Illinois Chamber Beats Up An Asian Carp Straw Man: A Real Solution Will Create Jobs, Not Destroy Them
Posted April 8, 2010 in Health and the Environment, Living Sustainably, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Yesterday, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce released a report which found that an arbitrary, immediate, permanent closure of the navigational locks connecting the Chicago waterway system to Lake Michigan in an effort to stop big, hungry Asian carp from establishing a population in the Great Lakes would be really, really expensive.
There’s only one problem…
The scenario that they’re studying? Nobody is actually proposing it... Not NRDC or the many, many others who care about the ecological health and economic vitality of the Great Lakes. Not the States of Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, New York, or Pennsylvania, or the Canadian Province of Ontario, all of which have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. Not anyone.
It’s a $4.7 billion straw man, a worst-case scenario set up by the Chamber just so they can knock it down in a press release.
My colleague Henry Henderson summed it up nicely, when he was asked by FOX News Chicago for his reaction to the Chamber’s report:
"They have demonstrated very well that a stupid idea that nobody suggests is indeed stupid," said Natural Resources Defense Council Director Henry Henderson. "As opposed to: how do we get this done in a way that pays for the needs for upgrades in our infrastructure, manages our wastewater and protects what is the most important economic gem of the great lakes?"
What NRDC and others have been calling for as a permanent solution is hydrological separation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River, so that there is no longer a direct connection between the two ecosystems that would allow for aquatic invasive species to continue travelling back and forth, in both directions.
Invasive species have been able to spread far and wide throughout the U.S. primarily because we have breached the natural barriers that used to separate ecosystems. Restoring the natural divide between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River is not only a permanent, reliable long-term solution for threat of Asian carp to the Great Lakes, but also for every other invasive species that will come after them. It will protect our waters and prevent the spread of a problem that costs our economy literally billions of dollars annually.
Hydrological separation is not the same thing as closing the locks or closing the canal system. Under this alternative, barriers would be constructed strategically in the Chicago waterway system to completely eliminate any movement of water between the two ecosystems that might allow invasive organisms to move with it. If done right, hydrological separation will involve smart, well-planned investments that will establish new, more sustainable infrastructure in the Chicago waterway system.
That separation also means fixing the aging infrastructure of the Chicago waterway system that is exposing us to unacceptable risks of invasive species will also force us to rethink how we manage our stormwater and wastewater and move goods through the region. And that will benefit the economies of Chicago and the entire region. Perhaps more importantly at this time of economic disruption, it will create jobs. Lots and lots of jobs.
Unfortunately, the debate on this issue (like so much in our politics) has become ugly and polarized. It has been reduced to the loud fight between Michigan (backed by the other Great Lakes states) and Illinois (backed by their local allies, such as the Illinois Chamber) over whether cutting-edge scientific tests indicating Asian carp are in the early stages of invading Lake Michigan justify closing the locks. Never mind the fact that nobody has called for an arbitrary permanent closure, or claimed that lock closures are a perfect (or permanent) solution. Sadly, the fact has been lost in this charged debate that adjusting lock management is only one of a number of things that should be done as part of a rational response to an unfolding emergency.
Even Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who asked the Supreme Court to close the locks temporarily, does not seek lock closure as a permanent solution. Rather, Michigan’s lawsuit asks the Supreme Court to
“requir[e] the State of Illinois, [MWRD], and the [Army] Corps to take all appropriate and necessary measures to expeditiously develop and implement plans to permanently and physically separate carp-infested waters in the Illinois River basin, the Canal, and connected waterways from Lake Michigan so as to prevent the migration of bighead carp, silver carp, or other harmful aquatic invasive species into Lake Michigan.”
In other words, Michigan – like NRDC and many others – is calling for a well-planned permanent solution that invests in new infrastructure that will better protect us from the invasive species threat… but also will create opportunities to overcome a range of water management and transportation challenges that we already face.
The clock is ticking to come up with a real solution on this issue. We need to find interim steps to keep the carp out of Lake Michigan while the permanent separation gets scoped out and built. Sadly, studies like the one that the Chamber is pushing simply delay fixing the problem. Now that we all agree that the “solution” their study examines, as Henry bluntly notes, is indeed “stupid” – it is time to get to work on a real solution that will be good for business, create jobs, and help Chicago and the entire Great Lakes region prosper in a 21st Century economy.
That seems like something the Illinois Chamber – and everyone else who cares about the economic future of Chicago and the Great Lakes region – should join us in embracing.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
mike — Apr 8 2010 04:56 PM
And all of this ignores a simple fact: hope of "containing" these fish long term by such trivial (yet expensive) means is a naive and childlike pipedream, especially given that they are in all rationally estimated probability already IN Lake Michigan and multiplying as we speak, but I'll bite...
I would like to hear how total stoppage of water movement can be achieved between the rivers and the lake WITHOUT impacting the shipping system...you avoided this issue entirely by focusing on your own strawman argument (which was ironically targeted at a strawman argument).
Also, your proposal that this would create jobs and help the economy lacks any rational and comprehensive analysis to back it up. Not one number is to be seen. The burden is on your side to prove that this would make more money than what is lost due to shipping issues. Until you can do that, it's not going to carry any weight in the debate.
