Tag: lake huron

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

Radioactive Dump Site Close to the Great Lakes?

  • In the United States, low-level nuclear waste is stored in landfills. An Ontario town is proposing to put Canada's low-level nuclear waste in an underground chamber a mile from Lake Huron. (Photo courtesy of the NRC)

In Canada, just across Lake Huron from
Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of
Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive
material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake
Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann
Colihan reports on the town’s work to
get the site and the concerns about putting it close
to one of the Great Lakes:

Transcript

In Canada, just across Lake Huron from Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan reports on the town’s work to get the site and the concerns about putting it close to one of the Great Lakes:


Right now, Canada has nowhere to permanently store its low-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste. This waste is not spent nuclear fuel from power plants. It’s contaminated material that’s been exposed to radioactive substances. It could be anything from the protective clothing workers wear at nuclear power plants to parts from reactors, anything that’s been exposed to radioactivity.


The Ontario town of Kincardine – located about 250 miles north of Detroit – has proposed that it be the site of a nuclear waste dump.


So why would a beach town want a nuclear dump?


Kincardine is also a company town. It’s home to the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant. Eighty-percent of the folks who live there work in the nuclear industry. Larry Kraemer is the former mayor. He explains why the permanent dump is essential for the local economy.


“The Bruce nuclear power plant, which is the biggest nuclear power development in North America as well as the largest local employer and one of the largest Canadian investment in any industry that there is.”


Because Kincardine knows the nuclear industry, the residents aren’t afraid to take on these jobs.


But no one ever asked the question if burying nuclear waste a mile from Lake Huron was the best location in Ontario to put the waste site. Frank King is the Director of Nuclear Waste Management and Engineering Technology for Ontario Power Generation, also known as OPG. He says Kincardine does not have to be the best site for the dump.


“It’s not an issue of whether it’s the best. Nobody has to say it’s best. It just has to be shown that it’s safe; that it’s a good site. There is no requirement to show that it’s the best site.”


OPG already stores low and intermediate-level waste from all twenty Ontario reactors at the Bruce Power plant in Kincardine. But above ground storage is getting tight. OPG began looking at its options and with Kincardine’s “bring it on” attitude it seemed like a good place to start.


OPG paid for members of the Kincardine city council to visit nuclear waste storage sites around the world. Councillors came back especially impressed with how the Swedes do it. They bury their nuclear waste in solid granite.


But the stone below Kincardine is not granite. It’s limestone – and no place in the world uses limestone to contain nuclear waste. William Fyfe is Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Western Ontario. He has spent decades studying geology and nuclear waste around the globe.


“Limestone can be much more porous than granite. It has no ability to absorb nasty elements, like you get with some clay minerals and things, to absorb all the dirty chemical species like uranium, for example.”


He does not like the idea of a man-made cavern full of nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.


“Just because you made the waste doesn’t mean you should put it in your backyard. There may be a better place.”


Local environmentalists agree. Given OPG’s record, they don’t trust that the waste dump will be safe. Jennifer Heisz is a founder of the public interest group, Woman’s Legacy, which is focused on the impact of the Bruce nuclear plant on Lake Huron. She says when she requested environmental records from Ontario, she found evidence that the regulators haven’t done a good job of stopping pollution at the plant.


“I received approximately 10 or 15 reports regarding leaking waste sites and the levels coming from the plant were very high – sometimes at 45 times the provincial level for chromium. Vanadium was also one of the chemicals that was contaminating the groundwater and it’s found to be mutagenic to animals.”


Heisz says if OPG is polluting at its existing dump sites, what’s to keep the agency from doing a poor job of storing nuclear waste underground? Ontario regulators say they plan to conduct an environmental assessment. Heisz and her environmental group are raising money for an independent review of deep nuclear storage. The geologist, Professor Fyfe, thinks Kincardine should hold an open house to get the opinions of experts.


“Before we start putting stuff away, let’s invite the bosses of the Swedish group to come and take a look. They are using hundreds of scientists, technicians, and engineers which we are not doing in Canada.”


