Tag: great lakes

Great Lakes Champions

Published on November 22nd, 2022 by - Blog Posts, News

In a time of seemingly overwhelming environmental challenges, it is important to remember that many unheralded individuals are working successfully to protect the Great Lakes. John Hartig profiles some of them in his new book, Great Lakes Champions. FLOW asked Hartig about the book’s message, the people he profiles, and the overall health of the Great Lakes.

FLOW: Tell us a little about your new book, Great Lake Champions.

John Hartig: Great Lakes Champions is the story of 14 people who love the Great Lakes, stepped up to become leaders of restoration efforts, and inspired others to follow. They have had to

John Hartig is the author of Great Lakes Champions.

persevere over decades and not give up in the face of adversity. They’re well respected and trusted in their communities and are not in it for acclaim or commendation. They simply and profoundly love the Great Lakes, show reverence for them, and work tirelessly to pass them on as a gift to future generations. Their stories are compelling and provide proof that individuals can indeed change the ecosystems where they live. I hope their stories will inspire a new generation of Great Lakes champions.

FLOW: Where did the idea for this book come from?

John Hartig: In my more than 40-year career, I have had the honor and privilege of working with and becoming friends with many people who had devoted their careers to these watershed cleanup efforts. They so inspired me that I decided to write a book about them.

FLOW: What are examples of champions that you profile in the book?

John Hartig: Champions come from all walks of life but share a love of the Great Lakes and a desire to make a difference in the watershed they call home. Here are just a few, which include a:

  • Husband-and-wife team who helped orchestrate a more than $1.6 billion cleanup of one of the most polluted bays on the Great Lakes.
  • Local environmentalist working for a nongovernmental organization who brought stakeholders together to realize $50 million of contaminated sediment remediation and more than $22 million of habitat rehabilitation.
  • Provincial public servant who brought all stakeholders together to clean up their Area of Concern, which was the first to be removed from the international hotspot list—and worked through a nongovernmental organization to help the local town to rebrand itself as a town committed to excellence in pursuit of sustainability.
  • Drain commissioner who helped bring together 48 communities in his watershed to become the first U.S. watershed to have all communities with national stormwater permits.
  • Head of an environmental justice organization who championed a local mercury-pollution prevention campaign that became a national model and who spearheaded a climate change action plan.
  • Member of the Waterkeeper Alliance who led their organization to become the first nonprofit to fulfill the role of non-federal sponsor of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative projects, which would serve as a model for the rest of the Great Lakes.
  • Local land use planner who brought together federal, provincial, and local stakeholders to restore fish and wildlife habitats and help create an EcoPark system; and
  • First Nation council member who fought for the cleanup of industrial processes and lands and to get others to view their waters and lands as sacred, requiring a stewardship ethic.

FLOW: What is your characterization overall of the Great Lakes? Are they improving, staying the same, or deteriorating?

John Hartig: It’s often said that Areas of Concern are microcosms of the Great Lakes. Since 1985, nine Areas of Concern have been taken off the list of international pollution hotspots. As of 2021, 102 of 255 impaired beneficial uses have been eliminated in U.S. Areas of Concern, and 68 of the 121 impaired beneficial uses have been eliminated in Canadian Areas of Concern. Although this has been a slow process, it does show progress.

Cleanup and restoration of the Areas of Concern are essential to restoring the health of the Great Lakes. However, there are lakewide issues that must be addressed to meet the long-term goal of restoring the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Great Lakes. For example, climate change is the most pressing ecosystem challenge of the 21st century and is considered a “threat multiplier” where warmer, wetter, and wilder climatic conditions amplify other threats like harmful algal blooms, combined sewer overflow events, species changes, poor air quality effects on vulnerable residents, and more. Other lakewide issues include food web changes resulting from the introduction of exotic species and continued health advisories on fish.

About the author: John Hartig serves as a Visiting Scholar at the University of Windsor’s Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and on the Board of Directors of the Detroit Riverfront Conservancy. For 14 years he served as Refuge Manager for the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge. Hartig has received numerous awards for his work, including a 2022 Michigan Notable Leader in Sustainability award from Crain’s’s Detroit Business and the 2015 Conservationist of the Year Award from the John Muir Association. He has authored or co-authored over 100 publications on the environment, including seven books.

What Do the Election Results Mean for the Great Lakes State?

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

While the word “water” was not on the November 8 statewide general election ballot in Michigan, it was present on the ballot in various local communities and in different, more subtle ways across the Great Lakes State.

In some of Michigan’s 276 cities and 1,240 townships, voters considered new regulations to safeguard water resources and taxes for sewer and drinking water system improvements. In northwest Michigan’s Leelanau Township, for instance, 60% of voters approved zoning amendments designed to protect water quality; and Leelanau County is poised by month’s end to implement a county-wide septic code ordinance after the county board’s bipartisan vote in August following years of rancorous debate and unsuccessful attempts at passage.

