework for managing the withdrawal of our
Great Lakes water,” Granholm said. “We need to protect our water and
ensure that it can be used responsibly.”
The moratorium applies only to new permit applications and does not
affect existing bottled water operations or facilities with permits
pending before the state. It does not apply if the bottled water
operator is willing to certify that they will distribute only within the
Great Lakes Basin.
The debate on this issue escalated in recent months when the City of
Evart entered into an agreement with Nestle Waters North America for the
sale of water from the city’s municipal water system to Nestle for
bottling. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) today issued a
permit to Nestle that contains special conditions requiring them to
certify – every three months – that spring water from the Evart plant is
distributed only within the Great Lakes Basin.
“The permit issued to Nestle allows the company to use our state’s
resources, but ensures that they will be used responsibly,” said DEQ
Director Steven E. Chester. “The Legislature now must take action to
provide us with the needed path forward on this important public policy
issue.”
# # #
Let's hope we can avoid a PR war over this, and that the industry will respond in a responsible way:
For the first time, scientists have found evidence that chemicals widely used in cosmetics and plastics and found in pregnant women are adversely affecting genital development in their infant boys.
The findings published by researchers at the University of Minnesota and other institutions could have implications for the chemical industry and for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Both have been under pressure by public health groups to establish voluntary controls or regulations on a family of chemicals called phthalates.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1556/5426078.html
A Minnesota tale:
A law awaiting Gov. Tim Pawlenty's signature reads:
"A person may use a snare to take lynx or bobcat, as prescribed by the commissioner, without a permit."
But if you're thinking about heading out to snare a lynx coat for the missus this year, hold on.
"It's a confusing bill," acknowledged Ed Boggess, a fish and wildlife policy executive with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, who confirmed that the small wildcat remains protected by state and federal regulations. "It doesn't allow the snaring of lynx."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5426062.html
May 22 -- Governor Jennifer M. Granholm and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Director Steven E. Chester today announced that the state will begin the process of regulating any groundwater withdrawal that would change the size of a lake, stream or river.
A good first step.
Granholm asked the DEQ to write rules requiring permits for any withdrawal that will “create, enlarge or diminish” an inland lake or stream. Her request for the new rules follows a DEQ brief filed with the Michigan Court of Appeals, in which the department reversed policies established by previous administrations, saying that state law requires a permit for any activity that will change the size of a surface body of water.
This part of the state brief is sound and welcome. The remainder undercuts the landmark victory won by Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in the lower court.
“No one has sole ownership of the state’s water – it belongs to all of us,” Granholm said. “Today’s action takes another step toward protecting Michigan’s water, but it is only the first step. The state must have a comprehensive regulatory framework in place to truly safeguard this most precious resource.” Granholm stressed that while rules regulating groundwater withdrawals are important, without a comprehensive framework, there is no way to consistently enforce management of overall water use in Michigan.
Agreed. See last week's announcement of a six-point package by Michigan environmental groups. This release responds to one of those points.
The ownership quote is particularly important -- and vital to defending our waters.
“Michigan needs a comprehensive Water Legacy Act to protect all of our waters,” Granholm said. “I again urge the Legislature to take up the Act I presented – protection of our resources can’t wait.”
This bill appears to have become yet another victim of partisan excess in Lansing (i.e., the determination by the majority party to unseat the incumbent governor). The odds that the Legislature will do anything other than perhaps limit exports are vanishingly small.
Earlier this week, the DEQ filed a “friend of court” brief in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle Water’s North America which is currently pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals. The state’s brief emphasizes the importance of protecting Michigan’s precious water resources for the benefit of citizens and future generations across the state.
In the brief, the DEQ reverses the policy of the previous administration that stated Nestle did not need to apply for a permit for water withdrawal under Part 301 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. DEQ states that Part 301 of the state Environmental Code prohibits any activity that may create, enlarge or diminish an inland lake or stream unless the department first issues a permit authorizing the activity. The DEQ also agreed with Mecosta County Circuit Court Judge Lawrence Root’s decision that Nestle should have applied for and obtained a permit for its groundwater extraction activities, since these activities had the potential to adversely affect surface water bodies.
The brief also asserts that while property owners have a right to use water as they see fit, the nature and extent of this use must be held to a reasonable standard. The state believes that the Michigan Environmental Protection Act should focus this standard at local levels as well as statewide levels.
The brief also implies Judge Root made an error in distinguishing between legitimate, in-watershed, riparian uses, and the extraction and export of water outside of a watershed by a profit-capturing special interest. That is a miscalculation at best on the state's part.
“Michigan is blessed to be surrounded by such a vast water system, but that system remains vulnerable,” said Director Chester. “We all share a role in using our resources responsibly and ensuring that we are not causing long term damage to the system.”
Nestle was ordered to stop withdrawing groundwater from wells located near Big Rapids where it was being bottled under the Ice Mountain Spring Water brand.
Yes, but unfortunately, the state's request for a stay of Judge Root's order has allowed the pumping to continue, at slightly reduced levels, for another 18 months. This intervention is still unfathomable.
To view the friend of the court brief, go to www.mi.gov/deq and click on “water.”
