New research shows organic farming can be as productive as chemical-based
conventional agriculture. The study’s author says her research refutes decades of
industry and government policies discouraging organic farming. Steve Carmody
reports:
Transcript
New research shows organic farming can be as productive as chemical-based
conventional agriculture. The study’s author says her research refutes decades of
industry and government policies discouraging organic farming. Steve Carmody
reports:
University of Michigan researchers have found that in developed countries, organic
and conventional farming methods produce almost equal crop yields.
And in the developing world, the research shows, organic farming can double or
triple chemical-based methods.
The key is planting nitrogen-rich cover crops between growing seasons.
Dr. Catherine Badgley is a research scientist at U of M’s Museum of Paleontology.
She says organic farming methods would also benefit the fragile wetlands:
“Many of the organic sources of fertilizer are more likely to be retained in the soil rather than runoff, by the very nature of organic farming which tends to build up soil quality. And it tends to build up and have stronger retention of nutrients and water holding capacity.”
Badgley says government subsidy policies which favor the use of conventional
farming methods is the major obstacle for organic farming in the US.
Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:
Transcript
Federal officials just announced which
wetlands they’ll protect and which ones they
won’t. The announcement was supposed to clear up
the confusion around federal wetlands
protection. But as Mark Brush reports, the
confusion and the controversy continue:
The controversy began when government officials stopped developers from building on
wetlands. The Supreme Court ruled the government should clear up exactly which
wetlands are protected under federal law.
Federal agencies now have new guidelines, but the Assistant Secretary of the Corps of
Engineers says it’s not clear whether more wetlands are at risk:
“It’s, I would say, very difficult if not impossible to determine the precise impact of this
vis a vis the prior existing regulation.”
Some environmentalists believe that more wetlands will be at risk because of the new
guidelines. Jim Murphy is an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation:
“It increases confusion. It puts a lot of important resources at risk. It’s really a disaster
all around.”
Now, Congress might step in with new laws to protect more wetlands.
One hundred years ago, people were draining swamps and other wetlands as quickly as possible. In many places, farmers wanted the land to grow crops. But biologists and others have come to realize the value of wetlands as habitat for wildlife and as a filter to clean the water. Now, one group is opening up a swamp to the public so that more people understand why wetlands are important. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
One hundred years ago people were draining swamps and other wetlands as quickly as possible. In many places, farmers wanted the land to grow crops. But biologists and others have come to realize the value of wetlands as habitat for wildlife and as a filter to clean the water. Now, one group is opening up a swamp to the public so that more people understand why wetlands are important. Julie Grant reports:
You really get the feeling you’re in rural America on these roads. The streets signs around here, if there are any, are often painted by hand. The land is flat as a pancake, and in many low-lying areas the ground is wet. But there used to be a lot more water.
More than half of the nation’s wetlands have been drained, much of that happened in the mid 1800s. These lowlands were no exception. Biological historians say the land around here was once a swampy forest. But people chopped down the trees, they drained swamps and marshes, and they started farming this river valley in Ohio.
Randy Edwards is spokesman for the Nature Conservancy. He says draining the wetlands back then changed the way the river flowed.
“We have made an effort to restore them and bring back the natural water flow to the area. We’ve had a lot of help from the beavers.”
That’s right, he said they’ve restored wetlands with the help of the beavers.
“I’m serious. They may not know it, but the beavers are an important partner of ours in the restoration of wetlands in Ohio.”
The Nature Conservancy has been buying and preserving wetlands in the lowlands of the Grand River Valley in northeast Ohio for more than twenty years. Now, it’s opening 1000 acres of this area, called Morgan Swamp, to the public.
It’s only a short walk from the new parking lot, through the forest, and onto a wood deck that overlooks the swamp, to see what all this beaver business is about.
“So from the overlook here, you can see what was at one point, a multi-tiered set of beaver dams. There’s the one that’s right in front of us, and you can see that the dam has been here a long time. There’s lots of vegetation growing on it.
If it weren’t for these beaver dams, Edwards says this wouldn’t be a life-giving pond and wetland area; it would just be a stream running through the woods. This past spring a flood burst through part of the dam. Edwards says the Nature Conservancy was worried the whole pond would drain.
