Month: March 2002

A Drive Toward Fuel Efficiency

Despite the recent defeat in Congress of a measure that would have raised fuel efficiency standards, carmakers are still feeling pressure to design and produce less polluting vehicles. Some companies are betting on new technologies to make those dramatic pollution reductions, and a debate’s emerging over how best to get there. Some observers say what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the automobile. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert filed this report:

Transcript

Despite the recent defeat in Congress of a measure that would have raised fuel efficiency standards, carmakers are still feeling pressure to design and produce less polluting vehicles. Some companies are betting on new technologies to make those dramatic pollution reductions. And a debate’s emerging over how best to get there. Some observers say what’s at stake is nothing less than the future of the automobile. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert filed this report:

It’s a clear battle between emerging technologies: what’s available now: hybrid engines, versus fuel cells, which aren’t due for at least ten years. Hybrids use current technology, a gasoline engine, and add an electric engine for additional boost. A hybrid car typically gets double the mileage of a non-hybrid.

Toyota and Honda have both opted for the quicker path. They’ve been offering hybrid cars now for the past few years. Toyota’s Prius is a sedan. Honda opted for a sporty, two-seater, the Insight. But whether sporty or practical, Honda’s Andy Boyd says consumers embraced the new engine.

“We had a great reaction to Insight – people really excited by the technology, very accepting of it. It’s very transparent technology, easy to use and we think it’s ready for prime time.”

Prime time for Honda means putting the hybrid engine on a more practical vehicle, which they’re doing. The Honda Civic is a company best seller. The hybrid Civic goes on sale in April. Priced around $20,000 the Civic will get 50 miles per gallon. And Boyd thinks it will result in even broader acceptance of hybrid technology.

A domestic automaker is also jumping on the hybrid bandwagon, hoping to broaden the hybrid’s appeal. Ford Motor Company will launch the hybrid Escape sport utility vehicle later next year. Ford’s Jon Harmon says that’s an even better vehicle choice than the Japanese offerings.

“Most of those vehicles have limitations because they’re such small vehicles and we think that by giving a vehicle with more functionality that customers are looking for, like the Escape HEV, that we’re really going to open up that market.”

The hybrid Escape will get 40 miles to the gallon in the city, twice the mileage of its gasoline engine counterpart.

But while hybrids make big dents in reducing pollution, they’re not considered the final answer to the environmental problem. The more promising contender is fuel cells.

“In a minute we’ll introduce a revolutionary concept, so revolutionary that we believe it’s no stretch to say it could literally reinvent the automobile.”

General Motors President and CEO Rick Wagoner unveiled his company’s first fuel cell car prototype, the Autonomy, at the North American International Auto Show earlier this year. Fuel cells run on a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. They emit only water vapor and heat, so they’re essentially pollution free. They’re also extremely fuel-efficient. But even the GM fuel cell car won’t be available for at least ten years. That’s because the technology still faces many financial and engineering hurdles.

Even so, GM spokesman Bill Nowak says that investing in fuel cell technology is smarter than putting money in less effective, near-term hybrids.

“It has a fair amount of potential to improve your efficiency but you’re adding another power plant. A hybrid combines an internal combustion engine with an electric motor so there’s some cost factors involved in that. That’s why we think the best technology by far is the pure fuel cell.”

Still, many experts and other automakers don’t expect to see fuel cells on the road very soon. David Hermantz is with Toyota’s Technical Center. He says it could take 20 or 30 years. And he’s concerned that by pushing for fuel cells; GM’s trying to postpone any near-term actions to reduce auto pollution.

“GM’s interim image appears to be that ‘leave us alone for now and we’ll get to fuel cells in the future’ and we think we need some kind of progressive path to get to the future.”

That path for Toyota is a commitment to offer 300,000 hybrid vehicles a year worldwide beginning 2005. Honda also will continue promoting hybrids. Again, Honda’s Andy Boyd.

“In the long-term, fuel cells are probably going to be the answer, but again, if we’re looking out about 30 to 40 years, do we want to wait that long to try and do something about fuel efficiency and reducing emissions? Reducing fuel consumption is the greatest thing we can do to cut emissions, so we’re trying to do that.”

