« January 2008 | Main | March 2008 »
It's possible, if two die-hard ideologues have their way.
Some day they'll write the history of how this generation either saved the Great Lakes from poachers and polluters or how it allowed the world's largest reservoir of fresh water to dwindle and die.
And if the state Legislature allows Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch and Rep. Scott Gunderson to get their way, that history will most assuredly be the latter.
A mostly ice-free Lake Michigan (but Erie is solid).
From a Salinas, CA newspaper comes this:
The Joint Ocean Commission on Wednesday released its third annual report card on progress being made to implement recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans Commission...The group gave the country a C...However, the report adds that passage of national ocean legislation, particularly Congressman Sam Farr’s Oceans-21 bill, would be a constructive step.
The bill would create a national ocean policy,
establishing principles for use and management of U.S. coasts, oceans
and Great Lakes. The bill would promote ecosystem-based, regional
governance and encourage ocean stewardship through education, data
sharing and citizen involvement. It would also codify the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and establish an Oceans and
Great Lakes Conservation Trust Fund. Download hr_21_2008.pdf
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has just refreshed its solid waste policy with recommendations to the legislature and other decisionmakers. An interesting problem and proposed solution is what to do about telephone books. According to the report, almost 13,000 tons of telephone books were distributed in 2006 but less than 15% were recycled. The remainder ended up in landfills or incinerators.
But a 1992 state law requires telephone directory publishers to provide for collection and delivery to a recycler of waste telephone directories. It's not working. MPCA is recommending a change in law to establish an 'opt-in' system where publishers would drop off new directories only where residents had responded to an offer and requested one.
Why does it matter? Because if the same percentage of Minnesotans did not opt in as are now on the 'do not call' registry the state would reduce 14,007 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and save 101.6 billion BTUs annually. In other words, it would help the state meet its 80% CO2 reduction mandate by 2050 and reduce pressure on dumps.
Discussion is on page 10-12.
Who needs six phone books anyway?
Does anyone else see an inconsistency between:
Several mayors said the lakes should not be deemed merely local
concerns, but seen as a broader issue, akin to assisting the New
Orleans region after Hurricane Katrina or restoring the Everglades in Florida.
And the rightful refrain that other regions should not be given license to take Great Lakes water?
Yes, federal policy and lack of same had a major role in worsening the problem of invasive aquatic species in the Lakes, and for that crisis a federal funding and policy solution makes sense. But so many of the other challenges facing the Great Lakes have been exacerbated by states and communities.
It is time for the Great Lakes states to put new money on the table to protect the Lakes -- and only then ask for federal help in the form of a partnership.
Minnesota's legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto to pass a nickel a gallon increase in the gas tax and other fee boosts to pay for (fallen) bridge repair, highways and public transit Monday. Now some are wondering how this will affect voter sentiment on a proposed state constitutional amendment to boost the sales tax 3/8 cent for parks, habitat, clean water and arts. It will be on the ballot in November.
These are interesting times, and with the governor of Minnesota predicting taxpayer revolt now that he's been overridden, it's difficult to predict the mood of voters eight months from now. But a sound education campaign and explanation of why conservation needs dedicated funding -- to protect the resources and recreation that we all enjoy -- will win voter support regardless of the gas tax.
Interesting news:
Wisconsin natural resource officials want to nominate the St. Louis River estuary to become the first in the Lake Superior region named part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
A committee is proposing the St. Louis River estuary after considering 30 possible sites on the Wisconsin shores of Lake Superior. The proposal will be unveiled at an April 3 public hearing from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Superior Conference Center in Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College in Superior.
The article notes that only one Great Lakes site, Old Woman Creek in Ohio, is a designated reserve. Part of the reason might be the dictionary definition of estuary: a water passage where the tide meets a river current; especially : an arm of the sea at the lower end of a river. The more generous definition adopted by Wisconsin is this: Estuaries, usually widening in rivers where they meet a great lake or ocean, are considered critical ecological areas for fish and wildlife habitat, especially spawning fish. They often include wetlands, and in the case of Lake Superior, are among the most important shoreland habitats for the entire lake's food chain.
Whatever the name, it is good news that Great Lakes states are beginning to identify and seek protection for critical aquatic habitat as reserves.
Michigan should join the trend, either on its own or as part of the national system. Michigan law provides for the designation of 'bottomland preserves." Although used only to protect shipwrecks so far, the law authorizes preserves for reasons of "historical, recreational, geological, or environmental significance." Somewhere among 38,000 or so square miles of underwater resources, Michigan must possess some outstanding potential reserves/preserves.
A pair of agriculture groups has temporarily suspended about $1.5
million in grants to the University of Minnesota to protest a
controversial study by U scientists earlier this month about biofuels
and global warming.
"The university hurt the farmers' feelings, OK? That's probably the
best way to say it," said Jim Palmer, executive director of the two
groups.
When you look at a Great Lakes tributary stream, do you see an intricate ecosystem or gobs of water going to waste? Science can develop tools to help you measure how change affects the river, but your starting assumption will shape the result science yields.
The Grand Rapids Press editorializes that a water withdrawal assessment tool should be written into law that is based on the premise that streams can lose considerable water before harm is done. But that overlooks not just the impact on poorly understood stream hydrology, but the cumulative effect that would sanction scores of such losses to Michigan streams and ultimately the Great Lakes. There are Sunbelt states that exercise greater water prudence.
A better approach is for the Michigan legislature to base policy on water conservation, and require major water users to show how and why they should be allowed to take water only after conservation is practiced. If we want Texas or Colorado to do so before they get access to the Great Lakes, we should do no less.
But improving, they say --
At 6 a.m. today, the Air Quality Index in the Twin Cities registered 121, putting it in the unhealthy for sensitive groups [classification], which include people with heart or lung disease, children and athletes.
