A growing number of farms around the country are using technology to turn organic
waste into energy. But the operator of one such system says it will be difficult to expand
unless the process becomes more profitable. Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
A growing number of farms around the country are using technology to turn organic
waste into energy. But the operator of one such system says it will be difficult to expand
unless the process becomes more profitable. Michael Leland has more:
A a 20-foot-tall tank turns manure into gas that’s used to make electricity. Richard
Pieper with Clear Horizons says this Wisconsin farm can power 200 homes.
He says he’d like to expand, but it doesn’t make economic sense. It costs 20 cents to
produce each kilowatt of power, but the local utility only pays 5 cents. Solar generators are getting 22 cents a kilowatt:
“The rates have to be the rates that others at a minimum are getting for their technology.
Give us those rates, and depending on where that is, depends on how fast we can move
forward.”
Solar generators get more per kilowatt because they’re part of a program that’s funded by
customers who agree to pay more for green energy. Biogas is not part of that program.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine how much power the federal government has over isolated wetlands - wetlands that aren't adjacent to lakes or streams. (Photo by Lester Graham)
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could
decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case
before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of
Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The federal Clean Water Act is supposed to stop people from polluting
streams, wetlands and other waterways that are connected to the
country’s major lakes, rivers and coastal areas, but what if the wetland in
question is located 20-miles from the nearest major waterway? Is it
covered by the Clean Water Act? That’s the question the court will
consider.
In the 1980’s John Rapanos started moving sand from one part of
property he owned in Michigan to another, to fill in some wetlands. He
wanted to sell the land to a shopping mall developer. Trouble is, he
didn’t get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill in the
wetlands. The government says he should have.
“The property has a drainage ditch that runs through it…”
Robin Rivett is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. It’s a
property-rights group that is representing Rapanos.
“And because of the movement of the sand on the property, which is
characterized as wetlands, the government came in and has prosecuted
him for actually discharging fill material into the navigable waters.”
Rapanos was charged with violating the Clean Water Act. Washington is
demanding 13-million dollars in fines and fees, and wants him to set
aside about 80-acres as wetlands.
In another case, that’s been combined with the Rapanos matter,
developers in Southeast Michigan were denied permits to fill in wetlands
so they could build a condominium complex. That site is about two
miles from Lake St. Clair, which lies between lakes Huron and Erie.
In both cases, the federal government says the sites fall under the Clean
Water Act because they’re located near navigable waters. Actually, that
term – navigable waters – has evolved over the years and come to mean
“interstate or intrastate waters,” along with their wetlands and tributaries.
The plaintiffs, their attorneys and supporters say the land should be
governed by state environmental regulations, rather than the federal
Clean Water Act, but on the side of the government in this case is 35
state governments, along with many environmental and conservation
groups.
Jim Murphy is a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation. His group
has filed briefs on behalf of more than a dozen organizations that support
the federal position.
“What is at stake here is the ability of the act to protect the vast number
of tributaries that flow into navigable waters and the wetlands that
surround and feed into those tributaries. If those tributaries and wetlands
aren’t protected under the federal Clean Water Act, it becomes difficult if not
impossible under the Clean Water Act to achieve its goal to protect water
quality.”
Murphy says if the Supreme Court rules that Congress did not intend to
protect wetlands like the ones in this case, then about half the wetlands in
the country could lose their federal protection. Murphy and others on his
side worry that wetlands could begin disappearing more quickly than
they already do today.
Scott Yaich directs conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited – a
wetlands protection group.
“The landowners who have those wetlands would no longer be subject to
getting the Corps of Engineers to review, so essentially they could do
anything they wanted.”
The lawyers for the landowners don’t see it that way. The Pacific Legal
Foundation’s Robin Rivett says individual states would have something
to say.
“I believe there are 47 states that have their own clean water programs.
If it is clear that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over
local waters, the states will step in to protect those waters.”
Maybe they will; maybe they won’t, say environmental groups. They
fear a patchwork of water protection laws. They say it could mean
polluted water from a state with weaker laws could flow into a state with
stronger water protection laws.
Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.
“The Clean Water Act provides a floor. It provides comprehensive
protection, a floor beyond which states must maintain that level of
protection.”
Those who support the property owners in this case say it’s about more
than clean water – it’s also about land use. They say if the court rules
that waterways and wetlands are interconnected and all deserving of
protection under the Clean Water Act, then what could be left out?
Duane Desiderio is with the National Association of Home Builders,
which has filed briefs supporting the property owners.
