Keeping Invasive Species Out

  • Ballast holds can carry aquatic species from foreign ports to U.S. ports. Those species can cause severe damage to the ecological system of harbors, lakes and rivers. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:

Transcript

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:


Ships use water for ballast to keep the ship balanced and level. But taking up ballast water in a foreign port also takes up aquatic hitch-hikers, such as zebra mussels.


Most cargo ships on the Great Lakes are American or Canadian and just travel within the lakes. Ships from overseas only make up a small fraction of the cargo traffic to ports in the Great Lakes, but those ships have brought in dozens of invasive species that have hurt the ecology of the lakes. Some invasives eat the eggs of native fish. They compete for food. They cause disruptions that have led to massive die-offs of fish and waterfowl such as seagulls, loons, and terns.


It has also cost industry, and ultimately you. For example, it costs to clean out zebra mussels from water intake pipes, and some fish have become more scarce.


Jennifer Nalbone is with the environmental organization Great Lakes United. She says it’s a real problem.


“One of the greatest tensions that exists in the Great Lakes today is between commercial navigation development and the invasive species that are being brought into the region by a small subset of ships that are operating on the Great Lakes.”


Nalbone says government agencies could require ships from overseas to install filters or treatment systems that would stop the aquatic nuisances from being brought on board. But those agencies have not done anything. They say Congress hasn’t instructed them to do anything.


And Jennifer Nalbone says many in Congress don’t understand much about invasive species and ballast water.


“It’s very difficult to get things done in D.C. when key federal leaders and committees are not from the Great Lakes region, and they want their own projects advanced first.”


You can imagine if you’re a Congressman from Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Arizona, invasive species from ballast water likely are not at the top of your to-do list.


The only thing that is required is overseas ships have to exchange their ballast water with ocean water once they’re at sea. The idea is to flush out the invasives. It’s not been entirely effective because new invasive species have been brought into the Great Lakes since the policy went into effect.


Allegra Cangelosi is a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute. She’s been working on the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project for a decade now, trying to find solutions to the ballast treatment problem.


Cangelosi says since the ballast water exchange policy was put into effect, not much else has been done. She says the hold up now is because some government officials don’t want to do anything until a perfect standard is set for ballast treatment. Cangelosi says it doesn’t have to be perfect.


“No, I mean, I’ve been in this business, I’ve been following this issue since 1989 and this is the worst stalemate I’ve ever experienced on this issue area. And, I think what we need to do is just get real and start to require ships to use treatments that are available. So, if we can get ships to use even an imperfect treatment system that is better than what we’re doing now, that’s the road to getting to the perfect treatment system, and it’s the road to improving prevention in the near term.”


The overseas shipping industry says it’s working on the problem. The International Maritime Organization has set a standard for ballast water treatment, but, it’s voluntary. Almost no foreign ships have volunteered because they don’t want to choose a system that might not meet the standard the U.S. government will someday set.


Adolph Ojard is the Executive Director of the Duluth, Minnesota Seaway Port Authority. He says ballast treatment will happen, eventually.


“I don’t have a timeline right now, but I tell you what, we know the problem is contained within the ballast tank of a ship. So, it’s identified. I would think within the next few years we would have a system that is effective, and then we’ll go through an implementation phase.”


But those who are concerned about damage to the Great Lakes fishery and the entire ecological system say right now more invasives are being introduced by foreign ships every year.


Jennifer Nalbone with Great Lakes United says those foreign organisms have caused enough damage already.


“We certainly have enough information to take action. We know that there are tremendous impacts. So, we don’t need to have yet another species come into the lakes before we say ‘let’s do something now.'”


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered by a judge to treat ballast water like pollution. It’s unclear whether the EPA will accept or challenge that ruling. Meanwhile, quietly, some economists and others are wondering if the price the invasives cost the economy is worth the commerce that the relatively few foreign ships bring to Great Lakes ports.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Looking Back on the “Slick of ’76”

  • Officials placed containment booms around the barge. Most of them failed to prevent the oil from floating downriver, contaminating dozens of miles of pristine shoreline. (Courtesy of the NY State Dept. of Conservation)

