Farm bill and the Great Lakes

News release from the Great Lakes Commission

Contact: Tom Crane
E-mail: tcrane@glc.org
Phone: 734-971-9135
Fax: 734-971-9150
For immediate release May 28, 2008

2008 Farm Bill important for the Great Lakes

Ann Arbor, Mich. – Passage by Congress of the 2008 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419) means some good news for the Great Lakes. Provisions of the bill will help efforts to control soil erosion in the Great Lakes basin, and support research on a deadly fish virus in the lakes, among other priorities.

As a member of the Farm Bill Conference Committee and Senate Agriculture Committee, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) played a leading role in crafting the Food, Conservation and Energy Act, also known as the Farm Bill, which was approved by Congress this month. Sen. Stabenow was instrumental in reauthorizing the only Great Lakes-specific Farm Bill program, the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, and adding language linking the program to the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy (GLRC) to restore and protect the Great Lakes. The GLRC strategy was adapted in 2005 by a partnership of federal, state, municipal and tribal interests following a year-long collaboration.

Beyond the Great Lakes-specific provisions of the Farm Bill, many national conservation measures included in the bill will benefit the Great Lakes region. The bill included increased funding and policy improvements for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program to reward farmers for land and water conservation practices. It also boosted funding for Wetland Reserve and Grassland Reserve programs to protect water resources and expand wildlife habitat.

Created by the legislation were both a new conservation loan program to leverage additional funding for agriculture conservation and a new cooperative conservation program to more effectively address natural resource concerns.

“We are pleased that the 2008 Farm Bill includes important provisions to protect and restore the Great Lakes. We congratulate Sen. Stabenow and other members of the Great Lakes Congressional Delegation for their leadership and dedication to protecting the Great Lakes,” said Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry, chair of the Great Lakes Commission. “This is one piece of federal legislation that acknowledges the value of the Great Lakes and the wisdom of investing in their protection.”

The Commission also commends Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn., 7th District), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, for his leadership in guiding the bill through the legislative process.

The Great Lakes Basin Program – which gained renewed support in the Farm Bill – is administered by the Great Lakes Commission, with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Basin Program supports improved erosion and sediment control and sound land use practices through demonstration grants, technical assistance and information/education projects. Grant recipients include conservation districts and other non federal units of government, nonprofit organizations and academic institutions in all eight states of the Great Lakes basin. Over the past 17 years, the Basin Program has supported nearly 400 projects and invested almost $12 million in water quality improvement efforts. These projects have prevented an estimated 250,000 tons of sediment and 900,000 pounds of phosphorus from entering the Great Lakes and tributaries. Sediment pollution covers spawning beds, suffocates aquatic vegetation habitat, and increases the cost of treating potable water and maintaining drainage infrastructure. Phosphorus pollution can lead to excess growth of plants and algae and rob lakes and rivers of oxygen.

Another provision of the Farm Bill authorizes research grants for the study of viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS), a lethal fish virus that has been blamed for several large-scale fish die-offs in the Great Lakes since 2005.

The Great Lakes Commission, chaired by Lt. Gov. John Cherry (Mich.), is a nonpartisan, binational compact agency established under state and U.S. federal law and dedicated to promoting a strong economy, healthy environment and high quality of life for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region and its residents. The Commission consists of governors' appointees, state legislators, and agency officials from its eight member states. Associate membership for Ontario and Québec was established through the signing of a " Declaration of Partnership." The Commission maintains a formal Observer program involving U.S. and Canadian federal agencies, tribal authorities, binational agencies and other regional interests. The Commission offices are located in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Legislative Victory for Land Conservation

Legislative Victory for Land ConservationCongress Passes Conservation Tax Incentive for Family Farms and Ranches

Following similar action in the House, the Senate last night voted to overturn the President's veto of the Farm Bill. Despite an earlier procedural glitch, the final bill emerged as expected with our conservation tax incentive now enacted for two more years. After an arduous uphill battle and the prospect of defeat only a few weeks ago, our national coalition now has a hard-earned reason to celebrate. This puts back in place the incentive that had expired January 1st with the exact same terms, that is, raising the deduction for donated conservation easements form 30 to 50% of adjusted gross income—and 100% for farmers and ranchers—and extending the time period for using the deduction from 6 to 16 years.