In Ann Arbor, a whopping 71% of voters favored a proposal to fund the City’s A2 Zero Action Plan, which aims for a transition to carbon neutrality by 2030 to curb climate change. The funds will come from an up to 1-mill ($1 for every $1,000 in taxable value) increase in city property taxes over the next 20 years, which will raise an estimated $6,800,000 in the first year levied. Authorized uses include year-round composting; expanded residential/multifamily recycling; community and rooftop solar programs; rental and low-income household energy programs; bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure; neighborhood resource centers; electric vehicle infrastructure; and tree plantings.

In some of Michigan’s 276 cities and 1,240 townships, voters considered new regulations to safeguard water resources and taxes for sewer and drinking water system improvements.  A whopping 71% of Ann Arbor voters favored a proposal to fund the City’s A2 Zero Action Plan, which aims for a transition to carbon neutrality by 2030 to curb climate change.

At the county level, decisions made by voters on whom to elect as commissioners in each of Michigan’s 83 counties could affect whether these jurisdictions in the near term take on one of the problems most threatening the state’s waters, an estimated 130,000 failing septic systems. Michigan remains the only state without a statewide law to set minimum standards for inspecting, maintaining, and replacing broken septic systems to protect surface water and groundwater and safeguard public health, so regulation is limited for now to a patchwork of local ordinances.

Historic Shift in Michigan’s Government

For the first time since the 1980s, Democrats have won the governor’s office, with the re-election of Gretchen Whitmer, and majorities in both chambers of the Michigan Legislature, albeit by just two seats in each chamber, which Republicans had controlled during Whitmer’s first term. The historic shift, along with the re-election of Dana Nessel as attorney general, promises to have enormous influence on the quality of water and other natural resources of the state.

enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac-4f9997139d321d60

A diver points to a segment of the dual Line 5 oil pipelines operating under in the Straits of Mackinac since 1953.

As an example, Whitmer and Nessel have been partnering on a legal strategy to shut down Line 5, Enbridge’s risky, antiquated twin petroleum pipelines operating in the Straits of Mackinac, while their Republican opponents had pointedly promised to drop the litigation if elected. And Gov. Whitmer will have the opportunity to speed up progress on her climate action plan, restore polluter-pay cleanup laws weakened under former Republican Gov. John Engler, and protect and restore the Great Lakes. Widespread PFAS contamination, E. coli pollution, and harmful algal blooms also remain key priorities.

In the 2023-2024 session of the legislature, lawmakers will likely decide whether to enact a statewide law to control failing septic systems and whether to spend a part of several billion dollars in federal aid to maximize Michigan’s historic investments in clean drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, and other water infrastructure projects – including aging dams on Michigan rivers.

FLOW: It’s Time to Seize the Opportunity to Protect Fresh Water for All

As the Great Lakes State, Michigan must lead on every imaginable freshwater policy to protect this fragile, water-rich ecosystem and to secure safe, affordable drinking water for all.

FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood

“For the first time in almost 40 years, the Whitmer administration and the legislature have an opportunity to profoundly shape water policy in the Great Lake State,” said FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood, reflecting on the recent election results. “A lasting watermark would include securing clean, safe, and affordable water for all and protecting groundwater for the health of our lakes and communities.”

“For the first time in almost 40 years, the Whitmer administration and the legislature have an opportunity to profoundly shape water policy in the Great Lake State,” said FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood, reflecting on the recent election results. “A lasting watermark would include securing clean, safe, and affordable water for all and protecting groundwater for the health of our lakes and communities.

Public Water, Public Justice

Governor Whitmer should play a leading role to close the bottled-water loophole in the Great Lakes Compact that presently allows diversions of water in containers less than 5.7 gallons. To do so, Kirkwood called on the governor and legislature to adopt FLOW’s “Public Water, Public Justice” model legislation that would generally prevent diversions by requiring small container diversions to be aligned with Public Trust principles, licensed by the state, and subject to royalties that would generate state revenue for Michigan’s vast water infrastructure needs.

“Michigan must seize this window of opportunity to think about systemic changes needed and make the greatest gains we can to protect fresh water, the environment, Pure Michigan economy, and our way of life in the face of impacts from unrelenting climate change and a water-scarce world,” said Kirkwood. “Big, bold ideas for a vibrant future vision are necessary to generate public engagement and support. So if there ever was a moment, this would be it.”

“Michigan must seize this window of opportunity to think about systemic changes needed and make the greatest gains we can to protect fresh water, the environment, Pure Michigan economy, and our way of life in the face of impacts from unrelenting climate change and a water-scarce world,” said Kirkwood. “Big, bold ideas for a vibrant future vision are necessary to generate public engagement and support. So if there ever was a moment, this would be it.”

