Over a century ago the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. observed that the Supreme Court case over pollution flushed into communities downstream from the canals of the Chicago Diversion was based on “an inference of the unseen.” At the time he was remarking about cutting edge science that implied the presence of bacteria that threatened Chicago and motivated the construction of canals reversing the Chicago River to eliminate the threat of waterborne illness. His comments have become nearly prescient today.

Once again, cutting edge science shows us that an invisible danger necessitates action on the same waterways in the form of the invasive Asian carp.

This week the Supreme Court again rejected Michigan’s bid to close the locks on Chicago's waterways. Frankly, the news was not much of a surprise, as the Court rarely takes on issues of such immediacy (after all, they did not take up the challenge to the Chicago Diversion until after the canals were already completed). But we have heard that in mid-April the Justices will discuss whether the broader case’s merits warrant action. As that case is focused on forcing a permanent solution to the carp crisis, it will bring a welcome opportunity to look at this problem in totality instead of focusing on the daily push and pull over short-term tactics.

To this point, most of the public dialogue has been about where the carp are and whether the locks should be closed. But if we are going to fight this scourge off from the Lakes we have more---and bigger--- proverbial fish to fry. Don’t get me wrong: in the run-up to a permanent solution, we have to effectively foil  the carp’s movement into the Lakes, and the locks are a valuable tool to do so on a focused, temporary basis. But whatever the role of the locks, the door remains wide open to continued advance of invasive species migrating into the Great Lakes through the Illinois River until we restore a permanent separation of the Great Lakes and Mississippi River ecosystems---what is called “hydro separation.”

Oh, I know.  We hear it over and over, “they haven’t even found a fish past the barrier” so why take action? The tour boat operators say it. The Corps tweets it. And the Chamber repeats it over and over again.  And this is where Holmes’ words about scientific evidence and the “inference of the unseen” are so valuable and apt today. The scientists who know the Asian carp best say that we are unlikely to catch them in the canals despite their presence. The “show me a fish” crowd are all-too-willing to ignore the solid science around the eDNA tests that clearly demonstrate that the fish moving closer and closer to Lake Michigan. The tests have already been termed “actionable evidence” by the federal government. Lindsay Chadderton, one of the researchers responsible for the tests, nicely skewers those denying the validity of his work in this week’s Chicago Reader Asian Carp Edition:

The Army Corps of Engineers and state officials have repeatedly stated that no Asian carp have been found above the electric barrier. How confident are you of the DNA tests?

Yes, the DNA testing is new, and like any new tool, there's always going to be a healthy level of skepticism. But we are confident that our results are real, and the more testing we do this confidence increases. In the criminal justice system we regularly use DNA to place people at the scene of a crime. People, like other animals, shed DNA into the environment—skin, hair, bodily fluids. Carp do the same thing—DNA cells associated with mucus or sloughed off from the gills, attached to scales, shed from the gut system, and contained in feces and urine. Once those cells are released into the water they are held in suspension for some time and we are simply collecting them in the water column. We're looking for evidence of a species, instead of individuals like you do with people, but the principles are the same.

Could that DNA have gotten there by a mechanism other than fish being present? There have been various suggestions that carp could have got there by other pathways, like barges carrying water [from the Asian-carp-infested Illinois River]. But since August the barge operators have not discharged water [from downstream] above the barriers, and barges don't get into the North Branch of the Chicago River or the Des Plaines River, where we have found carp DNA. The other pathways like birds or wastewater also don't explain the overall pattern,

And the last thing that gives us confidence is the fact we can go back to certain places and repeatedly detect DNA. These results are not chance events, and the distribution is consistent with the movement of fish. For example, the number of positive samples decreases as we get closer to the barrier. That's consistent with an upstream invasion.

Echoing Chadderton’s assessment that the fish are there whether we see them or not, USGS carp expert Duane Chapman told the Grand Rapids News:

 "These fish are remarkably cryptic," said Chapman, who is with the U.S. Geological Survey in Columbia, Mo. "They are very sensitive to nets and boats. They are not caught by accident by guys with rods and reels."

By the time Asian carp make themselves known, they tend to be breeding and well-established, he said.

"It's typical for a species to putter along at a barely noticeable level for several generations," Chapman said. "But when you get the density high enough, you are definitely going to start noticing them."

 Further, he tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel,

"You're never going to prove a negative," he said. "No matter how much you fish, you're never going to prove there is not a fish there."

