Tag: michigan

Refineries Expand to Process Dirty Oil

Transforming black crude oil into gasoline has
always been a notoriously dirty process. But oil
refineries are expanding so they can use a new source
of oil. That could make the process even dirtier.
Shawn Allee explains why this is happening
and what environmentalists are doing about it:

Transcript

Transforming black crude oil into gasoline has
always been a notoriously dirty process. But oil
refineries are expanding so they can use a new source
of oil. That could make the process even dirtier.
Shawn Allee explains why this is happening
and what environmentalists are doing about it:

Refineries are expanding because they’ve struck oil… and it’s not
far away….

Roxanne Potvin: “Oh Canada, our home in native land …”

That’s right, it’s from Canada.

“Phil here, can I help you? Hey, I’m doing good, how are you?”

Phil Flynn analyzes energy markets for Alaron Trading. Flynn
says Canada’s secret is oil pulled from tar sands.

“If you look at the oil sands that are in Canada, some experts
estimate there’s more oil in the oil sands than there is under
Saudi Arabia. And to be honest with you is, the reason why we
haven’t tapped it earlier is, it’s been a very expensive process to
do.”

But technology’s made tar sand oil competitive with lighter crude
from the Mideast and elsewhere.

Flynn says there’s a downside to Canadian tar sand oil. It’s
heavier, it’s dirtier, and it creates more refinery pollution. But he
says the market wants it anyway.

“You know, we want abundant supplies. We want to be able to
pull up at the pump, pay a dollar fifty a gallon and drive home
happily. But guess what, it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
Believe me, if the prices get high enough, even the environmentalists
will be more open to more negotiations.”

Actually, Flynn’s wrong on that – environmentalists are not willing
negotiate on new refinery pollution. Last year, green groups in
Chicago and Northwest Indiana were outraged by plans to
expand a BP refinery on Lake Michigan.

That BP plant will use new Canadian crude.

A new permit allowed it to dump more ammonia and suspended
solids – in other words… more pollution into Lake Michigan.

Environmentalists and politicians argued with regulators, then they
hit the airwaves …

“This is a clean water alert. BP Amoco has announced plans to
expand an Indiana refinery to process thick
crude oil – already one of the worst polluters …”

“I think that really tapped public sentiment that we’re going in the
wrong direction.”

Howard Learner directs the Environmental Law and Policy
Center.

Learner considers last year’s effort a success.

“Ultimately, BP was forced to back off, and BP is now committed
to no net increase in water pollution.”

That fight against BP’s refinery expansion plan in Indiana was not
isolated. Michigan activists fought a similar refinery expansion
plan in Detroit. Eventually, Marathon Oil agreed to keep water
and air pollution near present levels at that refinery.

Now, groups across the Midwest want to repeat these
performances. Altogether, they’re taking on expansions at ten refineries, from
South Dakota to Ohio, plus another in Ontario.

Learner says each could increase water and air pollution.

“So with these oil refineries having such a major environmental
footprint in our region, we want to make sure that they’re doing the
absolute best, state of the art, pollution control technology at the
beginning rather than later having to come back and say
oh wait a minute, we somehow missed the boat here, we gotta
get it fixed up. That’s not gonna fly.”

Learner says there does not have to be a trade-off between more
pollution and higher gas prices.

“Companies like BP, ConocoPhillips, MurphyOil, and Marathon are
making billions of dollars in profits. They can take and invest
some of those profits, not on doing their plants in ways that increase pollution, but in
ways that reduce pollution.”

But can we cut pollution and keep gas prices level?

Some economists doubt it.

Lynne Kiesling teaches at Northwestern University.

“Regardless of your perception of corporate profits there is a
fundamental trade-off between environmental quality and
increasing our refinery production.”

Kiesling says, when refineries invest in pollution control,
consumers ultimately foot the bill.

And she says drivers are to blame – over time, we buy more
gasoline – even when prices rise. So… oil companies are just trying to meet
our demand with new, dirtier oil.

Environmental groups have preached about getting out of our
cars for years – but they’ve been losing that battle.