On the Federal Front

Finally, all 13 of Michigan’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were contested in the November 8 election, with all incumbents who ran winning re-election, and Republicans gaining a slim majority in the chamber. Democrats retained narrow control of the U.S. Senate, and all Midwest governors on the ballot were re-elected.

The U.S. House will consider legislation in 2023 to address PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” which have contaminated over 200 sites in Michigan, and renewal of federal funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Everywhere you look, water issues colored Michigan election choices and outcome. Now comes the real work that we all must do together: Hold our elected officials accountable to ensure the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are healthy, public, and protected for all.

On Tuesday, Michigan Can Vote for Clean Water and Climate Action

Published on November 2nd, 2022 by - Blog Posts, News

Above: The clear waters of Great Sand Bay on Lake Superior north of Eagle River, Michigan, on the Keweenaw Peninsula. (Photo/Kelly Thayer)

You will not find the word “water” on Tuesday’s statewide general election ballot in Michigan. That hasn’t always been true. In 1968, 1988, 1998, and 2002, water appeared in the form of statewide voting on over $2 billion in environmental bond proposals. Voters approved all four by wide margins. No such issue will be put before statewide voters this year, extending a 20-year gap.

But you will find water on the ballot in various local communities and in different, more subtle ways across the Great Lakes State.

You will not find the word “water” on Tuesday’s statewide general election ballot in Michigan—extending a 20-year gap—but you will find water on the ballot in various local communities and in different, more subtle ways across the Great Lakes State.

In some of Michigan’s 276 cities and 1,240 townships, voters will consider new regulations to safeguard water resources and taxes for sewer and drinking water system improvements. In northwest Michigan’s Leelanau Township, for instance, voters will decide on zoning amendments proponents say are designed to protect water quality, while an opponent calls the amendments a “spectacular display of government overreach.”

In Ann Arbor, residents will vote on a proposal to fund the City’s A2 Zero Action Plan, which aims for a transition to carbon neutrality by 2030 to curb climate change, which already is contributing to floods and overwhelming Michigan’s underfunded water infrastructure. The funds would come from a $1 million increase in city property taxes over the next 20 years. At the county level, the choice of commissioners could affect whether these jurisdictions take on one of the problems most threatening the state’s waters, an estimated 130,000 failing septic systems.

Ann Arbor voters will consider a tax to curb climate change, which is contributing to floods and failure of water infrastructure in Michigan. Leelanau Township voters will decide on zoning amendments designed to protect water quality.

In races for three statewide offices, especially governor and attorney general, officeholders have enormous influence on the quality of water and other natural resources. As an example, incumbent Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have teamed on a legal strategy to shut down Line 5, Enbridge’s risky, antiquated twin petroleum pipelines located in the Straits of Mackinac. Whitmer’s Republican opponent, Tudor Dixon, has called the proposed shutdown part of a “radical” state energy strategy and says, if elected, she will drop the bid to shut down the pipelines.

In races for Michigan’s top spots—governor and attorney general—the outcome will impact the fate of the dangerous Line 5 pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac, the investment of several billion dollars in federal aid for water infrastructure needs, and whether Michigan finally will regulate failing septic systems.

All 148 seats in the Michigan legislature—110 in the State House of Representatives and 38 in the State Senate—are up for grabs. In the 2023-2024 session of the legislature, lawmakers will decide whether to enact a statewide law to control failing septic systems, whether to spend a part of several billion dollars in federal aid on water infrastructure needs, and more.

Finally, all 13 of Michigan’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be contested on Tuesday. The U.S. House will consider legislation in 2023 to address PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” which have contaminated over 200 sites in Michigan, and renewal of federal funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Everywhere you look, water issues color Michigan election choices. When we cast votes in November, we should remember that more than candidates are on the ballot. In a very real way, so are water and the public trust.

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.

The Clean Energy Transition: Minimizing Risks to the Great Lakes

Published on October 18th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Waves roll in on Lake Superior. (Photo/NPS)

About the author: Nancy Langston is the Distinguished Professor of Environmental History at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Langston is the author of five books, including two on the Great Lakes. She served for six years on the Lake Superior Binational Forum.

By Nancy Langston

In a warming world, clean water is the world’s most precious and vulnerable resource. The choices we make today to protect the Great Lakes are critical, given that the Great Lakes contain nearly 21% of the world’s fresh surface water. Lake Superior, for example, is among the world’s fastest warming lakes, with water temperatures increasing at nearly twice the rate of air temperatures. It’s clear that we must do everything possible to halt emissions of fossil fuels and transition to a clean energy future.

Nancy Langston is the Distinguished Professor of Environmental History at Michigan Technological University.

It’s clear that we must do everything possible to halt emissions of fossil fuels and transition to a clean energy future. But what happens when doing so risks the water quality of the Great Lakes?

