Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is asking the Federal Emergency Management Administration for disaster funds to deal with the Emerald Ash Borer. She says the aid is necessary to prevent the tree-killing pest from spreading into more states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:
Transcript
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm is asking the Federal Emergency
Management Administration for disaster funds to deal with the Emerald Ash
Borer. She says the aid is necessary to prevent the tree-killing pest from
spreading into more states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:
The Governor’s request is for money to remove and destroy infested trees, and to come
up with ways to contain the pest. The ash borer has already killed an estimated six
million trees in Michigan, and it’s also been found in Ohio, Indiana, Maryland, and
Virginia.
Governor Granholm says it’s too big a problem for her state to handle
by itself.
“We need additional resources, and certainly I know the federal
government would be interested in making sure that it doesn’t spread to other
states or the entire country. We need help. This is an emergency.”
She says the state’s not assured it will get that help, and is getting
mixed signals from the federal government on its request.
Linda Sacia of the Federal Emergency Management Administration says a review of the
request is still underway, and there’s no word on when an answer might be coming.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Rick Pluta.
Some environmentalists are concerned that the blackout that affected the Northeast and part of Canada might be used as an excuse to build more power plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some environmentalists are concerned that the blackout that affected the Northeast
and part of
Canada might be used as an excuse to build more power plants. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Experts don’t yet know all the factors that led to the power blackout. But
environmentalists
worry that private interests will take advantage of the situation and call for more
large nuclear and
coal-burning power plants. David Gard is with the Michigan Environmental Council.
“Clearly we know, experts have already said even though we don’t know the exact
cause of the
problem, we know for sure that it’s not an issue of not enough generation. We have
plenty of
power plants; we have plenty of supply. This is primarily a problem with
transmission and
getting energy that’s already been made to the end customer.”
Environmentalists say fixing the transmission bottle-necks, building a more diverse
system with
wind and solar power generation and real conservation measures such as more
efficient air
conditioners are better solutions than building big generating plants that pollute.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Junk cars dumped on the banks of the Illinois River. (Photo
by Romy Myszka)
Americans generate 14-billion tons of waste each year. Most of that trash winds up in landfills, some of it is recycled. But some of it slips through the cracks, winding up in illegal trash dumps throughout the country. Environmental officials are cleaning up a 7-acre pile of waste that was overlooked for so long that it caught fire a few years ago – and kept burning. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder reports:
Transcript
Americans generate 14-billion tons of waste each year. Most of that trash winds up
in landfills,
some of it is recycled. But some of it slips through the cracks, winding up in
illegal trash dumps
throughout the country. Environmental officials are cleaning up a 7-acre pile of
waste that was
overlooked for so long that it caught fire a few years ago — and kept burning. The
Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder reports:
Tucked away in a non-residential section of South Philadelphia, just around the
corner from the
Philadelphia Airport, lies a heap of construction debris. The material was dumped
here years ago
by a demolition contractor, and left to rot…
Occasionally sparking up into flame, the densely packed wood, metal, carpet, and
other debris has
been smoldering below the surface for the past few years.
Down the street is a police impoundment lot, and the Water Department’s waste
treatment site.
And directly across from the dump is a series of community gardens.
Edward Burnabiel’s been tending vegetables here for two decades.
Burnabiel spends six days a week in his garden. He jokes that it would be seven if
his wife didn’t
drag him to church on Sundays.
A few years ago, he and his fellow gardeners noticed something unusual at the trash
pile across
the street. Every now and again, smoke would billow up from the site — and combine
with the
stench from the nearby sewer plant.
“The smell was awful when it started burning. It would stink, even to go by. It’s
bad enough we
have to smell the poop down there, but then we got to smell that too!”
The gardeners complained to the city. But the trash has been around for well over a
decade.
Kathleen McGinty is Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection.
She says the contractor responsible for the mess has long-since disappeared. That
contractor,
Harold Emerson, also skipped out on a 5-million dollar fine for illegal dumping.
“About thirteen years ago, Mr. Emerson was contracted to take some houses down in
Philadelphia. As part of the deal, for a one year window of time, the agreement was
that he could
temporarily store some of that construction debris here. What Mr. Emerson
conveniently forgot
was the temporary part. And he just took off without ever having done that.”