Let’s be honest: the threat is real.  No one denies that the Asian carp are remarkably close to the Great Lakes and that they present a threat to the Great Lakes that warrants millions of dollars of investments to deter.  Before the need for a real, permanent solution through Hydro Separation became clear, neither the Corps, the MWRD or other parties questioned the existential threat they pose to the Great Lakes.  As the evidence becomes undeniably clear that the Chicago Waterway System is now a highway for invasive species into and out of the Great Lakes, the need for real, permanent hydrological separation is equally unassailable.

The fish are swimming headlong into a resource of essential economic and biological value and we are wasting time and money dithering about whether this is an issue or not. The science demonstrates that we need to take energetic and thoughtful action to protect 95% of this nation’s fresh water. Other invasive species are queued up to move between the Mississippi and Great Lakes ecosystems right behind the silver and bighead carp. The Corps originally started to work on their electric fish fence concept not to rebuff the carp’s advance, but to keep the round goby from making its way into the Mississippi (they failed). We simply must address this threat to both ecosystems.

Frankly, it is a real fear that what  we are seeing now is no more than a PR effort  to convince the public that action is being taken, and will suck up all the resources that will be available to fix the problem. The Asian Carp Control Strategy framework is overwhelmingly tipped towards short-term tactics, with only $1 million of their stated $78.5 million budget devoted to the study that is intended to determine the permanent solution. Bubble curtains and poisonings accompanying every lock opening are pricy and simply do not eliminate the risk to which we are now exposed.

We are all painfully aware that there is not a bottomless pit of money available to throw at this problem. Nor is there time for delay. Thankfully, despite the delaying tactics and intentional cognitive dissonance, we are starting to see more attention being paid to the essential long-term, permanent solutions. There is a growing consensus that ecological separation is necessary. The Great Lakes Commission, chaired by Illinois Governor Quinn and representing all of the Great Lakes states and provinces, recently agreed. The New York Times published a thoughtful article showing that it might even be an economic boon to Chicago and the region.

But nothing can happen until we get serious about moving on the permanent solution of physically separating the ecosystems. Just as in Holmes’ day, this whole thing hinges on the unseen. We can stick our heads in Lake Michigan’s iconic sand dunes but the impending threat is not going away, whether we choose to see it with our own two eyes or not…

Asian Carp - Shedd Aquarium image by Kate Gardiner via Flickr

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is investigating whether the electrical field generated by the underwater barriers designed to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes has extended into adjacent land near the barrier site in Romeoville….Initial findings indicate that the electrical field has "gone beyond the parameters of the site", the Army Corps said late Monday. But officials gave no further information about the dangers the electrical field could pose to the surrounding area.

Golly.  We knew that there was concern that the electric fence could cause explosions in ship traffic and possibly electrocute boaters, swimmers and fisherman…but it is news that it might be threatening surrounding communities on Terra firma!

The manifest failure of the “electric fence” installed in the Chicago Waterway System by the US Army Corps of Engineers (at great public expense) to deter invasive Asian Carp from making their way to the Great Lakes, is well known and unambiguous.  That the Corps clings to the threadbare claim that the fence has not failed---despite the appearance of Asian Carp eDNA in the waterways beyond the fence and in the Great Lakes themselves---- is a morbidly fascinating example of bureaucratic self delusion. 

And now we read that the Corps is concerned that the fence is now potentially threatening the public health and safety by sending dangerous levels of electricity into the surrounding landscape. It is appalling that the Corp and other responsible authorities have not candidly admitted that past practices have led to the current state of public endangerment from the march of invasive species they have failed to contain and from electrocution.

But this is not what haunts me.

What haunts me is that I have previously characterized the “electric fence” as a “quirky Rube Goldberg contraption.” 

The fact is that the great Rube Goldberg designed highly complicated contraptions that performed very simple tasks.  To repeat: Goldberg’s designs ACTUALLY DID WHAT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO DO.

So, while I am haunted by having compared Goldberg's clever work to a spectaularly failed contraption, the threat to public safety and ecosystem disaster presented by the Electric Fence is positively horrifying. It is with profound apologies to Rube Goldberg that I compared the counter productive, utterly incompetent and dangerous Fish Fence Contraption to his workable designs.

It is getting to the point with this Asian Carp saga that satire and ridicule are unmanned by reality...