Before getting on to the "serious" issues stuff, here's a glimpse of a U.P. wonder.
http://www.miningjournal.net/news/story/0524202005_new01-n0524.asp
One of the heartening efforts underway in the Great Lakes is an effort coordinated by native Michiganian Karen Vigmostad to protect the islands of the Lakes, and their incredible natural wealth. Here's more info.
http://greatlakes.fws.gov/gli.htm
http://www.nemw.org/islands.htm
Below is the Detroit Free Press interpretation of the state of Michigan brief in the Nestle case that is going to an appeal June 14. The article is correct on the portion of the brief it discusses, but not the remaining two-thirds. The remainder is an at best ill-advised challenge to the decisive, anti-export, pro-public trust findings of the lower court judge. Or as a friend involved in fighting Nestle says in opposition to the state brief, "We don't want to see the withdrawal of water by anyone up to the point of serious injury and for all parties who withdraw water to be treated equally." In-watershed riparian uses should take precedence over the private capture of water from a watershed for bottling, profit and export. Why would the state argue otherwise?
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/water24e_20050524.htm
Just posted on the Michigan DEQ's website is a copy of the brief the state filed in preparation for the June 14 Court of Appeals hearing of the watershed ruling by Mecosta County Judge Root that would have shut down Nestle's original water bottling operation in December 2003, if not for the state's intervention to request a stay.
The state is further muddying the waters with this brief. On the one hand, it makes the useful point that the state already has authority under the Inland Lakes and Streams Act to control actions that diminish a lake or stream like Nestle's bottling operation was proven to do. The predecessor Engler Administration refused to exercise this authority or admit it existed. Presumably today's DEQ is willing to try to enforce the law.
On the other hand, the state's brief challenges the judge's reasoning in two key areas where he found in favor of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, and fashioned an important precedent in defense of Michigan's public trust waters.
Give the state a D-plus and hope the "conservatives" on the Appeals Court have respect for lower court rulings.
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wb-nestle-brief.pdf
All signs are that the Granholm Administration in Michigan will make known its position on the Nestle/Ice Mountain Evart water bottling project in the next 72 hours. Anyone who thinks the water belongs to the people, with government as their protector, rather than Nestle, might want to contact the Governor's office now. 517-373-3400; debeld@michigan.gov (Dana Debel, environmental policy advisor).
Meanwhile, the Detroit Free Press has a wise editorial on the good work by Congressman Bart Stupak to keep additional sewage out of our waters.
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/esewers23e_20050523.htm
As the State of Michigan considers its fateful decision on the second Ice Mountain bottled water project in the state, it's instructive to take a look at how the company involved, Nestle, is showing up in the news globally. This is the company that pays the state a few thousand dollars to make hundreds of millions of profit each year from the water that the people of Michigan own.
Nestlé Waters and the Boissons Gazeuses des Frères Zahaf Group (BGFZ), formerly Boissons Sidi El Kebir, have created a partnership company in Algeria, called Société Source de TABERKACHENT.
Nestlé Waters holds 51% of the capital. This corporation has taken over all of the BGFZ group’s bottled water business, the Sidi El Kebir water brand and has a distribution agreement that will enable it to take advantage of the network and expertise developed in Algeria by the BGFZ group. The company will be headed by Mohamed ZAHAF.
Bottled water consumption in Algeria totals 550 million liters per year or 16 liters per person, and has recorded an annual growth rate of 16% in recent years.
http://www.agreport.com/open/143810.phtml
"We just can't justify this in this current environment," said Kathryn Rowan, vice-president of Nestlé Canada.
"I was totally devastated," said Mayor Alvin Runnalls, "because we know that this is our largest business in North Dundas. I was really shocked."
http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot-nestle20050517&ref=rss
Shopping can be a nightmare for the time-poor but guilt-rich consumer with a conscience. Notorious global corporations may lurk behind seemingly innocuous household goods, while choosing the wrong make of mobile phone can leave you with unwanted links to the arms trade.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=640099
BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 16, 2005--m-Qube, a leading enabler of mobile marketing technology and services, today announced that it has teamed with NESTLE® NESQUIK® to deliver an integrated mobile marketing promotion. The cross-carrier, mobile marketing program combines gaming, mobile phones and music affinities to engage teens and young adults in an instant-win game.
The NESQUIK instant-win game, called "Grab. Gulp. Win!" hits the shelf this spring on specially-marked packages of NESQUIK ready-to-drink flavored milk and MilkShakes. Consumers can see if they have a winning package by texting in their Game Code to a unique short code that was set up for this promotion. Prizes include
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050516/165702.html?.v=1
A few days old, but still worth noting. The answer should be interesting.
BIG BAY - The Huron Mountain Club is asking Gov. Jennifer Granholm to join its stand against Kennecott Minerals' proposal to mine for nickel in the Yellow Dog Plains.
Club President Elinor McLennan, in a letter to Granholm May 11, said Kennecott cannot be trusted to design a mine that would not pollute the environment.
http://www.miningjournal.net/news/story/0517202005_new01-n0517.asp
(Washington, DC) Voters around the country identified clean water as a top concern and a large majority prefer cleaning up polluted waters to drinking bottled water, according to a national poll released today by American Rivers, the Waterkeeper Alliance, River Network, the American Canoe Association, and dozens of river and watershed groups across the country.
The poll found similar attitudes in many regions of the country, with some exceptions:
New York had the highest percentage of voters (71 percent) that would be at least “somewhat worried” to learn that their tapwater came from local rivers and streams.
Michigan and New York tied for the highest percent of voters (59 percent) indicating that their local rivers had gotten at least “somewhat dirtier” over the past decade.
This week's twin victories over a proposed Bush Administration policy to increase the amount of inadequately treated sewage entering Great Lakes (and the nation's) waters are something to celebrate. After EPA relented on its proposed policy, the U.S. House, at the urging of Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak, voted against the policy.
Now an increase in Bush's recommended budget -- to help communities pay for upgraded sewage treatment -- is also necessary.
