molson_golden2002 Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 I've always wondered if the government's actions actually cleaned the lakes or just drove away the companies that polluted the lakes. I know the phosphorous isn't going in there anymore--my mom recently moved near a town in Tennessee that was ruined by that decision, it mined the stuff or something like that. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_...t_lakes_cleanup When Canada and the United States approved the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972, the running joke in Cleveland was that anyone unlucky enough to fall into the Cuyahoga River would decay rather than drown. ADVERTISEMENT The Cuyahoga, which meanders through the city before reaching Lake Erie, helped inspire the cleanup initiative by literally catching fire three years earlier. The lower end of the 112-mile-long waterway was a foul brew of oil, sludge, sewage and chemicals. It made embarrassing headlines when its surface flamed for about 30 minutes. Today the river is returning to health under a plan developed through the binational agreement. Pollution levels have fallen. Nearly 70 fish species have been detected in areas once considered virtually lifeless. Bald eagle nests have been spotted nearby. "Maybe one day we'll actually be able to swim within the harbor," says Ed Hauser, an environmental activist who launches his kayaks from a park at the river mouth. "I'll get my feet wet, but I sure don't want to fall in there." The U.S. and Canadian governments are considering whether to update and strengthen the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which hasn't been significantly revised since 1987. It commits the two countries to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity" of the world's biggest surface freshwater system — a mission that many see as only partly accomplished. Although the lakes and their major tributaries are less dirty than four decades ago, states continue warning children and women of childbearing age to limit fish consumption because of lingering toxicity. Algae overgrowth and a resulting oxygen-starved "dead zone" in Lake Erie, all but eliminated by the early 1980s, are returning. And the waters face threats t t were recognized barely if at all when the agreement first was crafted, such as the exotic species invasion, climate change and shoreline development. Despite increasingly urgent warnings from scientists and activists that the lakes are in peril, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its counterpart, Environment Canada, "have no preconceived notion that we will or will not revise the agreement," says Mark Elster, senior analyst with the EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office. A committee representing both countries is studying the matter. A decision isn't likely before next year, Elster says. "Our only requirement right now is to review the agreement — its operation and effectiveness," he says. "The outcome of this process will be a report to the two governments on what could be done." Many supporters say the agreement has lost clout and could become irrelevant unless overhauled. There's no shortage of programs aimed at cleaning up the Great Lakes; a 2003 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 140 on the federal level alone. Yet the water quality agreement is unique because it obligates the two countries to work toward the same goals. Although not legally binding, it carries moral weight. "It's really our insurance policy that Canada and the U.S. will continue to treat the Great Lakes as a joint responsibility," says Cameron Davis, executive director of the Chicago-based Alliance for the Great Lakes. "There is nothing else that comes close to providing that incentive." Yet even its biggest fans acknowledge the agreement's success record is mixed. Some say its influence peaked during the decade after President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau signed the initial version in 1972 and has waned since. Simply persuading Canada and the United States to adopt a binational approach was a big accomplishment, says Lee Botts, co-author of a recent book on the agreement. "That's why it's been considered a model around the world and really a pioneer at addressing environmental problems across international borders," Botts says. The pact called for a crackdown on phosphorus pollution blamed for rampant algae growth, which sucked oxygen from the waters and suffocated fish. Lake Erie had a gigantic dead zone, and beaches along Lakes Michigan and Ontario were strewn with rotting algae and alewife carcasses. Governments responded by ordering phosphate cutbacks in laundry detergents and better treatment of sewage and industrial wastes. Within a few years the algae problem faded, although it's now returning — possibly because of the exotic zebra mussel invasion. Research conducted under the agreement yielded information about water pollutants, including airborne contaminants such as mercury and chemicals that move up the food chain instead of breaking down. In 1978, the agreement was updated to propose "virtual