With further apologies, this time to St. Paul, the amazing inanity of the Carp Crisis makes me ask: “Oh satire, where is thy sting? Oh Ridicule, Where is thy victory?”

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: 

• reducing and remediating toxic pollution in the Lakes,
• restoring the health of near-shore environments (read: make it safe to use the beaches—see NRDC Testing the Waters reports),
• protecting wildlife and critical habitat,
• establishing “zero tolerance” for invasive species, and
• erecting a structure for accountability, monitoring, outreach and strategic partnerships.

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.

This is a complicated issue and debate is needed, but I am surprised that a business savvy guy like Dennis Byrne would pretend that he doesn't understand why emergency measures are needed to meet an imminent threat to a multi-billion dollar fishing industry and the largest body of fresh water in this hemisphere. Still, he does ask some interesting questions that I thought I'd take a stab at answering.

So, I guess this is my virtual interview with Dennis Byrne (the questions are his, straight from the column, though in a different order):

BYRNE: Hey, what's the matter with carp, anyway? Regarded here as "trash fish," they're food in Europe and Asia. It was the revered Izaak Walton who described the carp in his "The Compleat Angler" as a fine eating fish: the "Queen of Rivers, a stately, a good, and a very subtle fish."

HENDERSON: Let’s be specific. We are not talking about common carp, which are eaten in many places. The critters in question here are the silver and bighead carp. I must admit I’ve never dined on them, but I've always heard that they taste horrible. Worse, they have interlaced, "floating bones" that make them a nightmare to eat.

While the fish are not good to eat, they are very good at eating. They can get up to 100 pounds in size and eat 40% of their body weight daily. They are too big for most native species to prey on, so as a result the Asian carp simply out-eat and out-breed the rest (and the results are abundantly clear in sections of the Illinois River where the carp now represent 90% of the total biomass!). In the Great Lakes system, already taxed by influxes of other non-native species, it could be the last straw.

BYRNE: Any moment now (as of this writing), a decision will be made by the Obama administration whether to shut the locks "temporarily," whatever that means. But before it's done, the audacious might have a few questions:

What is the impact, even of a short shutdown? The Great Lakes fishing industry isn't the only one with an interest. More than 14.6 million tons of commodities annually move through the canal, according to the American Waterways Operators. Iron and steel from northern Indiana, gravel and building materials for Chicago are among the commodities whose Great Lakes shipment would be halted or would have to be shipped by alternative, more costly methods.

HENDERSON: Dennis, this is a great question. First though, it is worth noting that the Great Lakes fishery is not a trivial business---it is valued at $7 billion. And don't forget the multi-billion dollar Great Lakes tourism and recreation industries either; they will be significantly affected, too.

But your point about the movement of goods is an important one. No doubt barge traffic would be affected by a temporary emergency closure of the locks. But the implication that commodity movement would be shuttered is overstated. Waterborne transit only represents a small percentage of the total goods moved through our region. And let’s not forget that Chicago is the nation's transportation nexus with massive resources to move goods by truck and rail. The commodities will still move. And move efficiently.

BYRNE: Does slowing or stopping the flow of water into the system affect water quality, public health and flooding? The Army Corps says it might.

HENDERSON: They are right. A long-term closing of the locks would eventually lead to some flooding and backup in the canal. And that's why nobody is suggesting permanent closure of the locks. We need to take some immediate action to prevent these fish from establishing themselves in the Great Lakes. Closing the locks temporarily will give us a bit of breathing room while the bigger engineering challenges of a permanent solution can be re-examined.

BYRNE: The carp are just one of a long list of "invasive" species that over the years purportedly threatened the Great Lakes ecosystem and fishing industries. Somehow, they have survived. Could the dire predictions about the carp be overstated?

HENDERSON: I am not sure why you put invasive in quotes, but you are right, the carp are just the latest in a long line of species that have been introduced to this ecosystem. State and federal regulators are in complete agreement with biologists, scientists, and environmental groups who all recognize the potential damage that Asian carp could wreak on the Lakes. But the important thing to remember is that this newest wave is not the last. Invasive species will keep on coming and coming. Until we slam the door, this problem will not go away---hence the long-term need to separate the Mississippi River and Great Lakes basins.

