This is one the best pieces of journalism ever done on the problem of controlling invasive species in ballast water.
That voluntary rule has since become mandatory, and while everybody agrees that this is a good practice, most also agree it doesn't go nearly far enough in protecting the Great Lakes from the next zebra mussel, or quagga mussel, or round goby, or ruffe, or spiny waterflea - all Great Lakes invaders scientists blame on ballast spills during the last three decades.
The reason: As many as 90% of the oceangoing ships arriving in the St. Lawrence Seaway are loaded with cargo and therefore don't officially carry ballast, and that exempts them from the ballast exchange law.
Yet those "empty" ballast tanks hold permanent puddles, some of which contain nearly 10,000 gallons of water, as well as tons of muck teeming with life. Ships arrive at their first port of call on the Great Lakes, unload their foreign cargo, then take on ballast water to get to the next Great Lakes port. When they reach that port, they dump that ballast in exchange for cargo. That's when species can literally jump ship and invade the lakes.
This is not a theoretical problem. Data show that, despite the ballast exchange requirement, a new invasive species continues to be discovered, on average, every 6 1/2 months.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/oct05/366877.asp
After many years of haphazard government stewardship, a broad study effort convened by the administration discovered much agreement on the vast water system's troubles. The problem is the cost. A draft report released in July suggested spending $20 billion in the coming years -- several times more than current expenditures, and more than influential members of the Bush administration consider affordable.
The current draft of the GLRC’s strategic plan, released on July 7, 2005, does not take into account the ongoing Federal, state, tribal, and local investments in the Great Lakes and how to focus those substantial resources to maximize results. Instead, the GLRC proposed to rely almost entirely on new Federal funding, totaling approximately $3 billion annually, along with new legislation and programs to address identified problems.
The members of the Interagency Task Force have serious concerns with the direction of the GLRC's draft strategy, and strongly urge the GLRC to focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing programs, based on likely spending levels and shared responsibilities. At this time, the IATF does not endorse the draft, but will work to improve it.
The Federal government strongly believes that this strategy should focus on what can be accomplished within current budget projections.
http://epa.gov/greatlakes/collaboration/taskforce/rttp_implementation.html
Uphold Your Commitment to the Great Lakes
Statement by Andy Buchsbaum, Director,
Great Lakes Natural Resource Center,
National Wildlife Federation
ANN ARBOR, MI -- "Today, several federal agencies submitted a report to
President Bush that contains recommendations on how to clean up the Great Lakes.
"The report and its recommendations are utterly unsatisfactory.
"The federal agencies who wrote the report are turning their backs on Great
Lakes restoration and the millions of citizens who rely on the lakes for
drinking water, fishing, recreation, industry and their quality of life.
"The condition of the Great Lakes is worsening and they remain extremely
vulnerable. The lakes are near a tipping point. The federal agencies recognize
this vulnerability, yet they refuse to provide any new resources to fix it.
"They are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"They are saying to the citizens of the Great Lakes: 'Deal with sewage spills,
habitat destruction and invasive species like the zebra mussels on your
own*you'll get no more help from us.'
"Only President Bush can fix this misguided report from these federal agencies.
He needs to honor his commitment to the Great Lakes by acting to restore them."
Congratulations to State Sen. Patty Birkholz of Michigan for coordinating introduction of water conservation legislation yesterday. She has moved the water protection debate in Michigan forward. It's a serious attempt at reform, but limiting the scope of protection to groundwater -- implied but not clearly stated in the release -- is unwise.
It appears under the proposal that bottled water gets a free pass, even if more water in volume is shipped out of the Great Lakes Basin than would be shipped in pipeline, barge or rail, all of which are banned. And there would be no advance public oversight of projects that convert public water resources to private profit. That, too, is unwise.
But at least the debate now is not about whether we should conserve water, but how far we should go in doing so.
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/gop/senator/birkholz/news/october2005/102705.pdf
Garden, MI—27 October 2005—While no ghosts or goblins have been spotted yet in the Garden Peninsula, threats such as fire suppression and fragmentation caused by incompatible development are even more scary to conservationists trying to protect the natural biodiversity of the area.
