Settlement Reached with G.K.I. Foods, Inc.
The Department of Environmental Quality has reached a settlement with G.K.I. Foods, Inc. of Livingston County over allegations of illegal discharges to Michigan’s waters. GKI is a manufacturer of chocolate candy and granola that discharged production wastewater to its sanitary wastewater system which ultimately failed due to the build-up of fats, oils, and grease. The system's failure led to untreated wastewater being discharged to the county drain located behind the facility. GKI will reimburse the State of Michigan for its enforcement costs of $32,807 and pay a civil fine of $11,000.
Yum. Makes you want to run out and buy granola, eh? So, another statement on our culture of obesity, the granola plant generates enough fat and grease to clog your pipes and your arteries.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Saturday, February 23, 2008
New Ohio Steel Plant Will Emit Tons of Mercury
Russian firm MMK America has plans to construct a steel plant on the Ohio River at Haverhill, OH that will emit over 1800 pounds ofmercury per year. That would be larger than all of the point and fugitive mercury air emission sources in the United States as per U.S. EPA's year 2005 toxic release inventory.
Public comment on draft air and water permits for the facility ends March 27.
Ohio EPA presently intends to allow MMK America to withhold as confidential significant information in the air permit application about maximum process design and other process information.
Read more here: Daily Kos
Thanks for the info Alex: Sagady.com
Public comment on draft air and water permits for the facility ends March 27.
Ohio EPA presently intends to allow MMK America to withhold as confidential significant information in the air permit application about maximum process design and other process information.
Read more here: Daily Kos
Thanks for the info Alex: Sagady.com
Friday, February 22, 2008
Environmentalists Should NOT vote for McCain
Info from the League of Conservation Voters
WASHINGTON, DC, February 21, 2008 (ENS) - In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released today by the League of Conservation Voters, Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain received a score of zero. The Scorecard is an annual measure of lawmakers' votes on environmental issues.
McCain scored 0 due to missing all 15 votes scored, including the key vote on repealing tax giveaways to big oil - a measure that failed by only one vote.
McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every crucial environmental vote scored by the LCV, posting a score lower than members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses, and even lower than some who died during the term.
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said, "We were appalled two weeks ago when John McCain was the only senator who chose to skip a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America - dooming the measure to fail by just a single vote."
"McCain missed votes to save his constituents $499 million dollars at the pump and at least $550 million on their energy bills, while creating more than 10,000 new clean energy jobs in his home state," said Pope.
McCain posts a lifetime LCV environmental score of only 24. By contrast, the average member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007.
McCain has received the endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection, the only environmental group recognized by the National Republican Party.
WASHINGTON, DC, February 21, 2008 (ENS) - In the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard released today by the League of Conservation Voters, Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain received a score of zero. The Scorecard is an annual measure of lawmakers' votes on environmental issues.
McCain scored 0 due to missing all 15 votes scored, including the key vote on repealing tax giveaways to big oil - a measure that failed by only one vote.
McCain was the only member of Congress to skip every crucial environmental vote scored by the LCV, posting a score lower than members of Congress who were out for much of the year due to serious illnesses, and even lower than some who died during the term.
Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope said, "We were appalled two weeks ago when John McCain was the only senator who chose to skip a crucial vote on the future of clean energy in America - dooming the measure to fail by just a single vote."
"McCain missed votes to save his constituents $499 million dollars at the pump and at least $550 million on their energy bills, while creating more than 10,000 new clean energy jobs in his home state," said Pope.
McCain posts a lifetime LCV environmental score of only 24. By contrast, the average member of Congress scored a 53 in 2007.
McCain has received the endorsement of Republicans for Environmental Protection, the only environmental group recognized by the National Republican Party.
2006 Toxics Release Inventory data finally available online
The TRI is an on-line electronic database, housing information about chemical releases at facilities across the country. According to the EPA, nation-wide chemical releases into the environment are down by two percent from 2005 - of course, this is the Bush Administration, most likely they are lying.
TRI tracks and contains detailed information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from about 23,000 industrial and federal facilities. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 established the TRI program. In 1990, The Pollution Prevention Act expanded the program by including data on toxic chemicals released, as well as treated, recycled, and burned for energy recovery.
EPA has been providing information to the public about chemical releases into the air, water and land at facilities nation-wide. This information is accessible by geographic location, industry sector, and individual chemicals.
