Energy Star Falling Short?

  • The Energy Star Program is "a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices" (Photo courtesy of Energy Star)

The federal government’s Energy
Star program is supposed to highlight
products that save you energy and money.
Rebecca Williams reports some independent
testers found Energy Star might be falling
a bit short:

Transcript

The federal government’s Energy
Star program is supposed to highlight
products that save you energy and money.
Rebecca Williams reports some independent
testers found Energy Star might be falling
a bit short:

The magazine Consumer Reports tests all kinds of products to see how they
stack up. They were testing refrigerators when they stumbled on something
odd.

Steven Saltzman is a Deputy Editor with Consumer Reports. He says the
Energy Star program relies on government standards that are outdated in some
cases. For example, one standard is to test a refrigerator’s energy use with the
icemaker off.

“But we found that when you turn the icemaker on – the refrigerator actually
used twice as much energy as it would with the icemaker off.”

Saltzman is not saying you can’t trust the Energy Star label. But he says the
tests need updating. And there’s a dark Energy Star secret, manufacturers get
to do their own testing in most cases – so there’s not a whole lot of third party
checking going on.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

‘Futuregen’ Project Scrapped by Feds

  • FutureGen would burn coal and capture carbon dioxide produced in coal plants like this one. (Photo by Erin Toner)

The United States Department of Energy is pulling the plug on a state-of-the-art
power plant intended to demonstrate how coal could be burned cleanly. Amanda
Vinicky reports:

Transcript

The United States Department of Energy is pulling the plug on a state-of-the-art
power plant intended to demonstrate how coal could be burned cleanly. Amanda
Vinicky reports:


The FutureGen plant would burn coal without pollution by sequestering carbon
emissions underground.


President Bush called for FutureGen five years ago and repeated support for this kind of project in his
recent State of the Union speech:


“Let us fund new technologies that can generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions (applause
fade).”


But the Department of Energy says because of ballooning costs, it’s backing out.
Illinois Republican State Senator Dale Righter says it could kill the project planned
for his state:


“It was the right thing to do, in order to find new ways to produce energy using 21st
century technology. That idea is more expensive, as everyone knew it would be. But it’s still
the right thing to do.”


Congress could still salvage the FutureGen project.


For the Environment Report, I’m Amanda Vinicky.

Related Links

Rural Voters Want Clean Water

  • Polls show that farmers do support the Clean Water Act and other government regulations to prevent water pollution. (Photo by Mark Brush)

A new survey finds a majority of rural voters believe the federal
government has not done enough to protect water quality. Rebecca
Williams reports:

Transcript

A new survey finds a majority of rural voters believe the federal
government has not done enough to protect water quality. Rebecca
Williams reports:


The survey found 55% of voters – more than half – said the government
has not done enough to stop water pollution. About a quarter of the
people polled thought regulations had gone too far.


Joan Mulhern is an attorney with Earthjustice. The environmental group
commissioned the survey:


“And the purpose of that was to test this notion of whether or not it
was true that farmers and other voters in rural, agriculturally-
dependent communities do not support the Clean Water Act… and it
turned out that the exact opposite is true.”


The Republican polling firm Bellwether Research & Consulting surveyed
900 rural voters in Ohio, Illinois and Tennessee.


Joan Mulhern with Earthjustice says the poll found farmers were just as
likely as non-farmers to say that stronger laws were needed.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Local Blowback From Wind Farms

  • Two cranes lift wind turbine blades off the ground at the Noble Environmental Power wind farm in Ellenburg, NY. (Photo by David Sommerstein)

America’s hunger for new, greener sources of electricity, and a generous
federal tax credit, are fueling a wind power boom. According to the
industry, almost 6,000 megawatts of new wind energy are under construction
nationwide. That’s 40% of all existing wind power in the U.S. The federal
government doesn’t regulate many aspects of wind power. Neither do many
states. That puts a lot of pressure on local town councils to decide if a wind
farm will be a good neighbor. David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