Few outside the Kincardine area are aware of their nuclear waste dump plans… and fewer still know the site is planned for so close to Lake Huron.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.

Related Links

St. Clair Erosion Lowering Lake Levels?

  • A report finds the erosion in Lake St. Clair is causing Lake Michigan and Lake Huron water levels to drop. (photo by Jere Kibler)

A new study says erosion in the St. Clair River has caused water levels to drop on Lakes Michigan and Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:

Transcript

A new study says erosion in the St. Clair River has caused water levels to drop on Lakes Michigan and Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes has more:


W.F. Baird and Associates is a coastal engineering firm. They recently conducted a study that found that water levels dropped on the two Great Lakes by eight to thirteen inches over the last forty years. Rob Nairn is the study’s lead author. He says that’s about twice as much as authorities thought.


“The outlet to Lake Michigan/Huron, which is the St. Clair river, is in fact expanding. The analogy would be if you had a drain hole in a bathtub, that drain hole is getting bigger, and more water is going out. And as more water goes out, the lake level drops.”


Nairn says the erosion may be caused by dredging, sand mining, or shoreline protection measures that prevented new sediment from getting into the water.


Several environmental groups say the lower water levels could hurt shipping and boating, and damage natural habitats. They’re calling for the U.S. and Canadian governments to stop the reported water loss.


The International Joint Commission says it can’t confirm the report, but it plans to take a closer look at the study’s findings.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lynette Kalsnes.

Related Links

Wind Turbines Stir Up Neighbors (Part 2)

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better
than burning fossil fuel to create electricity. But “green energy”
alternatives
can be controversial. Windmill farms are springing up all across the
nation.
Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others say windmill farms
can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers. In the second of a two-part series on wind energy, the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:

Transcript

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better than burning fossil
fuel to create
electricity. But “green energy” alternatives can be controversial. Windmill farms
are springing
up all across the nation. Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others
say windmill
farms can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:


For 30 years, Matt Mauer raised crops and livestock on his farm about 10 miles from
the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Today, he’s in his backyard looking at the land now farmed by
his daughter
and son-in-law. Standing there, he feels a crop they’re not harvesting.


“The good Lord makes it windy all the time for us, so let’s use it, you know.
Because I’m like
everybody else. When I get up in the morning, I want lights.”


Mauer’s hoping to put four wind turbines on his family’s farm near Ludington,
Michigan. That
would power about 24-hundred homes. Nearby, a renewable energy company’s working with
other farmers to build a hundred turbines in the area. Mauer says many of his
neighbors want in
on the deal because they think wind energy could help save their farms.


“It’s hard to make a living just farming right now. And I consider the wind one of
the crops that
we could harvest. It will help keep farmers on the land. Like if, in this place, if
we could get
seven–thousand dollars a year, six-thousand dollars a year for four of them, that’d
make it a hell
of a lot easier to keep the people here and farm.”


The state government’s backing similar projects. It’s training financial advisors
to show farmers
how they can turn a profit with windmills.


But not everyone likes the idea. Some people who live in the area around the
planned windmills
say they’re worried the towers would destroy the region’s charm. That’s linked to
property values
and to tourism. And they don’t like the size of the proposed windmills. Each one
would be four-
hundred feet tall. The blades would have a diameter nearly as long as a football
field.


It’s a story that’s heard in many places. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the prairies of
Illinois, and
around the Great Lakes. For example, a Michigan couple who wanted large-scale
turbines on
their property ended up losing a court-battle against local government that opposed
the plan. And
two turbines already in place in Mackinaw City – between Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron –
have some unhappy neighbors as well.


Thomas and Virginia Alexander’s home is about 15-hundred feet away from the windmills.
They’re in their eighties and they both wear hearing aids… but even without them,
they say the
windmills are loud…


Tom Alexander: “There’s things about it we don’t appreciate, at times the noise –
not always –
depending upon the wind and the direction.
Virginia Alexander: “Yesterday. Very noisy yesterday. The wind was high and they,
you could
really hear them.”
Tom Alexander: “Just a continual swish, swish, swish, swish, swish.”


