Author: Shawn Allee

No New Federal Dollars for Restoration

For the past year, the federal government, states, and
Indian tribes have been devising a unified restoration plan to
clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first draft
this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and
environmentalists say the effort is being undercut by a major player.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has
more:

Transcript

For the past year, the federal government, states, and Indian tribes have been devising a
unified restoration plan to clean up and protect the Great Lakes. They released a first
draft this summer. But as negotiations continue, state governments and environmentalists
say the effort is being undercut by a major player. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Shawn Allee has more:


The first draft of the restoration plan called for dozens of ambitious measures. They
included cleaning up toxic waste and keeping invasive species out of the Great Lakes.
But more than anything, the first draft raised expectations.


“The public response to the draft report that was released this July was very
encouraging.”


David Naftzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors.


“Public meetings were held throughout the region and there is broad-based support for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.”


State governments generally praised the draft, but questioned the federal government’s
commitment to the effort. Now, they and environmental groups worry their fears were
justified.


Last month, administration advisors issued an internal report that called the first draft of
the plan too ambitious and too costly.


One major sticking point is how to prevent sewage from getting into the lakes. Sewer
upgrades could cost tens of billions of dollars. States want more money, but the
president’s advisors are balking.


Benjamin Grumbles is with the Environmental Protection Agency’s water division.


“We all agree that more work needs to be done on sewer overflows and that the federal
government will continue to provide money, but it’s not realistic to expect an infusion of
that level in the near term.”


Grumbles says federal help’s required to improve sewers everywhere, not just in the
Great Lakes. Grumbles says the administration’s committed to identifying long-term
restoration goals. Administration advisors say continuing negotiations should focus on
short-term measures that require no additional spending.


But David Naftzger says federal leadership should mean more federal dollars.


“This is deeply disappointing, while more can be done with existing resources and there
can be improvements to existing programs, quite simply many of our region’s challenges
require additional funding.”


The plan’s final draft is due next month.


Until then, state governments and environmentalists hope to prod what they see as an
increasingly reluctant partner.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

State Sues Great Lakes Sewer Plant

Raw sewage from urban areas is a big source of pollution
in the Great Lakes. And a lot of people are fighting over how best to keep it out. Now, the Milwaukee area’s sewer district is once again the focus of a bitter legal fight. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports on the dispute:

Transcript

Raw sewage from urban areas is a big source of pollution in the Great Lakes. And a lot of people
are fighting over how best to keep it out. Now, the Milwaukee area’s sewer district is once again
the focus of a bitter legal fight. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports on the
dispute:


Last week, Wisconsin’s Attorney General filed suit against the Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage district. The suit seeks extensive upgrades to keep raw sewage out of Wisconsin’s
waterways.


Last year, spring storms overwhelmed local sewers and the district dumped millions of gallons of
raw sewage into rivers and Lake Michigan. Sewer district spokesperson, Bill Graffin, says the
lawsuit seeks the impossible – a perfect sewer system.


“You can never ever say that you will eliminate all overflows, because you never know what
Mother Nature’s going to throw at you. If you design your system to the biggest storm you’ve
ever had, there’s always the possibility that a bigger storm’s going to come along.”


The district contends it’s already overwhelmed by current upgrade projects, which may cost
nearly a billion dollars. Many of those projects are required by previous lawsuits.


The Attorney General says the district must improve, and it should either raise additional money
itself or seek state assistance.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Rethinking Urban Runoff

  • Everybody's got a gutter... and they're part of the urban runoff problem. Rain picks up dirty soot and other chemicals from roofs and heads into the gutter. During storms, the dirty water rushes down the gutters and down streets into storm drains... and can pollute beaches, drinking water and wildlife habitat. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One of the ten threats to the Great Lakes identified by experts across the region is nonpoint
source runoff. It’s a catchall category for pollution that’s not being spewed from one identifiable
source. The federal government’s finding that rain washing off concrete and asphalt in cities and
suburbs poses as big a threat to the Great Lakes as waste coming out of a factory pipe. Shawn
Allee has a look at the government’s effort to cut water pollution by remaking the urban
landscape:

Transcript

We’re continuing our series on Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham is our guide through the series. Today a look at a broad problem
with no simple solution:


One of the ten threats to the Great Lakes identified by experts across the region is nonpoint
source runoff. It’s a catchall category for pollution that’s not being spewed from one identifiable
source. The federal government’s finding that rain washing off concrete and asphalt in cities and
suburbs poses as big a threat to the Great Lakes as waste coming out of a factory pipe. Shawn
Allee has a look at the government’s effort to cut water pollution by remaking the urban
landscape:


(rain running into a sewer)


Water from a rain gutter is pouring into a nearby storm sewer drain. That protects property from
water damage and flooding. But at the same time, they pose an environmental problem for the
Great Lakes.


Roofs, streets and parking lots are made of hard materials like concrete or asphalt. During
storms, rain rushes off these surfaces into storm drains.


The problem is this: the runoff isn’t pure.


Brian Bell’s a storm water expert with the Environmental Protection Agency. He says rain picks
up pollutants on all those roofs and streets, things such as:


“Antifreeze from cars, motor oil, brake fluid, copper from the brake pads, cigarette butts from
trash, household hazardous waste, pesticides that may be overapplied.”


And for most sewer systems, that’s not the worst of it.


“The problem with storm water is, once its mobilized and goes into a storm sewer system, that
system does not treat the waste, so all of those things go to the local waterway untreated.”


In this region, runoff flows into the Great Lakes, where it pollutes beaches, drinking water, and
wildlife habitat.


To fight this, the EPA’s trying something new. It wants to make hard, urban landscapes softer.
The idea’s to replace concrete and asphalt with more soil and plants. That way, water can sink
into the ground and stay out of storm drains.


But how do you do that?


Well, the EPA’s working with places like the Chicago Center for Green Technology to show people
how. The city hopes residents and developers will use what they see here in their own projects.


(city sounds in)


Grace Troccolo’s guiding a tour of the facility.


First stop?


“Our parking lot is slightly pitched, so all of our rainwater flows off into these vegetated bioswales,
which when I’m not with people in the business, I call ‘ditch with plants.'”

The plants aren’t typical bushes or flowers. They’re mostly tall, prairie grasses native to the
Midwest. Their roots help water seep deep into the ground. The Center has several bio-swales,
and they all keep runoff on site and in the ground.


Another stop on the tour is a 40-foot section of the building’s roof. It’s covered with a matt of
short, tangled creeping plants. Grace explains why they’re here.


“So here we are at our green roof. Again, getting back to our issue of storm water management,
the city would like to see more vegetated surfaces and of course, in the city like Chicago there are
a lot of roof surfaces and so this section of the roof is designed to hold all of the rainwater that
falls on it during a one-inch storm.”


Again, the roof’s vegetation retains water and keeps it out of storm drains. Because of these
technologies, the building is an urban runoff success story.


All told, the Center releases less than half as much water to storm drains as similar buildings do.


The EPA wants the average home or business owner to follow suit, but price might keep that from
happening. Green roofs, for example, are more expensive than conventional ones.


But some observers say the biggest obstacles in fighting urban runoff are political. Stephen
Bocking teaches environmental policy at Trent University. He says the public’s used to pointing
fingers at a handful of big, industrial polluters.


People just aren’t used to seeing every house and business as a source of pollution.


“It’s much more difficult to deal with the problem when you’re talking about millions of separate
sources. People can’t just say well, it’s the job of industry or the job of the government to deal with
it. It’s the job of everyone to deal with it in some way.”


In other words, we’re all to blame.


Every new building in a city, or home in a subdivision, creates more hard surfaces, such as new
driveways, new parking lots and new roofs.


“It’s pretty hard to deal with a form of development which is intrinsic to our way of life. It involves
thinking about how we live our lives and how design and build our cities.”


Bocking says the EPA’s plan might not be enough to make up for all the roads and other hard
surfaces we’re building. He says, to succeed, we’ll need to change how we develop land.


There’s not much political support to stop that kind of development right now, so for the time
being, hard surfaces will continue to win out.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Giant Grass a Future Biofuel?