But what happens when doing so risks the water quality of the Great Lakes? How do we decide between one good—building the renewable infrastructure necessary for a clean energy transition—when it might conflict with another good—minimizing mining and other infrastructure risks to Great Lakes water quality?

Consider the case of energy storage. Renewables such as solar and wind are intermittent, which means that the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine when we want that energy. There’s a solution, of course: energy storage, typically in batteries. But batteries require minerals—particularly lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper. A report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates that a concerted effort to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement (stabilizing temperature increases below 2°C) would require quadrupling mineral inputs. Mineral demands for electric vehicles and battery storage alone might grow thirty-fold.

Batteries require minerals—particularly lithium, cobalt, nickel, and copper—that would require quadrupling mineral inputs. Mineral demands for electric vehicles and battery storage alone might grow thirty-fold. Where will these minerals come from?

Where Will These Minerals Come From?

Where will these minerals come from? Two-thirds of current cobalt supply now comes from the Congo, where human-rights advocates have raised concerns about child labor and toxic working conditions. Lithium largely comes from Chile, where its mining is creating massive water stress. Nickel is produced in strip mines that have “decimated rainforests in Indonesia and the Philippines,” or else in the enormous Norilsk mine in Russia, whose toxic plumes are visible from space. The only American nickel mine is Michigan’s Eagle Mine, ten miles from Lake Superior, and that is due to close in 2026. Current supply chains for these minerals pose significant security risks, as Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine makes all too clear.

Mining exploration data suggest that significant reserves of nickel, copper, and possibly lithium lie in the upper Great Lakes Basin.

Mining exploration data suggest that significant reserves of nickel, copper, and possibly lithium lie in the upper Great Lakes Basin. The industry argues that quickly extracting these minerals is essential for a clean energy transition, and that means relaxing permitting standards, possibly eliminating National Environmental Policy Act review and public input that can slow the process. Even though Sen. Joe Manchin’s permit reform efforts recently stalled in Congress, pressures to speed permits continue.

Talon Metals is moving forward with exploration for a massive nickel mine in northern Minnesota, 50 miles from Lake Superior, and thealso acquired 400,000 acres of Upper Peninsula lands for mineral exploration it says are “critical for a clean energy transition.”

For example, Talon Metals is moving forward (in partnership with Elon Musk’s Tesla) with exploration for a massive nickel mine in northern Minnesota, 50 miles from Lake Superior. In August 2022, Talon Metals also acquired 400,000 acres of Upper Peninsula lands for mineral exploration, arguing in both cases that these proposed mines will be “critical for a clean energy transition.”  Twin Metals, owned by Chilean mining company Antofagasta, is suing the Biden administration for blocking mineral leases necessary for its proposed copper-nickel mine draining into the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness in Minnesota,  claiming the administration’s action is “creating energy insecurity.” Tribes, First Nations, and other local citizen groups are increasingly framed as obstructionists blocking the world’s clean energy transition.

How Should We Respond?

How should we respond? What do those of us who love the Great Lakes—and understand that climate change is indeed an existential threat to our shared futures—do to help a clean energy transition, without once again allowing Indigenous territories and the Great Lakes to become sacrifice zones? It’s easy enough to say that we must focus on a just energy transition. But what does that mean in practice? How do we avoid NIMBYism—the “not in my backyard” local protests that often block clean infrastructure projects—without sacrificing water quality?

If environmental history teaches us anything, it teaches us that mining industries don’t protect environments and communities out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. Cleaner mining is possible, but it won’t happen on its own.

If environmental history teaches us anything, it teaches us that mining industries don’t protect environments and communities out of the goodness of their corporate hearts. When unregulated and unrestricted, mining has devastated water and sacrificed Indigenous territories in the name of someone else’s progress. The history of mining in North America is a history of Indigenous communities and watersheds becoming sacrifice zones to feed a growing hunger for minerals and profits. Cleaner mining is possible, but it won’t happen on its own.

Even as we protect ourselves against energy insecurity, we must also protect against water insecurity. This means that we cannot relax environmental standards—but we can streamline permitting.

Prioritizing Energy and Water Security

Even as we protect ourselves against energy insecurity, we must also protect against water insecurity. This means that we cannot relax environmental standards—but we can streamline permitting. Permit delays frequently develop because an industry applicant submits an incomplete application and then blames agencies or locals for the delays. Clearer standards and better permit applications will both help. Permit delays also develop because agencies lack funds to hire adequate staff. The federal infrastructure bill was designed to address those staffing issues.

Most importantly, permit delays develop because affected communities are brought in far too late in the permitting process. Consultation with local communities, particularly Indigenous communities, can’t be a box that agencies and industries check off at the very end. Instead, project planning needs to start with stakeholders, and stakeholders must be able to see that local benefits, not just burdens, flow to them. Free, prior, and informed consent needs to be at the core of project planning.

Most importantly, permit delays develop because affected communities are brought in far too late in the permitting process.

For example, the Batchewana First Nation near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, entered into an agreement as full commercial partner to create the Bow Lake Wind Facility—the largest economic partnership between a First Nation and wind energy developer in Canada. At a recent public meeting on Great Lakes Water Quality, Chief Dean Sayers of the Batchewana First Nation told us that the community chose wind power because they had created their own permitting processes and determined that this particular project met their needs for energy and local social and environmental benefits.

Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management worked with planners and multiple stakeholders to identify lands ideal for solar development, and lands that should be off limits. Similar efforts could be useful for regional renewable energy planning in the Great Lakes.

To streamline clean energy transitions without sacrificing clean water, we should consider following this Indigenous example, initiating what energy analyst Jesse Jenkins calls “proactive pre-permitting to accelerate decarbonization.” Energy journalists Hal Harvey and Justin Gillis urge regional-scale planning efforts to “harness input from stakeholders, conservation organizations, and developers up front & pre-screen areas to identify zones ideal for development at the scale we need for decarbonization.” Under the Obama administration, the Bureau of Land Management worked with planners and multiple stakeholders to identify lands ideal for solar development, and lands that should be off limits. Similar efforts could be useful for regional renewable energy planning in the Great Lakes.   

Core to any project development must be what the Batchewana First Nations community accomplished: “an inclusive participatory planning process to ensure that economic and environmental benefits and burdens from decarbonization are shared equitably.”  Only then can we consider streamlining project review in areas that planners and communities agree are priority renewable energy zones.

We need to think more critically about the connection between increased mining and clean energy transitions.

Reuse Abandoned Mines as “Water Batteries”

Finally, we need to think more critically about the connection between increased mining and clean energy transitions. Yes, we will certainly need increased energy storage. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2020) estimates we’ll need five times our current storage capacity of 23.2 GW. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into more mines. For utility-scale storage, recent research into “water batteries” or PUSH (pumped underground storage hydropower) suggests that abandoned mines can be repurposed into clean energy storage facilities, storing excess renewable energy when it’s produced, then releasing it when it’s needed.  The upper Great Lakes region is rich in abandoned mines, and the PUSH researchers identified nearly 1,000 suitable sites across 15 states. These have the potential to supply a significant proportion of the nation’s energy storage needs without the need for new mines.

Clean transportation will continue to require small batteries, because—well, it’s hard to fit an abandoned mine inside the trunk of your car. And yes, we will need to extract minerals for those batteries. But we should start by mining discarded batteries for a significant proportion of those minerals, a process known as recovery and recycling. The Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology Sydney calculates that recovery and recycling could reduce demand for energy storage minerals by 25 to 50%. Responsible sourcing and demand reduction strategies will help ease the clean energy transition as well.

Above all, we shouldn’t allow clean water and healthy communities in the Great Lakes to be pitted against effective responses to climate change.

Above all, we shouldn’t allow clean water and healthy communities in the Great Lakes to be pitted against effective responses to climate change. We must reframe the debate by participating in a planning process which protects communities and watersheds now and seven generations into the future.

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.

FLOW to Army Corps: Threat to Great Lakes and Lack of Public Need Should Sink Proposed Oil Tunnel

Published on October 14th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Editor’s note: Learn more about FLOW’s efforts to shut down Line 5 and stop the proposed oil pipeline tunnel on FLOW’s Line 5 program page and new Line 5 fact sheet.

By Zach Welcker, FLOW Legal Director

For Love of Water (“FLOW”) submitted legal and technical comments before today’s deadline in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Enbridge’s proposal to bore and blast a 20-foot-in-diameter tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, just west of the Mackinac Bridge, to house a new Line 5 oil pipeline for another 99 years.

Zack Welcker, FLOW Legal Director

The public can still comment on the proposed oil tunnel in the Great Lakes by 11:59 p.m. EDT today (Oct. 14, 2022) on the Army Corps’ project website.

The public can still comment on the proposed oil tunnel in the Great Lakes by 11:59 p.m. EDT today (Oct. 14, 2022) on the Army Corps’ project website. The Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, of which FLOW is a founding steering committee member, also is collecting and forwarding comments to the Army Corps using an email template that suggests key points to make. FLOW’s tunnel comment also provides critical elements to convey.

FLOW urged the Army Corps to broaden the scope of its analysis to ensure that all regional alternatives are fully considered in an effort to meet regional fossil-fuel energy demands, which are forecasted to dwindle in the ongoing transition to clean energy, while maximizing protection of the Great Lakes and combating climate change.

Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 oil tunnel is not a viable alternative given the forecasted dwindling demand for fossil fuels and the need to maximize protection of the Great Lakes and combat climate change.

