Specifically, the Action Plan intends to build upon the $475 million provided for a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) in the FY’10 federal budget, and envisions this as part of a $2.2 billion amount to be spent for Great Lakes restoration and protection to implement the Action Plan. The monies will be directed at several clear areas of need:
There are several initial reactions to the Action Plan.
First, GLRI funding itself is obviously necessary for the task before us, but funding in and of itself is not sufficient.
Second, two elements of the release of the Action Plan suggest that the need for reform of “Governance” is understood and will be addressed.
Third, we have reason to be concerned about the adequacy of their “zero tolerance” for invasive species (and Asian Carp, in particular).
Here are the details for each:
1.) Funding
As we have previously commented about GLRI funding, our primary deficit in the Great Lakes is a "deficit of effective governance"---and reform of governance is essential if we are to effectively use the monies appropriated (and already being spent) and really restore, protect and improve the Great Lakes ecosystem and economic community. A plethora of governmental bodies, agencies, interest groups, policies, programs and priorities are involved in multiple areas of Great Lakes environment and economy---constituting a complicated “governance” structure for the Great Lakes. There are areas and activities where the governance is effective. However, the multiplicity of efforts and institutions is frequently redundant, fragmentary and even contradictory; characterized by overlaps, conflict and significant gaps that are harmful to the Great Lakes and the communities that depend upon the health of the Lakes. For instance, lack of coordination and understanding of the relationship between environmental and economic activities in the Great Lakes Basin persists, presenting a major challenge of Great Lakes governance that must hold the ecological and economic nature of the Great Lakes in balance. The need to resolve governmental fragmentation has long been recognized, and the Action Plan presents an opportunity to establish better governance of the Great Lakes.[1]
2.) Governance
The Action Plan itself sets forth as a key objective the establishment of a structure for “Accountability, Education, Monitoring, Evaluation, Communication and Partnerships,” with a number of clear deliverables tied to specific timing and outcomes identified as key to the Plan. This is welcome and helpful---particularly the “accountability” and “partnership” elements, which are central elements of improved governance.
It is worth noting in this context, that the Great Lakes Action Plan is the latest in efforts by the Obama Administration to bring greater clarity to the federal government’s essential role in participating in the governance structure of our Nation’s great waters. In June, the President set out to create a national policy for our oceans and Great Lakes (think Clean Air Act for our Air) that will create a unifying national policy to guide management for these resources. Right now, they are currently governed by, basically, chaos – with more than 20 agencies enforcing 140 laws, each with different goals and often conflicting mandates. This policy gives us a better system for coordinating agency work to tackle the challenges in the Great Lakes – from invasive species to sewer pollution. And as part of this policy, after numerous public discussion and stakeholder meetings, we’re hoping the President will make the policy official in the near future by issuing an Executive Order.
It is of the highest importance that the critical role of the numerous federal agencies, programs and laws are properly integrated into and coordinated with the numerous state, local and civic policies, programs, authorities and culture that make up the “governance structure” determining the fate of our great waters. (See, Oran Young, (ed), Global Governance, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1997.) The Great Lakes Action Plan, and the National Ocean and Great Lakes policy in the works, reflect this understanding and present important efforts to move forward in this area.
Perhaps less tangible for some, but extremely important for our view, is the prominent involvement of Administrator Jackson in the Action Plan. It is profoundly important to have the energetic intelligence and institutional sophistication of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson directly and actively engaged in Great Lakes policy and governance---we need her capacity for engagement and leadership if the Action Plan is to actually help move the disparate and often fragmented elements of federal, state and local governments into a more effective shape and coordinated web of activity.
We also have reason to believe that Administrator Jackson will bring the appropriate appreciation for, and understanding of the essential role of citizen engagement and advocacy that is a central part of getting things right in the Great Lakes. As Administrator, Ms. Jackson has demonstrated a firm understanding and commitment to the role of citizen engagement in environmental policy in matters of Clean Air and Clean Water issues, where citizen participation in the development and enforcement of environmental rules, regulations, principles and standards.