But as Grist Magazine put it two months ago:
Like clean water? Then you'll love Rep. Bart Stupak.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/03/10/boni-sewage/
In light of this week's release by the Michigan environmental community of proposals to spur action on water conservation policy -- and the reply by some legislators that we should take more time to study the water -- it's important to review a 20-year history of study, delay and hypocrisy.
Great Lakes Water Diversions & Exports
And Michigan Water Policy
1985-2005
A Timeline
1985 Governors of Michigan, 7 other Great Lakes States, Premiers of Ontario and Quebec sign Great Lakes Charter, a “good-faith” agreement to consult regionally on proposed water uses and diversions. Participation in regional notification and consultation process is contingent on each jurisdiction’s passage of law establishing permit process for major water withdrawals.
1986 U.S. Congress approves Section 1109 of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), which requires each Great Lakes Governor to approve any new or increased diversion of Great Lakes waters.
1990 Facing opposition by Michigan Farm Bureau and other business interests to a state water withdrawal permitting law, Michigan Legislature enacts statute requiring registration and reporting (but not state permitting) of major water uses. Agriculture uses are given special treatment in that reporting is done by estimate and in the aggregate
1990 Despite WRDA, Michigan Governor Blanchard neither approves nor disapproves of Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, diversion (3.2 million gallons per day), and project moves ahead.
1992 Michigan Governor Engler vetoes proposed Lowell, Indiana, diversion (1.7 million gallons per day).
1993 Michigan Natural Resources Commission approves on a 5-1 vote a proposed 14.4 million gallon-per-day withdrawal from Lake Huron for the Mud Creek irrigation project. Only after the vote is it revealed that three governors and the Premier of Ontario objected to the Michigan project under WRDA; Governor Engler’s office claims the letters of objection got lost until after NRC decision made and that WRDA didn’t apply anyway.
1998 Michigan Governor Engler approves “no net loss” diversion at Akron, Ohio, as do other 7 Governors.
1998 News that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has approved a permit for the Nova Group, a private firm, to remove up to 156 million gallons per year of water from Lake Superior and ship this to unspecified customers in Asia provokes a firestorm of public outrage. Nova Group surrenders permit; Great Lakes governors and premiers agree to strengthen protections against water exports.
2000 Congress amends WRDA Section 1109 specifically to include “exports” as well as “diversions” within gubernatorial veto, in light of the Nova Group controversy.
2001 Governors, Premiers sign “Annex 2001,” agreeing that by 2004, they will come up with binding agreements to control water withdrawals and exports.
2001 Michigan Department of Environmental Quality signs off on Perrier/Nestle Ice Mountain bottled water project in Mecosta County, despite Attorney General Jennifer Granholm’s opinion that the bottling and shipping of this water outside the Great Lakes Basin is subject to WRDA and requires approval of all eight Great Lakes governors.
2002 State Senator Ken Sikkema releases report, promises swift action on 66-point Great Lakes protection agenda compiled after extensive public hearings. Report includes (and Sikkema proposes) legislation to give state authority to control water withdrawals for the first time.
2004 So-called “Annex 2001 implementing agreements” are released by Great Lakes governors and premiers for public comment. Among other things, agreements call for states to demonstrate authority to regulate water withdrawals in order to participate in binding regional decision-making on exports and withdrawals. Sharp criticism of drafts sends governors and premiers back to the drawing board.
2004 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm proposes Water Legacy Act, state statute that would give MDEQ authority over major water withdrawals. Majority Republicans in State Legislature say groundwater study and mapping should precede any such law.
2005 Michigan environmental groups write Governor Jennifer Granholm, asking her to invoke WRDA process on proposed second Nestle Ice Mountain bottled water project in Michigan that would remove up to 168 million gallons per year of water from city well, much of it leaving Great Lakes Basin. Groups cite then-Attorney General Granholm’s 2001 opinion on first Ice Mountain project.
2005 Great Lakes governors, premiers expected to release 2nd draft of Annex 2001 implementing agreements for public comment during summer.
While the media is riveted on nuclear options and the last installment in the Star Wars series, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe is standing guard against the threat posed by eco-wackos. Inhofe's the guy who said the idea of climate change is the biggest hoax ever invented (by environmental groups). Inhofe held a hearing yesterday on how such losers as the Earth Liberation Front are an imminent threat to the republic.
Thank goodness that for another 19 months, Vermont Independent James Jeffords will be in the U.S. Senate -- and able to inject a little sanity into the debate. Here's what he said:
I am puzzled why the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is examining the issue of animal rights and eco-terrorism since the Committee lacks jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement issues. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by the Judiciary or Homeland Security Committees. Nevertheless, I look forward to learning what the Environment Committee can do to address the problems posed by domestic terrorism. For that reason, I am extremely disappointed that Congressman Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, has not been allowed to testify today. This violates basic congressional courtesy and Senate tradition. Moreover, based on his position as ranking on the Homeland Security Committee, his testimony would certainly have been relevant to this hearing on terrorism.
I’d like to submit for the record a report Congressman Thompson prepared, entitled - quote - “Ten Years After the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Department of Homeland Security Must Do More to Fight Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists.” The report highlights the apparent failure of DHS to assess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorist groups in the Department’s five-year budget planning document. I share his concern that the Department of Homeland Security needs to protect us from all terrorist threats and should not focus on eco-terrorism at the expense of other domestic terrorist groups, such as the KKK, right wing militias, abortion bombers and skin heads.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=237813&party=dem
Calling it a Wild West scene with little or no regulation, a coalition of environmental group says it want the Legislature to address the issue of water withdrawals and use in Michigan.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/051905/loc_20050519006.shtml
Senator Birkholz' response to a Detroit Free Press story today on a
major new push to regulate Great Lakes from water withdrawals:
Don't worry, be happy that we are studying it. For 20--yes, 20years--lawmakers have been studying how to keep Michigan's water in Michigan. Birkholz says let's keep studying. Anyone surprised that Senator Birkholz--perhaps our biggest disappointment--is footdragging on an issue involving millions in profits for corporations who want to sell off the Great Lakes?
