Tag: great lakes basin

Who Gets Great Lakes Water?

  • Lake Superior's North Shore. (Photo by Dave Hansen - Minnesota Extension Service)

For the first time, state legislatures in the Great Lakes region have a set of laws in front of
them that could comprehensively define how and where they can use Great Lakes water.
Melissa Ingells has a look at the document called the Great Lakes Compact:

Transcript

For the first time, state legislatures in the Great Lakes region have a set of laws in front of
them that could comprehensively define how and where they can use Great Lakes water.
Melissa Ingells has a look at the document called the Great Lakes Compact:


For a long time, nobody thought much about regulating the water of the Great Lakes.
They just seemed inexhaustible. There was no firm legal definition of who the water
belonged to, or who could give it away.


At some point, scientists figured out the boundaries of what’s known as the Great Lakes
Basin. It’s like a huge land bowl where all the waterways flow back into the Lakes. It
includes areas of eight states and parts of Canada. Scientists figured out that you had to
leave at least 99% of the water in the lakes in order to maintain all the important
ecosystems that depend on the water.


The natural boundary of the Great Lakes basin started to become a political boundary
when demand for water started rising. The only regulation for a long time was a 1984
federal law that said all the Great Lakes governors had to agree before any water could
be taken out of the lakes.


Then, in 1998, an organization called the Nova Group got a permit from Ontario to ship
water to Asia. People didn’t like that idea at all, and the politicians reacted:


“It seems like every major policy change has a triggering event.”


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. chairman of the International Joint Commission, which
oversees Great Lakes issues:


“The Nova permit granted initially by Ontario to this shipping company to take Great
Lakes water apparently by tanker to the far east… was the triggering event to start the
compact in motion. There have been a number of cases over the years… they all lead
down the same path, and that is that we had to have a structure to manage these waters
cooperatively.”


The Compact Schornack was talking about is the Great Lakes Compact. It’s a
comprehensive set of strict water usage laws. The states realized the need for something
like it after the Nova Group incident, and work on it was completed in 2006. It’s a strong
agreement because each state, and two Canadian provinces through a separate agreement,
must get it through their legislatures and get their governors to sign it. After all the states
have passed it, it has to be approved by the U.S. Congress.


Schornack was one of the people who helped write it. He thinks it’s a pretty good
solution for the lakes:


“This is really a big deal. Whether it’s a perfect solution, who knows, only time will tell,
but it certainly is a very strong and positive step in the right direction. When eight
governors get together and two premiers and decide we’re going to manage a fifth of the
world’s fresh surface water, and we’re going to do it with conservation, we’re going to do
it with very severe restrictions on diversions, this is all very good for the basin, this is
good news.”


The Compact does have its detractors. There are people from the business and
environmental worlds who have problems with some of it, but the general feeling is that
something has to be settled on, and the Compact is a good start. Most states seem
to have bipartisan support in their legislatures, although so far only Minnesota has
actually passed it. Peter Annin is the author of “The Great Lakes Water Wars.” He
thinks that by legislative standards, things are moving pretty quickly:


“The pace of ratification to the average citizen might seem like it’s
painfully slow and laborious. But in fact, with compacts in general, some of them have
taken ten, twenty years to make it through all the various legislatures. And so here we
are about 18 months after the documents were released… if you look at the eight states,
the vast majority of them have some sort of activity going.”


Annin also thinks that given the pressing issues over natural resources everywhere, that
agreements like the Compact will change the way other regions think about their
resources:


“Why it’s a model I think is because it’s encouraging to people to think not just in
political boundaries, but in watershed boundaries, in that the Compact encourages people
to work communally to a greater social and sustainability good on behalf of the regional
water supply and water resources and I think that’s going to be a model for the future no
matter where you are.:


Annin thinks there will be a flurry of activity in the legislatures in the next year or so.
That’s because after the 2010 congressional redistricting, the water-hungry Southwest
will likely have more power in the U.S. House. So it’s in the interest of Great Lakes
States to get the Compact through Congress before those political changes happen.


For the Environment Report, I’m Melissa Ingells.

Related Links

Report Aims for Factory Cleanup Policy

A new report on pollution in the Great Lakes basin aims to spur U-S and Canadian governments to get tougher on dirty factories. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

A new report on pollution in the Great Lakes basin aims to spur U.S. and
Canadian governments to get tougher on dirty factories. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:


This year, the United States and Canada will formally review the
decades-old treaty called the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
Environmental groups are hoping the review will lead to tougher
pollution regulations in both countries, and they say a new report proves
there’s still a huge problem with dirty air, water and land.


The report finds that even after 30 years of environmental cleanup
efforts, factories in the region are still releasing 1.3 billion pounds of
toxins a year.


Paul Muldoon is with the Canadian Environmental Law Association.


“Although there’s been much improvement, this is a challenge to both
governments to really set targets and challenge industry to do better.”


The report finds that Canadian factories emit 73 percent more air
pollution per facility than their U.S. counterparts.


For the GLRC, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Annex 2001 Moves Forward

State legislatures around the Great Lakes will be the next stop for a water diversion plan recently endorsed by the region’s governors and provincial leaders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

State Legislatures around the Great Lakes will be the next stop for a
water diversion plan recently endorsed by the region’s Governors and
provincial leaders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


The Annex 2001 implementing agreements aim to block any long-
distance diversion of Great Lakes water. The plan may allow some
water to go to communities that straddle the Great Lakes basin. All eight
state legislatures in the region must okay the agreements.


Wisconsin Governor, Jim Doyle, is chair of the Council of Great Lakes
Governors. He says he hopes lawmakers give the plan bi-partisan
support. He says it tries to fairly handle water requests.


“We now have standards, we have a framework, we have a way to
discuss these issues.”


Some lawmakers on the edge of the Great Lakes basin are seeking more
lake water for their communities. So, the debate over the diversion
plan could take several months. If the states sign on, the proposal would
then go to congress for final approval.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Interview: Children’s Book Author on Great Lakes Woes

  • The new book outlines a cause of Great Lakes water levels dropping while entertaining kids with silly, though not entirely improbable outcomes. (Photo courtesy of Mackinac Island Press)

The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.

That’s how the new children’s book, “The Day The Great Lakes Drained Away” begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:

Transcript

The Great Lakes were flowing with water
On every Great Lakes Day;
Until something frightful happened
And made the Great Lakes drain away.

That’s how the new children’s book, The Day The Great Lakes Drained
Away begins. The author is Charles Ferguson Barker and he recently
spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Charity Nebbe:


Nebbe: “Charles, in your book, all of the water disappears from the Lakes and you take us on a tour of all the lakebeds, so we see landforms and shipwrecks and a whole lot of mud… What gave you the idea to show kids what the Lakes would look like without water?”


Barker: “Well, actually, it was from looking at some maps that are put out by the National Geophysical Data Center that show, basically, what’s on the lake floors, and I, for one, had not given it much thought ’till seeing these maps. But these maps have some really cool features like ridges of rock and all kinds of neat stuff and I thought this would be a great idea for a children’s book.”


Nebbe: “What do you think some of the coolest features that you’ve been able to put into the book are?”


Barker: “Um, well, there’s a suspected meteor impact crater on the east side of Lake Ontario, and it’s not confirmed as a meteor impact crater, but a lot of other things it could be have been ruled out. So that’s pretty neat. There’s also, to me, what’s most exciting is the ridge of rock, or ridges of rock underneath Lake Huron, that, in some cases, have maybe four hundred feet of relief. And most of the maps we see of the Great Lakes are basically just a flat blue, so seeing what’s under the Lakes I thought was really exciting.”


Nebbe: “When I was reading the book, I thought, you know, if I were a kid, this would be pretty scary to me because all the water goes away from the lakes and, you know, there are fish dying in at least one picture. Why did you decide to show us the bottom of the Lakes in that way?”


Barker: “Well, actually, that’s pretty much how… the only way I could figure out how to show them, I mean, if we’re talking about features that are on the lake floors, then somehow we’ve got to get rid of the water to see those, and sort of… it’s a fanciful sort of draining away of the Lakes, if you will. The purpose of the book is almost twofold: one is to show that the lake floors are pretty cool, and there’s some neat features under there, but also to sort of reinforce that hey, we’d better make sure this never happens, you know, so it goes to the protection of the Lakes as well.”


Nebbe: “The culprit in your book is water usage among communities in the Great Lakes Basin and there are rules that govern water usage among those communities, one of them is that they have to return the amount of water that they use and that communities outside the basin can’t use the water without approval. Why did you pick that as the culprit?”


Barker: “Well, that’s a good question and it sort of goes back to the original manuscript draft, and I thought, well, gosh, the villain could be actually just everybody taking a little bit of water thinking that it doesn’t matter, but the cummulative effect of that mindset causes a problem, and I think that’s true, I work in environmental consulting, and I can attest that that’s basically how major contamination sites are created is that everybody thinking, ‘Oh well this one little thing won’t matter, this little drop of tetrachlorethyline won’t matter,’ but if everybody has that mindset, then, yeah there’s going to be a problem.”


Nebbe: “You’ve been talking to some of the kids who are reading the book, do you think that message is getting across?”


Barker: “Yeah, I think, you know, initially, they really kind of like to sort of see the pictures and hear and learn about the lake floors and whatnot, but I think it’s important to, you know, relay to kids that they’re actually going to be the ones making decisions down the road about Great Lakes withdrawals and whatnot, and recently, I was just talking to somebody and remembering back to when I was a kid, we used to sail a lot on the Great Lakes, and I remember being in the middle of Lake Erie, sort of out of the sight of land, and sailing through soap suds. It was terrible. I mean, Lake Erie was horrible. This was in the early seventies. And it was like you’re in a bath tub with soap suds. That’s more of a water quality issue, but I think it sort of became a problem because of nobody really, um, paying much attention. So, I think the more attention we pay to the Great Lakes, in terms of just making sure no wacky ideas about withdrawal go through, then that’s good. That’s what we need to do.”


Nebbe: “Charles Ferguson Barker, thank you so much.”


Barker: “Thank you.”


HOST TAG: Charles Ferguson Barker, author of The Day the Great Lakes Drained Away speaking with the GLRC’s Charity Nebbe.

Related Links

Thirsty City Waits for Water Diversion Law

  • Diversion of water from the Great Lakes is a controversial issue. Many worry that diversion could affect life in the ecosystem. Others worry about obtaining sources of fresh water for drinking. (Photo by Brandon Bankston)

Great Lakes governors and their counterparts in Canada are working on a legal agreement called Annex 2001. The document will determine how water from the Great Lakes will be used and who gets to use it. Controversy has already erupted over the possibility of one city’s bid for the water. The city is looking toward the completed Annex for guidance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:

Transcript

Great Lakes governors and their counterparts in Canada are working
on a legal agreement called Annex 2001. The document will determine how
water from the Great Lakes will be used and who gets to use it. Controversy
has already erupted over the possibility of one city’s bid for the water.
The city is looking toward the completed Annex for guidance. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:


Dan Duchniak says he’s an environmentalist.


“We have the low-flow showerheads in our house, we have the low-flow faucets, we have the high-efficiency washers and dryers, our kids know about those, you know, they think they’re fun.”


But Duchniak is in the middle of a bitter fight with other environmentalists and officials over his area’s largest natural resource: water from Lake Michigan. Duchniak is the water manager for the City of Waukesha, Wisconsin. It’s just west of Milwaukee. Waukesha is only about 20 miles from the Lake Michigan shore. Right now, Waukesha gets its water from wells that tap an aquifer deep within the ground. But Duchniak says the wells won’t sustain the long-term needs of the city.


“As the water levels drop, the water quality degrades, and what happens is we’ve seen an increase in different water quality parameters, one of those being radium.”


And radium is a health problem. In very high doses, radium can cause bone cancer. To solve its water problems, the City of Waukesha might ask for access to Lake Michigan water. But even though the community considers the lake part of its back yard, there’s a major problem. Even though it’s close, Waukesha sits outside the Great Lakes basin.


That means the area’s ditches and streams drain away from the lake. Rain water runoff and treated water from the sewer system flow toward the Mississippi River Basin. The governors and premiers might include a rule in the Annex 2001 that says communities sitting outside the Great Lakes basin must return treated water to the lake, if they use it.


Engineers who study water in the area say Waukesha could make the case that the city is already using Great Lakes water. That’s because the city’s wells tap into water beneath the surface that supply water to Lake Michigan. But environmentalists say that argument isn’t going to fly. Derek Sheer is with the environmental group “Clean Wisconsin.” He says Waukesha would be pumping a lot more water directly from the lake than the underground aquifer would replace.


“They’re not returning 13 million gallons of water back to the Great Lakes by any stretch of the imagination.”


But the city of Waukesha knows that if the finalized Annex 2001 looks anything like the early drafts, the city would have to return most of the water it uses back to the lake. Waukesha’s water manager, Dan Duchniak says that could be done in a combination of ways. The city could pump it back to the lake, pump it to a nearby stream that flows to the lake, or stop using the ground water completely and let it flow back to the lake.


People on both sides of the water issue seem to agree on one thing: because of the huge amount of water in the Great Lakes system, and its natural ebb and flow, the amount of water the City of Waukesha would take would not harm the Great Lakes’ ecosystem. Even if it’s not pumped back.


Art Brooks is a professor at the Center for Great Lakes Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.


“The amount of water they intend to withdraw would probably lower the level of Lake Michigan on the order of a millimeter or so, probably less that five millimeters per year.”


But it’s not just Waukesha that has environmentalists worried. Professor Brooks and environmentalist Derek Sheer say if Waukesha gains access to Great Lakes water, it could set a dangerous precedent. Sheer doesn’t want other states and countries to start withdrawing Great Lakes water.


“If Waukesha and Arizona and Georgia and all these other places start pumping large amounts of water out of the basin, we could see a dramatic lowering of the water in the lakes.”


The city of Waukesha says it needs the water and would abide by whatever the Annex 2001 agreement sets down. And Waukesha’s water manager, Dan Duchniak, says that includes what it determines about return flow. He says arguing about the issue right now is a waste of time, since the Annex isn’t done. Beyond that, Duchniak says Waukesha is part of the Great Lakes system, and is not about to suck the lakes dry.


“Lake Michigan is in our back yard. We can see Lake Michigan from here. We’re not that far away from it.”


The experts say Waukesha would only be the first in line to ask for Great Lakes water. With suburbs sprawling away from the big cities on the lakes more and more towns will be eyeing the Great Lakes when demand for water exceeds their underground supplies.


A draft of the Annex could be ready this year, but it will most likely go through a lengthy series of votes before it becomes law.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Christina Shockley.

Related Links

Asian Carp Barrier Escapes Budget Cuts

  • The Army Corps of Engineers' new barrier will be similar in design to the demonstration project in place now. (Diagram courtesy of USACE)

The war against terrorism nearly led to a biological invasion of the Great Lakes. The Army Corps of Engineers was struggling to find money for a barrier to stop Asian carp from getting into the Great Lakes. It wasn’t until a strong letter from 24 members of Congress was sent to the Corps that the money was found. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The war against terrorism nearly led to a biological invasion of the Great Lakes. The Army
Corps of Engineers was struggling to find money for a barrier to stop Asian carp from getting into
the Great Lakes. It wasn’t until a strong letter from 24 members of Congress was sent to the
Corps that the money was found. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Asian carp have already invaded the Mississippi River system and they’re making their way
toward the channel that connects the Mississippi basin to the Great Lakes basin. The big fish is a
poster child for alien invasive species. It leaps out of the water, sometimes even hitting and
hurting boaters. It competes with native fish. And it’s feared that it would wreak havoc on the
Great Lakes fishery and the ecology of the lakes if it ever gets through to them.