This week’s action by The Nature Conservancy to acquire 230 acres, including nearly three miles of Lake Michigan shoreline, should alleviate some of those fears. A stunning mature, northern white cedar forest dubbed the “haunted forest” by the former landowners was also included in the transaction.
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/michigan/press/press2126.html
But "bottled water" is not the only way water can be privatized. Taking it out of the Great Lakes Basin in pipelines or tankers by or for commercial interests is also privatizing. The bill needs to be expanded. The public should have a say, through legislative action, on all private profiteering of a public resource -- water.
http://www.housedems.com/mediacenter/release.php?id=873
Photos:
http://www.ban.org/BANreports/10-24-05/photos.htm
Disgusting facts:
http://www.ban.org/BANreports/10-24-05/documents/PressRelease.pdf
For the last 15 years we have heard a great deal about the benefits of international free trade and lowering trade barriers, and the need vigorously to enforce trade agreements. Then along comes proof that the U.S. and Europe are failing to abide by a toxic waste convention. But there is no outcry from elected officials on this one.
Michigan and other states' legislators should pass resolutions urging observance of the treaty, and requiring domestic recycling and reuse of electronic "waste."
Rare Lake Michigan waterspout sends spray hundreds of feet into the air
Published October 25, 2005
A waterspout over the open waters of Lake Michigan a mile east of the Adler Planetarium early Monday caught the attention of residents and commuters alike. Waterspouts, tornadic circulations over water, are far from unknown here--but don't occur with great frequency. Great Lakes waterspouts are most often observed when lake temperatures are at their highest--in August, September and October--and when cold air makes contact with the comparatively warm water, as happened Monday. With the lake surface averaging 57 (degrees) Monday and readings a mile aloft just 27 (degrees), vertical temperature declines were twice normal. This encouraged air, warmed by the lake and therefore buoyant, to rise with vigor. The air which flowed in to replace it began to spin initiating Monday's waterspout.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0510250208oct25,1,3559364.column
One of the few Michigan rivers that leaves the state and comes back, the St. Joseph, will benefit from this proposed sewage cleanup by South Bend. It's a big issue Basin-wide.
South Bend is not alone in facing combined sewer overflow problems. There are 772 cities in the United States with combined sewer systems, according to the EPA. About 90 percent are in 16 states, predominantly in older communities in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions. More than half are in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/stories/2005/10/23/local.20051023-sbt-FULL-A1-Spending_on.sto
Coming soon to Michigan, too -- but with an invitation like this, who will make it a priority?
While the commission will report residents' views from meetings in Duluth and elsewhere, it has no regulatory or legal power to set environmental rules.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/local/12976600.htm
Here's the full list of meetings.
http://www.ijc.org/rel/news/050922_e.htm
One of Lake Michigan's great shipwreck mysteries may be closer to being solved.
For over a year, a court battle has waged over a find that may be the remains of the 17th-century sailing vessel Le Griffon. That dispute has eased as a salvage company and the state of Michigan have agreed to work together on exploring the site near Green Bay.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ship22.html
Senate Bill 193, which would allow companies to drill for natural gas in state parks and in Lake Erie, made its first steps onto the Senate floor Wednesday.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=15428190&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6
George DeTillio, vice president of the United Steelworkers Local 1104, which represents steelworkers at REP's mill in Lorain and U.S. Steel's Lorain Tubular mill, said yesterday that he wasn't in favor of any drilling in state parks or in Lake Erie.
''I'm a sport fisherman,'' DeTillio said. ''The state's going to say that the drilling won't affect the environment or affect the fishing, but I don't see how it couldn't.''
At a recent Michigan conference, it was disclosed that of approximately 2,000 soil samples submitted by lawn owners in a particular watershed, 99% had sufficient phosphorus, without fertilizer, to support healthy growth.
Phosphorus is a key factor in algae blooms that have worsened in recent years in some areas of the Great Lakes. At least two southern Michigan rivers exceed the state's phosphorus standard and are looking for cost-effective ways to reduce phosphorus pollution.
Minnesota has already found it:
http://www.moea.state.mn.us/campaign/download/phosphorus.pdf
Environmentalists who worry about the future of the Great Lakes keep going back to some basic questions, including this one: If Great Lakes water can be sold by the bottle as a stand-alone commodity, how long will it take before it is sold by the tanker or pipelines are laid?