“But instead, the beavers have been working at it little by little, and have blocked it up with small saplings and mud, whatever they could find to block up the whole. There’s still water running through there, but it’s not enough to drain the pond.”
And the beavers’ work benefits the entire area. A rare type of forest has come back to life. Hemlock conifers, with their flat, delicate needles grow here, and so do many rare species of wildflowers, such as the endangered painted trillium: a small white flower with a splash of red in the center.
Jim Bissell is the director of Conservation at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. He says the swamp makes a home for spotted turtles, rare rattlesnakes, salamanders, and lots of birds. And he credits those busy beavers for creating the ponds at Morgan Swamp.
“Morgan Swamp, it was the biggest hemlock swamp in the state before it was drained, and then caught on fire, and the peats burned. But it started to recover when the beavers returned.”
Beavers disappeared because they were trapped for fur, and then their habitat was destroyed. Bissell says so much water had been drained and so many trees cut, that in the 1920s this area looked like a flat barren prairie, instead of a wetland forest.
But, people began to realize the lowlands really weren’t all that good for growing hay and other crops. Many just abandoned their farms. Within 20 years, the forests were regrowing and the beaver returned.
The Nature Conservancy normally doesn’t open its properties to the public because they’re too fragile, but Randy Edwards says the Conservancy made an exception with this swamp.
“We believe that the more you provide people with the opportunity to witness firsthand and experience firsthand the natural settings in Ohio, really especially the unusual natural settings, the more willing they’ll be to protect it.”
And instead of seeing swamps as something to be drained, Edwards hopes people will see wetlands as valuable habitat for all kinds of animals, and a necessary part of the environment that helps keep the water clean.
John Pastor is trying to figure out how climate change will affect bogs and fens like this one. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
A bog north of Duluth, Minnesota. From this view it looks like a typical woodland, but the vegetative mat on the floor of the bog actually floats on top of water. A person can walk on the bog, with some risk of falling through into the water below. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Peat is key to holding carbon away from the atmosphere. Peat decomposes very slowly in the cold climate and cold water and stores more and more carbon. Should the water go away, and temperatures increase, peat could decompose much more quickly, releasing that stored carbon, and accelerating the pace of global change. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
In northern Minnesota, a researcher says wetlands like bogs could be key to how fast the climate changes worldwide. And the areas like the upper United States and Canada in the bull’s eye for rapidly changing temperatures and rainfall. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher reports:
Transcript
In northern Minnesota, a researcher says wetlands like bogs could be key to how fast the
climate changes worldwide. And the areas like the upper United States and Canada in the
bull’s eye for rapidly changing temperatures and rainfall. The GLRC’s Bob Kelleher
has more:
What have wetlands, like fens and bogs, got to do with global warming? John Pastor says,
plenty.
Pastor is a professor and researcher with the Natural Resources Research Institute of the
University of Minnesota-Duluth. When Pastor straps on his hip waders, he goes where
almost no one else dares to go: into northern Minnesota’s fens, where water can be
several feet deep, and onto the bogs, where the mass of plant material is so thick it floats
on standing water.
A seven year-long study has revealed that fens and bogs can either help slow global
warming, or accelerate it. Pastor says all cards are off the table if temperatures keep
rising:
“The one problem in science that has the most ramifications throughout all of science – it’s
global warming.”
We’re in a swamp north of Duluth, Minnesota. Actually, it’s a fen, and it borders some
higher landscape nearby that’s a bog. What fens and bogs have in common is water and
peat, the not quite decomposed stuff left over when plants die. Pastor says peat lands are
one of the world’s significant bank accounts for carbon. They keep carbon out of the
atmosphere.
“Peat lands cover only 3% of the earth’s surface, but they contain 30% of all the carbon
that’s in all the soil in the world, locked in that partially decomposed organic matter, that
peat.”
Minnesota has vast peat lands that have been storing carbon for 10,000 years, but even
the size of Minnesota’s peat lands pales compared to those further north – around
Canada’s Hudson Bay, or in the Russian republics – all regions Pastor says that are facing
higher temperatures.
