Jonathan Ahl - The Environment Report

Farm Buffer Strips a Lasting Solution?

Tom Miller's farm in Central Illinois includes buffer strips that provide habitat and food for wildlife and keep chemicals and soil out of a nearby river. Photo by Jonathan Ahl.

Each spring, the seasonal rains and melting snow lead to millions of gallons of water entering rivers and streams around the Midwest. While that water is important for the rivers’ health, it brings with it soil, herbicides, and insecticides from farms. Programs designed to help keep soil and chemicals on the farm and out of the watershed are growing in popularity around the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl has more:

Transcript

Each spring, the seasonal rains and melting snow lead to millions of gallons of water entering
rivers and streams around the Midwest. While that water is important for the rivers’ health, it
brings with it soil, herbicides, and insecticides from farms. Programs designed to help keep soil
and chemicals on the farm and out of the watershed are growing in popularity around region. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

It’s a cold Spring day on Tom Springer’s Farm. But the strong winds and light rain do not
dampen the spirit of Springer. He’s showing off strips of land that contain tall grasses that would
normally be farmland waiting for the Spring planting:

“What we’re doing, we’re trying to create shelter belts up against these food plots for the birds
and the wildlife to have shelter in the winter.”

Springer is referring to buffer strips. The long, narrow pieces of land that take up about one acre for
every 30 acres of this farm in Central Illinois. The strips provide food and habitat for wildlife
such as quail and pheasants. They also provide a “catch” for some of the soil and chemicals that
would otherwise end up in the nearby Mackinaw River. That’s why some groups call them filter
strips. Springer is taking part in several state and federal programs that pay him to take the land
out of production and convert it to these buffer strips. Springer says he likes having the wildlife
around and wants to help the environment. But he says the financial incentives are the essential
ingredient that makes his buffer strips a reality:

“It was getting to the point that us small-time farmers we’re going to get pushed out because of
the economics of it. So I went ahead and did this, and it’s really worked out good. It’s a different
way of farming. It really is. What I’m doing, I’m farming the wildlife. I’m farming the
conservation program.”

Depressed crop prices and growing expenses are making the buffers strips a more popular
alternative for farmers. Adding to the financial advantage are not for profit groups such as Trees
Forever and Pheasants Forever. They make contributions of time, materials, and expertise to
farmers like Springer. That makes it easier to build the strips that comply with the state and
federal subsidy programs.

Tom Miller is with Trees Forever. He says the government payments get farmers to consider the
program. But he says they stay in because they know what they’re doing is right for the
environment. Miller says farmers are learning the dangers of plowing their land right up to the
banks of rivers and streams:

“Typically in the past, it’s been whatever farmland was there they would farm up to the edge.
But I think increased awareness and education over the last ten years from local and state
agencies and non-profits helped farmers realize you can’t do that.”

Miller says his group’s Buffer Initiative and others around the Midwest are gaining momentum
and making a difference in cutting down on pollution in waterways. But not everyone believes
these buffer strips are the magic bullet to fight erosion and chemicals in the watershed:

“I would say they are necessary but they’re not sufficient.”

Terry Kohlbuss is the director of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, a central Illinois
governmental group that has pushed for numerous water clean-up programs. He says buffer
initiatives are good programs. But he says it is only a drop in the bucket in the fight to help
bodies of water:

“But the other important source of that accelerated flow of water through the natural drainage
system is from developed areas. The solution set here is that there are probably 15 to 20 or 30
different types of programs that need to be in place to really get after this problem successfully.”

Kohlbuss says land management plans that cover all types of land will be necessary if there is
ever going to be meaningful progress in keeping soil and chemicals out of the rivers. Other
critics of the Buffer Strip program say there’s no guarantee the program will last because farmers
are reacting to the subsidies. Tom Springer says he has heard the criticism that if crop prices go
up or the payments run out, farmers will give up on conservation programs:

“I think a lot of them, if the program burns out in fifteen years, they’re talking about tearing a lot
of these out. We’ll I’m not, I’m going to leave mine in. They are on sand hills that were always
burnt up in the fall, you know. Most of the time it wouldn’t make much of a crop anyway, so we
are going to use it for conservation measures.”

Organizers of the buffer strip programs hope all of their participants will have the same point of
view as Tom Springer. Meanwhile, they continue working on finding more farmers to sign up for
the program.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Control of Water Supply Flows to Foreign Company

A German company is now the owner of large water companies in several Great Lakes states. The trend has many communities concerned about the future of their water supplies, and how foreign ownership may affect water quality, and some advocates want towns to take control of their local water supply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

A foreign company is now the owner of large water companies in several Great Lakes
states (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania). A German company recently bought
American Water Works. The move has many communities concerned about the future of
their water supplies, and how foreign ownership may affect water quality. And some
advocates want towns to take control of their local water supply. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

(ambient sound underneath)

Randy West is standing in a small shack behind the main offices of Illinois American
Water Company’s operations in Pekin, Illinois. A huge tank and a series of pipes snaked
around in every direction fill up the cramped room.