Frankly, the true impact these fish would have on the lake hasn't even been quantified clearly...if the only issue is Michigan's fishing industry, and it's between that and Illinois shipping industry, then honestly it's a Michigan problem and no one else's.
And as I've already established, these fish are already there...what is done with the rivers is neither here nor there. All of your points about wastewater management et al are off the point of topic.
Thom Cmar — Apr 8 2010 05:46 PM
Mike---many thanks for reading the post and taking the time to share your concerns. This issue does not get solved without thoughtful discussion. And, as an aside, serious kudos for the Wesley Willis reference in your email address (which is not visible to the public, but is seriously fresh).
On to your myriad of points... One thing we agree on is that at least one fish seems to have gotten into Lake Michigan. We assume, based on the multiple positive detections of Asian carp DNA throughout the Chicago waterway system, that it’s more. And, yes, it is a serious concern. In the short-term we need to limit the propagule pressure that is driving the fish towards Lake Michigan and ensure that the carp numbers do not get high enough for them to establish themselves and wreak havoc. But a few fish in the Lake do not mean “game over” if we can take effective steps now.
Sure, the press has focused on the impact of the carp on the Great Lakes fishery. It’s potentially huge and NOT limited only to Michigan – if allowed to establish themselves in Lake Michigan, the Asian carp could potentially spread throughout the entire Great Lakes, as so many other invasive species have done. That's why the Great Lakes Commission (which represents all the states and Canadian provinces, and is currently chaired by Governor Pat Quinn of Illinois) and many others across the Great Lakes region have joined us in calling for a permanent separation.
We also see far more dangerous threats to the drinking water of 40 million people throughout the Great Lakes Basin with the carp potentially turbo-charging a process of ecosystem change already underway thanks to the zebra and quagga mussels. And we are concerned about the threat to Chicago's tourism economy – which is likely to take a serious hit the first time a kid gets whacked by a 100 pound fish on Oak Street Beach.
But this is a problem that’s much bigger than two subspecies of Asian carp. The fish are seeking access to the Great Lakes through an aging waterway that begs us to think about what is needed for a modern city to operate sustainably. Infrastructure does not work as intended into perpetuity. We have to make changes as necessary---something we have largely avoided for a century in this case. A permanent solution to this mess will indeed have some impact on the barge industry---nobody says otherwise. However, let's keep this in perspective: we are talking about less than 1% of the goods coming through Chicago. At the same time, there are a number of planning efforts already underway to reconfigure our train and truck systems, and the siting of any permanent barriers within the waterways should tie into this so that proper intermodal facilities can be put in place.
As for jobs and the economy, this is a big infrastructure project, but one we need if we are finally face up to longstanding problems that will not go away by ignoring them. It is time to revisit our water system that dumps effluent with human waste into the Chicago River. It is time to straighten the pretzel of rail lines that snarls 50% of the goods that move by train in this country---which can at times take 6 days to make it through the maze of Chicago rail yards. It is time to close the invasive species highway between the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. All of those projects are being discussed in an array of venues---we need to think of them together. This is a multi-billion dollar project that would modernize the region and make commerce move more smoothly. Sorry you don't see that, but plenty of groups like Chicago Metropolis 2020 do and are helping to make that vision a reality.
And as for numbers… yes, it's true, there hasn't been a full study of permanent separation yet, so we don't have any final numbers or plans. A study like this has to be done the right way -- it can't just be rushed out along with a press release. We are hopeful that this is something that the Army Corps will do as part of its existing mandate from Congress to address this problem, but it's taking them a long time to get started and it remains to be seen how broad and deep their analyses will go. And regardless of who does such a study, it will be a huge undertaking that will require a lot of input from a vast array of affected stakeholders and communities. The biggest hurdle we face to moving this forward, however, is a knee-jerk fatalism that says that it cannot be done, that we are stuck with the status quo and shouldn't consider changing it. Only by reframing this issue so it no longer pits State vs. State or interest group vs. interest group will we be able to work together, as a region, to solve this problem in a way that benefits all of us.
Lia — Apr 9 2010 08:34 AM
I think its interesting that the Chicago boat people argue that the electric fence is working and that they are already in the Lake. Just shows how pointless their agruments really are.
I can't even get into this fight anymore, Thom, but I appreciate that people like you are still trying.
It is way beyond my comprehension, in the year 2010, that we are talking about protecting a shipping industry, or that money is even an issue, when it comes to protecting 20% of the world's fresh water. (Nat geo, April issue, totally devoted to WATER.) We should be immensely grateful that we are the steward's of this incredible gift. Chicago boat people, like Mike, will forever see the Lakes as a resource to be exploited. And if you ask him why he cares so much, it will be because his own security is at stake.
And this is not just about Michigan. Wisconsin cares. Alot. How many of our harbors, rivers and lakes will be destroyed if this gets out of hand? Yet you never hear people like Mike sound even slightly concerned about that possibility.
I am incredibly disappointed in my generation and in what we've done to the environment that sustains us. We have the opportunity to protect the future and we're arguing about it.