Charity Hicks, a visionary, cultural, and community leader in Detroit passed away after a serious bus accident in New York July 9th, 2014. Charity had led the fight of the Detroit People’s Water Board against political efforts to privatize Detroit’s water system and shut off water to and otherwise marginalize Detroit’s residents and poor neighborhoods. Our hearts, blessings, and sympathy, go out to Charity, her husband, family, and friends. This is a loss hard to take, but her vision for Detroit must be honored and hopefully transformed into the preservation of Detroit’s water as public with the right to water for all residents for their needs and health.
On Tuesday night June 24, 2014, approximately 150 concerned citizens gathered together at Petoskey High School to learn and ask questions about Enbridge Energy and their future plans for pipeline 5. A wide range of advocacy and regulatory groups were also in attendance and participated in the discussion panel that followed after presentations form PHMSA, Enbridge, and the EPA.
The symposium was structured with a very controlled design. Enbridge along with a number of overlapping agencies and advocacy groups welcomed discussion at tables outside the auditorium before the event started. It was hard to see Enbridge’s table as they were crowded with protesters and students from MI-CATS (Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands) calling out claims against the energy company. Amongst the 2 bodyguards present with Enbridge, a nervous demeanor was apparent in the shaky voice of their representatives.
Allan Beshore was the first speaker to present. He represented the US Dept of Transportation’s PHMSA (Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration) group and provided an explanation of PHMSA’s involvement with the oil and gas industry. The jolly Kansan kept his talk simple and bland with factual information. Allan’s message was that PHMSA is not just a regulating entity but also a group that has a mindset towards providing stewardship to affected communities. Interestingly enough, Allan did note during his presentation that corrosion and equipment failure historically have been the largest occurrence to pipeline breaks.
When Brad Shamla, Enbridge Energy’s Vice President of North American operations took the stage he was met with dissatisfying boo’s from the crowd. Brad focused on the history of Enbridge and made it clear that they have learned a lot from the Kalamazoo spill in 2010. He made sure to underline the fact that Enbridge has invested millions in new green energy technology, safety measures, and attempts to improve the image and culture of their company since the spill in 2010. It was evident that Enbridge wanted to portray their effort to increase public awareness and community outreach also. Thematically the presenters held to a “trust us mentality” assuring citizens they have improved systems since the Kalamazoo oil spill. Yet, nothing seemed too compelling or new in Brad’s talk. While Enbridge has largely grown its employment over the last 4 years, only 250 jobs will be created in Michigan from their proposed pipeline 5 work.
Ralph Dollhopf an on-scene coordinator from the EPA was the last to speak. Ralph discussed the oil and hazardous substance national contingency plan. Reviewing the steps of the process towards executing the plan in the event of a spill. Concerns about tar sands sinking or floating in water were addressed time and again as Ralph based his explanation off the fact that “weathering factors” play a large role in determining sink/float characteristics of oil. This makes it hard to determine any universal cause plan for a spill without knowing the characteristics of the body of water it occurs in.
Initiating the Q & A session 15 people took the stage representing:
Panel questions were predetermined and due to time constraints limited to addressing only a portion of all the questions. Enbridge’s V.P. provided open-ended answers and vague clarifications to most questions as the large majority were directed at him. The rest of the representatives held true to a message of how prepared they are in the event of an oil spill. Bill Hazel, Director of Marine Services from Marine Pollution Control made a point that focus needs to not only be on post-spill contingency plans but also pre-spill. It was clear that there was a lack of preventative tools used to contain spills in the event of a pipeline break in the straights. Today in Mackinaw City there is less than 1 mile of boom ready for deployment in the event of a spill.
FLOW’s submitted question for the panel went relatively unaddressed. “Has Enbridge obtained authorization from DEQ under Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act for placement and use of the pipeline”? In response the DEQ avoided directly answering the question stating that the DNR holds the easement and little was known about it, while Enbridge held to the claim that pipeline 5 was grandfathered in under PA 10 back in the 1950s. To be blunt both spokesman seemed unprepared to answer any public trust questions.
In writing the narrative for the symposium a true lack of public transparency took shape in the thesis. If there is a necessity to move oil, pipelines seem to be the most efficient means and an agreement must be found to regulate them. Given Michigan’s immense wealth in the natural resource of water, public trust responsibility is very important. Enbridge Energy came to the event hoping to reassure the public that they are prepared for a potential pipe burst but did not answer anyone’s direct concerns. Enbridge is only looking to seek resolution based on their past history which acknowledges the public’s biggest fear of the energy company, another spill. Citizens left the symposium with more doubt unsure of what the future will hold; it’s the public’s Great Lakes and everyone has the right to know what is occurring in their waters.
A special thanks to Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council for organizing and running this event.
FLOW’s May 13th webinar hosted four speakers who provided their insight on nutrient pollution in Lake Erie. We were fortunate to hear from
Dr. Don Scavia, professor from the University of Michigan
Codi Yeager-Kozacek, correspondent from Circle of Blue
Dave Dempsey, member from the International Joint Commission
Jim Olson, FLOW Founder, President and Environmental Lawyer
Close to 60 participants tuned in; evident of concern across the Great Lakes Water Basin about the issue of reappearing harmful algal blooms (HABs) and “dead zones” in Lake Erie. Below is a quick summary of the discussion.
Moderator Liz Kirkwood gave an overview of the issues: In the 1960’s, point source nutrient pollution was the root cause of HABs, under the regulations of the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, it appeared that the crisis was solved by the 1980’s.
University of Michigan Professor Don Scavia gave an overview of the data that indicated the causes of modern HAB emergence: models require an average load input of dissolved reactive phosphorus to be reduced by 78%. Non-point source pollution is now the predominant issue of Lake Erie’s HABs.
Circle of Blue correspondent Codi Yeager-Kozacek reported on the agriculture factors creating the new, emerging HAB problem: Today, farm technology and increased agricultural competition are factors to a different kind of nutrient pollution. Incentives to combat excessive nutrient runoff encourage updating Best Management Practices (BMPs), which today are not mandatory of farmers. The Great Lakes region generates about 15 billion dollars a year agriculturally. With high competition there is too much at stake to assume an unregulated industry will succeed.
Dave Dempsey discussed how the The International Joint Commission (IJC), a binational organization, will resolve disputes about the use and quality of boundary waters between nations. Their recent Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority (LEEP)report provided recommendations on nutrient pollution reduction and referenced FLOW’s Public Trust Framework as a strategy for future protection of Lake Erie.
JIm Olson concluded the webinar with an explanation of FLOW’s Public Trust Principle. With a struggle against time, resolutions must be made that controls further degradation of Lake Erie. The Public Trust Principle is beneficial because it is both flexible and holds states accountable. It allows for future protection considering public opinion and scientific data, while addressing concerns raised by the other presenters.
The webinar stimulated thought and closed out with an engaging Q and A, a few questions below.
Q. Has the information on the need to ramp-up structural BMPs been shared with USDA/NRCS and EPA for consideration under the new GLRI Action Plan being developed now? A. Yes, information is being shared throughout the region addressing all the variables, not just BMPs. Information they feel is well know, however the time frame is not.
Q. It appears the intensity of agriculture is WAY out spacing technological and political changes, what structures are in place for the political sphere to keep up with the industry? A. There are structures in place, such as the Clean Water Act, however we still need further reform collectively on what to do. There needs to be new standards for TMDLs and framework through court action that will hold parties responsible. Implementing Public Trust principles will help move this action forward as our current political sphere shows major gaps.
Q. What current political structures are in place to effectuate political change to compel farmers to use strategies such as BMPs? A. The Farm Bill is the only solid structure as of right now. Nutrient trading may be something to explore in the future, yet it does not address TMDLs directly. There have been successes with it, but the EPA sets limits, and the state also sets their own creating conflict. We can consider modeling off chemical-trading as it has been done with air-trading programs. Wisconsin has a number of test programs in place right now that examine nutrient trading, the problem lies however in finding the right scale to measure based upon each watershed.
Q. How does one get land tenants to change, we need non-farming landowners to implement these BMPs also but where is the incentive? A. Land use regulation should apply to all, in terms of buffers and structural practices. Watershed groups have the authority to regulate land practices that cause harm to waterways, be they agricultural or not. Landowners will be required to regulate in land use through laws sanctioned and passed by the state. Regardless of their specific practice it will be in the best interest of all to follow BMPs.