Biofuels in Europe: Part 2

  • Erhard Thäle and his wife grow organic crops like corn, peas and rye in these fields. They’ve lost money the last three years. Thäle know wants to sell his crops for energy. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:

Transcript

Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:

Erhard Thale jokes a lot about being an organic farmer. It’s about all he can do.

“He has like his corn harvest from two years ago is still lying down on his farm so it’s not sold on the market.”

It’s hard to imagine. We’re outside Ludwigsfelde not too far from Berlin. Thale’s land looks green and healthy – not bad for late fall. But looks can be deceiving. Thale says he’s lost money for the past three years. He blames his land and a volatile world market.

“Then My wife comes and asks, ‘where do we go from here? Piggybank is empty. Money gone.’”

Thale says he can make more money selling his organic corn and rye for energy instead of food. He’s not joking around. There’s a growing movement in Germany to get farmers like Thale to set some of their land aside to grow grains just for energy. There are now areas throughout the country developing so called “bio-energy regions.” The idea is that a community like Ludwigsfelde would produce its energy locally.

Farmers like Thale would sell their grains and manure to a regional bio-energy power plant. Those materials would get turned into green energy. The 20,000 residents who live here wouldn’t have to rely on fossil fuels and they’d cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sounds promising. But Thale says he’d build his own plant if he had three million dollars. Then he could keep all the profits from selling energy.

“He needs an uncle in the U.S. with two million euros.” (laughter)

Other farmers, though, are cashing in, finding money in, well, poop.

(sound of milking machine)

A cow chews her cud as an automatic machine does the milking. This milking parlor is part of an agricultural training center here in west central Germany. This is the greenest farm I’ve been on. There’s a bio-energy power plant. Wind turbines and solar arrays.

Klaus Wagner runs the center. He says this cow’s manure is more valuable than the milk.

“That can’t be.”

Wagner sees a growing rivalry between dairy farmers who want to sell milk and those who want to sell manure for biogas.

“I guess that the milk and energy production on the other side belongs together. And those farmers who built 3-4 years ago biogas plant they earn real money now. The biogas plant substitutes the milking production.”

It really comes down to a question of sustainability. How much land here in Germany and, for that matter, the U.S. should be set aside for making energy? It’s not an easy answer. In the long run, if farmers grow grains for energy instead of food, that will impact the food supply and eventually what we pay at the grocery store.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

A Tough New Chemical Law

  • Lena Perenius and Franco Bisegna are with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels, Belgium. (Photo by Liam Moriarty)

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

Transcript

There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:

(sounds of a street)

Brussels, Belgium is sort of like the Washington, DC of Europe. It’s here – in the seat of the European Union – that the 27 nations that make up the EU hash out their common policies.

I’m sitting in the office of Bjorn Hansen. He keeps an eye on chemicals for the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment. To give me an idea of how ubiquitous chemicals are in our everyday lives, Hansen points around his office.

“Just us sitting here, you are probably exposed to chemicals, which come from the office furniture, which have been used to color the textile, which has been used to create the foam, the glue under the carpet that we’re sitting – you name it, you’re exposed.”

The big question is whether all this exposure is harming our health or the environment. The answer?

“We, by far, do not know what chemicals are out there, what the effects of those chemicals are, and what the risks associated with those chemicals.”

In the European Union, that uncertainty led to a new law known by its acronym, REACH. That’s R-E-A-C-H. REACH requires that tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products in the EU be studied and registered. If a substance cannot be safely used, manufacturers will have to find a substitute, or stop using it. REACH has, at its core, a radical shift: it’s no longer up to the government to prove a chemical is unsafe.

“The burden of proof is on industry to demonstrate safety. And by demonstrating the safety that they think, they also take liability and responsibility for that safety.”

Even for industries accustomed to tougher European regulations, REACH was alarming.

“There were very, quite violent opposition in the beginning.”

Lena Perenius is with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council.

“In the EU, we already had a very comprehensive set of regulations for ensuring safe use of chemicals. And the industry saw that this was putting an unreasonable burden on the companies.”

Corporations may not have liked it, but the measure had strong public support. After several contentious rounds of negotiations, Perenius says the industry feels it got key concessions that’ll make the far-reaching law workable. Now, she says, the industry has come to see the up-side of REACH.