In FLOW’s view, Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 oil tunnel is not a viable alternative to meet these regional objectives when viewed in light of all relevant facts. FLOW anticipates that the manifold risks of the tunnel proposal will continue to grow as Enbridge begins to fill data gaps related to geologic conditions, construction challenges, and worker safety.

FLOW Raises Concerns about Risk to Great Lakes, Lack of Public Need, and Information Gaps

FLOW’s comments to the Army Corps include an emphasis on the:

  • Line 5 Pipeline Risk—FLOW opposes tethering the shutdown of the existing dual Line 5 pipelines to a tunnel project that will not resolve underlying the environmental and cultural concerns about siting a major oil pipeline in the middle of America’s greatest surface freshwater resource.
    enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac-4f9997139d321d60

    A diver points to broken straps along an encrusted segment of Line 5 on the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac.

  • Lack of Information—The public is deeply concerned about the risk of a catastrophic tunnel explosion, the economic feasibility and environmental impacts of constructing the tunnel, and the long-term climate impacts of the tunnel proposal. The public needs more information than Enbridge has provided to understand the risks and benefits.

The public is deeply concerned about the risk of a catastrophic tunnel explosion, the economic feasibility and environmental impacts of constructing the tunnel, and the long-term climate impacts of the tunnel proposal.

  • Lack of Public Need—As Enbridge implicitly concedes, there is no long-term public need for the proposed tunnel from an energy standpoint, and it would undermine federal greenhouse-gas reduction policies. Enbridge’s own expert has determined that a Line 5 shutdown would have a de minimis impact on fuel prices.
  • Overly Narrow Focus—Regionalizing the Purpose and Need Statement in the Army Corps study is warranted because Enbridge’s 645-mile Line 5 pipeline is almost 70 years old and past the end of its projected operational life. As Line 5 would need a systemic makeover to keep operating for another 99 years, Enbridge’s proposed tunnel should not be segmented and evaluated in isolation from the entire operation.

Line 5 shown in red runs from Superior, Wisc., to Sarnia, Ont., as part of Enbridge’s larger pipeline network in yellow running from the Alberta, Canada, tar sands to Montreal.

Line 5 pipeline is almost 70 years old and past the end of its projected operational life.

  • Strong Public Interest in Great Lakes Protection—The Army Corps’ Purpose and Need Statement in the Notice of Intent is also deficient for lack of recognition of the public interest in protecting the Great Lakes in the face of global water shortages, chronic drought in the United States, and other costly impacts from climate change. Protection of the largest and most valuable surface freshwater system in the world is an economic and environmental imperative. The Great Lakes contain 84% of North America’s fresh surface water and are the cultural backbone for eight states, two provinces, and multiple tribes and First Nations.

FLOW cited lack of recognition of the public interest in protecting the Great Lakes in the face of global water shortages, chronic drought in the United States, and other costly impacts from climate change.

Army Corps Should Consider a Range of Reasonable Alternatives

In order to meet the objectives of a Purpose and Need Statement that focuses on the connection between Enbridge’s Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, terminals and gives primacy to the public’s interest in maximizing protection of the Great Lakes, the Army Corps should, at a minimum, consider the following alternatives:

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

  1. An alternative to connect Enbridge’s Superior and Sarnia terminals without crossing the Great Lakes.
  2. An alternative to use existing capacity in other pipelines and, if necessary, other transportations solutions–such as rail and truck transport of natural gas liquids–in lieu of building new pipeline infrastructure.
  3. A tunnel alternative that fully eliminates the risk of oil intrusion into the Straits of Mackinac in the event of an explosion or similar event.
  4. A “no action” alternative.

Protection of the largest and most valuable surface freshwater system in the world is an economic and environmental imperative. The Great Lakes contain 84% of North America’s fresh surface water and are the cultural backbone for eight states, two provinces, and multiple tribes and First Nations.

The Army Corps’ analysis of “energy need” should result in a determination that Enbridge’s proposed tunnel is contrary to the public interest. The confluence of future demand-side constraints, including the electrification of transportation, disinvestment in Albertan oil production, North American and global prohibitions on the sale and use of internal combustion engine vehicles, and governmental efforts aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions are accelerating the transition to a global clean energy economy. These forces driving change are being embraced by public and private interests and represent future trends that will bring measurable economic, environmental, and social benefits. The confluence of these market forces militates against future large-scale investment in fossil fuel infrastructure.

Editor’s note: Learn more about FLOW’s efforts to shut down Line 5 and stop the proposed oil pipeline tunnel on FLOW’s Line 5 program page and new Line 5 fact sheet.

Last Call: Army Corps on Oct. 6 to Hold Final ‘Scoping Meeting’ on Proposed Oil Tunnel in Great Lakes

Published on October 4th, 2022 by - Blog Posts, News

Editor’s note: Learn more about FLOW’s efforts to shut down Line 5 and stop the proposed oil pipeline tunnel on FLOW’s Line 5 program page and new Line 5 fact sheet.