Still, the federal government currently prefers the long-term option. The Energy Department recently scrapped an existing hybrid research program and instead decided to fund an effort to develop a fuel cell powered vehicle.

That concerns Mike Flynn. Flynn runs the University of Michigan’s office for the study of automotive transportation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He says the government’s decision, which comes amidst a slump in the auto industry, will take pressure off automakers to pursue hybrids.

“They have tremendous demand on their resources right now, so why would I do other than what the government is telling me I should be doing, which is this longer term bet on fuel cells which I may be able to defer a little bit in the first few years and use my resources elsewhere.”

Flynn’s also worried about focusing only on fuel cells. He says that if another technology wins out, the domestic auto industry could be left behind.

But GM’s Bill Nowak says that’s unlikely. And he’s convinced that ultimately, the company’s bet on fuel cells will pay off.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Halpert.

CHEFS SERVE UP FISH CONSERVATION (Short Version)

  • Rick Bayless, a co-founder of Chefs Collaborative, is working to persuade other chefs to think about the environment when they make their decisions about food.

Some chefs are working on campaigns to raise awareness about ocean fish conservation. Their efforts could mean some changes on your favorite restaurant’s menu. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Some chefs are working on campaigns to raise awareness about ocean fish conservation. Their efforts could mean some changes on your favorite restaurant’s menu. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Some celebrity chefs from across the nation are working together to stress the importance of conserving fish species. Several fish have been over-harvested and the chefs are calling on their colleagues and consumers to be more ecologically responsible. Rick Bayless is a chef in Chicago and has a television show on public TV. He says his restaurants and chefs have tried to keep informed about the fish they use.

“And then as we hear that certain things are stressed populations or if, for instance, tuna is not coming in as big as it used to be or marlin from Florida is getting smaller and smaller. And we can see that. And then we’ll all sort of get together and go ‘I think we should really not do this anymore because this doesn’t look very good.”

Bayless and other chefs involved in conservation programs are urging people to use fish in a way that doesn’t continue to cause pressure on the fish populations that are disappearing due to over-harvesting.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Chefs Serve Up Fish Conservation

  • Rick Bayless, a co-founder of Chefs Collaborative, is working to persuade other chefs to think about the environment when they make their decisions about food.

Some restauranteurs are looking at the effect they’re having on the world’s ecology, and as a result their chefs are changing their menus and their recipes so that there’s less pressure on some kinds of fish species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Some restaurateurs are looking at the effect they’re having on the world’s ecology. And as a result their chefs are changing their menus and their recipes so that there’s less pressure on some kinds of fish species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

It’s the middle of the week and there’s already more than an hour wait to get a table at this trendy Chicago restaurant. The Frontera Grill is the domain of executive chef and owner Rick Bayless. Bayless is known for several things: a television show on public TV, redefining Mexican cuisine, and co-founding a group that’s concerned about the impact chefs’ decisions have on the environment. The group Chefs Collaborative is especially concerned about what it calls “ecologically responsible seafood procurement.” It’s calling on chefs to learn about which fish species are over-fished, to ask questions of fish providers about the size and quantity of the catch, and to think about what they can do about taking pressure off of depleted fish supplies. The problem is that many of the world’s more popular fish species have been in such high demand; they’re being fished nearly out of existence.

Chef Bayless says restaurants and their chefs play a major role in fish consumption. By making a particular type of fish popular to eat, chefs also help decide what people eat at home or demand from other restaurants. So a chef can make a difference. Bayless says instead of using a popular fish that’s seen its numbers decline due to over-fishing, the chef can substitute another kind of fish, or if necessary take it off the menu.

“I would say that we have taken off – we used to do Chilean sea bass; we no longer do it. We used to do a lot of blue fin tuna; we don’t do hardly any of that anymore. We rarely serve snapper because that’s become a pretty heavily fished species. There’s a lot of things we don’t do that we used to because we realize that diversity is going to be the answer to not over-fishing.”

