An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
The Government Accountability Office says it’s taking the Environmental
Protection Agency too long to determine the safety of chemicals. The GAO
says reviews of chemicals should only take about 2 years. But some have
taken 10 years or longer.
The GAO also says a recent change could corrupt the system.
That change allows other federal agencies to make comments about chemicals,
but keep those comments hidden from public view.
John Stephenson is with the GAO. He says that threatens the system’s
integrity.
“There are just too many opportunities for non-scientists to intervene in
this scientific process and the result of that is it’s stretched out the
process for a given risk assessment.”
And a recent survey of EPA scientists found that political pressure from the
White House has been more common under the Bush Administration.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to look at
whether the eastern cougar exists. The agency will be
looking in 21 states from Maine to Michigan, and down
to Tennessee. As Linda Stephan reports, the review
could end with a recommendation to remove its
endangered status:
Transcript
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plans to look at
whether the eastern cougar exists. The agency will be
looking in 21 states from Maine to Michigan, and down
to Tennessee. As Linda Stephan reports, the review
could end with a recommendation to remove its
endangered status:
Officials have long presumed that the Eastern cougar
is extinct, and they say it’s not probable they’ll
find evidence of the large, evasive cat east of the
Mississippi in this review.
Mike DeCapita says it’s more likely officials will
find there never was an Eastern cougar that’s any
different from the cats found in Western states. He’s
a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service:
“The next question then after that would be, does the
cougar subspecies, the single subspecies in North
America warrant listing? And my speculation would be
that it doesn’t.”
The official assumption is that there are no cougars
of any type breeding in these states, and that’s been
controversial.
Several citizen groups say there’s evidence to suggest
some are living in the wild east of the Mississippi,
and possibly breeding.
The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)
Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:
Transcript
Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:
In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.
Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.
Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.
And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.
Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.
If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.
Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is asking the Federal Emergency Management Administration for disaster funds to deal with the Emerald Ash Borer. She says the aid is necessary to prevent the tree-killing pest from spreading into more states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:
Transcript
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is asking the Federal Emergency
Management Administration for disaster funds to deal with the Emerald Ash
Borer. She says the aid is necessary to prevent the tree-killing pest from
spreading into more states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:
The Governor’s request is for money to remove and destroy infested trees, and to come
up with ways to contain the pest. The ash borer has already killed an estimated six
million trees in Michigan, and it’s also been found in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, and
Virginia.
Governor Granholm says it’s too big a problem for her state to handle
by itself.
“We need additional resources, and certainly I know the federal
government would be interested in making sure that it doesn’t spread to other
states or the entire country. We need help. This is an emergency.”
She says the state’s not assured it will get that help, and is getting
mixed signals from the federal government on its request.
Linda Sacia of the Federal Emergency Management Administration says a review of the
request is still underway, and there’s no word on when an answer might be coming.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Rick Pluta.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)