Here's the link, copy and paste it into your browser. http://epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri06/index.htm Search by zip code to find the bastards who are dumping toxics in your vicinity.
TRI tracks and contains detailed information on releases of nearly 650 chemicals and chemical categories from about 23,000 industrial and federal facilities. The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 established the TRI program. In 1990, The Pollution Prevention Act expanded the program by including data on toxic chemicals released, as well as treated, recycled, and burned for energy recovery.
EPA has been providing information to the public about chemical releases into the air, water and land at facilities nation-wide. This information is accessible by geographic location, industry sector, and individual chemicals.
Here's the link, copy and paste it into your browser. http://epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri06/index.htm Search by zip code to find the bastards who are dumping toxics in your vicinity.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Corporate Greenwashing at its finest
Just in time for Easter, Cadbury has unveiled a range of "eco-eggs" called "Cadbury Treasure Eggs", which rather than being sold in a box are simply foil wrapped. The company says that the Treasure Eggs represent a reduction of over 75 percent plastic and 65 percent less cardboard than previously used in standard eggs.
Huh... obviously now you can be green because you stop putting crap in a box. Is it to soon to start stomping on chocolate eggs while screaming "BULLSHIT!" really loud? Let me know when that's socially acceptable.
Okay, okay... Thank you Cadbury for at least making an effort.
Huh... obviously now you can be green because you stop putting crap in a box. Is it to soon to start stomping on chocolate eggs while screaming "BULLSHIT!" really loud? Let me know when that's socially acceptable.
Okay, okay... Thank you Cadbury for at least making an effort.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Don't Give Up On Biofuels
Today's guest writer is Tom Leonard, former executive director of West Michigan Environmental Action Council and all-around cool human being. Enjoy!
GRAND RAPIDS---Will America's Biofuel Boom survive the decade?
It may sound counterintuitive to some, drawing attention to the cloudy future of biofuels in the midst of what seems a massive global biofuels pep rally. Worldwide, biofuels are greatly on the upswing, with major programs proceeding in Indonesia, Brazil, and the European Union among others.
Even here in the suspicious and slow-moving USA, the President has signed a bill that will increase our biofuels production by a factor of six in the next 15 years.
But there are growing pockets of disquiet in many quarters. Some forecasters have already pronounced a requiem for biofuels, while others are sounding alarms of urgent opposition. What's going on?
What's going on is the standard trajectory for good new ideas, from interest to excitement to mania, to disillusionment, and finally, to practical applications.
It's been hard not to get excited about biofuels---especially the petroleum substitutes ethanol and biodiesel. The basic technology is old, and easy. The products are home-grown, redounding to the benefit of local farmers. Biofuels are relatively clean-burning: the carbon dioxide that they release to the atmosphere in running our vehicles, they also strip from the atmosphere as their source crops grow in the fields.
U.S. farmers love ethanol, meaning especially corn ethanol, and U.S. politicians who love farmers love ethanol too. Love, love, love. San Francisco loves biodiesel and is running most of its fleet of vehicles on it. Here in Michigan, we love ethanol and we have five licensed ethanol refineries gearing up to produce it.
Biofuels are such a good idea in so many ways---so why are biofuels in trouble? Here are three reasons:
First, they compete aggressively with food production, raising food prices dramatically. The United Nations estimates that food prices worldwide rose a startling 40% last year. The price of corn was up 50% in 2007 from the prior year, while soybean prices are approaching their all-time high.
Biofuels can't be blamed for all the increases in the cost of our food---there are many factors contributing to that. But their impact is real and can be traced readily, especially here in America. The USA's soybean crop declined 19% last year, in direct response to the shift of farm acreage from the growing of soybeans to the growing of corn for ethanol.
Second, biofuels are not the broad answer to our fuel requirements. There is not remotely enough farm acreage in America to meet our transportation fuel requirements using ethanol, even if we converted all of our farm land from food to fuel. And even though the price of a gallon of E85 is currently running less than a gallon of gasoline, when you adjust for gasoline's greater energy kick, ethanol still does not compete.