They say all they can do now, is to fight the air and water pollution
that comes with dirtier oil.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Farmers Work to Conserve Water

Some experts say water will be the “oil” of the next generation. As it become
more scarce, prices are going to go up. For farmers, that’s serious business.
Kyle Norris recently spent time with several farmers who say they think
about water constantly:

Transcript

Some experts say water will be the “oil” of the next generation. As it become
more scarce, prices are going to go up. For farmers, that’s serious business.
Kyle Norris recently spent time with several farmers who say they think
about water constantly:


Anne Elder and Paul Bantle are farmers, and they’re pretty hard-core about
water. They keep a hollowed-out rock — it’s like a natural bowl — next to
the barn, and every morning they fill it with fresh water for the farm’s
smaller animals:


“And this amazing thing the cat comes and drinks, the chipmunks come and
drink, the birds come and drink and the bees all drink from the same stone.”


These folks consider water to be a valuable resource. They use it to grow a
variety of fruits and vegetables on their eleven and a half acres. The farm is
a biodynamic farm. Which means it’s organic, but it kind of goes a few steps
further. Anne Elder says biodynamic farming emphasizes healthy soil, and
how to make soil benefit the most from water:


“Healthy soil means it’s alive, it’s active, it’s not compressed but fluffy. It
will have a lot organic matter which will make it more sponge-like rather
than compacted hard tight soil. So when it does rain or when moisture does come,
fluffy soil can take that in and it can just drain through and the roots can
absorb it.”


They till an organic compost into the soil. It’s made of manure, vegetable
matter, hay, and straw. And as biodynamic farmers, they spread herbal teas
on their fields. They do this to feed the plants, and to fight-off problems like
fungus. Their farm is in southeastern Michigan and they get plenty of rain
storms. Paul Bantle says they try to take as much advantage from the rain as
possible:


“Rainwater is way better than any kind of water you’re going to pull from
earth. Irrigation water is cold when it comes from 65 feet down, it’s cold.
Whereas rainwater is warm, in the summer, obviously. And in the late spring
and early fall.”


The thing about cold water is that it shocks plants that have been sitting in
the warm sun all day. And that’s no good. When they need to water the
fields, they pump water from a 65-foot well.


Bantle says he thinks long and hard before using this water for irrigation. He
doesn’t want to dig down further to tap deeper aquifers, even if that means
that the crops will go through a hard time:


“It’s an issue. I mean it’s a huge problem. So definitely I try to be very
conservative about pulling water for irrigation.”


Basically, there are two main irrigation techniques typically used in farming. The first is
drip or trickle irrigation, and this is what Bantle and Elder use. It’s a slow,
easy method that takes time for the water to soak deep into the soil. It’s kind
of like a light, slow rain.


The other technique is overhead irrigation. Picture your garden hose on
spray, with overhead irrigation the water sprays all over. The downside is
that it wastes water because it evaporates and runs-off from the fields.


Lyndon Kelley is an irrigation educator with Michigan State University and
Perdue Extensions. He says drip irrigation is like a mini-van and overhead
irrigation is like a school bus:


“It’s sort of like are you going to take three or four kids to the baseball game
after school each day, well then you’re going to take the mini-van. But if
you’re going to take fifty kids to the baseball game after school every day
then you’re going to want a school bus.”


So, drip is typically used on smaller operations and overhead is usually
used on the larger ones. But Kelley says drip irrigation can be used on larger
farms. It depends on how the roots of the plant take-in water. Grape
vineyards, tomato plants, and some other vegetables respond well to drip
irrigation.


The farm that Anne Elder and Paul Bantle run is a relatively small operation.
They pay a lot of attention to their crops and they water them accordingly,
and all that effort takes a thought and labor:


“It’s almost like a holding-back mentality. How can I let these plants do
what they need to do, until which time the rains will come.”


