Great Lakes Blogger

New EPA Great Lakes Money Bill Signed by President

...on Friday.  Here is the relevant text from H.R. 2996.

The Administrator is authorized to transfer up to $475,000,000 from the `Environmental Programs and Management' account to the head of any other Federal department or agency (including but not limited to the Departments of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, State, and Transportation), with the concurrence of such head, to carry out activities that would support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement programs, projects, or activities; to enter into an interagency agreement with the head of such Federal department or agency to carry out these activities; and to make grants to governmental entities, nonprofit organizations, institutions, and individuals for planning, research, monitoring, outreach, and implementation in furtherance of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Here's a New One -- Asphalt Driveway Sealant

How much of this stuff ends up in the Great Lakes?

Some Compromise

The headline on this article says a compromise was reached on legislation negating clean air rules for some Great Lakes ships, allowing "older, more polluting" vessels to continue operating in the Great Lakes at least until 2020. What exactly did the shipping industry give up as part of the compromise? And is there any reason other than alarmist claims from the industry that the so-called deal "saves Saginaw River shipping"?

Environmentalists are often accused of being shrill doomsdayers, but the label would more accurately be applied to the Great Lakes shipping industry, which has successfully eluded federal ballast water, cargo sweeping and now clean air rules by saying each would kill them off.

Conservationist or Environmentalist

Which are you? I'm the former, for reasons explained here.

A footnote on the $475M for the Lakes

The good news first, the questions second.

Most everyone agrees the Great Lakes are in sore need of more federal attention, but some have criticized the restoration movement's focus on dollars without a parallel focus on laws and regulations to protect the world's largest freshwater system from ongoing pollution problems.

For example, the plan calls for spending more than $60 million to combat invasive species, but it does not demand that the oceangoing vessels that are responsible for most of the new species introductions stop dumping their contaminated ballast.

And some have complained that the plan calls for spending more money on evaluating its own effectiveness than fighting the invasive species problem.

Yes, what were they thinking?

When our Great Lakes-loving Congressional delegation pandered to the shipping industry and its polluting ways this week.

Those are some tough words, but they reflect what a lot of people are thinking after Great Lakes shippers sailed through a loophole that allows them to avoid complying with new air pollution standards. Navigating the way for them was our very own Congressional Delegation who evidently held meetings with the EPA and refused to talk publicly about the summits. We, the constituents, were able to get glimpses of the debate from a staffer who- in the press – alluded to cost-benefit analysis that would prove the shippers cause, but when we asked to see such studies they could not be unearthed (in fact, the EPA didn’t know to what the staffer was referring!).

Lost the Spin War

Here's another illustration of how the Great Lakes shipping industry, in a little more than two weeks, completely stole the public framing of the clean air rule fight. Environmental objections and just plain countering facts have merited a paragraph in most stories.

And so much for industry-environmental partnerships. They happen only when it's in industry's interest.

Money for the Great Lakes

$475 million for the Lakes as a whole (great), a little pork for Michigan besides. And another unchallenged, false claim about the effect of EPA rules on archaic, dirty Great Lakes vessels. Details here.

Great Lakes Restoration and Climate Change

Interesting thoughts from federal Great Lakes 'czar' Cam Davis.

"I look at the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative as a climate change adaptation effort," Davis said in Cleveland this afternoon at a press briefing at the Great Lakes Science Center prior to the final public hearing of the a federal task force on oceans and the Great Lakes. "Everything that we're trying to do -- we, meaning the EPA and its 15 federal partners -- is designed to address the kind of stressors that we're likely to see coming to the Great Lakes as a result of climate change."

Fair and Balanced

Ugh, what reporting. It's based on exaggerated or false claims by shippers; just trot out the word "job-killer" and there's a knee jerk reaction among politicians without fact checking.

One obvious misleading assertion in the story is that "the rule was to take effect in mid-December." Yes, but ships had until 2015 to comply.

It's cash for lake clunkers. Only the owners get to keep them too.

An alternative view was available to the Free Press with a click of the mouse.