Third, their impact on the environment, in the context of human economic behavior, is unsustainable and alarming. The New York Times recently reported on research showing that, once the impact of growing the source crops was taken into account, biofuels constituted a net loss in terms of impact on global warming "greenhouse" gases. Brazil noted last year a 10% spike in Amazonian rainforest destruction due to---you guessed it----new acreage being cleared to grow sugar cane, Brazil’s ethanol crop. In Indonesia, pristine forest is being exchanged for palm plantations, to produce palm oil for fuel. The current rate of forest destruction there is so huge, it virtually guarantees the disappearance of natural Indonesian forest in the next fifteen years.
Goodbye, orangutans.
It will be a remarkable irony if the rush to biofuels, which fundamentally exists to reduce the human impact on global warming, should indirectly accelerate the warming problem, while simultaneously extinguishing vulnerable wildlife species and adding to the risk of mass starvation among the world's human population.
Despite all this, I still see a role for biofuels---but perhaps on a more limited scale, from carefully-selected sources, and for carefully selected and specific purposes. Not the biofuels bonanza visualized by the industry’s cheerleaders up to now. We simply cannot toss the whole biofuels production problem into the free markets, and expect to get a sustainable result. That is how biofuels are being dealt with now, and it is only worsening our problems.
One thing that is heartening about the biofuels boom is that its difficulties relate not at all to the basic chemistry of the fuels. The biofuels problems are really problems of bad land use, inefficient transportation practices, and unsustainably large human populations. If nations like Indonesia can get their act together on forest and peatland protection, damage from palm oil production might be better contained. If we had fewer people to feed, or they were less protein-hungry, we might be less tempted to scavenge in rain forests for new farmland.
In theory, at least, they can still be a success.
On December 19th of last year, President Bush signed an energy bill that calls for a sixfold increase in biofuels in the next fifteen years. It's a good first step, but it doesn’t make biofuels practical in the world we know. We have reached a point where even doing the right thing will have its own dangers.
GRAND RAPIDS---Will America's Biofuel Boom survive the decade?
It may sound counterintuitive to some, drawing attention to the cloudy future of biofuels in the midst of what seems a massive global biofuels pep rally. Worldwide, biofuels are greatly on the upswing, with major programs proceeding in Indonesia, Brazil, and the European Union among others.
Even here in the suspicious and slow-moving USA, the President has signed a bill that will increase our biofuels production by a factor of six in the next 15 years.
But there are growing pockets of disquiet in many quarters. Some forecasters have already pronounced a requiem for biofuels, while others are sounding alarms of urgent opposition. What's going on?
What's going on is the standard trajectory for good new ideas, from interest to excitement to mania, to disillusionment, and finally, to practical applications.
It's been hard not to get excited about biofuels---especially the petroleum substitutes ethanol and biodiesel. The basic technology is old, and easy. The products are home-grown, redounding to the benefit of local farmers. Biofuels are relatively clean-burning: the carbon dioxide that they release to the atmosphere in running our vehicles, they also strip from the atmosphere as their source crops grow in the fields.
U.S. farmers love ethanol, meaning especially corn ethanol, and U.S. politicians who love farmers love ethanol too. Love, love, love. San Francisco loves biodiesel and is running most of its fleet of vehicles on it. Here in Michigan, we love ethanol and we have five licensed ethanol refineries gearing up to produce it.
Biofuels are such a good idea in so many ways---so why are biofuels in trouble? Here are three reasons:
First, they compete aggressively with food production, raising food prices dramatically. The United Nations estimates that food prices worldwide rose a startling 40% last year. The price of corn was up 50% in 2007 from the prior year, while soybean prices are approaching their all-time high.
Biofuels can't be blamed for all the increases in the cost of our food---there are many factors contributing to that. But their impact is real and can be traced readily, especially here in America. The USA's soybean crop declined 19% last year, in direct response to the shift of farm acreage from the growing of soybeans to the growing of corn for ethanol.
Second, biofuels are not the broad answer to our fuel requirements. There is not remotely enough farm acreage in America to meet our transportation fuel requirements using ethanol, even if we converted all of our farm land from food to fuel. And even though the price of a gallon of E85 is currently running less than a gallon of gasoline, when you adjust for gasoline's greater energy kick, ethanol still does not compete.
Third, their impact on the environment, in the context of human economic behavior, is unsustainable and alarming. The New York Times recently reported on research showing that, once the impact of growing the source crops was taken into account, biofuels constituted a net loss in terms of impact on global warming "greenhouse" gases. Brazil noted last year a 10% spike in Amazonian rainforest destruction due to---you guessed it----new acreage being cleared to grow sugar cane, Brazil’s ethanol crop. In Indonesia, pristine forest is being exchanged for palm plantations, to produce palm oil for fuel. The current rate of forest destruction there is so huge, it virtually guarantees the disappearance of natural Indonesian forest in the next fifteen years.
