Investigating Great Lakes Water Levels

A panel is speeding up its study into one reason why upper Great Lakes water levels
might be dropping. Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

A panel is speeding up its study into one reason why upper Great Lakes water levels
might be dropping. Sarah Hulett reports:


The International Joint Commission is investigating a theory that a 1960s dredging
project in the Saint Clair River has drained away water from the upper Great Lakes.


Frank Bevacqua is a spokesman for the IJC. He says the decision to finish the study
a year early was prompted in part by angry lakefront property owners who want
answers about dropping lake levels:


“And with that information, the commission will be in a position to decide whether or
not there’s a need to request remedial measures from the US and Canada.”


If the commission finds there is a problem in the St. Clair River, it could recommend
that the US and Canadian governments fund a project to slow the water loss in
hopes the lake levels rise.


For the Environment Report, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Who Gets Great Lakes Water?

  • Lake Superior's North Shore. (Photo by Dave Hansen - Minnesota Extension Service)

For the first time, state legislatures in the Great Lakes region have a set of laws in front of
them that could comprehensively define how and where they can use Great Lakes water.
Melissa Ingells has a look at the document called the Great Lakes Compact:

Transcript

For the first time, state legislatures in the Great Lakes region have a set of laws in front of
them that could comprehensively define how and where they can use Great Lakes water.
Melissa Ingells has a look at the document called the Great Lakes Compact:


For a long time, nobody thought much about regulating the water of the Great Lakes.
They just seemed inexhaustible. There was no firm legal definition of who the water
belonged to, or who could give it away.


At some point, scientists figured out the boundaries of what’s known as the Great Lakes
Basin. It’s like a huge land bowl where all the waterways flow back into the Lakes. It
includes areas of eight states and parts of Canada. Scientists figured out that you had to
leave at least 99% of the water in the lakes in order to maintain all the important
ecosystems that depend on the water.


The natural boundary of the Great Lakes basin started to become a political boundary
when demand for water started rising. The only regulation for a long time was a 1984
federal law that said all the Great Lakes governors had to agree before any water could
be taken out of the lakes.


Then, in 1998, an organization called the Nova Group got a permit from Ontario to ship
water to Asia. People didn’t like that idea at all, and the politicians reacted:


“It seems like every major policy change has a triggering event.”


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. chairman of the International Joint Commission, which
oversees Great Lakes issues:


“The Nova permit granted initially by Ontario to this shipping company to take Great
Lakes water apparently by tanker to the far east… was the triggering event to start the
compact in motion. There have been a number of cases over the years… they all lead
down the same path, and that is that we had to have a structure to manage these waters
cooperatively.”


The Compact Schornack was talking about is the Great Lakes Compact. It’s a
comprehensive set of strict water usage laws. The states realized the need for something
like it after the Nova Group incident, and work on it was completed in 2006. It’s a strong
agreement because each state, and two Canadian provinces through a separate agreement,
must get it through their legislatures and get their governors to sign it. After all the states
have passed it, it has to be approved by the U.S. Congress.


Schornack was one of the people who helped write it. He thinks it’s a pretty good
solution for the lakes:


“This is really a big deal. Whether it’s a perfect solution, who knows, only time will tell,
but it certainly is a very strong and positive step in the right direction. When eight
governors get together and two premiers and decide we’re going to manage a fifth of the
world’s fresh surface water, and we’re going to do it with conservation, we’re going to do
it with very severe restrictions on diversions, this is all very good for the basin, this is
good news.”


The Compact does have its detractors. There are people from the business and
environmental worlds who have problems with some of it, but the general feeling is that
something has to be settled on, and the Compact is a good start. Most states seem
to have bipartisan support in their legislatures, although so far only Minnesota has
actually passed it. Peter Annin is the author of “The Great Lakes Water Wars.” He
thinks that by legislative standards, things are moving pretty quickly:


“The pace of ratification to the average citizen might seem like it’s
painfully slow and laborious. But in fact, with compacts in general, some of them have
taken ten, twenty years to make it through all the various legislatures. And so here we
are about 18 months after the documents were released… if you look at the eight states,
the vast majority of them have some sort of activity going.”