But the effort to get chefs to think about the ecological consequences of their decisions isn’t embraced by everyone. Many chefs take pride in serving only the very best regardless of the financial or environmental cost. So, some chefs are not willing to take a popular fish off the menu. Bayless says they’ll keep using an over-fished species even though they know the fish’s population is being depleted.

“There’s some great chefs in this country that have more or less made their reputations on dishes that involve Chilean sea bass. And they’re going to be the last ones to change because they think of these dishes as their signatures, so a lot of those guys will shy away from these kinds of discussions.”

And if the chefs demand a fish at any price, there will always be some commercial fishers who will provide it if they can.

Peter Jarvis operates Triar Seafood in Hollywood, Florida. He supplies fish to chefs across the nation. Jarvis says some of his chefs are concerned about over-fishing. They know that certain ocean fish have dropped in numbers and have dropped in size in the past. But sometimes their information is out-dated. Back in the 1980s the Reagan administration pushed the international boundary waters out to 200 miles off the coast.
Then federal agencies closed or restricted fishing for certain species. Some of those populations have rebounded. So, Jarvis says it’s important that chefs talk to their providers rather than make decisions on old information. But Jarvis says it’s a different story farther out in international waters, and along the coasts of other nations. There, he says, little is done to check over-harvesting.

“We don’t seem to have a very good handle on the over-fishing situation outside of our own borders. You know, you go two-hundred miles off into international waters and it’s all renegades out there with very large vessels that are just pillaging the waters.”

And some chefs resort to buying fish from those sources or from countries with weak conservation laws. Even more bothersome to Jarvis are huge trawlers taking tons of fish for fish sticks and fast food fish sandwiches. But Jarvis says the more sophisticated consumer, the kind who frequents upscale restaurants, seems to be willing to put up with some changes on the menu. Chefs tell him that many of their patrons are willing to be flexible.

At the Frontera Grill, the patrons we talked to seemed to agree. We asked Lyn Schroth how she would feel if her favorite restaurant dropped a dish from the menu because that fish was being over-harvested.

“I’d be very happy with them because I wouldn’t want to eat anything that – you know, I’m a big animal lover, okay? And, most the time I don’t know what’s endangered and what’s not. And, the restaurant takes it off the menu, I’m proud of them.”

While restaurant patrons might be willing to make changes for the sake of the environment, getting the message to chefs is harder. Chef Rick Bayless says the culinary schools aren’t talking about the source of foods or the pressure on stocks in the ocean or on the ground with their student chefs.

“I think that’s the biggest disservice this country is making to the next generation of chefs. They’re teaching young chefs mostly to say ‘I’m demanding the best quality,’ but they should be demanding the products that are going to ensure that we have a future. And, they’re not doing that. They’re not teaching them that kind of stuff, about how to be responsible.”

But, Bayless says that some of the young chefs are learning that responsibility on their own through professional organizations such as the Chefs Collaborative and talking with fellow-chefs who are concerned about the environment. And Bayless adds they’re also learning from consumers who put pressure on the restaurants to think about the ecological impact of what they put on the menu.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Fish-Kill Policy for Power Plants?

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that instead of making power plants prevent fish kills when taking in cooling water… the plants be allowed to replace or pay for the fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that instead of making power plants prevent fish kills when taking in cooling water… the plants be allowed to replace or pay for the fish. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman says plants using cooling water from rivers or lakes that are more ecologically sensitive will have to put up guards to reduce the number of fish killed in water intakes. But the EPA proposes letting local permitting officials make the call whether the fish and aquatic life are worth the extra cost. If not, the plants won’t have to worry about the fish kills. David Gordon is the senior attorney with the environmental group, Riverkeeper. Gordon says industries and power plants should build cooling towers and use the same water over and over.

“And that can cut the amount of water that’s used by 95-percent and upwards. And since the killing of the fish goes on a gallon by gallon basis – the more water you take in the more fish you kill – clearly cutting the amount of water that’s used would be the most protective measure.”