30 years ago, an oil barge ran aground in the St. Lawrence River. Hundreds of thousands of gallons of thick crude oil coated the shoreline of northern New York state. The accident remains one of the largest inland oil spills in the United States. It’s a reminder that freighters haul millions of gallons of toxic liquids across the Great Lakes. And many people worry about another spill. The GLRC’s David Sommerstein talked to witnesses of the 1976 spill:

Transcript

30 years ago, an oil barge ran aground in the St. Lawrence River. Hundreds
of thousands of gallons of thick crude oil coated the shoreline of northern New
York State. The accident remains one of the largest inland oil spills in the
United States. It’s a reminder that freighters haul millions of gallons of toxic
liquids across the Great Lakes. And many people worry about another spill.
The GLRC’s David Sommerstein talked to witnesses of the 1976 spill:


It was really foggy that morning. Bob Smith awoke to two sounds:


“You could hear the anchor chains going down, and next thing we know
there was a young Coast Guard guy knocking on the front door.”


The Coast Guard guy had driven up, asking around for a missing barge.
Smith remembered the anchor chains echoing across the water that woke
him up. He went outside to look.


(Sound of walking outside)


Thirty years later, Smith lives amidst cozy cottages on manicured lawns in
the heart of the touristy Thousand Islands.


“Just right about straight out there. See where that boat’s coming up there
now?”


That’s where a barge carrying oil from Venezuela had dropped anchor after
running aground. That morning Smith watched crude as thick as mud drift
out of sight downriver:


“If you’re born and raised here on the river, you don’t like to see anything go
in the river that doesn’t belong there.”


The Coast Guard placed booms in the water, but the oil quickly spilled over.
It carried 50 miles downstream. It oozed as far as 15 feet into the river’s
marshes. Tom Brown was the point man for New York’s Department of
Environmental Conservation. He says the spill couldn’t have come at a
worse time for wildlife:


“All the young fish, waterfowl, shorebirds, furbearers, were coming off the
nests and were being born.”


Thousands of birds and fish suffocated in black goo. As images of
devastation flashed on national TV, the spill killed the tourism season, too.
It was a summer with no swimming, no fishing, no dipping your feet in the
water at sunset. Really, it was a summer with no river.


(Sound of river at Chalk’s dock)


30 years later, everyone still remembers the acrid smell:


“When I woke up in the middle of the night and I could smell oil, I was
afraid I had an oil leak in my house.”


Dwayne Chalk’s family has owned a marina on the St. Lawrence for
generations. Chalk points to a black stripe of oil on his docks, still there
three decades later, and he’s still bitter:


“The Seaway has done this area, well, I shouldn’t say that, it hasn’t done any
good. To me it hasn’t.”


The St. Lawrence Seaway opened the ports of the Great Lakes to Atlantic
Ocean freighters carrying cargoes of steel, ore, and liquid chemicals. It
generates billions of dollars a year in commerce, but it’s also brought
pollution and invasive species.


Anthropologist John Omohundro studied the social effects of the 1976 oil
spill. He says it helped awaken environmentalism in the Great Lakes:


“The spill actually raised people’s consciousness that the river could be a
problem in a number of areas, not just oil.”


Groups like Save the River and Great Lakes United began lobbying for
cleaner water and safer navigation in the years after the spill:


“If a vessel carrying oil or oil products were in that same type of ship today,
it would not be allowed in.”


Albert Jacquez is the outgoing administrator for the US side of the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The 1976 barge had one hull and gushed oil when it hit the rocks.
Today’s barges are mostly double-hulled and use computerized navigation.
Jacquez says a lot has changed to prevent spills:


“The ships themselves are different, the regulations that they have to follow are
different, and the inspections are different. Now does that guarantee? Well,
there are no guarantees, period.”


So if there is a spill, the government requires response plans for every part of
the Great Lakes. Ralph Kring leads training simulations of those plans for
the Coast Guard in Buffalo. Still, he says the real thing is different:


“You really can’t control the weather and the currents and all that. It’s definitely going to be a
challenge, especially when you’re dealing with a real live incident where
everyone’s trying to move as fast as they can and also as efficient as they
can.”


Critics question the ability to get responders to remote areas in time. They
also worry about spills in icy conditions and chemical spills that oil booms
wouldn’t contain.


(Sound of river water)


Back on the St. Lawrence River, Dwayne Chalk says the oil spill of 1976
has taught him it’s not if, it’s when, the next big spill occurs:


“You think about it all the time. Everytime a ship comes up through here,
you think what’s going to happen if that ship hits something.”


