An endangered holiday darter. Darters are among the most threatened Southeastern fish; they have been likened to aquatic canaries. (Photo by Noel Burkhead, courtesy of USGS)
A new study shows things are getting
worse for fish in North America. Lester
Graham reports water pollution is the problem:
Transcript
A new study shows things are getting
worse for fish in North America. Lester
Graham reports water pollution is the problem:
The U.S. Geological Survey finds nearly twice as many kinds of fish are now listed
as imperiled today than just 20 years ago. 61 types of fish have gone extinct.
Howard Jelks is the lead author of the study.
He says the decline in fish is because most streams, rivers, and lakes are in worse
shape because of sprawling development, farmers’ chemicals, and pollution washed
off parking lots and streets.
Even if you don’t go fishing, or really even care about the fish, Jelks says there’s a
reason you should care.
“You know, at a certain point, it’s a quality of life issue. If it’s not good enough for
some of these fish, it’s probably not good enough for your kids to swim in.”
And the experts say that means we all have to think about what’s going down the
drain and what chemicals we’re putting on lawns, and on farms.
A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
Transcript
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
(sound of backyard)
Kathy Henry’s backyard runs down to the bank of the Tittabawassee River.
It’s a beautiful view, but that’s not what Kathy Henry sees.
“When I look back there now, I see dioxin.”
You can’t really see the dioxin, but it is there. Dow Chemical started
dumping dioxin into the Tittabawasee river in the 1890s. Dioxin is believed
to cause cancer and damage reproductive systems. And, there are high
concentrations of dioxin not only in the Tittabawasee, but in all the water
and floodplains between the chemical plant and Lake Huron 50 miles
downstream.
Kathy Henry first found out about the dioxin seven years ago when a
whistleblower at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
warned local environmentalists about the contamination. She has wanted to
sell her house ever since.
“We’ve lived here for 24 years. We loved living in here. Now I’m afraid to
go out in my own yard. I just, psychologically, couldn’t stand living here
anymore. I had to get out.”
Dow says it will clean up any dioxin that’s proven to be dangerous to human
health, but the company has spent decades fighting with Michigan and the
US Environmental Protection Agency over how much of it is a threat.
Dow spokesman John Musser says there’s no proof anyone has gotten sick
because of the dioxin.
“We’re not seeing any impacts. We’re not seeing any cause for alarm. We’re
not seeing any imminent health threat. If it’s not a problem for humans or
the environment, then maybe the best thing to do is to leave it alone.”
But Michigan environmental officials are not so laissez-faire about the
contamination. They continue to warn residents about eating fish from the
rivers, about eating wild game killed in the region, and about swimming at
some beaches.
Robert McCann is with the state of Michigan. He says science is way past
the point of debating whether dioxin is dangerous.
“Study after study has shown that there are some very serious potential health
effects from being exposed to it, even at some lower levels over a long
period of time and those health effects do include things like cancer and
diabetes as well as some more minor health effects that can be caused from it.”
But Dow does debate whether dioxin is dangerous. John Musser says
Michigan and the EPA are using bad science based on dioxin exposure to lab
animals. He says Dow has human data from employees that show dioxin is
not as dangerous as people think.
“They were exposed at extremely high levels. And we’ve tracked their
health and their death records for 60 years and we’re not finding any ill
health effects.”
Attacking regulatory science is a common defense for industries. David
Michaels is an epidemiologist at George Washington University. He says
just like big tobacco questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer,
big business always questions the science.
“Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years
as they can they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be
disturbed. It works.”
For example, a recent meeting supposed to update residents about clean up
efforts turned into more of a debate between government scientists and scientists
hired by Dow. One member of the audience got sick of it.
“I’m not a geologist, I’m not a toxicologist, I’m just a resident that lives on
the river. And the last I knew dioxin was the most toxic substance known to
man. And what I’m seeing here is you guys trying to find excuses to justify
poisoning us.”
