| Published Articles Continued |
| Send Comments to: mary@freshwaterhealthylives.org |
|
| Big Red, Holland, MI |
| Copyright 2006 Mary E. McKinney Schmidt |
| Fresh Water-Healthy Lives Engaging Everyone in Preventing a Great Lakes Crisis |
 | |  | |  | |  |
- The Holland Sentinel
August 14, 2006
Guest Column
Fresh water, not litigation
Unless Congress clarifies the language in the 1972 Clean Water Act, our tax dollars will be used to fund
millions of dollars in unnecessary litigation. And that makes me angry!
That is not how I want my tax dollars spent—particularly at a time when the Great Lakes need an
immediate infusion of money. If we don’t do something now, scientists say, the damage to the Great
Lakes is irreversible.
I am frustrated because the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on wetlands flies in the face of everything I
have heard from both Democrats and Republicans over the last year. Both parties support a
comprehensive plan to clean up the Great Lakes; a plan that highlights the restoration and protection of
wetlands as critical to reversing the damage to the lakes.
That is why I was dumfounded to learn of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Admittedly, I am not a lawyer
and the 4-1-4 decision regarding the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. U.S. and Carabell v. Army Corps
of Engineers was confusing at best. In both cases, developers filled in wetlands without a permit.
At issue was whether the Clean Water Act applied to these particular wetlands, as they were not directly
adjacent to navigable waters. They were, however, adjacent to tributaries that flowed into navigable
waters.
According to John Dingell, one of the original architects of the bill, the intent of the law was to protect all
wetlands flowing directly and indirectly into the Great Lakes. However, both cases were sent back to the
lower courts with Justice Anthony Kennedy outlining his own standards by which decisions should be
made regarding what constitutes a wetland covered by the Clean Water Act.
Wetlands are nature’s way of filtering what are called nonsource points of pollution. For example, the
Lake Macatawa River was retrenched by farmers in the late 1800s. In order to make it easier to farm the
fields, the landowners straightened the small, meandering river, destroying the wetland vegetation. The
farmers did not realize without the river’s wandering path, it would be more likely to flood, the sediments
more apt to flow, unrestricted and unfiltered, into the river. They did not realize wetlands are nature’s way
of keeping its waterways clean.
Today’s farm runoff can include pesticides, chemicals and excessive animal waste. Because 90 percent
of the phosphorus polluting the Lake Macatawa Watershed comes from storm runoff, wetlands are a
high priority for local officials.
That is why the Ottawa County Parks and Recreation Commission, Macatawa Greenway Partnership,
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, and others have been working hard to restore natural
wetlands on roughly 30 acres along the Macatawa River. As part of the Upper Macatawa Conservation
Area, the project will filter nonsource pollutants and keep them from heading downstream to Lake
Macatawa and eventually, Lake Michigan.
That project, under the leadership of John Scholtz, Manager of Ottawa County Parks and Recreation, is
exactly what scientists recommend to clean up the Great Lakes. That is where I would like my tax dollars
spent; not in another 20 years of litigation, defining wetlands on a case-by-case basis! We don’t have the
time or the money!
It is the role of Congress, not the courts, to provide protection for our fresh water. If the language of the
Clean Water Act does not properly protect all wetlands, Congress needs to modify the legislation. And
given the importance of the Great Lakes to our local community, state and region, I expect Representative
Peter Hoekstra, Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and other Michigan representatives to play a
leadership role in making the changes happen.
Our priority must be fresh water, not continued litigation!
| Click here to link to Published Articles Continued |
Contact your Federal Representative in the U.S. House and Senate. Ask that they work to modify the Clean Water Act so that the language reflects the original intent of protecting wetlands. |
September 11, 2006 Guest Column Staring Down the Freighter One of my first “dates” with my husband was crewing on his 16’ Hobie Cat. The regatta was held in Port Huron, with over 30 catamarans racing across the St. Claire River. As typically happens during a regatta, the air was light. As we bobbed in the water, barely moving, I noticed in horror a freighter bearing down on us. Naively I asked, “We’re a sailboat—don’t we have rights?” My husband, already tacking the boat out of harms way, explained patiently. “Freighters always have the right-of-way. They are too big, too slow to change course.” I think about the freighter as I think about the U.S. automotive industry—so key to Michigan’s economy. And while the car industry has served the state well for years, today’s global competition requires the characteristics of a speed boat—quick, nimble, able to rapidly change course. What I don’t understand, as a newcomer to the state, is why we continue to focus on the freighter. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), two out of every three persons on the planet may be living in water-stressed conditions by the year 2025 if present consumption and pollution patterns continue. We are the only state in the country that is surrounded on all three sides by fresh water. It strikes me Michigan has the opportunity to create and market the industry of fresh water management. The state can become to fresh water what California was to micro-chips. We can live without oil, albeit not easily. We cannot live without water. Thanks to the Great Lakes, Michigan is uniquely positioned to attract scientists, engineers, and businesses focused on the conservation and restoration of fresh water. Global leadership does not just happen. It takes a vision. It takes strong leaders. As I watch the November campaigns unfolding, I notice no Michigan candidate at any level talking about the greatest differentiating factor we have as a state. Yes our economy is doing poorly. But rather than trying to compete toe-to-toe with other states on an even (possibly uneven) playing field, why not find a competitive edge no one can match. And no state or country can match our fresh water! Michigan needs to change incentives to attract the science of water restoration and manufacturers focused on water conservation. That is the future in a water- constrained world. Incentives drive creative thinking that leads to innovation. Innovation is the key to global leadership. Yes, it would take money. In the Water Works report of the Michigan Land Use Institute, Andy Guy suggests that by charging one penny for every gallon of water withdrawn but not returned to the basin by manufacturers and others, Michigan could raise more than $3 billion annually. That’s a great start! Typically it takes a crisis to drive change. And while the current state of the economy could be the catalyst, no one is talking about our water. In fact, we are giving it away. It is up to us, the citizens of Michigan, to make fresh water a priority. If we choose to restore and protect it, the water could be our future. No state has more to gain…or lose. My husband and I did tack to avoid the freighter many years ago. But we quickly tacked back and won the regatta. Michigan can do the same. |
October 9, 2006 Guest Column The Real Threat To The Lakes I remember standing on the family platform overlooking the smoldering debris of the World Trade Center. It had been only four months since September 11th and the air still had a strange, poignant odor, a mixture of cement dust and burning steel. The sound of dump trucks lugging the remnants of a once thriving community droned in the background. As I looked at the wooden handrails before me, tears spilled over my cheeks. Etched into the wood were the hand-written goodbyes from children, parents, spouses.
experience, to study ways to minimize injuries in a catastrophic event. Unfortunately, on September 11th, 2001, there were few injuries, only deaths. What kind of people would have such disregard for human life? I asked myself as I returned to Chicago. And how do we prepare for an invasion that defies traditional warfare? From the plane, I could see the waters of Lake Michigan, stretching for miles below me. I felt my breath quicken as I thought the unthinkable. “Please God,” I said quietly. “Don’t let them spray chemicals into our fresh water. Don’t let them destroy our lakes.” It has been a long time since I thought about that trip to New York. But when I read the recent Coast Guard decision to fire machine guns and other weapons into the Great Lakes, the memories came flooding back. According to the Coast Guard, the drills are necessary to prepare for terrorists. But if the terrorist want to invade the Great Lakes region, will they really use traditional weaponry? I don’t think so—particularly after what I have learned over the last year. For decades, ocean vessels have dumped ballast water into the Great Lakes--untreated and untested. As a result, 160 invasive species have already invaded our waters. While scientists say the invasive species are the single most damaging element of the Great Lakes ecosystem, what happens if terrorists decide to add something else to that ballast water? Unfortunately, we would never know. There is no standardized testing and monitoring of the five massive lakes that represent 20% of the world’s fresh water. One of the components of the Great Lakes Restoration legislation currently pending in the U.S. House and Senate is the creation of a sound information base and representative indicators so we can understand what is happening to these waters. So the Coast Guard plan makes little sense to me. Why spend millions of dollars blasting machine guns and pistols into fresh water already vulnerable, when there is no money available to address what appears to be a much more deadly threat? And while poisoning our water may sound far-fetched, my threshold for the absurd changed when I stood on that platform overlooking the gaping hole and read a note in black crayon from a little girl looking for her Daddy. If the Coast Guard wants to make me feel more secure, I would rather see the money invested in the funding of the Great Lakes Restoration legislation—particularly the portions that address the lack of standardized testing and the inspection and treatment of ballast waters. So I plan to attend the Coast Guard meeting scheduled for October 18th in Grand Haven. And while I share others concerns about the environmental ramifications of these military operations, about safety and the potential disruption to the boating, fishing and tourism industries, my greatest concern is one of priorities. It seems there is a better way to invest our tax dollars than investing in military maneuvers. A higher priority should be defending the drinking water of 42 million people against terrorists who hold no respect for human life. |
| Pentwater Channel Marker |
Over 900 people voiced concerns about the U.S. Coast Guard decision to use the Great Lakes as a firing range. As a result, The Coast Guard has abandoned its plans. People really can make a difference! |
| Morning fog over Macatawa Yacht Club |
- Tahquamenon Falls, Michigan