Farmers are going to have to reevaluate the ways in which they use
water. Some scientists believe climate change will make some places much
drier, and a growing population is already putting heavier demands on the
existing water sources.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

High Dioxin Levels Found Near Dow Chemical

A river is polluted with one of the highest
concentrations of dioxins in the nation. The area is
downstream from a Dow Chemical plant. Kyle Norris has
more:

Transcript

A river is polluted with one of the highest concentrations of dioxins in the
nation. The area is downstream from a Dow Chemical plant. Kyle Norris has
more:


Scientists found an amount of dioxins 20 times higher than anything
previously found in the river. The hot-spot is 23 miles from a Dow Chemical
plant.


The EPA has required Dow Chemical to clean up sections of the Saginaw
and Tittabawassee Rivers in mid-Michigan. Dioxins have been linked to
cancer, reproductive problems, and heart and liver diseases, among other
things.


Milton Clark is with the Environmental Protection Agency. He says dioxins
do not break down in the environment:

“It’s very long-lived, it doesn’t readily biodegrade. And so if it’s present in
the sediments it can work itself up into the food chain, get into the fish, and
those fish then can be consumed by people, putting them at increased risk.”


The hope is that the dioxins will be cleaned from the rivers in the next
several years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Factory Farms – Water Pollution

  • Hog manure being injected into the ground and tilled under. The manure fertilizes the crops, but if too much is applied it can foul up waterways. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Transcript

(sound of giant fans)


About a thousand cows are in this building, eating, lolling around, and waiting for the next round of milking.


There’s a sharp smell of manure hanging in the air. Big fans are blowing to keep the cows cool, and to keep the air circulated.


Stephan Vander Hoff runs this dairy along with his siblings. He says these big farms are good for consumers:


“We’ve got something here and we’ve been able to do it in such a way that we’re still producing at the same cost that we were fifteen years ago. It costs more now for a gallon of gas than a gallon of milk. And so, that’s something to be proud of.”


Vander Hoff’s dairy produces enough milk to fill seven tanker trucks everyday. They also produce a lot of waste. The cows in this building are penned in by metal gates. They can’t go outside. So the manure and urine that would normally pile up is washed away by water.


Tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater are sent to big lagoons outside. Eventually, the liquefied manure is spread onto nearby farm fields. It’s a challenge for these farmers to deal with these large pools of liquid manure. The farther they have to haul it, the more expensive it is for them. Almost all of them put the manure onto farm fields.


It’s good for the crops if it’s done right, but if too much manure is put on the land, it can wash into streams and creeks. In fact, this dairy has been cited by the state of Michigan for letting their manure get into nearby waterways.


(sound of roadway)


Lynn Henning keeps a close eye on Vander Hoff’s dairy.


(car door opening and closing)


She steps from her car with a digital camera, and a device that measures water quality.


(sound of crickets and walking through the brush)


She weaves her way down to the edge of this creek.


“This is the area where we got E. coli at 7.5 million.”


High E. coli levels mean the water might be polluted with dangerous pathogens. Lynn Henning is testing the creek today because she saw farmers spreading liquid manure on the fields yesterday. Henning is a farmer turned environmental activist. She works for the Sierra Club and drives all over the state taking water samples and pictures near big livestock farms.


Henning says she got involved because more of these large animal farms expanded into her community. She says when the farmers spread the liquid manure, it can make life in the country pretty difficult:


“The odor is horrendous when they’re applying –we have fly infestations–we have hydrogen sulfide in the air that nobody knows is there because you can’t always smell it. We have to live in fear that every glass of water that we drink is going to be contaminated at some point.”


Water contamination from manure is a big concern. The liquid manure can contain nasty pathogens and bacteria.


Joan Rose is a microbiologist at Michigan State University.


“If animal wastes are not treated properly and we have large concentrations of animal waste going onto land and then via rainfall or other runoff events entering into our water – there can be outbreaks associated with this practice.”


Rose tested water in this area and found high levels of cryptosporidium that likely came from cattle. Cryptosporidium is the same bug that killed people in Milwaukee back in 1993. Rose says livestock farmers need to think more about keeping these pathogens out of the water. But she says they don’t get much support from the state and researchers on how best to do that.


For now, the farmers have to come up with their own solutions.