For more information, please visit www.lta.org

Appalling Vote on Great Lakes Waters

MICHIGAN

International water interests are using the Farm Bureau as their cover with state legislators. The proposed legislation in the House has basically excused agricultural operations from permitting and yet the Farm Bureau is carrying the water for those seeking to manipulate and export our cherished streams, rivers and groundwater. In the floor debate yesterday, private water interests stepped aside and let the Farm Bureau do their bidding outside the House chamber. Unfortunately, lawmakers are being duped by their arguments ... or, perhaps, their checks.

Fortunately, we still have an opportunity to make certain the House gets it right. Four bills were voted out yesterday and the three remaining bills will expected to be taken up next week.

Now is the time to contact lawmaker offices insisting they fight for our water and challenge the corporate interests desiring to seize control of our water. House members have to support the remaining three bills pending before the House.

Why is gas $4.00 a gallon & what can we do about it?

Gas prices are rising, demand for oil is rising,and yet oil production stopped rising three years ago. Peak oil may be here, and it's taking us unprepared.

The International Conference on Peak Oil and ClimateChange: Paths to Sustainability explores the rootcause of rising gas prices, global warming,biodiversity loss, and unsustainability.

May 30 - June 1, 2008 in Grand Rapids, Michigan

Join with a broad array of professionals, politicians,business leaders, and concerned citizens to explorethe causes of global problems and discover solutionsto move humanity toward lasting paths ofsustainability.

To learn more and register, visit
http://www.PeakOilConference.org

Congress Urged To Restore Water Protection

News Release
Clean Water Action
For Immediate Release April 16, 2008

Contact:
Paul Schwartz 202-895-0420 ext. 105
David Holtz 313-300-4454

Congress Urged To Restore Water Protections Risk To Drinking Water Sources Cited In Testimony Seven Michigan U.S. House Members Back Proposed Clean Water Bill

Washington, DC – A leading public interest group in testimony today urged Congress to pass a new law safeguarding all of America’s waters, saying the public strongly supports returning measures protecting wetlands and streams across the country. “In our work with over a million members in more than twenty states, people tell us that passing the Clean Water Restoration Act is the right thing to do,” said Darrell Gerber, a Clean Water Action water specialist in testimony today before the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “The critical question before Congress is: Do we want to throw out 35-years worth of progress in cleaning up our waters or do we want to continue working to make all our waters fishable, swimmable and drinkable? The people we talk to across the country, and independent polls, resoundingly say the clean-up must move forward.” Waters covering 59 percent of the nation’s waterways that are the drinking water source for more than 100 million people were put at risk when a series of court decisions followed by federal agency actions in 2003 and 2007 resulted in removal of many wetlands and streams from protections under the nation’s 35-year-old Clean Water Act. Forty-eight percent of Michigan's streams and drinking water sources serving nearly 300,000 Michigan residents have been put at risk. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, responded by authoring the proposed Clean Water Restoration Act, the subject of Wednesday’s full committee hearing. The bill, first introduced in 2004, clarifies Congress’ original intent to prevent pollution and destruction in all water bodies, not just some, Gerber told committee members. Among the bill's 176 co-sponsors are Reps. Dingell, Ehlers, Kildee, Conyers, Kilpatrick,Levin and Stupak. In his testimony, Gerber noted intensified and more frequent flooding and deeper droughts, in part due to global warming. “Passing the Clean Water Restoration Act will protect the very resources which function to lessen the impact of these problems,” said Gerber. “Now more than ever we need federal water protections that meet the original goals of the Clean Water Act to ensure that our water is fishable, swimmable and drinkable.” Committee and floor votes on the Clean Water Restoration Act are expected in the near future. The U.S. Senate and Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing on the Senate version of the bill (S.1870) last week. Passage of CWRA is a priority for Clean Water Action in 2008. Clean Water Action is the nation’s leading grassroots environmental campaign organization, with more than 1 million members nationwide. Clean Water Action has been a leader in protecting America’s waters, the public health and empowering people to take charge of their environmental future.

www.cleanwateraction.org

#30#--

David Holtz

Director of Communications

Clean Water Action

313-300-4454 (cell)

dholtz@cleanwater.orgwww.cleanwateraction.org
4455 Connecticut Ave NW, A300

Washington, DC 20008-2328
111 New Montgomery Street,

#600San Francisco, CA 94105

Can the Market Drive Transportation Policy?

