Tag: Clean Water Act

People Power: Major Progress Made on Environmental Issues

Published on October 9th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

Lost in the barrage of bad news about harmful pollutants, invasive species, habitat loss, and climate change is quiet progress on some long-term challenges. The statistics bear this out and suggest the potential for successfully addressing today’s environmental problems.

Our rivers and lakes are noticeably cleaner than they were when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972.

Rivers don’t catch fire any more, like Ohio’s Cuyahoga River and Michigan’s Rouge River did in 1969. The Clean Water Act has funded approximately 35,000 grants totaling $1 trillion to curb water pollution, diverting more than 700 billion pounds of pollution from America’s rivers. The number of waters in the nation that meet clean water goals has doubled since 1972.

Michigan’s water quality story is complicated. For example, phosphorus pollution from detergents and dishwashing soaps has declined by over 90% since the state limited the phosphorus content of these products beginning in the 1970s. But increased phosphorus runoff from farm fertilizers has offset much of the benefit. Still, the latest state water quality report observes, “Excluding widespread PCBs and mercury-related impairments, physical/chemical and biological assessments of inland lakes and rivers indicate designated uses [e.g., full body contact recreation] are supported in a majority of water bodies.”

By many measures, the air is significantly cleaner than it was when Congress renewed the Clean Air Act in 1990.

Total national air emissions of the following pollutants have declined since 1990:

  • Carbon monoxide (CO) by 67%
  • Nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 59%
  • Fine particulate matter (soot) by 30%
  • Sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 88%
  • Volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 42%

From 1990 to 2014, national emissions of toxic air pollutants declined by 68 percent. Trends in Michigan are comparable.

Levels of toxic contaminants in Great Lakes fish have declined dramatically since Michigan became the first state to ban most uses of DDT in 1969.

Between 1991 and 2019, mean total PCB concentrations in lake trout at all of EPA’s sampling sites in the Great Lakes declined significantly, ranging from a 78% drop at Sturgeon Bay in Lake Michigan to a 92% drop at Keweenaw Point in Lake Superior.

DDT concentrations in lake trout and walleye from the Great Lakes have plummeted more than 80% since the 1970s and continue to fall in most locations.

Most of our public swimming beaches are clean enough to be open for recreation most of the time.

According to the 2022 State of the Great Lakes report published by the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, the percentage of days that Canadian Great Lakes beaches met Ontario E. coli standards for swimming averaged 90% in 2018 and 2019. U.S. Great Lakes beaches monitored from 2018 to 2019 were open and safe for swimming 94% of the time over this period. The status of monitored beaches was rated “good” in all of the lakes other than Lake Erie.

America’s symbol, the bald eagle, is flying widely over the Great Lakes state.

From a low of 52 breeding pairs in 1961, Michigan’s bald eagle population has risen to about 900 breeding pairs, the result of both the ban on DDT and habitat restoration.

How these victories were achieved:

This progress didn’t happen on its own. It took two things — firm environmental laws and people power — to reduce the pollutants that made our air and water profoundly unhealthy and threatened fish and wildlife. These are still needed.

People not only worked to pressure elected officials to pass and enforce the laws, but people also helped with hands-on stream cleanup and endangered species restoration work.

Of course, America has not “solved” any of the problems targeted by the federal or state environmental laws. There is still much work to do. But statistics – and our own eyes – can tell us that human-made pollution can also be remedied by human effort and ingenuity.

The Unfulfilled Promise of ‘Zero Discharge’ into Public Waters

Published on October 31st, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Above: Aerial view of White Lake near Montague, Michigan, with Duck Lake visible to the south. (Photo/Doc Searls)

By Tanya Cabala

I was a young adult before I knew anything about the Clean Water Act, its passage in 1972, its relationship to my community, or even its initial promise of “zero discharge,” still unfulfilled to this day. 

The lack of good environmental laws, and lax oversight and enforcement of the weak laws we had, gave rise to the unfortunate circumstances people in my community encountered as chemical companies and municipalities discharged wastes into our local West Michigan lake—White Lake the Beautiful, as I and some other locals call it, going all the back to a tannery in 1865 and then the infamous Hooker Chemical Company in the 1950s.