(sound of treatment plant)


Three years ago, the state of Michigan sued Stephen Vander Hoff’s dairy for multiple waste violations. The Vander Hoff’s settled the case with the state and agreed to build a one million dollar treatment system. But Vander Hoff isn’t convinced that his dairy was at fault, and thinks that people’s concerns over his dairy are overblown:


“If we had an issue or had done something wrong the first people that want to correct it is us. We live in this area. So why would we do anything to harm it?”


Vander Hoff is upbeat about the new treatment system. He says it will save the dairy money in the long run.


The Sierra Club’s Lynn Henning says she’s skeptical of the new treatment plant. She’ll continue to take water samples and put pressure on these farms to handle their manure better. In the end, she doesn’t think these big farms have a place in agriculture. She’d rather see farms go back to the old style of dairying, where the cows are allowed to graze, and the number of animals isn’t so concentrated.


But farm researchers say because consumers demand cheap prices, these large farms are here to stay and there will be more of them. Because of this, the experts say we can expect more conflicts in rural America.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Rain Barrels and Rain Runoff

  • One city is asking people to use rain barrels like this one to prevent rain runoff that can overload drains and creeks. (Photo courtesy of the Huron River Watershed Council)

As cities cover more and more surface with pavement and buildings,
it’s taking a toll on the environment. Heavy rains flood off the
impervious surfaces and overload drains and creeks. Some cities are
trying new methods to control the problem. As Tracy Samilton
reports, Ann Arbor, Michigan is asking its residents to play a role by
catching their home’s rainwater in rain barrels:

Transcript

As cities cover more and more surface with pavement and buildings,
it’s taking a toll on the environment. Heavy rains flood off the
impervious surfaces and overload drains and creeks. Some cities are
trying new methods to control the problem. As Tracy Samilton
reports, Ann Arbor, Michigan is asking its residents to play a role by
catching their home’s rainwater in rain barrels:



Miller’s Creek in Ann Arbor is not a pretty creek. Part of it runs
alongside a congested four-lane road in one of the most developed
areas of the city. Since there’s almost no place left for rain to seep
slowly in the ground, it pours off the road and parking lots and
rooftops right into the creek:


“What you can see is all the roots that are exposed and very high
banks…”


Laura Rubin is head of the Huron River Watershed Council. Miller’s
Creek is part of the watershed. She says rain storms carry pollutants
and sediment into the creek, and sweep away animal and plant
species that might otherwise live here:


“This is not a healthy creek we call this impaired when they get flows
they’re so strong that they’re tearing away the banks.”


Rubin would like Miller’s Creek to be vibrant with life again one day.
But a lot of changes will have to happen first. She says nearby
businesses will have to build wetlands to retain their storm water.
The city will have to repave the roads to allow more drainage. And in
such a heavily populated area, residents will have to do something
too. Rubin says the first step is teaching people that a single point
source of pollution like a big factory is no longer the biggest threat to
water in their neighborhood:


“Now the main source of pollution is non-point pollution and that’s
us.”


Rubin says rain barrels could play a significant role in healing Miller’s
Creek. Rain barrels are just like they sound: big barrels that collect
water from a home’s rain gutters, to be dispersed later onto lawns or
gardens. One rain barrel can retain up to thirty percent of storm
water falling on a house. Under a dark grey sky that bodes rain,
Dave Aikins shows off his:


“It’s a big, uh, green trash can-like object…aesthetically, uh, I’m not
prepared to defend it.”


Aikins owns a medium-size house in downtown Ann Arbor. Now, with
a rain barrel installed on one side, he’ll catch half the rain that falls on
the house. He uses it to water his garden, but says someday he
might rig it so he can use the water for his laundry machine. A
neighbor kiddy-corner from him has installed one too, and they’ve
had neighborly arguments about proper installation and usage. He
likes how the rain barrel makes him feel.


“Living in an urban area, there’s no direct impact on you whether it
rains or not and this puts you back connected to natural environment,
so you start to care about whether you get your rain today.”