  • Giant Miscanthus, a hybrid grass that can grow 13 feet high, drops its leaves in the winter, leaving behind tall bamboo-like stems that can be harvested and burned for fuel. (Photo by Kwame Ross)

Scientists have tested dozens of crops for their potential
as alternative fuels for cars or power plants. Now, researchers
hope a new plant might boost the biofuel industry. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has the story:

Transcript

Scientists have tested dozens of crops for their potential as alternative fuels for cars or power plants. Now, researchers hope a new plant might boost the biofuel industry. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has the story:


Stems of the grassy giant Miscanthus plant can grow up to thirteen feet tall and have lots of energy. So, researchers at the University of Illinois were delighted to find that miscanthus thrives in the Midwest. They’re hoping to turn miscanthus into an efficient biofuel.


But analysts say the biofuel industry needs more than just high-energy plants. Jim Kleinschmit is with the Institute For Agriculture and Trade Policy, a green think tank.


“A lot of these crops would require specific equipment that would have to be created, or have to be a market for it. And it’s not just for the harvesting; it’s for the baling, the transporting, the collecting, the storing.”


Kleinschmit says the infrastructure to support Miscanthus or similar biofuels is years away. In the meantime, the most widespread biofuel is corn-based ethanol. Corn yields less energy, but has established markets and proven farm equipment.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Prospecting for Wind

  • The wind is up, and so is interest in wind power development. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Wind power is a small, but fast-growing segment
of the U.S. energy market. Right now, energy companies are scouring rural America for the best spots to put up wind turbines. But wind is not enough – these companies need land, too. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one wind developer’s search for its next wind farm:

Transcript

Wind power is a small, but fast-growing segment of the U.S. energy market. Right now, energy companies are scouring rural America for the best spots to put up wind turbines, but wind is not enough – these companies need land, too. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at one wind developer’s search for its next wind farm.


The search for wind power could turn into a modern-day gold rush. Wind’s becoming a profitable way to meet growing demand for clean energy, but wind power companies face an obstacle: they can’t just find a windy spot and throw up some wind turbines.


They’ve got to sign a contract with a landowner, usually a farmer, who’s willing to rent out some breezy land. Mike Donahue is Vice President of Midwest Wind Power. His main job: find windy land and the farmers who own it. Donahue says the job’s changed recently.


“The biggest difference is the level of knowledge and sophistication that local elected officials and landowners have gotten regarding windpower. I mean, when we first started, they were like, ‘Wind what? Wind turbine? What’s that?’ They didn’t even know what a wind turbine looked like, let alone whether they wanted one in their field or not.”


For their part, savvy farmers aren’t waiting around for companies to call them. They’re taking the initiative. David Coffey farms hundreds of acres in Illinois. A few months back, he did a little investigating.


“First of all, I just had got the information from the Farm Bureau Magazine and what was going on in other areas. And I just got it in my mind, I thought, ‘Well, I’ve got a ridge here, what’s it worth?'”


So Coffey got equipment from a university and tested the wind along his ridge. The initial results were promising, and the university posted the data online. Donahue’s company noticed the results, and gave David Coffey a call.


Which leads us to today. Coffey’s agreed to give the company a tour of the area. After some quick introductions, Donahue, his partner Tim Polz, and I, squeeze into Coffey’s white pickup.


(Sound of door shutting)


Coffey drives us along a maze of gravel-lined back roads and soy bean fields. Soon, we see the ridge that brought Donahue’s company here. It’s not that spectacular, really. It’s just a big, rolling hill, but it spreads to the horizon.


DONAHUE: “Just eyeballing this, it looks like this ridge runs how many miles, would you say, from east to west?”


COFFEY: “Well, I would say it’s going to be close to… I’d say eight to ten.”


DONAHUE: “And then it’s roughly a mile across it?”


COFFEY: “Yeah, or a little better, if you’re gonna stay right on top of it, I’d say.”


Midwest Wind Power wants a large site like this, because it’s hard to turn a profit on smaller ones. Several farmers own bits of this ridge, so Donahue might have to deal with all of them, and that could be a headache.


David Coffey says some locals are worried about helping out. Landowners who build support for the project might not have enough wind on their own farms to qualify for a turbine and a rental
contract. Donahue says there’s a way to smooth that over. If someone’s been helpful but is left out…


“We actually do offer a kind of good neighbor compensation package to them as well.”


Of course, maybe other companies noticed David Coffey’s wind data, too. Donahue’s assistant, Tim Polz, broaches the subject.


“Have you guys had any of the other developers give you any type of financial offers?”


Coffey says yes, but doesn’t elaborate. Donahue makes his pitch. He says his company offers more than good rent, it offers other benefits attractive to farmers.


“Along those lines, we grant a great deal of flexibility to the landowners to have input into turbine locations, access road locations, cabling routes.”


Even with this flexibility, though, money counts. The company will pay farmers about seven thousand dollars each year for every turbine on their property. That’s a lot for an Illinois farmer. On average, they make only thirty thousand dollars in farm income each year.


Soon the conversation shifts away from money. Donahue asks whether Coffey’s neighbors are mostly farmers.


“If you’re in an area that has a number of non-farming residential homes, maybe built in wood lots, or people who want to live in the country, they’re less accepting of having wind turbines developed in view of their homes.”


Coffey assures him nearly everyone’s a farmer out here. And with that, he ends the tour.


“Well, what do you think of the area?”


Donahue says the company needs to run more wind tests along the ridge, but overall…


“The first impressions are very favorable as to the site and its potential. We’re looking forward to meeting with your other landowners and then ultimately, meeting some elected officials as well.”


It’s not clear what will come of today’s meeting. Maybe another company will land a contract, or perhaps there’ll never be turbines here, but the chances for success improve with each encounter.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Mercury Report to Undercut Epa Trading Program?

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration examined where mercury pollution in Lake Michigan is coming from. The data haven’t been publicly released yet, but sources say Midwestern power plants are the biggest culprits.


If true, that could undercut the EPA’s new mercury trading program. That lets dirty power plants buy the right to pollute from cleaner ones. Howard Learner’s with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He says the program’s wrong because it treats all mercury pollution equally.


“When it comes to mercury pollution, a trading regime essentially doesn’t work very well, because you have concentrated localized hot spots in which the pollution is highly toxic to the people who live in those communities.”


Several state governments are fighting the EPA’s trading program in federal court. They’d like NOAA’s data, but the states and public will have to wait until the EPA reviews it.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Bubble Barrier Tweaked for Asian Carp

  • Scientists are always looking for a new deterrent for the Asian Carp. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

Scientists across the region are expanding their arsenal of technology to fight invasive species. One research team hopes to use sound and bubbles to keep an invasive fish out of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more:

Transcript

Scientists across the region are expanding their arsenal of technology to fight invasive species. One research team hopes to use sound and bubbles to keep an invasive fish out of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee has more:


For years, biologists worried Asian Carp could enter Lake Michigan through a canal near Chicago. The Army Corps of Engineers is building an electric barrier at the canal to block the carp’s progress.


But researchers at Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant are devising a back-up plan. Researcher Mark Pegg says new devices could shoo fish away with bubbles and sound.


“The bubbles themselves are causing a lot of turbulence in the water that the fish don’t like. On top of that, they’re emitting a really loud noise, at least to the fish anyway, so that’s sort of a one-two punch.”


Pegg says the combination of bubbles and sound works in another way too. Bubbles actually amplify underwater noise, so sound travels further. The Sea Grant team will continue testing the devices. In the meantime though, even if it works, the project might hit a roadblock: the existing barrier program has no extra money for the system.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

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

New Power Plants to Dry Up Water Supplies?

  • The Kaskaskia River has been low lately because of lack of rain. But nearby power plants also draw a lot of water from the river... making residents who depend on the river nervous. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

The U.S. will need more electricity in the next few decades. To keep pace with demand, companies plan to build more power plants. Battles over power generation usually involve air quality or even how much fossil fuel is used to generate electricity. But one community’s facing a fight over how much water a new power plant might use. It’s a debate more of us might face in the future. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


(sound of boat motor starting up)


A bearded guy by the name of Smitty is helping fisherman heave off from his riverside marina. On this sweltering afternoon, the marina’s hosting a big fishing tournament. The tournament’s bringing in lots of business, but Smitty’s got a problem. The area’s been hard up for rain recently, and the water’s pretty shallow.