Citizens eventually prevailed when the Clean Water Act was nearly a decade old, and then others, including me, took up the banner and advocated for the cleanup of White Lake for several decades, eventually succeeding and getting it removed from a list of Great Lakes Areas of Concern in 2014. 

Tanya Cabala and her dogs at home near White Lake in West Michigan (Photo courtesy of Tanya Cabala)

Some people finally rose up to protest in the 1970s, and were told to be quiet to keep jobs in the community. Citizens eventually prevailed when the Clean Water Act was nearly a decade old, and then others, including me, took up the banner and advocated for the cleanup of White Lake for several decades, eventually succeeding and getting it removed from a list of Great Lakes Areas of Concern in 2014. 

Taking Direct Action for Zero Discharge

I was recently in Traverse City, and as I drove along Grand Traverse Bay, I remembered the fall of 1991, when I was standing right there, with many others, calling for zero discharge of pollutants into public waters, for once and for all. As a new staffer then for the Lake Michigan Federation (now the Alliance for the Great Lakes), I marched along the bay, listened to speakers with all the Great Lakes groups present, and attended the meetings of the International Joint Commission, the binational panel of appointees overseeing the U.S. and Canadian governments’ implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

I was glad for the visit by Greenpeace activists and for the campaign, as it put the term “zero discharge” into the news, and into the vernacular. I was not one to scale a smokestack, but I could understand how groups taking direct action could benefit the work I was doing.

It was the second such biennial meeting open to the public, and there was great interest in attending. Greenpeace, the international environmental organization, was in attendance, the final stop of its Great Lakes campaign for zero discharge, after having visited my community near White Lake, scaling the smokestack of the local paper mill, and unfurling a zero discharge banner. They were arrested, and it made news. I was glad for the visit by Greenpeace activists and for the campaign, as it put the term “zero discharge” into the news, and into the vernacular. I was not one to scale a smokestack, but I could understand how groups taking direct action could benefit the work I was doing.

Finally we could say the words, “zero discharge,” and hopefully get more work done in our own communities. In Traverse City, Greenpeace unfurled another banner from the top of the Grand Traverse Resort where the meetings were held, and group members  stalked the meetings indoors wearing animal head costumes. Again, I was not one to do this, but I could see clearly how it pushed the agenda for us all in the right direction. It provided a necessary complement to those, like me, providing their testimony in more of the expected (and less interesting) manner.

Teach Your Children Well

I am much older now, but still working as an activist, still hoping to see the changes we need, the progress we need. I won’t deny there have been many successes with the Clean Water Act in place. But still, the zero discharge promise is unfulfilled as polluted runoff from land continues, and new water quality problems like PFAS emerge (amid the crisis of climate change exacerbating it all), threatening my White Lake the Beautiful, my community’s lake, my children’s and grandchildren’s future. (And the U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to “shrink” the power and promise of the Clean Water Act).

We need to teach them—our children and grandchildren—well while they are young. We need to keep what we have regained. And we need to consider all the ways that we can work together, most especially through direct action. We need to act like we are in a crisis. Because we are.

We need to teach them—our children and grandchildren—well while they are young. We need to keep what we have regained, our clean White Lake, and all the other rivers and lakes restored to good health. And we need to consider all the ways that we can work together, most especially through direct action. We need to act like we are in a crisis. Because we are.

About the author: Tanya Cabala lives in her childhood home in Whitehall, Michigan, in northern Muskegon County, with her two dogs, Bella and Barney. A grandmother and the Lakeshore Outreach Organizer for West Michigan Environmental Action Council, she is delighted to be working with energetic movers and shakers along the West Michigan lakeshore, educating on protecting water and encouraging action on climate change.