“Now, when we have the responsibility, that gives us a little bit of freedom to demonstrate, in the way we believe is appropriate, how a substance can be used safely.”

Here in the US, there are signs of political momentum building around taking a more REACH-like approach to regulating the chemicals in everyday products. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg recently said he’d introduce a bill that would shift the burden of proof for safety onto chemical manufacturers.

“Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end up in the store, in our homes, and in our being.”

Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson recently told a Senate committee that – out of an estimated 80,000 chemicals in use – existing law has allowed the EPA to ban only 5, and to study just 200.

“Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or no risk, the story is clear – we’ve only been able to effectively regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest.”

More than a dozen states from Maine to California have already moved to toughen safety standards for chemicals. Even the American Chemistry Council has agreed to support more vigorous regulations to assure consumers that the chemicals in the products they use are safe.

As always, the devil is in the details. But the coming reform is shaping up to look a lot like what Europe is already putting in place.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links

European Cap-And-Trade Example

  • Europe was the first to do carbon cap-and-trade, four years ago. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Transcript

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Slashing greenhouse gas emissions is hard. Our economy is powered mostly by fossil fuels. Switching to clean fuels will be disruptive and expensive, at least to start with.

So how do we get from here to there? The approach that’s proving most popular is what’s called “cap-and-trade.” It works like this – first, there’s the cap.

“We’re going to put an absolute limit on the quantity of carbon-based fuels that we’re going to burn. And we’re going to develop a system to make sure we’re not burning more fossil fuels than that.”

Alan Durning heads the Sightline Institute, a sustainability-oriented think tank in Seattle. He explains that once you put the cap in place…

“Then, we’re going to let the market decide who exactly should burn the fossil fuels based on who has better opportunities to reduce their emissions.”

That’s the “trade” part. Companies get permits to put out a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Outfits that can cut their emissions more than they need to can sell their unused pollution permits to companies that can’t.

The cap gets ratcheted down over time. There are fewer permits out there to buy. Eventually even the most polluting companies have to reduce their emissions, as well.

The goal is to wean ourselves off dirty fuels by making them more expensive. And that makes cleaner fuels more attractive.

Europe was the first to do carbon cap and trade, four years ago. And things got off to a rough start. They set the cap on emissions too high and way overestimated the number of permits – or allowances – that companies would need.

“We have too many allowances. Simple supply means that the prices of those allowances crashes. They don’t have much value, and therefore the price went down to close to zero.”

That’s Vicki Pollard. She follows climate change negotiations for the European Commission. She says the whole system got knocked out of kilter.

For the first two years, European carbon emissions actually went up. After the collapse of Phase One, big changes were made. The next phase of the trading system has a tighter cap, more stringent reporting requirements and enforcement with teeth.


Today, Europe’s on track to meet its current emissions target. But environmentalists, such as Sanjeev Kumar with the World Wildlife Fund in Brussels, say those targets are still driven more by politics than by science.

“We have a cap that’s very weak, i.e. that means that it doesn’t mean that we’re going to achieve the levels of decarbonization that we need within the time scale.”

Leading climate scientists say we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the middle of this century to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Business still has concerns about the EU cap and trade scheme. Folker Franz is with BusinessEurope, sort of the European version of the US Chamber of Commerce. He says companies worry about the additional cost of carbon emissions putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

“If you produce one ton of steel, you emit roughly one ton of CO2. So any ton of steel produced in the EU is right now some 17 dollars more than outside the European Union. And that makes a difference.”

But, Franz says, European businesses accept the need to take prompt action on climate change and are on board with the stricter cap and trade rules coming over the next few years.

Americans have watched Europe struggle with carbon cap-and-trade. The Sightline Institute’s Alan Durning says we can benefit from Europe’s willingness to break new ground.

“It was a big advance when they started it, because nothing like it had ever been done. But, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all. In fact, the United States now has an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and leapfrog ahead to a much better climate policy.”