Today, the trash pile is sometimes referred to as the “Emerson Dump.”
Environmentalists
worried that the burning trash could be a health risk. Construction debris can
include hazardous
chemicals like arsenic. But city Managing Director Phil Goldsmith says tests showed
the fumes
weren’t dangerous. Still, he says cleanup was long overdue.
“Fourteen years for something like this to be sitting around is far too long. And
it’s become a
nuisance. It’s been a place where our fire department has had to come to put out
fires. We should
not have allowed this to happen in the first place. And once it happened, we should
not have
allowed to have it continue here for so long.”
The Emerson Dump is hardly unique. There are illegal dumps all across the country.
But most
are hidden in forests or other out-of-the-way areas, and don’t have the high profile
that comes
with a flaming pile of trash in an urban setting.
Allen Hershkowitz is with the environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense
Council. He
says illegal dumping is often overlooked for more serious environmental concerns,
such as air
and water pollution, or global warming. But he says it’s still a problem
authorities must deal
with.
“In the next 10 years, this country will have to manage about 140-billion tons of
waste of
different types. More than 2/3rds are managed in ecologically inferiors ways,
landfills, surface
impoundments, or incinerators. When you illegally dump waste, you make it that much
harder
for that material to wind up being recycled or properly disposed of.”
Hershkowitz says illegal dumping is directly related to the cost of proper waste
disposal.
Dumping was most prevalent in the late 70s and early 80s, when strict environmental
regulations
led many landfills to close, driving up the costs of waste hauling. Illegal dumping
still occurs,
Hershkowitz says, but less frequently.
Pennsylvania officials are still hunting for demolition contractor Harold Emerson to
force him to
pay his 5-million dollar fine.
But in the meantime, state and city taxpayers are funding a 3-million dollar cleanup
effort. The
fire’s been extinguished, but cleanup efforts are expected to continue through the
end of the year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Brad Linder.
An environmental group is calling on Great Lakes states to ban drilling for oil and gas under Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:
Transcript
An environmental group is calling on Great Lakes states to ban drilling for
oil and gas under Lake Erie. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie
Walston reports:
At least four drilling companies have tried to gain access to oil and gas
deposits under Lake Erie since 1998. That’s according to a study by the Ohio
Public Interest Research Group. The group found a significant amount of
cooperation between the Council of Great Lakes Governors in considering
allowing companies access to the lake. Bryan Clark wrote the report for the interest
group. He says there are a number of problems associated with drilling for
oil and gas.
“Drilling operations routinely utilize dangerous toxic chemicals. Many of
these chemicals, such as those found in drilling mud, can cause problems as
diverse as wildlife cancers, developmental disorders, and shortened life
spans.”
Ohio governor Bob Taft has stated he will sign an executive order banning
drilling under Ohio’s part of Lake Erie. The state of Michigan recently voted to ban
new drilling. Clark says New York, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana need to
consider a drilling ban as well.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston.
When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were shipped across international borders, and they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:
Transcript
When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental
protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were
shipped across international borders. And they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:
Two years ago, a private Canadian company got permission from a provincial government to ship water from Lake Huron to water-starved countries in Southeast Asia. When the federal government got wind of the deal, the contract was revoked. But environmentalists feared that
another assault on Great Lakes water could arise under a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 11 is a clause that allows private foreign investors to sue local governments if they believe their trade rights have been violated. In the case of Great Lakes water, that could mean that trade laws could trump environmental regulations – and that businesses could overturn a government’s ability to protect natural resources and human health.
[ambient sound]
At a recent U.S./Canada law conference held in Cleveland, government officials, policymakers, and trade lawyers gathered to discuss the environmental consequences of Chapter 11 and other trade issues. In the
Great Lakes region, the sharpest impact may have been to air quality.
“Increased freight transportation
linked to NAFTA has led to significant air pollution at border crossings at both borders.”
Jannine Ferretti heads the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, an international agency established to address environmental concerns under NAFTA. She admits that as yet, there’s been only limited assessment of those impacts. But she says what data there is, shows it’s not all bad news.
“The Mexico steel, because of NAFTA’s investment provisions, actually enabled Mexico steel to upgrade its technology, making the sector actually in some ways cleaner than that of the United States and Canada. But what about the effects of trade rules on environmental policy? And this is where we go to NAFTA’s Chapter 11.”