Clean Water: It’s About Holding Officials Accountable

Published on October 18th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Editor’s note — See FLOW’s additional coverage of the Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement here:

By Lana Pollack

As the Clean Water Act turns 50 years old today—on October 18, 2022—I’m reminded that this notable birthday is shared with another milestone environmental achievement, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). This U.S.–Canada accord, which started out as a limited commitment to address excessive phosphorus in just two of the Great Lakes, grew into scores of ambitious binational programs that today encompass the entire Great Lakes Basin.

Lana Pollack is former chair of U.S. Section of the IJC and a former three-term state senator.

Driven by the visionary goals of the Clean Water Act and Canadian laws, the GLWQA has morphed into the driver of a long overdue, costly cleanup of the Great Lakes’ 44 most highly contaminated sites, along with recognition of both countries’ obligation to prevent further degradation of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem.

This dual semi-centennial celebration begs for honest assessments of Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement achievements and failures.

The successes of the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws and programs it inspired, are legion. But stubborn problems persist.

I’m old enough to recall remarkable “before and after” achievements gifted to us by Clean Water Act prohibitions and accountability measures. Rivers and lakes that were previously untouchable, are now favorite sites for swimming and kayaking. The successes of the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws and programs it inspired, are legion. But stubborn problems persist—many of them from non-point source agricultural pollution and others from mining, plating, and military operations. 

I know the power of polluting interests, and recognize that further protection of Great Lakes Basin waters will be achieved only when voters hold their elected officials accountable for the pollution that persists in defiling those waters.

Having worked in the world of politics, I know the power of polluting interests, and recognize that further protection of Great Lakes Basin waters will be achieved only when voters hold their elected officials accountable for the pollution that persists in defiling those waters.

About the author: Lana Pollack is former chair of U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission and a former three-term state senator who sponsored Michigan’s “polluter pay” law.

Considering Michigan’s Orphaned Resource—Inland Lakes—on the 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act

Published on October 18th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Bass Lake in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (Photo/Kelly Thayer)

Editor’s note—See FLOW’s additional coverage of the Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement here:

By Ralph Bednarz

Ralph Bednarz is a retired State of Michigan limnologist.

Today, on the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, is an opportune time to look at the law’s Clean Lakes Program. It was enacted as Section 314 of the Act and implemented in 1976 to address the degraded conditions of the nation’s inland lakes.

Congress has appropriated no funds for the Clean Lakes Program since 1995, even though 45% of the nation’s lakes continue to be in poor condition as a result of nutrient enrichment and other stressors, according to the most recent National Lakes Assessment.

The Clean Lakes Program provided funds to help assess the water quality of lakes in a state or tribal jurisdiction, conduct diagnostic feasibility studies to identify the causes of pollution in the lake, implement projects to mitigate the problems, and carry out post-restoration monitoring studies. The Clean Lakes Program awarded $145 million in grants through 1995. But Congress has appropriated no funds for the Clean Lakes Program since 1995, even though 45% of the nation’s lakes continue to be in poor condition as a result of nutrient enrichment and other stressors, according to the most recent National Lakes Assessment.

Michigan is a lake-rich state with approximately 3,300 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and more than 11,000 inland lakes. Michigan’s history of lakes management dates back to the early 1900s, along with fisheries management and the desire to culture and stock fish in Michigan lakes and streams. However, prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act and the implementation of the Clean Lakes program, little water chemistry data had been collected on Michigan lakes, which hampered understanding and documentation of status and trends in lake water quality.

Michigan is a lake-rich state with approximately 3,300 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and more than 11,000 inland lakes.

Michigan initiated a systematic effort in 1973 to monitor the quality of its inland lakes. However, by 1979 only 300 lakes had been sampled due to budget and staff constraints. Additional Clean Lakes Program funding became available to the states in 1980 as one-time grants for inventorying and classifying publicly owned freshwater lakes according to trophic or biological condition. Michigan was awarded a lake classification grant in 1980, which was the catalyst that launched Michigan’s inland lakes water quality monitoring and assessment programs. In addition to the lake classification grant support, Michigan was awarded 16 individual project grants: seven diagnostic-feasibility studies awards, eight restoration and protection implementation projects awards, and one post-restoration, monitoring studies award.