Windmill developers say the sound is no louder than normal speech. But this noise is
different. It
goes beyond the frequencies of normal speech. The sound can travel long distances
through both
the ground and the air. They keep Virginia Alexander awake some nights.


Tom and Virginia Alexander’s son Kelly lives next door with his family. He calls
himself a
windmill victim. He has this advice for others:


“Don’t let them go in your backyard. There are places they can go. You don’t just
put those in
somebody’s backyard. I don’t think it’s right.”


A lot of people agree with the Alexanders. Even wind energy boosters concede that
location is
key to successful projects. David Johnson heads up the program for the state of
Michigan that’s
encouraging farmers to allow windmills on their land. He says turbines should be
constructed
where there’s lots of wind and few neighbors. But he says when people say ‘no’ to
windmills,
they should consider the alternative.


“So, does that mean that you should build another big coal-fired plant? Is that the
preferable way
of doing it with the global warming impacts and the mercury pollution and so on that
go with
that? Is that the choice that the public wants to make?


States across the nation are struggling to find the right balance between clean
energy and the
beauty of an uncluttered landscape. Few regulations are in place right now. More
and more,
communities will be facing the decision of whether clean energy and keeping farmers
on the land
is worth the price of adding wind turbines to the scenery.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Smaller Fish After Alewife Die-Off

  • Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus). The fish is not common in Lakes Superior or Erie. (Image courtesy of Wisconsin SeaGrant)

This past year, the size of salmon in some Great Lakes
is getting smaller because their main food source is dying off in some
areas of the lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

This past year, the size of salmon in some Great Lakes is getting smaller because
their main food
source is dying off in some areas of the lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester
Graham reports:


In the 1960’s, fish and game officials introduced Pacific salmon such as chinook,
coho and
steelhead to control the invasive species alewife. That’s a small fish that moved
in from the
Atlantic. The salmon are popular fishing. But since the alewives are not native…
they’re
especially susceptible to quick weather changes. And fisheries managers suspect
competition
with zebra mussels for food also affects alewives. Recently, alewife populations
have crashed in
some places. Jim Dexter is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources…


“The primary reason that there are not alewives in Lake Huron and you get
fluctuations in Lake
Michigan is related more to the climate. You know, now, zebra mussels are tied into
that, into the
equation at some point but not probably to the affect that the climate is having on
those.”


So, without as many alewives, salmon don’t have as much to eat… and they’re smaller
than usual.
Fisheries managers say the effect is probably temporary.


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

Related Links

Timber Wolves Moving Into New Area

  • Timber wolves have been making a comeback in the Midwest for some time. Recently, they've been reappearing in places they haven't been seen in decades.

Timber wolves are moving into an area where they
haven’t been seen for about 80 years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Timber wolves are moving into an area where they haven’t been seen for about 80 years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Timber wolves have been repopulating areas of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the upper peninsula of Michigan for some time now. But recently, a wolf was shot and killed in the lower peninsula of Michigan. Since then, tracks of two more wolves have been identified not too far away from the shooting. The two peninsulas of Michigan are separated by water five miles across the connect Lake Michigan to Lake Huron. Sometimes, it freezes over. Michigan Department of Natural Resources biologists figure a small pack of wolves made the trek across the ice. Brian Roell is with the DNR.


“Well, it’s interesting that, you know, wolves are, you know, repopulating areas that, you know, they’ve been removed from. It’s really nice to see that these wolves are making their own comeback.”


Hunters are warned to be careful when trapping or hunting. The wolves are still federally protected. The wolf shooting this fall was ruled accidental because the trapper shot the animal thinking it was a coyote, since wolves were killed off in the area decades ago.


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

Related Links

Roadblocks to Closing Toxic Waste Loophole

  • Trash and toxic waste cross the U.S.-Canada border every day, and untreated toxic waste often ends up at the Clean Harbors facility. Some are trying to restrict this practice and purge the idea that waste is a commodity.