Annin also thinks that given the pressing issues over natural resources everywhere, that
agreements like the Compact will change the way other regions think about their
resources:


“Why it’s a model I think is because it’s encouraging to people to think not just in
political boundaries, but in watershed boundaries, in that the Compact encourages people
to work communally to a greater social and sustainability good on behalf of the regional
water supply and water resources and I think that’s going to be a model for the future no
matter where you are.:


Annin thinks there will be a flurry of activity in the legislatures in the next year or so.
That’s because after the 2010 congressional redistricting, the water-hungry Southwest
will likely have more power in the U.S. House. So it’s in the interest of Great Lakes
States to get the Compact through Congress before those political changes happen.


For the Environment Report, I’m Melissa Ingells.

Related Links

Governments Accountable to Great Lakes?

A commission that advises the US and
Canadian governments on the Great Lakes wants to
see more accountability from Washington and
Ottawa. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A commission that advises the US and
Canadian governments on the Great Lakes wants to
see more accountability from Washington and
Ottawa. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The International Joint Commission is focusing its latest report on
getting the US and Canada to set up an accountability plan for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.


US Commissioner Allen Olson says one example of accountability is
getting Congress to approve money for an Asian Carp barrier near
Chicago to keep the foreign fish out of the lakes.


“There are a number of members of the United States Congress of both
parties that are immediately accountable to address that issue.”


Canadian Commissioner Jack Blaney says the governments also have to be
accountable to what citizens said at recent IJC hearings:


“They want to swim at their beaches, they want to be able to eat the
fish. They want to be able to take water out of the lakes that they
don’t have to spend enormous sums treating.”


The IJC wants a preliminary plan to be ready by the summer of next
year.


For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Ten Threats: Chemical Valley Spills

  • Sarnia, Ontario's shoreline with Lake Huron. (Courtesy of the EPA)

Most people think the days of industry polluting rivers and lakes are past, but that’s
just not the case. There’s a lot less pollution spewing out of factory pipes, but there
are still some real problem areas. Rick Pluta reports on how one of those areas is not
in the U.S., it’s in Canada, but the pollution ends up in the Great Lakes:

Transcript

Here’s the next report in our series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. The series
guide is Lester Graham. He says our next piece reveals we still have a long way to
eliminate pollution in the lakes.


Most people think the days of industry polluting rivers and lakes are past, but that’s
just not the case. There’s a lot less pollution spewing out of factory pipes, but there
are still some real problem areas. Rick Pluta reports on how one of those areas is not
in the U.S., it’s in Canada, but the pollution ends up in the Great Lakes:


North of Detroit, just across the border from Michigan is Canada’s Chemical Valley. It’s a
complex of dozens of petro-chemical factories that employ thousands of people near Sarnia,
Ontario. Chemical Valley is the center of the economy here, but it also has a major
environmental effect on the Great Lakes.


That’s because Chemical Valley sits on the Saint Clair River, one of the rivers that connects
Lake Huron to Lake Erie. What happens on the Saint Clair River affects thousands of people who
downstream from the plants. Chemical spills from Sarnia have polluted the shorelines of both
countries.


Jim Brophy is the director of a health clinic for people who work in the sprawling complex of
factories on the Canadian side of the Saint Clair River. Brophy says he’s seen people suffering
and lives shortened by cancer, respiratory failure, and neurological disorders.


“It’s an unbelievable tragedy because these diseases are all completely preventable, but arose
both because of government and industry negligence over the course of 30 or 40 years, or even
longer.”


Brophy says many of those health problems are also being exported downstream to other
communities.


The Aamjiwnaang tribe makes its home right next to the Chemical Valley complex. A recent
study of Aamjiwnaang birth records found that, in the last decade, instead of births being about
half girls and half boys, only one-third of the babies born on the reservation were boys. Shifts in
reproduction patterns often serve as a signal of an environmental imbalance.


Jim Brophy says that suggests the impact of Sarnia’s chemical industry on the environment and
people deserves more attention.


“We cannot put a particular exposure from a particular place and link that at this point, but what
we are putting together are pieces of a puzzle, and I think that’s becoming a major concern not
just for our community and not just for the American community on the other side of the river,
but I think for people all along the Great Lakes.”


Environmental regulators agree. The province of Ontario recently ordered 11 facilities to clean up
their operations so there are fewer spills and emissions. Although the provincial government has
little power to enforce those orders, officials say it’s a step in the right direction.


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. chair of the International Joint Commission. The IJC looks to
resolve disputes and solve problems in the Great Lakes international waters. He says that, since
World War II, Chemical Valley has changed the character of the Saint Clair River.


“We really have to watch this for drinking water – that’s the main thing. Canada does not draw its
drinking water from the river and the U.S. does.”


So communities on the U.S. side have to deal with chemical spills and other pollution in their
drinking water, but they have no control over the polluters on the other side of the border.


Peter Cobb is a plant manager who sits on the board of the Sarnia-Lambton Environmental
Association. That’s a consortium of Sarnia petro-chemical operations. He says the problem is
spills into the Saint Clair River peaked in the 1980s, when there were roughly 100 spills a year.
He says now that’s down to five to 10 spills a year.


“We have made significant progress. Having said that, our target remains zero spills per year,
and industry is well aware that our current performance does not meet our own target as well as
the expectations of the public.”


Cobb also acknowledges there have been some major setbacks in the last couple of years. Some
big spills have forced downstream communities to once again stop taking their drinking water
from the Saint Clair River. Cobb says Chemical Valley will try to do better.


For the GLRC, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Pollution Hot Spots

  • Ruddiman Pond has been listed as a Great Lakes 'Area of Concern' for more than 18 years. (Photo by Michael Leland).

For decades, heavy industries made the Great Lakes a center of manufacturing
and employment for the United States. Those factories also left polluted waters
in many areas. In 2002, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation
that promised to clean the Lakes’ pollution hot spots, known as Areas of Concern.
So far, work has only begun at three of those sites. Reporter Michael Leland
visited one of them:

Transcript

We’re continuing our series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. Our guide
in the series, Lester Graham, says one of the threats identified by experts
across the region is known as “Areas of Concern.”


For decades, heavy industries made the Great Lakes a center of manufacturing
and employment for the United States. Those factories also left polluted waters
in many areas. In 2002, Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation
that promised to clean the Lakes’ pollution hot spots, known as Areas of Concern.
So far, work has only begun at three of those sites. Reporter Michael Leland
visited one of them:


Picture what you might think one of these heavily polluted sites looks like.
Did you think of a big park in a quiet neighborhood, with lots of tall
trees, and a bandstand next to a lagoon? No? Well, welcome to McGraft Park
in Muskegon, Michigan, the home of Ruddiman Pond, one of the most polluted
spots in the Great Lakes.


“This little lagoon here is a sediment basin. It is a sediment trap.”


Rick Rideske is a research scientist at the Annis Water Resource Institute
in Muskegon. It studies the quality of Michigan’s lakes and rivers.


“All of the contaminated sediment from the upper part of the watershed has made
its way down here and is being deposited. They are taking out, in some places,
15 feet of contaminated sediment.”


Beginning in the 1930’s, heavy industries began setting up shop along
Ruddiman Creek, a few miles from the park. Many dumped their toxic wastes
into nearby storm sewers, which emptied into the creek, and flowed toward
Ruddiman Pond. Toxic heavy metals like chromium and lead, along with
hazardous chemicals like PCB’s, settled to the bottom. It’s been a long
time since the pond has been safe for swimming.


Rideske points to a yellow sign nailed to a tree next to the pond. It says,
“No entry. Hazardous substances.”


“If you look at that sign over there, that sign was put up in maybe 1997, 98.
You can see the tree has grown over the sign.”


But beyond that sign is some hope for Ruddiman Creek and Pond. Workers are
scooping toxic mud from the bottom of the lagoon. The material is trucked
to a landfill licensed to receive toxic stuff like this. The project should
be finished by next summer.


Ruddiman Creek and Pond make up one of 43 pollution hot spots in the Great
Lakes that the U.S. and Canada call Areas of Concern. So far, two in Canada
have been cleaned up. Ruddiman Creek is one of only three in the U.S. being
cleaned.


David Ullirch would like to see that work move a lot faster. He directs the Great
Lakes Initiative. It’s a group of mayors and other officials from the U.S. and
Canada that works to preserve the Lakes.


“This is a serious problem, not only in terms of a threat to the natural environment,
there are public health issues associated with them and often, even worse, is that
they are a stigma to those areas, whether it is Waukegan Harbor, or Gary, Indiana, or
Ashtabula Harbor, these are things that these cities have had to live with for
years, and it’s time to get them cleaned up and get on with it.”


The government is supposed to provide 270-million dollars over five years to
clean up the Areas of Concern in the United States, but so far, congress
has appropriated only about 35-million dollars. That relatively small amount
of cash has limited the number of cleanups that can be started, and it frustrates
Dennis Schornack. He’s the U.S. chairman of the International Joint Commission.
It’s a watchdog group that monitors the water quality treaty between the U.S. and
Canada.


“These areas were identified back in 1987, and only two, both of which are in Canada,
have been delisted since that time. At that pace of progress, it will be 400 years
before we are so-called clean, and I think that is very disappointing.”


In the case of Ruddiman Creek, they’re glad at least one site is being cleaned up.
Rick Rideske of the Annis Institute says the fact that it’s in a neighborhood park
played a big role in attracting the attention, and government cash needed to clean
it up.


“It really took the local residents, public advisory council, we have a Ruddiman
Creek Task Force, which is made of local people from this neighborhood. They called
frequently state representatives, federal representatives. Getting this site on the
priority list was a community effort for a lot of people.”


Rideske and people who live near McGraft Park are looking forward to celebrating a
small victory in the fight to restore the Great Lakes, and they’re looking forward to
taking down that yellow warning sign next year.


For the GLRC, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links

Epa Completes Toxic Sediment Cleanup

The Environmental Protection Agency says it has completed
toxic sediment cleanup at one of the most polluted sites along the Great
Lakes. There are 31 such sites in the U.S. known as “Areas of Concern.”
Officials say this site is one step closer to being cleaned up. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says it has completed toxic sediment
cleanup at one of the most polluted sites along the Great Lakes. There are
31 such sites in the U.S. known as “Areas of Concern.” Officials say this
site is one step closer to being cleaned up. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Michael Leland reports:


The Black Lagoon along the Detroit River in Trenton, Michigan, got its name
because years of industrial contamination had discolored the water. Months of
dredging has changed that.


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. chairman of the International Joint Commission.
It monitors the water quality treaty between the U.S. and Canada.


“Over 115-thousand cubic yards of muck, heavily contaminated with
PCB’s, oil, grease, mercury and other toxic metals, have been removed from
the Detroit River, and disposed of and secured in a facility that will be operated
by the Detroit district of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.”


Three years ago, the Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized 270-million dollars
over five years to clean up the pollution hot-spots. It’s never been
fully funded, and is currently paying for cleanup work at only two other
sites along the Lakes.


For the GLRC, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links

Revisiting an International Water Agreement

The United States and Canada are updating a 30 year-old regional water quality agreement. The governments are launching 14 public hearings in both countries to gather ideas. We have more from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta:

Transcript

The United States and Canada are updating a 30 year-old regional water quality
agreement. The governments are launching 14 public hearings in both countries to
gather ideas. We have more from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta:


The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was initially designed to rid the Great Lakes
of chemicals. In the 1970’s, it resulted in the ban of phosphorus in detergents and other
consumer products. The ban is widely credited with starting to clean up the lakes.


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. chair of the International Joint Commission. He says a lot
of new problems have emerged since the agreement was last updated in 1987.


“Looking to the future, the threats that we have today have changed, one especially
important threat is invasive species. Foreign species have disrupted the food chain in the
Great Lakes.”


Schornack says other issues that need to be addressed include water runoff from streets
and farms that contain pesticides and other chemicals, and lakefront development.


The U.S. and Canada hope to complete an update of the Great Lakes protection
agreement in 2006.


For the GLRC, I’m Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Hidden Costs of Invasives

  • Foreign ships like this one from Cypress are known as "Salties" around the Great Lakes. These ships are responsible for bringing aquatic invasive species into the Lakes, and we're all paying a price. (Photo by Mark Brush)

In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?

Transcript

Today we begin an extensive series called “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.” The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is our guide through this series:


In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?


Well, let’s say I import widgets.


(Sound of widgets dropping into a cup)


I’ve been getting widgets from somewhere in Asia, but I found out I could get widgets from an eastern European company for a dollar-a-widget cheaper. The factory there can ship them directly to my warehouse in Great Lakes City, USA by ship across the Atlantic and into the Great Lakes.


Pretty good deal. I get good widgets, the shipping costs are cheaper, my profits go up, and it means cheaper widgets at the retail level. Everybody wins, right?


Well, the ship that brought the widgets also brought an alien invasive species that stowed away in the ship’s ballast. A critter that’s native to eastern European waters is now wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes ecosystem.


Aquatic alien invasive species that have invaded the Great Lakes now cost the economy an estimated five billion dollars a year. Five billion dollars of what’s considered biological pollution.


So, who’s paying the price?


Cameron Davis is with the environmental group Alliance for the Great Lakes.


“Unfortunately, in most instances, who pays for those hiddens costs are you and me. We pay for our water agencies to have to clean zebra mussels out of their pipes, we pay our agencies through taxes to have to keep Asian Carp out of the Chicago River, we pay through our taxes in any number of ways to try to fight these invaders.”