Another important section of the Clean Water Act is the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program, established in the 1987 Amendments to the Act. Nonpoint source pollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground, where it picks up and carries away natural and human-made pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater.

The 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act shows the work is far from done, especially for inland lakes.

Since 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been providing financial support to states and tribes through Section 319 grants to implement their nonpoint source management programs. The EPA has encouraged states and tribes to use Section 319 funds to support the Clean Lakes work previously funded under the Section 314 Clean Lakes Program. The use of Section 319 funds to support lakes-related projects varies widely by state and tribe, but it has been reported in the range of 5-19%. Michigan does not track individual lake watershed projects supported with Section 319 grant funds.

There is support for expanding the implementation of the Clean Lakes Program by adding a “healthy lakes” component to protect high quality lakes and to prioritize lakes with significant cultural heritage value, as well as lakes in communities where there are environmental justice concerns.

The 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act shows the work is far from done, especially for inland lakes. The North American Lakes Management Society (NALMS) is calling for an “enhanced” Section 314 Clean Lakes Program with restored funding. NALMS is advocating for expanding the implementation of the Clean Lakes Program by adding a “healthy lakes” component to protect high quality lakes and to prioritize lakes with significant cultural heritage value, as well as lakes in communities where there are environmental justice concerns. An “enhanced” Section 314 Clean Lakes Program also will need to be fully integrated with other Clean Water Act tools, such as the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program, Section 106 Water Pollution Control Grants, and the ongoing National Lakes Assessment.

About the author: Ralph Bednarz is a limnologist who retired after a 35-year career in environmental protection and water resources management with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Bednarz managed Michigan’s inland lakes water quality monitoring programs. He was responsible for the implementation of the 2007 and 2012 National Lakes Assessment in Michigan, and he served as a national trainer for the 2012 assessment.

Where Do We Stand on the 50th Anniversary of the Clean Water Act?

Published on October 5th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Fresh water and aquatic plant life shine on October 2, 2022, in southeastern Grand Traverse County, Mich. (Photo/Kelly Thayer)

When Ohio’s Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969—the same year Michigan’s Rouge River blazed because of waste oil—America had had enough of worsening water pollution. Public opinion strongly favored tougher laws and enforcement to protect water.

Responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act in Michigan, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy is hosting three webinars to educate and celebrate the Act’s accomplishments over the last 50 years. Learn more.

It took a little more than three years, but on October 18, 1972, overriding a veto by President Richard Nixon, Congress enacted what has come to be known as the federal Clean Water Act. Along with considerable federal aid for construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities, the Act called for water quality standards and action by the states to implement the law and achieve the benchmarks.

Where do we stand on the 50th anniversary of this landmark law — the Clean Water Act?

Where do we stand on the 50th anniversary of this landmark law?

The Act resulted in dramatic, initial progress. Visible pollution in the nation’s lakes and streams declined. The reduction in algal blooms achieved by restricting phosphorus pollution restored the health of Lake Erie, which had been declared dead by the news media. Rivers no longer burned. Many beaches were safe and attractive for swimming again.

The ambitious Act set the goal of rendering all of the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable by 1983, and for the end of water pollution discharges by 1985—goals that are far from being met today.

But the Act was ambitious. It set the goal of rendering all of the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable by 1983, and for the end of water pollution discharges by 1985—goals that are far from being met today.

According to a 2017 report to Congress by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

  • Rivers and streams—A 2008 assessment found that 46% of U.S. river and stream miles were in poor biological condition; phosphorus and nitrogen were the most widespread of the chemical stressors assessed.
  • Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs—The National Lakes Assessment 2012 found that 21% of the nation’s lakes were hypereutrophic (i.e., with the highest levels of nutrients, algae, and plants). Phosphorus and nitrogen were the most widespread stressors in lakes.
  • Coastal waters—According to a 2010 study, 18% of the nation’s coastal and Great Lakes waters were in poor biological condition, and 14% were rated poor based on a water quality index. Phosphorus is the leading stressor contributing to the poor water quality index rating.
  • Wetlands—A 2011 assessment found that 32% of the nation’s wetland area was in poor biological condition, with leading stressors including surface hardening (soil compaction) and vegetation removal.