“All of the global climate models, one thing they all agree on, is that the greatest amount
of warming will occur in areas from Minnesota northward, and then inland – mid-
continent areas. So here we are. We’re sitting right now, right in the bullseye of the
greatest amount of warming that will happen on the face of the earth.”
This is the question: Will higher temperatures help trap more carbon in bogs, or force
more carbon into the atmosphere?
In this bog, Pastor’s been trying to figure out how warmer weather will affect bogs and
fens, and, in turn, what role the wetlands will play in global change. One thing he’s
found: the results depend largely on the water table, and that’s going to depend on
rainfall.
In some combinations, say with additional heat and additional rainfall, bogs could thrive,
trapping more carbon. That would be good. In other conditions, say with more heat but
less rainfall, bogs and fens could die and decompose, releasing even more carbon into the
atmosphere. That, Pastor says, would be bad:
“Now we have kind of a double whammy. Not only are we putting carbon dioxide from
fossil fuel into the atmosphere, the warning from that could cause the carbon from the
peat land also to go into the atmosphere and accelerate the warming.”
Predicting an outcome becomes mind numbing. Pastor’s working with new mathematical
theory to try to determine at what point global warming has gone too far.
“And so what seems to be happening is the temperatures of the earth have crossed some
kind of a threshold, where all the sudden, before that they crossed that threshold, the old
earth that we grew up with was stable. Now, it’s becoming very unstable, and ice sheets
are collapsing, birds and plants are migrating – everything’s happening very, very
quickly. And we’re going to enter into a new kind of earth that has a different kind of
stability – a different stable endpoint.”
Pastor says there’s no more complicated problem in all of science than global warming,
and no more important problem. Global warming, he says, changes everything, from the
forests to the wetlands. Pastor’s hoping the new mathematical models will provide more
definitive answers in time to do something about the outcome.
Roger LaBine winnows the wild rice. (Photo by Michael Loukinen, Up North Films)
The Ojibwe tribe harvest rice on Lac Vieux Desert, but doing so can lower water levels and create muddy shorelines. (Photo by Michael Loukinen, Up North Films)
Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:
Transcript
Since European settlers first came to this country they have had serious conflicts with
Native Americans. The GLRC’s Sandy Hausman reports on one modern-day dispute
between a Native American tribe and communities in the upper Midwest:
(Sound of Ojibwe music)
The Ojibwe tribe first came to the north woods of Michigan and Wisconsin hundreds of
years ago. They say their migration from the east coast was guided by prophets. Those
prophets told them to keep moving until they came to a place where food grows on the
water. Roger Labine is a spiritual leader with the tribe. He says that food was wild rice:
“This was a gift to us. This is something that is very, very sacred to us. This is very
important, just as our language. This is part of who we are.”
For hundreds of years, wild rice was a staple of the tribe’s diet, but starting in the 1930s,
private construction of hydroelectric dams pushed water levels in rice growing areas up.
High water killed most of the plants and took a toll on wildlife. Bob Evans is a biologist
with the U.S. Forest Service. He says fish, bird and insect populations dropped
dramatically:
“Black tern is a declining, threatened species that is known to use wild rice beds,
Trumpeter swans. They’re a big user of rice beds. Um, just a whole lot of plants and
animals. It’s really a whole ecosystem in itself.”
So in 1995, the tribe, the U.S. Forest Service and several other government agencies
demanded a change. A year later, the federal government ordered dam operators to drop
their maximum water levels by 9 inches. The dam owners appealed that decision, but in
2001 a federal court ruled against them.
That fall, the Ojibwe who live on Lac Vieux
Desert harvested nearly 16 acres of wild rice and this summer, the tribe is tending more than 55 acres.
But the resurgence of rice beds comes at a price. Lower lake levels have left docks in this
boating community high and dry, created muddy shorelines and made long-time residents
and summer boaters angry:
“I used to come here and dock all the time. We picnicked here. I had to walk in 50 feet,
because there wasn’t enough water to float a pontoon, and it’s that way all around the
lake.”
Ken Lacount is president of the Lac Vieux Desert homeowners association. He first
came here in the 1940s and doesn’t see why his cultural traditions should take a backseat
to those of the Ojibwe:
“My grandfather built one of the first resorts. I fished in Rice Bay my entire life. That
was his favorite place to take me.”
Lacount is bitter. He and his neighbors feel powerless to change the situation, since a
federal court has ruled for the Ojibwa. Defenders of that decision say water levels are
especially low because of a prolonged drought in region. When that ends, they predict
lake levels will rise, and homeowners on Lac Vieux Desert will be happier.
(Sound of paddling)
Such conflicts are nothing new. Ron Seeley is a reporter for the Wisconsin State Journal. He’s covered Native American issues for more than 20 years. Paddling through the rice beds, he recalls an earlier battle
over fishing rights. In the late 80s, a court ruled the Ojibwe were entitled by treaty to
spear fish each spring. Local fishermen worried the practice would destroy their industry:
“Sometimes thousands of people would show up at the landings on a spring night. Tribal
members from all over the upper Midwest would come to support the spearers and drum
and chant. The anti-Indian forces were arrested for using wrist rockets or real powerful
sling shots to shoot pellets at the tribal members while they were out spearing. It was a
violent time up here.”
As court after court upheld the rights of native spear fishermen, and as commercial
fishermen continue to prosper, hostilities subsided and now, as the Native Americans prepare for
their biggest rice harvest in more than 50 years, the Ojibwe hope that the controversy over water levels
will also die down. Tribal leader Roger Labine says wild rice is a symbol of the Ojibwe’s survival:
“This is an endangered species. It’s something that we’re fighting to save, just like the
eagle, just like the wolf. We were put here to care for Mother Earth and all the gifts that
the creator gave us.”
And having won the first battle to restore rice beds, Labine is hoping to secure even
greater protection for these wetlands by asking the federal government to declare the rice
beds historic.
Pat Lindemann is the drain commissioner for Ingham County, Michigan. He uses “low-impact design” in drainage reconstruction projects. Behind Lindemann, work crews are digging one of several rain gardens that will be installed in this suburban neighborhood. Rain gardens serve as retention areas for storm water, and are a natural filter for pollution. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Homeowners in this Lansing, Michigan, neighborhood used to have flooded basements after heavy rains. Now, storm water is trapped and cleaned in a series of retention ponds. The wetland area also serves as a neighborhood park. (Photo by Erin Toner)
In the middle of Lansing, Michigan, wetlands were built to manage storm water. The project was half the cost of installing concrete pipes from the neighborhood to the river. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Many communities throughout the country are rebuilding their sewer systems to comply with federal pollution regulations. Nationwide, the work is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. But in some communities, a concept called “low-impact” design is making the projects cheaper and better for the environment. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Many communities throughout the country are rebuilding their sewer
systems to comply with federal pollution regulations. Nationwide, the
work is costing taxpayers billions of dollars. But in some communities, a
concept called “low-impact” design is making the projects cheaper and
better for the environment. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
Dump trucks, black plastic pipes and huge piles of dirt line the streets of
this suburban neighborhood. It was built on very flat land and water
doesn’t run off. It used to be covered in ponds of wetlands. Now, that’s
causing big problems for people who live here. Their basements are
nearly always flooded and after it rains, they have pools of water in their
backyards for weeks, or months. Many run sump pumps all day and all
night.
Jesse Ramos lives in a white ranch house in the neighborhood.
“Actually, this past couple of months I’ve had a lot of problems with
water in my basement. I’ve actually already been through one sump
pump and I’ve went out and purchased another, just so I could keep up
with that. Right now that it hasn’t rained I’m okay. So, I’m a little
nervous when it starts to rain.”
Fixing these problems the traditional way – with concrete pipes, curbs
and gutters – would have cost 20 million dollars, and it would have
sent polluted storm water straight to the river, but Pat Lindemann wanted
to do the project differently. He wanted to save people money and clean
up the environment. Lindemann often sounds more like the head of a big
environmental group, than what he actually is – the county drain
commissioner for this neighborhood near Lansing, Michigan.
“A lot of people argue that if I own the wetland, I should be able to
destroy it, but you shouldn’t because… what you do on your property
affects the river, every time you over fertilize your lawn, every time you
do not pick up your domestic pet waste… this country has such a vast
amount of beautiful resources, and for 150 years, we’ve done everything
that we could to beat up on it.”
In Jesse Ramos’ neighborhood, Lindemann’s using low-impact design to
rebuild the drain system. It’s costing half as much as concrete curbs and
gutters.
“In the case of low-impact design, we force the water to go through soils,
to interact with plant roots, to stay on the land slightly longer and
become treated before it leaves to make its way to the river.”
The main way that happens is through rain gardens, one of the main
features of low-impact design. They’re bowl-shaped gardens planted
with native flowers and grasses. Native plants have long roots that draw
water deep into the ground and provide a natural filter for pollution.
Rain water collects in the gardens and becomes cleaner before eventually
reaching the pipe that takes it to the river.
Lindemann’s installing more than seven acres of gardens in the
neighborhood. He says people will have a few hours of standing water in
rain gardens, instead of weeks of water in their backyards.
Jesse Ramos is hearing this good news for the first time today…
“…now you’ll be flooded for about an hour and a half…an hour and a
half…that’s wonderful…and it’s pretty flowers…”
There’s another low-impact design project across town. Drainage
problems were causing backups in peoples’ homes. So, Drain
Commissioner Pat Lindemann built 20 acres of wetlands – right in the
middle of the city.
“It dawned on me, why take the water anywhere, why not just keep it. If
I can find a place to store it, put it and manipulate it, and not take it
anywhere, than I could manage it.”
This site is technically a series of retention ponds, but it’s really more
like a park. A paved walking path weaves around ponds and trees and
over bridges. It’s a place you’d bring school kids to learn about frogs
and birds and about being good to the environment.
This low-impact design project, like the one in Jesse Ramos’
neighborhood, was about half the cost of installing new concrete pipes
from the neighborhood to the river.
Low-impact design projects are happening all over – in Chicago and
Seattle, to more rural communities, and they’re likely to become more
common as cities consider how to cut non-point source pollution – the
leading cause of poor water quality. Non-point source pollution is a lot
of things – the fertilizer we use on our lawns or bacteria from animal
waste.
Pat Lindemann says his philosophy is that our dirty rivers will recover if
we start developing the land or rebuilding it the right way – one rain
garden or wetland at a time.
In some parts of the country, developers who damage or destroy wetlands are mitigating that by buying credits for wetlands that have been created somewhere else. It’s called “wetland banking” and it’s similar to banking programs for air pollution. Wetland banking resulted from state and federal efforts to stop the loss of wetlands nationwide. The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
In some parts of the country, developers who damage or destroy
wetlands are making up for it by buying credits for wetlands that have
been created somewhere else. It’s called “wetland banking” and it’s
similar to banking programs for air pollution. Wetland banking resulted
from state and federal efforts to stop the loss of wetlands nationwide.
The GLRC’s Erin Toner reports:
J.B Ruhl is a professor of property at Florida State University. He
compiled a list of all wetland banking transactions in Florida. Ruhl
found a clear shift of wetlands from urban areas to rural areas, taking
environmental services away from cities.
Ruhl says wetlands provide flood and storm surge control, capture
pollution and recharge groundwater.
“If you take that wetland out, you’ve lost some value that you have to
either replace by building cement storm water ponds and all the other
things that could kind of replicate the wetland. Or, you just don’t replace
them, and either way you’re either spending money to replace the
wetland or you’re spending money to deal with the problems that arise
when the wetland is gone.”
Ruhl says the federal government should keep better track of where
wetlands are being lost and where they’re being replaced – and of the
environmental costs and benefits of those transactions.
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case that will determine how much power the federal government has over isolated wetlands - wetlands that aren't adjacent to lakes or streams. (Photo by Lester Graham)
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments that could
decide which wetlands the federal government can regulate. The case
before the court involves a couple of construction projects in the state of
Michigan, but it’s being followed closely throughout the country. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
The federal Clean Water Act is supposed to stop people from polluting
streams, wetlands and other waterways that are connected to the
country’s major lakes, rivers and coastal areas, but what if the wetland in
question is located 20-miles from the nearest major waterway? Is it
covered by the Clean Water Act? That’s the question the court will
consider.
In the 1980’s John Rapanos started moving sand from one part of
property he owned in Michigan to another, to fill in some wetlands. He
wanted to sell the land to a shopping mall developer. Trouble is, he
didn’t get permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to fill in the
wetlands. The government says he should have.
“The property has a drainage ditch that runs through it…”
Robin Rivett is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation. It’s a
property-rights group that is representing Rapanos.
“And because of the movement of the sand on the property, which is
characterized as wetlands, the government came in and has prosecuted
him for actually discharging fill material into the navigable waters.”
Rapanos was charged with violating the Clean Water Act. Washington is
demanding 13-million dollars in fines and fees, and wants him to set
aside about 80-acres as wetlands.
In another case, that’s been combined with the Rapanos matter,
developers in Southeast Michigan were denied permits to fill in wetlands
so they could build a condominium complex. That site is about two
miles from Lake St. Clair, which lies between lakes Huron and Erie.
In both cases, the federal government says the sites fall under the Clean
Water Act because they’re located near navigable waters. Actually, that
term – navigable waters – has evolved over the years and come to mean
“interstate or intrastate waters,” along with their wetlands and tributaries.
The plaintiffs, their attorneys and supporters say the land should be
governed by state environmental regulations, rather than the federal
Clean Water Act, but on the side of the government in this case is 35
state governments, along with many environmental and conservation
groups.
Jim Murphy is a lawyer for the National Wildlife Federation. His group
has filed briefs on behalf of more than a dozen organizations that support
the federal position.
“What is at stake here is the ability of the act to protect the vast number
of tributaries that flow into navigable waters and the wetlands that
surround and feed into those tributaries. If those tributaries and wetlands
aren’t protected under the federal Clean Water Act, it becomes difficult if not
impossible under the Clean Water Act to achieve its goal to protect water
quality.”
Murphy says if the Supreme Court rules that Congress did not intend to
protect wetlands like the ones in this case, then about half the wetlands in
the country could lose their federal protection. Murphy and others on his
side worry that wetlands could begin disappearing more quickly than
they already do today.
Scott Yaich directs conservation programs for Ducks Unlimited – a
wetlands protection group.
“The landowners who have those wetlands would no longer be subject to
getting the Corps of Engineers to review, so essentially they could do
anything they wanted.”
The lawyers for the landowners don’t see it that way. The Pacific Legal
Foundation’s Robin Rivett says individual states would have something
to say.
“I believe there are 47 states that have their own clean water programs.
If it is clear that the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction over
local waters, the states will step in to protect those waters.”
Maybe they will; maybe they won’t, say environmental groups. They
fear a patchwork of water protection laws. They say it could mean
polluted water from a state with weaker laws could flow into a state with
stronger water protection laws.
Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation.
“The Clean Water Act provides a floor. It provides comprehensive
protection, a floor beyond which states must maintain that level of
protection.”
Those who support the property owners in this case say it’s about more
than clean water – it’s also about land use. They say if the court rules
that waterways and wetlands are interconnected and all deserving of
protection under the Clean Water Act, then what could be left out?
Duane Desiderio is with the National Association of Home Builders,
which has filed briefs supporting the property owners.
“All water flows somewhere. Every drop of water in the United States,
when it goes down the Continental Divide, is going to drain into the
Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, or the Gulf of Mexico. Pretty much.”
Both sides are hoping the Supreme Court provides a clear definition of
which wetlands and tributaries Congress intended to protect when it
passed the Clean Water Act. A decision is expected this summer.
Hardened shorelines protect buildings, roads, and homes, but many developers say a more natural method should be used. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Along many Great Lakes cities, long concrete or stone seawalls protect property against
wind and wave erosion. It’s a hardening of the shoreline that some people say is
necessary to protect expensive real estate. But some scientists and environmentalists say
it’s part of one of the ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. They’re worried those concrete
seawalls are not only hurting the environment… in the long run, they’re hurting the
economy. Lynette Kalsnes has this report:
Transcript
In our series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes,’ we’ve been looking at how humans make
changes that affect the health of the lakes. Lester Graham is our guide through the series.