Durning says an American cap and trade system could avoid the costly stumbles that’ve hampered Europe’s carbon reduction efforts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links

A Bee by Any Other Name

  • Experts say beekeeping is an important line of defense against killer bees. (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

Africanized Honeybees – also known
as killer bees – are moving farther
north. The hybridized bees escaped
from a lab in Brazil in the 1950s.
Mark Brush reports:

Transcript

Africanized Honeybees – also known
as killer bees – are moving farther
north. The hybridized bees escaped
from a lab in Brazil in the 1950s.
Mark Brush reports:

These bees have established themselves in a number of states throughout the southern U.S. They spread naturally and they are spread through trade. The bees can hide out in shipping containers. One swarm was found inside the engine compartment of a new car.

Now, despite the nick name “killer bee” – experts say, yes they’ll defend their nest with more gusto – but the killer bee name is just hype.

Gloria DeGrandi-Hoffman is a bee expert with the USDA. She says it’s likely that the bees will keep spreading – but beekeeping is an important line of defense against Africanized honeybees.

“You know, beekeepers, whether they’re small or large, are really the buffer between African bees and the public, because they keep pure European bees.”

DeGrandi-Hoffman says – Africanized or not – bees are still a critical part of our food system because they pollinate so many of our food crops.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

The Bee Man of Brooklyn

  • John Howe keeps bees on the roof of his Brooklyn townhouse. (Photo by Samara Freemark)

Beekeeping is a growing hobby – there
are even a couple of hives on the White
House lawn. And beekeeping is even getting
popular in America’s largest, most urban
city – New York. The only problem is,
beekeeping is actually illegal in New York.
Samara Freemark went to find
out why some New Yorkers are doing it anyway:

Transcript

Beekeeping is a growing hobby – there
are even a couple of hives on the White
House lawn. And beekeeping is even getting
popular in America’s largest, most urban
city – New York. The only problem is,
beekeeping is actually illegal in New York.
Samara Freemark went to find
out why some New Yorkers are doing it anyway:

When I first got in touch with the Gotham City Honey Co-op and told them I wanted to do a story on beekeeping in New York, they were a little nervous about talking with me. They were worried about a New York City health code that makes urban beekeeping illegal. The city’s worried about people getting stung. The Honey Co-op didn’t want to blow anyone’s cover, but eventually they did hook me up with John Howe.

Howe keeps bees on the roof of his Brooklyn townhouse – which means every day – several times a day, actually – he climbs four flights of stairs and one shaky ladder to get up to his hives.

“I gotta go up the ladder. I’m getting tired of it.”

(sound of roof opening)

“Turned out to be a nice day.”

Howe keeps two hives. He says there could be up to 150,000 bees in them.

“You can see them all going in and out. Lot of bees, yeah.”

Honey bees can fly up to three miles from their hives, looking for flowers to pollinate. Howe’s bees probably buzz by thousands of his neighbors every day. I asked him if anyone ever complained about them or called authorities to turn him in for illegal beekeeping. Howe said his neighbors are actually pretty cool with the bees.

“I give them free honey, so that helps. People just raise their eyebrow or shrug and say, ‘that’s neat.’ They call me bee man. I walk down the street, they say, ‘hey bee man, you got any honey?’”

Across town, Roger Repahl raises honeybees in the garden of a church in the South Bronx. He started beekeeping ten years ago, when local gardeners noticed that their vegetables weren’t getting pollinated.

“The community gardeners were complaining that they were getting a lot of flowers but very little fruit. So Greenthumb – that’s the community gardening wing of the parks department – Greenthumb said that’s because you don’t have enough pollinators in the South Bronx.”

So Repahl trucked some hives down from Vermont, and he says the bees pretty much solved the neighborhood’s pollination problem.

Now, this is the kind of story that gets beekeepers like John Howe pretty steamed up about New York’s anti-beekeeping laws. Like a lot of cities, New York is doing just about everything it can to encourage community gardening. But to grow your own food, you need insects to pollinate your plants. John Howe says banning honeybees is like banning local food.

“The best reason for making bees legal is that they pollinate so many plants. The more bees that we can raise and keep, the more chance we have of having food.”

It’s not quite that clear cut. At least, that’s what James Danoff Burg says. He studies insects at Columbia University. He says there are native bugs that do plenty of pollinating. Beetles, for example, and other kinds of bees like honeybees. And those native species are being driven out by honey bees, which are originally from Europe.