Studies found that 18% of the nation’s coastal and Great Lakes waters and 32% of the nation’s wetland area were in poor biological condition.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Report conveys the status of America’s rivers and streams, showing a patchwork of positive and negative outcomes and trends. The mixed condition of the nation’s waters is due to a combination of funding cuts for sewage treatment plants, population growth, expanded urban/suburban runoff, the expansion of large factory farms, and inconsistent enforcement.

Still, the Clean Water Act has resulted in significant progress in Michigan since 1972. A majority of inland lakes, the Great Lakes, and rivers meet water quality standards for swimming and other full-body recreation.

Still, the Clean Water Act has resulted in significant progress in Michigan since 1972. A majority of inland lakes, the Great Lakes, and rivers meet water quality standards for swimming and other full-body recreation.

Two significant limitations of the Clean Water Act are that it does not protect most groundwater (45% of Michigan’s population is served by drinking water from wells) and provisions that mostly exempt agriculture, a significant contributor to bacteriological and phosphorus pollutants to the nation’s waters. An exception to the latter loophole is a requirement that large livestock operations apply for Clean Water Act permits.

Two significant limitations of the Clean Water Act are that it does not protect most groundwater and provisions that mostly exempt agriculture.

There have been numerous amendments to the Act since 1972. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required the EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) offers a short history of the Clean Water Act and events commemorating the anniversary of the law. EGLE’s 2022 water quality report is now available as well.

Strengthening the Clean Water Act should be on the agenda of Congress. To truly fulfill its promise, increased sewage treatment funding and more effective approaches to urban and farm runoff are critical.

Strengthening the Clean Water Act should be on the agenda of Congress. To truly fulfill its promise, increased sewage treatment funding and more effective approaches to urban and farm runoff are critical.

Will the Supreme Court Shrink the Clean Water Act?

Published on October 4th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC.

Less than two weeks before the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday (click for audio or transcript) in a case that could gut the authority of the federal government to protect streams and wetlands.

The case—Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency—involves Idaho landowners who say the site on which they want to build a house is not protected by the Act and, thus, they do not need a permit authorizing construction. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the land in question is connected to a protected wetland through groundwater. Wetlands are important to water quality because they filter pollutants and capture floodwaters.

At stake are millions of acres of wetlands and intermittent streams that are vital to clean water and under significant stress.

The difference is significant. At stake are millions of acres of wetlands and intermittent streams that are vital to clean water and under significant stress. According to a 2017 report to Congress by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2011 assessment found that 32% of the nation’s wetland area was in poor biological condition, with leading stressors including surface hardening (soil compaction) and vegetation removal.

The EPA’s 2011 assessment found that 32% of the nation’s wetland area was in poor biological condition.

Some observers have said it is likely the Sacketts would have received a Clean Water Act permit had they applied, but the landowners declined to do so, arguing that the permit requirement infringed on their private property rights.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling next year.

Legal experts have disagreed on the Court’s likely decision based on questions the justices asked of attorneys for the two sides. One report said a majority of the justices “appeared reluctant to wrest wetlands permitting power from EPA in a dispute that had been expected to significantly narrow the scope of the Clean Water Act.” Another report said the Court “appears determined to shrink the Clean Water Act.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling next year.

An Earth Day Review: The Michigan Environmental Protection Act in 2022

Published on April 18th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, News

By Skip Pruss  

In 1970, over 20 million people participated in the nation’s first Earth Day. Pioneered by Wisconsin U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, Earth Day was one of the first of what became to be known as environmental teach-ins. Senator Nelson sought to confront the growing list of environmental issues facing the nation and the world by galvanizing public interest and elevating the level of discourse on threats to our air, land, water, lakes, rivers, and oceans. 