He says the next report shows how far we’ll go to try to manage nature:
Along many Great Lakes cities, long concrete or stone seawalls protect property against
wind and wave erosion. It’s a hardening of the shoreline that some people say is
necessary to protect expensive real estate. But some scientists and environmentalists say
it’s part of one of the ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes. They’re worried those concrete
seawalls are not only hurting the environment… in the long run, they’re hurting the
economy. Lynette Kalsnes has this report:
(waves lapping against concrete wall)
In the middle of a miles-long concrete shoreline, there’s a tiny beach. Steve Forman points
toward a small bluff at the base of a tree. The professor of earth and environmental sciences at
the University of Illinois at Chicago says the sand, grass and dunes help soften the impact of
waves and rain.
“This kind of relief is what you’d see in many natural coastlines, a coastline like this can
accommodate change better than one that’s been concreted up.”
Just feet away, the concrete picks back up, like a stark white runway that bisects the land and the
lake. Concrete revetments like these in Chicago are a familiar sight in urban areas across the
Great Lakes.
Roy Deda is with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps manages much of the
construction on public shorelines. Deda says hardening the shore is one way of protecting against
erosion.
“Where hardening of the shoreline is important and used, is where you have an existing
community in an urban area like Chicago. You have a lot of development in place already, and
basically you’re protecting what’s been built over a long history.”
Deda says it protects property. But scientist Steve Forman says using concrete walls comes at a
cost: the destruction of natural systems that are often helpful.
Forman says wetlands and stream valleys normally act like a sponge to absorb high lake levels.
They also release some of the water back when lake levels are low. Forman says concrete can’t
buffer those fluctuations.
“It makes the extremes potentially even more extreme in terms of lake level variations.”
So, when there’s a rainstorm, Forman says the water runs off the concrete quickly… instead of
being absorbed across sand or wetlands slowly.
He says the same thing is true for the water flowing into the lakes from rivers.
Discharge into rivers can go up by 50 times the amount it would if natural areas buffered the
rivers.
“Any time we change the landscape from its natural components, we also change the plumbing of
the Great Lakes. We change the way water is routed in and around and through the Great Lakes
as well.”
It’s not only rushing rivers and lake levels that cause problems.
When the shoreline is hardened… the wildlife and organisms that once lived there disappear.
Cameron Davis is with the Alliance for the Great Lakes. He says many rare species live in that
narrow ribbon where the land meets the water.
“When we harden the shorelines, we basically sterilize them in a lot of ways, because we’ve not
providing the kinds of habitat and cover that we need for many of them.”
And beyond the effect on wildlife… hardening the shoreline can also be a bad economic decision.
Steve Forman says permanent structures built near the shores are not as stable as they might seem
when lake levels are high and winter storms cause big waves that erode the land underneath them.
“When the lake levels go up, the erosion rates are just phenomenal…what you see are hanging
stairs everywhere, instead of stairs that take you down to the beach, they’re hanging over the lake,
basically.”
That’s why scientists and planners are taking action. The Alliance for the Great Lakes’ Cameron
Davis is calling on planners to balance protecting the shoreline … with preserving ecology.
“Frankly I don’t think shoreline planning across the region is that great. There really is no single
unifying policy we’re all using to guide what our shorelines ought to look like.”
He’s hoping that some cities will experiment with restoring natural areas along their shorelines…
He says we need to see if in the long run, nature can do a better job of protecting the shores.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases involving the government’s authority to regulate wetlands. The cases question whether federal regulators have jurisdiction over wetlands that don’t directly connect to rivers or other waterways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
reports:
Transcript
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear two cases involving the government’s authority to regulate wetlands. The cases question whether federal regulators have jurisdiction over wetlands that don’t directly connect to rivers or other waterways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
In both cases, property owners in Michigan argue that since wetlands on their land don’t drain into or abut any navigable waterways, they aren’t protected under the Clean Water Act.
One of the landowners faces millions of dollars in fines for filling in his wetlands. Howard Learner is executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He says the Supreme Court could consider whether parts of the Clean Water Act are constitutional.
“This is a case in which you could see some justices wanting to limit the degree of wetlands protection, while other justices would want to reaffirm the wetlands protection that the Court of Appeals has found appropriate here. It’s a hard court to predict.”
Learner says the Supreme Court has been divided on similar issues in the past. Lower courts have ruled in these cases that the federal government acted appropriately in seeking to protect the wetlands.
