Grand Canyon National Park (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)
An environmental group says some of America’s
rivers are endangered by people using too much water.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
An environmental group says some of America’s
rivers are endangered by people using too much water.
Lester Graham reports:
Each year the group American Rivers lists ten rivers that are at risk because of
upcoming decisions. Rebecca Wodder is the president of the group. She says several of the rivers face a common problem.
“Of the ten rivers, six of them are threatened by the same issue and that is excessive
water withdrawals.”
Most of the because of expanding populations, one because of agricultural irrigation.
Using too much water from a river endangers fish and water supplies downstream.
The rivers on the list include the Catawba-Wateree in the Carolinas, Rogue River in
Oregon, the Poudre in Colorado, the St. Lawrence River connecting the Great Lakes to
the Atlantic Ocean, the Minnesota River, St. Johns in Florida, the Gila in Arizona and New
Mexico, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine, the Niobrara in Wyoming, and the
Pearl River in Mississippi and Louisiana.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Officials are suspending a fight with water bottlers over diversions from
the Great Lakes basin – as long as the water is used for hurricane relief.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has more:
Transcript
Officials are suspending a fight with water bottlers over diversions from the Great Lakes basin – as long as the water is used for hurricaine relief. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta has more:
Michigan’s in a legal fight with Nestle Waters over the company’s right to tap into springs, bottle the water, and then sell it outside the Great Lakes basin.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm says that amounts to a diversion of water from the Great Lakes, and it should be regulated, but she’s signed a directive saying that limits on water bottlers will be lifted to support hurricane relief.
“It’s going to allow for the relaxation of rules during the time of a national emergency to allow water to be pumped and distributed to areas of great need.”
The governor says her directive will expire once the immediate crisis is past, but the court fight is still pending over the right of Michigan – and other states in the Great Lakes region – to place limits on how water can be withdrawn from the basin and sold somewhere else.
The new book outlines a cause of Great Lakes water levels dropping while entertaining kids with silly, though not entirely improbable outcomes. (Photo courtesy of Mackinac Island Press)
The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.
That’s how the new children’s book, “The Day The Great Lakes Drained Away” begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:
Transcript
The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.
That’s how the new children’s book, The Day The Great Lakes Drained
Away begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently
spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:
Nebbe: “Charles, in your book, all of the water disappears from the Lakes and you take us on a tour of all the lakebeds, so we see landforms and shipwrecks and a whole lot of mud… What gave you the idea to show kids what the Lakes would look like without water?”
Barker: “Well, actually, it was from looking at some maps that are put out by the National Geophysical Data Center that show, basically, what’s on the lake floors, and I, for one, had not given it much thought ’till seeing these maps. But these maps have some really cool features like ridges of rock and all kinds of neat stuff and I thought this would be a great idea for a children’s book.”
Nebbe: “What do you think some of the coolest features that you’ve been able to put into the book are?”
Barker: “Um, well, there’s a suspected meteor impact crater on the east side of Lake Ontario, and it’s not confirmed as a meteor impact crater, but a lot of other things it could be have been ruled out. So that’s pretty neat. There’s also, to me, what’s most exciting is the ridge of rock, or ridges of rock underneath Lake Huron, that, in some cases, have maybe four hundred feet of relief. And most of the maps we see of the Great Lakes are basically just a flat blue, so seeing what’s under the Lakes I thought was really exciting.”
Nebbe: “When I was reading the book, I thought, you know, if I were a kid, this would be pretty scary to me because all the water goes away from the lakes and, you know, there are fish dying in at least one picture. Why did you decide to show us the bottom of the Lakes in that way?”
Barker: “Well, actually, that’s pretty much how… the only way I could figure out how to show them, I mean, if we’re talking about features that are on the lake floors, then somehow we’ve got to get rid of the water to see those, and sort of… it’s a fanciful sort of draining away of the Lakes, if you will. The purpose of the book is almost twofold: one is to show that the lake floors are pretty cool, and there’s some neat features under there, but also to sort of reinforce that hey, we’d better make sure this never happens, you know, so it goes to the protection of the Lakes as well.”
Nebbe: “The culprit in your book is water usage among communities in the Great Lakes Basin and there are rules that govern water usage among those communities, one of them is that they have to return the amount of water that they use and that communities outside the basin can’t use the water without approval. Why did you pick that as the culprit?”
Barker: “Well, that’s a good question and it sort of goes back to the original manuscript draft, and I thought, well, gosh, the villain could be actually just everybody taking a little bit of water thinking that it doesn’t matter, but the cummulative effect of that mindset causes a problem, and I think that’s true, I work in environmental consulting, and I can attest that that’s basically how major contamination sites are created is that everybody thinking, ‘Oh well this one little thing won’t matter, this little drop of tetrachlorethyline won’t matter,’ but if everybody has that mindset, then, yeah there’s going to be a problem.”
Nebbe: “You’ve been talking to some of the kids who are reading the book, do you think that message is getting across?”
Barker: “Yeah, I think, you know, initially, they really kind of like to sort of see the pictures and hear and learn about the lake floors and whatnot, but I think it’s important to, you know, relay to kids that they’re actually going to be the ones making decisions down the road about Great Lakes withdrawals and whatnot, and recently, I was just talking to somebody and remembering back to when I was a kid, we used to sail a lot on the Great Lakes, and I remember being in the middle of Lake Erie, sort of out of the sight of land, and sailing through soap suds. It was terrible. I mean, Lake Erie was horrible. This was in the early seventies. And it was like you’re in a bath tub with soap suds. That’s more of a water quality issue, but I think it sort of became a problem because of nobody really, um, paying much attention. So, I think the more attention we pay to the Great Lakes, in terms of just making sure no wacky ideas about withdrawal go through, then that’s good. That’s what we need to do.”
Nebbe: “Charles Ferguson Barker, thank you so much.”
Barker: “Thank you.”
HOST TAG: Charles Ferguson Barker, author of The Day the Great Lakes Drained Away speaking with the GLRC’s Charity Nebbe.
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. (Photo courtesy of house.gov)
Some environmentalists say they’re outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some environmentalists are outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers blocked a bi-partisan federal effort to ban drilling in the Great Lakes. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.
Cyndi Roper is with the environmental group, Clean Water Action. Her group and others say under the guise of protecting the Great Lakes, Rogers is actually exposing the Lakes to new risks.
“By putting a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, this isn’t an issue of control of the Great Lakes, it’s an issue of protecting the Great Lakes.”
There is a moratorium on new drilling on the Lakes that expires in 2007. It will then be up to each individual state to decide whether to allow new drilling.
Many worry that drilling on the Great Lakes is not only unhealthy for the environment, but the residents who live near the drilling facilities as well. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan DEQ)
Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Right now it’s up to each state to decide whether to allow drilling. Bart Stupak is a Deomcrat Member of Congress from Michigan whose district touches three of the Great Lakes. After an incident in his district where hydrogen sulfide fumes from a gas well head made residents and emergency workers sick… he’s for banning drilling altogether…
“We should just once and for all permanently ban oil and gas drilling in and on the shores of our lakes through a method called directional or slant drilling. There’s so little oil and gas there, it’s not worth it.”
Stupak introduced an amendment to ban drilling in the Great Lakes… but another Member of Congress from Michigan, Republican Mike Rogers blocked it. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.
Diversion of water from the Great Lakes is a controversial issue. Many worry that diversion could affect life in the ecosystem. Others worry about obtaining sources of fresh water for drinking. (Photo by Brandon Bankston)
Great Lakes governors and their counterparts in Canada are working on a legal agreement called Annex 2001. The document will determine how water from the Great Lakes will be used and who gets to use it. Controversy has already erupted over the possibility of one city’s bid for the water. The city is looking toward the completed Annex for guidance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
Transcript
Great Lakes governors and their counterparts in Canada are working
on a legal agreement called Annex 2001. The document will determine how
water from the Great Lakes will be used and who gets to use it. Controversy
has already erupted over the possibility of one city’s bid for the water.
The city is looking toward the completed Annex for guidance. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
Dan Duchniak says he’s an environmentalist.
“We have the low-flow showerheads in our house, we have the low-flow faucets, we have the high-efficiency washers and dryers, our kids know about those, you know, they think they’re fun.”