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw115985_20050518.htm
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/last30days/msg16213.html
If something like this doesn't pass soon, all of Michigan's waters are at risk. Congratulations to all the groups who put this together.
http://cleanwateraction.org/pdf/GreatLakesNewsRelease5-17-05.pdf
http://cleanwateraction.org/pdf/Greatlakesplatformes.pdf
As a sidenote to this story, U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan's Upper Peninsula should be praised as a friend of clean water. His amendment this week or next will put the U.S. House on record for or against the dumping of inadequately treated sewage into our rivers and lakes.
The issue is this: there are two ways to cope with municipal sewage overflows. One is to increase federal and state funding to help communities upgrade their systems to prevent overflows. The other is to cut the funding, and just institute a policy that allows more inadequately treated sewage to gush into our waters.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050518/ap_on_sc/sewer_study_3
Sewage is fouling the Great Lakes and other waters in the region because many municipal waste treatment systems are failing to stop overflows, environmental groups said in a report Tuesday.
The situation poses a health hazard that could get worse under Bush administration proposals to slash funding for wastewater system upgrades and to let sewage plants skip some stages of treatment during heavy rains or melting snow, environmentalists said.
A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency research scientist has filed a whistleblower complaint against the agency and several managers, saying they have harassed her for raising concerns about troublesome chemicals used by 3M Co. in such popular consumer products as Scotchgard.
In recent weeks, she said, the MPCA reprimanded her for remarks she made in an agency-approved interview with Minnesota Public Radio. She said the agency now contends her remarks lacked proper "disclaimers," misstated the agency position and "dishonored the hard work" of colleagues. In addition, she said the MPCA has prohibited her from providing information sought by members of the Minnesota Legislature.
"Any employee who discloses pollution threats is protected by law from shoot-the-messenger retaliation by her agency,'' said Rockford Chrastil, a Minneapolis lawyer representing Oliaei.
Oliaei alleges that Corrigan, a former 3M executive, told her there is no room in the agency for "scientific work." She also said Hora told her if she kept pushing the PFC issue, "I will terminate the program and you are the only one in the program." And she said Hoff, her supervisor, recently asked, "Why are you still here? If you really want to be effective, you better get a job somewhere else."
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/local/11663566.htm
After spending more than $1.8 million for a temporary system to catch stray condoms slipping through the Jones Island sewage treatment plant - including having a full-time worker at $52.15 an hour manually skimming errant condoms from the final wastewater treatment tanks - the sewerage district is declaring its effluent condom-free.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/325680.asp
Story with a Minnesota and Michigan connection:
Donald Baker isn't the type to jump on the latest bandwagon.
When global cooling was all the hubbub in the 1970s, he kept his distance. When global warming got traction in the 1990s, he resisted.
But Baker, an 81-year-old retired University of Minnesota professor, has thrown a nod, ever so reluctantly, to the warming crowd. And he's got the numbers to back it up.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/business/industries/environment/11655783.htm
When the City Council of Evart, MI approved its arrangement with Nestle this spring, no member of the public commented during the alloted time at the meeting. The water export/bottling boosters, including local media, have said that this undermines the case opponents are now making. But this explanation from a local activist may explain why there was no comment:
Have been wondering why our local paper keeps reminding its readers that there were no comments from the general public when the 'water documents' were approved. Heard about the meeting at 5:00 pm through a reporter from the Cadillac News and the meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm, not 7:00 as all other Council Meetings, as a Special Council Meeting on March 28, 2005. The Evart City Council [ordinarily] meets the first and third Mon. of the month.
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, answers to the Michigan DEQ's questions about the new Evart bottled water project are now available. Here's a sample:
The company intends to begin bottling in July, and they project to bottle 8.3 million gallons in 2005.
2006 projection: 42.6 million gallons
2007 projection: 84.2 mg
2008: 124.1 mg
2009: 168.6 mg
"Nestle Waters North America owns and markets 15 regional branks of bottled water beverage products. The company is the recognized spring water leader in the bottled water industry. Each brand, which has its own distinctive character, source and heritage, is generally sourced and marketed in one of the major regions of the U.S. and Canada. Ice Mountain is the company’s Midwest brand, whose primary source is located in Mecosta County, Michigan, and whose market area is the Midwest states of the U.S. Other Nestle Waters brands are marketed in the Southeast, East, Northeast, Southwest, Northwest, West, and South central U.S. as well as in Canada.
Nestle Waters estimates that at least 90 percent of its Ice Mountain brand is purchased in the Midwest states of Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, by end consumers through a variety of retail outlets."
Note: even if this is true, "Midwest states" does not translate to the Great Lake Basin, and a significant share of the water is lost to the Basin. More importantly, Nestle is claiming a huge profit from and ownership of a public resource.
More soon.
Within weeks the Granholm Administration will make a determination about the second proposed Ice Mountain water bottling project, this one in Evart, Michigan. Courtesy of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, here is an analysis of what's at stake:
Going, Going, Gone!