“All water flows somewhere. Every drop of water in the United States,
when it goes down the Continental Divide, is going to drain into the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico. Pretty much.”
Both sides are hoping the Supreme Court provides a clear definition of
which wetlands and tributaries Congress intended to protect when it
passed the Clean Water Act. A decision is expected this summer.
A lot of studies have linked air pollution with heart and lung problems. A new study suggests your diet can worsen air pollution’s effects on you. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
A lot of studies have linked air pollution with heart and lung
problems. A new study suggests your diet can worsen air pollution’s
effects on you. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland
has more:
Every time you inhale, you’re breathing in tiny particles from dust, soot
and smoke. They can increase both the plaque buildup in your arteries,
and the risk of a heart attack or stroke.
Now, a study led by Dr. Lung Chi Chen at New York University’s
School of Medicine says a high fat diet combined with bad air led to a
faster buildup of plaque in the arteries of mice. He says that’s because
air pollution affects lipids – fats – in the blood. It changes their
characteristics, or oxidizes them, which leads to more plaque on artery
walls.
“If the mice are fed with high-fat, then the level of the oxidized
lipid will be higher, because they have more lipid in their blood.”
Dr. Chen says arteries of mice on a high-fat diet and breathing dirty air
were 42-percent blocked. Mice breathing clean air had arteries that were
26-percent blocked.
He hopes the study not only encourages people to eat better, but also
persuades the government to toughen air quality standards.
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.
Ruddiman Pond has been listed as a Great Lakes
'Area of Concern' for more than 18 years. (Photo by Michael Leland).
The end process - the polluted muck from Ruddiman Pond is treated and then taken to a landfill. (Photo by Michael Leland)
This dredge is scooping up decades worth of industrial pollution from Ruddiman Pond near Muskegon, MI. (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.
Cleanup will begin later this month at another of the Great Lakes’ so-called “toxic hotspots.” Crews will soon begin dredging the Ruddiman Creek and Pond near Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
Cleanup will begin later this month at another of the Great Lakes’ so-called “toxic hotspots.” Crews will soon begin dredging the Ruddiman Creek and Pond near Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Ruddiman Creek near Muskegon, Michigan, is considered one of the most polluted waterways in the state. By the end of August, crews will begin scooping eighty thousand cubic yards of toxic mud from the creek bottom.
It’s being funded in part by the Great Lakes Legacy Act – a federal program aimed at cleanups like this one. In 2002, Congress earmarked 54 million dollars a year for the cleanups, but so far, less than half that amount has been appropriated. Phillippa Cannon is with the EPA’s Chicago office. She says that has slowed cleanups somewhat, but so have other requirements.
“Areas that need to be cleaned up and have a project that’s far enough advanced that it’s ready to go, they also have to find another source of money to match the Legacy Act money. The Legacy Act will pay for about 65 percent of the cleanup.”
Ruddiman Creek will be the third of the Lakes’ toxic hotspots to be cleaned up. There are thirty-one hotspots on the EPA’s list.
A new report says health-related beach closings have increased. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
A new report says the number of beach closings in the U.S. increased last year compared to 2003. The report says the number of closings in the Great Lakes region jumped more than 60 percent. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
A new report says the number of beach closings in the U.S.
increased last year compared to 2003. The report says the number of
closings in the Great Lakes region jumped more than sixty percent.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The report by the Natural Resources Defense Council says the number of
closing or health advisory days last year was higher than ever in the
group’s fifteen years of record-keeping.
Throughout the region, there were about three thousand closing or health advisory days in 2004. They say that’s due in part to states monitoring more beaches more often, but also due to
increased sewage and stormwater runoff. Mike Shriberg heads the Michigan environmental group PIRGIM.
“Under the Clean Water Act, we should not be discharging raw or
partialy-treated sewage or, in fact, any polluted water into the U.S. What’s
happening now is we’re having a third-world solution to our sewage problems,
by allowing much raw or partially-treated sewage to flow freely into our
waters.”
The NRDC is calling for tougher enforcement of state and federal clean
water standards, and full federal funding of proposals to modernize sewage
systems along the Great Lakes and other waterways.
Congressman Rahm Emanuel speaks at the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration meeting. (Photo courtesy of house.gov)
A coalition led by the federal government is proposing a massive restoration effort for the Great Lakes. Environmental groups say they like most of what’s in the plan, but they’re worried the money to carry it out might not be there. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
A coalition led by the federal government is proposing a massive restoration effort for the Great Lakes. Environmental groups say they like most of what’s in the plan, but they’re worried the money to carry it out might not be there. The Great Lake Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more.
The draft plan from the government’s task force makes dozens of recommendations. The recommendations include spending billions to modernize municipal sewer systems near the Lakes to cut down on pollution, new federal laws to fight invasive species, and cleaning up some of the Lakes’ most toxic spots.
Andy Buchsbaum is with the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. He says a lot’s been done over the last few decades to clean up the Lakes, but there are signs the Lakes are still sick.
“So what you’re seeing is you are seeing real depression of the yellow perch in Lake Michigan, you’re seeing problems with whitefish – they’re sicker and leaner – and you’re seeing some crazy things happen with walleye. Right now there is a good walleye fishery in places, but they were depressed for awhile, and the fluctuations are getting wilder and wilder.”
President George Bush created the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration last year. The task force includes several federal agencies, along with state, local and tribal officials from the region. It also includes representatives from business and conservation groups.
Its members say the group’s draft proposal represents a great opportunity for governments to work together to coordinate the dozens of programs underway throughout the region to restore the Lakes. It can also help bring new money to carrying out those programs. Scott Hassett heads the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
“So if there’s a realistic likelihood of getting the kind of resources and money and brining them to bear, these eight states have to come up with a unified plan, it is a very important point in the process.”
It’s still up in the air how much all this will cost. Environmental groups estimate about twenty billion dollars over the next five years, though the EPA says it’s too soon to put a price tag on the proposal.
Tom Kiernan with the National Parks and Conservation Association. He says the plan is a good one that will make a difference, if Washington and the states commit to paying for it.
“But now we must call the question as to whether federal and state governments will fully fund this plan. If they fully fund the plan, the health of the Lakes and our collective quality of life will improve. If they do not, the Great Lakes as we know them and love them will continue to slowly die.”
The task force will collect public comment on the proposal during the next two months. It also plans to hold five public meetings on the plan throughout the Great Lakes region. The final document’s due out in December.
Around this time last year, President Bush signed an order to establish the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force and now, a newly-formed coalition wants to help. (Photo courtesy of
whitehouse.gov)
Last year, President Bush called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help coordinate clean-up of the Great Lakes. Now a new coalition of conservation and environmental groups says it wants to help with this latest government effort. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has
more:
Transcript
Last year, President Bush called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to help coordinate cleanup of the Great Lakes. Now a new coalition of conservation and environmental groups says it wants to help with this latest government effort. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The new group calls itself The Healing Our Waters – Great Lakes Coalition. It’s headed up by the National Wildlife Federation and the National Parks Conservation Assocation.
Members say they’ll be closely involved in the government’s process of drafting a plan to preserve the Great Lakes. Andy Buchsbaum is a co-chair of the Great Lakes Coalition.
“This is our chance of a decade, and if we don’t get the planning process right this time. It could be another decade before the Great Lakes have a chance to recover from some of the damage that they’ve sustained.”
Last May, President Bush created the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force. It’s composed of federal agencies, as well as state and local authorities. The task force will develop a plan this year to address problems like invasive species, pollution, and coastline damage.
Buchsbaum says for the plan to be a success, Great Lakes preservation needs to become a national cause, not just a regional one.
Some federal lawmakers are concerned that the EPA's estimates on different cars' gas milages may be misleading consumers. (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)
Some federal lawmakers, along with a few environmental and consumers’ groups, want the Environmental Protection Agency to change the way it calculates a vehicle’s miles-per-gallon. They say your actual mileage will probably vary from the EPA’s figures. More from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland:
Transcript
Some federal lawmakers, along with a few environmental and consumers’ groups, want the Environmental Protection Agency to change the way it calculates a vehicle’s miles-per-gallon. They say your actual mileage will probably vary from the EPA’s figures. More from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland:
According to the EPA, my Ford Escort should get 33 miles per gallon. I wish. With the Fuel Efficiency Truth in Advertising Act, Congress could soon force the EPA to revise its fuel economy tests to reflect real-life conditions. David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists is among those who say a change is long overdue. He says the EPA created its current tests years ago.
“You wouldn’t evaluate how a student knows current events based on a test from the early 1970’s. So, it doesn’t make sense to be testing the fuel economy of our cars and trucks based on tests that are 30 years old.”
The EPA says your actual mileage depends on a number of factors, like how you drive and how you maintain your car. It says its carefully controlled lab tests are helpful in comparing one vehicle model to another.