“This is one of our wells here, and it is running right now, of course, putting water out
into the system.”

The Illinois town is one of dozens in the Great Lakes region that now has an international
owner of their water system. West says that doesn’t mean much to him. He says it’s all
the same equipment that was in place before RWE took over. He says it’s all run by the
same people. West says nothing has changed since the German company took ownership
of Illinois-American:

“The day that we closed was just another day. and every day since then has been just
another day. We’re doing everything just like we were. There has been no change
whatsoever in how we operate it and how we manage it, how we run the system or
anything.”

West says he’s totally comfortable working for a water company owned by foreign
interests. But a national group is trying to rally support against RWE. Public Citizen, the
public advocacy group run by Ralph Nader, says all cities that are currently served by
American Water Works should look into forcing a buyout of RWE’s holdings and create
a municipally-owned water works. Hugh Jackson is a policy analyst for Public Citizen.
He says local ownership is better because water is a local resource. He also says having
an international owner of a water company can create problems when a community wants
to make sure their water source is safe:

“Let’s say for instance you want to impose a conservation plan. Can an international
company come in and claim because of international trade agreements that local
authorities have no jurisdiction over that company?”

Jackson says RWE does not have a positive record with water companies. He says one of
its subsidiaries, Thames Water of England, has had numerous water quality violations
and has done only the bare minimum to meet standards or has avoided them by paying
fines. Some communities are investigating municipal ownership. Terry Kohlbuss is
helping head an effort in Peoria, Illinois to buy out the water works. But Kohlbuss says
Peoria’s motivation is not about RWE. He says the focus should be on what’s best for the
people, and not vilifying a private company.

“I don’t think there is anything inherently bad or evil about American Water Works,
Illinois American, or RWE. But what happens is that you have the system operated for a
different purpose when it’s an investor-owned utility and even when it’s an international
owner. You are meeting their needs. You exist to meet their needs, not they to meet
yours.”

Kohlbuss says local ownership would provide communities better protection of their
water sources. While safer water may be a reason for local ownership of the water
company, there may be a more pressing reason for cities to look at a buyout. Municipal
budgets are getting tighter and tighter, and every city is looking for a new revenue source.
Many public officials believe they can run their water company more efficiently, provide
better rates, and keep some of the profits at home in city coffers.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Wetlands Policy Leaves Some High and Dry?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers recently announced
plans to change their policies on enforcing the Clean Water Act on some wetlands. The move is
in response to a Supreme Court decision that puts limits on the federal government’s jurisdiction
over wetlands. Some environmental advocates are concerned the move will put millions of acres
of wetlands in jeopardy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

More than ten years ago, 23 suburbs in the Chicago area wanted to convert an old stone quarry
into a landfill to combat a shortage of space to put trash. But in the 25 years since the quarry was
abandoned, it filled with water and became home to birds, fish and plants.

The federal government called the site a
wetland and blocked the landfill project citing the Clean Water Act. The Corps said the old
quarry was now an important part of the environment because it provided plant and wildlife
habitats and protected the surrounding area from floods. The communities sued the Army Corps
of Engineers over the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that the federal government
can’t enforce the Clean Water Act on bodies of water that were isolated and not part of a larger
water system. The five to four decision of the court put that responsibility in the hands of the
states. The U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers recently released plans to abide by those
rules.

Cameron Davis is with the Lake Michigan Federation, an advocacy group focusing on
environmental issues in the Great Lakes region. He says the federal government is backing
down too quickly:

“Well, I think what we’re seeing is another example of the administration scaling back the federal
environmental protections. Especially at the time when the states simply are not well equipped to
be able to pick up where those federal protections leave off. In an ideal world, the type of
proposal we are seeing would have been done in coordination with the states. It would
have been done in a way that will not leave wetlands out to dry.”

Davis says the Supreme Court decision only specifically relates to one case, and the federal
government was too quick to expand those thoughts to other wetlands. Davis says a longer
review process of exactly which wetlands the federal government can regulate would provide
better policy and more clarity on the issue. But the EPA says it is not sidestepping its
responsibility. Ben Grumbles is with the EPA’s Office of Water. He says the agency is doing
what it feels it has to do to comply with the Supreme Court decision.

“It’s our intent to take the interpretation that is the most reasonable and the most defensible one
that is also consistent with our mission of protecting wetlands and watersheds. We are fully
committed to protecting wetlands and watersheds to the full extent under the Clean Water Act
and the Supreme Court decision.”

Grumbles says while the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers are planning to abide by the high
court ruling, it will also be working with states to help them protect wetlands that fall outside of
the federal governments newly-defined jurisdiction. Grumbles also says the EPA is taking public
comment so it can better define what makes a body of water an isolated wetland. While the EPA
and advocacy groups have differing opinions of how to interpret the Supreme Court decision, the
legal debate might not be over.

Chris Shafer is a law professor at the Thomas Cooley Law
School in Lansing, Michigan. He says the high court made a mistake by
assuming isolated wetlands are not the responsibility of the federal government:

“I think the court also made a giant leap of logic by saying that, ‘Well, it’s not really a major issue
in terms of wetland protection because the states will take over this responsibility.’ That’s just
laughable because the states are not likely to take over wetland protection. It’s very
controversial, it’s very difficult, it’s very expensive.”

Shafer says the Supreme Court decision is so narrowly focused on such a small area of the law,
that clarification from Congress would remove any doubt as to where the federal government
could assert its authority in wetland issues. Right now there are no plans for such legislation, and
observers say it’s doubtful that a Republican-controlled Congress and the current administration
would address the issue. Environmental activists say in the mean time, they will turn their focus
to state legislatures to encourage them to pass laws to preserve these wetlands no longer protected
by the federal government.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Bird-Feeding Necessary This Winter?

Some bird enthusiast clubs around the Midwest are calling on their members to put out extra bird feeders this winter, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports, the move might not be necessary:

Transcript

Some bird enthusiast clubs around the Midwest – Great Lakes Region are calling on their
members to put out extra bird feeders this winter. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Jonathan Ahl reports, the move might not be necessary:

Some of the clubs say birds are still suffering the effects of the West Nile Virus and need extra
food this winter to make sure they are healthy in the Spring. But not all scientists agree with that
claim. Barbara Frase is a biology professor at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. She says
there are only a few circumstances where birds need the extra food humans provide:

“In the winter, if there is a really long cold spell, then the birds are probably helped. The extra
food will help see them through that cold snap. Otherwise, it probably doesn’t add to their
survival ability.”

Frase says studies show birds that frequent bird feeders still get eighty percent of their food from
the wild. She says it is still a nice thing to help birds, but says the West Nile Virus is really not a
reason to put out an extra feeder this winter.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Manmade Islands Stir Debate

For more than one hundred years, man has made changes to rivers and lakes. Locks, dams, and redirecting waterways has raised water levels and increased river flows. One effect has been the near disappearance of islands that once provided habitat for fish, plants, and birds. Some groups are trying to rebuild those islands. But the concept of a man-made island is not universally accepted. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

For more than one hundred years, man has made changes to rivers and lakes. Locks, dams,
and redirecting waterways has raised water levels and increased river flows. One effect
has been the near disappearance of islands that once provided habitat for fish, plants, and
birds. Some groups are trying to rebuild those islands. But the concept of a manmade
island is not universally accepted. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl
reports:

Jim Baldwin is driving his small boat along an island in the Illinois River, the body of
water that connects the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River. He is an environmentalist
that has been watching this portion of the river for years, and likes what he sees. He’s retired now,
and spends most of his time either at his cabin on the riverfront just north of Peoria, Illinois
or working with environmental groups looking to preserve rivers and streams. These
islands are not natural. The Army Corps of Engineers made them ten years ago. Baldwin
says since then, it’s not uncommon for him to take his boat out and see fifty to a hundred
pelicans.

“Everybody tells me that until this island was built, they never even stopped here. Now
some of them stay year round.”

The Corps built the islands by dredging silt and sediment that had been clogging nearby
portions of the river. The theory is the manmade islands would provide a buffer from the
river flow, and create an area of deep water that could provide habitat for sport fish. It
would also provide a feeding area for migrating birds.

John Marlin is a researcher with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. He says the
program has been a success.

“The islands stop the large waves that come across the lake and there is a calm area behind
the islands the waterfowl seem to appreciate. Also, the birds such as pelicans and alot of the wading birds are using
the islands as resting areas.”

Marlin says the islands are growing thick vegetation, and the soil dredged from the river
has proven to be free of any pollutants that are present in some river sediments.

But not all environmentalists sing the praises of manmade islands. Some believe these
new islands will suffer the same fate of the natural islands that are now gone.

Tom Edwards is the head of River Rescue, an environmental group focusing on rivers. He
says the man made islands are only a temporary fix:

“The islands are an illusion. All of the wonderful that they say are going to result from the islands are not going to result. We have 113 islands in the river right now, and it hasn’t
resulted from a single one of them. So let’s learn from what’s here right now. So they are
going to dig the water deeper around these islands and hope that’s going create deep water.
It will be very temporary. Deep water amounts to a silt trap.”