Last year the U.S. Department of Transportation spent $1 billion. To seed five high-profile experiments, in New York, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Miami and Seattle, that feature "congestion pricing" -- tolls that increase when traffic is heavy. The idea is to reduce traffic by discouraging some motorists from driving during peak hours.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031603085.html?referrer=emailarticle

Coming Home: Glad to be back in Great Lakes but will miss the Chesapeake Bay

Well, I have relocated back to my home state of Michigan. While I love my home state, I have to say that I had very mixed feelings about returning. Feels a little weird because after 3 years in the Washington D.C. area, I had become accustomed and fond of the region (not to mention the milder winters). My top reason for returning to MI was economic and family. Cost of living in DC region is really high and it was really difficult to make ends meet with a young family.

Being a news junkie and always interested in the nation's politics, working in the capital of Maryland and then in downtown DC, I found it quite exciting and intellectually fulfilling. So I will miss Maryland and will really try to maintain the great contacts and friendships I made there. The BICEP Bulletin will still provide new and commentary about and for the Chesapeake Bay.

Blog Posts from Michigan League of Conservation Voters

Scoring our Lawmakers in D.C.

Michigan League of Conservation Voters teamed up with the National LCV to release the 2007 Environmental Scorecard. This scorecard is based on a scale of 0 to 100, and it was scored on the number of pro-environment votes cast out of the total number votes during 2007. Absences are counted as a negative vote. The 2007 scorecard includes fifteen Senate Votes and twenty House votes on a range of issues, including energy, global warming, environmental funding, mining reform and the farm bill.

Let's get down to business…how did the Michigan delegation score?

Our two U.S. Senators – Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow each scored 67 percent with a lifetime score of 77 percent for Levin and 81 percent for Stabenow. Their no votes on one set of the CAFE and Energy Efficiency legislation as well as no votes on subsidy reform for the Farm Bill brought their scores down significantly.

A few more highlights include Representatives Dingell and Sandy Levin scoring 90 percent with lifetime scores of 72 percent for Dingell and 87 percent for Levin. On the other end of the spectrum Congressman Camp has clearly decided he is against protecting the environment with a score of 0 and lifetime score of 10 percent. Hoekstra, Walberg and Rogers all scored 5 percent. Mr. Knollenberg who is number 2 on National LCV's dirty dozen list scored 20 percent with a lifetime score of 8 percent.

For more scores and details visit – http://www.michiganlcv.org/


Dow, Nestle Should Be Held Accountable, Not Praised
Last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon praised Dow Chemical and Nestle for being part of global water solution. The headlines broke just a few days after thousands of Michiganders filed a class action lawsuit against Dow Chemical Company for their massive contamination of the Tittabawassee River.

Dow and Nestle aren't part of the global water solution: they are part of the Michigan water crisis.

Dow Chemical Company should not be praised for causing the largest dioxin contamination in the country! Nestle shouldn't be praised for bottling our water and taking it away from the Great Lakes region! These companies should not be praised for their misdeeds; they need to be held accountable for their actions.

Great Lakes Pact

Important article by Tom Henry of the Toledo Blade on the Great Lake pact and Republican efforts in Ohio and Wisconsin to stall it by amendment.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080217/NEWS06/802170304/-1/NEWS

Maryland: Global Warming Solutions Act

Smart Growth Measures Part of Strategy Endorsed in Maryland's Global Warming Solutions Act
Source: Baltimore Sun 1/30/2008

With 3,100 miles of shoreline making Maryland ''the fourth-most-vulnerable state to the effects of global warming,'' the lead sponsors of its Global Warming Solutions Act, Senate Environment Subcommittee Democratic Chairman Paul. G. Pinsky and House of Delegates Democratic Majority Leader Kumar Barve, urge the General Assembly ''to take real action on global warming'' this session and pass the act that would cut greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050, through new statewide efficiency and resource-management programs, including Smart Growth measures.

''Why now? Because we can't continue to wait and debate,'' they write in a Baltimore Sun oped column, warning that delay would damage Maryland's economy and environment, particularly the Chesapeake Bay.

In contrast, they stress, ''the Global Warming Solutions Act would mean significant investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency and green buildings, creating 'green collar' jobs for Marylanders and saving taxpayers money in the long run, while reversing an environmentally destructive trend.''

With the White House failing to join international accords on climate change, ''(w)e no longer can wait for the federal government to act,'' they write. ''Even if voters elect a pro-environment president in November, there is still a long battle ahead in Congress.''

But if Maryland ''joins other states -- California, New Jersey and Hawaii -- that have adopted legislation to fight global warming,'' they point out, ''it can only hasten Congress, and the White House, to approve a national policy.''

Pennsylvainia: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers blocks plan to dam Susquehanna

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced Thursday that it is denying a permit for an inflatable dam to be built across the Susquehanna River in Wilkes-Barre. The Luzerne County Flood Protection Authority had proposed building a structure that would have reached 9 1/2 feet high and impounded 4 1/2 miles of the free flowing river. The corps said in a statement that the dam was not the least environmentally damaging way to control floods in the area.

Full Story

Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce calls for government probe into EPA

Saginaw News Headlines Saturday Feb 2, 2007 Chamber calls for probe.
Members upset over the Environmental Protection Agency's " accidental" release of a confidential memo regarding dioxin talks http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews/2008/02/chamber_calls_for_probe.html

While there are many issues of more significance than the Chambers latest salvo at a regulatory agency or its defense of Dow's chronic bad behavior, statements cannot go unchallenged. Terry Miller, Lone Tree Council Chair, did a great job responding in a My View column in the Saginaw News. There is however no Saginaw News Internet link to Terry's response.

The Saginaw County Chamber of Commerce is asking the Inspector General to investigate how Lone Tree Council obtained an EPA memo; a memo which details Dow Chemical’s ongoing bad behavior, i.e., shoddy work plans, failure to follow regulatory guidelines, studies designed to create year long delays, maneuvering to go behind closed door, political strong arming… just to name a few. Go to TRWnews.net-- left column, click on FOIA documents and go to Dow CA 0807 to view the document that has jacked the Chamber so out of a shape. The Chamber did not deny the veracity of the document, I think they were just upset the public found out about Dow’s bad behavior.

Snips from the news story are pasted below and followed by my comments and my different viewpoint in bold print.

1. Snip: Veronica Horn, chamber executive vice president, said the group backs transparency but that Dow and the EPA had agreed to confidential talks. The Chamber is wrong and their statement a deliberate attempt to mislead. The EPA memo is dated August 2007. Dow did not go into confidential negotiations until October 18 and were not ordered to go into those negotiations until October 11. At the time of this memo was written, EPA had not even ordered Dow to negotiate. The memo if anything was written in anticipation of EPA taking legal action against Dow under CERCLA for failing to act in accordance with their corrective action responsibilities under RCRA. See EPA press release for October 2007 announcing negotiations. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/names/r05_2007-10-18_dowriver. In all the years and the many times Dow has forced this cleanup behind closed doors, even with the illegal consent order in 2002, which was made public, I've never seen the Chamber demand transparency or public accountability from Dow Chemical.

2. Snip: Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Robert VanDeventer and former Chairman Brian D. Eggers signed the letter. This would be the letter to the Inspector General asking for an investigation into how Lone Tree obtained the memo. It's interesting that Mr. Eggers, President of ATK Peerless failed full disclosure and did not divulge the significant income garnered by his company as a contract employee for Dow Chemical doing work on priority one and two properties along the river contaminated with dioxin.

