|
WORD COUNT
685
FEBRUARY 9, 2005
IS IT JUST TOO TOUGH TO
CLEAN UP THE GREAT LAKES? – by Joyce Braithwaite-Brickley
If you watch the politics
of Great Lakes cleanup too closely, you may get fuzzy vision. You may even
need bifocals to understand the two levels of rhetoric: the bold, big print
that promises clean water, and the blurry, tiny print that provides all the
qualifications and excuses why this just can’t be.
Early this year, for
example, Gary Fahnenstiel, the director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s field station in Muskegon, called for the
closing of the Welland Canal. That would be the most effective and simplest
way to stop pollution of the Lakes by invasive species carried in the
ballast water of oceangoing ships. He pointed out that organisms that have
entered the Lakes in recent decades – like the zebra mussel – would never
have made it if the ships that introduced them to the upper lakes had been
forced to stop downstream, off-loading their cargo to freshwater vessels,
trains or trucks.
Invasive species cost the
region $3 billion every 10 years, according to the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO). And no one has yet calculated the cost of the
disruption to the multi-billion dollar sport fishery. That should make a
clear case for taking dramatic action, right?
Well, maybe not. The
“Muskegon Chronicle” editorialized, ”Closing the canal to new shipping
presents incredible headaches economically. Great Lakes industries, such as
mining and shipping, depend heavily upon lake transport. To shut things
down, or limit this commerce in any substantial way, might cripple some
businesses. Just what we need in this economy.”
When the director of the
Windsor office of the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bi-national
panel that oversees the health of the Lakes, endorsed the idea of closing
the canal, the parent IJC rushed to issue a statement: “We would like to
make clear that any such statement is not the position of the Commission.”
Now that’s courage.
Certainly, the Great
Lakes region is suffering economically. But some of that cost is directly
due to the shipping interests that benefit from the convenience of using the
Lakes without paying for the damages caused by invasive species that
hitchhike on their ships. If the region can’t unite behind the position of
closing the canal, it must at least stop wringing its hands and demand that
the shippers come up with a plan.
Another example of
indecision is the response of Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) to a citizen request that the waters of spectacular Grand Traverse Bay
be given a special classification. Under this plan, no new pollution would
be allowed that could lower the quality of the Bay. The idea makes great
sense for an area that depends on the beauty of the Bay for its tourism.
But a representative of
the state DEQ said of the proposal, “It is going to be very controversial
and very political.” Sure. Clamping down on pollution always is. But that
doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t try. Such a response from an agency charged
with assuring clean water is discouraging at best. Finally, there’s the
matter of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Signed in 1972 by the
United States and Canada, the agreement gets much of the credit for
committing the two countries to restore the Lakes’ greatness. A decrease of
more than 70 percent in phosphorus pollution since the 1970s is just one
result.
But an agreement more
than 30 years old can be rusty, so the IJC is coordinating a review. Some
suspect though, that rather than reaffirming the commitment of 1972 to the
“virtual elimination” of toxic pollution, the two governments, and the
polluters that lobby them so effectively, may call for “no ‘unacceptable’
risk from toxic pollution.” This slight change may sound insignificant, but
it’s potentially huge. It could mean giving up the goal of restoring the
Lakes to full health, and allowing toxic pollution as long as it doesn’t
cross some indefinable border.
In the 1970s, the people
of the region demanded strong action to restore the health of their
freshwater treasure. It looks like they’ll have to do it again. Their
governments don’t seem ready to do it on their own.
--
Joyce Braithwaite-Brickley
was assistant to the Michigan Republican Party chairman and political
advisor and campaign manager for former Gov. William G. Milliken. Her essays
have appeared widely in the state.
priorities@charter.net -- A photo of Joyce Braithwaite-Brickley is
available
CLICK HERE
# # # #
# # |