Chalk and everyone else who relies on the Great Lakes hope they’ll never
have to find out.


For the GLRC, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

New Great Lakes Bill Introduced

Some members of Congress are trying again to get more money and protections for the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some members of Congress are trying again to get more money and
protections for the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The sponsors of the bill are calling it the Great Lakes Collaboration
Implementation Act. It aims to pay for recommendations from a
coalition put together by the White House two years ago. The measure
would target problems like invasive species, contaminated sediment and
sewage dumping.


A bi-partisan group of lawmakers has introduced the bill…and
environmental groups are giving their thumbs-up.


Jennifer Nalbone of Great Lakes United says the rapid increase in non-
native species is a particular concern.


“The most recent research shows that a new invader is discovered in the
Great Lakes every 28 weeks. This is the highest rate recorded for a
freshwater ecosystem.”


But some lawmakers from outside the Great Lakes region say there’s
little in the way of new money available for cleaning up the Lakes. The
Collaboration bill calls for billions more in additional spending.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Great Lakes Restoration Plan Released

  • Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk, Ohio Governor Bob Taft, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. This was right taken after they signed the agreement. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

In the spring of 2004, President Bush created a task force to develop a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan. The group recently released its final recommendations. But members already disagree about the future of their proposal. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

In April 2004, President George Bush created a task force to develop a
comprehensive Great Lakes restoration plan. The group recently
released its recommendations, but members already disagree about the
future of their proposal. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn
Allee reports:


Efforts to improve the Great Lakes face a major hurdle. Local, state and
federal programs overlap and sometimes duplicate one another. That
wastes a lot of time and money. President Bush wanted to change this. So, he
created a task force called the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. For the
first time, cities, states, federal agencies, and Indian tribes would agree to
specific goals and how to reach them. By most accounts they succeeded.


Here’s Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley.


“I can’t overstate what a major step forward this is for the Great Lakes.
For the first time, we’re all the same page with a common vision.”


The parties agreed to eight major goals. Among other things, they want
to restore wetlands along Great Lakes shorelines, they want to clean up
heavy metals that pollute lakebeds, and they want to keep sewage away
from public beaches. The cost for all this would stand at billions of
dollars, and that price tag caused a major rift.


Bush administration officials agreed to spend 300 million additional
dollars per year. That’s just a fraction of what states and environmental
groups hoped for.


Derek Stack is with Great Lakes United, an advocacy group. He says
states want to participate, but sometimes they can’t.


“I think a lot of the states simply don’t have the dollars necessary to pull
it off.”


Tribes, cities and states are being careful with their criticism. They want
to keep the door open for the administration to change its mind.


“To be fair to the federal administration, the states are saying we don’t
have federal money, and the feds are pointing out that we don’t exactly
have state money either, but the states have committed themselves to the
plan. So, now that they know what they’ve committed themselves to, the
budget building can begin. It’s hard to build a budget if you don’t have a
plan.”


Some critics are more strident, though. Illinois Congressman Rahm
Emmanuel says the administration needs this clear message. Federal
leadership requires federal money.


“There’s either action or inaction. This is the ninth report in five years,
and I hope it’s the last report. Now, there’s nothing that can’t be cured when
it comes to the Great Lakes that resources can’t take care of.”


Great Lakes advocates and state governments will be watching the next
few months closely.


Cameron Davis directs the Alliance for the Great Lakes. He says he’s
reserving judgment until the President releases a budget proposal.


“That budget will be released the first week of February, and if it has 300
million dollars in new funding, then we’ll know that the administration’s
serious. If it doesn’t we need to ask Congress to step in.”


Some legislators say that deadline might be too soon to judge the
ultimate success of the restoration plan.


Illinois Congressman Mark Kirk says other federal cleanup efforts came
after several reports and years of waiting. Congressman Kirk says the
prospects for the restoration plan are good. The Great Lakes region has
the strength of eight states standing behind it.


“When you look at the success of the Chesapeake Bay, and then the success
of protecting the Everglades, you see, once you come together with a
common vision, what a unified part of state delegation or in the case of
Florida, what an entire state delegation can do.”


On the other hand, it might be hard to keep eight state governments
focused on a common purpose.