The recent decision by the City of Evart to dedicate one of its public drinking water wells to Nestle Corporation, which intends to pipe, truck, bottle and sell the water, could be the fatal leak in the legal dam protecting the Great Lakes. The city’s water giveaway (at 88 cents per 1,000 gallons) is not only bad business, it is a dangerous precedent that could undermine Michigan’s legal case for preventing additional long-range exports, whether in bottles, pipelines, or freighters. Here’s why we’re asking you to tell Governor Granholm and the Legislature to block this sweetheart deal:
Nestle is getting an unfairly low price. While Evart residents pay $1.39 per 1,000 gallons for water (including sewage disposal), Nestle will pay $.88 for 1,000 gallons. Your water bill is 60% more expensive per unit of water used.
Nestle will make enormous profits. The maximum 250 million gallons per year that Nestle can extract from “its” well could translate to hundreds of millions of dollars in profit. If Nestle sells the water at $1 per gallon and its costs are even as high as 20 cents per gallon to get the water to market, the profit would exceed $210 million per year.
Nestle is making unenforceable promises about a bottling plant and jobs. The jobs supported by the Evart wells already exist in Stanwood, where the water is being piped and trucked. While Nestle has suggested it might build a second Michigan plant in Evart, this is highly unlikely. Nestle has two water bottling plants in only three other states – Maine, California (the plants are 400 miles apart) and Texas (240 miles apart). Nestle has already constructed an addition to its Stanwood plant to accommodate future water sources such as Evart. How many jobs will be created to run a local pump station?
Nestle’s new project converts a public resource all citizens of Michigan own to a private commodity generating huge profits. Spring water has never been for sale in Michigan on a large scale – until now. Under traditional legal principles, the waters of all rivers, lakes and springs in Michigan are protected by the state government and owned by the people. Now Nestle is privatizing your spring water – and not even paying the state and taxpayers a share of its huge profit.
Nestle’s Evart project will make it harder for Michigan to stop other businesses and governments from taking their piece of the Great Lakes. Michigan cannot hope to sustain its opposition to others who seek to export Great Lakes water if it is promoting this practice within its own borders.
Nestle’s Evart project is not authorized by any state law. In fact, it is inconsistent with hundreds of years of common law.
The time to take action is now. Write Governor Granholm and your state senator and representative. Ask them to:
• Stop the Nestle project now.
• Submit the export to regional review by all Great Lakes governors, as required by federal law.
• Pass a state law requiring legislative approval of any water-for-sale projects.
For more information contact:
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC) at 231-972-8856
http://www.saveMIwater.org
This story about a fight within Michigan's Congressional delegation over whether a federal law should ban oil and gas drilling makes the whole thing sound like a difference of philosophy. Maybe it is, and maybe it's not. The reporter failed to mention that Mike Rogers, who killed the amendment to ban drilling, received $28,300 for his 2004 reelection from the oil and gas industry, more than any other Michigan Congressperson. He also voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Apparently he doesn't mind "federalizing" some ecosystems.
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050513/NEWS01/505130380/1001/news
EPA’s Draft Sewage Dumping Policy
courtesy of Clean Water Action
What is the draft sewage dumping policy?
In November 2003, EPA proposed changes to the Clean Water Act’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for Municipal Wastewater Treatment During Wet Weather Conditions that relaxes restrictions on discharging inadequately treated sewage into waterways during rain events. It would allow sewage treatment plants to discharge sewage that has been diverted around secondary treatment units during wet weather. Because the largely untreated sewage is mixed with treated sewage before discharge, EPA refers to this as “sewage blending.” Specifically, it authorizes the discharge of sewage that has had no biological treatment to kill pathogens and remove other pollutants.
Why is this a bad idea?
Sewage dumping is bad for public health. Sewage is filled with human wastes, industrial chemical waste, and commercial waste containing grease, toxins, bacteria, viruses, parasites, pharmaceuticals, hormones and antibiotics. “Blended” sewage has significantly higher levels of these pollutants than sewage that has undergone full treatment. Sewage that has not been fully treated is filled with bacteria, viruses, and parasites that carry diseases, such as cholera, hepatitis, gastroenteritis, respiratory infections, and dysentery. These illnesses can be life threatening for small children, the elderly, cancer patients, and others who are already weakened by disease. Experts estimate that 8 million Americans get sick every year from exposure to polluted water.
Sewage dumping is bad for the economy and the environment. Allowing inadequately treated sewage to be discharged into our nation’s waters will have adverse, long-term environmental consequences. Sewage in our waterways closes beaches, increases the cost of drinking water filtration, feeds toxic algal blooms, damages coral reefs, shuts down shellfish beds, and robs the water of oxygen that fish need to breathe.
EPA’s sewage dumping policy is illegal. The Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations require sewage to be fully treated prior to discharge under routine operating conditions. EPA’s proposed sewage dumping policy sewage does not meet current treatment requirements, and EPA has taken several enforcement actions against sewer operators in which EPA has clearly stated in writing that sewage dumping violates the Clean Water Act.
Who supports it and why is it being proposed?
Sewer authorities have convinced the EPA that the answer to insufficient maintenance of aging sewer systems is to allow sewage to be discharged without effective treatment during rainfall when it can be diluted. They claim that weakening current sewage treatment requirements will resolve “inconsistencies in regional enforcement” and avoid the cost of upgrading treatment facilities.
Opposition to EPA’s proposed sewage dumping policy is widespread and growing.
Among those weighing in against the EPA’s proposal are public health officials, doctors, state agencies, shell fish growers, environmental organizations, and thousands of citizens.
Support the Stupak/Shaw Anti-Sewage Dumping Amendment to prevent the EPA from finalizing its sewage dumping policy.
