Protecting and promoting the 'North Coast' helps Michigan's future

I’ve just returned from a week at my cabin on the south shore of Lake Superior. As usual, I’ve come away bowled over at how extraordinarily fortunate we are with the remarkable North Coast natural resources we have in this beautiful state.

Sure, there are lots of wonderful, lovely places in this country. The East Coast is historic and rock ribbed; but it’s very expensive and terribly overcrowded. Florida is warm and sunny; but it’s very expensive, overcrowded and much too humid for my taste. The Pacific Northwest is blessed with tall pines, great views and delicious seafood; but it’s ever so chi-chi and getting more expensive every day.

In Michigan, we’ve got the five Great Lakes (representing 20 percent of the world’s drinkable fresh water), miles and miles of coastline, thousands of pristine inland lakes, countless miles of sparkling rivers and who knows how many acres of deep green forests. They’re all within easy driving distance for everybody, no matter where you live. And they’re still within the means of most. All this means the quality of life we have available right here in Michigan is unmatched.

Any economic development strategy worth considering, whether it’s a business or a state, requires identifying and preserving distinctive, competitive assets and investing in their promotion and development. Taking advantage of our North Coast assets must be an essential part of our economic strategy to lay a firm foundation for our future prosperity.

Here, the news is decidedly mixed.

On the down side, the legislature in its frenzy to “balance” the state’s budget without raising taxes, has managed to cut support for travel advertising promoting “Pure Michigan”. This year, Gov. Granholm and the lawmakers added $15 million to the Michigan Economic Development Corporation’s travel promotion budget. But next year, we’re back to $5.7 million, which puts us in the bottom third of competing states. Promotion expenditures pay off big time and quickly, so it’s hard to understand why the legislature is so hell bent to pull money out of a program that’s been proven cost effective.

On the plus side, Michigan House Democrats last week introduced a package of bills calling for much improved water conservation practices for big users such as utilities and cities. The proposed legislation also gets into the complex issue of bottled water: How much should bottling companies be allowed to take from springs and rivers? How much should be exported away from the Great Lakes basin? Why don’t we have better statistics on water use, when any sensible policy will require a solid base in fact?

I doubt there will be instant agreement on what House Democrats are proposing, but they’re stirring the pot in a useful way.

While we’re at it, Michigan needs PDQ to enter formally into the water protection compact with other Great Lakes states and Canadian provinces. This past February, bipartisan bills to do that were introduced in both houses of the legislature, but they’ve gone nowhere. Minnesota and Ontario have both moved forward, while Illinois awaits nothing more than the governor’s signature. Come on, lawmakers! We should be ahead of the pack on this, not dragging up the rear.

Lastly and maybe most important, the National Wildlife Federation, whose Great Lakes Office is located in Ann Arbor, in mid June led a group of conservation organizations in planning to file a suit against shipping companies that operate in the Great Lakes, demanding compliance with the Clean Water Act. The lawsuit is aimed at stopping the invasion of aquatic invasive species such as the zebra mussel, the lamprey eel, and a score of others that enter our lakes when ocean-going ships dump their ballast water in our harbors – together with lots of exotic critters.

“We’re initiating legal action today because invasive species are killing the Great Lakes”, says Andy Buchsbaum, the director of the NWF office. “The threat is urgent, the solution is clear, and the law is straight-forward.” According to Buchsbaum, the Clean Water Act prohibits vessels from discharging pollutants, including biological materials, into U. S. waters without a permit. The legal action charges that the shipping companies have illegally dumped ballast water into the Great Lakes for years.

According to NWF, there are at least four effective, commercially-available treatments available for ballast water, including chlorine treatment similar to that used in municipal water treatment plants. “There is absolutely no reason why ships cannot treat ballast water,” says Joel Brammeier, associate director for policy for the Alliance for the Great Lakes.

Here’s hoping. The legislature needs to treat our precious North Coast resources with the respect they deserve. And the courts need to say enough is enough when it comes to ships destroying our Great Lakes.

photo credit: Mosquito Beach I by Andy McFarlane