There’s another wrinkle in the restoration plan as well. Canada lies on the other
side of the Great Lakes, and any comprehensive plan will require its
cooperation as well.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Report on Water Use Patterns Incomplete?

A new report by the U.S. Geological Survey says per capita, Americans are using less water now than they were 15 years ago. Researchers say that’s a sign that conservation is working. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, environmental groups say the report paints an incomplete picture:

Transcript

A new report by the U.S. Geological Survey says per capita, Americans are using less water now
than they were 15 years ago. Researchers say that’s a sign that conservation is working. But as
the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, environmental groups say the report
paints an incomplete picture:


According to the report, technological advances in irrigation and power generation are allowing
people to do more with less water. And the report says household water use is keeping pace with
population growth.


Reg Gilbert is with Great Lakes United. He says there’s not enough information in the report.
Gilbert says he’d like to see how water use is impacting ground and surface water supplies.


“It’s just basically not enough, because the USGS isn’t really given the charge to get the
information that’s needed, and certainly isn’t given the money to put out the kind of report that
would be fully useful.”


Gilbert also says this is the first USGS report that does not break out water use data for the Great
Lakes region. The report’s author says Great Lakes data wasn’t compiled because there wasn’t
enough money to do it.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Report: Shipping Expansion Won’t Help Economy

Two environmental groups have released a study that questions the benefits of allowing bigger boats on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. Save the River and Great Lakes United paid for the report because they fear deepening the channels and allowing ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes would harm the ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:

Transcript

Two environmental groups have released a study that questions the benefits of
allowing bigger boats on the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway. Save the River
and Great Lakes United paid for the report because they fear deepening the
channels and allowing ocean-going vessels on the Great Lakes would harm the
ecosystem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Peter Payette reports:


Researchers at the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute critiqued a study done by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The critique focused on the idea of making the
locks and canals big enough to handle container ships. These boats now dock on
the East Coast and their cargo comes into the Midwest by rail or truck. The new
report says there’s no evidence that it would be more efficient for container ships to
unload at Great Lakes ports.


Lead Author Evelyn Tomchick says moving containers into the Midwest by water
would be slower.


Also the longer transit times are usually associated with greater unreliability. That
is, there’s variation in the time of arrival, the actual time of arrival.”


Tomchick says unreliability has costs that weren’t calculated.


A spokesman for the Army Corps agrees further study is needed to know the costs
and benefits of any expansion. The Corps of Engineers is currently studying what
it will cost to maintain the locks and channels the way they are.


For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Peter Payette.

Related Links

Bigger Ships to Steam Into Great Lakes?

  • A freighter navigates the American Narrows in the St. Lawrence River. Expanding the system’s locks and channels would mean even bigger ships could enter the Great Lakes.

A new study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says Midwest ports and shippers – and the businesses they work with – stand to gain billions of dollars from an expansion of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system. Building wider locks and deeper channels from Minnesota to Montreal would make way for bigger “container” ships that have become the norm of international trade. But critics say expansion would have dire environmental consequences, and they say the Corps’ study is full of flaws. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

A new study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers says Midwest ports and shippers – and the businesses they work with – stand to gain billions of dollars from an expansion of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system. Building wider locks and deeper channels from Minnesota to Montreal would make way for bigger “container” ships that have become the norm of international trade. But critics say expansion would have dire environmental consequences… and they say the Corps’ study is full of flaws. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:


The St. Lawrence Seaway began as a dream – to make the Great Lakes as important a shipping destination as the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico seaboards. In fact, Seaway boosters used to call the Great Lakes the “Fourth Coast” of the United States. But when the array of locks and channels was built in the 1950s, Congress assured East Coast interests that a shipping route between the Atlantic Ocean and America’s heartland wouldn’t hurt their business. Minnesota Congressman Jim Oberstar:


“The Seaway locks would be built to no greater dimension than the largest inland waterway locks of the 1930’s.”


In other words, the Seaway was outdated before it was built. Today less than thirty percent of the world’s cargo ships can squeeze into the Seaway.


The Army Corps of Engineers’ study is a first step to change that. It says the Seaway could generate up to one and half billion dollars a year more than it is now if larger ships – the ones that carry containers that fit right onto trucks and trains – could reach ports in the Midwest. Oberstar says that would mean an economic boon for Great Lakes states.