But the EPA says it doesn’t want to tie down industry with a one size fits all requirement. The agency will be taking public comments about the proposal over the next few months.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

STATE FINDS PCBs IN FARM SLUDGE

A chemical linked to cancer and other health problems has been discovered in sludge spread on farm fields. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shamane Mills has details:

Transcript

A chemical linked to cancer and other health problems has been discovered in sludge spread on farm fields. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shamane Mills reports:

The PCBs were found in recent testing by state officials; just over half the samples of recycled sludge from 50 sewage treatment plants had PCB levels as high as 920 parts per billion. Federal standards allow 50-thousand parts per billion. Wisconsin Natural Resources wastewater engineer Greg Kester says the low levels shouldn’t cause alarm.

“PCBs are ubiquitous in the environment in which we live now. If you look with sensitive enough analytical equipment you will find low levels in virtually anything.”

Nevertheless, Rebecca Katers of the Clean Water Action Council is concerned.

“The
risk assessment shows that these are not negligible numbers; even from very low levels PCBs are persistent and they accumulate up the food chain.”

Wisconsin has recycled sludge since 1973. Eighty percent goes on farmland; the rest is dumped in landfills or incinerated. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Shamane Mills.

Safeguarding Chemical Plants

Some public health experts and government leaders are calling for new efforts to protect people from the risk of a terrorist attack on plants that manufacture or store chemicals. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

Some public health experts and government leaders are calling for new efforts to protect people from the risk of a terrorist attack on plants that manufacture or store chemicals. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Six months after terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., little has been done across most of the nation to reduce the risk of attacks on chemical plants. A new publication called the “Safe Hometowns Guide” outlines ways to better protect neighborhoods. Alan Finkelstein is a firefighter in Cuyahoga County, Ohio where some chemical companies have reduced the number of train cars of chemicals they store, and put the remaining cars in containment buildings.

“It’s not environmental groups versus government versus chemical companies. We can all do something to improve the situation here. We can encourage the companies to decrease or eliminate the chemical hazards in their inventories. The Safe Hometowns guide will give us the ability to go out to the communities and give us a framework for setting up some kind of plan.”

Finkelstein and a number of other experts called on government and industry to work together to reduce chemical quantities and find safer chemical substitutes where possible.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Island Park Wins Award

Each year the National Park Service gives out awards to projects that help people understand the country’s parks. One of this year’s winners is a book about Isle Royale – a National Park in the middle of Lake Superior. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports:

Transcript

Each year the National Park Service gives out awards to projects that help people understand the country’s parks. One of this year’s winners is a book about Isle Royale – a National Park in the middle of Lake Superior. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports:

More people visit Yellowstone National Park in a week than visit Isle Royale National Park in a year. Each year some of those visitors are artists participating in the park’s artist-in-residence program. They stay on the Island for about 2 weeks, take pictures, paint, sketch, or write songs and poetry about the park. A book called “The Island Within Us” features work by these artists. Jill Burkland is the executive director of the Isle Royale Natural History Association. The association put the book together.

“Not very many, not very many people ever go to Isle Royale so this is a way of sharing the island with people who can’t necessarily go or don’t plan to go.”

“The Island Within Us” has tied with a book about the Grand Canyon for best general book in the National Park Services Excellence in Interpretive Media Awards. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamar Charney.

Life Without Boundaries

The events of September 11th have many U.S. residents regarding our boundaries with more fervency. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Terry Link wonders if it’s time that we stop and reflect on the nature of the boundaries in our lives. Perhaps as he suggests, it’s time to reconsider those boundaries from a new perspective:

Transcript

The events of September 11th have
many U.S. residents regarding our boundaries with more fervency. Great
Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Terry Link wonders if it’s time that we
stop and reflect on the nature of the boundaries in our lives. Perhaps as
he suggests, it’s time to reconsider those boundaries from a new
perspective:

I live in a mid-Michigan rural
township. You know, the brainchild of the Ordinance of 1785, which
outlined the development of this region by creating six-by-six square mile
boxes for townships. Despite its relatively sparse population, our little
township is carved up into 4 school districts. The boundaries are
irregular in shape. Just a mile to my east is a county line. My kids
attend a school in that county. My next-door neighbor’s children attend a
school in our county. Our state and national boundaries have interesting
stories as well. Like these, most of the boundaries that separate us are
human creations.