“It makes quite a bit of difference. A lot of the access areas, the small river channels that lead into here aren’t accessible when the water gets low. It’d affect our business, mean a lot less people being able to use it.”


Smitty wonders whether there’s something else keeping this river, the Kaskaskia, shallow. Lately, he’s been asking whether a coal-fired power plant has been using too much river water. The Baldwin power plant, just east of the St. Louis metro area, is owned by Dynegy – a big power company.


Baldwin cools its generators with water from the Kaskaskia. Now another company, Peabody, is building its own power plant nearby. And that new plant will need river water to cool its generators, too.


Several environmental groups and local activists oppose the project. They say the Kaskaskia doesn’t have enough water for a new power plant. They say wildlife, boaters, and city drinking supplies already use the Kaskaskia. The Peabody Company says the plant won’t endanger the river’s water levels. The company will use the latest technology to conserve water.


But, even with hi-tech equipment, Peabody wanted to pump about 30 million gallons each day from the Kaskaskia. State regulators said no, and restricted the plant to 13 million gallons a day. That’s still about as much water as a town of 85,000 people uses, and only 10 percent of the water is ever returned to the river, the rest just evaporates.


Kathy Andria is with a local Sierra Club chapter. She says the project’s water needs are surprising, and worrisome.


“They have water battles out in the West. We haven’t had it before here, but this is really showing what’s in the future for us.”


Andria’s fears could apply not just to this river, but everywhere. The power industry’s already the biggest user of water in the United States, but it’s likely to need even more water soon. In the next few decades, electric companies plan to build at least 100 power plants that will need lots of water.


Right now, no one’s sure what will happen when they start drawing water from lakes, rivers and underground wells. In the meantime, the power industry is looking at ways to better use water.


Robert Goldstein is with the Electrical Power Research Institute, an industry research group. He says the industry’s improving systems that use no water at all, but those are very expensive. In the meantime, though, demands on water continue to rise. And Goldstein says the industry is aware that it has to compete for water.


“It’s not a question of how much water is there. It’s a question of how much water is there, versus what all the various stakeholders want to do with that water, what their aggregate demand is.”


He says even in regions that seem to have a lot of water, communities need to look closely at their future water needs. Goldstein says everyone, not just the power industry, will need to plan water use better.


People outside the industry are also watching how much water power plants use. Dr. Benedykt Dziegielewski is finishing a federal study on the subject. He worries about situations where several power plants draw from the same river or other water source at the same time.


“If you locate another plant, more water will be diverted from the system and at some point it will pre-empt other uses in the future from that same source.”


He says many areas could see more of these kinds of fights over water. Until we know more about demands for water, Dziegielewski says the industry should be as efficient as possible.


“As we go into the future, there is a need to control or reduce the amount of fresh water that is used for electricity generation.”


Environmentalists say that’s the least that can be done. They’re asking why coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants have been allowed to use so much water already. But not all power sources do.


Wind power and other alternatives use little, if any, water. A U.S. Department of Energy report recently made that point.


But given the political clout of the fossil fuel industry, it’s still easier and cheaper to generate power that needs lots of water.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

‘Mcmansions’ Deflate Energy Savings

  • Many people are now making more energy-conscious decisions for their homes. However, one consideration that gets overlooked is the actual size of the house. (Photo by Bjarne Kvaale)

Every year, Americans build about one and a half million single-family homes. One researcher says a lot of these houses are simply too big for American families and the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee
reports:

Transcript

Every year, Americans build about one and a half million single-family homes. One researcher says a lot of these houses are simply too big for American families and the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


When energy-conscious homebuyers look for a new house, they usually check for the right things: high-tech insulation, special windows, high-efficiency furnaces.


But one researcher suggests these homebuyers waste energy by buying more house than they need. Alex Wilson compared the size and efficiency of American homes for MIT’s Journal of Industrial Ecology. He says, since 1950, American families shrank by twenty-five percent, but their houses are now twice as large.


“If we’re significantly increasing the house size, our energy bills are still going to go up. So we lose the benefits that we would otherwise realize through these better technologies.”


He does hold out hope for bucking the trend toward miniature mansions. A number of architects want to make smaller homes more attractive through higher-quality design and materials.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links