In the Great Lakes context, Administrator Jackson directed USEPA to respond the citizen group challenge to EPA’s inadequate ballast water regulation, as set forth in lawsuits filed by NRDC, NWF and others. However, this direction has not yet resulted in firm action to redress the failures of the current EPA ballast water permit regime. While we remain hopeful that our ongoing discussions with EPA will bear fruit, but even now – over one year after Jackson’s confirmation – EPA has yet to make any definite public announcements about setting stricter standards on ballast water, and the Great Lakes and other waters of the United States remain under attack from the continued release of invasive species and other pollutants from ballast water and other sources. Which brings us to the next point about the Action Plan: invasive species.
3.) Asian Carp!
The Action Plan repeatedly commits to a “Zero Tolerance” standard on invasive species in the Great Lakes. This is indeed a welcome commitment. However, the details of what this commitment means, especially with regard to the current assault on the Great Lakes from Asian Carp through the Chicago Waterway System is not only unclear, but is simply unhappy-making. The governmental response to the Asian Carp assault has been an iconic demonstration of the “deficit in good governance” in the Great Lakes, characterized by a muddling, bungling, unresponsive, secretive, lackadaisical, fragmented approach and fundamental lack of imagination. While the Action Plan refers to the Asian Carp threat, it adds nothing at all new or hopeful to the status quo, providing a little “inset” summarizing the unfocused efforts undertaken to date, and promising more of the same. This is certainly nothing in the way of “operationalizing” a “Zero Tolerance” approach to a very serious invasive species, whose eDNA has already been found in the Great Lakes.
This raises a broader concern about the Action Plan’s commitment on invasive species more generally. While the Plan announces a “zero tolerance” approach, noting the ongoing, persistent threat invasive present to the ecosystem, it in fact only commits to a modest interim goal: reduction of new introductions by 40% by 2014.
The Plan does not explain how either the modest interim goal of 40% reduction was set, or how that interim goal or the ultimate “zero tolerance” goal will be achieved, except through vague references to development of new technology. There’s no clear explanation of how EPA and the federal agencies propose to get there, let alone a discussion of the Clean Water Act requirements will be actualized regarding ballast water discharge, or how to address the serious imminent threats channels such as the Chicago Waterway System.
Moreover, the interim goal of 40% reduction by 2014 of new introductions of invasive species is far too weak. According to an analysis by the Coast Guard that accompanied its recently proposed rule, full implementation of IMO ballast water treatment would reduce new introductions by over 60%. So EPA’s proposed interim goal doesn’t even include full implementation of the Coast Guard’s proposal. And, the IMO standards called for by the Coast Guard rule are themselves too weak, in that they would still allow for a significant risk of new invasions.
Last August, NRDC filed comments authored by my colleague Thomas Cmar, on a draft outline of the “Action Plan.” In part, our comment provided:
Further detail and transparency are needed, however, with regard to the Agency’s plans to prevent the further introduction and spread of invasive species through vessels’ discharge of ballast water. . . . U.S. EPA’s current regulation of ballast water discharges under the Vessel General Permit does not live up to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. . . . In addition, U.S. EPA has not adequately explained how it intends to coordinate with the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Maritime Administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, all of which have important roles to play in the federal government’s response to the invasive species problem. Although the draft Great Lakes Multi-Year Restoration Action Plan Outline proposes a number of ambitious actions with regard to invasive species, and the President’s budget envisions the expenditure of large sums of money on different programs at different agencies, the draft outline does not explain how these various programs fit into a coherent whole. Nor does the draft outline fully account for the important roles of state and regional entities. Finally, the draft outline does not explain what U.S. EPA believes to be the ultimate goal for ballast water regulation in the Great Lakes or lay out specific interim steps to meet that goal.
While there are elements of the Action Plan outline that respond to our critique of the draft, it is fundamentally inadequate on the major issue of invasive species, which in its own terms it recognizes as a major, immediate threat to the health safety and well being of the Great Lakes. This is an issue of great significance to the Great Lakes region and that EPA must act to address it. An “Action Plan” that sets a rhetorical goal of eliminating invasive species introductions, but fails to explain adequately how that goal will be accomplished, is not an adequate response. And it is not “good governance” on this critical issue.
4. Conclusion.
We are heartened that Administrator Jackson herself announced a new Action Plan for coordinating federal activity in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and thereby giving greater coherence to the governance structure needed to restore the Great Lakes. Administrator Jackson has shown a strong interest, willingness and ability to get into the details of policy and programs, and make the promise of government actually contribute to practical realization of goals. We look forward to working with her to make the promise of restoration real.
However, real gaps and problems in moving forward remain, and are reflected in the very heart of the Action Plan itself, especially regarding invasive species.
Given that the Action Plan was released on a Sunday morning, perhaps I can be forgiven for reflecting on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which comments that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the assurance of things not seen." (Chapter 11, verse 1). In this spirit, we fervently hope that the promise inherent in Administrator Jackson’s release of the Great Lakes Action Plan comes to fruition with her direct engagement in its further development and practical implementation.
]]>“Make no small plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood.”
These are words that have guided Chicago for over 100 years. They helped make the city one of the fastest growing cities in the world, and informed the 1907 Plan of Chicago that directed that growth toward innovative and integrated open space, transportation and sustainable resource commitments. The words reflect the Chicago “I Will” spirit that rebuilt a torched metropolis after the Great Chicago Fire. And it is the mindset that led Chicago to reverse the flow of a river to protect the Great Lakes from pollution released in the metropolis.
And that is why Daniel Burnham is probably spinning in his grave today.
The State of Illinois and federal government are confronting one of the region’s biggest problems and potential opportunities and choosing only the small plans: half-measures like a failed electric fence that they should already know will not be effective.
“The status quo is OK by us and good enough for everyone else”--that is the signal coming from new filings by the state and the federal governments before the Supreme Court over the Asian carp crisis. The basic position is: “Yes, yes, everyone involved is concerned about the potential devastation of Lake Michigan and the Great Lakes. But to take immediate action would be radical and dangerous.” In response to the request of Michigan, joined by other Great Lakes states, that the problem of Asian Carp invasion be addressed with the urgency it deserves, Illinois and the federal government assert that it is completely inappropriate and should be rejected out of hand.
Over the weekend, the New York Times’ excellent local reporter Monica Davey filed a story focused on how the Asian carp crisis, and Michigan’s suit to force the closure of locks on the waterway system that spawned Chicago’s reversed river, threatens the unity that governments in the region had recently forged to protect the Great Lakes. I think she missed the big point. There is unity. Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana, New York, and the Canadian province of Ontario all support or have joined Michigan’s suit. And, along with the State of Illinois, all signed the recent Great Lakes Compact which specifically notes that any threats from the Chicago Diversion (the waterways in question) to the health of the Great Lakes should be dealt with in the exact fashion that we are seeing today.
The frustration for Great Lakes advocates, the other States, and even some of us wide-eyed Chicagoans, has been the response. It is the epitome of “small plans.” The State’s response to a legitimate prodding from its neighbors is to deny the urgency of the problem, demand that the problem be further studied rather than taking any immediate action, and adamantly state that the request shouldn’t be filed with the Supreme Court anyway. It is spineless politicking, legal obstruction, and a concerted effort to delay a real solution. It is all that is wrong with Illinois politics in a nutshell.
But for me, it is most frustrating in its short-sightedness. The solution is clear. We might be forced to wait 10 years for the Army Corps of Engineers to finish a study on permanent solutions to this mess, but it is inevitable that some sort of barrier will have to be put in place to re-establish the separation that existed between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River basin to prevent this dangerous invasive species, and the multitudes of other queued up to follow, from threatening 1/5 of the world’s fresh water. It seems to me that the threat should spur action on its own, but as I’ve noted repeatedly in this slow-motion disaster, the State and Obama administration should seize this moment as the biggest opportunity that this region has seen in a century to fix real problems and begin the real work of improving the environment, economy and commercial transportation infrastructure of the Great Lakes.
Today, Chicagoans still reap the benefits of Burnham’s 1909 plan for Chicago. And there are still aspects of it that we aspire to bring to life. It was audacious. It was far-seeing. It was innovative. It took all of the ugliest challenges of urban living head-on. All things that are the complete opposite of our leaders’ response to this challenge today.
]]>
For starters, there was Charles Duhigg's devastating series in the New York Times about the state of water policy in the United States. His stories included the on-going poisoning of our waters with pesticides, manure from agricultural operations, and the water pollution coming from coal plants. The articles are full of shocking failures of state environmental officials to enforce the requirements of the Clean Water Act within their jurisdictions against the polluters who are destroying our waters. But what is also clear is that no one has fully quantified the burden that the public and our water resources take on as a result of this pollution.
There is also the continuing, wild tale of the slow and inadequate efforts of federal, state and local authorities to protect the Great Lakes from imminent destruction by voracious, invasive Asian Carp that have been making their way up the Mississippi and its tributaries since 1993. We know the value of the aquaculture industries that introduced this dangerous fish. And we know the ludicrous costs associated with the Army Corps of Engineers Rube Goldberg fish fence that might repel them---as well as what it will cost to intentionally poison a five-mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal to kill off the carp (and any other fish actually native to the water way) when they take the fence offline for maintenance next month. But we don't know the real, full value of the already damaged Great Lakes ecosystem, and so an array of agencies dither and delay in taking action that would actually end this threat and protect the ecosystem permanently.
And now this week we saw a front-page Chicago Tribune article on city officials contemplating privatization of the municipal water system. The value of water is at the center of the issue---but not the real, full value of water as a public trust asset requiring stewardship and protection. The article treats the question of privatizing water as a limited inquiry into a "dollars and cents" revenue and service issue. It is as if such a decision is actually analogous to leasing toll bridges and parking meters---which are exclusively part of the man made, civic economy, bought and owned by a municipal corporation. In focusing narrowly on the per gallon costs that might be associated with the Mayor selling our water supply, the Tribune presents no discussion of what the water is actually "worth" or the many services it provides to the web of life that depends upon it. And who can blame them? We don't look at that issue anywhere in this region. Water is treated as an abundant resource that we assume will always be there when we need it.
An aide to Chicago's Mayor Daley said that, though the Mayor has said that "all things are on the table," the issue of privatization was being "blown way out of proportion." I hope that is true and that before there is any proposal to privatize Chicago's Lake Michigan water, there will be a full review and transparent discussion of the key issues at stake. We don't have all the answers to the relevant questions; the problem is the key questions themselves have not been recognized by many of the region's stakeholders. The issues of infrastructure, cross-community water sales and pricing, and constraints on access to Great Lakes water are complicated here. But smart questions have to be raised, probed and addressed transparently, not simply raised in order to derail the conversation and protect the unacceptable "business as usual" exploitation of our resources. At the heart of the discussion must be the recognition of the nature and value of water, framed by an understanding that water is a Public Trust asset.
All of these news stories, coupled with some of the other cases that NRDC is working on in the region, spell out the wasteful way that the Great Lakes region treats its water. The stories and cases include the ongoing fight over ballast water laws to prevent the spread of invasive species which have already fundamentally changed the ecology of the Great Lakes and our ongoing fight to force an end to dumping of "un-disinfected" human sewage (that's intestinal miasma, folks!) into the Chicago River by the government body with oversight of the issue.
It is time to get re-acquainted with the fundamental value of water as an irreplaceable, essential resource, and support the services it provides: sustenance, beauty, indeed life itself.
]]>