Fresh Water-Healthy Lives Mary McKinney Schmidt Writer and Great Lakes Advocate |
| If you have suggestions and comments, contact mary@freshwaterhealthylives.org Copyright 2008 Mary McKinney Schmidt |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Lighthouses And other things of great importance |
From the upcoming Book 1 Don’t Let Boaters Run Aground The storm was not in the forecast. But as we sailed the shores of western Michigan, the winds began to gust over 30 knots. The light ripples on the water grew to 6 foot rollers. We needed to find a safe harbor. Fortunately, Pentwater was only an hour away. But as we motored into the channel, I gasped as the depth indicator read 7’2”. The keel of our sailboat drops 6’5” below the waterline. I was terrified we would hit bottom. It is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge Great Lakes harbors. But shrinking budgets over the last couple of years have forced the Corps to prioritize, dredging only commercial harbors in which one million tons are transported per year. Dredging Michigan’s harbors is a safety issue. It is also an economic necessity. There are 87 recreational harbors in the Great Lakes, 42 in Michigan. According to the Corps, the dredging needs of all 87 could be addressed for only $5 million per year. I say “only” because according to a report released by the Great Lakes Commission, recreational boaters contributed $16 billion and 244,000 jobs to the Great Lakes region in 2003. Five million seems a relatively small investment by comparison. Unfortunately, in the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this month, language requiring the dredging of recreational harbors did not make the cut. Instead, the bill urges the Corps to “consider” the economic impact when making dredging decisions. WRDA establishes the priorities for the Corps. Given the backlog of maintenance issues for commercial harbors, chances are recreational harbors will continue to be neglected. Without prioritization in WRDA, our federal officials must now fight each year for “earmark” or “pork” dollars to fund the dredging. These harbors are critical to Michigan’s economy. Registered boaters number almost 954,000 in our state and generate $3.9 billion in sales, 51,000 jobs. And while the average boater spends $3,600/year, the amount can be as high as $20,000/year if the boat is over 40 feet. Roughly 40% of the annual dollars are spent on boat equipment, maintenance and repair, slip fees and insurance. The remaining 60% is spent on trips. So financially, it is a big deal when a boater hits bottom and decides not to return to that port. It’s happened to us twice in the last couple of years. We have not been back to either port. According to the report, the cost to the harbor community ranges from $76/day if the boat is under16 feet to $275/day if the boat is over 40 feet. Five million dollars seems like a small price to pay. As of now, the 2008 dredging dollars are included in the Water and Energy Appropriations bill passed by the House earlier this summer and approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. It still must pass the full Senate, a House-Senate Subcommittee, and be approved by the President--who is threatening a veto. If our federal representatives cannot negotiate the monies needed each year, Michigan must find a way. Freighters, boaters, marinas, and retailers benefit from dredged channels. If necessary, all should pay to ensure this slice of tourism remains an economic driver to the state. Michigan cannot afford to let its boaters run aground. |
| Manistee Harbor Entrance, Lake Michigan |
| Muskegon Lighthouse, Lake Michigan |
| Grand Haven Pier, Lake Michigan |
| White Lake Lighthouse, Lake Michigan |
| Whitefish Bay Lighthouse, Lake Superior |
| Mackinaw City Lighthouse, Lake Michigan |
| Ludington Light, Lake Michigan |
| Point Iroquois Lighthouse, Lake Superior |
| Northport Lighthouse, Lake Michigan |
From the upcoming Book 1
When I was young and invincible, I hitchhiked through South Africa. A can of Coca-Cola was easier to find than a glass of water. When we lived in Tennessee, a raging grass fire fueled by drought and high winds came within one block of our house. Were it not for restrictions on outdoor watering, there would not have been enough water pressure to save our home. My husband and I could have lived anywhere in the country. We selected western Michigan. We can live without a lot of things. Water is not one of them. But it is a collective “we.” Farmers, manufacturers, river-side café owners, fishermen, tourists, and families like mine depend on our legislators to find the balance between the diverse, sometimes conflicting needs of the community. It is not easy work. As I write this column, committees in both Michigan’s House and Senate are debating legislation sparked by the need to ratify the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. The Compact itself is a no-brainer. It is the only legally enforceable legislation to protect the Great Lakes from diversion outside the basin. But the Compact, which must be ratified by all eight Great Lakes states, Quebec, Ontario and eventually the U.S. Congress, leaves many of the difficult implementation decisions up to the states. That is the challenge facing our legislators. At a time when high unemployment casts a dark shadow on our state, can they balance the need for jobs with the protection of Michigan’s greatest resource? Can they avoid the temptation to place greatest weight on constituents offering employment and still consider the implications to our grandchildren? Can they legislate to protect our water while meeting the diverse needs of the collective “we?” Central to the debate is the treatment of water shipped out of the basin in small containers. Considered the “bottled water loophole,” it is the most important issue under discussion. Science has taught us groundwater, streams, rivers and lakes are part of a larger watershed. What is done to one affects the other. That means all waters, including groundwater, should be held in trust for the people by the government. The water cannot be sold as a commodity. It is owned by the public. We allow manufacturers, farmers and others to use our water. But the catalyst behind the creation of the Compact was the threat of a private company exporting Great Lakes waters in tankers for profit. There is no real distinction between selling and exporting water in tankers versus small containers. Either way, the government risks commoditizing a resource that is integral to our very existence. There are many other differences between the House and Senate bills. They include the role the water withdrawal assessment tool should play in the environmental review, the public involvement in the permitting process, and the criterion that defines large scale water users. But, to me, the issue is the public control of our watershed. Once we give that away, I don’t know how a community balances the needs of all its constituents. As we head into the final days of the legislative session, I hope our legislators put aside the divisive political rhetoric that has dominated the year. Our water is not a political issue. It is the heart and soul of our state. |
| Doubleclick HERE to return to Home Page |
| Big Sable Point Lighthouse, Lake Michigan |
| South Manitou Island, Lake Michigan |
| Point Betsie, Lake Michigan |