America’s hunger for new, greener sources of electricity, and a generous
federal tax credit, are fueling a wind power boom. According to the
industry, almost 6,000 megawatts of new wind energy are under construction
nationwide. That’s 40% of all existing wind power in the U.S. The federal
government doesn’t regulate many aspects of wind power. Neither do many
states. That puts a lot of pressure on local town councils to decide if a wind
farm will be a good neighbor. David Sommerstein reports:


It’s 7:30 in the morning on a crystal clear day in northern New York State.
A dozen ironworkers huddle between two monstrous red cranes and one
gleaming white tower, rising 22 stories tall:


“Everybody know their tasks? Anybody got any questions? Got a beautiful
day to fly this thing. No wind.”


Today the crew’s going to lift the thing you see spinning on a wind turbine –
three blades twice the length of semi trucks – to the top of the tower and
attach it. Dave Talley’s the supervisor. He’s from Petersburg, Tennessee:


“I live 20 miles from the Jack Daniels distillery.”


Talley’s helped build some of the wonders of the modern world: the
monorail at Disney World, the world’s largest furnace, the largest stamping
press.


“Yeah, we got a saying in our business. My work is my play, my play is my
work. I work harder than I play, and I play hard. If it ain’t hard, I ain’t
playin’. If it ain’t fun, I ain’t sayin’. And that’s all I’m sayin’.”


The cranes ease the blades into the air. Talley’s crew will do this 122 times
to erect Noble Environmental Power’s wind farm here. Noble’s owned by JP
Morgan Partners. The company spent millions of dollars and years of
permitting and negotiating to get to this point.


The wind farm touched off a fiery debate in town. Local board meetings
erupted in yelling. Neighbors and families became estranged:


“I think there’s a lot of people who have family members who totally fight
over it. I mean my sister and I don’t. We just don’t discuss it.”


Julie Ribot can see the turbines from her porch. Her sister works for the
wind power company. Ribot, however, is dead set against them:


“I don’t want to live here. There’s supposed to be 27 going up across the
street alone. Somebody said, ‘oh, it’s just like a ceiling fan.’ Well, would
you want 27 ceiling fans going off in your living room? No.”


Just next door to Ribot, Richard Widalski thinks they’re great:


“We do have to find an alternative source of energy. The price of oil and
everything, it’s getting ridiculous. I was told it’ll put up 1.5 megawatts of
power, which will, y’know, supply power for quite a few homes.”


Wind developers pay landowners thousands of dollars a year for hosting
turbines on their land. But neighbors have to live with the windmills, too,
and they don’t get paid. Planner John Tenbush says money pits haves
against have-nots in a small town:


“One guy’s gonna get a lot of money and the guy right next door, who’s
going to suffer from the noise or the blinking effect or some other adverse
impact, gets nothing.”


Across the country, industrial-scale wind project are forcing small, mostly
rural town councils to make big decisions. The federal government and
most states offer little guidance on a blizzard of complicated issues: how far
should the turbines be from a house or a road? How loud can they be? Do
they boost or blemish property values? Do they kill too many birds?


David Duff is on the planning board in nearby St. Lawrence County. He
says it’s easy for town councils to get in over their heads:


“Maybe they buy snowplows and they put out contracts for salt. They are
not in the same league in terms of negotiating as a multinational company
who has done this before.”


Until regulation catches up, the burden falls on local town councils when
wind power moves in.


For the Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

A Future for ‘Futuregen’?

  • FutureGen would burn coal and capture carbon dioxide produced in coal plants like this one. (Photo by Erin Toner)

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:

Transcript

The federal project known as FutureGen now has a home. The zero-emissions coal-to-
hydrogen plant is to be built in Illinois. It’s been in the planning stages for several years.
But, there are skeptics who doubt FutureGen will ever be built. Sean Crawford reports:


Many power plants already burn coal, but there is growing concern the
emissions they release into the atmosphere contribute to global warming.
The solution would be a way to use this plentiful, domestic resource – coal –
without emissions.


That’s where FutureGen comes in. The plant, a research facility, would
burn coal and capture nearly all the carbon dioxide produced in the
process. Instead of floating into the atmosphere, the greenhouse gas
would be stored underground. Other emissions such as sulfur dioxide and
nitrous oxides would be removed.


If that plant is successful, it means coal could be a more popular fuel.
Since there’s billions of tons of it in the U.S., it would mean much less
dependence on foreign fuel such as natural gas. Coal could even be a
substitute fuel for automobiles if it’s converted to hydrogen or a coal diesel
fuel.


That potential for FutureGen to start a coal resurrection almost sounds too
good to be true, and Ken Maize believes that’s the case.


Maize is editor for Power Magazine, which is a publication that for
more than a century has focused on electricity generation. He says for all
the hype over FutureGen, power companies remain uninterested. He says
it would be expensive for them to install technology FutureGen promotes.


Power providers in the private sector, who had been expected to put
money toward the building of FutureGen, have mostly stayed on the
sidelines. That means the cost to the federal government has ballooned to
nearly twice what it was when FutureGen was introduced. Maize has taken
to calling the project Never Gen because he doubts it will be built:


“You know it’s been political from the beginning of course. Bush wanted to show he
was doing something for energy. It has all of the elements of projects, scores of projects that I have seen in the past, that
looked like they were going to go somewhere and the wheels begin to
wobble and pretty soon they come off.”


But the coal mining industry hopes that doesn’t happen with FutureGen.
Phil Gonet lobbies for Illinois’ coal companies. He thinks FutureGen has a
future:


“I’m cautiously optimistic that the funding will proceed. What started as a 1
billion dollar project, the last figure I saw was about 1.4. So you kinda get concerned. And when government is
funding even a portion of that, I think there is some concern but I’m optimistic, the
funding has been included in President Bush’s budget and hopefully
whoever the next president is will see the wisdom of this.”


FutureGen has come under scrutiny for the rising cost, but it still has a lot
of support in environmental circles. Harry Henderson is with the Natural
Resource Defense Council. He likes the potential FutureGen brings, but
says no one should expect a lot of new clean burning coal plants to come
online in the near future, unless the federal government requires tighter
emission controls for existing facilities. As for only building new plants
with the carbon capture technology, he says it won’t make financial sense:


“Presently, an investment in highly, highly expensive infrastructure when they would be
competing against people who would be competing against people who
had absolutely almost no burden to do this, like the current plants that capture absolutely no carbon, when you’re competing against them, it is an unfair competition.”


But FutureGen is a model. It could show what could be done with coal.
That’s important to Illinois, since coal is becoming an increasingly
unpopular fuel because of the growing concern about global warming.


Jack Lavin is the Economic Development Director for the State of Illinois.
He’s put countless hours, energy, and dollars into landing FutureGen in
his state. But while Lavin celebrates Mattoon, Illinois’ selection as home to
the nearly zero-emissions coal-burning power plant, he knows his work is
far from finished:


“There’s lots of competing interests for budget priorities. And we believe that clean coal is a very high budget priority. And that’s going to
take work with the Congress, the Department of Energy and whoever’s in
the White House, to make sure those projects are fully funded… including
FutureGen.”


It’s unclear if there’s a long term commitment to FutureGen at the federal
level. Construction could begin in another year, but the Department of Energy is already talking about restructuring the project with a hefty price tag, there’s speculation President Bush’s initiative could be shelved once he
leaves office. For those in the coal industry, and the State of Illinois, making sure the federal
government follows through with its promise could be the toughest sell job
of all.


For the Environment Report, I’m Sean Crawford.

Related Links

Clearing the Air for Wind Turbines

  • Wind turbines can capture the power of wind along ridgelines, but environmentalists worry government restrictions are not strong enough to protect birds that fly along the ridgelines. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

The process for protecting wildlife from new wind turbines varies by state and sometimes within states. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports wind developers and the
federal government say that is hindering the nation’s ability to take advantage of this renewable energy:

Transcript

The process for protecting wildlife from new wind turbines varies by state and sometimes within states. Lisa Ann Pinkerton reports wind developers and the
federal government say that is hindering the nation’s ability to take advantage of this renewable energy:


The federal government is looking into wind turbine guidelines on two states,
California and Pennsylvania, and they couldn’t be more different. California’s
guidelines restrict wind farms from certain areas and hold them responsible
for the deaths of any wildlife, such as birds that run into the spinning blades.


In Pennsylvania, the guidelines are voluntary and if they’re followed, they exempt the wind
turbine developers from fines for wildlife deaths. Along the western edge of
the Appalachians there’s a ridgeline that stretches from the top of
Pennsylvania all the way to Maryland. There are breathtaking views of rolling
hills and farmland.


And we’re at one lookout point, called Shaffer Mountain. Veterinarian Tom Dick is
here counting migrating birds for the Audubon Society. Watching a pair of
broad wing hawks soar by, he says the wind here creates invisible highways:


“The wind is coming out just right, they found the lane, they’re making no
movement at all. They have a long migration to central and South America, and they
want to make it as effortless as possible, so they’re using the energy of the wind.”


That wind energy is attractive to wind turbine developers, too. Less than a
mile away, the Spanish wind turbine manufacturer, Gamesa plans to build a
30-turbine wind farm.


Tom Dick is against the project. He says the US Fish and Wildlife Service
discourages wind farms on migratory corridors like Shaffer Mountain:


“They just don’t want to see them on there, but there’s no teeth in the laws today.”


The laws Dick refers to is called a “Voluntary Agreement.” And nearly every Wind
Developer in the US has signed on. They agree to work closely with the state
conservation agencies to reduce impacts to wildlife. And in exchange,
Pennsylvania shields developers from liability if animals happen to die as a
result of the proposed wind farm.


Developers like this working relationship with Pennsylvania’s Game
Commission. They know what’s expected of them and they can adjust their
plans as wildlife problems arise. Tim Volk is Gamesa’s Shaffer Mountain
Project Coordinator and he says spring bird migration data the state required, has
already reshaped the project:


“So that lead us to set some of our windmills back about 400 feet to avoid any
potential impact to them.”


Critics say protecting developers from liability rather than protecting wildlife
from death is the opposite of what Pennsylvania should be doing. But
advocates for renewable energy say without such assurances, wind
development in the US will never live up to its potential.


Mark Sinclair heads the Clean Energy States Alliance:


“Every wind project is going to kill a couple of birds. It will happen. The problem right
now is that these wildlife laws are so strict, they really create a financial and
development challenge for wind projects.”


Sinclair says Pennsylvania’s system is the best in the nation, while guidelines
recently released in California might hinder development there:


“There’s less of incentive in California for a developer to follow these guidelines, because, what do I
get out of it? No permit and no guarantee the state won’t go after me for killing
several birds unintentionally.”


California’s guidelines are intended to assist local governments in deciding
where turbines should and should not go, but to use them is optional, and
wind turbine developers still responsible if they end up killing a lot of birds.


Everyone acknowledges that federal guidelines are needed and while some states
want more protection for their wildlife, other states like Texas don’t consider it
an issue. So for the next two years, a federal committee plans to weigh all
the options. It’s made up of representatives from various states, the wind
industry, the Audubon Society, and research scientists. Whatever
guidelines the committee develops, US Fish and Wildlife officials predict the
protection from liability that Pennsylvania has established will play a
prominent role.


For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

Mega Fish Farms Coming to U.S. Waters?

  • A catfish farmer loading 2,000 pounds of catfish into a truck to be transported for processing. Right now, fish farming in the U.S. can only be done in inland or near shore waters. The U.S. government is deciding whether to allow fish farms in federal waters, in the zone between three and 200 miles offshore. (Photo courtesy of USDA)

The federal government is deciding whether to allow fish to be raised
in cages in the ocean. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

The federal government is deciding whether to allow fish to be raised
in cages in the ocean. Rebecca Williams reports:


The U.S. imports more than 80% of all the fish we eat. About half of
those imported fish are grown on farms in huge underwater cages.


The U.S. government is deciding whether to allow these commercial fish
farms in federal waters. The first place it might happen is in the
Gulf of Mexico.


Tom McIlwain chairs the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council:


“There’s biosecurity reasons for being able to produce those foodstuffs
in the US. I think we can do this in an environmentally sound manner.”


McIlwain says a number of permits would be required before anyone could
start operating an ocean fish farm. But some environmental groups are
worried about pollution from the farms.


And some fishermen who catch fish in the open ocean are worried these
fish farms could drive down the price of their catch.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Wildlife Refuge Takes Down Levees

  • 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.

Related Links

Cities Brace for Global Warming – Part 2

  • Cities can expand mass transit, getting more cars off the road and giving people more options to help reduce emissions that contribute to global warming. (Photo by Karen Kelly)

Census figures show that more and more North Americans are now living in cities. For those who want to fight climate change, that means changing the way these urban folks live. In the second of a two-part series on climate change, Karen Kelly has the story of one city councilor who’s made that his mission:

Transcript

Census figures show that more and more North Americans are now living in cities. For those who want to fight climate change, that means changing the way these urban folks live. In the second of a two-part series on climate change, Karen Kelly has the story of one city councilor who’s made that his mission:


“We’re at Bronson and Fifth. It’s a four lane roadway into Ottawa.”


Clive Doucet is a city councilor in Ottawa, Canada’s capital. He’s standing about half a block from where he lives:


“This kind of street is a community killer, it’s a planet killer. It’s the fruit of 5,560 years of building cities for cars and not human beings.”


Doucet loves cities, which is why it pains him to see a once-beautiful neighborhood street become, as he calls it, a traffic sewer. It’s loud, it’s polluted, and it’s not safe. Three pedestrians have been killed near this corner in the past five years, and there’ve been many accidents.


Doucet was an activist for a long time, but after running for city council he realized the city has the power to change the climate. It builds the roads and it controls the public transportation:


“Public transit has, every environmentalist knows is one of the main keys to solving the environmental crisis. I mean, 45 to 50 percent of greenhouse gases come out of our use of land and the tailpipes of cars and trucks. We can get rid of most of that and we can not change our lifestyle one bit; in fact, we can make it better.”


Doucet hops on his bike to show what he means. He winds through the traffic and then stops along Ottawa’s five-mile-long light rail track:


“This runs parallel to the road we were just on. It’s a test line. It carries a hundred and 50 passengers every 15 minutes and when we get the two lines up and running, it will carry three times the traffic or more as Bronson and it’s quiet. We’re standing at the station now. You’re like in a church. See the train’s coming. Do you hear any noise? It’s beautiful, isn’t it?”


Doucet’s vision for his city is a comprehensive light rail system. He says it will reduce air and noise pollution, and make the city friendlier for pedestrians and cyclists, but Doucet is thinking about the bigger picture, too. And there, he’s not optimistic. He’s noticed that the winters in Ottawa are warmer now, and that’s disturbing for people because they really embrace winter.


Almost every park has an outdoor hockey rink, and people ice skate, not just for pleasure, but to get around. Doucet says he’s afraid that climate change will destroy what makes his city special:


“It’s incredibly sad. I mean, I’ve skated to work all my life and I live about a block from the canal I take my skates down and I’d skate to work and skate home. And I’ve seen countless marvelous sunrises on the canal. It is difficult to imagine my life without that. Those experiences have given my life poetry.”


Doucet says he’s pretty much given up hope on the federal government. He says they’re too beholden to big industry to really curb the emissions that cause climate change.
But at the local level? He says a lot can be done.


He recently wrote a book, Urban Meltdown: Cities, Climate Change and Politics as Usual. In it, he says it’s time for city residents to get tough:


“Go after your municipal politicians and say, you know something, we want to have a city that’s pedestrian-based, that’s public transit-based and we want you to stop building roads. You can do stuff about your local government and the way you live locally.”


Doucet wouldn’t say it’s easy. Last year, Ottawa signed a contract to expand its light rail system. Then, a new mayor came in and the plan was scrapped. Doucet thinks it will happen eventually, but in the meantime, he’s still fighting the rush hour traffic on his bicycle.


For the Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

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