Tag: great lakes

Dave Dempsey Reflects on Lessons Learned after 40 Years of Environmental Advocacy

Published on December 7th, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Above: Appreciating the water cycle and all the many forms it takes, including snowflakes and rainbows over Lake Michigan. (Photo/Kelly Thayer)

By Dave Dempsey

Last month marked the end of my 40th year of environmental advocacy. Looking ahead to 2022 in 1982, I may have thought humans would have colonized the moon by now—or better yet, humans would have become such good stewards of the Earth that professional environmental advocates would be out of jobs.

Dave Dempsey, FLOW Senior Advisor

I never thought my career would span four decades, but now that it has, looking back—as well as forward—seems fitting. My lens has smudges and blind spots, so consider that as you read. Here are a few lessons of 40 years.

We need laws that consider the whole—and require reduction in pollution in air, water, and land from a single source. Or better yet, laws that prevent pollution in the first place. 

Lessons Learned

As long as we regard the environment in pieces, we will not achieve a healthy and lush Earth. Perhaps in 1970 it made political sense to treat air, water, and land as separate spheres.  But even then we knew—and it is ever clearer now—that we live in a world where all of these are connected. Laws that clean up industrial processes by sending hazardous wastes to landfills or incinerators merely transfer a problem to another medium. Said John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club, “when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.”

We need laws that consider the whole—and require reduction in pollution in air, water, and land from a single source. Or better yet, laws that prevent pollution in the first place. 

Our understanding of economic growth is childish, and clinging to it will delay or prevent the environmental recovery we must have. I’ve heard the tiresome refrain from business lobbyists since the day I began working at the Michigan Environmental Council in November 1982: “You can’t have a healthy economy and a healthy environment at the same time.” There was hope that this false dichotomy would change after the release of a United Nations report in 1987 that spoke for the first time of sustainable development: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

We can no longer operate on the premise that constantly increasing Gross Domestic Product, in a world of exhaustible resources, is the goal of public policy and personal conduct.

But ask anyone on the street what “sustainable development” means, and you will mostly be met by puzzled faces. We can no longer operate on the premise that constantly increasing Gross Domestic Product, in a world of exhaustible resources, is the goal of public policy and personal conduct.

The people lead, and the leaders follow. It’s been said a multitude of times by a multitude of people—if you wait around for presidents, Congress, governors, state legislatures, or your local board of trustees to take the lead on environmental protection, your hair will turn gray before you get action. The Clean Air Act in 1970 and the Clean Water Act in 1972 did not happen because of enlightened, futuristic politicians—instead, those politicians were responding to public outrage about waters that were unsafe for swimming and air that was unsafe to breathe.

The business of making laws is not pretty, but it is always better when citizens are driving it and monitoring it.

The business of making laws is not pretty, but it is always better when citizens are driving it and monitoring it.

Future Generations

What about the future? Where should Michigan go now in light of these lessons?

Bold transformative changes are necessary to meet the interconnected challenges of water stewardship and climate change.

First, now is not the time for half measures or tweaking. Michigan has a rare opportunity in 2023 to show national leadership on the environment. That has not been true since the early 1980s, the last time that Democrats in Michigan—who often favor more environmental protections than state Republicans do—held the governor’s office and both chambers in the state legislature. We cannot keep tinkering with the old laws and making minor changes. Bold transformative changes are necessary to meet the interconnected challenges of water stewardship and climate change.

It is just plain wrong that Michigan has 25,000 groundwater contamination sites, rivers and streams don’t meet health and/or water quality standards, and scores of communities whose sewage or drinking water treatment systems are old and underfunded.

Second, clean water must get more than lip service. The public wants clean water, and the state’s residents must communicate that to Governor Whitmer and the legislature. These elected officials, in turn, have the responsibility to enact measures that provide the billions of dollars in state and federal funding needed to make the promise of Pure Michigan real. It is just plain wrong that Michigan has 25,000 groundwater contamination sites, hundreds of places where rivers and streams don’t meet health and/or water quality standards, and scores of communities whose sewage or drinking water treatment systems are old and underfunded.

On such issues as climate change, we have a duty to take decisive action to make the world habitable for our descendants.

Third, Michigan must think more often about its air, water, land and other resources through the lens of 2062 rather than 2022. Elected officials need a vision that goes beyond the next election cycle. This has happened before in Michigan. The forestry pioneers of the late 1800s and early 1900s took the millions of acres of land clearcut and abandoned by the lumber barons and shaped it into a 3.9 million acre state forest system.  None of them lived to see their work come to full fruition. They cared about us. We must do the same for our descendants. On such issues as climate change, we have a duty to take decisive action to make their world habitable.

Will Michigan do this? I have my doubts. Forty years of cynicism are hard to shrug off. But the people of Michigan have shown leadership before, and we can do it again if we choose to do so. Our children and their children are counting on us.

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.

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.

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.

SepticSmart: Can Michigan Move from Last to First?

Published on September 22nd, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Editor’s note: During SepticSmart Week, which runs through Friday, FLOW is sharing updates on efforts to protect fresh water and public health from uncontrolled septic system waste, as part of an annual educational campaign that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a decade ago, with the State of Michigan, other states, communities, and organizations, including FLOW, as partners and participants. (If you are unsure about what a septic system is or how it works, start here).

Stay tuned during SepticSmart Week to www.ForLoveOfWater.org and FLOW’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for the latest articles, videos, and fact sheets. In case you missed it, here is additional coverage this week from FLOW.

For a long time, Michigan was regarded as an environmental leader among the states.  We were the first state to ban the pesticide DDT, the first in the Great Lakes region to limit phosphorus pollution to protect sensitive waters like Lake Erie, and the first to create a trust fund from oil and gas revenues to buy public recreational and scenic land.

But there’s a big gap in Michigan’s body of environmental law.

We are the only state without a sanitary code that applies to septic systems—despite knowing that pollution from failing septic systems is detected in scores of rivers and lakes across Michigan.

Click here to learn how a conventional septic system works. (Click image to see larger version).

The link is clear, said microbiologist Dr. Joan Rose of Michigan State University. She led a study that sampled 64 river systems that drain approximately 84 percent of the Lower Peninsula, looking for E. coli and the human-specific source tracking marker bacteria called B-theta.

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.”

Closing the gap should be an urgent priority for Michigan policymakers. State law needs to require periodic pumping and inspection of septic systems and replacement of those found to be failing.

But Michigan shouldn’t be satisfied with a law that does just the basics. We should add money to a new state low-interest loan program assisting homeowners with the cost of replacing those failing systems. And we should bump up public education so that more Michigan residents know about the problem and solutions.

If we’re going to be an environmental leader again, we can no longer refrain from sanitary code legislation.

Learn More about Why Michigan Must Move from Last to First on Control of Septic Waste

Here is today’s SepticSmart guidance from NatureChange, FLOW, and partners: 

Michigan’s Lack of Septic Maintenance Requirements Threatens Public Health (One-minute trailer)

Flushing the Future-The Challenge of Failing Septic Systems (16-minute video)

 

Get SepticSmart to Stop Pollution, Save Money

Published on September 21st, 2022 by - Blog Posts

Image courtesy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Editor’s note: During SepticSmart Week, which runs through Friday, FLOW is sharing updates on efforts to protect fresh water and public health from uncontrolled septic system waste, as part of an annual educational campaign that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a decade ago, with the State of Michigan, other states, communities, and organizations, including FLOW, as partners and participants. Stay tuned during SepticSmart Week to www.ForLoveOfWater.org and FLOW’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for the latest articles, videos, and fact sheets. In case you missed it, here is additional coverage this week from FLOW: SepticSmart Week: Progress on Protecting Public Health and Fresh Water and SepticSmart: Leelanau County Board Wisely Votes to Protect Fresh Water and Public Health from Septic Pollution.

Michiganders who rely on septic systems to treat and discharge their sewage don’t need to wait for a state law requiring them to maintain those systems. Their voluntary acts and practices can help prevent further groundwater and surface water pollution from failing and malfunctioning septic systems, and save them money and headaches too.

Most importantly, owners of homes with septic systems should have tanks pumped and examined at least once every three years. If the inspection yields evidence of a failing system, the tank should be replaced. Replacing failing systems is expensive – but the cost of not doing so includes risking the health of the household if a drinking water well is in the path of the slowly moving waste. It also puts neighbors and recreational users of contaminated streams at risk from fecal bacteria and household chemicals.

The State of Michigan is launching a $35 million low-interest loan program to assist homeowners in defraying the cost of septic system replacement.

U.S. EPA–Top 10 Ways to be a Good Septic System Owner (Click for larger version).

Top 10 Ways to Be a Good Septic Owner

Other SepticSmart quick tips on protecting your septic system from failure:

  • Have your system inspected every three years by a qualified professional or according to your local health department’s recommendations.
  • Have your septic tank pumped, when necessary, generally every three to five years.
  • Avoid pouring harsh products (e.g., oils, grease, chemicals, paint, medications) down the drain.
  • Make efficient use of water and do not operate several water-intensive appliances at the same time. Doing otherwise can lead to a septic system backup into your house.
  • Keep the surface over a septic system drain field clear. Roots and heavy objects can disrupt the treatment of waste in the septic system.
  • For the full list of Top 10 Ways to Be a Good Septic Owner, click here or on the image.

Have your septic tank pumped, when necessary, generally every three to five years. Source: U.S. EPA. (Click for larger version).

If all homeowners with septic systems follow these tips and others, their potential bill for system replacement will be lower, and Michigan’s public waters will be cleaner.

Scientific studies have found human fecal contamination affecting 100% of our river systems in the Lower Peninsula and that substandard, failing, or nonexistent septic systems are the primary driver of human fecal bacteria found in our rivers and streams.

FLOW’s action on septic system pollution began with our 2018 groundwater report, The Sixth Great Lake, which emphasized that in addition to releasing an estimated 9.4 billion gallons of poorly or untreated sewage into the soil and environment each year, failing septic systems release household chemicals that residents pour down their drains. Our report called for a uniform statewide sanitary code in Michigan.

Stay tuned during SepticSmart Week to www.ForLoveOfWater.org and FLOW’s Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for daily updates. To get you started, here is today’s tip from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reminding all of us to Protect It and Inspect It!