Goodbye, orangutans.
It will be a remarkable irony if the rush to biofuels, which fundamentally exists to reduce the human impact on global warming, should indirectly accelerate the warming problem, while simultaneously extinguishing vulnerable wildlife species and adding to the risk of mass starvation among the world's human population.
Despite all this, I still see a role for biofuels---but perhaps on a more limited scale, from carefully-selected sources, and for carefully selected and specific purposes. Not the biofuels bonanza visualized by the industry’s cheerleaders up to now. We simply cannot toss the whole biofuels production problem into the free markets, and expect to get a sustainable result. That is how biofuels are being dealt with now, and it is only worsening our problems.
One thing that is heartening about the biofuels boom is that its difficulties relate not at all to the basic chemistry of the fuels. The biofuels problems are really problems of bad land use, inefficient transportation practices, and unsustainably large human populations. If nations like Indonesia can get their act together on forest and peatland protection, damage from palm oil production might be better contained. If we had fewer people to feed, or they were less protein-hungry, we might be less tempted to scavenge in rain forests for new farmland.
In theory, at least, they can still be a success.
On December 19th of last year, President Bush signed an energy bill that calls for a sixfold increase in biofuels in the next fifteen years. It's a good first step, but it doesn’t make biofuels practical in the world we know. We have reached a point where even doing the right thing will have its own dangers.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Project Hotseat Pushing Dingell on Climate Legislation
Guest Writer today: Kelli Bosak, Project Hot Seat, Greenpeace USA
In order for the country to unilaterally decrease its carbon emissions,
Congress must continue creating new climate legislation. Global
warming is happening now, but there is still much we can do to avoid
suffering from its worst effects. Our government failed to sign the
Kyoto Protocol, causing the international community to push forward
without us in preventing climate change. By pushing Congress, we can
fight against our doomed future and curb climate change. The state of
Michigan is home to one of the most influential leaders in climate
legislation in the nation, Representative John Dingell. Dingell is the
Chairman of the House's Energy and Commerce Committee and influences
all bills regarding the climate. So, Michigan plays a huge role in
affecting climate legislation. Michigan needs to take a stance on these
issues to make sure Congress protects our environment—for us and the Great
Lakes. Michigan is a top source for renewable energy, but nothing is
being done. To make a difference in this fight, you can either contact
your congressman, Dingell, or comment below. Do not give up on a
sustainable future! We want to fill Congress full of representatives
who will champion global warming solutions.
Thanks, Kelli Bosak
Project Hot Seat, Greenpeace USA
Read More:
Dingell Set to Tackle Warming
In order for the country to unilaterally decrease its carbon emissions,
Congress must continue creating new climate legislation. Global
warming is happening now, but there is still much we can do to avoid
suffering from its worst effects. Our government failed to sign the
Kyoto Protocol, causing the international community to push forward
without us in preventing climate change. By pushing Congress, we can
fight against our doomed future and curb climate change. The state of
Michigan is home to one of the most influential leaders in climate
legislation in the nation, Representative John Dingell. Dingell is the
Chairman of the House's Energy and Commerce Committee and influences
all bills regarding the climate. So, Michigan plays a huge role in
affecting climate legislation. Michigan needs to take a stance on these
issues to make sure Congress protects our environment—for us and the Great
Lakes. Michigan is a top source for renewable energy, but nothing is
being done. To make a difference in this fight, you can either contact
your congressman, Dingell, or comment below. Do not give up on a
sustainable future! We want to fill Congress full of representatives
who will champion global warming solutions.
Thanks, Kelli Bosak
Project Hot Seat, Greenpeace USA
Read More:
Dingell Set to Tackle Warming
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Arghh! Proposed Mega-Dairy threatens Illinois public health and water quality
We have a BIG problem trying to come into NW Illinois' Jo Daviess County.
Wealthy California business man, AJ Bos is trying to set up a 12,000 head mega-dairy near Nora, Illinois. There will be about 70 acres of manure lagoons. The stench will travel for miles. Folks down there are organizing because they are concerned about their drinking water.
They have created a website at: STOPTHEMEGADAIRY.ORG.
Here's what you can do to help the good people living in Nora:
The Jo Daviess County Board voted 11 to 5 to reject the proposed mega dairy. Unfortunately, the IL Dept. of Agriculture can ignore that vote, and place the facility against the wishes of the board and the constituents that they represent.
Please give me one minute right now and take two vitally important actions.
First, contact the Governor, and let him know that you don't want this facility in Illinois. You can call, write, or use his web portal to send him a message.
Governor Rod Blagojevich
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217-782-0244 or 312-814-2121
TTY: 888-261-3336
Contact the Govenor
Your message should look and sound something like this:
Dear Governor Blagojevich,
The Jo Daviess County board voted 11 to 5 to deny an application for a 12,000 head CAFO proposed for their county. Siting numerous experts concern about major damage to the aquifer and surrounding rivers and streams, and the tremendous negative impact this facility would have on tourism, which is already bringing over $200,000,000 to the county, they rejected this application since it didn't fulfill the eight criteria imposed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Please use your authority as Governor to ensure that the Department of Agriculture follows their own guidelines and denies this application. The citizens of Jo Daviess County deserve the right to have their elected county board make decisions that will have such significant negative impact on their community. Thank you.
Okay now that you've got that done, please go to this Sierra Club web site and tell the federal EPA that huge factory farms should not be exempt from the clean air act. The Bushies would give them a legal loophole to avoid all of the pollution lawsuits being filed against them all over the country. This gift to corporate agriculture from the Bush administration would penalize small family farms, while allowing the largest and richest facilities to do as they pleased.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=bOL-NhsfcC4RPypoGStwBw..
Alright, you've earned serious bonus point for the last two actions, but now you need to contact the head of the Department of Agriculture, and voice your objections to this facility. Every letter they get has to be reviewed by their board, and included in their files. They need to know that people are concerned about clean air, clean water, family farms, and public health, and won't stand for these factories in Illinois.
Charles A. Hartke, Director
State of Illinois Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 19281, State Fairgrounds
Springfield, IL 62794-9281
(217) 785-4789
FAX: 217.785.4505
You can read much more about this issue at http://www.StopTheMegaDairy.org. Act now.
Wealthy California business man, AJ Bos is trying to set up a 12,000 head mega-dairy near Nora, Illinois. There will be about 70 acres of manure lagoons. The stench will travel for miles. Folks down there are organizing because they are concerned about their drinking water.
They have created a website at: STOPTHEMEGADAIRY.ORG.
Here's what you can do to help the good people living in Nora:
The Jo Daviess County Board voted 11 to 5 to reject the proposed mega dairy. Unfortunately, the IL Dept. of Agriculture can ignore that vote, and place the facility against the wishes of the board and the constituents that they represent.
Please give me one minute right now and take two vitally important actions.
First, contact the Governor, and let him know that you don't want this facility in Illinois. You can call, write, or use his web portal to send him a message.
Governor Rod Blagojevich
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217-782-0244 or 312-814-2121
TTY: 888-261-3336
Contact the Govenor
Your message should look and sound something like this:
Dear Governor Blagojevich,
The Jo Daviess County board voted 11 to 5 to deny an application for a 12,000 head CAFO proposed for their county. Siting numerous experts concern about major damage to the aquifer and surrounding rivers and streams, and the tremendous negative impact this facility would have on tourism, which is already bringing over $200,000,000 to the county, they rejected this application since it didn't fulfill the eight criteria imposed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Please use your authority as Governor to ensure that the Department of Agriculture follows their own guidelines and denies this application. The citizens of Jo Daviess County deserve the right to have their elected county board make decisions that will have such significant negative impact on their community. Thank you.
Okay now that you've got that done, please go to this Sierra Club web site and tell the federal EPA that huge factory farms should not be exempt from the clean air act. The Bushies would give them a legal loophole to avoid all of the pollution lawsuits being filed against them all over the country. This gift to corporate agriculture from the Bush administration would penalize small family farms, while allowing the largest and richest facilities to do as they pleased.
http://action.sierraclub.org/site/R?i=bOL-NhsfcC4RPypoGStwBw..
Alright, you've earned serious bonus point for the last two actions, but now you need to contact the head of the Department of Agriculture, and voice your objections to this facility. Every letter they get has to be reviewed by their board, and included in their files. They need to know that people are concerned about clean air, clean water, family farms, and public health, and won't stand for these factories in Illinois.