“I think it’s a mixed bag. They have benefits to people, for certain. And from a human perspective, if all you’re concerned about is that your plants get pollinated and you can get the fruits that come from that, it’s a pure positive bag. The negative part of that mixed bag comes when you start to think about native biodiversity.”

But Danoff Burg says preserving native biodiversity maybe doesn’t matter so much in a place like New York. The city’s ecosystem has already been changed so much, and there are other, more wild places where native insects can thrive.

So even though NY is America’s biggest city, it might also be the best place in the country to raise bees. As long as you keep them out of sight of the law.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

U.S. Lax on Chemicals

  • Toy makers use phthalates to make hard plastic pliable (Source: Toniht at Wikimedia Commons)

News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:

Transcript

News about dangerous chemicals in toys,
cosmetics and cleaning products has a lot of
Americans spending extra money. People want to
make sure they’re choosing things that are safe
for their families. Julie Grant reports that
other countries are ahead of the US in efforts
to improve the safety of all products:

So you might expect that the government has tested those
chemicals to make sure they’re safe. But you’d be wrong.

Daryl Ditz is senior policy advisor at the Center for
International Environmental Law.

He says the US Environmental Protection Agency has never
assessed the hazards of most chemicals used in every day
products.

“That means the EPA doesn’t know, and you and I don’t know,
which materials on the shelves are more dangerous and
which are less.”

Ditz says only a few hundred chemicals have been
thoroughly tested by the U.S. government, but there are
80,000 chemicals used in products on the market.

In the U.S., the EPA has to prove a chemical is harmful to
keep it off the market.

(sound of toy store)

Dorothy Bryan is shopping at this upscale toy store in Northeast Ohio.

She’s got three grandkids. She’s looking at an
organic cotton bunny, colorful wooden blocks, and of course
Thomas the Tank Engine. She
pays more for toys at this store than she would at the big box
retailer. But Bryan says they’re worth it.

“They’re not toxic. That’s the big part. They’re not the
plastic toxic things.
I purchase usually the wooden toys. The little one puts
everything in his mouth.”

But most kids’ toys are made of plastic. And lots of plastics are made with phthalates. It makes them pliable.

But phthalates are endocrine disruptors. They’re gender-bender chemicals that make girls develop earlier and reduce testosterone levels in boys.

That’s why
California has banned the use some phthalates in toys. So
have Japan and the European Union.

But Daryl Ditz, chemical expert at Center for International
Environmental Law, says regulators in the U.S. don’t have
much power to ban phthalates or other chemicals.
Chemicals here are innocent until proven guilty.

“That is, companies can sell virtually anything in a product or in a barrel unless it’s been proven
to be dangerous.”

But other countries are starting to take the opposite
approach. Ditz says the European Union is rolling out a new
set of laws that make chemicals guilty until proven
innocent.

“They’re putting the responsibility squarely on the shoulders
of the chemical makers. As opposed to having the
environmental authorities look for a needle in the haystack,
they’re saying, ‘this should be the responsibility of the
companies who make these materials.’”

Under the EU law, manufacturers will have to study and
report the risks posed by each chemical: whether they
cause cancer, birth defects, or environmental problems.

The Bush administration and chemical manufacturers tried to
block the European law. But they couldn’t.

Ditz says leaders in the
chemical makers’ trade group are now running around like
their hair is on fire. They’re worried – the costs to comply
could be in the tens of millions of dollars for some
companies that export chemicals to Europe.

But many individual companies have already started to
comply with the law.

Walter van het Hoff is spokesperson for Dow Chemical in
Europe. He says cataloging Dow’s 7000 chemicals is a
huge effort, but they don’t have a choice.

“You need to comply; otherwise you cannot sell them
anymore in the European Union.”

There are a half billion consumers in the EU and Dow wants to keep them. Dow and other
manufacturers might have to reformulate – or even abandon
some chemicals if the EU decides they’re unsafe.