The 1970s witnessed the enactment of an array of state and federal legislation aimed at dealing with a growing list of environmental impairments. The new regulatory architecture imposed limitations on emissions to air and discharges to water, controlled the management and disposal of wastes, and reduced the release of hazardous substances into the environment.

Among the most notable of these new laws, was the Michigan Environmental Protection Act—known to us Michiganders as “MEPA.” MEPA took a dramatically different approach to environmental protection.  

While federal statutes like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act took aim by ratcheting down allowable levels of hazardous materials discharged into the environment, MEPA empowered “any person” to bring an action in court “for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources.”

Under MEPA, citizens have the power to use the courts to protect local natural features “from pollution, impairment, or destruction.” If a citizen is able to show that an activity will pollute, impair, or destroy a natural resource, then the proponent of the activity must either rebut the evidence or demonstrate that there is “no feasible and prudent alternative.”

The Michigan Environmental Protection Act’s use as an essential legal tool has never been more important or in greater legal need than right now.

MEPA also requires a determination whether a proposed project “is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare in light of the state’s paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment or destruction.”

In essence, MEPA requires that a proposed activity that may impair the environment be analyzed to determine not only whether there is a more environmentally benign way to accomplish the proposed activity, but also whether the effects of the activity are consistent with the “paramount” value of protecting public health and the environment.

Applying MEPA to Our Greatest Environmental Challenges

One of the leading champions and practitioners of MEPA has been FLOW’s founder, Jim Olson. For 50 years, he has put MEPA to work in the courts and administrative processes, defending wetlands, streams, flora and fauna, and human health.  Jim has adeptly used MEPA to protect the Great Lakes and its tributary rivers and streams, vindicate indigenous treaty fishing rights, and limit Nestlé’s withdrawal of Michigan groundwater.

For the first time, at the urging of FLOW, a state agency has acknowledged that MEPA applies to activities that result in large-scale greenhouse gas emissions. In reviewing Enbridge Energy’s request to the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) for authority to construct a tunnel to house a replacement for the Line 5 pipelines that currently cross the Straits of Mackinac, the MPSC ruled that not only is an analysis under MEPA required, the analysis must include a review of the greenhouse gas “pollution” attributable to the hydrocarbons transported within the pipelines.

Tar sand oil production, Fort McMurray, CA Photo by Environmental Defence Canada.

The MPSC agreed with FLOW’s arguments that MEPA is supplementary to other existing regulatory and administrative procedures, and that MEPA requires consideration of the likely environmental effects of the proposed tunnel project, including the cumulative effects of greenhouse gasses on climate change.

FLOW will be relentless in our efforts to ensure that MEPA is properly invoked to protect the public trust in all our vital natural resources.

FLOW has consistently argued that all major permitting decisions undertaken by state and local governmental authorities that involve activities that may impair natural resources also must undergo a separate review under MEPA. Without such a thorough analytical review, permitting decisions are incomplete and invalid.

Inherent in MEPA is the affirmation that our air, water, and natural features are irreplaceable and that maintaining the functionality, vitality, and resilience of natural systems is essential to our well-being and that of future generations. The rapidly evolving science of ecological economics affirms that natural systems provide trillions of dollars of economic value that are lost to future generations when natural resources are impaired or destroyed.

The Michigan Environmental Protection Act’s use as an essential legal tool has never been more important or in greater legal need than right now. FLOW will be relentless in our efforts to ensure that MEPA is properly invoked to protect the public trust in all our vital natural resources.

At 50 Years, How Much Progress Have We Made in the Fight for Clean Water?

Published on January 12th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, News

Photo: Ford’s plant on the Rouge River

Dave Dempsey, Senior Advisor

By Dave Dempsey

This year marks the 50th anniversary of two historically significant steps toward healthy streams and lakes, the U.S. Clean Water Act and the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

But are these silver anniversaries truly green? Let’s take a look.

Signed by President Richard Nixon and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau on April 15, 1972, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement formalized a partnership between the two nations to remedy the phosphorus pollution feeding severe algae blooms in western Lake Erie and bays and basins in some of the other Great Lakes. In subsequent years, the Agreement took on toxic pollutants and the cleanup of 43 pollution hotspots.

Enacted on October 18, 1972, through a Congressional override of President Nixon’s veto, the Clean Water Act provided the basic national framework for regulating water pollution and funding the construction of modern sewage treatment plans. The goal of the law was to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The interim goals of the Clean Water Act were to achieve “fishable and swimmable” waters by 1983 and eliminate all discharges of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985.

Neither of these goals has been met — or anything close to them. On the other hand, the nation’s waters, and the Great Lakes, have dramatically improved in some ways since 1972.

Nationally, in its first three decades, from 1972 through 2001, the Clean Water Act achieved major progress. More than 60% of lakes and more than 55% of rivers met water quality standards. But thousands of lakes and rivers fell short of the standards, and progress has been scarce since the turn of the 21st century.

As for the Great Lakes, the U.S. and Canada describe the ecosystem health of three of the five as fair, of one (Erie) as poor, and of only one, Superior, as good.

What’s going wrong?

One reason for the unsatisfactory state of many of the nation’s lakes and streams is a major gap in the Clean Water Act. Although it has substantially reduced pollution from factories and sewage treatment plants, it has done relatively little to curb runoff from farms and urban areas and the deposit of airborne toxic pollutants. One example is western Lake Erie, which is again in poor condition because of runoff from farms, including those with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Algae blooms are an annual occurrence and in 2014 a severe bloom near Toledo’s Lake Erie drinking water intake resulted in a “do not drink” advisory for 400,000 customers for almost two days.

Neither the Clean Water Act nor the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement achieved its goals for another reason — aging sewage treatment plants. The 1972 version of the Clean Water Act provided federal grants of 75 percent of the cost of building the plants, resulting in nationwide construction and pollution reduction. Congress later converted the grants to loans, reducing the capital available for construction. Cash-strapped states and municipalities delayed upgrades and construction of sewage treatment plants.

Throughout the clean water silver anniversary, FLOW will explore this 50-year history. What can we learn from its successes and failures? How do we restore truly healthy Great Lakes?

The answers are neither simple nor easy — but Americans want clean water. The next 50 years will require a national commitment.

The Promise and Peril of the Clean Water Act

Published on October 14th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News

Photo of a FLOW Staff and Board retreat on the Boardman River in Grand Traverse County in September.

When Ohio’s Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969—the same year Michigan’s Rouge River blazed because of waste oil—America had had enough of worsening water pollution. Public opinion strongly favored tougher laws and enforcement to protect water.

It took a little more than three years, but on October 18,1972, overriding a veto by President Richard Nixon, Congress enacted what has come to be known as the federal Clean Water Act. Along with considerable federal aid for construction of municipal sewage treatment facilities, the Act called for water quality standards and action by the states to implement the law and achieve the benchmarks.

The law resulted in dramatic, initial progress. Visible pollution in the nation’s lakes and streams declined; the reduction in algal blooms achieved by restricting phosphorus pollution restored the health of Lake Erie, which had been declared dead by the news media. Rivers no longer burned. Many beaches were safe and attractive for swimming again.

The Act was ambitious. It set the goal of rendering all of the nation’s waters fishable and swimmable by 1983, and for the end of water pollution discharges by 1985—goals that are far from being met today. According to a 2017 report to Congress by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

  • Rivers and streams—A 2008 assessment found that 46% of U.S. river and stream miles were in poor biological condition; phosphorus and nitrogen were the most widespread of the chemical stressors assessed.
  • Lakes, ponds, and reservoirs—The National Lakes Assessment 2012 found that 21% of the nation’s lakes were hypereutrophic (i.e., with the highest levels of nutrients, algae, and plants). Phosphorus and nitrogen were the most widespread stressors in lakes.
  • Coastal waters—According to a 2010 study, 18% of the nation’s coastal and Great Lakes waters were in poor biological condition, and 14% were rated poor based on a water quality index. Phosphorus is the leading stressor contributing to the poor water quality index rating.
  • Wetlands—A 2011 assessment found that 32% of the nation’s wetland area was in poor biological condition, with leading stressors including surface hardening (soil compaction) and vegetation removal.

The mixed condition of the nation’s waters is due to a combination of funding cuts for sewage treatment plants, population growth and expanded urban/suburban runoff, the expansion of large factory farms, and inconsistent enforcement.

Still, the Clean Water Act has resulted in significant progress in Michigan since 1972. A majority of inland lakes, the Great Lakes, and rivers meet water quality standards for swimming and other full body recreation.

Two limitations of the Clean Water Act are that it does not protect most groundwater (45% of Michigan’s population is served by drinking water from wells) and provisions that mostly exempt agriculture, a significant contributor to bacteriological and phosphorus pollutants to the nation’s waters. An exception to the latter loophole is a requirement that large livestock operations apply for Clean Water Act permits.

There have been numerous amendments to the Act since 1972. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the U.S.-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required the EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life.

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) offers a short history of the Clean Water Act. EGLE’s 2020 water quality report is now available.

Strengthening the Act should be on the agenda of the next session of Congress. To truly fulfill its promise, increased sewage treatment funding and more effective approaches to urban and farm runoff are critical.  Perhaps the 50th birthday of the Act, in 2022, can bring America’s waters closer to the vision the Act’s authors had in 1972.

Wanted: a Government That Acts Like an Adult and Cleans Up its Mess

Published on February 5th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News

Gov. Whitmer’s State of the Union response: standing up for the Great Lakes and environment

The Trump Administration has attacked longstanding U.S. environmental policy head-on. The unprecedented rollback of environmental protections during the past three years puts Michigan, the Great Lakes, and the entire nation at great risk.

Case in point: the recent rollback of federal clean water protections threatens water quality in wetlands and streams across the mitten state. “Clean water is a basic need,” Laura Rubin, director of the Healing Our Waters—Great Lakes Coalition told Bridge Magazine in response. “I am astounded that you would even think about rolling back regulations when you still have people in Michigan that don’t have clean drinking water. We need more—not less—protection for clean water.”

The National Environmental Policy Act—nicknamed the “Magna Carta” of American environmental law—which former President Richard Nixon signed into law on Jan. 1, 1970, is also under threat. This CNN report chronicles Trump’s attacks on the environment.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was given a prime opportunity to provide a bold, optimistic alternative to Trump’s war on the environment when she delivered the Democratic Party’s response to the State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Feb. 4.

She highlighted the efforts of young people who are standing up for the environment and other progressive policies:

“Democracy takes action and that’s why I’m so inspired by young people. They respond to mass shootings, demanding policies that make schools safer. They react to a world that’s literally on fire with fire in their bellies to push leaders to finally take action on climate change. They take on a road filled with potholes with a shovel and some dirt. It’s what gives me great confidence in our future and it’s why sometimes it feels like they’re the adults in the room. But it shouldn’t have to be that way. It’s not their mess to clean up, it’s ours.”

As the leader of our Great Lakes state, and the protector of our lakes, streams, air, and groundwater, FLOW applauds Whitmer for standing up for the 1.5 million workers whose jobs are directly tied to the health of the Great Lakes. We encourage Whitmer to call for a Great Lakes platform to protect our drinking water, public health, jobs and quality of life.

During her State of the State address last week, Whitmer initially alluded to critical issues including drinking water, climate change, PFAS, record-high Great Lakes water levels, and “their impact on tourism, agriculture and infrastructure”. She suggested that she will make big announcements in the weeks ahead.

FLOW would like to hear her talk more about how state and federal government can protect water and the environment.

Surveys show overwhelming bipartisan support for the protection of air, water, public lands, and natural resources—an essential function of government. 

FLOW’s environmental economics work over the past year makes the economic, legal and moral case for government’s role in protecting the environment and aims to reset the public narrative on environmental policy. Our “Resetting Expectations” briefs by former FLOW board chair Skip Pruss trace the history of environmental regulation since 1970, and illustrate how environmental policies protect individuals, families, and communities while fostering innovation and economic gains.