elimination" of toxins from the lakes. Both nations have made progress. But not enough, say advocates who blame inadequate funding and regulation. They point to 43 heavily contaminated harbors and river segments designated for special attention under the latest version of the accord, approved in 1987. The pace of restoring these "areas of concern" has varied widely. Only three are finished: Collingwood Harbor and Severn Sound in Ontario and the Oswego River in New York. Most aren't close. The International Joint Commission, an independent agency that advises both countries on Great Lakes issues, last fall proposed replacing the agreement with a more flexible, action-oriented version. It would seek a common approach to modern problems such as invasive species, habitat loss, sewer overflows and suburban runoff. It would set timetables for solving problems and step up pressure on governments to meet them. Dennis Schornack, co-chairman of the IJC, says drastic change is needed because the existing agreement is "on a trajectory of obsolescence." He worries that the two governments' review may produce "a lot of motion ... but not a lot of change that will make a big difference to the health of the Great Lakes." But the Council of Great Lakes Industries, which represents chemical manufacturers, electric utilities and other companies, fears a more aggressive water quality pact will bring costly new regulations and stifle the regional economy. The IJC seemingly wants the agreement to "address everybody's ills. I think that's unrealistic," says George Kuper, the council's president. "It's already created a bureaucracy and a governance nightmare that is very difficult to maneuver around." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I think the big thing is the exotics that were introduced... Too bad they didn't have foresight and implemented the discharging of ballast and taking on new ballast at sea before entering the Great Lakes ecosystem early on in the accord! Could have really had a different situation! The good thing is that the area where I work is freezing... CleanER water freezes... It never did years ago when steel was up and running... I posted the pics in the Blizzard thread, OTW... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 There's no shortage of programs aimed at cleaning up the Great Lakes; a 2003 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office identified 140 on the federal level alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Here are the pics from yesterday morning... Things are "knitting" up fast from my previous pics posted on OTW... These pics are 7 miles downstream from Lake Michigan, just below Lake Calumet (terminus of the St. Lawrence SeaWay) on the Calumet River... Mile 326.5 above the Mississippi river (@ Grafton, IL)... This was the heart of the steel-making industry on the Great Lakes and was most likely in equally as bad shape as the Cuyahoga was in the early 1970's... It NEVER used to freeze... A SuperFund site sits within a mile or so of these pictures downstream (see lower pool pic, the confluence is at the bridge in the picture) along the Grand Calumet in Gary, Indiana... Eagles within the last couple years have been making a return, along with all sorts of wildlife... Well, bear will never return... But, who needs them?... They have the Chicago Bears here... Upper Pool Lower Pool ... The part of open water you see is created from the very mimimal head or difference in water that the lock creates to get the river to flow in the "opposite" direction it normally would go... ie: reversing the flow of the river... So I would say things here are getting better, VERY MUCH better... Industry still thrives... Things are looking up just as long as you don't move (dredge) the material in some spots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 31, 2007 Author Share Posted January 31, 2007 Here are the pics from yesterday morning... Things are "knitting" up fast from my previous pics posted on OTW... These pics are 7 miles downstream from Lake Michigan, just below Lake Calumet (terminus of the St. Lawrence SeaWay) on the Calumet River... Mile 326.5 above the Mississippi river (@ Grafton, IL)... This was the heart of the steel-making industry on the Great Lakes and was most likely in equally as bad shape as the Cuyahoga was in the early 1970's... It NEVER used to freeze... A SuperFund site sits within a mile or so of these pictures downstream (see lower pool pic, the confluence is at the bridge in the picture) along the Grand Calumet in Gary, Indiana... Eagles within the last couple years have been making a return, along with all sorts of wildlife... Well, bear will never return... But, who needs them?... They have the Chicago Bears here... Upper Pool Lower Pool ... The part of open water you see is created from the very mimimal head or difference in water that the lock creates to get the river to flow in the "opposite" direction it normally would go... ie: reversing the flow of the river... So I would say things here are getting better, VERY MUCH better... Industry still thrives... Things are looking up just as long as you