South of Chicago, a barrier that electrifies the water is in place in the connecting channel between
the Mississippi system and the Great Lakes. It shocks the fish and seems to stop them from going
any farther. But that barrier is just a temporary demonstration project. So Great Lakes officials
were pleased when the Army Corps of Engineers announced it would build a permanent barrier.


Michael Donahue is President and CEO of the Great Lakes Commission. The organization
lobbies for the eight Great Lakes states.


“Most invasive species we find out about after the fact, once they’re in the system, they’re
established and the damage is being done. In this instance we know who the enemy is, where
they’re at, what pathway they plan to take to get into the lakes and what we need to do to stop
them.”


So environmentalists, anglers, conservationists and scientists all believe stopping the Asian carp
from getting into the Great Lakes is a pretty good idea.


Stuart Ludsin is a research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. Ludsin says we don’t know exactly how the Asian
carp will affect the Great Lakes… but we don’t want to find out either…


“We certainly do not want to let other exotic species into the system for fear of the economic and
ecological consequences that can come from an invasion.”


Sport fishing enthusiasts don’t need to know exactly what the Asian carp will do to the Great
Lakes. Jason Dinsmore is a resource policy specialist with the Michigan United Conservation
Clubs. Dinsmore says it’s pretty clear the Asian carp won’t be good for anglers.


“Our big concern is: these fish eat what our fish eat, I guess is the best way to look at it. These
large predatory fish are planktovores which means that they eat very small organisms that our fish
like, you know, juvenile perch will depend on. And if they’re out-competing the juveniles of our
sport fish, our sport fish will look to take a hit in overall numbers which means there’s going to
be less for our anglers to catch.”


So, there’s no problem, right? The Army Corps plans to build it. Everyone seems to think it’s a
good idea. But then the Corps couldn’t find the money for it. Chuck Shea is the project manager
for both the demonstration fish barrier and the new permanent fish barrier that’s being planned.


“Earlier in the month of February we didn’t have the full funding allocated to the project. The
project was not dead in any way. We were still working internally to try to find the money.”


The four-point-four million dollars to build the electric barrier to keep the Asian carp out of the
Great Lakes was to come from a 25-million dollar fund that the Corps uses for projects not
specifically authorized by Congress. It’s discretionary money. But this year money is tight and
with money being used for projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn’t clear the Great Lakes fish
barrier could get the money from the fund.


“The war on terror and homeland security issues are creating new demands on the budget, in
particular for the Army. The Army is heavily involved in supporting the war on terror and
homeland security and that does affect the budget overall, yes.”


That’s when 24 Members of Congress from the Great Lakes region stepped in. They signed off
on a letter calling for the immediate funding of the fish barrier project and started making calls to
the Army and anyone else who had influence on funding the project.


It looks as though the political lobbying might have worked. The Corps issued a news release
which indicates the corps expects to start construction of the second barrier this summer,
completing it this fall. In the meantime, the temporary barrier will keep running, hopefully
deterring the Asian carp from making it to the Great Lakes.


The Great Lakes Commission’s Michael Donahue says everyone hopes the barrier is completed
in time to stop the Asian carp because it’ll will cost a lot if it’s not.


“And instead of spending a few million dollars to prevent the invasion, we could be spending a
few hundred million dollars to deal with it once the Asian carp is established.”