(Frank Loy) “Chapter 11 is a chapter designed to protect investors from one NAFTA country that invested in another NAFTA country and it has led to a number of cases that have worried the environmental community.”
Frank Loy served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs under the Clinton administration. He says under Chapter 11, a number of private investors have successfully sued foreign governments for millions of dollars, contending that meeting local environmental regulations violated their rights under free trade laws.
“I would say the cases worry me a lot. My guess is
there already is a regulatory chill, a timidity on the part of governments
to take certain actions for fear of subjecting the state to liabilities.”
Part of that regulatory chill may derive from the concern that it’s not an open process. One of the sharpest criticisms of Chapter 11 is that the cases are heard and decided by a closed-door, three-person tribunal, with no mandate to hear testimony from third parties. So while the public has a hard time benefiting from NAFTA, companies have it relatively easy. In one of the first challenges under the provision, U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation won nearly 20-million dollars in damages from the Canadian government for its ban on a gasoline additive called MMT. Canada has since dropped the ban. Another case involved an Ohio company, S.D. Meyers, that treats the chemical compounds known as PCBs.
James McIlroy, a trade lawyer from Toronto, says the company wanted to import the waste from Canada, despite a Canadian prohibition.
“The government of Canada said we are prohibiting this for environmental reasons. But the real reason, when you really looked at it hard, the real reason was there was a PCB plant in Alberta in western Canada that the government of Canada wanted to promote.”
McIlroy is not alone when he says a number of Chapter 11 cases apparently based on environmental protection have proved on closer scrutiny to be a cover-up for government trade protection. While he doesn’t dismiss the environmental issues, he does caution against blowing them out of proportion.
“I think it’s fair to say, whether the cases are valid or not, there sure haven’t been a whole lot of them. And therefore this is not this huge, massive problem that people are talking about. And
we’ve had this what, since 1994, and you can count the number of cases on two
hands.”
Ohio Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown voted against NAFTA. He disagrees with McIlroy’s assessment.
“Their arguments are specious. Perhaps in the opinion of trade lawyers, these challenges have served as a cloak for protectionism. But to trade lawyers, everything’s seen as a cloak for protectionism.”
Brown says while companies began making use of Chapter 11 only about four years ago, there have been plenty of other trade challenges to environmental laws.
“Time after time after time, both in NAFTA and every public health law challenge under the WTO, 33 straight times, public health laws, environmental laws, and food safety laws, every single time they’ve been struck down. That’s wrong, whenever a trade law can be used to undercut or repeal a democratically-attained rule or regulation.”
Both opponents and supporters agree it’s unlikely NAFTA will be revised anytime soon. But the precedents set under NAFTA could affect future trade agreements. Arguments on both sides of the issue will undoubtedly be aired again as Congress takes up approval of new fast track trade
legislation with similar investor protections this spring. Environmental groups believe equitable settlement of future trade challenges may have to rely on the strength of public opinion to sway government decisions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Schaefer in Cleveland.
Enter the keyword “sustainability” into any Internet search and dozens of web pages instantly appear – filled with words used to describe the ambiguous theory. Conservation, egalitarianism, and biodiversity to name just a few. But what does the environmental buzzword really mean? The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak was at a recent forum on sustainability in search of a definition, and she spoke with some of the world’s leading ecologists:
Transcript
Enter the keyword “sustainability” into any Internet search and dozens of web pages instantly appear – filled with words used to describe the ambiguous theory. Conservation, egalitarianism, and biodiversity to name just a few. But what does the environmental buzzword really mean? The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak was at a recent forum on sustainability in search of a definition. And she spoke with some of the world’s leading ecologists.
The impressive line-up of speakers included such notables as Jane Goodall, David Suzuki and Paul Hawken, people who certainly need no introduction with environmentalists, and for good reason. These three experts on ecology have more than a century of combined experience. Yet, when asked to define the subject they were invited to talk about – sustainability – their responses were well…less than definitive.
Paul Hawken is a best-selling author on corporate environmental reform, who isn’t usually uncertain with words -especially crucial words about the environment. But Hawken was quick to admit there are simply too many ways to describe sustainability. And, he says even the most commonly used definition falls short.
“As you can tell from my reciting of it, it’s not a definition I warm to at all – because it’s not a definition you wake up in the morning and say, ‘uh, man, I’m so happy to be alive, and what I’m going to do today, is to meet the needs of the current generation in a way that doesn’t compromise future generations. It’s so flat, and non-dynamic.”
Hawken says that sustainability, by its very nature, is a multi-dimensional concept. Which resources get used, and how much, from where, to produce what goods and services, for which people, and then what to do with the waste – and how do we fix what we’ve already ruined? Hawken says the answers to these tough questions require a broad understanding. And he says, in an increasingly more specialized world that makes a clear definition much more difficult to nail down.
“Most of us have been, or are educated, in schools that ask us to specialize and to really focus on one area of knowledge. Sustainability really cuts across all denims – from not just economy and ecology, but biology, sociology, psychology, forestry, geology, chemistry, physics…In a sense to really be conversant in sustainability you have to have a working knowledge of a lot of different subjects.”
Milling about the convention floor we find David Sukuzi, perhaps the most conversant proponent of sustainability. The award winning geneticist and broadcaster stops occasionally, chatting casually about bio diversity, reductionism, or maybe genetic polymorphism. But then, Suzuki is well known for easily making such complex science understandable. So, how does Suzuki define sustainability?
“I don’t know what sustainability means. We’ve changed the world so much that we can’t rely on nature’s abundance and productivity. We’ve already added thirty percent more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than existed two hundred years ago. We have no idea what that’s going to do. So, we don’t know what is going to compromise or not compromise. We know that we are trashing the natural world on which we ultimately depend.”
Any hope for a definition would seem to be lost. As would be any hope for sustainability itself. But Suzuki says, although there are big question marks, sustainability is the only option.
“We’ve got to pull back. We’ve got to protect as much wild nature as we can where it exists – and keep our fingers crossed.”
Jane Goodall is known for her monumental faith in nature. Forty years of research has earned her a reputation for an unfaltering commitment to social and environmental causes. Goodall admits that as the indigenous peoples of the world have vanished, so too, she says, has the true definition of sustainability – “to make only what is needed to sustain life.” But Goodall says we must not give up on that principle.
“That’s very dangerous for us, if we’re thinking about a sustainable world and a world that will be there for our grandchildren. We mustn’t let up. We must continue to work for the things, which we think, are important. If we have the ability to influence some little area of the community and the environment around us, then that is what we must do.”
And all the experts agree. They say that “urgency” is now the most important word in any definition of sustainability. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Joyce Kryszak.
A recent United Nations report indicates the earth’s population has doubled since 1960. The report says the result of that growth is that humans are altering the planet on an unprecedented scale. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has the details:
Transcript
A recent United Nations report indicates the earth’s population has doubled since 1960. The report says the result of that growth is that humans are altering the planet on an unprecedented scale. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
In its report, the United Nations Population Fund said that with six-point-one billion people on earth, humans are using more resources than ever before. The report indicates rising affluence and consumption along with the growing population are combining to cause extensive environmental damage. The report explains that increasing population itself does not mean increasing damage to the environment. But to be sustainable where the population is growing fastest, Asia and Africa, those regions must have better access to outside resources and technology to better manage their own natural resources, and the political will to use them responsibly. Without the resources and political will, the report indicates that growing populations in undeveloped areas tend to strip the ground clear of natural resources as well as damage the environment and induce famine and disease. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.
Sturgeon are one of the oldest vertebrates on earth. The giant fish have survived for more than 150 million years. But encroachment by humans, and in some cases poaching, have decimated the fish in many areas, including the Great Lakes. Now the sturgeon is on the brink of extinction. That’s why hundreds of scientists from around the world came to Oshkosh, Wisconsin recently. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Patty Murray reports, they came to witness a sturgeon success story:
Transcript
Sturgeon are one of the oldest vertebrates on earth. The giant fish have survived for more than one hundred fifty million years. But encroachments by humans, and in some cases, poaching, have decimated the fish in many areas including the Great Lakes. Now the sturgeon is near the brink of extinction. That’s why hundreds of scientists from around the world came to Oshkosh, Wisconsin recently. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Patty Murray reports, they came to witness a sturgeon success story.
The sturgeon is a really big fish. It can grow six feet long and weigh as much as two hundred pounds. Because of its size it faces few challenges from any other animal, except says Ron Bruch, from humans. Bruch is a fishery biologist with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. He says most of the twenty-five species of sturgeon found around the world are in trouble, including those living in the lakes here. Years ago, he says the Great Lakes used to be full of sturgeon, but European settlers didn’t like them because they tore up fishing nets.
“Nets were very expensive back then they didn’t have the fancy nylon twine and all the other equipment we have today. So these big fish would get into the nets and rip them up so they didn’t like sturgeon. So they’d just kill the sturgeon, stack them up just to get rid of them. Then they found out the fish had caviar and there was a market for caviar.”
And that meant the sturgeon began facing another threat. Today, a pint of caviar can bring as much as six hundred dollars. That’s enough money to bring out poachers.
(Sound of boat on river)
So with the sturgeon population in rapid decline, scientists are eager to find ways to save those fish that remain. That’s why many of them came to Wisconsin this summer. While most of the sturgeon population in the Great Lakes has long since disappeared, some of the fish still survive here. So scientists gathered on the banks of the Wolf River to watch as DNR wardens plucked a few of the big fish out of the water.
(Natural sounds)
Wisconsin’s Lake sturgeon population is considered to be the healthiest on earth. Sturgeon experts’ say that is because of a strong, two-pronged effort by state officials. First, they have a monitoring program. Many of the sturgeon are fitted with radio monitoring chips to keep track of how each fish is growing and where it is living.
(Sound of measuring, checking for chips)
Then, to make sure the fish remain safe, game wardens regularly patrol for poachers, and volunteers guard riverbanks during spawning season. That’s when the fish are the most vulnerable because they float close to the surface and can be easily speared. But despite these efforts, the state’s sturgeon population still holds a threatened status. Most of the fish live in the Wisconsin’s inland lakes and rivers, while very few remain in Lake Michigan, and it’s that fact which prompted a very unusual donation. An Italian count recently visited Wisconsin and learned of the fish’s decline, so he has donated two thousand dollars to study how to strengthen the population. The count’s money will pay researchers to go into Lake Michigan and Green Bay to see how many fish are left. They’ll also look at what obstacles may block restocking efforts.
Scientists hope what they learn in Lake Michigan can be applied to the rest of the Great Lakes. The money may also help fish elsewhere in the world. The count sent a team of Italian scientists to spend a week shadowing Wisconsin researchers. Darren McKenzie is an English scientist working with the Italians on preserving sturgeon in the Po River.
“Well I hope we can learn a few things about the techniques they use particularly with radio tracking and population issues. Because probably the Wisconsin lake sturgeon rehabilitation management thing, whatever it is called, is one of the best in the world for monitoring sturgeon population.”
For many of the foreign scientists, the importance of the sturgeon was brought home by a visit to a Northern Wisconsin Indian Reservation.
“Welcome to the Menominee tribal reservation. The way we look at it you’re people of the sturgeon just like we are-concerned about the sturgeon.”
For the Menominee, the sturgeon is more than just unusual looking and good tasting. The tribe’s relationship with the sturgeon goes back ten thousand years to the Menominee creation story. Before European settlers came along, the tribe relied on the fish for food and fuel. Then, in the 1890’s a dam went up downstream that stopped the sturgeon from swimming to a traditional spawning ground on Menominee land. Back then, tribal historian David Grignon says, the federal government would not let the Indians go off the reservation to spear sturgeon.
“It was denying us of a resource that we’d had for centuries. You know it was probably like the buffalo to the plains…. a way of life was gone, wouldn’t return anymore.”
But the fish are returning, since they can’t swim to the reservation anymore, the tribe is trucking them in. It is a long-term project. Sturgeon don’t mate until they’re at least twenty-five years old, so some tribal members won’t live long enough to know if their efforts have paid off. But if the tribe’s project and others like it are successful, then humans may claim credit for saving the fish once almost pushed to extinction. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Patty Murray in Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Terrorism prevention experts say the attacks in New York and Washington, D.C., are reminders of how vulnerable the U.S. is. However, they say utilities and cities can take simple steps to safeguard natural resources such as forests and water resources against terrorist attacks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Terrorism prevention experts say the attacks in New York City and Washington D.C. are reminders of how vulnerable the U.S. is. However, they say utilities and cities can take simple steps to safeguard natural resources such as forests and water sources against terrorist attacks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
The terrorist attacks prompted alarm across the nation, and even people in areas that will likely never be the targets of terrorism are wondering aloud about their vulnerability.