3.Snip The Chamber letter also claims many memo comments "seem to be taken directly from the Lone Tree Council's Web Site." Never mind that none were identified or used as an example. Lone Tree Council's web site due to our lack of time has not had any information added to it in over a year. There are no documents on the LTC web-site from the EPA or anyone else. Visit our website: http://www.lonetreecouncil.com/index.htm

4. Snip Mrs. Horn goes on to State : "Perhaps Lone Tree doesn't know what honoring a commitment means, but the business community certainly does." Would Dow Chemical be included in the " business community" that knows how to honor a commitment? Perhaps Mrs. Horn would then ask Dow Chemical to honor their commitment to the people of this watershed by honoring the RCRA corrective action license signed by Ms. Sue Carrington on Dow’s behalf in June of 2003. By doing so Dow clearly acknowledged its responsibility, its legal commitments to the residents of this watershed and state. Dow clearly agreed by signing this commitment to abide by the law and produce as part of the contract with the people of this watershed: 1. Scopes of Work 2. Interim Response Activities 3. Remediation 4.Open public process. This is a legal binding document which Dow has fought tooth and nail after signing. A contract which at the end of the day would address the cleanup of this watershed and demonstrate Dow Chemical comprehends what it means to honor a commitment. Or does Dow with the Chambers blessing get to walk away from that contract? Where's the honor in that?

5.Snip More from Ms. Horn : "Our position is this: We are very upset that this kind of activity has happened on more than one occasion," Horn said. "This is not helpful to either side, to the EPA or to Dow. Our concern is with the community and the perception of the community. It's not a perception it's a reality; this is a highly contaminated watershed and it is time the Chamber insist their premier member expedite cleanup instead of being an apologist/lobbyist for the company. While we must acknowledge that Dow is not the only contributor the Saginaw River contamination--- the company is responsible for the dioxin black eye that drew national attention to our community. There are more than two sides! It's not just the regulatory agencies and Dow involved-- Hello Chamber of Commerce-- there is the public! As for the Chamber being upset, let me submit the Chamber is more upset because the memo, like many others, reveals Dow Chemical to be very uncooperative, manipulative, political and unwilling to comply with the law. Please go to TRWnews.net and click on FOIA documents to read other documents detailing the company’s failings.

6 Snip.Ms. Horn: "It's an attitude we feel that the EPA is taking against a company. We want a healthy Great Lakes and river system, but we also want a healthy economy." Attitude? It's called enforcing the law. Unlike the Chamber of Commerce, EPA and DEQ do not see a healthy eco-system and a healthy economy as being mutually exclusive. In progressive communities with progressive thinkers that archaic thinking is no longer acceptable. Many communities are seeing the economic benefit, job creation and long-term sustainability in cleaning up their contaminated waterways. And the healthy Great Lakes and river system are about public health and quality of life—more and more research is demonstrating the long-term impact of persistent organic pollutants on children. Quality of life matters! And it is defined by more than profit and money...........

7. Snip The chamber letter also raised concerns about other "accidental" releases of "confidential, internal documents to this environmental group. Each time this has happened it has resulted in sensational, negative headlines that in our opinion serve only to hinder negotiations between The Dow Chemical Company and either the (state Department of Environmental Quality) or, in this case, the EPA," it said. Like we control the headlines. The headlines and subsequent stories are not about the "release" of information but the content in the release. It’s what is revealed in these documents that so unnerves the Chamber of Commerce because it exposes the shenanigans of Dow Chemical. To suggest the public's access to information hinders negotiations one can only conclude the Chamber thinks the negotiations should be out of the public arena. We strongly disagree. Dow polluted this environment they don't own it. The most valuable stakeholder in this process is the people. We own the resource. The people and the process should be afforded the deference given Dow for the past 30 years. There is nothing about this cleanup that should be kept from the public, the property owners or the citizens who use these resources for recreation, food or their livelihood.

Lone Tree Council will continue to do what it always has....... Seek out public information and make it public when it comes to the resources and public health matters of our Saginaw Bay Watershed. Our resources, people and water are important as is the business of the people..... Everyone of us has an obligation to ensure a public and transparent process. It's how our democracy works best and it is what the taxpayers pay for from their elected officials and public agencies.

Best Regards,
Michelle Hurd Riddick
Lone Tree Council

Georgia: Lawmakers in Georgia are looking to loosen water restrictions for swimming pools

Lawmakers in Georgia are looking to loosen water restrictions, enabling people to fill their swimming pools and water their plants despite a statewide drought.

Perdue wants to relax water rules
Source: The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb 06, 2008

Ohio: Clean Water Fund

Governor Strickland’s State of the State address called of $400 million for the Clean Ohio Fund.

$400 million for the Clean Ohio Fund, to advance efforts to reclaim brownfields
and other damaged lands and preserve farm land and open spaces.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/02/06/state.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Commission urging reauthorization of GL Legacy Act

The Great Lakes Commission is beginning the 2008 legislative season by renewing its call on Congress to pass legislation to halt the introduction and spread of AIS, and is calling upon Congress to reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Legacy Act, passed into law in 2002, authorizes funding to remediate contaminated sediments in the 30 remaining U.S. and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCS) designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and is a cornerstone of Great Lakes restoration efforts. To date, five cleanup projects and seven projects to monitor and evaluate contaminated sediments have been implemented under the Legacy Act, with eight additional projects now under review. To better reflect the long-term costs of remediation efforts, the Commission is urging that the annual authorization under the Legacy Act be increased from $54 million to $150 million annually. The Commission is also recommending that the Act be amended to allow the use of funds to support pilot projects demonstrating innovative remediation technologies and techniques, and for habitat restoration. Contact: Matt Doss, mdoss@glc.org.

RFK Jr. and Howard Ernst Crititcal of Maryland's Environmental Efforts

Sorry I haven't posted in a couple of weeks. Been pretty busy with a graduate course working on my masters degree.

Here's an editorial from the Baltimore Sun by two high profile environmental watch dogs. I heard a speech Ernst gave a couple of years ago. He definitely doesn't hold back anything in his opinions. I haven't read his book Chesapeake Bay Blues yet. Hopefully I'll get to it this year. Cheers!

Maryland's dirty secrets
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Howard Ernst
January 24, 2008
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.chickenfarms24jan24,0,718905.story

The Chesapeake Bay, where we learned to swim, fish and crab, is dying. And despite millions of taxpayer dollars spent on research and reporting, there has been little action to hold polluters accountable for poisoning our beloved bay.

Drive around the country roads of the Delmarva Peninsula and you will find the leading source of the desecration of the bay and its estuarine tributaries: toxic animal waste piled outside chicken houses, sprayed over fields and running into the ditches, creeks and streams that flow to the Chesapeake.

For too long, Maryland's commercial chicken industry has been using the Chesapeake Bay, once a global treasure, as its personal dumping ground for illicit and harmful wastes. Billions of pounds of chicken litter have flowed into the bay in the decades since international poultry conglomerates such as Perdue and Tyson located their multimillion-dollar operations in the Delmarva Peninsula.

The destruction of our waterways by factory farms is illegal under this
nation's environmental laws, which contemplate transparency and cooperative enforcement among the federal government, state environmental agencies and citizens. Yet too many of Maryland's political leaders and poultry industry officials have partnered in a carefully choreographed dance around the many legal tools designed to protect our precious water resources. Together, they've succeeded in undermining all levels of safeguards to ensure that the poultry industry can continue to act in secrecy and without accountability.

On the federal level, the Clean Water Act provides a framework for holding polluters accountable by requiring all dischargers to obtain permits to control harmful substances. Factory chicken producers are no exception. Yet, defying federal law, Maryland holds out as one of the last states in the country not to require these pollution permits for poultry facilities; a draft permit released this month by Maryland's Department of the Environment that is purported to comply with federal laws falls woefully short.

While much of the authority to implement and enforce the Clean Water Act is delegated to state environmental agencies such as MDE, Maryland's 1998 Water Quality Improvement Act wrested oversight of chicken farms away from MDE in favor of the Maryland Department of Agriculture, essentially allowing the poultry industry to self-regulate and the Chesapeake Bay to slowly waste away.

Perhaps most egregiously, Maryland's citizens are being denied their
fundamental rights under this political-industrial compact. Under current law, Maryland chicken farmers must file nutrient management plans with the MDA, describing how they control and dispose of their billion pounds of chicken waste each year. In states across the country, including Virginia and Pennsylvania, these plans are public documents that empower citizens with an invaluable tool to monitor irresponsible behavior and allow for citizen enforcement of environmental regulations. Yet the MDA shields the poultry industry by refusing to make nutrient management plans public. Why the secrecy? Why are there no federally required permits for poultry operations in Maryland? And why can't state citizens gain access to public documents? There are no permits to review and no records to inspect. Maryland's poultry industry is operating under a state-sponsored cloak of darkness designed to protect it from any scrutiny.

It is time to shine a light on improper industry practices. Allowing public access to nutrient management plans is the first step in empowering citizens to protect their communities and waterways. The many chicken growers that are acting responsibly have nothing to fear from the transparency that would be gained by allowing public access to waste-disposal plans. And those in the industry who pollute our waters or fail to develop and properly implement waste-disposal plans would rightfully be subject to enforcement by state and federal government, or citizens, for their illegal activities.

The bay and our local waters are not privately owned commodities.
Maryland's citizens have the right to clean water and healthy communities, and this right depends on public knowledge of where and how the largest industry on the Eastern Shore is disposing of its waste.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is president of the Waterkeeper Alliance. Howard Ernst, author of "Chesapeake Bay Blues: Science, Politics, and the Struggle to Save the Bay," is senior scholar at the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun

Nestlé's water pumping harmful to Michigan

Saturday, January 05, 2008
By Terry Swier
Special To The Press

I am writing to set the record straight on the harm done to Michigan's waters by Nestlé water mining operations. When the guest column, "Nestlé success in Michigan in spotlight" by Nestlé Vice President of Corporate Affairs Heidi Paul in The Grand Rapids Press was being read Dec. 12, I was testifying in front of the U.S. Congress.

I am the president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation (MCWC). I was on the same panel as Ms. Paul, testifying before the U.S. House of Representatives Domestic Policy Subcommittee Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and was asked many of the same questions. Ms. Paul stated that Nestlé's pumping is good for Michigan, and the company has caused no harm.

Courts have determined otherwise. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation won on this point in all three courts in the case MCWC v Nestlé.
The finding of fact that Nestle would cause substantial harm at levels lower than they are pumping now, was made by the Mecosta County Circuit Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals, and affirmed by the Michigan Supreme Court when it rejected Nestlé's argument that the findings were in error.

A picture of the mudflat at Dead Stream was projected on the walls at the hearing. As stated in my written testimony, before pumping, there was water in the stream, even during natural low flows and levels. Sound science, considered and argued over during 19 days of trial in MCWC's case, found Nestlé's pumping at 400 gallons per minute would reduce stream flow by 24 percent, drop levels by 2 to 4 inches, and drop the levels of two lakes by 4 inches to 6 inches.
The findings can be found in Judge Lawrence Root's opinion following the bench trial. The stream has narrowed and wetland edges and bottomlands have been invaded by plant species. Nestlé did not halt pumping. Where is Nestlé's "good neighbor" policy?

At the hearing, Congressman Dennis Kucinich asked witness Dr. David Hyndman about the picture, and asked if beaver dams had anything to do with the harm of Dead Stream. Dr. Hyndman testified, as the courts agreed, that the beaver dams had nothing to do with low levels on Dead Stream. He testified that the low levels were caused by Nestlé's pumping during low flow or growing season when the stream is most vulnerable.
Nestle continues to claim there is no harm. Nestle continues to present itself as just another business using a little water. Instead, this is water mining, pure and simple -- at the expense of the public and at enormous profit to Nestlé. No amount of Nestlé bubbly talk can obscure that fact.

Nestlé also recently argued to the Michigan Supreme Court that citizens have no right to bring a lawsuit to protect wetlands or lakes on Nestlé's own property, even though it has been undisputed that their water resources are protected by state laws.

