It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the state of Massachusetts (Photo courtesy of NASA)
Environmental groups are
petitioning the government to limit
pollution from farm fields in states
that drain into the Mississippi River
and its tributaries. The pollution
contributes to a so-called ‘Dead Zone’
in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Transcript
Environmental groups are
petitioning the government to limit
pollution from farm fields in states
that drain into the Mississippi River
and its tributaries. The pollution
contributes to a so-called ‘Dead Zone’
in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Nine groups from states bordering the Mississippi River are calling for standards
to limit nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The main source of the chemicals
is runoff from farms.
Attorney Betsy Lawton is with Midwest Environmental Advocates.
She says it’s been ten years since the Environmental Protection Agency said it
would make states in the Mississippi Basin protect and clean up the waters.
“EPA has long held that it would step up and take action when states failed to do.
It has set several deadlines for states to take this type of action and limit this
pollution but has let the states slide from those deadlines.”
The nitrogen and phosphorus flow down the Mississippi into the Gulf Dead Zone
– an oxygen depleted area of about 8,000 square miles – or the size of the state
of Massachusetts.
It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico could be the largest ever (Photo courtesy of NASA)
A researcher is predicting farm
fertilizers will cause record “Dead Zones”
in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay
this year. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A researcher is predicting farm
fertilizers will cause record “Dead Zones”
in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay
this year. Lester Graham reports:
These dead zones are areas where oxygen is depleted. No oxygen and much of the
marine life leaves or dies. It’s caused by nitrogen-based farm fertilizers that are
washed off the fields and into the water.
Donald Scavia is a researcher at the University of Michigan. Using U.S. Geological
Survey data, he predicts the dead zone in Chesapeake Bay will be the sixth largest
on record.
“The six other ones are also not that much bigger than what we’re predicting for this
year.”
Heavy rains and flooding across the Corn Belt washed nitrogen fertilizers into the
Mississippi River system and then on to the Gulf of Mexico. Scavia predicts the
dead zone in the Gulf could be the largest ever.
“What you put down on the land is what gets flushed in those rainstorms. And we’re
putting too much fertilizer on the land. So,
what’s changed over the last three decades is agricultural practices. What changes
from year-to-year is the weather.”
Scavia says better methods of farming could reduce the dead zones.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The Hill's cows getting a sip of water while waiting for milking (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
From left to right, Stephanie Hill, their daughter, and Ray Hill outside their new section of the barn where they make and sell yogurt (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
Inside the Hill's barn during milking time (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
In many areas of the country, small farms
are now the exception, not the norm. Farming,
especially with livestock, can mean thousands and
thousands of animals, and often distant, corporate
ownership. Even the smallest farms are pressured
to get bigger. So when a family decides to make
their farm smaller, they’re rebels. Kinna Ohman
reports:
Transcript
In many areas of the country, small farms
are now the exception, not the norm. Farming,
especially with livestock, can mean thousands and
thousands of animals, and often distant, corporate
ownership. Even the smallest farms are pressured
to get bigger. So when a family decides to make
their farm smaller, they’re rebels. Kinna Ohman
reports:
It’s five o’clock in the evening on the Hill’s dairy farm. Ray Hill just finished cleaning
out the milking equipment and is moving into the barn.
(sound of milking equipment and door)
Cows look around curiously, and afternoon light streams through the windows. Hill
moves comfortably among these cows, calling each of them by name, and cleans their
udders for milking.
(Ray describing the process)
Ray Hill and his wife Stephanie are full time farmers. They milk ten cows, twice a day.
They sell raw milk and yogurt directly from their farm. But getting to this point hasn’t
been easy. To survive, they’ve had to step away from the conventional approach to dairy
farming.
When the Hills got into farming eight years ago, they listened to the advice of farm
experts. They had more than forty cows, a tractor, and were selling their farm’s milk to the
regional processors.
But within a couple of years, they were deep in debt. Hill says the experts told him to get
more cows. He says he couldn’t see how that would help.
“Financially it just didn’t work. There wasn’t money to hire help. I had a couple of
kids and my wife and we were all running ragged and it just wasn’t fun. And there
were many days where I threatened to sell every cow in the barn.”
It’s common for farm experts and even bankers to push family farmers like the Hills to
‘get big or get out.’ Darrell Emmick’s with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
He says he’s seen regions lose more than fifty percent of their dairy farms when using
this conventional standard.
“Getting bigger or get out really didn’t help a lot of the farmers. They got bigger
and they still went out of business.”