The public will have a last chance on October 6 to comment orally to the leadership and staff of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, on the agency’s plans for a study of an oil tunnel proposed under the Great Lakes.

The Army Corps will hold an online meeting from 1-4 p.m. on Thursday to help set the scope of the agency’s environmental impact statement study of a proposal by Enbridge, Inc., of Canada, to build an oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The tunnel would house Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline, which has leaked dozens of times across Michigan and Wisconsin while carrying oil since 1953 from western Canada primarily to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario. The Army Corps study is expected to continue through at least 2023.

In addition to the Oct. 6 meeting, the public can comment on the study of the tunnel proposal by October 14 by mail or the Army Corps project website. The Oil & Water Don’t Mix campaign, of which FLOW is a founding steering committee member, also is collecting and forwarding comments to the Army Corps using an email template that suggests key points to make. FLOW’s preliminary tunnel comment also provides critical elements to convey.

Many Troubling Aspects of the Tunnel Proposal

Enbridge wants to bore and blast a 20-foot-in-diameter tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, just west of the Mackinac Bridge, to house a new Line 5 pipeline. The Canadian company’s stated goal is to continue for another 99 years carrying up to 23 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids a day through Line 5 and State of Michigan public trust bottomlands where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron, just west of the Mackinac Bridge.

FLOW and our partners have identified critical deficiencies in the project’s construction permit application, its legal authorization, and the review by State of Michigan environmental agencies of expected impacts to wetlands, bottomlands, and surface water, including from the daily discharge of millions of gallons of wastewater during construction. FLOW and our allies have expressed continuing concerns about the impact to the Great Lakes and lack of public necessity for the project, which would worsen climate change by adding greenhouse gas emissions each year equivalent to almost seven new coal-fired power plants or nearly 6 million new cars to the road, according to experts.

Enbridge also lacks adequate liability insurance, according to a report released by the Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office revealing that Enbridge’s subsidiaries, not its parent company, hold Line 5’s 1953 easement and signed the proposed tunnel agreement; the assets of the subsidiaries’ parent Enbridge are inadequate to cover the costs and economic damages in the event of a moderate spill.

At Prior Army Corps Hearing, a Strong Majority Rejected the Proposed Oil Tunnel

The Army Corps already has held a Sept. 1 online comment session to help scope its tunnel study and a Sept. 8 in-person hearing in St. Ignace, where more than 4 out of 5 people who spoke, from among a crowd of hundreds, said that an oil pipeline tunnel proposed under the Great Lakes was a dangerous idea that would rob future generations by threatening the most precious thing on earth—fresh water—and worsening the climate crisis. 

Hundreds of people attend a public comment session held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the oil pipeline tunnel proposed by Enbridge under the Straits of Mackinac, on Sept. 8, 2022, at Little Bear East Arena in St. Ignace, Michigan. Photo by Kelly Thayer.

Most commenters at the seven-hour, St. Ignace hearing expressed deep concern for the harm that construction or a potential explosion or spill from the operation of an oil pipeline tunnel could have on their children and grandchildren’s future, local residents, the Great Lakes, drinking water, tourist economy, and jobs—as well as tribal rights, tribal member survival, cultural heritage, the fishery, ecology of the Straits of Mackinac, and the climate. (Read FLOW’s coverage here).

FLOW’s Position on the Scope of the Army Corps Tunnel Study

FLOW’s position, as expressed at the hearing in St. Ignace, is that the Army Corps’ environmental study of the tunnel proposal and alternatives must under the law include, at a minimum:

  1. A “no action” alternative that would use existing capacity in other pipelines and, if necessary, other transportations solutions—such as rail and truck transport of natural gas liquids—in lieu of building new pipeline infrastructure.
  2. An alternative to connect Enbridge’s Superior, Wisc., and Sarnia, Ontario, terminals without crossing the Great Lakes. (See FLOW’s fact sheet on alternatives).
  3. A tunnel alternative that fully eliminates the risk of oil intrusion into the Straits in the event of an explosion or similar event.

Army Corps Process to Continue through at Least 2023

Enbridge has applied for a Army Corps permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the Clean Water Act, seeking federal approval to discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States, as well as the construction of structures or work that may affect navigable waters. The Army Corps also will conduct an ethnographic/traditional cultural landscape study as part of the environmental impact statement under the National Historic Preservation Act. After considering public comment and issuing the draft EIS likely by fall 2023, the Army Corps will seek additional public feedback, release a final study, and then issue a “record of decision” regarding whether to issue, issue with modification, or deny the Department of the Army permit altogether—consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Army Corps, Detroit District, to date has identified general concerns in the following categories:

  • Potential direct effects to waters of the United States including wetlands; water and sediment quality; aquatic species and fisheries; threatened and endangered species;
  • Archaeological and cultural resources, including the Straits as a Traditional Cultural Landscape; Tribal treaty rights and interests;
  • Recreation and recreational resources; waste management; aesthetics; noise; air quality; climate change, including greenhouse gas emissions and the social cost of greenhouse gasses;
  • Public health and safety during construction and operations; navigation; erosion; invasive species; energy needs; environmental justice; needs and welfare of the people; and cumulative effects.

FLOW’s Legal Team and Allies Helped Spur the Army Corps’ Full Environmental Study

FLOW continues to be deeply engaged in every step of the Army Corps study and committed to shutting down Line 5 and stopping the oil tunnel. FLOW’s legal team and allies helped spur the Army Corps’ full Environmental Study through our legal research, analysis, and comment, including FLOW’s formal legal comments submitted to the agency in July 2020. The legal team challenged the proposed tunnel in December 2020 by submitting comprehensive comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calling for an environmental impact statement on behalf of a dozen organizations: Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority, Clean Water Action—Michigan, FLOW, Groundwork Center, League of Women Voters of Michigan, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, NMEAC, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, Straits Area Concerned Citizens for Peace, Justice and Environment, Straits of Mackinac Alliance, and TC 350. The comments demonstrated a serious gap in Enbridge’s evaluation of the presence of loose, unconsolidated rock and sediment in the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac that Enbridge has characterized as solid bedrock.

Michigan Legislature on Wednesday Will Consider Bill to Control Waste from Septic Systems

Published on September 27th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Editor’s note: FLOW supports the consideration of newly introduced legislation to control septic system sewage and looks forward to helping strengthen the bill’s provisions to ensure the strongest possible protections for public health and public waters. Please read the article, and use the links to contact the bill’s co-sponsors using the information below to express your support.

Wednesday marks an important moment in the decades-long effort to protect Michigan’s public health, wells, and water from pollution caused by failing septic systems. At 10:30 a.m. on Weds., Sept. 28, a state legislative committee will take up a bill requiring inspection of septic systems at the time a property is sold.

FLOW encourages the public to contact the bill’s co-sponsors—Rep. Yaroch and Rep. Rendon—to express support for their legislation to protect public health and public waters.

The House Committee on Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation will hear testimony on House Bill 6101, which was introduced by Rep. Jeff Yaroch, R-Macomb County, and Rep. Daire Rendon of Lake City, in Missaukee County. While the committee bill is not expected to vote on the measure Wednesday, the hearing could lay the groundwork for action after the November election, during the lame-duck session, or early in the 2023 legislative session. FLOW encourages the public to contact the bill’s co-sponsors—Rep. Yaroch and Rep. Rendon—to express support for their legislation to protect public health and public waters.

Michigan is the only state lacking a law to require inspection of septic systems. It is an urgent priority, with an estimated 130,000 failing septic systems in Michigan releasing approximately 9.4 billion gallons of poorly or untreated sewage into the soil and environment each year.

Michigan is the only state lacking a law to require inspection of septic systems. An estimated 130,000 failing septic systems in Michigan each year release approximately 9.4 billion gallons of poorly or untreated sewage into the soil and environment.

How Did We Get Here on Septic?

For two decades, proponents of the legislation have unsuccessfully attempted to secure passage by the legislature of such a law. FLOW and many of our allied organizations support a statewide septic code, working for years to lay the groundwork for passage. FLOW supports the introduction of H.B. 6101 and looks forward to helping strengthen the bill’s provisions to ensure the strongest protections for public health and public waters.

One of the witnesses scheduled to testify on Wednesday is Dr. Joan Rose, a Michigan State University researcher and microbiologist, who co-authored a study finding human fecal indicator bacteria in every river tested in a 64 river systems that drain approximately 84 percent of the Lower Peninsula. 

Dr. Joan Rose, a Michigan State University researcher and microbiologist, will testify Wednesday on the septic bill.

Rose was a key presenter at the Michigan Septic Summit, hosted in November 2019 by FLOW and our partners and allies and attended by over 150 public health experts, scientists, local government representatives, nonprofit organizations, and interested citizens. At the Septic Summit, Dr. Rose spoke about her study’s finding on septic pollution.

The results were clear, Rose said. “The more septic systems in the watershed, the more human fecal source tracking bacteria in the water. If we want to keep E. coli and other pathogens out of our waterways, we need to address the problem of septic systems that may be failing to adequately treat our wastewater.”

FLOW continues to educate and empower the public on the need for a statewide septic system policy in order to protect public health, local communities, lakes, and ecosystems—especially groundwater, the source of drinking water for 45% of Michigan’s population.

Learn More

To learn more, dive into FLOW’s original articles, videos, and other content on the need to stop septic pollution, including materials published Sept. 19-23 during SepticSmart Week, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual educational initiative, at www.ForLoveOfWater.org and on FLOW’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.