“Those are good jobs. Those are longshoreman jobs. And that economic activity means significant business for Great Lakes port cities.”


So along with other politicians and shippers in the Midwest, Oberstar wants the Corps to take the next step – a more detailed study, called a feasibility study – that would look at the nuts and bolts of expansion. It would cost some 20 million dollars.


But downstream, on the St. Lawrence River in northern New York, critics say any plans for expansion have a fatal flaw.


(sounds of water and fueling a boat)


Under a blazing sun in the part of the St. Lawrence River known as the Thousand Islands, Stephanie Weiss fuels up her boat at a gas dock.


(gas filling, and motor starting)


She pushes off and weaves among literally thousands of pine-covered islands that give the region its name.


“You can see how narrow things are and how close the islands are to each other.”


Weiss directs the environmental group Save The River that’s trying to stop Seaway expansion.


(motor slows and stops)


We stop in the part of the river channel called the American Narrows. It’s like the Seaway’s bottleneck. Ocean-going freighters the length of two football fields thread through here. To make room for anything bigger, Weiss says, might mean blasting away some of these islands and the homes perched on them.


“I can’t help noticing that there’s this enormous rock in between the Great Lakes and the Ocean. It’s the Laurentian Shield and it is what makes these islands. To pretend that this is just a coast that needs to be developed is unrealistic.”


Weiss says the idea of a Fourth Coast, with ports like Chicago and Duluth rivaling those of New York and San Francisco, is ridiculous.


Environmental groups in the U.S. and Canada, like Great Lakes United and Great Lakes Water Keepers, are also opposing expansion. And they say the Corps’ study frames the debate unfairly. It doesn’t factor in environmental and social effects the groups say would make the project seem less attractive: things like rising pollution, sensitive wildlife habitat, plummeting water levels. The Corps’ project manager Wayne Shloop says those things would be addressed in the feasibility study. Stopping before that, he says, means letting the system’s locks and channels waste away.


“So somebody needs to make a decision… is it in the federal interest to let the system degrade or is it in the federal interest between the United States and Canada to make some improvements?”


In the U.S., that somebody is Congress. Congress would need to appropriate half of the 20 million dollars for the study. Lawmakers could take up the issue in September.


New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently took a boatride down the American Narrows to learn more. She disembarked with questions, about oil spills, accidents, and the hazards of winter navigation.


“This isn’t by any means an easy decision, a cost-free decision, that there are tremendous consequences associated with it, so give me your pictures, give me your information, because I’ll use it to be in conversations with people who think it’s just an open and shut issue.”


The issue will be shut rather quickly if the Corps’ study can’t persuade Canada to join in. Canada would have to foot the other half of the bill for the feasibility study. But officials from Transport Canada say they’re in the “very preliminary stages” of studying the issue. And they’re listening to everyone from shippers to environmentalists to recreational boaters before they make a decision.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Army Corps to Expand Ship Channels?

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering expanding canals, channels, harbors, and locks to make way for larger ocean-going ships to enter the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports, not everyone thinks that’s such a good idea:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is considering expanding canals, channels, harbors and locks to make way for larger ocean-going ships to enter the Great Lakes, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… not everyone thinks that’s such a good idea:


An Army Corps of Engineers’ draft report indicates the Corps wants to determine the feasibility of dredging and widening connecting channels to allow ships that are 250 feet longer and 30 feet wider than the biggest ship entering the Great Lakes today. Jennifer Nalbone is with Great Lakes United, a U.S. and Canadian consortium of environmental and other groups. She says there are lots of concerns. They include the disruption to the environment that the expansions would require, and concerns about larger foreign ships bringing more exotic invasive species into the Great Lakes.


“All of these environmental problems that we’re seeing in the basin could be amplified quite significantly if we allow larger foreign ships to gain access to the basin.”


Expansions at every connecting channel between the Great Lakes are being considered.