So right now, taxpayers and utility ratepayers – even those who never bought a widget and never will – are paying the price. Davis says that’s just not right.


“One of the things we need to do is make sure that those ships are paying full cost for everything that they bring, not just the widgets, but the stowaways like the zebra mussels, things like that that they have on board.”


So, why target the ships?


Dennis Schornack chairs the U.S. Sector of the International Joint Commission. The IJC is a bi-national agency that monitors a water quality agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Schornack says that’s the way it usually works: the polluters pay.


“The cost of the impact of these unwanted creatures is something that’s not baked into the price charged for the widgets. So, somewhere that external cost needs to be captured back into the price. The ship owners themselves are the likely target to pay for this through a permitting fee which, of course, they will pass on to their customers, the people who made the widgets.”


So all of us who buy widgets end up paying a little more, but paying permits and fees could cost shippers more than they can afford. George Kuper is with the Council of Great Lakes Industries. Kuper says he understands the first impulse is to make the shippers pay.


“The problem with that, of course, is the shippers were already close to non-economic as a method of transportation, which puts us right up against an environmental challenge because shipping is by far the most environmentally un-intrusive method of moving large amounts of materials.”


Kuper says using other methods of transportation such as trains or trucks to move that cargo from East Coast ports might burn more fuel and cause more pollution.


But of all the shipping on the Great Lakes, only six percent of the tonnage is carried on ocean-going vessels. The rest is transported on Great Lakes carriers that never leave the lakes and don’t bring in new invasives. So, the question is this: is that six percent of cargo worth the damage that aquatic invasive species cost each year.


Many experts say there is a fairly simple answer to all of this. Technology is available for cargo ships to eliminate invasives from their ballast tanks. Requiring those ships to use that technology would likely add some to the cost of every widget, but supporters of the idea say it would greatly reduce the environmental cost to the Lakes.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Great Lakes Leaders Worry About Water Dispute

Great Lakes governors and mayors are worried about a dispute between the U.S. and Canada and its effect on international water policy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Great Lakes governors and mayors are worried about a dispute between the U.S. and
Canada and its effect on international water policy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Shawn Allee reports:


Devils Lake in North Dakota sometimes floods homes and farms. So, the state planned
to divert lake water into a river that flows into Canada. But Canada worried pollution
and invasive species would flow across the border.


It turned to the International Joint Commission.


The IJC reviews water disputes between the U.S. and Canada… including Great Lakes
issues.


The U.S. government didn’t want that review.


Great Lakes mayors and governors wanted North Dakota and the U.S. government to
relent. At the last minute, the U.S. agreed to a review, but only after the project’s
underway.


Blair Seaborn was Canada’s top representative to the IJC.


“We worry a little bit when we see these rather unilateral positions rather than the very
good bilateral work that we’ve normally operated under.”


Seaborn says the larger water agreements … like ones affecting the Great Lakes … are
still intact.


But he says Canada feels stung by the rift.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Concern Rises Over International Water Dispute

  • Devils Lake in North Dakota has a history of problematic flooding. The proposed solution to the flooding is the subject of much debate. (Photo courtesy of USGS)

The state of North Dakota has been at the center of an international water dispute with the Canadian government. Great Lakes mayors and governors are watching the issue closely. They fear the political fallout from this dispute could affect how Great Lakes water is managed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more:

Transcript

The state of North Dakota has been at the center of an international water dispute with the Canadian government. Great Lakes Mayors and governors are watching the issue closely. They fear the political fallout from this dispute could affect how Great Lakes water is managed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more:


To fight flooding in North Dakota’s Devils Lake area, state officials plan to divert some lake water into a river system that flows north into Canada. Canada claims the diverted water might pollute rivers and lakes there, but North Dakota disputes such claims.


Great Lakes mayors are taking Canada’s side in asking that the International Joint Commission review the issue. The IJC has resolved water disputes between Canada and the U.S. for nearly a century.


Frank Merritt of the Legal Institute of the Great Lakes says officials worry states and provinces might go it alone in planning water use.


“If we allow the movement of water on a unilateral basis, we will lose control, and all the world that wants fresh water will come to the Great Lakes and get it.”


The U.S. hasn’t responded to Canada’s year-old request to move the issue to the IJC.


The clock is ticking. North Dakota says it will begin diverting Devils Lake water July 1st.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links