But Duchniak is in the middle of a bitter fight with other environmentalists and officials over his area’s largest natural resource: water from Lake Michigan. Duchniak is the water manager for the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin. It’s just west of Milwaukee. Waukesha is only about 20 miles from the Lake Michigan shore. Right now, Waukesha gets its water from wells that tap an aquifer deep within the ground. But Duchniak says the wells won’t sustain the long-term needs of the city.
“As the water levels drop, the water quality degrades, and what happens is we’ve seen an increase in different water quality parameters, one of those being radium.”
And radium is a health problem. In very high doses, radium can cause bone cancer. To solve its water problems, the City of Waukesha might ask for access to Lake Michigan water. But even though the community considers the lake part of its back yard, there’s a major problem. Even though it’s close, Waukesha sits outside the Great Lakes basin.
That means the area’s ditches and streams drain away from the lake. Rain water runoff and treated water from the sewer system flow toward the Mississippi River Basin. The governors and premiers might include a rule in the Annex 2001 that says communities sitting outside the Great Lakes basin must return treated water to the lake, if they use it.
Engineers who study water in the area say Waukesha could make the case that the city is already using Great Lakes water. That’s because the city’s wells tap into water beneath the surface that supply water to Lake Michigan. But environmentalists say that argument isn’t going to fly. Derek Sheer is with the environmental group “Clean Wisconsin.” He says Waukesha would be pumping a lot more water directly from the lake than the underground aquifer would replace.
“They’re not returning 13 million gallons of water back to the Great Lakes by any stretch of the imagination.”
But the city of Waukesha knows that if the finalized Annex 2001 looks anything like the early drafts, the city would have to return most of the water it uses back to the lake. Waukesha’s water manager, Dan Duchniak says that could be done in a combination of ways. The city could pump it back to the lake, pump it to a nearby stream that flows to the lake, or stop using the ground water completely and let it flow back to the lake.
People on both sides of the water issue seem to agree on one thing: because of the huge amount of water in the Great Lakes system, and its natural ebb and flow, the amount of water the City of Waukesha would take would not harm the Great Lakes’ ecosystem. Even if it’s not pumped back.
Art Brooks is a professor at the Center for Great Lakes Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
“The amount of water they intend to withdraw would probably lower the level of Lake Michigan on the order of a millimeter or so, probably less that five millimeters per year.”
But it’s not just Waukesha that has environmentalists worried. Professor Brooks and environmentalist Derek Sheer say if Waukesha gains access to Great Lakes water, it could set a dangerous precedent. Sheer doesn’t want other states and countries to start withdrawing Great Lakes water.
“If Waukesha and Arizona and Georgia and all these other places start pumping large amounts of water out of the basin, we could see a dramatic lowering of the water in the lakes.”
The city of Waukesha says it needs the water and would abide by whatever the Annex 2001 agreement sets down. And Waukesha’s water manager, Dan Duchniak, says that includes what it determines about return flow. He says arguing about the issue right now is a waste of time, since the Annex isn’t done. Beyond that, Duchniak says Waukesha is part of the Great Lakes system, and is not about to suck the lakes dry.
“Lake Michigan is in our back yard. We can see Lake Michigan from here. We’re not that far away from it.”
The experts say Waukesha would only be the first in line to ask for Great Lakes water. With suburbs sprawling away from the big cities on the lakes more and more towns will be eyeing the Great Lakes when demand for water exceeds their underground supplies.
A draft of the Annex could be ready this year, but it will most likely go through a lengthy series of votes before it becomes law.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Christina Shockley.
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to be controversial:
Transcript
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this
fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great
Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to
be controversial:
The Great Lakes governors and Canadian provincial leaders have drafted
a plan setting standards for new water withdrawal requests. Thirsty
companies and communities outside the basin are expected to look at the
five lakes with increasing frequency. Environmental groups largely
like the proposal… though some want it made stronger.
But George Kuper of the Council of Great Lakes Industries says the plan
is too restrictive. At a regional hearing in Chicago, Kuper said
states and provinces that are competing to attract businesses could
block a diversion request.
“Regional review as now proposed would erode the ability of individual
governors and premiers to attract new jobs to their respective
jurisdictions. That’s a problem.”
In addition to the state meetings taking place, another regional
hearing is scheduled for September 20th in Toronto.
Many governments need to approve the Annex 2001 plan and the process is
expected to take a few years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
Grand Canyon National Park (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)