The next challenge is finding money to rebuild the first electrical barrier and make the temporary
barrier permanent as well, backing up the new barrier in case it fails or needs to be shut down for
maintenance. No one wants to think about what might happen if the temporary barrier would
fail now before the permanent barrier is built. The Asian carp has been spotted as close as 20
miles from the barrier and only 50 miles from Lake Michigan.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Great Lakes State Lags Behind in Water Regulations

  • Harry Randolph lives above a shallow aquifer in southeast Michigan. His dad taught him the vanishing rural folk practice of well witching (locating underground streams). His dad used a cherry branch. Harry uses bent metal rods. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)

States around the Great Lakes regulate large-scale water withdrawals with one exception. Michigan – the state surrounded by the Great Lakes – does not restrict withdrawals. Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm says it’s “shameful” that Michigan is the last of the Great Lakes states to require permits before pumping large amounts of water. But the businesses and farmers who use the water don’t see a need for regulation in a state that’s surrounded by the world’s largest freshwater supply. We have more from the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett:

Transcript

States around the Great Lakes regulate large scale water withdrawals with one exception.
Michigan – the state surrounded by the Great Lakes – does not restrict withdrawals. Michigan
Governor Jennifer Granholm says it’s “shameful” that Michigan is the last of the Great Lakes
states to require permits before pumping large amounts of water. But the businesses and farmers
who use the water don’t see a need for regulation in a state that’s surrounded by the world’s
largest freshwater supply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


“This is a restoration on a Model A. ’29. That’s a ’31.”


Harry Randolph runs an auto body shop in the southeast part of Michigan. He needs water to
help prep the cars for sanding and spray painting. He also needs water for his home next door. In
2000 his well went dry … like hundreds of other wells in the area. He dug deeper for water.
That worked for a while. But in 2002, his well went dry again.


He collected rainwater to wash the cars in his body shop, and had drinking water delivered to his
house. Randolph and his neighbors blame a nearby mining operation that was pumping millions
of gallons of water to get to the sand and gravel underground.


They believe that theory was proven when water came back a few weeks after the quarry stopped
pumping in early 2003.


“It’s all pretty clean. You’ll hear the pump come on in a minute. It’s come up faster than it ever
has.”


In his corner of the state, homes and businesses sit above a shallow aquifer. And Randolph says
it should be the state’s job to make sure that the big kid on the block isn’t draining too much from
a sensitive water supply.


“I mean, pump the water, sure go ahead and pump the water. But when you’re hurting a whole
community because they haven’t got the water on account of it, they should be stopped pumping
that water. Or regulated.”


But Michigan doesn’t regulate water withdrawals. It’s the only Great Lakes state that doesn’t.
There’s so much water around Michigan, not much thought’s been given to limiting use… except
when that use was simply exporting the water.


Six years ago, officials in Ontario, Canada agreed to let a company called the Nova Group ship
about 150 million gallons of Lake Superior water to Asia every year. There was an immediate
and loud protest. People didn’t like the idea of shipping Great Lakes water to other countries.


The uproar over the plan forced the provincial government to rescind that permit. But it was
enough to worry Great Lakes leaders. And later that year, they started work on a regional plan to
prevent similar threats to Great Lakes water from other parts of the world.


What came out of the governors’ and premiers’ efforts was a regional agreement called Annex
2001, an amendment to an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. It commits the states and
provinces to come up with standards to protect Great Lakes water and to regulate large
withdrawals by this year. The Annex 2001 calls for two things:


One was to require users to register withdrawals of more than 100-thousand gallons a day. The
eight states and two provinces surrounding the Great Lakes have done that. But Michigan never
met the second requirement: that states regulate withdrawals of more than two million gallons a
day. Dennis Schornack chairs the U.S. sector of the International Joint Commission which works
to prevent and resolve water disputes between the U.S. and Canada.


To this point in time today, Michigan is the only state that has not complied with that piece of the
puzzle. And it’s sort of the price of admission to participate in consultations about withdrawals.
And Michigan so far hasn’t met that price of admission.


Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to pony up her state’s admission price with a
new plan to regulate large water withdrawals. It calls for new farms and businesses that pump
100-thousand gallons a day to apply for a state permit by the end of the decade.


But the state’s agriculture and business lobby has resisted similar plans in the past.


Scott Piggott is with the Michigan Farm Bureau.