MCWC believes much of what it has done and stands for is supported by a majority of citizens in Michigan and the Great Lakes. Many citizens oppose the removal of water for export and sale as water, because this converts water under public control to private control and profit without adequate consideration of the public trust, the environment or an accounting for a substantial subsidy of a private exporter without public purpose.

Every gallon extracted as "spring water" as it appears on the label of Nestlé's Ice Mountain bottles, extracts a gallon of water that would otherwise feed a wetland, stream or lake. The diminishment of flow and level causes significant adverse impacts to these water bodies and their habitat and wildlife.

Water grabbers, like Nestlé, undermine the interest of our sixth-generation residents who live in Mecosta, on its lakes and streams; the public that fishes, boats, swims and enjoys our lakes and streams; farmers who rely on our groundwater; industry and our economy that are so dependent on our water, and the environment and public trust.
Our water is our heritage and our culture. It must be protected for our future generations. Let the water stay where it flows, not where it goes.

-- Terry Swier is President of the grassroots group Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in Mecosta.

©2008 Grand Rapids Press
© 2008 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.

Video: Regionalism in Northeast Ohio

Interview and Slideshow on WCPN Radio regarding regionalism in Northeast Ohio

View Upload your own

Reference:

http://www.slideshare.net/efmorrison/w-c-p-n-regionalism-slides

City of Detroit Should Sell Under Utilized Small Parks

The Detroit City Council will be considering a proposal from the its Parks and Recreation Department to sell about 90 small city owed parks. The proposal seeks to condense and consolidate park space and resources in thriving areas. Recreation officials are endorsing it as a sensible way to look at needed downsizing, a way to reconcile surplus park space with the significant demographic shifts over the last half-century in Detroit, which has lost about a million people since 1950. If sold, the city estimates it can raise $8.1 million from selling the land. The cash strapped city would use the money earned from any sales to maintain and possibly expand parks in parts of the city that are more densely populated.

Is it worth it to do this? I think it is. Without question, parks do serve immensely important benefits and functions to urban/city life. Parks are set aside for people to enjoy--to relieve some of the stress of life. Normally, I would tend to agree with them that selling park land is a bad idea. But in the case of Detroit, I have to say that the city's recreation department proposal seems logical in terms of fiscal demands. By concentrating parks and recreation in neighborhoods that are more likely to utilize them makes sense to me. The city should take any funds made from land sales and reinvest in good or mediocre city parks and make them GREAT parks. I would rather have a dozen great parks than 100 crappy ones.

Opponents are calling the plan short-sighted and wrong, pointing out that once gone, it's gone forever. Colleagues of mine have said to me with all the land available for redevelopment in Detroit, who is going to buy these parks, for what reason, and at what price? Also, it could encourage a developer who has the money to purchase the parks, and the time to wait for the opportunity for resale or development. Still not an optimal use for parkland. Some would likely argue that keeping and maintaining the pocket parks can be used in revitalizing neighborhoods and attracting new residents, small businesses, etc.

Granted, if given a choice between developing a greenfield vs. a gray-field, I would certainly prefer to redevelop the gray-field. No argument here. But, in the case of Detroit neighborhood resurgence, I think that the city needs to attract new neighborhood mixed-income dwellers from outside of the downtrodden neighborhoods. As well as outside of the city limits. Barely satisfactory/poorly maintained pocket parks are not enough to attract these people in order to bring up neighborhoods.

But I’m not letting the city off that easy though. It will take a lot more than selling off currently under-used parks to revitalize Detroit. Detroit still has to do a much better job in maintaining and investing in existing open spaces. They also need to spend more time and effort in planning for quality urban greenspace. Detroit should consider planning for permanent nature preserves, larger urban parks connected to other greenspaces, urban farming, and even restoring wetlands or daylighting some historical watercourses. Such uses would have practical benefits such as increasing property values in nearby neighborhoods and creating educational and tourism opportunities, and would greatly add to the quality of life in Detroit. Fix what’s broken. I’m referring to the parks as well as decisions made in city hall.

Reference:
NY Times
Detroit considers sale of City's small parks
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/29/us/29parks.html

Video: Net Neutrality

Source: Public Knowledge