Aikins and other city residents have more than environmental
reasons to install rain barrels. The city water department is using a
carrot and stick approach to encourage their adoption. Installing a
rain barrel gets you a modest discount on the City of Ann Arbor’s new
storm water rates. Tom McMurtry is head of the new program:


“Under the old system, we charged one flat rate for every single
household whether you were an 800-square foot home in the city or a
5,000 square-foot mega-mansion.”


Now, the city will charge four different rates depending on the amount
of impervious pavement and size of the roof on the house. The
highest rate is three times more than the former flat rate, to better
reflect a big home’s impact on the city’s drains and creeks.
McMurtrie says about (blank) people have installed a rain barrel and
applied for the credit. He’d like to see at least 3,000 rain barrels
installed throughout the city. He doesn’t know how long it will take
to accomplish that:


“But every little bit helps.”


It’s an experiment in progress to see if having lots of rain barrels
around Miller’s Creek will help restore it. According to Laura Rubin
of the Huron River Watershed Council, it took about fifty years to
damage the creek this badly. It could take another fifty to bring it
back to health.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Indian Treaty 2.0

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:

Transcript

Five Indian tribes claim the right to hunt, fish and gather on lands
and lakes they sold to the federal government years ago. Their
claim extends back to the Treaty of 1836. But it’s been
challenged in court by state officials who say those rights expired
long ago. As Bob Allen reports, now all the parties have reached
an uneasy compromise:


170 years ago, the tribes sold millions of acres to the U.S.
government. But they reserved for themselves the right to hunt
fish and gather foods and medicines until the land was settled.


Hank Bailey is an elder with the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa
and Chippewa. He’s scouting out a favorite fall hunting spot
even though it’s pelting rain:


“I know these hills well all around here just from exploring
it…hunting, gathering mushrooms…”


Bailey is a direct descendant from a tribal leader who signed the
original treaty. He says the exercise of those rights in times past
were the difference between survival and starvation. And he
doesn’t think a new piece of paper can ever erase what his
ancestors preserved:


“They were told that this treaty was forever. And I know in
my heart that’s what they believed in. And they thought well
as long as we can hunt, fish and gather we will be able to
survive as a people. This is what bothers me about is, I’m
being told now that when we sign this paper, this is going to
be forever and here we go again.”


Four years ago, the state of Michigan went to court to argue tribal
hunting and fishing rights had expired because the land had been
settled long ago.


But then state officials noticed court rulings in other Great Lakes
states that upheld treaties and in some case awarded tribes as
much as half of the natural resources.


Tribal leaders thought they had a strong case, but they too were
leery of how today’s courts might interpret the phrase that said
their treaty rights exist “until the land is settled,” so the parties
were motivated to negotiate a deal outside court.


Jim Ekdahl is with the state Department of Natural Resources:


“We were in a strange kind of legal limbo where the state
wasn’t exactly sure what the ground rules should be in
light of the fact the federal courts hadn’t ruled on the inland
rights. The tribes weren’t 100% confident that they could
advise their membership in terms of what they ought to be
doing.”


From legal limbo, there are now 130 pages of rules and
regulations on how and where the tribes can exercise their rights.
There’s been some grumbling on both sides.


Some tribal members complain, with some exaggeration, that they
have to fill out a form now before they can pick a single
blueberry, and there are sportsmen who don’t like a special set of
rules for Indians.


What the tribes have agreed to is their rights to hunt, fish and
gather will only apply on lands open to the public. And they only
can take enough for subsistence, not for commercial sale.


Tribal resource managers say what their members take is a drop
in the bucket of the overall resource. And Jim Ekdahl with the
state says there’s still plenty to go around:


“There’s sufficient harvestable surpluses of resources
available to accommodate tribal interests. There’s essentially
no effect on harvest by state licensed recreational users. And
essentially no changes in state regulations are gonna be required as this
thing moves forward.”


The parties to the agreement say is it avoids a bitter legal battle
that could last a decade or more and cost millions of dollars.
Both sides remember an ugly dispute that raged 30 years ago
when tribes reasserted their right to fish commercially with nets
in the Great Lakes.