don't move (dredge) the material in some spots! Thanks, great pics! The Great Lakes are just so incredibly awesome we are lucky to have them and I am glad they are getting better. I'd love to take a tour from Buffalo to Chicago on the lakes, or up onto Lake Superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks, great pics! The Great Lakes are just so incredibly awesome we are lucky to have them and I am glad they are getting better. I'd love to take a tour from Buffalo to Chicago on the lakes, or up onto Lake Superior. See the world! Like to get paid for it?... Take a job with these guys... Anybody with a head on their shoulders can be a deckhand... :worthy: Hannah Marine Corp. (same family as actress...Daryl Hannah... Lemont, Illinois)... Might even get lucky to be on the Daryl C. Hannah... Hannah Marine Great Lakes Gallery I am sure the are all over the lakes and inland waterways... You'll get used to sleeping while the vessel crunches through the ice in these parts! I hope they float a "Bird Dog" fee my way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 1, 2007 Share Posted February 1, 2007 Thanks, great pics! The Great Lakes are just so incredibly awesome we are lucky to have them and I am glad they are getting better. I'd love to take a tour from Buffalo to Chicago on the lakes, or up onto Lake Superior. Well enjoy them while you can. They will be diverted to the American southwest to quench the thirst of the growing population there. Beachfront on the GLs will be 1/2 mile (.6km) from the current shoreline. They wants it and needs it to feed their ekonomie and they'll gets it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Well enjoy them while you can. They will be diverted to the American southwest to quench the thirst of the growing population there. Beachfront on the GLs will be 1/2 mile (.6km) from the current shoreline. They wants it and needs it to feed their ekonomie and they'll gets it too. Makes good talk, but not anytime soon... The state of Michigan has always been the great "protector" of the lakes in federal court. Right now water only leaves the great lakes in TWO spots... 1. The SeaWay (which is regulated through those sets of locks and dams... ie: that is why Lake Ontario levels haven't dropped in relation to the historically low levels of the other four lakes... That is another topic...) 2. @Chicago (Which is also regulated through federal court order.) The situation in Chicago I know first hand... They still don't have water meters on all of the houses in the city... The only way you get one is if you remodel or build new... Rest of the older houses get estimated bills. With reference to the state of Michigan v. Illinois... That is a long going battle... Original water diversion amounts (at Chicago Harbor controlling works and where I am at O'Brien controlling works on the Calumet) were set in federal court back in 1969 and earlier... Michigan rehashed that suit back in the late 1990's saying that the original water amounts set in 1969 at 3600 cfs (cubic feet per second) were being exceeded by the state of Illinois... Illinois' defense? "We are using the same technology that we did in 1969 to determine the amount, leaky federal locks, etc..." That suit has been sorta quelled... The USGS a few years has been on the point monitoring the amounts with install technology at the two sites... The point is... Whoever wants that water will run into stiff opposition from the state of Michigan in federal court. There are "water wars" on the Missouri river that is getting ugly... That has been dragging on for years... I don't see the great lakes getting dragged into a similar mess with the opening of a "Pandora's Water Box." You can kinda say that Chicago has been grandfathered in over a hundred years ago... What happens in Chicago would never get by TODAY! Literally, when Chicago reversed the flow of the rivers over a hundred years ago... MO had a suit in court... LITERALLY, within 12 hours of an injunction being handed down... Chicago OPENED the gates to let the water flow south.. I guess they knew what had to be done... It was in haste at the time... But, back in the early 20th century the MO suit became moot (totally different era of course)... Quote, as often quoted here by me, from those days: "By the time someone takes a drink of water in New Orleans, it has already past through 2 people." Chicago since treats all waste water before flowing into the rivers... But, back in the day it was all just "diluted" into the river and canal system ... For the last 30 years the "Deep Tunnel" project has been going on and developing with the treatment and the release of storm water... Basically a 300' deep storm sewer and various underground resevoirs and pumping stations that network the ChicagoLand area... This system will continue to grow for time to come, eventually reaching as far as Park Forest, Illinois some 45 miles south of the city! Just some info... Sorry for the run-on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 2, 2007 Share Posted February 2, 2007 Makes good talk, but not anytime soon... The state of Michigan has always been the great "protector" of the lakes in federal court. Right now water only leaves the great lakes in TWO spots... 