The events of September 11th have
many of our citizens focusing on boundaries – national, ethnic, religious,
political, and more. We distinguish between those who live on the other
side of the boundaries as being somehow separate or different from us. We
rally around symbols of those boundaries – our flag, our national anthem,
our church, and so forth. But I think you would agree that it would be
silly for me to consider my next door neighbor who happens to reside in a
different school district as “different” from me simply because he’s
across an arbitrary boundary? Or think that kids who live in the adjacent
county who nevertheless go to the same school as mine are as a result,
“different” than my own.

Nature’s boundaries are much more
seamless. Some birds migrate seasonally from one continent to another.
Monarch butterflies that grace our backyards during summer, retreat to
Mexico for the winter. The air that I am breathing as I speak to you will
travel the world and be breathed in by plants and animals and other
humans, perhaps in Pittsburgh or Paris, undergoing numerous chemical
transformations along the way. The hydrologic cycle that keeps us alive
moves water from the Great Lakes around the world – flowing into the
Atlantic Ocean or evaporating into the atmosphere to be part of rain in
North Carolina or Quebec. How could we think for a moment that we are
separate from nature?

I believe we spend way too much
of our psychic energy focusing on what sets us apart from each other, what
makes us different. We use artificial boundaries to separate “us” from
“them,” “I” from “Thou.”

We need to learn from nature. If
you look at the pictures of earth from outer space you notice this
beautiful blue sphere. It provides us life; in fact it is teeming with
life. We can’t see boundaries between us from that distance. We see a
system of life that is connected and interrelated. In fact it’s dependent,
wholly dependent, upon relationships.

When we can begin to look at all
of us humans as being interrelated with the rest of the biosphere that
provides us with air to breathe, water to give us life, and food to
nourish our development, perhaps we can dissolve the artificial boundaries
that divide us from each other.

Maybe if we could see that we are
not separate from nature, but part of it, then we will learn to treat our
home with more affection. And maybe, just maybe that affection can spread
from human to human, with less reliance on violence, and more on empathy
and compassion. Maybe it’s time to rally around the earth flag, that
honors the home we all share.


Host Tag: Terry Link is Director of the Office
of Campus Sustainability at Michigan State University.

Walkerton Water Tragedy Revisited

The consequences of the tainted water tragedy in southern Ontario are still being assessed. Seven people died and more than two thousand were made sick nearly two years ago, when the bacteria E. coli was found in drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. An inquiry into the tragedy lasted more than a year, and a preliminary report was released last month. It blamed the two men in charge of the public utilities commission in Walkerton. But it also pointed the finger at cuts made years before by the Ontario government. Environmentalists across the Great Lakes are concerned that unless the lessons of Walkerton are learned on both sides of the border, water supplies will again be placed at risk. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

The consequences of the tainted water tragedy in southern Ontario are still being assessed. Seven people died and more than two thousand were made sick nearly two years ago when the bacteria, E. coli, was found in drinking water in Walkerton, Ontario. An inquiry into the tragedy lasted more than a year, and a preliminary report was released last month. It blamed the two men in charge of the public utilities commission in Walkerton. But it also pointed the finger at cuts made years before by the Ontario government. Environmentalists across the Great Lakes are concerned that unless the lessons of Walkerton are learned on both sides of the border, water supplies will again be placed at risk. The Great Lakes Radio Consortiums Dan Karpenchuk reports from Toronto:

Walkerton is a small community of five thousand people about 135 miles northwest of Toronto not far from Lake Huron. There’s some light industry, some tourism… but agriculture is the economic mainstay. The E. coli disaster put the town of Walkerton in the headlines, where it’s remained. Some still feel the effects of the tainted water through an assortment of medical symptoms and complications. Others won’t drink the water; no matter what assurances they’ve been given that it’s safe. Many, like Robert Cooney, remain bitter.

“People in this town are sick of the whole thing. Yes, they got compensation. But for the people that are on dialysis and the people that lost loved ones, we’re looking for something. Something went wrong.”