While the U.S. is not considering a comprehensive chemical
review like Europe’s new laws, about 30 states are
considering new regulations on chemicals in toys. The Toy
Industry Association doesn’t want a patchwork of laws, so
it’s called for national toy safety standards.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

New Method to Stop Spread of Invasives

  • Garlic mustard is an exotic species in some places, so it doesn't have any natural predators. That means it can push out native plant species and disrupt ecosystems. Researchers are trying to find ways to prevent this by targeting smaller populations. (Photo by Corbin Sullivan)

Invasive species cost the United States economy some 120 billion
dollars per year. Adam Allington reports some researchers plan study
new methods of controlling and eliminating some invasive plants:

Transcript

Invasive species cost the United States economy some 120 billion
dollars per year. Adam Allington reports some researchers plan study
new methods of controlling and eliminating some invasive plants:


Researchers at Washington University in St. Louis are developing a
model that targets small populations of invasive plants before honing
in on big clusters.


Dr. Tiffany Knight says the idea is that small populations often spread
quicker then larger ones:


“If you can focus your efforts on satellite individuals that are just
at the front of where the population is spreading, it might be a more
efficient method which saves time and money of managers.”


The invasive plant they’re working with is garlic mustard. It’s a
European species that spreads by out-competing native plants on the
forest floor.


The U.S. Department of Agriculture is funding the research, banking on
the idea that a method which effectively controls garlic mustard, might
also be applied to other invasives such as kudzu, which is
devastating Southern forests, or spartina, which is causing troubles in
coastal areas.


For the Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington

Related Links

Plunging Into Low-Flow Toilets

Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:

Transcript

Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:


Rob Zimmerman admits there are plenty of jokes about toilets, but the
water engineer for the Kohler Corporation takes the bathroom commode
very seriously.


“I’ve heard people say that the toilet is kind of the foundation of
modern civilization… that modern sanitation allowed for the growth of
cities and allowed for the decline of infectious diseases.”


And now Zimmerman has a handle on a new role for toilets: saving water.
Studies have shown that toilets can account for up to 30% of
a household’s water use. Water prices are going up and in some fast-
growing communities water supplies are growing more scarce.


So, the EPA created a voluntary program it calls Water Sense. It aims
to get toilets to use 20% less water than the newer toilets you’ve
probably seen that were mandated back in the 1990’s. This new
generation of toilets goes from 1.6 gallons per flush to about 1.3
gallons, and still meets performance guidelines for producing a clean
bowl.


(Sound of flushing)


Kohler and other toilet makers are trying various ways to get to 1.3
gallons. After looking at a 1.6 gallon model, Rob Zimmerman lifts the
tank lid on a 1.3:


“What you see that’s different here… is remember the other one had
that red flapper? This canister here, that lifts straight up when you flush
it, so all the water can move from all different directions and go down
down the valve. It’s a bigger rush and so the actual time that this
flushes is a little bit shorter than the other one.”


Zimmerman says other higher efficiency models use what’s called a dual-
flush system that sends away one amount of water for liquid waste and
another for solids, with an average of 1.3 gallons.


Another type is the so-called pressure assist, a louder system that
compresses air to force the smaller volume of water out quickly.
Under its new Water Sense Certification program, the EPA has put out
final specifications for the 1.3 models.


Kohler is getting ready to submit six toilet models for certification,
which the EPA compares to its Energy Star program for things like
computers. EPA Water Administrator Benjamin Grumbles says the public
can be confident about a third party certification system the EPA has
created:


“The agency working with the scientific community and with independent
testing organizations want to make sure that consumers, when they see that
Water Sense label, they will be able to have confidence that the
product will perform well, and it will lead to increased savings. Not
just in terms of water, but also reduce the water bill and reduce the
energy bill as well.”


But it may take a while to build that confidence. At a home remodeling
show, bathroom fixtures store owner Rich Libbey said he’s seen low-flow
toilets elsewhere that have not worked properly.


“Some of the Carribean Islands that are desert islands flush on a
European quart of water, but they don’t clean the bowl. So, later on in
the evenings, for example at a bar or resort, the toilet gets kind of
gamey.”


But Libbey says he’s willing to give companies like Kohler the benefit
of the doubt of reliably getting to 1.3 gallons per flush. Like most
high-efficiency energy-saving systems, the up-front costs are a little
higher.