Peter Beerings is the terrorism prevention coordinator for the city of Indianapolis, and speaks on the subject across the nation. Beering says because the U.S. has such great wealth well beyond its cities, it is vulnerable.
“We have vast expanses of natural resources, forests, parks, things that we consider to be natural treasures are just as easily national targets. But, it is important, I think, to remember that while we are vulnerable by virtue of our size, that this is not particularly something of interest other than to, perhaps, a single issue aggressor.”
By single issue aggressor, Beering means these areas aren’t likely to be the targets for international terrorists, but are occasionally targeted by fanatics for single causes. For example, forest fires have been ignited to protest development near wilderness areas, and an extortionist threatened to poison the water in Phoenix.
A small town about 50 miles southwest of Indianapolis also has been a target of a terrorist group. Dave Rollo sits on the Bloomington, Indiana Environmental Commission. Last year, environmental terrorists repeatedly hit Bloomington, destroying highway construction equipment, burning a house under construction in a sensitive watershed, and spiking trees in a nearby state forest to prevent logging.
“It really brought terrorism home to a small town such as
Bloomington when this sort of activity usually takes place elsewhere. So, I think that public officials, especially, had to rethink many things about how we– how Bloomington has to safeguard the community from these acts.”
Rollo says one thing is certain. Bloomington lost its complacency about the possibility of terrorism. After a period of fear and confusion, the city is now struggling with the proper security measures.
“How does one go about safeguarding a forest from deliberate arson, or how does one go about safeguarding a water supply the size of Lake Monroe which is the largest lake in Indiana. It’s an enormous challenge.”
And it’s a challenge that governments have been unwilling to talk about publicly, at least until now.
Jim Snyder is a researcher at the University of Michigan. At the direction of the President’s commission on critical infrastructure protection, he co-authorized a report on protecting water systems, possibly the most vulnerable target. But instead of getting information to the water purification plants across the nation, the government buried it, fearing that it might cause panic or give radical ideas.
“Some ten years ago we wrote a manual on how to secure water supplies for the EPA, but because they’re always worried about getting that notion into the public eye –which of course now any of these things are in the public eye– but they basically decided not to distribute that manual.”
Snyder says the manual outlined simple things, such as an emergency response plan, locking gates in sensitive areas and securing wells, and having guards on duty at water plants, things that would dissuade vandals or disgruntled employees. However, Snyder says, there’s little to prevent a determined terrorist with the right knowledge from poisoning a water system, undetected with contaminants small enough to fit in a backpack.
“It is certainly possible to put something in the water (which would go) which would be odorless, colorless, tasteless, uh, and not detected. And, your best indication that you have a problem are sick people or dead people.”
The terrorism prevention experts say no one can predict or prevent all acts of terrorism. But cities and utilities can make it more difficult, and that might be enough to dissuade some of these single-issue aggressors. Peter Beering in Indianapolis says natural resources have one more thing going for them.
“The good news is that these are comparatively uninteresting targets to an aggressor. And, as we learned, unfortunately, in New York and in Washington, that certainly there are much higher profile targets that are of much greater interest to people who are upset with the United States.”
Beering adds that should not be an excuse to ignore the risks to natural resources. He recommends every municipality assess its risks and take proper measures to secure its vulnerable areas.
Terrorism prevention experts who’ve been calling for better security at vulnerable targets now have the public’s attention. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Terrorism prevention experts who’ve been calling for better security at vulnerable targets now have the public’s attention. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.
The experts say although a determined attack by a terrorist probably cannot be stopped. Security measures can be taken that would cause them to look for an easier target. Jim Snyder at the University of Michigan has co-authorized reports on water protection for the defense department. He says natural resources such as community water supplies and forests can and should be better protected.
“There’s lots of security measures that can be taken that are, compared to the value of the asset, is relatively minor expense. So, I suspect, because of this latest incident in New York and Washington, that there probably will be a renewed attention to all kinds of infrastructure.”
Snyder and other terrorism protection experts urge local governments to assess their risks and secure vulnerable areas. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