It's a slippery slope proposition, and it gives those who look 20 years down the line the jitters.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/oct/19edit.htm
Once one of the most polluted rivers in the Great Lakes Basin, the Rouge River in southeast Michigan is coming back...slowly. A 20-year effort to clean it up is paying off...gradually. This is the kind of work that will be required in dozens of places across the Basin over the next 20 years. Don't expect quick results, but there is no alternative to trying.
Twenty years ago, the Michigan Water Resources Commission, and later the state Department of Natural Resources, set 2005 as the year by which the Rouge would be clean enough to swim.
Though much progress has been made, southeast Michigan's biggest river system still is fit for direct human contact no more than 5% of the time, even though federal, state and local governments have spent roughly $800 million on sewer improvements.
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/rouge19e_20051019.htm
Pictures:
http://www.freep.com/photos/2005/rouge1019/index.htm
Bottled-water effect is the same
The News Tribune's support of a Great Lakes Compact allowing exports of Great Lakes water by shipping it out in plastic bottles is off base ("Bottled water not a major factor in lakes diversion," Oct. 14).
Bottled water is the most familiar form of privatizing and exporting water in bulk. Yet there is no meaningful difference between bulk exports of water using plastic bottles or using tankers or pipelines. The effect is the same: a complete taking of water out of the Great Lakes, most of which will not be returned.
This stands in contrast to the water Duluth and its industries use. That water, although larger in quantity than current bottled water exports from Lake Superior, is largely returned back to the Great Lakes.
A handful of multinational corporations are amassing control of water resources in what is now a more than $1 trillion industry. They are doing this by taking water free of charge out of its natural state and shipping it (via plastic bottles, tankers, pipelines, and water bags) to sell in other places.
We should send a strong message to the negotiators of the Great Lakes Compact that they need to sign an agreement that protects rather than exports Great Lakes water wealth.
MELISSA K. SCANLAN
MADISON, WIS.
The writer is executive director of Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/editorial/12930613.htm
Simple answer, it is and should always be a public resource. But it becomes a commodity when you take it from lakes, streams or groundwater, put it in bottles and sell it. That's much different from using water from a municipal supply to make beer or cars. Those are products; water is not.
http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1129155002116900.xml&coll=1
The bottled water compromise should pave the way for government negotiators to accept a broad plan limiting diversion. It will go to the governors and then state legislatures and provincial governments for approval to protect this environmental and commercial asset.
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article.php?article_id=16092
Respectfully, but emphatically, disagree. Leaving aside all other objections, and there are many, how is it acceptable to permit a lawless industry to continue to ship Great Lakes water out of the Basin? No state in the region has passed a law giving private parties the privilege to take water -- a public trust resource -- for private profit. If the proposed agreement would not only fail to stop this, but legitimize it, it is a major threat to the future of the Great Lakes and other public waters.
Twenty years after the zebra mussel invaded the Great Lakes --
WASHINGTON -- Legislation aimed at preventing invasive species from entering the Great Lakes aboard oceangoing ships has languished in Congress for the past three years, as the shipping industry has pushed an alternative bill with weaker restrictions.
But the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., has not moved in Congress. Meanwhile a rival bill, the Ballast Water Management Act, has made it through the Senate Commerce Committee this year with the support of the international shipping industry.
In light of other Great Lakes diversion issues, bottled water seems like a small threat to the lakes, and removal of that issue as a stumbling block is welcome.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/editorial/12899847.htm
Comment from Great Lakes sage in Michigan:
If we left it up to these editors, fifty years from now the waters of the
Great Lakes Basin would be a trickle, and the water's currency would end up
in a Swiss bank account.
It's not the amount of water in a bottle from the Great Lakes; it's the
amount of water commodified for all those who want to divert and sell it in
the future.
No legislature has recognized any private right to sell public water.
Compromise might work to resolve a dispute over the use of water in a
watershed, but it doesn't work for the right to sell public commons or
public trust like water out of a watershed.
If it did, all the users who depend on the water in the watershed would
ultimately suffer a net loss of use to the users at the other end of
pipeline for the the sale and diversion out of water out of a watershed --
bottles, jugs, trucks, tankers or ships.