The EPA recently forced Dow to clean up four hot spots along the river,
including one spot with the highest concentration of dioxin ever found in the
United States.
But the last few months have had more set backs than
progress. In January, the EPA gave up trying to negotiate a clean up
agreement separate from Michigan’s. It said Dow’s proposals were going
backward.
Earlier this month the Region 5 director of the EPA was fired. Mary Gade
says it was because of her tough stance against Dow Chemical.
The EPA says sediment runoff rates from
construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than
from farmland.
(Photo courtesy of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction)
Some home builders say the housing market
is tough enough. They don’t need environmental
regulations that make it tougher on them. But
some “green” builders say the housing industry
can improve the environment, do the right thing
for communities, and still make money. Julie Grant
reports:
Transcript
Some home builders say the housing market
is tough enough. They don’t need environmental
regulations that make it tougher on them. But
some “green” builders say the housing industry
can improve the environment, do the right thing
for communities, and still make money. Julie Grant
reports:
Have you ever driven by a construction site and seen all that dirt? A lot of that dirt is washed off the site by
rainstorms and ends up in local creeks and rivers.
Russ Gibson is with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
He says that dirt kills aquatic bugs and fish.
The dirt covers up gravel bottom streams – that fills holes
where bugs want to live. If bugs can’t live it mucks up the
food chain. Gibson says fishermen know when this
happens.
“You’ll have some of the smaller fish and the bait fish, like
minnows and darters, will feed on the small bugs that live
there. If you don’t have bugs to feed the bait fish you don’t
have bait fish to feed the big fish.”
Beyond that, the silt from construction sites can also muddy
up where fish lay their eggs.
And enough construction dirt can fill a stream so much that it
can make flooding more of a problem.
So, how much dirt are we talking about?
The EPA estimates that 20 to 150 tons of soil per acre is lost
to storm water runoff from construction sites.
That means every time a new house is built, truckloads of
soil can wind up in local streams.
If a homebuilder pulled a truck up to a bridge and dumped a
load of dirt into a creek, people would scream. But because
construction site runoff is gradual and not as obvious,
builders get away with it.
Lance Schmidt is a builder. But he’s not your typical builder.
They used to call him a “tree-hugger builder.” These days
he’s seen as a trend setter.
Schmidt says nobody in the building industry is talking much
about construction silt.
“Believe me, stormwater’s not a fun issue to talk about. (laughs)”
But it’s one of the biggest pollution problems in creeks and
rivers.
Schmidt’s crew just dug a hole for the foundation of a small
house. He’s climbs up on one of four mounds of dirt. He
knows when it rains, some dirt can get washed away, and
end up in a nearby river. That’s why he puts up sediment
barriers. But most of the time no one checks to see if he
does.
“There aren’t any regulations as far as I know. I mean other
than if somebody was to complain.”
The Environmental Protection Agency in Ohio says it does
regulate construction sites. But, usually just the larger ones,
where there might be problems. The homebuilding industry
doesn’t really think it’s the problem.
Vince Squallice is director of the Ohio Homebuilders
Association.
“Construction and earth disturbing activities in construction is
not causing the siltation problem in Ohio.”
Squallice says farmers are mostly to blame for dirt runoff in
the rivers. It’s true that sediment runoff from farms is a huge
problem. But the EPA says sediment runoff rates from
construction sites are typically 10 to 20 times greater than
from farmland.
Squallice says builders already have to deal with too many
regulations such as setbacks from streams.
“Some of the regulations recommended to protect streams go
overboard in terms of environmental protection.”
Squallice says because of the housing bust, it’s a time to
help homebuilders, not enforce more environmental
regulations.
Builder Lance Schmidt says homebuilders need to look at it
a little differently. They can help solve a problem, keep
streams clean, and help cities with flooding problems.
“And that’s the avenue that I’ve decided to attack at. Rather
than attack the regulations, let’s sit back and find ways that
we can actually do this.”