1. The SeaWay (which is regulated through those sets of locks and dams... ie: that is why Lake Ontario levels haven't dropped in relation to the historically low levels of the other four lakes... That is another topic...) 2. @Chicago (Which is also regulated through federal court order.) The situation in Chicago I know first hand... They still don't have water meters on all of the houses in the city... The only way you get one is if you remodel or build new... Rest of the older houses get estimated bills. With reference to the state of Michigan v. Illinois... That is a long going battle... Original water diversion amounts (at Chicago Harbor controlling works and where I am at O'Brien controlling works on the Calumet) were set in federal court back in 1969 and earlier... Michigan rehashed that suit back in the late 1990's saying that the original water amounts set in 1969 at 3600 cfs (cubic feet per second) were being exceeded by the state of Illinois... Illinois' defense? "We are using the same technology that we did in 1969 to determine the amount, leaky federal locks, etc..." That suit has been sorta quelled... The USGS a few years has been on the point monitoring the amounts with install technology at the two sites... The point is... Whoever wants that water will run into stiff opposition from the state of Michigan in federal court. There are "water wars" on the Missouri river that is getting ugly... That has been dragging on for years... I don't see the great lakes getting dragged into a similar mess with the opening of a "Pandora's Water Box." You can kinda say that Chicago has been grandfathered in over a hundred years ago... What happens in Chicago would never get by TODAY! Literally, when Chicago reversed the flow of the rivers over a hundred years ago... MO had a suit in court... LITERALLY, within 12 hours of an injunction being handed down... Chicago OPENED the gates to let the water flow south.. I guess they knew what had to be done... It was in haste at the time... But, back in the early 20th century the MO suit became moot (totally different era of course)... Quote, as often quoted here by me, from those days: "By the time someone takes a drink of water in New Orleans, it has already past through 2 people." Chicago since treats all waste water before flowing into the rivers... But, back in the day it was all just "diluted" into the river and canal system ... For the last 30 years the "Deep Tunnel" project has been going on and developing with the treatment and the release of storm water... Basically a 300' deep storm sewer and various underground resevoirs and pumping stations that network the ChicagoLand area... This system will continue to grow for time to come, eventually reaching as far as Park Forest, Illinois some 45 miles south of the city! Just some info... Sorry for the run-on... EII, I hope you are correct that GL water will never get diverted to the SW. I'm afraid that it will, quite likely in the next 20-50 years. While the GL states and Canada will raise holy hell over the issue and have been working for several years to come to an agreement on this and other issues regarding the GL's, unless there is a treaty approved at the Federal level between the US and Canada you will see increased pressure at the Federal level to allow diversion of GL water. Considering that population shifts are reducing the # of reps from GL states and increasing them in the S and W, it looks like it would be a hard fight to prevent diversion of GL's water if legislation doesn't get passed soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 EII, I hope you are correct that GL water will never get diverted to the SW. I'm afraid that it will, quite likely in the next 20-50 years. While the GL states and Canada will raise holy hell over the issue and have been working for several years to come to an agreement on this and other issues regarding the GL's, unless there is a treaty approved at the Federal level between the US and Canada you will see increased pressure at the Federal level to allow diversion of GL water. Considering that population shifts are reducing the # of reps from GL states and increasing them in the S and W, it looks like it would be a hard fight to prevent diversion of GL's water if legislation doesn't get passed soon. It doesn't even get diverted as drinking water to the village I live in... I live about 20 miles directly south of Chicago proper, 40 or so from the "Loop"... For years the town directly to the north of us NEVER had lake water either... They finally got it last year... We still use village wells (very hard and lots of iron)... My bill is only about 70 bucks for 3 months, that is sewer too!... My village may never get it too because you pay to all the other villages it passes through... My bill would skyrocket if we received lake water... More than the salt I use to self softened it! Now just think if they are passing it through municipalities further down the line... Everybody would get a cut! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts