So Tomorrow is Earth Day

The founding of Earth Day 40 years ago marks one of several milestones in the formation of an environmental movement. In the Great Lakes, the first Earth Day came less than one year after the Cayahoga River caught fire for the 13th time. The fire itself was small – it lasted only 30 minutes and caused $50,000 of damage. But, for the Great Lakes, the burning of the Cayahoga was the spark that enflamed a smouldering concern over the health of these waters.

In 1969 and 1970, the Great Lakes were in terrible shape. Lake Erie was being strangled by excessive algae growth, caused by phosphorous-loading from sewage, fertilizer runoffs, and industrial discharges. The excessive algae, boosted by the added nutrients, eventually died. As it decayed, oxygen was drawn from the water and fish suffocated. Meanwhile, chemical contamination, such as that from DDT, dioxin, PCBs was causing deformities and harming wildlife.

This pollution led to closed beaches, hurt fisheries, harmed human health (specifically those who ate contaminated fish and wildlife, such as aboriginal populations), and meant water had to be highly purified for drinking.

Since then we’ve made some good progress curbing algae growth in the lakes by reducing phosphorous discharges, and industrial pollution is not nearly what it used to be. Of course, many challenges remain. Invasive species continue to spread across the lakes and inland waters, our wasteful and energy-hungry water use is pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and a toxic legacy pollutes communities across the region.

Even today, on this Earth Day Eve, we helped release a report that shows facilities are still pumping hundreds of millions of kilograms of toxic and cancer-causing chemicals into the Great Lakes every year.

Anyone who works to protect the lakes knows that, at times, it is difficult to see beyond the bleak picture that arises when the problems confront you every day. And these ongoing challenges make for easy evidence to the naysayers who criticize activities like Earth Hour and Earth Day as simple fodder for our myopic memories.

Yes, there is a fleeting quality to these events. But, when so much of my work is focused on convincing people that regulatory and legal advancements will lead to a cleaner and healthier Great Lakes ecosystem, the photos of a community group cleaning up their local river or the students creating art to highlight their concern for the environment are the images that can rally even greater numbers to the cause.

The magic of Earth Day isn’t the publicity stunts that will grab headlines for a day and paint the world green for 24 hours. It is the greater context that it provides for talking about environmental issues. It is meeting people at a clean up event who care as much as you do about where they live. It is offering a frame to excite people about the natural world that surrounds them, and to spark their appreciation of what makes this Earth a unique home. And, most of all, Earth Day is a reminder that every day offers a chance to make things better.

Revisiting the Fate of the Lakes

13 years ago this month, Great Lakes United and the Canadian Environmental Law Association released a prescient report on the threats of water diversion and wasteful water use in the Great Lakes. “The Fate of the Lakes: Sustaining or Draining the Sweetwater Seas?” was released on the 12th anniversary of the Great Lakes Charter, and it’s remarkable to think how well timed this report really was.

Water diversion threats were looming, and mega-diversion projects drifted in and out of the public and policy radar. But, when the Nova Group proposal hit two years later, diversion would strike Great Lakes politicians and citizens square between the eyes. In a nutshell, Nova Group proposed to fill a tanker with Lake Superior water and ship it off to Asia. The province of Ontario granted the company a permit to take the water. The public was irate. In the end, Nova Group returned the permit and the Great Lakes Charter was proven inadequate. The wheels began turning on what would eventually become the Great Lakes Compact, and its sister international agreement.

“The Fate of the Great Lakes” was truly a document ahead of its day. At age 13 it is the most regularly requested report that I receive, and today, as Great Lakes United continues to unroll our 3-year Great Lakes Water Conservation Initiative, I thought I’d share some interesting tidbits from 1997.

Are we there yet?:

It is our hope that this report will achieve what the charter has failed to accomplish by instilling a long-overdue conservation ethic into all realms of the Great Lakes. It will become the basis of our citizens’ campaign for a sustainable water strategy for the Great Lakes, which includes the goal of reducing human use of water by 50 percent by the year 2005. (p.5)

The more things change, the more they stay the same:

Many of the threats for water withdrawals are coming from within the Great Lakes from municipalities projecting growth beyond what nature’s water budgets supply. The demands from these areas could cumulate to have the same impacts as large-scale diversion proposals. (p. 6)

Most government jurisdictions, including municipalities, do not recognize limits to growth, wanting more residential subdivisions, shopping malls, and industrial “parks” to pop up on the edge of town. This means that they need more water to serve these expanding uses. If local supply is inadequate, they often look to divert water from somewhere else. As a result, the water diversion issue is really a development issue. Rather than defining the problem as a lack of water, it is necessary to recognize that the problem is excess or misplaced growth. (p. 10)

It is not an acceptable solution to water shortages in a region to pipe it from somewhere else. Sustainability means leaving our pipe dreams in the past and properly managing the water resources available in any given region. (p. 10)

Calls for a stronger IJC:

On the basis of the work the IJC has already carried out in this field, the IJC should go beyond pointing out the problems in water levels, quantity and diversions; it should also more seriously assess the activities of the governments in this field, especially the implementation of the Great Lakes Charter. It should take a leadership role in developing the components of a Sustainable Great Lakes Water Strategy and in urging the governments to adopt such a strategy. The IJC should then play a strong role in evaluating progress in implementing such a strategy. (p. 48)

You can’t flush the problem away:

Sustaining the sweetwater seas requires that water be conserved, not squandered; that communities be planned around the availability of water resources; and that storm and waste waters be managed as a resource, not discarded as a waste. (p. 57)

Water conservation – always economical:

Effective water management now will maximize opportunities for the development of economically sound communities while maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. (p. 58)

A reasonable price for water would be one that reflects the cost of the services required to supply it and treat it after use in order to maintain it in the long-term for future generations. (p. 60)

When combined with real cost pricing for water consumption, the extraordinary costs of new water projects are bound to contribute to the consideration of conservation alternatives. (p. 66)

Calls for a water conservation strategy:

None of the states or provinces has developed a comprehensive water conservation strategy. (p. 45)

We need to develop a basinwide Sustainable Great Lakes Water Strategy. Each government should adopt the strategy in a way that makes it legally binding, and change their laws, regulations and programmes to ensure that the strategy is carried out. (p. 79)

Next time, I’ll review just what a 1997 water conservation strategy looks like. I’m thinking it will be surprisingly similar to what we’re asking for today…

Calling out the U.S. on their silence over water quality protection

At the Great Lakes Town Hall, Jane Elder takes a swipe at the lethargy that seems to be epidemic in the U.S. over the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. A long term advocate for Great Lakes protection, she’s turning over rocks that many probably haven’t even noticed:

The last time I checked, not a single individual in any of the US environmental groups was assigned to work on this topic. As far as I know, no US foundation has granted a dime to invest in this process. And where is our Czar? On the negotiating team? No.

Last spring U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon extolled the successes of a shared history of environmental cooperation. Celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Boundary Waters Treaty on the Rainbow Bridge linking Canada and the U.S. at Niagara Falls, Clinton recognized that,

…we have to do more than honor the past. We have to recommit ourselves to strengthening this partnership and find new ways to work together to solve common problems.

And with that, they pledged to renegotiate the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

It’s no small task, and building an Agreement for the challenges of the 21st century demands a multi-faceted and detailed approach. Input from all stakeholders is essential. But all this is for naught without clear leadership from both governments.

At the same time, in her post at the Town Hall, Elder recognizes that the environmental and conservation community needs to rally if the governments are to be enticed into taking the “bold action” Clinton described on that windy bridge in June. The only thing worse than a dusty, ineffective Agreement, is a shiny, ineffective Agreement.

The environmental movement in the Great Lakes region can take pride in the degree to which cooperation has historically propelled the Great Lakes to the top of an international agenda. We can keep that reputation alive. Activity on the Water Quality Agreement is ramping up, but it’s not too late to engage. Contact us and get involved.

Michigan AG launches carp petition

Michigan Attorney-General Michael Cox launched a new website – StopAsianCarp.com – to buttress the lawsuit filed late last year. In a press release, the AG describes the site as:

“… an online petition enabling residents across the Great Lakes region to help convince federal and local authorities responsible for carp infested waters to close the locks connecting them with Lake Michigan and protect the region’s $7 billion fishing industry and over 800,000 Michigan jobs connected to the health of the Lakes.”

On Tuesday the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that further eDNA testing showed the presence of silver carp in another waterway on the Lake Michigan side of the electric barrier. The newspaper was unable to confirm where the sample was taken, but the finding puts more pressure on authorities to close the locks.

Getting up-to-date on Asian carp

Remember those fish bearing down on the Great Lakes last year? Well, they’re still there. The poisoning of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal created a lot of buzz, and demonstrated that the Asian carp had made it past the electric barrier meant to keep them back.

While special on-the-ground operations around the canal are over – the barrier is back online and eDNA testing continues – the legal implications are picking up speed. Jennifer Nalbone, who leads Great Lakes United’s work on invasive species, provided this update:

Can the Asian Carp situation get any more complicated? Yes it certainly can. The legal saga started while many of us were on holiday break. To get up to speed:

On Dec 21 Michigan filed a preliminary injunction and a petition in the Supreme Court against Illinois, the Corps and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Chicago seeking “immediate relief” in the form of temporary/emergency actions to prevent an Asian carp invasion, as well as permanent relief by severing the artifical connections between the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins. The first part of the filing, the preliminary injunction, calls for emergency actions like:

* closing locks to block carp movement into Lake Michigan,
* plugging up the flooding threat along the Des Plaines,
* installing additional barriers,
* operating the electric barrier at full voltage, and
* monitoring and eradicating any carp found in connecting waterways.

The second part of the filing, the petition, seeks permanent relief by opening up the nearly century-old case against Illinois pertaining to the Chicago Diversion (when the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal and other artificial waterways were constructed, breaching the Miss-GL watershed divide, reversing the flow of the Chicago River, and diverting billions of gallons of Great Lakes water). The petition:

* says the Chicago Diversion is a public nuisance that will allow Asian carp entry into Great Lakes watershed and
* asks for the artificial conduit for the carp to be severed.

Within days, Indiana, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin and the province of Ontario filed briefs in support of Michigan’s suit to the Supreme Court (no word on why Pennsylvannia did not join in this effort). Illinois filed a lengthy brief saying, among other things, that they don’t operate the locks and Michigan had no grounds to bring the suit to the Supreme Court against them. And a big punch landed when the Obama Administration filed a brief opposing Michigan’s suit as well.

For more indepth discussion on the legal filings, check out Noah Hall’s excellent blog (includes links to the filings). For great commentary on the carp and the Chicago Diversion check out Natural Resources Defense Council’s switchboard.

The Supreme Court may accept or deny Michigan’s suit as early as January 15th…so stay tuned!

And, don’t forget to keep an eye on www.glu.org/asiancarp, where we’re providing ongoing tracking of media coverage on this issue. We’re a bit behind from the holiday break, but are working on getting caught up again.