As for the survival of native species, the very lucrative fishing industry based on lake trout was destroyed over 100 years ago when the invasive Lamprey entered the Great Lakes through eastern canals and wiped out the trout. The Lampreys are still with us, costing millions of dollars to manage annually, and will never be eradicated. The Asian Carp present an even more dangerous threat---not just to the present sport fishing industry but to the quality of Great Lakes water itself.

I would point you to an excellent article the Tribune’s James Janega wrote about the shocking transformation that zebra and quaggamussels have had on Lake Michigan. When the problem first came onto the scene, we were worried about the impact these critters were having on municipal water intakes and infrastructure which now costs Great Lakes economies over $200 million dollars annually. But, as Janega showed, we have not seen the true costs of this infestation yet. The ecological changes brought on by the mussels have changed the quality of the water in Lake Michigan. Many researchers think that they are creating an environment at the bottom of the Lake that will breed pathogens like E. coli that could take a significant health toll on humans and marine creatures. The Asian carp feed in similar fashion to the mussels and would likely speed up this transition that could impact drinking water supplies for over 40 million people.

BYRNE: This is shaping up to be a regional conflict, as controversial as Chicago's diversion of Great Lakes water has been for the last century. Don't we deserve a better airing of the issues (not the least of which is the impact on Chicago's economy) and choices before the lock gates slam shut, even temporarily?

HENDERSON: Absolutely. We have been calling for a better airing of the issues in the form of a public, transparent, comprehensive analysis of how best to deal permanently with the problems presented by the canal and the threats illuminated by this carp saga---rather than the narrow, herky-jerky, ad hoc noodling on the margins that the Army Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, State of Illinois and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District have given us to date. Any durable, long-term solution will require enlightened leadership to create a plan for a modern, more sustainable transportation and water management infrastructure for Chicagoland.  Think of it as a Burnham Plan for the 21st Century.

But make no mistake; we've already had lots of time to look at the issues. This has been a slow-motion tragedy that requires emergency action now to buy us the time we need to solve this problem effectively. Sadly, the folks responsible for heading off this problem at the pass failed to act with the necessary urgency. That’s why it is frustrating to call for immediate action to temporarily close the locks and put physical barriers on the unprotected waterways. This was once preventable, but now we are left without choices in the short-term.

The good news is that this also presents an incredible opportunity in the longer term. I disagree with your assertion that the canal “made Chicago what it is.” It has been our ability to identify real problems, plan creative responses and leverage the dollars and sweat to implement solutions that has made Chicago what it is. The energy to meet new problems emerging from new situations has always accompanied the "I Will" spirit of Chicago. And that is why I find the “un-Chicago” response to this debate so maddening. Since when did we get so fatalistic? Why do we have to accept century-old solutions? We can do better than a defensive belittling of people who point out that (a) we have problems, which (b) can be fixed, thereby (c) improve our lives.

We find ourselves at another point where the status quo is untenable. The Asian carp are a clear sign that we need to re-establish natural barriers between the Mississippi and Great Lakes to safeguard 1/5 of the world's fresh water and the region's most precious asset. But this crisis is also a clarion call to tackle the infrastructure problems that have grown more and more vexing in recent decades as we have remained reliant on century-old structures. It is time to summon Chicago’s “I Will” spirit and think big about our region's redevelopment.

Great interview! Thanks Dennis. By the way, I have  a few questions for you:

• What happens if a kid gets whacked by one of these whopping fish on Oak Street Beach? Far fetched? Not really; similar things have happened on other lakes. The fish's penchant for leaping out of the water when startled makes me wonder what effect this problem could have on tourism, which fuels more and more of the Chicago and the State of Illinois economies (Statewide $30.8 billion was spent by visitors in 2008, yielding $2.1 billion in state and local taxes and generating 303,500 jobs according to the Chicago Convention and Tourism Bureau). There's no doubt that the Lake is a big part of the attraction.
• Municipal governments have been footing the bill for invasive species to the tune of, literally, billions of dollars for decades now. Shouldn't the externalized costs of waterborne shipping, whether by barge or cargo ship, be represented in a true cost accounting of our options?
• Dennis, in the column, you write: “Apparently, the last 30 years of erroneous and invented warnings about climate catastrophes, resource depletion, pandemics, overpopulation and other Malthusian alarms have taught us nothing about losing our heads." Climate change denial? Really? You and the Chicago Tribune can do far better than discounting 30 years of critical scientific research, advocacy, and work to protect quality of life for all Americans.