Here's a webcam view of Lake Superior...unfortunately, this morning it's mostly a view of raindrops on a camera lens. Worth bookmarking for later use.
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/minnesota/duluth/
This NY Times op-ed by the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. is not just about some saline lake in North Dakota. It has to do with the same treaty that requires the two nations to consult and work together on Great Lakes protection. Thus, if North Dakota's governor ignores treaty concerns and moves ahead, relations on Great Lakes issues could be undercut. When it comes to water exports especially, Canada is Michigan's best friend, and a friend of all the Lakes states.
"Despite concerns on both sides of the border about maintaining safe water sources, North Dakota has decided to pump out Devils Lake water without undertaking any environmental assessment or establishing ecological safeguards.
"There is a solution to this impending crisis. Nearly 100 years ago, Canada and the United States established the Boundary Waters Treaty. Under that treaty the two governments set up an International Joint Commission to address differences of opinion involving boundary waters. So far, of the 53 issues the two countries have jointly referred to the commission, 51 have been resolved by mutual agreement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/opinion/12mckenna.html?
Just had to provide a link to a recent satellite photo of Lake Superior...the lake that could hold the rest of the Great Lakes and then some...the lake that has a 190-year retention time...the cleanest Great Lake...the largest lake by surface area in the world...
More on the probe into the "dead zone" that has returned to western and central Lake Erie in recent years. The satellite image alone is worth the click.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2427.htm
To this one can only say, amen:
The environmental movement would be well served by adopting a new rallying point, by doing some much needed internal house cleaning and by applying a large dose of fresh thinking. I believe that the time has come to combine a great many social, labor, and environmental causes within a single strong Progressive Movement. My opinion is that the iconic Earth Day event has succumbed to corporate takeover and it is time to move on.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19025
This year's was the worst ever: a torrent of self-promoting news releases by politicians and corporations that tried to obscure their yearlong assaults on the environment. Cede Earth Day to the hype industry, and come up with something new that reflects a grassroots, vibrant, hopeful approach to the future.
Rogers Blocks Bi-Partisan Bill to Permanently Ban Great Lakes Oil & Gas Drilling
Lansing Congressman is top Michigan recipient of oil & gas industry contributions
Lansing, Michigan – Under a guise of protecting the Great Lakes, Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Lansing) exposed the Lakes to new risks by blocking a bi-partisan bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in and on the Lakes. Because of Rogers, the Energy Policy Act – recently passed by the U.S. House – will not extend the moratorium past 2007 and will instead leave drilling decisions to the whims of states.
Environmental organizations noted that Rogers received $28,300 for his 2004 reelection from the oil and gas industry, more than any other Michigan Congressperson (source: Center for Responsible Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org).
“We owe it to our children to take oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes off the table forever, and Mike Rogers’ refusal to do that is very disturbing. Apparently, Congressman Rogers is more concerned about his slick dealings with the oil and gas industry than he is about the threat of oil slicks on Michigan’s beaches,” said Mike Shriberg, PIRGIM’s Great Lakes Advocate.
In an e-mail to constituents, Rogers said he opposed the bill because he wanted to keep Washington from “controlling” the Great Lakes. He recently introduced a House Resolution asserting states control over the Great Lakes. But his action, which conflicts with his support of federal restoration funding for the Great Lakes, instead leaves open the possibility of Washington trumping state laws that bar or restrict drilling. “A federal ban on oil and gas drilling would no more ‘control’ the Great Lakes than the Clean Water Act controls them. It would actually protect them. We need both state and national policies of protection for the Great Lakes," said Cyndi Roper, Clean Water Action’s Great Lakes Policy Director.
Environmental impacts from oil and gas drilling include releases of poisonous gasses, widespread use of toxic chemicals, massive landscape alterations and the ever-present dangers of spills, leaks and other accidents. Drilling impacts recreation at the Lakes by polluting the water and destroying the natural views. Because of these and other issues, polling reveals strong public opposition to Great Lakes drilling. “Michiganders speak with one voice on this issue: The Great Lakes need permanent protection from oil and gas drilling,” said Anne Woiwode, Director of Sierra Club’s Mackinac Chapter. “Michigan’s families want to enjoy clean and pure Great Lakes. Yet, Representative Rogers has led the charge to expose the Great Lakes and Michigan’s residents to the leaks, spills, habitat degradation and eyesores that go hand-in-hand with drilling.”
Leaving oil and gas drilling to states is notoriously unpredictable. Former Governor Engler was a strong supporter of drilling and refused to sign the 2001 Michigan law which bans new oil and gas drilling under Michigan’s Great Lakes. An Executive Order banning new drilling in Lake Erie in Ohio is set to expire in 2006. Without federal protection, other states could begin new drilling under Lake Michigan, Erie or Superior (drilling is already allowed in Canada) at any time. Michigan’s families, natural resources and economy would suffer most from new drilling because we have over 2000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and are the most dependent state on the Lakes.
House Panel Receives Detailed Spending Plan for '06
(From the Washington Post)
Federal land conservation and environmental programs would bear the brunt of
budget cuts next year under budget limits sent to the House Appropriations
Committee's spending panels yesterday.
After months of debate over the broad terms of the fiscal 2006 budget, the new
allocations spell out more specifically what programs would be cut and which
would be increased when the House Appropriations Committee takes up its 11
discretionary spending bills. Among the winners are Congress itself, which would
receive a 4.9 percent increase, the third largest after the allocations for a
cluster of departments including Transportation, Treasury and Housing, and
another group of programs for veterans and military quality of life.
In some ways, complaints against building didn't make a lot of sense. A farm is no more of a natural land feature than a stretch of upscale homes.
Duh, what about the natural land feature called soil that typically surrounds a farmhouse? It is slightly more natural than driveways and swimming pools.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/09/A12-174558.htm
No wind turbines in my back yard...
It's an understandable feeling, and some scenic areas should be off limits. But which? Studies suggest that picturesque Great Lakes shorelines have excellent potential for generating electricity from the wind. How will the Great Lakes states ever realize their wind power potential -- and reduce the amount of ugly coal-burning -- without some change in public attitude?
GAYLORD - Jack Austin doesn't want 400-foot wind turbine generators near his back yard, nor anywhere else in Otsego County.
Austin lives in the Sturgeon River Valley in Livingston Township. Cellular phone towers already pollute the scenic beauty of the area, he said.
Enormous windmills will only make it worse.
"It's a constant battle to keep the North beautiful. You've got people who are willing to do anything for a dollar," Austin said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/may/08wind.htm
Almost out of the public eye, negotiators for Great Lakes states and provinces are renegotiating a pact intended to limit Great Lakes water diversions and exports, and to impose water conservation standards on the Lakes. The first draft, which went out for public comment last year, met heavy resistance, especially on the Canadian side of the border. A new round of public comment on the next draft should start in June. Unfortunately, only a relative handful of Great Lakes citizens are even aware of this landmark (or is that watershed?) proposal. Here are a few details:
Four areas of ongoing contention/discussion seem to be as follows:
• Clarification of definition/procedures associated with "Return Flow" (that is, how new water exports will be compensated for by return flows of water)
• Straddling Counties (that is, counties that are partially in and out of the Great Lakes Basin, some of which want to take Great Lakes water for growth)-Ongoing discussion concerning the date upon which this takes effect (i.e. probably determines which communities qualify and will be grandfathered into a program which would mean that communities are entitled to Great Lakes water because they exist in COUNTIES that straddle the sub continental divide.
• Chicago Diversion--apparently Illinois submitted new language as recently as last week. Ont and Que need assurance that they will have adequate access, i.e. 'standing' before the US Supreme Court under the decree that created the Chicago Diversion.
• Compact Vote--uncertainty as to how voting will occur when diversions are requested (i.e. majority, super-majority, unanimity?)
In other words, major issues remain unresolved even as there seems to be huge pressure to move this policy forward.
May 15-June 15--Annex Agreements tentatively scheduled to be circulated to States and Provinces for required 30 day 'Jurisdictional Review'.
If there is consensus the Agreements will be put forward for the promised 60-day Public Review--beginning sometime around June 15 i. e. OVER THE SUMMER.
Then there is to be a 45 day jurisdictional review which will end in October.
Signing is scheduled to take place in November.
There's still some hope the proposed $80 million a year fund to clean up polluted waters can make it throught the Minnesota Legislature, but time is running out. However, the mere fact that both major political parties are even entertaining such a new fund puts Minnesota ahead of neighboring Great Lakes states that face a similar backlog of impaired waters.
Despite support from the governor, businesses groups and conservation organizations, a bill to clean up Minnesota's polluted waterways is in serious trouble at the Legislature.
At issue is how to pay for the effort. The measure, known as the Clean Water Legacy bill, would raise $80 million a year for the next decade by imposing a $36 annual fee on most residential sewer bills and septic systems, and a three-tiered charge for businesses, depending upon their size.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5386140.html
Is anyone in the Great Lakes community paying attention to this troubling proposed water diversion? It could have huge implications for the Lakes.
Canadian critics say North Dakota's position is a threat to a long history of co-operation under the treaty for no good reason, since there's no imminent threat of flooding this year.
Critics fear the Devils Lake project is deliberately intended to undermine the Boundary Waters Treaty, clearing the way for more controversial projects, such as water diversion from the Great Lakes.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050505/ca_pr_on_na/devils_lake_2
Nikiforuk cites the case of a Nestle (former Perrier) bottling plant in Mecosta, Mich. A local group and several First Nations tried to stop this activity in federal court because it would compromise water levels and starve aquatic life in the region. Judge Lawrence Root of the 49th Circuit found for the plaintiffs, but Michigan waived the judge's stop-bottling order, and Nestle exports about a million dollars worth of Michigan water a day. Nikiforuk says that the Nestle case "suggests that water will go to the most powerful bidder" and asks, "Can you improve a resource by taking more of it and then writing a check?"
(Correction: the state did not "waive" the order, but did file a brief on the side of Nestle asking for a stay of the judge's shutdown order.)
I applaud former Buffalo Mayor Jimmy Griffin for his characterization of bottled water as "the biggest rip-off the public has ever endured." Our free faucet water equals bottled water in quality and taste, yet many local citizens spend the equivalent of half their annual taxes for it each year.
http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050501/1016926.asp
National Drinking Water Week News release:
DENVER, May 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an age when many people pay $1.50 for 20 ounces of bottled water, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) this week is reminding people of the value of tap water by distributing bottles that provide "Reasons to Fill This Bottle With Tap Water."
Reasons include:
1. Free refills at participating faucets
2. Refill vs. Landfill?
3. No carbs: Go ahead and supersize it
4. Undergoes more testing than professional athletes
Comment:
5. Does not turn the water that all citizens own, and require the government to protect on their behalf, into a private fountain of profit, and does not increase the risk that someday we will all beg greedy special interests to give us a little bit of "their" water so that we can survive.
Pretty amazing story and video of the culprit in the recent decline of a heron rookery in Minnesota:
http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_120220014.html
Magnificent ospreys are coming back in the Great Lakes Basin:
Surrounded by budding willows, oaks and maples, the pair looked out of place among the gray latticework of steel and wire. But it's here near a good-sized pond the fish-eating raptors have chosen to live. And it's at sites like this, across southeastern Wisconsin, that ospreys are settling in.
"They're building nests in all sorts of odd locations," said Sumner Matteson, an avian ecologist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. "At the top of a tall light pole in a ballpark, on a crane boom in a gravel pit . . . on top of a cell tower in Madison."
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/323105.asp
Dr. Henry Regier, an Ontarian and a true great in the annals of Great Lakes science and ecosystem thinking, has this wise offering on the official government term for invasive aquatic species (over 160 established in the Lakes to date):
The term nuisance as in nuisance species is obviously a euphemism intended to imply unimportance.
I checked the meaning of nuisance in The Canadian Oxford Dictionary and find two definitions:
a person, thing, or circumstance causing trouble, annoyance, or inconvenience; anything harmful or offensive to the community or a member of it for which a legal remedy already exists.
I judge that neither of the two meanings is apt for many non-indigenous species now in the Great Lakes.
Nuisance derives from the Latin nocere, to hurt. In turn, noxious derives from Latin noxa, harm.
The meanings of noxious: harmful, injurious; morally harmful, unwholesome.
I suggest that the term noxious is generally more apt than nuisance with respect to the suite of the Great Lakes non-indigenous species as a set.
It seems to me that USACE officers who use nuisance as a euphemism for noxious may well be sissies. They may not have the guts to call a spade a spade.
And they say our region's Congressional delegation has "Everglades envy"? The idea is that the billions Congress OK'd for the Everglades in 2000 ought to be matched by a similar sum for the Lakes. Let's not, at least, put the Army Corps of Engineers in charge here as it is in Florida.
LAKE OKECHOBEE, Fla. — Lake Okeechobee was in trouble before last year's hurricanes churned up a thick layer of pollution from the bottom, turning the water the color of day-old coffee. But the worst may be yet to come.
"What you're going to find this summer is this lake is going to turn just as green and just as slimy as anything you've seen in a science fiction movie," Mayor J.P. Sasser said, sitting in a cottage that overlooks the murky lake. "When that starts, no one will get on that water."
http://enn.com/today.html?id=7650
Others have suggested drawing water for thirsty communities from Lake Michigan. The lake is right next door, of course, but most of Waukesha County lies outside the Great Lakes basin, across a subcontinental divide. International agreements and sound environmental policy argue that Great Lakes water should remain in the basin. There are exceptions, but there aren't many.
Waukesha argues that it should be one. Duchniak's plan certainly makes a case that the city is serious about doing what it can to conserve water and reduce consumption. And Finley's suggestion indicates that at least some officials understand that they will need to pay a price for ensuring an adequate water supply that can support continued growth.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/apr05/322470.asp
Great to hear about these volunteers protecting one of our Great Lakes wonders, the sturgeon. (By the way, more on Nestle and the Governor coming soon.)
Volunteer Sturgeon Patrol Continues at Black River
Over the next several weeks, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is again joining forces with local citizens in Cheboygan County to protect spawning lake sturgeon in the upper Black River.
"When lake sturgeon come to spawn in the shallow upstream riffles of the river, they are very vulnerable to poachers," said Sgt. Greg Drogowski, DNR Law Enforcement. "With the help of the Sturgeon for Tomorrow volunteers, we will be able to monitor key areas 24 hours a day."
When sturgeon are in the river to spawn, local citizens, members of the local Vietnam Veterans chapter, volunteers from the Michigan National Guard and members of the local chapter of Sturgeon for Tomorrow stand watch and use cellular phones, provided by Cellular One of Cheboygan, to report suspicious activity to the DNR Report All Poaching (RAP) hotline. The information is forwarded to conservation officers on patrol in the area.
"The volunteers are a visible deterrent. Since this effort began in 1999, we've had only one fish illegally taken that we're aware of," Drogowski said. "The sturgeon patrols have really made a difference."
A reward of up to $1,000 has been offered by Sturgeon for Tomorrow and the RAP program for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person or persons illegally taking lake sturgeon. To report any illegal activity, call the RAP hotline at (800) 292-7800. A person convicted for the illegal harvest of a lake sturgeon faces penalties of not less than 30 days in jail and not less than $2,000 in fines and restitution, or both.
For more information on the volunteer Black River sturgeon patrol, contact Brenda Archambo, Sturgeon for Tomorrow, at 231-625-2776, or visit their Web site at www.sturgeonfortomorrow.org.
Time for a diversion...more on the Lake Erie "sea serpent."
One of the most fascinating reports of Bessie happened on August 24, 1993. It seems a 38 foot sailboat was crushed like an 'eggshell' by a creature reported to have been 200 tons. Of the five boaters, thankfully, none were hurt beyond scratches and bruises. Now comes, the smoking gun. It seems an airplane that was flying low across the lake, had noticed the action, and with camera in hand, one passenger snapped the action as it was happening. This picture was printed on the front page of the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS! Shortly thereafter, a group of businessmen, from Huron offered a reward for anyone who could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this creature existed. The reward which totaled $102,700 dollars in cash and prizes, has never been collected.
If that is not incentive to look for this creature, then I don't know what is. There have been other sightings of this creature as recently as 1998, near South Bass Island, by a party of two fishermen. Lake Erie is a large lake,in which I believe lurks one of the most famous of the recent sea serpents to be sighted, maybe you will see Bessie yourself sometime, when you least expect it.
If you click on this link, beware the high volume of the mood music.
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/System/6591/page12.html