“The farmers in Michigan, what’s really hard to get across to them: why. What is the benefit of a
full-blown, water use, comprehensive, regulation system on an area that doesn’t see scarcity of
the resource, that agriculture is an excellent steward of the resource. I think they’d feel it’d be a
regulation not worth having.”


But for people in a few pockets of Michigan, water has been scarce. Just ask autobody shop
owner Harry Randolph. And he’s not the only one. In rural central Michigan, people say their
wells go dry in the summertime when large-scale farms pump groundwater to irrigate their crops.


But those aren’t the withdrawals people worry about.


For much of the Great Lakes region, fears about water diversion usually involve arid southwest
states, or shipping freshwater in tanker ships to other parts of the world as the Nova Group
planned to do.


But Dennis Schornack of the IJC says the real problem of water diversion is not so far away. It’s
dealing the demand for water by the growing communities just outside the Great Lakes basin.


“And the people living just on the other side of the divide can’t use the water. They can see it,
they can smell it, they can swim in it, they can boat in it, fish in it. But they sure as heck can’t
use it for drinking water, or for industrial purposes.”


And advocates for water withdrawal regulations say unless Michigan gets its own house in order,
it’s going to be hard to say no to thirsty communities – whether they’re just outside the Great
Lakes basin, or on the other side of the globe.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

GREAT LAKES STATE LAGS BEHIND IN WATER REGULATIONS (Short Version)

  • Harry Randolph lives above a shallow aquifer in southeast Michigan. His dad taught him the vanishing rural folk practice of well witching (locating underground streams). His dad used a cherry branch. Harry uses bent metal rods. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)

Michigan is the only Great Lakes state that does not regulate large-scale water withdrawals. But the state’s Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to change that. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Michigan is the only Great Lakes state that does not regulate large-scale water withdrawals. But
the state’s Governor Jennifer Granholm is hoping to change that. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


Michigan sits right in the middle of the world’s largest fresh water supply. And Governor
Granholm says unless the state starts to regulate the water use of its own farms, golf courses, and
power companies, Michigan won’t have the political clout to say no to other interests outside the
state.


“I do not want to see other states coming into this region and dipping their straw into the Great
Lakes and pulling it out. If we don’t have a law to prevent that, that’s what’s going to happen.”


The Democratic Governor’s proposal calls for new farms and businesses that pump more than a
hundred-thousand gallons a day to apply for a state permit by the end of the decade.


But Republicans control the state Legislature. And some of them worry that new permit
requirements would burden already struggling farms and businesses.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Legislators Form Great Lakes Caucus

State lawmakers from the eight states and two Canadian provinces that surround the Great Lakes have formed a caucus to coordinate legislative action on Great Lakes issues. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, the group will be a clearinghouse for information and policies that affect the lakes:

Transcript

State lawmakers from the eight states and two Canadian provinces that surround the Great Lakes
have formed a caucus to coordinate legislative action on Great Lakes issues. As The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, the group will be a clearinghouse for information and
policies that affect the lakes:


The Great Lakes Legislative Caucus plans to coordinate policies among the 10 states and
provincial Legislatures. They’ll work on issues such as beach closings, water diversion, and
invasive species.


State Senator Patty Birkholz is representing Michigan on the caucus. She says the group will also
work on a new charter agreement between Great Lakes governors and premiers – known as
Annex 2001.


“There will be pieces of that that will have to go back to the legislators from each state. It’ll be
not only important, but it’ll be imperative that the legislative piece of whatever Annex 2001 is
decided, gets reviewed and adopted by each of these states within the Great Lakes basin.”


The caucus has planned an October meeting in Pittsburgh, where members will discuss their
positions on Great Lakes issues and legislation.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Honoring a Fallen Activist

The Great Lakes Basin hosts 44 nuclear reactors, plus a variety of uranium mining and refining facilities and nuclear waste dumps. Their presence has been contentious and divisive, and critics of nuclear power have often been seen as extremists who have polarized the issue. But one remarkable Canadian activist managed to bring both sides of the debate together. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says her recent death is a tragedy for all Great Lakes residents: