Our World and Everything in It

Does anyone else find it fishy that Michigan’s Senate Republicans fought to keep 25% of surface groundwater such as wetlands out of the Great Lakes Compact, and specifically out of the public’s domain, and now Michigan’s DEQ says it must slash its wetland inspection, and pollution spill response programs? The DEQ says many will be on the honor system when it comes to withdrawing water and dumping pollution. Great. Here we go with self regulation again, that’s not working out well in other sectors of the economy right now. 

So no one will be around if you complain that the guy behind you is filling in that nice little creek between both your houses, or that nice piece of land next to you in the boonies up north becomes a dump site of sorts, not to mention siphoning rivers like the Au Sable, and making some wetlands literally dry up.

So many cuts have been made to help Michigan’s economy along. Didn’t the senate anticipate little to no regulators being able to keep watch on our wetlands in the very near future?  It’s only been months since that compact was signed and already surface water is threatened, and not just the 25% the senate fought to keep out of the compact. Hmmm.

The only good thing is that Gov. Granholm also signed bills to manage the use of surface ground water via a computer system that will determine when and where business can make withdrawals. The problem is this computer system is so new. Just how many places have monitors installed? Probably very few. Where will the money to monitor come from since the DEQ is fresh out of money?

And here’s the kicker. Obama wants to contribute $5 million dollars to really, really clean up the Great Lakes. The way things stand now, our service water is out of the loop of protection as part of our Great Lakes. Unless it’s included in the future, there will be no clean Great Lakes. Pollutants from groundwater will make it into the lakes. And unchecked withdrawals of surface water will likely take place to the point some wetlands may disappear.

The decision to keep surface water out of public domain caters completely to industry and special interest groups. Now it’s all come back to kick us in the pants when we find we’ve lost our say in our own backyards for 25% of surface water  problems, and nobody will come if you call about the other 75% either.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-30/1221576618242910.xml&coll=7

http://greatlakesgreatmichigan.org/legislation.htm

An Environmental News Service article stated: “The Canadian government has announced that it will protect more than 450,000 hectares (1,737 square miles) of Arctic wilderness in the Nunavut Territory, including a globally significant Important Bird Area, by establishing three new National Wildlife Areas.”

The Canadian government is contributing $8.3 million to the effort. Prime Minister Harpter said, “This is a real demonstration of our commitment to protect our species and their incredible habitat in the North.” Too bad it’s not our North like ANWR.

Now watch how example works America. The article also stated that, “In another recent announcement, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, pledged to permanently protect 225,000 square kilometres (86,872 square miles) of boreal forest in the northern area of the province. Covering more than 20 percent of Ontario’s total land mass, the area to be protected is roughly the same size as the United Kingdom.” Outstanding!

The boreal forest is one of the largest undisturbed forest and wetland ecosystems. And it’s quite a carbon storage facility storing 186 billion tons. Quebec joined in the preservation program earlier in May pledging to protect “18,000 square kilometres (6,949 square miles) of forest and wetlands in 23 new conservation areas. Fifteen of these new conservation areas are in the boreal zone.”

Great for Canada. What about us selling off parcels of our national parks and forests to private ownership for the highest bid? We’re still not getting it.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-04-01.asp.

There was a reason Bush reluctantly put the polar bears on the endangered list but then curiously omitted protection for their habitat. Not so curious anymore. It seems in the latest round of attacks on the environment by the Bush administration and more than likely in support of oil, coal, and the natural gas industries, the president doesn’t find habitat protection necessary. To quote an article on NRDC’s website, the president will argue, “that studying and protecting the places that are essential to species survival is unnecessary. Specifically, the Department of Interior is planning to insert language into all future critical habitat designations that argues that these protections have no value in species protection.” Ah and Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior is at it again.

Protecting animals but allowing their habitat to go unprotected is so straight out of the dogma of big oil and other fossil fuel industries that we don’t even have to wonder why this underhanded push is happening. I say underhanded because the same article on Defender’s website stated that: “The first attack, contained in a rider on the House version of the Defense Department appropriations bill, would have arguably given the Secretary of the Interior sole discretion regarding where and when-and whether-to designate critical habitat for endangered species. Although the appropriations bill still contains a damaging ESA exemption for the Department of Defense, the more radical rider was defeated by the House on May 21.” Sneaky.

The Bush administration may not get their way the second time around either but there are other rotten ways of doing things.  The administration appears to be overly restricting funds for species protection by the USFWS. Bush only requested a measly $9 million dollars for it this year even though the agency knows it would take $153 million or more because there is a backlog. Congress even requested more money for the agency in the past to no avail. So no one is actually keeping track of or properly protecting our wildlife habitats because there is no money.

This is a “frightful” disregard for living things. If this administration can so ruthlessly overlook one natural resource for another, oil vs. animal habitat, than it’s not a stretch to think humanity is not being overlooked in the process either. We’re not suffering all that different a scenario from the animals on the endangered species list really. By continuing with the quest for oil and possibly more fossil fuels, our habitat won’t be around much longer either. What is it people don’t get? The earth is a closed system. If we put too much pollution into it, it will eventually break down. If we go on the way we are, we are no better than a cancer to our environment.  Yet this administration is destroying our habitat right under our noses while we go on believing someone is looking out for our best interests.

I hope that someone isn’t specifically Dick Cheney. Because when I watch what’s happening all I keep remembering is an article I read back in 2004 about Cheney. John Perry Barlow, a former Cheney supporter, said, “He has the least interest in human beings of anyone I have ever met.” That explains a lot.

http://www.nrdc.org/media/pressreleases/030528.asp.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/6450422/the_curse_of_dick_cheney/.

This Sunday’s article in the Detroit Free Press about conservation easements was pretty enlightening to me. I thought I’d share it. I don’t think I’m the only one who wishes their property would remain as is into the future. I don’t want anyone cutting down my apple, pear, and cherry trees, or anything else I’ve nurtured to grow. I want the wooded parts to stay wooded, and the animal habitat left alone.

The couple in the article has acreage on Beaver Island outside of Petoskey where many of the locals see the encroaching development. This couple decided to keep their property as is in the future by getting a conservation easement. This is an agreement that limits development, and protects property forever.

Hurray. There is something a private property owner can do to keep development to a minimum and protect wildlife habitat forever. I’m thinking about all the wild open fields that use to be near my house that went the way of subdivisions that are only half filled. All that habitat, trees, grass, bushes, and shrubs were mowed down to create those egg frying concrete subdivisions by summer, that really turn bleak and empty in winter. I’m thinking about what a conservation easement might have done. With only half the houses, these same subdivisions might have retained small areas of woods, open grasses, bogs, and huge, ancient trees that can’t possibly be replaced in a hundred years.

I also think of all the people I know that bought property “up north” in Michigan for the express purpose of being in the boonies. That list of people is growing. As it grows, the wild areas shrink, clearing areas for the homestead.

The couple in the article said that we as individuals have to protect the land. Well, if you’re someone who wants the view out your window to remain that way, you may want to try for a conservation easement.

For more info: http://www.smlcland.org/about.php

Do you like the taste of shrimp, crab, or grouper that you can only get along America’s southern coastline? You might what to savor whatever you can of these seafood delights because Dead Zones are growing around the world.

I remember reading about Dead Zones at least 10 years ago. It has now become a chronic problem especially in the Gulf of Mexico and the Chesapeake Bay. The culprit is groundwater runoff from farms that carry fertilizer high in Nitrogen and Phosphorus over hill and dale until it ends up in the ocean waters.

Farm fertilizers do their trick in the open waters along our coastlines raising record crops of algae, which in turn rob the water of oxygen, which pretty much kills off all life to the bottom. In 2004 it was documented that there were over 150 dead zones worldwide. Many are recurring dead zones like in the Pacific Northwest.

The fact that the U.S. is pushing corn for ethanol is going to make the dead zones grow larger and faster. The New Farm Bill may help alleviate some of the problem because for the first time it allotted millions to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and billions for good land stewardship and protection for wetlands. Still the new Farm Bill cut back on the Conservation Reserve Program. This program paid farmers for not farming areas of their land that acted as buffers against fertilizer runoff. Using that land to grow cash crops is enticing.

So the farmer profits from planting more land, while the farmer of the sea will have a decline in profits. Land farming vs. sea farming has an inverse relationship. There has to be a happy medium in the future if we want to continue to enjoy shrimp, crab, and grouper because this is not the way to go. Like the article in U.S. and World Reports says there will be: “more fertilizer in the ground and fewer barriers to stop it.”

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/06/06/dead-zones-grow-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html

Senator Richardville had this to say about the Great Lakes Compact:

I don’t know what’s more important to Michigan in regard to its natural resources, but also when you’re talking about the identification of Michigan in the Great Lakes region, than its water. And so what we did today was help protect the Great Lakes water in a way unprecedented in the state of Michigan or really in any of the other Midwestern states we are taking a lead because we are saying loud and clear don’t mess with Michigan’s water.

 

Great rhetoric except our own senate is messing with our water. Influenced by a big farm lobby, they are still planning to allow each industry (bottling, manufacturing, and farming) to be able to siphon off up to 2 million gallons per day without any permits as opposed to the Democratic House that wants limits set at 1 million gallons per day. The idea that water used on farms somehow ends up where it started is a misconception. Plenty of the water is taken up by crops that are shipped elsewhere. Most of our entire daily water intake comes right from the food we eat. Even meat has a really high percentage of water, over 50%. On top of this, and depending on how the water is applied, the evaporation rate can be high. That’s why we’re told it’s just a waste of water to use little oscillating water sprinklers on hot summer days.

The senate justifies losing this much water by following the logic of farm lobbyists that think we have no claim to groundwater. What? We have a claim to the Great Lakes that surround us and hit our shores, but not to the water that actually lands on our soil? Groundwater is a major contributor to streams, inland lakes and wetlands, and coastal wetlands. It affects aquatic habitats for plants and animals. Michigan’s fishing industry depends on groundwater flow to streams and lakes.

Our smaller streams and rivers are in trouble if this bill passes. The bill will take 25% of the water from these rivers and streams at the height of the summer season when it’s hot and dry, and when these smaller tributaries are already down to a trickle. There will be bone-dry stream and riverbeds if Senate Bill 860 passes.

The idea that there won’t be any restrictions up to 2 million gallons per day is bad enough, but this bill allows absolutely no recourse from the public if citizens in a particular area object to their water disappearing down the road. According to a Michigan fisherman blogsite, Mackie’s Bait, “All current users will be grandfathered, including the control structures that maintain lake level stream flows in the rivers Muskegon, the Platte, the Huron, the Clinton, and many more.”You will hear talk about Groundwater Assessment Tools, which are in no way a complete science yet in Michigan. Their are thousands of stream segments types in Michigan and according to the same blogsite, only “230 stream flow gages are in operation across the state.” So how is the senate making an actual quantitative assessment for their decision? 

http://mackiesbait.com/blog/files/category-great-lakes.php.

By signing this Great Lakes Compact, eight states and Canadian provinces unite to try to keep our water here, and our Senate fritters it away, caving to Farm Bureau demands. It won’t come back, and we certainly can’t depend on weather to help us any longer. We had better speak up and fast to our senators that we support the House version of a 1 million gallon per day limit because with Senate bill 860 we’re stuck with the results for good, no argument after the fact. Individuals lose to big industry again. 

Today the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing regarding the Clean Water Restoration Act. The Senate held a meeting about this earlier this week. HR 2421 helps clarify that federal safeguards against water pollution must protect all waters of the United States. It may seem funny to some that this is necessary because the general public is out of touch with what has been happening to many of our established environmental laws.

The Bush administration has systematically attacked many of our longstanding environmental laws including The Clean Water Act. Big corporations and developers who seek to pollute have gone to court over the Clean Water Act. It seems they have found a loophole in the act because in many places it describes the waters protected by this act as navigable for one thing, which means if you can’t place a boat on it, well it just might not be protected—by anyone. So we’ve ended up with ambiguous rulings by the Supreme Courts, and federal agencies have issued confusing guidelines on what is or is not protected by federal law.

This leaves ponds, streams, wetlands, drain areas, and many other seasonal wet spots open to damage and destruction from industrial pollution. I’ve read over HR 2421 and what used to be described as navigable waters is now simply called waters. I also read a review on the Big Bear blogsite that it’s doubtful this bill will pass. Hunters, ranchers, and farmers won’t like it. Well more than 175 House members are co-sponsoring it, and 21 Senators so far are co-sponsoring the companion legislation. I had to comment on that site that of course the huge farming and hunting lobby doesn’t want anyone messing with their new found freedom in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. They’ve pushed their weight around in those states to get the wolves, and bison killed, and wild horses rounded up. I believe it is to make way for more devastation of our national forests when Bush tries to weaken the Roadless Rule too. Because with these animals out of the way, no one has to protect their habitat, paving the way for more lumbering, mining, and drilling on or near our national forests.

Contact our legislators and let them know that every ounce of water is precious to us, especially with the drought that prevails in many places in our country. If anything as simple as a pond or a seasonal wetland is not covered by an individual state, as it stands right now, federal protection for that area may be challenged because the water in question is not navigable. It might not be navigable but pollute it with toxic material and it’s going to leach, or flow somewhere now isn’t it? That bad water just might end up in your well, backyard, creek, or pond. 

Read HR 2421 at: http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/110/h2421ih.txt.pdf

Conveniently contact your legislators with a petition at: http://action.earthjustice.org/campaign/cwara0408/w5eu6wbrlmetjdd

We’ll soon be seeing a new media blitz from the coal industry because people are catching on that coal is not clean. The industry is throwing $30 million dollars into an advertising and public relations campaign under the name of Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC). But the list that follows are all polluters like Billiton the largest mining company in the world, or CONSOL the largest producer of bituminous coal in America. They just don’t have motivation to cut into that kind power unless it’s from the kindness of their hearts.

AMEREN, American Electric Power, Arch Coal, Arkansas Electric Coop, Associated Electric Coop, Association of American Railroads, Basin Electric Power Coop, BHP Billiton, Buckeye Industrial Mining, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Group, CONSOL Energy, CSX, Detroit Edison, Duke Energy, Edison Electric Institute, First Energy Corp, Foundation Coal, Hoosier Energy, Massey Energy, National Mining Assoc., National Rural Electric Coop, Norfolk Southern, Peabody Energy, Southern Co., Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Union Pacific Railroad, Western Farmers Electric Coop.

This group is using other groups like America’s Power and Clean Coal USA to advertise across the country to make their coal look green. So be alert. There is nothing new. There is not a new kind of coal plant that generates electricity with lower CO2 emissions. There is coal that has very low sulfur content. And sulfur content and other particulates can be removed by what is termed “scrubbers.”  That’s not new technology, but it will help alleviate lung problems. Until something drastically changes coal users like the cheap dirty stuff because everything else costs money. This is a good article about it from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Clean-Coal-Oxymoron-WSJ.htm

In 2001 President Bush committed to more advanced clean coal technologies. According to an article on DOE’s website: “The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President’s Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.” Come on, 10 more years to just get sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury pollutants down? That’s lame. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/.

Not much is new with coal except for trapping the gas, and where to put it. Our Michigan CO2 well should be about full this weekend. It didn’t hold nearly enough liquid CO2. It’s not a solution. How many more holes are we going to rip into the earth? We have over 500,000 mines in the U.S. Many are old and abandoned. We have over 500,000 oil wells, many are done, fini. That’s a lot of holes in the ground. Will the earth heal quickly from the millions of holes we’ve drilled?
 

There is a presentation at MCCC’s Meyer Auditorium tonight called “Coming Home. State of the Straits: Status and Trends of Key Indicators. This is an effort to present the results of compiled data on the ecosystems health in the Detroit River and Lake Erie. I wanted to go but I’m 40 minutes away from MCCC’s parking lot and don’t like the looks of the weather. What I did is find the results of the program and printed out about 30 pages that comprise the comprehensive and integrative assessment.

This presentation is based on information in “50 key trend data sets and indicators” according to the report itself. However, it also states that this comprehensive and integrative assessment is initial and heavily weighted on state information with “important data and knowledge gaps.” Nevertheless, it “lays the foundation for continuous improvement in the future.”

But I can’t tell from the report what we’re improving on. There are percentages of increase or decline of contaminants with no beginning measurements given. There are also very few quantitative targets. So we don’t know what aiming for.  The study is over a 35-year time span. In 1970, we were polluted. The Clean Air and Water Act improved everything initially in a huge way. So to tell me from 1970 until now there has been an overall improvement in our water, well no kidding. What I want to know is what transpired over the past 10 years? For instance, regarding contaminants in western Lake Erie sediments, there is a record in 1971, and another in 1995 for mercury and PCB’s. Two records, 24 years apart are telling us there is a 70% decline in mercury in sediment and a 50% decline in PCB’s and other organochlorine contaminants. I don’t think that is very thorough. The mercury is 70% lower from what amount? Does this constitute a good amount? Mercury may have been 85% lower in the 90’s with pollution levels going up some 15% since then and the overall reading from 1971 will still look good at 70% reduction in pollution even though it’s rising again and quickly. Many of these reports concerning water end in 2004 too, like amounts of mercury in walleye.

Reports from 1977-2004 show that mercury in walleye has seen a 60% decline between the late 70’s and early 80’s; levels have remained steady since. What? Nothing has changed in over 25 years? It may be because there is more fishing, and therefore more fish caught at an early stage. We’re told to eat the smaller fish, especially in the ocean, because they have had less time to ingest mercury. There is nothing in this report that shows the accumulative affects of mercury either like from sediment, to fish, to birds, to larger predators.

I had to consider the source and motivation of this report too when I saw the list of editors and funding. Two of the editors are from the USFWS, the controversial agency that currently aims to kill the wolves and buffalo out west without presenting a solid answer as to why.  And the funding sources include DTE, and the US EPA, another favorite controversial agency of mine. But like I said, I really wanted to hear this presentation. The presenters probably had really good slides of the wildlife that is thriving. Nothing is all bad news. If anyone attended please let me know about it.

I’ve included an article from the Toledo Blade about this presentation relative to receding shorelines and loss of water in the Great Lakes too.  http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080107/NEWS06/801070402.

These are the actual tables resulting from the compilation of data for the trends reported in the presentation. http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/sos/assessment.pdf.
 

There was more on the news today about water contamination in America on ABC news. It seems trace amounts of hormones, antibiotics, and antidepressants are turning up in fish everywhere. This time it was Lake Mead near Las Vegas. Our filtration methods seem to be failing more and more.

It’s been quite a few years since I first heard about genderless, or unisex fish in the waters of New York due to unusually high amounts of human waste in some areas due to poor filtration. I started wondering if that water would have the same gender/hormonal affects on humans eventually? We know that baldness is not just hereditary but also related to hormones, and that it is on the rise. Children are reaching puberty far too early. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it?

The next time I heard about gender problems in fish, it was in the Potomac River as reported by Robin Roberts of Good Morning America. That was a year, or more ago. I reported not long ago the same contaminants,  hormones and antidepressants, were found in trace amounts in Lake Michigan. This is an obvious and growing problem—that’s been ignored.

I’ve harped over and over again about CAFO’s and their practice called nutrient loading. I can clearly see a link between nutrient loading and tainted crops. Nutrient loading is when the holding lagoons from farm animal excrement is blown all over the surrounding land as some sort of fertilizer. Read the article link below. It states that: “In several recent studies of soil fertilized with livestock manure or with the sludge product from wastewater treatment plants American scientists found earthworms had accumulated those same compounds [widely used antidepressants] while vegetables — including corn, lettuce and potatoes — had absorbed antibiotics. “These results raise potential human health concerns.” This really needs to change.

If drugs show up in crops from manure, why not e-coli from manure as fertilizer on lettuce and spinach? It’s a disgusting situation any way you look at it. I saw the pics of what happened when too much spring rain caused an overflow of those CAFO lagoons down south. It killed all the fish in the subsidiaries all the way to the ocean where more fish were instantly killed.

I remember all these reports.  It seems to be spreading.  Does anyone in charge, truly care about our freshwater?  We keep getting reports that our air, water, and foodstuff is getting increasingly better. Just go ahead and drink tap water, breathe the air from around coalburners, and eat whatever is served up.  We’re just asking for poor health by not being more involved and demanding in the way we want our basic air, food and water. We should really be questioning what’s happening. With all the recalls, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see something very wrong is most certainly happening. It’s not a natural phenomenon that’s happened before. It’s us. It’s not a stretch to think we’re causing global warming, the more we’re aware of the pollution we create by something as simple as flushing our pills.  

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4422001