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

Stronger Restrictions on Water Export

The number of people living in areas without fresh water is
growing. And that’s made the Great Lakes more vulnerable to proposals
that would remove large volumes of water. In late March, the International Joint Commission announced a plan to regulate
water removal from the Great Lakes. If adopted, it will severely
restrict
bulk exports of drinking water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports:

Controversy Over Clean-Up Funds

The most toxic hot spots around the Great Lakes would receive an extrafifty million dollars in clean-up funds, if a Clinton administrationbudget proposal goes through. But some environmental groups don’t wantthe money dribbled out in small doses. They argue the best thing to dowould be to spend all the cash on comprehensive clean-up projects atjust a few sites. The idea is controversial, as the Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The most toxic hot spots around the Great Lakes would receive an extra fifty million dollars in

clean-up funds, if a Clinton Administration budget proposal goes through. But some environmental

groups don’t want the money dribbled out in small doses. They argue the best thing to do would be

to spend all the cash on comprehensive clean-up projects at just a few sites. The idea is

controversial, as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’ s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The most polluted parts of the Great Lakes are known as Areas
of Concern. There are over 40 of these hot spots in harbors and
bays, or in rivers that dump into the lakes. At many sites, the
pollution has led health agencies to tell people to be careful
about eating certain types of fish.
But that hasn’t stopped some anglers from doing their thing.


“That was the best cast I’ve
seen today.”


Marl and his buddy Paul are standing underneath an elevated
freeway in Milwaukee. They’re casting their fishing lines into
Lake Michigan for brown trout, perch or whatever wants to bite.


Through Milwaukee’s estuary, that’s the harbor and nearby rivers, is a toxic hot spot, Marl says he

pays little attention to fish consumption warnings.


“Whatever I catch I eat, I eat it on whatever basis I feel like eating it. If I want to eat fish

every night for a week, I eat it… doesn’t seem to affect me in any way.”


But nearby in the Milwaukee harbor, researchers point to pollution that seems to make the casual

approach to fish consumption here quite risky.


(sound of horn)


This tugboat is pushing a barge that’s about to take a load of coal from a huge coal pile at the

water’s edge. The pile is uncovered and during heavy rains or snowmelt, there’s runoff from the

coal into the harbor. Great Lakes researcher Jeffrey Foran says that’s hardly the only pollutant in

the area.


“It’s a virtual alphabet soup of pollution and we can name a few. PCBs, PAHs, contaminants from

sewage runoff historically, metals, cadmium chromium.”


Foran heads the Great Lakes Water Institute at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. He says

there’s actually been some improvement in the surface water quality over the last couple decades.

But Foran warns the sediment in the Milwaukee harbor by and large remains toxic muck, and those

toxins make their way into the food chain. Foran says Milwaukee’s problems aren’t unique.


“If you took the problems and simply dropped the name Milwaukee harbor, you could insert those

problems into probably the majority of areas of concern throughout the Great Lakes basin.”


Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on cleanup work at the various sites, but only one

project – at Waukegan, Illinois – is largely done. So environmental groups hope Congress during its

EPA budget deliberations this spring will approve the extra 50 million dollars in cleanup funds

President Clinton proposed. But Great Lakes United executive director Margaret Wooster says the

money should be targeted to just a few hot spots.


“And do the complete cleanup right. From soup to nuts kind of thing. That is the initial making

sure if there’s a polluter, polluter pays their fair share as has happened in many cases, to good

dredging techniques.”


Wooster also says there needs to be good places to dump the dredged material. Then should come

monitoring to make sure the water body doesn’t become fouled again, if there are more
success stories around the Great Lakes, environmentalists believe
lawmakers will then allocate additional money to finish work on
the other sites. But the Great Lakes community isn’t completely
sold on the targeting of funds. William Smith is a citizen
advisor to the Clinton river area of concern north of Detroit.
He wonders how fast news of complete clean-ups would spread.


“And when these one demonstration projects are done,
they’re distant. You hear about them the transfer of information
is long is coming. And sure it’s nice for some harbor to go after
this. But if you’re looking across the board on the Great Lakes
it would be much better used to go after problems in individual
Areas of Concern instead of 2 to 3 separate sites.”


Smith says
funneling just a million or two dollars to some of Michigan’s
smaller hot spots would move clean-up of those sites forward in a
big way. That’s because state officials would probably match the
federal funds. But whether the federal money is targeted to a
couple sites or divided evenly in all the areas, Smith does agree
with the large environmental groups on one thing. He says the
recreation and drinking water needs of Great Lakes citizens
should prompt Congress to approve the president’s plan.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck Quirmbach in Milwaukee.