The Kohler Corporation says its new high-efficiency toilets might cost
an extra fifty dollars to buy, but estimates the financial payback of
using less water could come in just a couple years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Battle Over the Right to Grow Rice

  • Roger LaBine winnows the wild rice. (Photo by Michael Loukinen, Up North Films)

Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:

Transcript

Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with
Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute
between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:


(Sound of Ojibwe music)


The Ojibwe tribe first came to the north woods of Michigan and Wisconsin hundreds of
years ago. They say their migration from the east coast was guided by prophets. Those
prophets told them to keep moving until they came to a place where food grows on the
water. Roger Labine is a spiritual leader with the tribe. He says that food was wild rice:


“This was a gift to us. This is something that is very, very sacred to us. This is very
important, just as our language. This is part of who we are.”


For hundreds of years, wild rice was a staple of the tribe’s diet, but starting in the 1930s,
private construction of hydroelectric dams pushed water levels in rice growing areas up.
High water killed most of the plants and took a toll on wildlife. Bob Evans is a biologist
with the U.S. Forest Service. He says fish, bird and insect populations dropped
dramatically:


“Black tern is a declining, threatened species that is known to use wild rice beds,
Trumpeter swans. They’re a big user of rice beds. Um, just a whole lot of plants and
animals. It’s really a whole ecosystem in itself.”


So in 1995, the tribe, the U.S. Forest Service and several other government agencies
demanded a change. A year later, the federal government ordered dam operators to drop
their maximum water levels by 9 inches. The dam owners appealed that decision, but in
2001 a federal court ruled against them.


That fall, the Ojibwe who live on Lac Vieux
Desert harvested nearly 16 acres of wild rice and this summer, the tribe is tending more than 55 acres.
But the resurgence of rice beds comes at a price. Lower lake levels have left docks in this
boating community high and dry, created muddy shorelines and made long-time residents
and summer boaters angry:


“I used to come here and dock all the time. We picnicked here. I had to walk in 50 feet,
because there wasn’t enough water to float a pontoon, and it’s that way all around the
lake.”


Ken Lacount is president of the Lac Vieux Desert homeowners association. He first
came here in the 1940s and doesn’t see why his cultural traditions should take a backseat
to those of the Ojibwe:


“My grandfather built one of the first resorts. I fished in Rice Bay my entire life. That
was his favorite place to take me.”


Lacount is bitter. He and his neighbors feel powerless to change the situation, since a
federal court has ruled for the Ojibwa. Defenders of that decision say water levels are
especially low because of a prolonged drought in region. When that ends, they predict
lake levels will rise, and homeowners on Lac Vieux Desert will be happier.


(Sound of paddling)


Such conflicts are nothing new. Ron Seeley is a reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal. He’s covered Native American issues for more than 20 years. Paddling through the rice beds, he recalls an earlier battle
over fishing rights. In the late 80s, a court ruled the Ojibwe were entitled by treaty to
spear fish each spring. Local fishermen worried the practice would destroy their industry:


“Sometimes thousands of people would show up at the landings on a spring night. Tribal
members from all over the upper Midwest would come to support the spearers and drum
and chant. The anti-Indian forces were arrested for using wrist rockets or real powerful
sling shots to shoot pellets at the tribal members while they were out spearing. It was a
violent time up here.”


As court after court upheld the rights of native spear fishermen, and as commercial
fishermen continue to prosper, hostilities subsided and now, as the Native Americans prepare for
their biggest rice harvest in more than 50 years, the Ojibwe hope that the controversy over water levels
will also die down. Tribal leader Roger Labine says wild rice is a symbol of the Ojibwe’s survival:


“This is an endangered species. It’s something that we’re fighting to save, just like the
eagle, just like the wolf. We were put here to care for Mother Earth and all the gifts that
the creator gave us.”


And having won the first battle to restore rice beds, Labine is hoping to secure even
greater protection for these wetlands by asking the federal government to declare the rice
beds historic.


