Great Lakes Blogger

a new year's resolution for the Great Lakes

From Eric Sharp of the Detroit Free Press.

So while it won't hurt to make the usual New Year's resolutions about losing weight and stopping smoking, why don't we all add this one: 2008 will be the year in which we see the Great Lakes provided with meaningful and effective protection at all levels of government.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071230/SPORTS10/712300567/1058/SPORTS05

It's a resolution all Lakes lovers can endorse. To make it happen, we're going to have to be much more skillful about distinguishing between politicians and lobbyists who say they are "for" the Great Lakes, whatever that means, and those who do things to assure the Lakes are protected.

In the last three years, thanks to growing citizen concern, massive organizing efforts by the Healing our Waters Coalition, and a more attentive regional news media, awareness of what's threatening the Lakes and what needs to be done about them has peaked. It would be nice to think that we're on the threshold of seeing real controls on invasive species, real water conservation and protection against Great Lakes exports, and a start on the $20 billion Great Lakes restoration plan. But we're not there. The divide between politicians and the people, who are understandably cynical about the 'game,' has got to narrow fast. The Great Lakes are too important to be left to the politicians.

Great Lakes loon deaths draw Canadian media attention

The carcasses of hundreds of dead loons have washed up on the shores of the Great Lakes in recent months, and necropsies on the birds do not explicitly say what is killing one of the country's national symbols.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=203769

The answer continues to be clear:  "Geoff Peach of the Lake Huron Centre for Coastal Conservation said that the United States and Canada need to enforce strict regulations governing ballast water management.."

Michigan remains the only Great Lakes jurisdiction with anything approaching 'strict regulations governing ballast water management.' Where is the outrage, and more importantly, the action to choke off the disruption of the Lakes?

KBIC tribe, others sue to stop Michigan acid mine: "Have you left no sense of decency?"

Long tirade of a post which asks some pointed (and important) questions. Let us hope that Michigan's governor, DNR Director or courts will block this dangerous intrusion on water and related natural resources -- and a place -- of majesty, beauty and great worth.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977214674

one-sided talk about ballast water treatment

The Superior, WI newspaper is all about equal time:

Ballast water can effectively be treated onshore, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources said earlier this month in a press release distributed statewide.

“This is good news in the fight against invasive species,” said DNR Secretary Matthew Frank, crediting a DNR-funded Port of Milwaukee study for his conclusion.

[snip]

Notably, the study did not analyze the financial impact on shippers, vessel operators or ports. There are two sides to every equation. So far, only one has been examined, and those numbers are highly preliminary.

You have to give the Great Lakes port/shipping lobby credit. They are capable of making shipping seem a victim of bad PR, when it's the Great Lakes that are the victim of their callousness; when after 20 years and no real full-cost accounting for the hell caused by the zebra mussel and its followers, we're still hearing chirps about the 'financial impact on shippers, vessel operators or ports.' Are the Great Lakes merely the liquid equivalent of the cement/asphalt roadways on which trucks bear commerce, or are they living, breathing ecosystems? And do they have economic value (e.g., sportfishing) other than as highways?

http://www.superiortelegram.com/articles/index.cfm?id=24510&section=Opinion

bottled water forces suing Chicago

Chicago's new tax on bottled water is not popular with the industry or retailers. That's understandable, but the exaggerated talking points they're using are interesting:

If business goes, it will jeopardize the 4,500 jobs and $270 million in wages that goes to Chicagoans working in the bottled water industry, the retailer groups said.

Let's see documentation of this claim.

"If this tax is allowed to go into effect, then what is to preclude the City Council from deciding to tax salad dressing or lawn mowers?"

City councils are unpredictable. But bottled water imposes its own tax; it takes water from the public domain for private profit; it wastes oil used to manufacture and transport containers; it undermines publicly funded drinking water systems. The industry simply wants to keep taking and not giving. All the while it couches its arguments in the cloak of choice and consumer convenience.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-watertax_27dec27,1,2611215.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

what's at stake in Lake Superior Basin sulfide mining

This promises to be a conflict that will rage for years in northern Minnesota and Michigan. More and more citizens are finding their voice and speaking out against the folly of sulfide mining in the north:

Regarding a sulfide mine, water pollution is the issue. And here are the questions Michigan residents and our government should address:

First, is water pollution acceptable? Like certain other materials, sulfide flows downstream. Pollution in the watershed of a Lake Superior tributary, even a small one, will go where the water goes. Acid mine drain causes heavy metal contamination, kills fish, and can continue for hundreds of years.

Second, if water pollution is not acceptable, then is it possible for sulfide mining to be done without causing water pollution? The history of sulfide mining is racked with catastrophic and long-term pollution problems. No sulfide mine has ever operated and been closed without causing serious water pollution problems. That’s why Wisconsin’s law is a de facto moratorium.

Third, if water pollution (acid mine drain) happens, and let’s be honest, it would happen, then who will clean it up? How will they clean it up and who will pay the bill?

http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/503457.html?nav=5003

Cuyahoga County investigates 'offshore freshwater wind farm"

Siting wind turbines offshore from the Great Lakes region's major cities can make sense, and is preferable to throwing up on the shoreline more smokestacks for coal plants and cooling towers for nuclear power plants. Environmental advocates seem divided on offshore wind, but it's a good idea if aquatic habitat and aesthetic concerns are addressed. Putting them offshore from national or state parks, for example, would not be wise. The Great Lakes states need to zone the Great Lakes they hold in public trust to define what are not acceptable sites for an offshore wind farm -- instead of simply reacting to proposals.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/other/1197797638203920.xml&coll=2

Great Lakes diving book

Nice review of Shipwreck Hunter: Deep, Dark & Deadly in the Great Lakes by Gerald Volgenau.

http://www.star-telegram.com/travel/story/374592.html

pouring it into Lake Michigan

This is an excellent piece of enterprise journalism. Now let's add up the total permitted pollution discharge into Lake Michigan from all four states.

The Clean Water Act set out to "virtually eliminate" discharges to U.S. waterways by 1985. But a Post-Tribune analysis shows Indiana's major facilities discharged more than 378 million pounds of pollutants into Lake Michigan and its tributaries in just one year.

Dumping of nearly all pollutants discharged by Indiana's 33 major polluters has fallen dramatically since 1979. The Clean Water Act has made a difference.

http://www.post-trib.com/news/710067,lakedump.article

Indiana's BP pollution permit: a regional model

The Governor of Indiana thinks so, and blames Illinois and Michigan for the Hoosier State's bad media.

And the second reason it's unfair is that the criticism came from people who do a worse job of protecting the lakes. Illinois is a much bigger polluter. Michigan, a much bigger polluter of our waterways than Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071223/LOCAL19/712230410/-1/LOCAL17