A D V I S O R Vol. 11 No. 3 Guest editorial May/June 1998 One lakes problems mirror larger pollution Inside issues facing Great Lakes region Lake St. Clair By Rep. William Callahan, Member, Michigan Delegation to the Cleanup Great Lakes Commission ake St. Clair, as many of you know, has numerous problems. Local Even though this is just one lake—and not even one of the environmental L Great Lakes—its problems are symptomatic of the larger pol- action gets lution issues facing the Great Lakes region. One of the biggest prob- results lems facing Lake St. Clair is combined sewer overflow and high bacte- ria counts, which have resulted in closed beaches during the summer season. Lake St. Clair is of particular importance to the state of Michigan, In this issue with 60 percent of southeast Michigan’s drinking water derived from it. Also found in the Lake St. Clair system are numerous beaches, fishing, boating and other recre- Commission Briefs........2 ational and wildlife opportunities. It is easy to identify that there is pollution in a body of water, especially when there are as Another surprise for Great Lakes many problems as we’ve had with Lake St. Clair. The “closed beach” signs along our shore- community * Legislative and line in Macomb County bluntly show the public the severity of the problems. But identify- appropriations priorities * River ing pollution sources and developing solutions to the problems are much more difficult and basin organizations * Beneficial use involved processes. workshop * RAP Summit * Great I worked closely with 30 other members of Lakes Spill Protection Initiative * We have long pointed to Sediment transport modeling * the Blue Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair, Upgrade for regional water use which was formed in 1997 to address pollution industrial waste and other database * Mayors' Conference * problems in the area. The commission’s sub- pollution as the sources of GLIN trip to Paraguay and Bolivia groups investigated discharges into the Clinton all water quality problems. * Waterborne commerce listening and St. Clair rivers; agricultural and residential session runoff, including pesticides and fertilizers; sew- However, this is not the age treatment and storm water concerns; and case. Agriculture runoff biological contaminants. Some of the Blue Rib- bon Commission’s important recommendations and storm sewers have Around the Lakes.........7 in its final report were tremendous impacts on Lake Superior diversion proposal * • Better enforcement of existing state and our water... Drought mitigation workshop * Blue local water pollution laws; Ribbon Commission on Lake St. • Public education on the causes and effects of water pollution; Clair * Lake St. Clair facts * • Encouragement of environmentally sensitive land use; Legal Institute of the Great Lakes * • Inspection of septic fields; Seaway Port Pacesetter awards * • Continuous in-stream monitoring programs; and Great Lakes art exhibit * Sustain- • Examination of ballast water and its impact on the increase of exotic species. able coastal development workshop The report was a good first step, but we need to generate public support and financial re- series * Poe Lock * Nationwide sources and foster a sense of cooperation throughout the local, state and federal levels to global climate change assessment * accomplish our goals. Clean Water Action Plan In addition to participating on the Blue Ribbon Commission, I developed two pieces of legislation to help reduce pollution. These bills had overwhelming support in both Calendar.....................12 Continued on page 9 • The ADVISOR is published bimonthly by the Great Lakes Commission • The Great Lakes Commission is an eight-state compact agency established in 1955 “to promote the orderly, integrated and comprehensive development, use and conservation of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin.” Donald R. Vonnahme, Chair; Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D., Executive Director Argus II Building • 400 Fourth Street • Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103-4816 • Phone: 734-665-9135 Fax: 734-665-4370 • E-mail: [email protected] • Web: www.glc.org Commission Briefs Great Lakes Commission The Great Lakes Commission, an eight-state Surprised again! compact agency founded in state and federal In the last ADVISOR, my com- mit action took the Great Lakes law and dedicated to the use, management ments focused on the short-lived des- policy community by surprise. and protection of the water resources of the Great Lakes basin, provides leadership in the ignation of Lake Champlain as a Interjurisdictional notification and implementation of principles of sustainable Great Lake. And, alluding to the un- consultation were entirely lacking. development throughout the basin. In partnership with the Great Lakes states, the settling precedent that such a designa- To be fair, it appears that no treaties, Commission addresses issues of resource tion would establish, I called for re- laws or agreements were violated management, environmental protection, transportation and economic development by newed vigilance to protect our re- when the permit was approved. The serving as an accurate and objective source of sources from ill-advised “surprises” permit process essentially “fell through information; an effective forum for the development and coordination of public that threaten the in- the cracks.” In so do- policy; and an active and committed advocate tegrity of the lakes or Commission ing, it highlighted an of basin interests. the infrastructure News and immediate need to Executive Committee that has evolved to Views harmonize manage- Chair Donald R. Vonnahme (IL) manage them. The ment approaches in proverbial ink on my By Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D. all jurisdictions and Vice Chair Irene B. Brooks (PA) Executive Director provide the ammuni- Frank L. Kudrna (IL) column had not yet Larry D. Macklin (IN) dried when the Great Lakes policy tion needed to oppose and prevent ir- Frank J. Kelley (MI) community was surprised again. responsible use of the resource. Thomas E. Huntley (MN) I speak, of course, of a permit the I believe that three actions are war- John P. Cahill (NY) Ontario government recently granted ranted in the immediate future. First, J. William Moody (OH) to a Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, com- the states and provinces must move Nathaniel E. Robinson (WI) pany that planned to export Lake Su- decisively to develop and implement a Executive Director perior water to prospective markets in Great Lakes water resources manage- Michael J. Donahue, Ph.D. Asia (see related story on page 7). Like ment program to avoid our historic Program Managers the Lake Champlain designation, the crisis response approach to diversion Thomas R. Crane, Resource permit action prompted a swift outcry and consumptive use proposals. Such Management and Environmental Quality from Great Lakes governors, members a program was called for in the 1985 Stephen J. Thorp, Transportation and of Congress and many interest groups. Great Lakes Charter and, 13 years Economic Development Like the Lake Champlain issue, the later, has yet to be developed. Julie R. Wagemakers, Communications and proposal was short-lived; the permit Second, we must review the current Information Management revocation process was underway management regime for addressing such Project Managers within weeks of issuance. And, like the issues to determine whether our current Laura N. Beer, Matthew Doss, Katherine Lake Champlain designation, a battle set of treaty, legislative and agreement- Glassner-Shwayder, Christine Manninen has been won but the war is not over. based arrangements adequately address The issue touches on the very foun- current and future needs. Program Specialists dation of ecosystem integrity and eco- And finally, I believe that a truly bi- Derek Moy, Prapassara Nilagupta, Victoria Pebbles, Thomas Rayburn, nomic well-being; on our ability, as national Great Lakes Commission Lisa E. Rives, Michael Schneider, stewards of the resource, to maintain with full, voting provincial member- Lara Slee control over the future of the region’s ship could help avoid the type of sur- Director of Research, Emeritus greatest natural asset. This recent in- prise experienced with the Lake Supe- Albert G. Ballert, Ph.D. cident has highlighted, once again, in- rior diversion permit. Open and ongo- adequacies in the current binational ing dialogue among all basin jurisdic- Administrative Staff Cappy Bilakos, Pat Gable, Marilyn Ratliff, water resource management regime. tions is perhaps the most effective tool Rita J. Straith Alarm over such a permit is well- we can employ for improved water re- founded. It sets a dangerous legal pre- sources management. Research Associates George Aponte Clarke, Kate Hackett, cedent that could leave the region Interjurisdictional relations in the Margaret Le vulnerable to much larger schemes in Great Lakes basin are the envy of the future. It ignores the cumulative North America and beyond. When The Great Lakes Commission is an equal opportunity employer and complies with impacts that occur if such a scheme is the political will and motivation to applicable federal and state laws prohibiting found to be commercially viable and strengthen binational water resources discrimination. It is the policy of the Commission that no person, on the basis of race, gender, leads to a new export industry. Even management is present, we can’t help color, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, more alarming is the fact that the per- but succeed. marital status, handicap or