We live surrounded as no other state by the Great Lakes, the largest freshwater system on the globe, accounting for around 20 percent of the world’s total supply of drinkable fresh water.
Ponder these disturbing facts about our Great Lakes:
Water levels everywhere are very low. Experts think Lakes Michigan and Huron could beat their all-time record lows, set back in 1964. Superior’s September level was 1.6 inches lower than the 1926 record for the month. Something’s going on, big enough to take trillions of gallons out of our lakes. Clearly, global warming is involved in various ways.
A new species of critter (think Zebra Mussels) invades the Lakes every six months or so. David Lodge, a researcher at Notre Dame University, says some come from discharged untreated ballast water in ocean-going ships. He adds that growths on the outside of ship’s hulls may be an even more important source.
Michigan Congressman Vern Ehlers is circulating a pledge to candidates for President to implement and fund a Great Lakes restoration strategy. A recent Brookings Institution study found that investing in restoring the Great Lakes (a $20 billion effort) will result in $80 billion in economic benefit. So far, only Sens. Clinton and Obama have signed.
The Detroit Free Press asked the eight top candidates running for President about their views on a variety of environmental issues, from diverting Great Lakes water to parched states to supporting a $20 billion program to restore the Lakes and the impact of global warming. As of last Friday, only one had answered: Mitt Romney, who grew up in Michigan and presumably knows about lake water.
I sat in late last week on a sort of summit conference of folks interested in Michigan’s environment. It was fascinating and encouraging.
Of course, there were the heavyweight environmental organizations: The Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation and the Michigan Environmental Council. But there were also folks from the Council of Great Lakes Industries and Ford, as well as from the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution. Taken together, the group was about as knowledgeable as you’ll ever find about our environment.
Insights abounded.
Take the idea, very fashionable in economics and business circles, that there should be a price set on water that reflects the actual costs of the resource. Those intent on improving our resources policies say establishing a price system would reveal lots of hidden and expensive subsidies (for farmers in California, for instance, or folks with green grass lawns in Las Vagas).
“Not so fast,” counter the environmentalists! Once a price is set on our water, it opens up allocation of the resource via the economic system. The moment we put a price on our Great Lakes water, somebody will be willing to pay it … and slurp! – there goes our water!
The economics surrounding invasive species in the Great Lakes make the shipping industry look silly if not criminally irresponsible. Best evidence is that the state gets some $50 million in economic benefit from ocean-going shipping. But the annual cost to local governments to clean out the Zebra Mussels (which originated in ship ballasts) is around $5 billion. My own conclusion: Somebody oughta sue the bastards!
Top line conclusion from the meeting: Our natural resources – whether Great Lakes, streams, forests, shorelines – are uniquely magnificent and constitute an enormous competitive and economic resource in providing a great (and affordable) quality of life for people who live here.
But for decades well-intentioned people have had much trouble getting a handle on how to deal with all this, especially the Great Lakes. Seven states border the Lakes, each with its own parochial interests and political posturings. With Ontario, a province of Canada, and you’ve added an international dimension. Mix in the fact that we don’t really know much about properly managing – let alone restoring – a complex, enormous ecosystem.
Overall: Not easy. Conclusion: “We’re not getting much traction.”
At the end of the meeting, there was a fair amount of agreement that each of the interests represented at the table – environmentalists, economic developers, business, universities, policy think tanks – might individually have some impact. But think of the tremendous throw weight to be gained if everybody could work together to identify areas for collaboration and even take a few baby steps toward a big consolidating organization.
The group is going to get together again in a little while. It could be the start of something very, very big.
2 Comments
I am all for as much participation as possible in keeping our Great Lakes healthy. But, while a big “umbrella” organization is good, let us not forget the smaller groups who are also working in their own small way.
I am a member of the Huron River Watershed Council. Many years ago, I wanted to make an impact so I thought I would join some body that protected the oceans. As I thought it through, I decided that there would be more of an opportunity to do something if I helped locally. After all, the health of our watershed contributed to the health of Lake Erie, which contributed to the health of Lake Ontario, which contributed to the health of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which contributed to the health of the Atlantic Ocean, etc.
Anyhow, let us not lose sight of the fact that we need more people to understand and help individually as well as collectively.
First, thanks for the post and link to my article explaining the proposed Great Lakes compact. As the original article appeared in an academic law review, my guess is that your post easily tripled the previous readership which consisted of (1) my wife; (2) water wonks; and (3) students required to read it for a water law course.
Second, I’m sorry be an annoying fact checker, but Phil’s excellent story “Gathering for the Great Lakes” (January 17, 2008) had a minor but potentially offending error. It states: “Seven states border the Lakes, each with its own parochial interests and political posturings. With Ontario, a province of Canada, and you’ve added an international dimension.” The Great Lakes are shared by eight states, not seven (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York) and two Canadian provinces (Ontario and Quebec, which has a unique position on the gateway to Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence). I fully agree that each state (even Michigan) has “its own parochial interests and political posturings.”
Please don’t be offended by my minor corrections. I’m a tremendous supporter of your work and what you are accomplishing. I recently turned down an opportunity to move back to Minnesota (where my wife and I lived for five years after leaving Michigan the first time) and take a better paying job at a better funded university. In deciding to stay, my wife and I recommitted ourselves to being a small part of Michigan’s future. She is continuing to work on smart growth on various Ann Arbor commissions; I’m launching the new Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.
Your newsletter keeps us energized and informed. Thanks,