There was a lot that went wrong, according to the man who headed the inquiry into the tragedy. In January, Justice Dennis O’Connor released his report. He concluded that the brothers who ran the Public Utilities Commission contributed directly to the tragedy, first by failing to properly monitor the drinking water, then by trying to cover up the emerging catastrophe by actively misleading health officials, assuring them the water was safe.

But O’Connor also turned his criticism on the government of Ontario, saying cuts to the MOE, or Ministry of Environment, undermined its ability to deal with the problems in Walkerton.

“The provincial government’s budget reductions led to the discontinuation of government laboratory testing services for municipalities in 1996.”

Now six years later, those services still have not been reinstated.

“In implementing this decision, the government should have enacted a regulation mandating that testing laboratories immediately and directly notify the MOE and the medical officer of health of adverse results. Had the government done this, the boil water advisory would have been issued by May 19 at the latest, thereby preventing hundreds of illnesses.”

The Conservative government in Ontario reacted quickly to the allegations. Premier Mike Harris, who early on during the inquiry, maintained that his government’s policies were not to blame, now did an about face.

“I deeply regret any factors leading to the events of May 2000, that were the responsibility of the government of Ontario either prior to or during my tenure as premier.”

Harris went further in his attempts to limit the political damage. He said many of the recommendations made by Justice O’Connor would be implemented. They included continuous chlorine monitors for wells, increased inspections and better training for operators.

But many critics say they they’re not convinced. They say a week after the 700-page report was released, neither Harris nor any member of his cabinet, had read it.

Far from Walkerton, the political fallout is being felt most in Toronto, seat of the province’s legislature…. and home to many of Ontario’s environmental groups.

The Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policies says the problems in Walkerton have called attention to the broader issue of water quality in the region. Researchers say the amount of pollutants discharged into rivers and lakes more than doubled between 1995 and 1999. And over the same period the number of provincial water testing sites was cut by two thirds.

That could have serious implications for the province’s lakes and rivers…. and since those systems feed into the Great Lakes, the entire region is at risk.

Professor Louis Mallott was involved in the study….

“We concluded that Ontario is unable to assess the overall quality of Ontario’s inland waters that flow into the Great Lakes. And this is necessary to determine whether Ontario’s environmental policies are effective.”

Over the past year almost four hundred cases of bad water have turned up in Ontario. E. coli and other bacteria have plagued water systems in towns, trailer parks, schools, private homes and even a nudist colony. And that worries people like Paul Muldoon, the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Muldoon says Ontario is also sending a clear message south of the border, and it’s not a positive one.

“I am convinced that if I was in the U.S. right now, I could at least legitimately raise the issue, saying lookit Canadians sure we cause stresses in the Great Lakes and there’s lots of issues here. But don’t talk to us until you get your act together and Walkerton is a glowing example, you do not have your act together. And since Walkerton there’s not a lot of evidence you’ve got your act together yet despite that wake up call, despite the depth of that tragedy.”

The Ontario government, however, insists the situation is improving.

But critics aren’t buying it. They say Ontario’s environmental problems have not only jeopardized the province, but could affect the entire Great Lakes region. They say there is a clear message to governments on both sides of the border…. that budget cuts and privatization could lead to more tragedies like Walkerton.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Charting a Course for the ‘Big Muddy’

  • A recent National Academy of Sciences report on the Missouri River suggested some of the river's natural meanders and access to the flood plain be restored. It also suggested sections of the river be reviewed to see if barge traffic might be closed for parts of the year or permanently.

The National Academy of Sciences has issued a report that calls for the restoration of the longest river in the United States. That report says the government needs to stop studying problems along the Missouri River and – with the help of residents – do something about them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the story:

Transcript

The National Academy of Sciences has issued a report that calls for the restoration of the longest river in the United States. That report says the government needs to stop studying problems along the Missouri River and – with the help of residents – do something about them. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

On the opposite bank from here, you can see the Big Muddy empty into the Mississippi River. I’m standing on the spot where Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery spent the winter before starting their historic expedition up the Missouri, across the Rockies and to the Pacific coast. If Lewis and Clark could see the Missouri today, there’s little that they’d recognize at this end of the river. Over the years it’s been straightened, walled-in by levees and channelized. Its braided river system of meanders, backwaters and eddies, once alive with wildlife are – for the most part – gone.