For a farm to get bigger, farmers confine hundreds or even thousands of dairy cows inside
large barns. That means farmers spend a lot of money and time bringing food to their
animals and hauling manure away.
Darrell Emmick says that model of agriculture started
in the 1940s when fuel was pretty cheap. But these days, it makes good economic sense
for farmers to go back to letting their milk cows out of the big barns to eat grass.
“Nothing can harvest a ton of feed any cheaper than the cow or the sheep or the
horse can by itself. Bringing food to animals is something I think we’re going to see a lot
less of, especially here and now with fuel prices going over four dollars a gallon.”
The Hill’s have made that switch on their farm. Ray Hill says his cows are healthier. He
believes their milk is better quality, too. And he’s excited about providing healthy
food for his community. Ray Hill says he wants their farm to be a place where people
come to buy quality food, and definately let him know if they have concerns.
“I want to have control over how I take care of my animals. I want to have control
over how I process or don’t process my milk. I want to have control over the price,
the quality. If there’s a quality issue, it’s up to me to take care of it, not say ‘let me
call so and so.’ I don’t think you can find anyone who’d that would tell you I’d
rather talk to a corporate person than the person who produced my food.”
But bucking against the system is not easy. There are days when no one comes to their
farm to buy their milk or yogurt. The Hills know they’re taking a risk. But they feel, at
least they’re not at the mercy of the industry, the banks and the whims of the market.
The "Great Plate" - a 10-inch plate: half non-starchy vegetables, a
quarter lean protein, a quarter starchy vegetable or whole grains (Photo courtesy of the University of Michigan)
Lots of companies are starting new programs
that teach their employees how to eat healthier.
Because healthier employees can save companies loads
of cash. Kyle Norris has more:
Transcript
Lots of companies are starting new programs
that teach their employees how to eat healthier.
Because healthier employees can save companies loads
of cash. Kyle Norris has more:
So, Stacy Witthoff is teaching people about healthy snacks.
“We have some 100 calorie packs. We have fresh fruit like bananas, peaches, pears,
apples, any kind of canned fruit is good too.”
Witthoff is a dietician with the Michigan Healthy Community – basically it’s a group that
does health education for University of Michigan employees.
The people at this expo are learning about how to eat healthier, and the idea is that they’ll
share this info with their co-workers.
Witthoff stands in front of a little booth and she’s all friendly. She snags people as they
walk by.
She’s just caught Jason Maynard. He’s a nursing administrator. And he goes to a lot of
meetings where there are a lot of snacks.
“So at meetings it’s probably donuts or bagels, cookies.”
But he thinks people would go for fresh fruit like raspberries or strawberries, if they were
offered.
Stacy Witthoff is promoting a guide that helps people make better food choices.
It’s called the Great Plate. It’s a picture of a plate that’s divided into different sections.
“Basically you take a 10-inch plate and half of it should be non-starchy vegetables, a
quarter of it lean protein, and a quarter of it starchy vegetable or whole grains. So it’s just
an easier way to eat healthy without having to think about portions.”
Ok let’s recap.
Divide your plate in-half and fill that half with non-starchy veggies – carrots, broccoli,
cauliflower, green beans, asparagus and peppers. And aim for a variety of colors.
Then divide the other half of the plate into quarters. Fill one-quarter with grains &
starchy veggies – that’s things like brown rice and whole-wheat pastas and whole-wheat
bread. And starchy veggies are things like potatoes, corn, peas, and squash.
Then the last quarter of the plate should have meats and proteins. Things like grilled
or baked chicken, fish, turkey, lean cuts of meat. And non-meat options like tofu, beans,
and eggs.
And the Great Plate says go for way smaller serving sizes.
The Great Plate encourages people to eat what they call “whole
foods.” That means eat the food in its raw form and not it’s processed equivalent. So
like eat the apple – as opposed to apple juice. Or as opposed to the apple-flavored gummi
worms, if you were someone like me.
Steve Aldana helps companies start employee healthcare programs. He says that
culturally we eat pretty bad stuff. And that we’re way stressed-out.
And all that can affect an employer’s pocketbook, for real.
“So 2 things: poor behaviors are leading to onset of chronic diseases. And those chronic
diseases are costing an inordinate amount in health care. And it’s that cost alone that’s
driving most companies to start to look very, very intently at worksite wellness
programs.”
Businesses are starting to see healthy employees as a smart investment. Companies like
Johnson & Johnson, IBM, and Dow Chemical have all taken note.
They hope programs like this one will help shave-off millions of dollars from their
employee health care costs.