Edwards says it is just a matter of time until the sediment fills up the deep water areas created by the manmade islands. He says until there are significant changes in land-use policy that keep sediment from entering rivers, manmade islands will only be a quick fix.

But river activist Jim Baldwin says many states and local governments are starting to adopt
land use policies that will keep sediment out of the Midwest Rivers and streams. He also
says using dredged materials to create the islands will help alleviate the problem. He says most importantly, the manmade islands are getting the job done.

“It does two things. Number one is it provides the deep water that we need for fisheries.
The island itself will grow trees and habitats for all kinds of birds. It will do that. That’s what it’s all based on is those two things.”

While the debate over man made islands continues, the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to build two more islands on the Illinois River in the coming years.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

BUSH’S CLEAN WATER ACT CHANGES QUESTIONED

An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is taking issue with a Bush Administration proposal to change
the Clean Water Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

The Bush Administration is considering removing non-navigable rivers,
adjacent wetlands, and headwaters from the protections of the Clean Water Act. Ed
Hopkins is a senior lobbyist for the Sierra Club. He says that change would create major
problems for the waters still covered by the act:

“If you allow the headwaters rivers to be polluted or to be filled in for development of
one kind or another it is certainly going to have an effect on the downstream areas.
Those downstream rivers are going
to get dirtier.”

Hopkins says the Clean Water Act will become nearly useless if this change goes though.
The Bush Administration has announced its intent to seek the change, but has not
formalized the proposal or started the process to change the Clean Water Act.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Study Critical of Genetically Modified Crops

A new study claims the U.S. government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow genetically modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

A new study claims the U.S. Government is losing billions of dollars by allowing farmers to grow
genetically-modified crops. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

The study from the British Soil Association reports the U.S. has increased farm subsidies by 12
billion dollars over the past three years to make up for lower exports. Many European countries
will not allow the import of genetically-modified food. They say it hasn’t been proven to be safe
for human consumption. But U.S. farmers refute the report.

Leon Corzine is a Central Illinois corn and soybean farmer. He says a report criticizing the economics of genetically-modified
crops is nothing more than propaganda.

“If bio-tech crops – just like any other item – if it is not economically viable, they don’t last and
we don’t use them. That’s how I operate on my farm.”

Corzine says there are so many variables in the agriculture industry that it’s impossible to blame
one thing for higher subsidies. He also says while some European countries are turning away
U.S. grain, other countries are increasing their import levels.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Midwest Adds to Gulf’s Dead Zone

A recent study from the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium shows the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is getting bigger. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports that pollution from the Midwest may be to blame:

Transcript

The 85-hundred square mile area suffers from hypoxia. That’s when the levels of dissolved oxygen fall low enough to kill off most fish and plants. Many scientists believe nitrogen coming from Midwest farms and wastewater plants that travel down the Mississippi River are responsible. Forrest Peterson is a spokesperson with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. He says Midwestern states are aware of the problem, and are trying to fix it:

“Things like providing buffer strips and projects to retain some of the water’s nutrient management, things like that. So there are a whole array of things that can be done and that are being done, it just takes some time to see that effect.”

Peterson says the federal government has set the goal to reduce the zone to two thousand square miles and reduce nitrogen levels in the Mississippi River by 30 percent by 2015. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Stronger Invasive Law on the Horizon?

Congress is considering legislation that would create national standards for fighting invasive species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Congress is considering legislation that would create national standards for fighting invasive species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Two Republican house members and a Democratic Senator are sponsoring the legislation. If the bill passes, it would create nationwide standards designed to keep foreign species from overrunning native plants and animals.

The legislation would extend the ballast water exchange standards currently in effect in the Great Lakes to the entire country. It would also improve screening protocols for importing plants and animals.

The bill also includes some funding to test new technologies. They include using chlorine, filters, and ultraviolet lights to kill off foreign species at some entry points to U.S. waterways.

A staff member for Michigan Senator Carl Levin says the bill is intended to be a first step toward developing international rules to stop the spread of invasive species. The lawmakers plan to introduce the bill when they return from their August recess.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Aging Dams on the Way Out

Thirty-nine dams around the Great Lakes region will be removed in the coming year. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Thirty-nine dams around the Great Lakes region will be removed in the coming year. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

The removals are part of a nationwide effort to remove 63 dams that are in poor condition or have outlived their intended purposes. Environmental groups are hailing the move. Eric Eckl is a spokesman for American Rivers. He says removing dams will have numerous positive effects:

“The removal of these dams will start their return to health. It can improve water quality, it can cause the fisheries in the river to rebound, it can create new types of recreational opportunities there.”

Eckl also says the cause safety problems because they create drowning hazards and are at risk of collapsing. He says while the large number of dams scheduled for removal is an encouraging sign, there are still thousands of aging dams in the Great Lakes region that should be removed as soon as possible.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.