Matthew Fletcher is a specialist in tribal law at Michigan State
University. As far as he can tell, this is the first time a state has
voluntarily recognized tribal treaty rights extending to off-
reservation lands without being told to do so by a court:


“There are tribes and there are treaties nationwide that have
similar language. And I’m sure they’re watching this very
carefully. And this kind of consent decree is going to create a
kind of precedent for other states that are engaging in similar
kinds of negotiations.”


The agreement still needs to be accepted by a federal judge
before it becomes binding in law. For tribal elder Hank Bailey
the deal might chip away some free exercise of historic rights,
but it also reasserts that those rights can’t ever be taken away:


“For me that’s… that is about the most powerful part of it is
being able to know that I will continue to be an Odawa, black
wolf clan, a man… somebody that respects the resources
around me. And I’m willing to work with anybody else that
feels the same way, whether they’re tribal or not.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Bob Allen.

Related Links

Dirty Dozen Politicians

An environmental group is targeting members of Congress for their votes on environmental issues. Lester
Graham reports:

Transcript

An environmental group is targeting members of Congress for their votes on environmental issues. Lester
Graham reports:


Each election cycle, the League of Conservation Voters releases its Dirty Dozen List, twelve members of Congress
the group is targeting in the upcoming elections. Lester Graham reports:


The first two politicians to make the list have been released. One is Representative Joe Knollenberg, a
Michigan Republican, but topping the list is Republican Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe.


Kerry Duggan is with the League of Conservation Voters:


“As Chair of the Senate Environmental Public Works committee, he’s famously or infamously known for
calling global warming the biggest hoax to be perpetrated on the American people. That statement alone is
pretty offensive, given what kind of trouble we’re in.”


The environmental group is releasing the first two of its its list of twelve targeted members of Congress early this campaign season. The League of Conservation Voters says the politicians who make the list are
vulnerable to losing their seats in the 2008 elections.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Who Should Watch Big Farms?

  • Hog manure being injected into the ground and tilled under. The manure fertilizes the crops, but if too much is applied it can foul up waterways. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Big livestock operations can raise thousands of cows, chickens or pigs
under one roof. It helps keep the price of food lower. But neighbors
complain the government’s not doing a good enough job of monitoring the
pollution these farms produce. Rebecca Williams reports there’s a
debate heating up in several states over who should be regulating these
big farms:

Transcript

Big livestock operations can raise thousands of cows, chickens or pigs
under one roof. It helps keep the price of food lower. But neighbors
complain the government’s not doing a good enough job of monitoring the
pollution these farms produce. Rebecca Williams reports there’s a
debate heating up in several states over who should be regulating these
big farms:


The days of small farms with different kinds of livestock grazing in
the pasture are fading from the landscape.


They’re being replaced by farms that specialize in one kind of animal –
and raise thousands of them. They’re called concentrated animal
feeding operations, or CAFOs.


There are battles in several states right now over who should be keeping an eye
on the CAFOs. Usually, the state departments of environmental
protection have power under the federal Clean Water Act to enforce laws
and issue permits. But in the Midwest, in states such as Ohio and
Michigan, and in the West, in states such as Oregon and Idaho, they either have transferred or are working to transfer oversight power to the state agriculture departments – and get U.S. EPA approval.


Jerry Van Woerkom is a Republican state senator in Michigan. Right
now, the state Department of Environmental Quality – or DEQ – has the
oversight powers. But Senator Van Woerkom is sponsoring a package of
bills that would put most of the state’s big livestock farms under the
Department of Agriculture:


“Those people tend to be supportive and come with the attitude of we’re
going to try to work together to solve this problem. Whereas when they
work with the DEQ the attitude is more like we’re coming with a
hammer and if we find anything you’ve done that’s out of line, we’re
going to wop you with it.”


The CAFOs are in the spotlight because they can produce tens of
thousands of gallons of urine and manure each day. That liquefied
manure is eventually spread onto farm fields.


The Environmental Protection Agency says that waste can wash from
fields into streams and creeks. That can cause fish kills. Animal
waste has also gotten into drinking water and made people sick.


