Water Management

Smooth Ride So Far For Compact, But Questions Remain

Mose Buchele — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:41:18 -0700

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Great Lakes Compact, an eight state agreement designed to protect water from the lakes from being diverted outside the region. Lawmakers have been trying to fast-track approval of the compact, which has bipartisan support, including from President Bush. There had been some concern that legislators from drought-prone regions of the country would find fault with the conservation agreement, but so far that does not appear to be the case:

House and Senate leaders from the region have said they are not aware of any significant opposition to the plan, which is common among states. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia currently belong to at least one interstate water compact, and many states belong to more than one.

The question that remains is just how effective the compact will be. With confidence high over its prospects, some environmentalists and lawmakers are questioning whether it will do enough to prohibit the "commercialization" of Great Lakes water:

Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak [D-MI] has spoken out with concerns that the compact's failure to regulate the export of water in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons is a loophole that could open up vast tracts of Michigan water to commercialization.

In a recent interview with Circle of Blue, environmental lawyer Jim Olson outlined his main complaints with the compact:

There are three major concerns that I have with the Compact. One is that there is a huge product exemption; a precedent is being set that water can be privatized for export and sale. It is not subject to the diversion ban and Compact, which could tilt the gradient of Great Lakes water to the West, or to the Southeast, or anywhere in the world if it was in a container. It wasn’t intended to turn water into a private commodity, or to privatize water and there’s a huge risk that the Compact does exactly that. [...]

The other big issue is that the Great Lakes and all navigable water are by U.S. and State Supreme Court decision since the late 1800’s subject to public ownership in a public trust, which demands that governments not dispose of water for private gain and purposes. [...] It’s strange that the Compact does not include a public trust standard, which is the most basic, and the highest ethical standard, or stewardship standard recognized by law, by the US Supreme Court, and by the states of the Great Lakes.

The last problem is that some of the states are adopting the Compact’s diversion ban, but they’re not enacting conservation standards that are very strict...

Proponents of the compact have responded to such concerns by arguing that any water protection agreement is better than an absolute lack of regulation.

(H/T Michigan Messenger)

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user swanksalot.

As Great Lakes Compact Nears Finish Line, Time Is Of The Essence

Mose Buchele — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:14:19 -0700

Over the last few months, we've watched state after state join the Great Lakes Compact, a regional agreement aimed at protecting the waters from outside exploitation. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed off on legislation approving the compact yesterday. Pennsylvania, the last holdout, passed the compact last Thursday and Gov. Ed Rendell has promised to sign it into law.

Now that all the Great Lakes states are on board, Congress must ratify the agreement. A report Tuesday from National Public Radio highlighted how important it is that federal lawmakers act soon:

"The chances of the compact passing in Congress are better the sooner it gets there," according to Noah Hall, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center and a professor of water law at the University of Michigan and Wayne State University. He says that while Congress usually defers to the states most affected by water compacts, this compact is unique because it governs so much of the nation's fresh water supply.

"As we're seeing droughts and water shortages in other parts of the country, I think that there's a legitimate concern that Congress might be reluctant to lock up the Great Lakes and prevent diversions to other parts of the country," Hall says.

He and other Great Lakes advocates want to get the compact through Congress before 2010. That's when a new census will be taken, which will likely result in the Great Lakes states losing anywhere from a few to a dozen seats in Congress, seats that will likely shift to states in the growing — and parched — South and West.

It's no surprise that the growing Southwest looks to the Great Lakes with thirsty eyes. Last year, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson famously proposed importing water from this region into the Sun Belt. One of the problems with that plan is that the Great Lakes themselves are already shrinking. The compact would allow the export of water from the region, but such diversions would require approval from all the Great Lakes governments.

Great Lakes Compact Inches Closer To Congress

Josh Kalven — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:03:14 -0700

On Friday, Ohio became the latest state to approve the Great Lakes Compact, joining Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Minnesota, and New York. This leaves only two of the eight Great Lakes states -- Michigan and Pennsylvania -- that are yet to sign the agreement, which would ensure that the water from the lakes remains in the region. Michigan's bill just passed the state legislature and is currently awaiting Gov. Jennifer Granholm's signature. Pennsylvania's House has signed off on a measure joining the interstate compact, but it is yet to be taken up by the Senate.

With the compact so close to reaching ratification in all eight states, its supporters are now turning their sights on the final step: approval by Congress and President Bush. The AP reports:

[B]ackers have been conducting briefings for congressional staffers from the Great Lakes states in hopes of gaining quick approval.

But crucial questions remain unanswered, such as who will be the primary House and Senate sponsors, which committees will consider the compact and whether it will be structured as a bill, a resolution or an amendment to other legislation. Also unclear is when the pact would be introduced and whether it can get through Congress before the next president takes office.

"This has moved so much quicker than any of us thought," said Cameron Davis, president of the Chicago-based Great Lakes Alliance. "We're putting finishing touches on some of these strategic points but don't have our final thoughts quite ready yet."

As Ohio Approves Great Lakes Compact, Some Question Its Worth

Mose Buchele — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:51:15 -0700

With an accord reached Tuesday between Democratic and Republican state lawmakers, Ohio will become the sixth state to ratify the Great Lakes Compact:

Ohio had been a major obstacle to the pact because of a disagreement over whether the plan would inadvertently violate property rights for groundwater on privately owned land. House Speaker Jon Husted, a Republican, and Democratic Minority Leader Joyce Beatty, reached a deal Monday to affirm private property rights and set the stage for Tuesday's vote.

The Great Lakes hold about 90 percent of our nation's fresh surface water and 20 percent of the world's fresh surface water. As water resources become more scarce, the compact is viewed by supporters as a means of protecting the environment, and as a way for people in the region to protect their water rights. But some environmentalists say that the compact itself gives states too many options to continue the wholesale privatization of surface water.

Right now Michigan lawmakers are hashing out a compromise between House- and Senate-passed versions of a Great Lakes Compact tie-in that will allow private interests to reduce the state's cool and warm rivers and streams by as much as 25 percent and legally allow for the reduction of fish populations from 1 percent to 20 percent depending on the character of the stream or river. And wait, there's more: The bill would also require no permit for water withdrawals until the proposal reaches a level of an eye-popping two million gallons a day. Those companies with proposals for less than that simply register and take state water unsupervised.

Regardless of whether states are going far enough in protecting the lakes, the compact remains the region's most comprehensive attempt to regulate access to the country's main supply of fresh water. With Ohio Governor Ted Strickland's promise to sign the agreement into law, Michigan and Pennsylvania are the two Great Lakes states yet to reach an agreement on the compact.

Great Lakes In The News

Josh Kalven — Wed, 28 May 2008 15:47:46 -0700

Today the Healing Our Waters coalition released a report on the threat posed to the Great Lakes by global warming. According to the press release, the report "synthesizes current climate change science and presents the likely impacts warming temperatures will have on the lakes, including lower lake levels, more sewage overflows, and increased pressure to divert Great Lakes water."

The AP provides more detail:

Evaporation rates are likely to rise, causing already-low water levels to fall 1 foot on Lake Superior, 3 feet on Lakes Michigan and Huron, 2.7 feet on Lake Erie and 1.7 feet on Lake Ontario over the next century, the report says.

Such changes likely would make the Great Lakes more hospitable to invaders that steal food and shelter from native species, it says. Coastal wetlands that filter pollutants and provide fish spawning grounds would shrink. Exposed toxic sediments would endanger people and wildlife.

If predictions of more frequent and severe storms prove accurate, it could mean more sewage overflows that lead to beach closings, the report says. Meanwhile, arid regions could get even less rainfall, making the Great Lakes a more tempting target.

The coalition is seeking federal funding for its $20 billion Great Lakes restoration plan.

In related news, Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law a bill approving the Great Lakes Compact yesterday. This leaves three state governments -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio -- that are yet to approve the agreement.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley greeted the news by ... ridiculing Wisconsin for taking so long. Doyle's spokesman responded: "Maybe Mayor Daley is a little off because he just had so many constituents escape Chicago for a beautiful weekend in Wisconsin."

Congress Takes Stock Of Great Lakes Cleanup Effort

Mose Buchele — Thu, 22 May 2008 09:38:15 -0700

This week, the U.S. House is considering the reauthorization of the Great Lakes Legacy Act, a federal program that targets 31 pollution sites on the Great Lakes for cleanup. The project has already had an impact, having removed about 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediment since its inception. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment heard testimony yesterday from environmentalists about the progress of cleanup efforts, and pleas from representatives of Great Lakes states for more funding. In fact, the program has never been given the full $150 million in annual funding that Congress initially approved:

At the current pace, figures provided at the hearing suggested, cleanup of the entire 31 toxic areas wouldn't be completed for another 35 years. But if Legacy Act appropriations were to reach $150 million annually, combined with the Superfund money, the job might be completed in seven years.

While federal dollars are increasingly tight, one subcommittee member, Rep. John Hall, D-N.Y., noted that Congress is appropriating $12 billion a month for the U.S. military engagement in Iraq.

As the fate of the project is decided in Washington, others closer to home are taking a look at new challenges facing the Great Lakes.

(Click "Read More" to continue ...)

An article today in the Post-Tribune (of Northwest Indiana) offers a glimmer of hope to those who want to see a fully-restored Lake Michigan:

A comparison of 1994-1995 data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with more recent data from Michigan showed that levels of PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, have declined, said Gary Kohlhepp with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

Most of the PCBs that still enter the lake come from the air, especially in the Chicago area. PCBs seem to be evaporating out of the lake at a faster pace than it's coming in, he said.

But the Post-Tribune points to new threats on the horizon in the form of invasive species like "quagga mussels and zebra mussels and Asian carp." In fact, the threat of invasive species has led advocates of the Legacy Act to ask Congress to allow federal dollars to be spent not only on cleaning pollution but also on restoring native fish to the lakes.

As we've previously reported, the cleanup of the Great Lakes would not only benefit the environment but could also pump billions of dollars into Illinois' state economy in increased property values and tourism spending.

Some Environmental Updates

Mose Buchele — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:56:09 -0700

There were new developments today in two stories we've been following here at Progress Illinois.

Expansion of BP Refinery

A petition from two environmental groups -- the Calumet Project and the Global Community Monitor -- has been sent to the Indiana Office of Environmental Adjudication asking that judges halt the expansion of BP's oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana. The Times (of Munster, IN) reports that the petition highlights the potential impact of the increased pollution on the health of nearby low-income and minority neighborhoods:

The complaint alleges the Indiana Department of Environmental Management did not allow the public ample time to review the permit and states that the permit fails to protect nearby poor and minority residents. The petition claims the permit "illegally limited the public participation" by reducing the comment period by 12 days.

Because of a filing issue, the courts are yet to review the petition. However, if the environmentalists' request for a stay of construction is granted, BP will have to temporarily halt the $3.8 billion project. The company began expanding the plant on May 1, the same day the Indiana Department of Environmental Management approved the project. As we reported earlier, Hoosiers aren't the only ones with reservations about the refinery. Illinois lawmakers also requested public hearings about the expansion before it began.

Great Lakes Compact

Lawmakers in Michigan are hoping to vote on the ratification of the Great Lakes Compact sometime in the next couple of weeks, though there are still major negotiations taking place between Democrats and Republicans about the bill's language. The compact is an agreement between the eight Great Lakes states (as well as Ontario and Quebec) designed to keep the water of the great lakes from being siphoned out of the region. After an intense back-and-forth, the compact was ratified by Wisconsin in April. If it passes in Michigan, two states will remain that have not ratified the agreement -- Ohio and Pennsylvania.

DEBRA SHORE: Drugs Down the Drain

Debra Shore — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:32:28 -0700

A number of recent newspaper articles have reported on the presence of trace amounts of pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in our water supply, both here in Illinois and nationally.

Hormones from birth control pills and Viagra. Chemicals such as DEET from insect repellent. Drugs such as painkillers and Prozac. All of the above have been found in very small amounts (parts per trillion) in water samples taken from Chicago area waterways.

We really shouldn’t be surprised. Think about how many drugs we take: from prescription medications such as antibiotics, cancer treatments, and anti-depressants, to over-the-counter products like vitamins, nasal decongestants, and ibuprofen. It's gotten to the point where major pharmaceutical companies are now developing two new drugs for dogs – one to address obesity and another to help with sleep problems.

These substances are entering our waterways because people flush unused or expired medicine down the toilet and because we excrete what our bodies don’t absorb.

“Water that dinosaurs drank is still consumed by humans,” wrote Michael Spector in a New Yorker article titled “The Last Drop.” But dinosaurs didn’t have to contend with plastic or synthetic molecules or PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). These we’ve invented and added to our landscape. So, though the amount of freshwater on Earth has not changed significantly for millions of years, what we’ve added to the water in the form of chemicals and pollution has made it more costly and difficult to purify.

The water available to dinosaurs circulated through the natural hydrologic cycle of rain, evaporation, filtration, groundwater recharge, and so on. Worked awfully well for eons. But humans, grand inventors that we are, tinkered with the system: reversing and damming rivers, drilling deeper and deeper to reach “fossil” water stored in underground bedrock, and adding untold amounts of chemicals and plastics. This means that the water on earth we pass on to our children and grandchildren will not be as pure, as clean, as healthy as we found it. It will cost more to filter and treat. Some of it may even be rendered undrinkable.

Mind you, these “emerging chemicals of concern” are found in very minute quantities. Take the amount of ibuprofen identified in our water supply: one would have to drink a gallon a day for 144 years to consume the equivalent of one 200 mg tablet. Nonetheless, these chemicals are mixed in our lakes and streams in ways we don’t mix them in our bodies. Some studies have also begun to show detrimental effects – such as feminization of fish -- from exposure to hormones in rivers and streams. So it’s something that scientists are monitoring.

As with most pollution, however, it’s always much cheaper to stop it at the source than to try to remove it once it’s contaminated our lands or natural resources.

So what can you do about drugs in the water?

First, crush don’t flush. If you have unused or expired medicines that you want to dispose of safely, take them out of their container, crush them and mix them with coffee grounds or kitty litter, and toss them out with your garbage. That’s what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends.

Even better, take your excess meds to a hazardous waste collection day in your area, so that they can be incinerated safely by the EPA at a special facility. For instance, the city of Chicago operates a permanent collection facility on Goose Island at 1150 N. North Branch Street. Additionally, a number of municipalities in northern Cook County collect pharmaceuticals through a program sponsored by the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County.

And how can local and state governments address this problem?

The challenge is to develop a collection program for unused and expired medicines that is safe, secure, and easy for people to use. The state of Maine is experimenting with a pilot mailback program, much like the recycle bags one receives with the purchase of an inkjet cartridge. Other locales are testing take-back programs at pharmacies, though these currently face a number of regulatory hurdles.

Right now, pharmaceuticals in our water are a very small problem, but we need to do what we can to keep it from growing. I've been drinking Chicago tap water for years and am grateful for it. Now I want to find a way to keep our water supply as clean and plentiful as possible, so future generations can play with plastic dinosaurs and still drink the water.

Debra Shore sits on the Board of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. She is also founding editor of Chicago WILDERNESS Magazine and a leader in the regional conservation consortium known as Chicago Wilderness.

Great Lakes Cleanup Could Pump Billions Into Chicago Economy

Mose Buchele — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:25:38 -0700

In a study (PDF) released last September, the Brookings Institution found that a comprehensive cleanup of the Great Lakes could infuse the regional economy with as much as $50 billion. Increases in tourism, commercial and recreational fishing, and property values -- not to mention decreases in water utility costs -- could all spell big gains for the Great Lakes Region, the report concluded. Now, Brookings has released a supplement to that original study which singles out the cities that would most benefit from a cleanup, and Chicago tops the list. Here's how they describe their methodology:

Based on studies of other areas where similar (but smaller scale) restoration efforts had been undertaken, we used a range of 1 to 2 percent for the estimated increase in average metropolitan area property values, and 10 percent for estimated increase for property values in coastal census tracts. This methodology yielded a range of estimated benefits of $29 billion to $41 billion, in 2006 dollars.

The Institution contends that Chicago alone could see an infusion of $7.4 to $13 billion through increased property values. It projects a major jump in property values along the lakeshore, as well as some benefit inland. Other cities that would see significant benefits include Buffalo, Cleveland, Ohio, Detroit, Duluth, Erie, Gary, and Milwaukee.

In order to initiate the proposed cleanup, the report encourages the implementation of the Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act [S. 791], a Senate bill co-sponsored by Sens. Durbin and Obama. The measure is currently sitting with the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Wisconsin Dives Into Great Lakes Compact

Mose Buchele — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:57:14 -0700

As the legislative session drew to an end in Wisconsin last month it looked like hopes that the statehouse would pass the Great Lakes Compact were going to die with it. The environmental agreement between the Great Lakes states had broad popular support and was passed by a wide margin in the Wisconsin Senate, but was then tabled by House Republicans. The state governments of Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and New York had already ratified the compact, but without the support of the remaining member states the agreement would go up in smoke.

It now appears that, in Wisconsin anyway, that's not going to happen. Democratic Governor Jim Doyle announced yesterday that he was calling a special session of the state legislature to pass the Compact and, furthermore, that a compromise agreement had already been reached. Here is a nutshell description of what the contract accomplishes:

The compact is an agreement of the seven Great Lakes state governors and the two Great Lakes Canadian provinces to regulate water diversions outside of the Great Lakes basin. Under the compact, long distance diversions will not be allowed. Communities in counties, such as Waukesha County, that straddle the edge of the basin, will be able to apply for a Great Lakes water diversion.

Basically, the agreement is a way of ensuring that water from the Great Lakes remains in the Great Lakes Region. It's an environmentally sound plan that got hung up in Wisconsin because of two separate provisions.

(More after the jump ...)

The first was a rule that gives veto authority over water diversions to any governor of a Great Lakes state. If, for example, the state of Michigan wanted to sell water to Georgia, all eight governors from the Compact states would need to approve the transaction. Initially, Wisconsin Republicans said the veto power would infringe on the state's sovereignty, but they appear to have come around to supporting it.

The second sticking point was a provision that made it difficult for communities located in Great Lakes states -- but not near the water basin --to take Great Lakes Water. Now the towns will be able to divert water provided "they have conservation plans in place and agree to return the water to the basin," according to the Green Bay Gazette.

But in order to reach the compromise, environmentally minded lawmakers did have to sacrifice one provision. From the Gazette:

The statewide water conservation standards in the version passed by the Senate were excluded in the compromise. [Sen. Dave Hansen, D- Green Bay] said the standards will be "mandatory only within the basin, and voluntary outside the basin."

With passage imminent in Wisconsin, national attention will now turn to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, the three states that have not yet ratified the contract.

Image courtesy of CoastWatch.