And these programs can also help save money in the long run – by boosting employee
morale and leading to fewer employee absences.
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.
The common practice of throwing the little ones back could be harming future fish populations. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
Transcript
The common practice of throwing the little ones back could be harming future fish populations. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
Anglers and commercial fisheries are often only allowed to take fish that are larger than a certain size. So the smaller fish are left to reproduce. And researchers say that means their offspring will also be smaller, and not as healthy.
David Conover is a marine scientist at Stony Brook University. He says the larger fish are vital to the overall health of their species.
“The eggs that these big, old females produce tend to be of higher quality. The egg diameters may be a little larger, the yolk that is supplied to the eggs seems to be more rich, the larvae hatch at a larger size, they have a higher survival.”
Conover says fish populations can be harmed in as little as three or four generations. And it can take much longer for a population to rebound – if it can at all.
He says possible solutions could include different rules that protect larger fish, and new limits on where fish can be harvested.
Many environmentalists fear the practice of sewage blending would become more routine if a new EPA policy is enacted. (Photo by M. Vasquez)
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering a new policy for sewage treatment plants. Many environmentalists say if the policy is adopted, it will lead to increased water pollution and greater risk to public health. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports on the debate over sewage blending:
Transcript
Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering a new policy for sewage treatment plants. Many environmentalists say if the policy is adopted, it will lead to increased water pollution and greater risk to public health. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports on the debate over sewage blending:
(sound of water in sewer)
Some sanitary sewers are tied in with storm sewers. So when there’s a big rainstorm, or when there’s a fast snowmelt, all that water can inundate some sewage treatment plants. To tackle this problem, some treatment plants have adopted a practice known as “blending.” The excess sewage is re-routed around the slower parts of the treatment plant. The dirty water is then mixed with the water that’s been cleaned. It’s sometimes given a shot of chlorine, and then released into creeks, rivers, and lakes.
Kurt Heise oversees the operation of a sewage treatment plant on the Detroit River. He says the practice of blending is necessary in order to keep the plant from being overwhelmed.
“When you have a wet weather event, an extreme wet weather event, if we were to allow all of that combined water in through the normal process the treatment process would be ruined.”
Sewage blending has been around for a long time. To plant operators, it’s a necessary step in handling large amounts of dirty water. But to some people, blending is not seen as a good option. They want the practice to stop.
Instead, they say, cities should invest in their systems to make sure they can fully treat all the water that comes to the plant. Kurt Heise says, if his plant were required to do this, it wouldn’t make sense economically.
“It would almost result in doubling the size of our plant and spending just untold amounts of dollars for an event only happens a few times a year.”
Sewage treatment plant operators say you have to weigh the costs and the benefits before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on expanding the treatment plants. The decision of whether or not to allow blending has been left up to state and local regulators. But recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has weighed in on the subject. And ever since they suggested new guidelines for allowing blending, environmentalists have been critical of their plan. Mike Shriberg is the Great Lakes advocate for the Public Interest Research Group. It’s an environmental consumer activist organization.
Shriberg says the draft blending policy, the way it’s written now, is too broad. And will allow the practice of blending to become routine.
“Our fear is that when you’ve got a treatment plant that uses blending, they’re never going to upgrade to full treatment sewage. And so if a treatment plant is allowed to blend they’re not going to go up to full treatment capacity they have no incentive to do that anymore. It’s sort of the cheap way out.”
Sewage treatment operators say blending is better than seeing the raw sewage overflow into waterways. And they say it’s better than spending large sums of money to fix a problem that only occurs a few times a year. But critics say the EPA doesn’t have a good handle on how often blending is used, and what kind of health risks are associated with the practice.
Some initial studies have been done on blended sewage and how it might affect public health. Joan Rose is a water microbiologist at Michigan State University. She’s written a report on the health risks associated with blended sewage.
“So what I found was that if people were actually swimming in the water and there was a discharge of a blended sewage upstream, that their risk of getting sick, actually getting sick with a virus or a parasite was about a hundred times greater – when there was a blended discharge as opposed to if the water was fully treated.”
Rose says some of these viruses, such as Hepatitis-A, are highly contagious. At this point, there are no good estimates on how many people get sick from blended sewage each year. It’s never been studied, so the impact of blending on public health is unclear. Ben Grumbles is the Assistant Administrator for water at the EPA. He says the EPA is considering the billions of dollars at stake in expanding the nation’s sewer treatment plants versus the risk to public health.
“What we’re trying to do is to clarify what’s legal and what isn’t legal and to recognize the economic realities that sewage teatment plants face across the country in terms of their infrastructure needs, but foremost and above all what leaves the facility has to meet Clean Water Act permit limits.”
But the Clean Water Act permit limits don’t measure all the viruses, bacteria, and parasites found in blended sewage. And so some environmentalists and scientists say meeting the limits doesn’t necessarily mean protecting public health. Grumbles says officials are still reviewing the tens of thousands of comments they received after releasing the draft blending policy.
He says he doesn’t know what the final rule will look like, or if they’ll issue a rule at all. One thing is likely, if the policy is finalized the way it’s written now, it’s expected that environmental groups will take the EPA to court.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
Wind turbines can be both a blessing for farmers, as a source of extra income... and annoying to the neighbors. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Wind farms of huge turbines are springing up along coastlines,
windy ridges and blustery farmland. Most of us see them from a distance.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman recently visited some
of them up close… and has the first of two reports on wind energy:
Transcript
Wind farms of huge turbines are springing up along coast lines, windy ridges and
blustery
farmland. Most of us see them from a distance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Chris
Lehman recently visited some of them up close… and has the first of two reports on
wind energy…
If you can imagine the sight… there are 63 wind turbines scattered across the
prairie farmland,
their huge blades sweeping around, capturing energy from the wind. Each turbine is
213 feet
high. You can see them from miles around. But it isn’t until you stand directly
underneath the
80-foot long blades as they rotate in the wind that you begin to appreciate their size…
(sound of wind from underneath turbine)
“This is probably a typical day. They’re probably producing at about 30 percent of
what they are
rated at, and probably on average, for a year, this is what you’d expect.”
Christopher Moore is Director of Development for Navitas Energy. The Minnesota- based
company opened the Mendota Hills Wind Farm in northern Illinois just over a year ago.
Q: “What are some of the highest levels that you’ve reached?”
“Each turbine is capable of producing 800 kw, and there are times when we’ve had the
windfarm
working at about maximum.”
Moore says the Mendota Hills Wind Farm produces enough electricity to power about 15-
thousand homes per year. It’s the first wind farm in the state of Illinois.
Brian Lammers is a Project Manager for Navitas Energy. He says the location is
ideal since it’s
windy here nearly all year long…
“The wind here is more robust in the fall, winter and spring. So we have more
production during
those months than we do during June, July, August.”
Unfortunately, the summer months are the months that most often experience peak
demand for
electricity. Because of that, and because it takes so many windmills to generate
lower amounts of
power, it’s unlikely that current wind energy will completely replace fossil fuel
generated power.
(sound of turbines)
On the flat prairies of Illinois, the giant turbines are the tallest structures for
miles around. You
begin to wonder about things like lightning strikes…
“We might have experienced one or two last year. The turbines are protected from
lightning. The
entire wind farm is grounded, so if there is a strike typically it will just be
grounded down to the
ground grid. There’s typically no long-term damage associated with a lightning
strike. But as you
can imagine, they’re the tallest structures around so there are periodic lightning
strikes.”
Q “What about a tornado? This is tornado country…what would happen if one came
through
here?”
“I don’t know. These turbines are built to withstand everything but a direct strike
from a tornado,
so I think the same thing would happen to a wind turbine that would happen to any
large
structure if they were struck by a tornado. You’d probably have some significant
damage.”
(fade up sound inside turbine)
Inside the turbine, there’s a distinct hum as the blades whirl away at the top of
the hollow shaft.
It’s about ten feet across at the base, and a metal ladder allows anyone brave
enough to climb all
the way to the top.
Despite the hum of the turbine’s blades up close, the sound fades away just a few
dozen feet from
the tower. But noise isn’t much of a concern for this wind farm. It’s in the
middle of a soybean
field and there are no neighbors nearby.
Noise is just one of the aesthetic concerns for neighbors of wind farms. Appearance
is another.
The Mendota Hills turbines are coated with a special paint that appears white in
bright sunshine.
But when the sun’s not out, the turbines appear grey, and seem to blend in with the
cloud-covered
sky.
Dennis Cradduck has 19 of the turbines on his corn and soybean farm. He says the
wind farm
hasn’t been a problem. Of course, he’s getting paid by Navitas for allowing the
turbines on his
land. But he says the wind farm has led to an unexpected benefit: getting to meet
people from
across the country who pull off the highway for a closer look…
“We get people almost on a daily basis that drive by on the interstate and see them,
and stop and
want to look at them, and they’re amazed at them, and most—about 99 percent of them
have been
positive comments. In fact, one fellow from North Carolina stopped the other day
and said ‘I wish
we’d build more of these around the country because we need renewable energy.'”
The prospect of more renewable energy is appealing to most environmentalists. But
some worry
that wind farms can be deadly to birds. A study by the National Wind Coordinating
Committee
found that wind turbines kill an average of two birds per year.
Another concern is that windmills disrupt the scenery. But the only view around
here is farmland
as far as the eye can see. And on this brisk day, it isn’t just corn and soybeans
being harvested: it’s
the power of wind.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.
Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better
than burning fossil fuel to create electricity. But “green energy”
alternatives
can be controversial. Windmill farms are springing up all across the
nation.
Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others say windmill farms
can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers. In the second of a two-part series on wind energy, the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:
Transcript
Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better than burning fossil
fuel to create
electricity. But “green energy” alternatives can be controversial. Windmill farms
are springing
up all across the nation. Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others
say windmill
farms can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:
For 30 years, Matt Mauer raised crops and livestock on his farm about 10 miles from
the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Today, he’s in his backyard looking at the land now farmed by
his daughter
and son-in-law. Standing there, he feels a crop they’re not harvesting.
“The good Lord makes it windy all the time for us, so let’s use it, you know.
Because I’m like
everybody else. When I get up in the morning, I want lights.”
Mauer’s hoping to put four wind turbines on his family’s farm near Ludington,
Michigan. That
would power about 24-hundred homes. Nearby, a renewable energy company’s working with
other farmers to build a hundred turbines in the area. Mauer says many of his
neighbors want in
on the deal because they think wind energy could help save their farms.
“It’s hard to make a living just farming right now. And I consider the wind one of
the crops that
we could harvest. It will help keep farmers on the land. Like if, in this place, if
we could get
seven–thousand dollars a year, six-thousand dollars a year for four of them, that’d
make it a hell
of a lot easier to keep the people here and farm.”
The state government’s backing similar projects. It’s training financial advisors
to show farmers
how they can turn a profit with windmills.
But not everyone likes the idea. Some people who live in the area around the
planned windmills
say they’re worried the towers would destroy the region’s charm. That’s linked to
property values
and to tourism. And they don’t like the size of the proposed windmills. Each one
would be four-
hundred feet tall. The blades would have a diameter nearly as long as a football
field.
It’s a story that’s heard in many places. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the prairies of
Illinois, and
around the Great Lakes. For example, a Michigan couple who wanted large-scale
turbines on
their property ended up losing a court-battle against local government that opposed
the plan. And
two turbines already in place in Mackinaw City – between Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron –
have some unhappy neighbors as well.
Thomas and Virginia Alexander’s home is about 15-hundred feet away from the windmills.
They’re in their eighties and they both wear hearing aids… but even without them,
they say the
windmills are loud…
Tom Alexander: “There’s things about it we don’t appreciate, at times the noise –
not always –
depending upon the wind and the direction.
Virginia Alexander: “Yesterday. Very noisy yesterday. The wind was high and they,
you could
really hear them.”
Tom Alexander: “Just a continual swish, swish, swish, swish, swish.”
Windmill developers say the sound is no louder than normal speech. But this noise is
different. It
goes beyond the frequencies of normal speech. The sound can travel long distances
through both
the ground and the air. They keep Virginia Alexander awake some nights.
Tom and Virginia Alexander’s son Kelly lives next door with his family. He calls
himself a
windmill victim. He has this advice for others:
“Don’t let them go in your backyard. There are places they can go. You don’t just
put those in
somebody’s backyard. I don’t think it’s right.”
A lot of people agree with the Alexanders. Even wind energy boosters concede that
location is
key to successful projects. David Johnson heads up the program for the state of
Michigan that’s
encouraging farmers to allow windmills on their land. He says turbines should be
constructed
where there’s lots of wind and few neighbors. But he says when people say ‘no’ to
windmills,
they should consider the alternative.
“So, does that mean that you should build another big coal-fired plant? Is that the
preferable way
of doing it with the global warming impacts and the mercury pollution and so on that
go with
that? Is that the choice that the public wants to make?
States across the nation are struggling to find the right balance between clean
energy and the
beauty of an uncluttered landscape. Few regulations are in place right now. More
and more,
communities will be facing the decision of whether clean energy and keeping farmers
on the land
is worth the price of adding wind turbines to the scenery.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Linda Stephan.
It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the state of Massachusetts (Photo courtesy of NASA)