Lynn Henning runs a small farm. She says there are 13 CAFOs within a
10 mile radius of her Michigan farmhouse. She says the manure odors
are overwhelming:


“We can’t hang laundry when the emissions are in the air. We have
severe fly outbreaks. We’ve had family farmers that have been diagnosed with hydrogen
sulfide poisoning from emissions from the CAFOs.”


Henning says the current oversight system is weak. She says the
Department of Environmental Quality doesn’t have enough funding to
monitor the CAFOs. So that job often falls to residents like her. She
says putting the Department of Agriculture in charge of oversight would
make the problems even worse:


“The MDA has no enforcement authority and they promote agriculture in
Michigan. It’s like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.
You can’t give authority to punish to an agency that’s promoting.”


But it could become a wider trend if the states that are proposing the
switch now actually make it happen.


Karla Raettig is an attorney with the Environmental Integrity Project.
It’s a group that’s been critical of weakening environmental laws.
She’s been tracking trends in enforcement of livestock farms:


“I think the Farm Bureau and other really large industry advocates are
seeing a chance to get regulation that is perhaps more cooperative,
less regulatory and less on the enforcement side. It isn’t totally
nefarious but I think it could have outcomes that are not anticipated.”


Raettig says you have to wonder what will happen without the threat of
enforcement from an environmental agency.


But Senator Jerry Van Woerkom from Michigan argues that farmers are
more likely to do the right thing if they’re overseen by a friendlier
agency, as he proposes:


“I mean you’re not able to cover up problems that happen, it gets in
the newspaper, people know when problems happen. But I believe that the
agriculture department will work with people, especially if people are
getting a bad reputation. I think they will work with them and if
those people do get out of line, it’s back to the DEQ.”


Environmentalists and small farmers are worried about the idea of
states handing off oversight of CAFOs… from their environmental
watchdog agencies to their agencies in charge of promoting the business
of agriculture.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Fed Court Okays Ballast Law

A federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of a state law restricting ballast water on
ships entering the Great Lakes. As Rachel Lippmann reports, the ruling clears the way
for other states to take similar action to control the spread of invasive species:

Transcript

A federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of a state law restricting ballast water on
ships entering the Great Lakes. As Rachel Lippmann reports, the ruling clears the way
for other states to take similar action to control the spread of invasive species:


The Michigan law requires ocean-going ships that want to exchange ballast water while
in Michigan ports to clean that water before discharging it into the Great Lakes. The
court rejected arguments from shipping companies that Michigan’s action violated the
Interstate Commerce Clause.


Cameron Davis is the president of the Great Lakes Alliance, which joined the state of
Michigan in the lawsuit. He says the ruling makes it clear states have the right to adopt
their own environmental protections:


“We’re really challenging the other states to quit sitting on the sidelines and start to move
ahead with their own invasive species protections.”


Ohio lawmakers have just proposed similar ballast water law. The bill would also require
Ohio to work with the seven other Great Lakes states and Ontario to develop region-wide
regulations.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rachel Lippmann.

Related Links

Keeping an Eye on Eagles

  • The bald eagle was protected by the Endangered Species Act for 40 years, but researchers are still finding toxic chemicals in the eagles' plasma. (Photo by William Bowerman)

The bald eagle came close to extinction
before strong measures were taken to help pull
it back. The eagle was protected by the Endangered
Species Act for 40 years. And the government banned
toxic compounds such as DDT that caused damage to the
eagles’ eggs. Bob Allen caught up with researchers
who are monitoring the health of the birds. They’re
finding the birds are still being exposed to toxic
chemicals:

Transcript

The bald eagle came close to extinction
before strong measures were taken to help pull
it back. The eagle was protected by the Endangered
Species Act for 40 years. And the government banned
toxic compounds such as DDT that caused damage to the
eagles’ eggs. Bob Allen caught up with researchers
who are monitoring the health of the birds. They’re
finding the birds are still being exposed to toxic
chemicals:


We’re on a steep, heavily wooded hillside about a mile above a
barrier dam on the Muskegon River in Michigan. The land is part of a private
church camp. So, human intrusion on the site is low. And the
pond behind the dam provides plenty of food for eagles rearing
their young.


Once every five years researchers are permitted to come here and
take young birds from the nest.


“Usually we try to keep people about a quarter mile away from the
nest. And that way we don’t have human disturbance that
would cause them to fail.”


Bill Bowerman is a wildlife toxicologist from Clemson
University. He first became part of this eagle survey as a grad
student at Michigan State more than 20 years ago, about the time
researchers began taking blood and feather samples.


Wildlife veterinarian Jim Sikarskie says eagles sit atop
the aquatic food chain, so any contaminants in the ecosystem
eventually show up in them:


“The contaminants that are in the plasma from the blood and
from the feathers then help us evaluate the quality of the water in
the area around the nest. So we do birds from different watersheds
every 5 years as part of the water quality surveillance plan.”


The nest is a tangled mass of twigs in an aspen tree swaying in a
strong breeze about 60 feet off the ground. As the research team
approaches, the female lifts off and begins to circle and squawk
just above the tree-tops.


They lay out syringes and test tubes on the ground. Walter
Nessen gets ready to climb the tree. He’s worked with
Bowerman monitoring sea eagles in his native South Africa.


Walter buckles into his harness and straps a pair of climbing
spikes to his boots. He has the kind of wiry strength and agility
that makes for a good climber. He prefers not to use gloves to
handle the eaglets because he relies on a sense of feel between
his hands and their legs:


“Immature birds, nestlings, are quite delicate because their
feathers are not hard-pinned. In other words, there’s still
blood circulating inside the feathers as it’s growing. One has
to be careful not to bend them or break them because they
will not develop further. That’s the most important thing.
The other thing is you need to take care the birds have big
claws. It’s one of the first things developing on the birds so
they can attack you and claw you and scratch you and that
kind of thing.”


Walter wraps his climbing rope, really a polyester-covered steel
cable, around the trunk of the tree, locks it into his harness and up
he goes.


First he checks nestlings to be sure they’re old enough and in
good condition before lowering them down in a special padded
“eagle bag.”


With young eagles on the ground, everyone becomes hushed and
businesslike. Bowerman writes down the eaglet’s weight and
other measurements. They’re four to five pounds with some
down-like feathers still clinging to them. Most prominent are
their dark beaks and yellow-orange claws.


Sikarskie carefully drops a cloth hat over an eaglet’s head to keep
the bird calm. Then, he talks a young grad student through
taking her first blood sample from the underside of a delicate
wing.


The two nestlings are examined for parasites. Then, they’re leg
banded, tucked gently back in the bags and hoisted aloft. They’re
out of the nest for maybe fifteen minutes.


Places like this, far upriver from the Great Lakes, were refuges
for eagles back in the DDT era. Eagles survived here because
fish couldn’t pass above barrier dams on the rivers and carry their
toxic burden with them, and Bowerman says the difference is still
noticeable today:


“If you live along the Great Lakes you still have higher levels
of PCBs. You still find DDE, which is the egg shell thinning
compound that caused the eagle’s decline in the first place. If
you’re in an area like this which is upstream of the Great
Lakes, there’s much less level in these inland birds.”


Eagle research in Michigan extends back 47 years.
Bowerman calls it the oldest continuous wildlife survey in the
world. It’s a record that documents the recovery of a species in
trouble, but sometimes the information has a more immediate
impact.


Bowerman says some years ago, tests on baby eagle’s blood
from Michigan showed a spike of an unknown chemical. Lab
tests found it to be from a product called Scotch Guard, a stain
repellent for fabric produced by the 3M Company.


When told about it, 3M hired Bowerman’s professor, John Geise,
to find out how widespread the compound was:


“John’s lab went all across the world collecting tissues of
different wildlife species. And they found it world-wide. And
that’s why 3M took scotch guard off the market.”


Bowerman worries that monitoring efforts will slack off when
bald eagles are off the Endangered Species list, and that new
contaminants will be missed. But he can’t help being inspired
by the birds’ recovery:


“Does it make you any more alive to watch that beautiful
eagle soaring around? And it’s really neat to see how many
there are now. So this is just spectacular.”


For the Environment Report, I’m Bob Allen.

Related Links