For the GLRC, I’m Sandy Hausman.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Saving Wetland Remnants

  • Winous Point Marsh Conservancy and Duck Hunting Club's Roy Kroll collects millet. (Photo by Julie Grant)

Among the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the loss of thousands of square miles of wetlands along the lakes. From Superior to Ontario and on up the St. Lawrence Seaway, we’ve lost some of the most important wildlife habitat along the edges of the lakes. For example, 200 years ago, much of the southern shore of Lake Erie was a huge swamp. Most of those wetlands have been drained and filled since European settlement. Julie Grant reports on efforts to maintain the little bit that remains:

Transcript

In our next report in the series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes, we’re going to hear about changes to a large area that drains into the lakes. Our guide through the series is the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham:


Among the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the loss of thousands of square miles of wetlands along the lakes. From Superior to Ontario and on up the St. Lawrence Seaway, we’ve lost some of the most important wildlife habitat along the edges of the lakes. For example, 200 years ago, much of the southern shore of Lake Erie was a huge swamp. Most of those wetlands have been drained and filled since European settlement. Julie Grant reports on efforts to maintain the little bit that remains:


Researchers from the Cleveland area park district have been driving hours to get here to this bit of swamp nearly every day since last spring. Biologist Rick Spence and his partner wade through two feet of boot-sucking mud. They’re looking for turtles. Blanding’s turtles, to be exact. With a distinctive bright yellow chin and throat, it’s designated as a ‘species of special concern’ in Ohio…


“The Blanding’s originally were found in this area in the southern portion of Lake Erie, along this basin area. And so there’s a lot of the Blanding’s in here. It doesn’t get any better than this. We have nothing like this really around the Cleveland area that I know of.”


This area is the 150 year-old Winous Point Marsh Conservancy and Duck Hunting Club. It’s the largest privately owned coastal wetland in Ohio. It’s a thin strip of marsh that runs eight and a half miles along the shore.


Roy Kroll has been Executive Director of the Duck Hunting Club for more than twenty years. He keeps busy balancing the needs of researchers, biology classes, and reporters.


Kroll takes me onto the marsh in a wooden boat. He uses an old-fashioned pole to push us through water that’s only a couple of inches deep. It’s slow and quiet. He stops and uses the pole to slap the water for a call and response with migratory birds. (slap) He can hear who’s hiding in the cattails, arrowhead, and other emergent wetland plants…


(Kroll slaps water twice, birds respond)


“Well, looks like the teal have left and the rail are here.”


Kroll says the 4,500 acre marsh harbors over 100,000 waterfowl, mostly ducks, during November’s peak migration. There aren’t many places like this left on the Lake Erie coastline. More than 90 percent of the region’s wetlands have been drained. Most of that was done in the mid-1800s.


The area was once known as the Great Black Swamp. It stretched from Lake Erie all the way to Indiana. Much of it was under a dense canopy of hardwood trees. Kroll says it was a great system to filter river waters entering the lake. But European settlers and land speculators cut down most of the trees, dug ditches and straightened stream channels to move water quickly off the land. They built roads and transformed the swamp into rich, productive farm fields.


“You have to put yourself in the time period. Rightfully so, that was considered progress. And now we have to look back and say, well, yeah, it was progress and now it looks like it’s not progress. And if we’re not going to eliminate all these wetlands, we’re going to have to take some proactive measures to do it.”


Even at Winous Point, some of the wetlands are in poor condition. Standing on a man-made dike we look one way and see all kinds of plants: cattails, duckweed, and lily pads. But look to the side that’s not protected by the dike, and there’s no vegetation. Hand-drawn maps from the 1800s show a diversity of plants here, but now it looks like an open bay…


“What we’re looking at now is an open water wetland. And again, with no plants, we don’t have the structure for fish, invertebrates, and even plankton and algae to colonize on plant stems. It’s nowhere near as productive.”


Kroll says it’s not nearly as productive as the protected area. He says high lake levels, invasive carp, and pollution running off the land and into the rivers that drain into the lake have all made it tough for marsh vegetation to survive. Without plants, Kroll says the wetland can’t clean water running off the land…into the lake. He says it’s unrealistic to expect a short band of remnant wetlands to do the job of a hundreds of square miles of swamp forest.


“The key is to start at the upstream far upstream head of the watershed and begin restoring wetlands from there down to here.”


There are some efforts to re-store small parts of the Great Black Swamp. But Kroll says it’s also important to protect the little bit of the original coastal wetlands that are still left.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links