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps
toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:

Transcript

There’s only one place in North America that still dumps toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is a big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:


(Sound of trucks)


6,000 trucks cross the Blue Water Bridge every day between Canada and the United States. Just under the bridge, Lake Huron funnels into the skinny St. Clair River on its way to south to Lake Erie. The Blue Water Bridge connects Port Huron, Michigan with Sarnia, Ontario. This is the second busiest truck crossing between the United States and Canada. With post 9/11 security, the border can get backed up for miles in both directions. A lot of these trucks are carrying garbage back and forth across the border. Canadian trash and toxic waste is going to the U.S. and American toxic waste is going to Canada.


During her first month in office, Ontario Member of Parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, found out just how much toxic waste was coming into her district.


“In 1999 that year, it was over 450,000 tons. To put it in perspective, the Love Canal was 12,000 tons.”


Di Cocco went on a five year crusade to change the Ontario laws that govern the trade in toxic waste. She adopted the U.N. resolution known as the Basel Agreement, as her model.


“The notion from that Basel Agreement is that everybody should look after their own waste and it is not a commodity.”


Di Cocco is not alone in her fight to slow or stop the flow of garbage and toxic waste from crossing the border. Mike Bradley is the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario. He can see the backup on the Blue Water Bridge every day from his home.


“One of the ironies on this is that while Michigan is very much upset, and rightly so, with the importation of Toronto trash, there are tens of thousands of tons of untreated toxic waste coming in from Michigan crossing the Blue Water Bridge into the Clean Harbors site.”


The Clean Harbors facility is the only place in North America that does not pre-treat hazardous waste before it dumps it into its landfill. Frank Hickling is Director of Lambton County Operations for Clean Harbors. He says imports from nearby states in the U.S. accounts for about forty percent of its volume.


“It’s from the Great Lakes area. We do reach down and take waste that our facility is best able to handle. We’re right on the border.”


Rarely do lawmakers on both sides of the border agree on an environmental issue. But pre-treatment of hazardous waste is the law in all fifty states, Mexico and every other Canadian province and territory except Ontario. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of toxic waste or transforms it into a less hazardous substance. But Hickling says disposing hazardous waste in Clean Harbors is a better economic bet.


“Obviously, if you don’t have to pre-treat it, it is cheaper there’s no doubt about that. But what isn’t obvious is the security of the site. Pre-treating waste doesn’t help immobilize the material forever.”


Clean Harbors’ company officials say their landfill won’t leak for 10,000 years. They say that the U.S. pre-treats hazardous waste because they expect their landfills to leak in hundreds of years or less. Hickling says the blue clay of Lambton County that lines Clean Harbors landfill gives them a competitive edge as a toxic dump.


“The facility is in a 140-foot clay plain and we go down about 60 feet. So there’s 80 feet below.”


But Clean Harbors has had big environmental problems. When volume was at its peak in 1999 the Clean Harbors landfill leaked methane gas and contaminated water. Remedial pumping of the landfill is ongoing.


Caroline Di Cocco found other ways to deal with toxic waste rather than simply dumping it in her district.


“First of all, there has to be a reduction of the amount of generation of this hazardous material. The more expensive you make it for industry to dispose of it, the more they are going to find creative ways to reduce it. Then there are what they call on-site treatments and closed-loop systems. You see technology is there but it’s expensive and again we go to the cost of doing business. And so a lot of the hazardous waste can be treated on site in a very safe way. And then what can’t be, well then you have to have facilities to dispose of it. But I believe that the days of the mega dumps have to end.”


Meanwhile, Clean Harbors looks at what the new Ontario regulations for pre-treatment will cost them.


“Certainly when you’re making the investment in pre-treatment and you’re adding all that cost for no additional environmental benefit we’re going to have to be getting larger volumes to ensure its profitability.”


Until we see a reduction in the loads of toxic waste that need to be dumped in Clean Harbors, it’s likely the trucks will roll on down the highway.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.

Related Links

Point: Agreements Will Help Protect Great Lakes

  • The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)

In 1998, an Ontario company wanted to sell Lake Superior water overseas. Their proposal raised fears that Great Lakes water could be diverted with little oversight. Now, officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have come up with two proposed agreements that would regulate new water diversion requests. The proposed agreements are known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis says the agreements are a good first step in protecting a cherished resource:

Transcript

In 1998 an Ontario company wanted to sell Lake Superior water overseas. Their
proposal raised fears that Great Lakes water could be diverted with little oversight.
Now, officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have come up with
two proposed agreements that would regulate new water diversion requests. The proposed
agreements are known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Cameron Davis says the agreements are a good first step in protecting a cherished
resource:


When I was growing up, my family and I used to go to the beach every Sunday. As I stood
looking out over Lake Michigan, I was awed at how it seemed to go on forever. Today I know
better. The Great Lakes are a gift left from the glaciers thousands of years ago. That’s
because less than 1% of Great Lakes water is renewed every year from rainfall, snowmelt,
and groundwater recharge.


Two proposed agreements by the states and provinces would make diversions of Great Lakes water
to places outside of the Great Lakes a virtual impossibility.


The agreements look to be a vast improvement over current laws. First, federal law in the U.S.
allows a diversion only if every Great Lakes Governor approves. That seems like a tough standard
to meet, but in fact, it’s already allowed two diversions of Great Lakes water to take place. In
the 1990’s, diversions were approved to Pleasant Prairie in Wisconsin and another one to Akron,
Ohio. The water was used for municipal supplies.


Second, the proposed agreements are an improvement over the Boundary Waters Treaty – a pact
signed between the U.S. and Canada almost 100 years ago. The treaty doesn’t cover one very
important Great Lake: Lake Michigan. Because Lake Michigan is solely within the U.S. and not
shared with Canada, the treaty leaves the lake unprotected. This is a problem because Lake
Michigan is directly connected to Lake Huron. So water diverted out of Lake Michigan means
water diverted out of Lake Huron.


The agreements are a good first step, but they need to be stronger. For example, they require
regional approval for diversions of water that go outside of the basin of more than one million
gallons per day, but they don’t require regional approval for withdrawals of up to 5 million
gallons per day that stay in the Great Lakes. In addition, the draft agreements need to do a
better job at requiring water conservation before potential water withdrawals can be considered.


We have a choice. We can be against the agreements and keep the status quo or work to make
them even stronger. We need to work to protect our region’s water so that our kids can continue
to look out over the Great Lakes and see them for what they are: vast, magnificent, but fragile
natural treasures.


Host Tag: Cameron Davis is the executive director of the Lake Michigan Federation.

Related Links

Hotter, Drier Climate in Region’s Future?

A new study predicts that water levels in the Great Lakes could drop significantly over the next 50 years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A new study predicts that water levels in the Great Lakes could drop significantly over
the next 50 years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


Researchers at Environment Canada say global warming could cause shorelines to drop
by more than three feet over the next five decades. The findings were based on computer
models, which are predicting hotter and drier conditions in the region’s future. David Fay
is coauthor of the study. He says a drop in water levels would affect many people,
starting with landowners.


“If they have a dock on their property, the water depth of the dock would go down. It
would certainly impact commercial navigation… quite significant environmental changes
are possible.”


Fay says the study offers predictions, not guarantees. But it does suggest that Lakes
Michigan and Huron and the St. Lawrence River would be most affected.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Lake Levels Low Despite Rain

Even though it’s been a rainy summer, the shipping industry, boaters and beachgoers are still dealing with low water levels on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

Even though it’s been a rainy summer, the shipping industry, boaters and beachgoers
are still
dealing with low water levels on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Rebecca
Williams reports:


All the rain this season has raised hope for an end to low water levels. But Lakes
Michigan,
Huron and Superior continue to be much lower than average for the fourth year in a row.


Frank Quinn is a hydrologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. He
says rain is not the only factor affecting lake levels. Temperatures and
evaporation also affect
them. Quinn says the recent rain has helped, but more rain is needed.


“We’ve averaged for the last year about 90% of our normal precipitation…we still
haven’t had
enough continuing rainfall to bring the levels back up to what their long-term
averages would
be.”


Rain has helped raise the lower lakes, Ontario and Erie, but NOAA’s 6-month outlook
shows low
levels continuing on the upper lakes through early spring.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.