Schmidt says there are lots of creative building ideas that
can reduce flooding, and improve the rivers for fish and other
wildlife. But in this competitive market, builders won’t do it
until everyone has to play by the same rules. And he
doesn’t expect that to happen without better enforcement by
regulators.
Grand Canyon National Park (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)
An environmental group says some of America’s
rivers are endangered by people using too much water.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
An environmental group says some of America’s
rivers are endangered by people using too much water.
Lester Graham reports:
Each year the group American Rivers lists ten rivers that are at risk because of
upcoming decisions. Rebecca Wodder is the president of the group. She says several of the rivers face a common problem.
“Of the ten rivers, six of them are threatened by the same issue and that is excessive
water withdrawals.”
Most of the because of expanding populations, one because of agricultural irrigation.
Using too much water from a river endangers fish and water supplies downstream.
The rivers on the list include the Catawba-Wateree in the Carolinas, Rogue River in
Oregon, the Poudre in Colorado, the St. Lawrence River connecting the Great Lakes to
the Atlantic Ocean, the Minnesota River, St. Johns in Florida, the Gila in Arizona and New
Mexico, the Allagash Wilderness Waterway in Maine, the Niobrara in Wyoming, and the
Pearl River in Mississippi and Louisiana.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
Four decades ago, one event changed how much
of the nation viewed environmental issues. The Cuyahoga River caught fire. Now a filmmaker is
releasing a documentary on the burning river and how it
became a catalyst for change. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
Four decades ago, one event changed how much
of the nation viewed environmental issues. The Cuyahoga River caught fire. Now a filmmaker is
releasing a documentary on the burning river and how it
became a catalyst for change. Julie Grant reports:
People viewed things much differently in the middle of the
20th century than they do today. Pollution was an obscure
term, and smokestacks were a sign of prosperity.
“And like a good sign in the heavens, is the smoke from
these mills. A sign of the forgings and castings and sheets
and wire products to come.”
That old film sets the scene for a documentary called The
Return of the Cuyahoga River .
It wasn’t just smokestacks, but sewer pipes the spewed out
gunk.
As mills manufactured paints, varnishes and oils, the color of
the river changed daily.
In the documentary, longtime river-man Wayne Bratton says
it could turn orange, red, blue or green – depending on the
color paint mills were making.
“Fifty years ago, the river boiled like a cauldron. This was all
very black, high petroleum content. Anoxic. And just
constantly bubbling like a stew on a stove.”
And prime for catching fire. But, 1969 was not the first time
the Cuyahoga caught on fire, and it wasn’t the only river to
burn.
Jonathon Adler is a professor at Case Western Reserve Law
School in Cleveland. In the film, he says that, at that time,
It wasn’t even surprising for a river to catch fire.
“It wasn’t just in Cleveland where we had industrial river
fires. This occurred on the Rouge River in Michigan, the
Chicago river, the Schuykill river in Philadelphia. The
Baltimore harbor. All of these areas caught fire due to the
collection of industrial waste and debris that at the time
wasn’t being cleaned up.”
The film-maker who’s responsible for the documentary on
the Cuyahoga, Larry Hott, says at the time it barely made
the news. It wasn’t until six weeks later when Time
Magazine ran an article about the fire in its new “Environment”
section.
“This was just after the moon shot, the first landing, and it
was also just after Ted Kennedy’s incident at Chapaquitic.
And this turned out to be the best selling magazine in time
magazine’s history. So millions of people saw this story.
And then people started talking about it – ‘what do you
mean, a river caught on fire?’”
After the Time Magazine article, the Cuyahoga became the
poster child of the environmental movement. In the
documentary, Professor Jonathon Adler says people were
astonished.
“One consequence of the Cuyahoga fire was greater political
pressure for additional federal legislation. And one of the
things that led to was the Clean Water Act of 1972, when the
federal government really increased dramatically its role in
helping to maintain water quality.”
The Clean Water Act and other federal regulations stopped
factories from dumping waste directly into rivers.
Many of the nation’s rivers are still being cleaned up. The
Cuyahoga still has problems, but it’s much cleaner than it
was a few decades ago. The documentary producer, Larry
Hott, says he recently took a boat into the river and was
surprised by the beauty of the Cuyahoga.
“You can save a river. It’s a symbol of hope. It gives us
hope – that after everything has gone wrong, after the cities
have burned and the river has burned, it can come back, and
we can be hopeful about the environment.
The bioswales are planted with species that are hardy and beautiful,
like this snowberry. (Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Bioswales look like an extension of the homeowners' property, but
they're actually in the public right-of-way.
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Each home's bioswale looks different; the plants were chosen in
conjunction with homeowners.
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Some cities are looking at taking away parking
on residential streets and replacing it with shallow
ditches full of native plants that filter stormwater.
It’s a way to reduce the polluted runoff that flows
into lakes, rivers and the ocean. As Ann Dornfeld
reports, not everyone is thrilled with the idea:
Transcript
Some cities are looking at taking away parking
on residential streets and replacing it with shallow
ditches full of native plants that filter stormwater.
It’s a way to reduce the polluted runoff that flows
into lakes, rivers and the ocean. As Ann Dornfeld
reports, not everyone is thrilled with the idea:
We’re walking down a winding lane lined with maple trees, tall, dry grasses and
evergreens. Bright white snowberries dot the dark branches. It feels like a walk
in the country. But we’re actually admiring a big-city sewer system.
This little valley – a sort of shallow ditch – is called a “bioswale.” Its plants filter
out pollutants that run off the street. And special, thirsty soil helps the water
absorb into the earth. Sections of the street are narrowed to make room for the
bioswales, so some parking along the street is lost. But houses without
driveways get two parking spaces between the swales.
The bioswales have thick layers of native grasses, shrubs and other plants. It’s
kind of a wild, natural look. Debbie Anderson lives on a nearby street. As she
walks by the bioswale she says to her it just looks messy.
“We think it looked nice when it was first built, but it hasn’t continued to
look good, I don’t think. We moved out here because there was no
sidewalks and the streets were wide open and we like that. Lots of parking,
we can have lots of company. This way you can have, what, two people
that can come? That’s it! No. I don’t want it.”
That’s a pretty familiar argument to Bob Spencer. He’s with the City of Seattle’s
Public Utilities office.
“The big thing is the lack of parking. People really get into using these
street right-of-way shoulders as their personal parking spots.”
But not everybody thinks parking spots are more important than doing something
to reduce water pollution. Spencer says the neighbors on this street actually
competed with other blocks to get these bioswales. It’s free landscaping – and
the city even worked with each homeowner to choose plants that would blend
with their existing garden.
Spencer says the city’s traditional method of dealing with stormwater has washed
contaminants into a nearby creek.
“Well, in the surrounding streets around here, we have what’s called ‘gutter
and ditch’ drainage. And what happens is the water runs off the property
and the impervious streets and rooftops. And it enters a ditch and then
goes pell-mell screaming down to our local salmon-bearing creek, Piper’s
Creek.”
It’s not just Seattle’s creeks that are flooded with runoff. Untreated rainwater
flows straight into lakes and the ocean, polluting them. Cities across the country
are looking for ways to deal with toxic runoff like that.
Spencer says Seattle is pioneering
large-scale natural drainage. In other words, the rain is allowed to drain like it
does in the wilderness. The plant roots slow the water so it can absorb into the
earth. That helps prevent flooding. Pollutants like heavy metals, pesticides
and fertilizers are trapped in the soil, and some of them are broken down in these bioswales.
“So we’ve got a little bit more like a forested system in that we have a duff
layer that acts as a sponge.”
Spencer says the city hasn’t tested the water quality of the runoff that eventually
enters the creek. But he says the runoff has been slowed to a trickle.
“It infiltrates and holds and keeps here 99% of that runoff. So that’s a
pretty large flush of water that’s not entering the creek with this system.”
Officials in Seattle’s city government like the green look of the bioswales. And
they help the city meet federal pollution guidelines. City Council President
Richard Conlin says over the course of three bioswale projects, the city has been
able to lower the cost to about the same as conventional stormwater treatment.
Seattle’s newest bioswale system will be at the foot of Capitol Hill. That’s where
seemingly half of the city’s young people live, in blocks full of apartments,
nightclubs and parking lots.
“It’s actually the densest urban neighborhood west of Minneapolis and
north of San Francisco. So it has a lot of impervious surface.”
Stormwater from Capitol Hill rushes off the hard surfaces and down to a lake. So
the city is taking advantage of new development at the bottom of the hill. It’s
planning to filter the runoff through bioswales before it pollutes the lake.
“And once we’ve done that, I think we’re pretty much ready to say this is
the standard from now on.”
Conlin says the city will likely install bioswales in all new developments, and on
streets where the most runoff enters waterways.
He says cities around the country are contacting Seattle to find out how to install
bioswales of their own.
The Common Carp was introduced a century ago and has been causing havoc in rivers, ponds and lakes ever since. (Image by Duane Raver, courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
In thousands of lakes and ponds across the country, there’s a fish messing up the water.
Some biologists say we’ve never seen these lakes the way nature intended due to the
common carp. The usual method to get rid of the common carp is to kill everything in
the lake and start over. Some biologists think there’s got to be a better way. Joel
Grostephan reports:
Transcript
In thousands of lakes and ponds across the country, there’s a fish messing up the water.
Some biologists say we’ve never seen these lakes the way nature intended due to the common carp. The usual method to get rid of the common carp is to kill everything in
the lake and start over. Some biologists think there’s got to be a better way. Joel
Grostephan reports:
Common carp are like underwater pigs. They root up aquatic plants. They constantly stir
up the mud in the bottoms of lakes, making them murky. And in some lakes, common
carp make up more than half of the total weight of fish. Peter Sorensen is a fisheries
professor at the University of Minnesota:
“With their habit of rooting around night and day, they will completely destroy the
bottoms of lakes, so they become cesspools.”
And it ruins the habitat for many birds and fish too:
“The fact is they are doing enormous damage. At a level that I don’t think people
fully realize. They are living with us, and we don’t know in many cases, what
these lakes and streams and rivers should be like and could be like.”
Common carp have been in U.S. lakes and ponds for more than a century. They came
from Europe and Asia. At the request of new immigrants, the United States government
stocked carp in lakes and rivers in the late 1800’s. Sorensen says it didn’t take long before
there were problems.
By the early 1900’s, it clicked this was a huge mistake, and they started to remove
them. Good records were not kept, and Sorensen says the overall impression is that
removal efforts didn’t work. Most attempts to control the fish are still unreliable. The fish
is very tough. It spawns every year, and females produce nearly a million eggs.
Fisheries managers try to control carp the best they know how. Some hire commercial
fisherman to net the carp. They also use poison — killing all the carp and all the other
fish in the lake and then start over.
Fisheries managers currently use a chemical called Rotenone, which they say is not toxic
to humans. Lee Sundmark is with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources:
“If we see that a lake that a lake way out of balance, might have a lot of carp,
bullheads, tried biological means, and they aren’t working. Sometimes we get to the
point where we use Rotenone to treat it. We basically clean a lake out, and then we
might restock it.”
The trouble is sometimes not all the carp die. And just a handful of them can reproduce
and dominate that lake within a few years. Peter Sorensen and his team of researchers
believe there’s a better way. Sorenson says he does not object to Rotenone poisoning out-
of-hand but, he says, it’s expensive, heavy handed. He and his team have been studying
carp-infested lakes for the past three years to see if they can come up with a new method
to control the fish.
On this cold day, the biologists are surgically implanting radio tags in carp. The
scientists will be tracking these fish so they can find weak points in their lifecycle.
Prezmyslaw Bajer and his colleague Mario Traveline are about to operate on a fish they
caught:
“She will be collecting data that we will then use to remove carp from the lake. She
will be our carp spy.”
The researchers say if they can figure out the habits, and the instincts of the Common
Carp, they will able to control them in way that’s both — effective, and doesn’t kill all the
other fish in the lake. The study’s lead investigator, Sorensen, says this is important
work:
“Something must be done. This is our first, and most damaging species, and if we
don’t do something with this, that like I said, we can do something about — I wonder
what hope there is for any of them. This is to me, the one you got to take out.”
Sorensen says he hopes he can create a model that can be replicated in different parts of
the country. If he’s successful, the ponds, lakes and rivers that have been assaulted by the
carp for the last century might once again be able to host fish and other wildlife that were
forced out.
Government researchers say more water will be needed for power plants in the future.
Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Government researchers say more water will be needed for power plants in the future.
Mark Brush reports:
Power plants use a lot of water – often millions of gallons an hour. A lot of that water is
cycled through the plants and released back into lakes and rivers. But there’s also a lot
that is used up – mostly evaporating into the air.
The Department of Energy predicts that energy needs in the U.S. will increase 22% by
2030. The increase in power generation will drive an increase in water consumption.
And researchers at the National Energy Technology Laboratory say a lot more
water will be needed. That’s because of the pressure to build coal-burning power plants
that strip carbon dioxide from their emissions to slow global warming. The researchers
say the technologies needed to do this will use a lot more water. They predict that
freshwater consumption at power plants will increase as much as 50%.
An aerial view of the Big Muddy Refuge. (Photo courtesy of FWS)
The federal government is in charge of building levees along the nation’s rivers,
but another agency within the government sometimes works to take them down.
Tom Weber reports on one such case where officials are working on
a long-range plan for a wildlife refuge:
Transcript
The federal government is in charge of building levees along the nation’s rivers,
but another agency within the government sometimes works to take them down.
Tom Weber reports on one such case where officials are working on
a long-range plan for a wildlife refuge:
The Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge stretches along the floodplain
of the Missouri River between Kansas City and St. Louis. Right now, it includes
11,000 acres, but it’s a mish-mash of parcels that don’t always touch.
So officials at the refuge are starting a 3 year process to come up with a long-
range plan. They’ll only add land to the refuge when landowners want to
sell, but if they get enough of them, it might mean some levees can be taken
down.
Tim Haller is with the Fish and Wildlife Refuge:
“Some areas we have acquired a large enough area where we can allow the river to
flood into its floodplain, and that inadvertently provides a relief to adjacent
levees. That water spills out on us and not onto cropland.”
Haller, though, says no levee will ever come down if doing that would harm
farmland.
For the Environment Report, I’m Tom Weber in St. Louis.
A new study finds if fish raised in captivity breed with fish in the
wild that might hurt the wild fish populations. Rebecca Williams
reports that’s because the captive fish are genetically weaker:
Transcript
A new study finds if fish raised in captivity breed with fish in the
wild that might hurt the wild fish populations. Rebecca Williams
reports that’s because the captive fish are genetically weaker:
Billions of fish are raised in hatcheries and released into lakes and
rivers.
But a new study in the journal Science says there could be
problems with that. The researchers found a type of salmon bred in
captivity quickly adapted to their less stressful life in the hatchery.
So they weren’t prepared for a cutthroat life in the wild.
Michael Blouin is an author of the study. He says the babies of
captive-bred fish have trouble finding food and aren’t very good at
escaping predators.
“If you have large numbers of hatchery fish mixing with wild
populations, the fear is they’ll be passing those genes to the wild
population and thereby dragging down the fitness of the wild
population.”
Blouin says this has not been proven outside of the laboratory yet, but he says the lab results raise some concerns about the widespread
use of captive fish to boost wild fish populations.
An endangered holiday darter. Darters are among the most threatened Southeastern fish; they have been likened to aquatic canaries. (Photo by Noel Burkhead, courtesy of USGS)