The industry, led by Pepsi, Nestlé and Coke, is trying to dupe us. Misleading advertising is fueling the explosive growth of this industry. According to the most recent statistics available, in 2002 bottled water corporations spent $93.8 million to portray their products as “pure,” “safe,” “clean,” “healthy” and superior to tap water...
Greater Boston spends 1,364 times the cost of perfectly good public water for Aquafina, despite indistinguishable differences, and Bostonians are not alone. Similar patterns repeat themselves across the United States...
Corporations view water as one of the great investment opportunities of the 21st century, and increasingly seek to control it. Water is already a $400 billion a year business. That’s 30 percent larger than the pharmaceutical industry. If transnational corporations control our water, they can decide who gets it-and who doesn’t.
http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2005/10/13/opinion/02gview11.txt
WASHINGTON - In an executive order last year, President Bush set in motion a state-federal effort to rid the Great Lakes of invasive species, toxic pollutants, raw sewage and other environmental threats.
Now after the leak of an internal report that doused a $20 billion cleanup strategy, the administration faces a mini-tempest over the degree of Bush's commitment to saving the lakes.
Andy Buchsbaum, director of the National Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office, says administration officials are giving "mixed signals," ranging from "heartening" comments at meetings with environmentalists to the "alarming" internal memo.
Cameron Davis, executive director of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, said the lakes have "seen a multi-decade-long slide ... and we simply cannot continue to pass those problems on to our children."
Ben Grumbles, chief of the Environmental Protection Agency's water division, said the administration is committed to a cleanup, but under "realistic funding scenarios" and without duplicating programs. He declined to discuss figures.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/5666098.html
Bottled water exports OK under proposed compromise
October 12, 2005, 6:11 PM
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) -- Bottled water from the Great Lakes basin could be shipped elsewhere for sale unless prohibited by state law under a compromise water protection blueprint crafted by an industry coalition and an environmentalist group.
The National Wildlife Federation and the Council of Great Lakes Industries included the provision in a package of suggested changes to a water use agreement that the region's eight U.S. states and two Canadian provinces have been haggling over since 2001.
With a December deadline approaching, state and provincial officials asked the two groups -- representing interests often sharply at odds -- to seek common ground on issues that have been holding up a settlement.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the compromise worked out by the industry council and the wildlife federation. They submitted it to the government negotiating team, which is holding its final scheduled round of face-to-face talks this week in Chicago.
"We don't know how the negotiators will receive the compromise that we worked out," Andy Buchsbaum, director of the federation's Great Lakes office, said Wednesday. "They may accept it, may reject it, may modify it."
The plan drew a mixed reaction from other environmentalist leaders. Some were particularly unhappy about the bottled water provision, which they believe could set legal precedents that could open the door to large-scale bulk water diversions.
"Once you punch a hole in the Great Lakes basin to allow diversion of some water, it gets bigger over time," said Jim Olson, an environmental attorney in Traverse City who represents a citizens group fighting the Ice Mountain Spring Water bottling plant in Mecosta County. "It will be difficult for the state to ever plug it."
Buchsbaum acknowledged the bottled water provision "was something we did not prevail on" in negotiations with the industry council, which represents about two dozen companies including Consumers Energy and Dow Chemical Co.
"We need more protections against bottled water exports," he said. "That said, it's not the biggest threat to the Great Lakes. Massive, large-scale diversions through pipelines and canals are a much bigger threat." So are some industrial uses of water within the basin, he said.
The industry council also made concessions, including stronger requirements for state water conservation programs, Buchsbaum said.
The Council of Great Lakes Governors agreed four years ago to develop a plan for shielding the waters from diversion to arid locations and encouraging conservation within the region. The negotiating team is working on a binding compact between the eight states and a separate agreement that would include Ontario and Quebec, known together as Annex 2001.
The council released a draft of both documents last year and a revised version in June. It has a December deadline for agreeing on a final plan to present to the governors, who would forward it to their legislatures for consideration.
Sam Speck, director of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and chairman of the negotiating team, said Tuesday the proposals from the wildlife federation and industry council were among many offered by groups that have given advice over the years.
The fact that one group of business and environmentalist leaders could bridge their differences "bodes well for building consensus" among others whose support will be needed to put the Annex agreements into law, Speck said.
But if the bottled water provision is any indication, it's far from certain that environmental and conservation groups will unite behind the compromise.
Many environmentalists contend bottled water shipped outside the basin should be classified as a "diversion," which the compact would disallow in most cases, although exceptions would be made for communities and counties that straddle the basin boundary.
"We don't make distinctions between whether water is diverted in a tanker, in a pipe or in a bottle," said Mike Shriberg, director of the Public Interest Research Group in Michigan.
Nestle Waters North America Inc., parent company of the Mecosta County bottling operation, insists bottled water is a food product like soft drinks and should be regulated no differently.
"The common understanding of a diversion is a pipeline or canal carrying bulk water to other places for various uses, including manufacturing," spokeswoman Deborah Muchmore said. "Bottled water is not used in that way. It's simply a beverage."
Under the proposal by the wildlife federation and industry council, bottled water would be classified as a "product," not a diversion. But the states and provinces could impose strict regulations on bottled water and even prohibit out-of-basin exports.
The plan would allow the moratorium on new or expanded bottled water exports that Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm imposed in May, according to a memo distributed by the wildlife foundation.
But Olson wasn't convinced.
"The state should not sign such an agreement because it would privatize a public resource," he said.
On the Great Lakes restoration front -- here is some good news from downriver Detroit. In what was once the pollution capital of the Basin, an international wildlife refuge is re-emerging. It shows the potential of the Lakes as an asset for tourism and recreation. The $4-6 billion Great Lakes restoration bills in Congress, and the EPA's proposed $20 billion Great Lakes rescue plan, should reflect additional restoration of this type in addition to cleaning up toxic sediments and upgrading sewage systems.
The transformation of 44 acres of vacant Downriver land into an educational and recreational hub for the nascent Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge has begun.
http://www.freep.com/news/locway/humbug12e_20051012.htm
Is there still value in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, hailed by some as the foundation for the cleanup of the 1970s and 1980s? The International Joint Commission will be hosting public listening sessions on the topic this fall. To learn more about the agreement, go here:
http://www.ijc.org/rel/agree/quality.html
The International Joint Commission
Invites Your Views on
the Future of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The governments of the United States and Canada have asked the International Joint Commission (IJC) to consult with the residents of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin to find out their views on what needs to be done to protect water quality in their area, and on the future of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States expresses the commitment of each country to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem, including the international portion of the St. Lawrence River.
The governments intend to launch a review of the operation and effectiveness of the Agreement in early 2006. The Agreement was first signed in 1972 and last amended in 1987.
The International Joint Commission will hold 14 public meetings across the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin, conduct a Web Dialogue and accept written and oral submissions until November 30. For more information, call toll-free at 1 866 813-0642 or visit www.ijc.org/glconsultations.
Monday, October 17 at 7 p.m. in Montréal, Quebec, at City Hall, 275 Notre-Dame Street East
Monday, October 24 at 7 p.m. in Duluth, Minnesota, at the Central Hillside Community Center, 12 East 4th Street
Tuesday, October 25 at 7 p.m. in Thunder Bay, Ontario, at City Hall, 500 Donald Street East
Thursday, October 27 at 7 p.m. in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, in the City Council Chamber at the Civic Centre, 99 Foster Drive
Tuesday, November 1 at 7 p.m. in Bay City, Michigan, at City Hall, 301 Washington Avenue
Tuesday, November 1 at 7 p.m. in Green Bay, Wisconsin, at the KI Convention Center, 333 Main Street.
A Michigan wetlands case will be a measure of the new Roberts Court and its views on federalism and the environment.
U.S. Supreme Court takes up environmental cases
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider restricting the government's authority to regulate wetlands, an issue important for environmentalists and developers.
Justices, jumping into an issue that they previously had ignored, will take up claims that federal regulators have gone too far by restricting development of property that is miles away from any river or waterway.
Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement said that the government has long-standing power to protect waterways.
In one of three cases that justices will hear next year, a Michigan man, John A. Rapanos, was convicted of violating the Clean Water Act for filling his wetlands with sand to make the land ready for development.
The cases are Rapanos v. United States, 04-1034, Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers, 04-1384, and S.D. Warren Co. v. ME Board of Environmental Protection, 04-1527.
More on Rapanos:
Rapanos wanted to build a shopping mall on his property. Before building, he called the DEQ’s predecessor agency, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), to discuss wetlands issues on his property. After inspecting the property, the DNR told Rapanos it contained regulated wetlands, and that he should hire a wetlands consultant to confirm and map the wetlands. Rapanos did hire a private wetlands consultant. Rapanos’ own consultant likewise concluded that the property contained over 50 acres of regulated wetlands.
Rapanos had a right under law to apply to the DNR for a permit to fill in his wetlands and build on them. He decided not to apply for a permit, and just started filling in the wetlands
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0406/05/a10-173063.htm
”It's the best thing that's happened to Evart in I can't say how many years,“ said Herb Phelps, fairgrounds director.
”We're bringing an industry into town that we don't have to worry about going to China.“
No, it's just Great Lakes Basin water that will go to China as a long-range result of this giveaway. So much better.
http://www.cadillacnews.com/articles/2005/10/07/news/news02.txt
Great Lakes, Great Michigan Pressures Legislators
to Protect Michigan Waters
Radio and Newspaper Ads Draw Attention to Need for Water Use Laws
Lansing — The Great Lakes, Great Michigan coalition launched an ad campaign today to convince the legislature to pass strong water use laws this fall. Large water users have long been able to treat Michigan’s waterways and the Great Lakes like their own, drying up wells, ponds, and wetlands, and even sending Michigan’s water to other states and far off places.
“Our waters are what make Michigan a great place to live, but unlike other Great Lakes states, Michigan does not have laws protecting our water from irresponsible use,” said Kate Madigan, Deputy Policy Director at Michigan Environmental Council. “By getting our message out through these ads, we can help convince the legislature to pass strong, bipartisan laws this fall.”
The radio ads began airing today on Magic 105.1 in Detroit and WMUS FM in Muskegon. They will continue throughout the week and are expected to reach nearly 90,000 people. Newspaper ads will run Sunday in Detroit area and Muskegon newspapers, with a combined readership of nearly 70,000 people. The ads direct people to www.greatlakesgreatmichigan.org, where they can send an e-mail to their lawmakers urging them to pass strong water use laws this fall.
“Right now our lawmakers have an historic opportunity to stop Michigan’s water free-for-all,” said Kelly Dardzinski, PIRGIM Environmental Advocate.
Great Lakes, Great Michigan is an unprecedented coalition of 22 organizations that have joined together to advocate for strong new measures to stop the diversion of Great Lakes water and protect lakes, rivers, and streams from the impacts of irresponsible water use. The coalition unveiled its plan for water protection in May 2005 and has been working with the legislature ever since to craft comprehensive water use measures.
Specifically, the Great Lakes, Great Michigan plan:
--Prohibits new diversions of Michigan’s water out of the Great Lakes Basin whether in a pipe, tanker, or bottle;
--Protects Michigan’s lakes, streams, wetlands and other natural resources;
--Encourages water conservation and efficient use of our water; and
--Requires all large water users to report their usage to the state.
“By passing laws that incorporate the Great Lakes, Great Michigan platform, Michigan can rein in irresponsible water users who have been leaving citizens and natural resources to pay the price for the strain they’ve been creating on our water resources,” said Cheryl Mendoza, program manager for Alliance for the Great Lakes.
The 60-second radio ad is set to the sound of steadily dripping water with a female narrator explaining why unlimited water withdrawals are threatening the Great Lakes and other waterways. The ad finishes with the message, “Let’s keep Michigan’s water working for Michigan.” To listen to the ad, visit www.greatlakesgreatmichigan.org.
“Average citizens can and should be a part of the collective voice urging our legislators to protect the Great Lakes and other waterways,” said Cyndi Roper of Clean Water Action.
Contacts:
Kate Madigan, Michigan Environmental Council
(517) 487-9539
Kelly Dardzinski, PIRGIM
(517) 664-2600
Cheryl Mendoza, Alliance for the Great Lakes
(616) 850-0745
After a year of promises to make the Great Lakes a greater national priority, the Bush administration is pulling back from an ambitious $20 billion plan to restore and protect the world's largest source of freshwater.
But then there's this:
The Bush administration remains committed to a wide-ranging Great Lakes restoration project, despite an internal document suggesting money for new programs won’t be available, an Environmental Protection Agency official said Friday.
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/local/12859030.htm
However, Waukesha's desire to cure its water woes by either tapping Lake Michigan or drilling new wells in western Waukesha County is an archaic and politically risky resolution that can otherwise be fixed with better city management of the resource, a prominent educator told the forum.
"If Waukesha were to obtain Great Lakes water, it isn't really solving the lack of (water) management in the Waukesha area, it's simply transferring that deficit to the Great Lakes," said Doug Cherkauer, of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Department of Geosciences.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wauk/oct05/361118.asp
New report out today from Clean Water Action of Michigan.
http://cleanwateraction.org/mi/DontPrivatizeWaterLoRes.pdf
We can leave the gripes about closing the barn door after the horses are out to others. It is good news for the fishery whenever another agency ramps up its fight against the dumping of alien species into our waterways by trans-oceanic commercial shippers.
Who has the most to lose?
Future generations.
Now, they are being encouraged to join the fray. It was the kids, after all, who were targeted when the recycling programs were introduced nationwide.
That was a stroke of genius. Hopefully, kid power will prevail in this fight, too.
Scientists at the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program, Champaign, are detectives on the case are looking for kids in grades 4-10 who want to help book these "bad guys" who are dumping alien species into our waterways.
http://www.sgnis.org/kids/suspects.html
University of Minnesota scientists have discovered a new and better way to reduce sea lampreys in the Great Lakes: using a chemical signal that can trick the voracious predators into traps.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5647251.html
WASHINGTON - A North-South fish fight is erupting in Congress over legislation to ban imports of Asian carp, a critter that southern fish farmers depend on to control parasites, but which officials of Great Lakes states fear will wreak havoc on the lakes' ecosystems.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_22848704.shtml
From today's Chicago Sun Times
Great Lakes threatened, and it's time to protect them
October 2, 2005
On Sept. 19, at Shedd Aquarium, the results of a new study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association were revealed, showing that Lake Michigan has the highest mercury levels of any of the Great Lakes. In addition, scientists with the Environmental Protection Agency have identified the Chicago area as a ''hot spot'' where relatively large amounts of airborne mercury fall back to Earth. This is the latest compelling evidence that the Great Lakes are in trouble and will recover only if people cooperate and take action now.
For those of us who live in Chicagoland, let's remember that Lake Michigan supplies the water we drink and use to cook, shower, wash our clothes and water our lawn. We spend time with our families enjoying Lake Michigan's beaches, fishing and boating. It is no exaggeration to say that Lake Michigan plays an integral role in our life every day. It's in our best interest to protect its waters, as well as the animals that live in and around it.
Earlier this year, Shedd Aquarium, the Biodiversity Project and other Great Lakes leaders launched Great Lakes Forever in Chicago, an awareness campaign that aims to draw public attention to the value and vulnerabilities of the Great Lakes.
As the NOAA study illustrates, this is a pivotal time for the Great Lakes: The threat to all of us who depend on them is real, and so is the opportunity to reduce that threat.
Shedd Aquarium applauds U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) for asking NOAA to conduct this study, as well as the continuing efforts of Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) and Mayor Daley to protect Lake Michigan. It is important for all of us who depend on the Great Lakes to support Great Lakes protection efforts, get involved and contact community and federal leaders to let them know how important this freshwater resource is to us all. Each one of us can play a role in helping to conserve these magnificent, yet vulnerable, bodies of water: our Great Lakes. Click on www.great lakesforever.org to learn more.
Jeff Boehm,
senior vice president,
Shedd Aquarium
Although the expert quoted in this article says it's not politically possible today to drain Great Lakes water to meet Western needs, the history of U.S. water policy shows that billions of taxpayer dollars are routed to get water from where it is to where powerful constituencies are. And the balance of power in Congress is shifting each decade to the South and West. The threat is probably 20 years away but now's the time to prepare.
As areas in the western United States dry up, they are increasingly casting a thirsty eye on the Great Lakes for their water supply.
“I don’t believe it is politically possible at present, but it is technically feasible,” Steve Colman, director of the Large Lakes Observatory, said of water removal.
http://www.duluth.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=209155