Seventy years ago as the government began huge civil engineering projects; it expected the Missouri River to be a major transportation means of getting grain from the farm fields of Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa and Missouri to the markets. But as it’s turned out, almost all of the grain from those states is moved to market by truck or rail or in Missouri’s case on the Mississippi River. Only a tiny fraction less than one-half of one-percent of all the grain harvested in those states is moved by barge on the Missouri River.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, barge traffic on the Missouri benefits the economy by saving about seven million dollars in transportation costs. But some years the Army Corps of Engineers spends that much maintaining the lower Missouri as a navigable river, and the taxpayers foot the bill.

The National Academy of Sciences – the NAS – was instructed to study the Missouri River and determine the best uses of the river and its flood plain. Stephen Gloss was the chair of the committee that wrote the final report. He says one thing’s certain; the condition of the Missouri River has been studied to death. Its problems are well documented.

“The people should understand the Missouri River ecosystem is in a significant state of decline. There’s been a lot of degradation of the ecological properties of the system. There’s ample scientific evidence to credibly demonstrate that and there doesn’t need to be any more research done to make that credible. The most important thing is to undertake some immediate action.”

The NAS report suggested that the people of the states along the Missouri River should start figuring out where some of the Missouri’s meanders could be replaced and where it could be allowed back into its old flood plain.

At a town hall meeting in Columbia, Missouri, three of the authors of the study, including Stephen Gloss, met recently with representatives of the barge industry, agriculture and government agencies along the Missouri River and with the public. A farmer from Oregon, Missouri, Lanny Meng, told the NAS committee members he’s heard this kind of talk for several years, and he didn’t much like it.

“When they talk about meanders of the Missouri channel and they talk about connectivity with the flood plain. And that flood plain’s my cornfield.”

“Well, I think that the flow change and the management change of the Missouri River’s gonna have a drastic negative affect on my farming practice, and my neighbor’s farming practice and my county. Things will change badly for our community?”

The farmers are not the only ones concerned about change on the Missouri River. The barge industry, which depends on keeping the water level artificially high and the channel deep doesn’t believe there’s enough water to keep the reservoirs full in the upper Missouri, make new diversions for wildlife backwaters and meanders, and keep the barges floating.

Chris Bescia is with the barge industry group Midwest Area River Coalition 2000, better known as MARC-2000.

“So, when the National Academy of Science report says that we want to have more cuts and alluvial deviations in the river, when they say that we want to re-connect the flood plain, when they say all these things, that’s essentially taking out the channel training structures that are designed to maintain a nine foot channel.”

Which the barges need to push their cargo up and down stream.

The NAS report indicates that the people along the river and the state and federal agencies that have authority can find a balance between the commercial and agricultural interests and that of those who want better hunting, fishing, or simply better habitat for the sake of the wildlife and the natural beauty.

Chad Smith is with the environmental group American Rivers. He says it will take some compromises, but it can be done.

“The Missouri is not even close to living up to its potential. And we’re missing out on a lot of quality of life benefits, but also on a lot of economic benefits by managing this river as a ditch and not as a river.”

Smith stresses that no one is calling for the end of barge traffic on the Missouri, or wants the end of farming in the flood plain. But Smith says there’s been just a little too much development of the river, and we need to restore parts of it here and there.

The chief author of the National Academy of Sciences report, Steven Gloss, says that work needs to begin quickly because it will take a very long time to fix the Missouri River’s problems.

“We’ve been at this for a long time, a hundred years or better and, you know, it’s gonna take several decades to get it back a little bit in the other direction. I think we really need to look at this as a long-term sustained process. It’s not something we can find a solution for in five years and walk away from it. We need to be at this for the rest of our lives and for future generations.”

But Gloss stresses this cannot be a job for the government alone. The NAS report says the Missouri can only find balance between the competing interests if the people along the Missouri River all have a seat at the table and share in the river’s wealth.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links