Charles A. Hartke, Director
State of Illinois Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 19281, State Fairgrounds
Springfield, IL 62794-9281
(217) 785-4789
FAX: 217.785.4505
You can read much more about this issue at http://www.StopTheMegaDairy.org. Act now.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Great Lakes Commission urges Congress to reauthorize Great Lakes Legacy Act
Calling it one of its top legislative priorities for 2008, the Great Lakes Commission is calling on Congress to reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act in order to continue progress in remediating contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
First passed in 2002, the Great Lakes Legacy Act authorizes funding to remediate contaminated sediments in the U.S. and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
“The Legacy Act program has been highly successful in cleaning up toxic hot spots in Great Lakes rivers and harbors and has become a cornerstone of Great Lakes restoration efforts,” said Commission Chair and Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry Jr., in a letter to congressional leaders and members of the House and Senate Great Lakes Task Forces. “It’s critical that Congress reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act and maintain this vital program for restoring the Great Lakes.”
Lt. Gov. Cherry noted that the Commission’s recommendations are consistent with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and that the Legacy Act enjoys strong support from the Great Lakes states, the business community, regional environmental organizations and local Area of Concern advisory councils.
The Commission is recommending several amendments to benefit the Great Lakes states and improve the Legacy Act’s effectiveness and efficiency. They include:
• Reauthorize the Legacy Act through 2013 and increase authorized appropriations to $150 million annually. This would be consistent with the recommendations of the Great Lake Regional Collaboration and would better match the projected long-term costs of remediating contaminated sediments.
• Allow the use of general Legacy Act funds for pilot or demonstration projects in order to support research on innovative remediation technologies.
• Allow the use of Legacy Act funds to restore habitat at sites where contaminated sediment has been remediated under the Act.
• Allow contributions from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to be counted as all or part of the nonfederal cost share for Legacy Act projects as long as that contribution is above and beyond what is required under a legal settlement.
• Allow all nonfederal contributions to Legacy Act projects to qualify for cost-share accounting, regardless of the timing of such contributions.
• Remove the maintenance of effort requirement, which can penalize project sponsors that invest in remediation efforts prior to the start of a Legacy Act project, and which is not appropriate for remediation projects in which costs can fluctuate widely from year to year.
• Allow the disbursal of Legacy Act funds to nonfederal contractors if doing so enhances the timing and effectiveness of a project.
• Extend the life of appropriated Legacy act funds beyond two years so that funds are not lost due to significant, unanticipated delays in completing complex projects.
• Reduce the current 35 percent nonfederal cost-share requirement to 25 percent for orphan sites where no responsible party is available to support the nonfederal cost share, to lessen the burden on states and local communities.
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. The original Great Lakes Legacy Act enacted in 2002 authorized $270 million over five years to remediate contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
To see the full recommendations, as approved by the Commission’s Board of Directors, visit http://glc.org/advocacy/legacyact.html. Contact: Matt Doss, mdoss@glc.org.
First passed in 2002, the Great Lakes Legacy Act authorizes funding to remediate contaminated sediments in the U.S. and binational Great Lakes Areas of Concern designated under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
“The Legacy Act program has been highly successful in cleaning up toxic hot spots in Great Lakes rivers and harbors and has become a cornerstone of Great Lakes restoration efforts,” said Commission Chair and Michigan Lt. Gov. John Cherry Jr., in a letter to congressional leaders and members of the House and Senate Great Lakes Task Forces. “It’s critical that Congress reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act and maintain this vital program for restoring the Great Lakes.”
Lt. Gov. Cherry noted that the Commission’s recommendations are consistent with the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration and that the Legacy Act enjoys strong support from the Great Lakes states, the business community, regional environmental organizations and local Area of Concern advisory councils.
The Commission is recommending several amendments to benefit the Great Lakes states and improve the Legacy Act’s effectiveness and efficiency. They include:
• Reauthorize the Legacy Act through 2013 and increase authorized appropriations to $150 million annually. This would be consistent with the recommendations of the Great Lake Regional Collaboration and would better match the projected long-term costs of remediating contaminated sediments.
• Allow the use of general Legacy Act funds for pilot or demonstration projects in order to support research on innovative remediation technologies.
• Allow the use of Legacy Act funds to restore habitat at sites where contaminated sediment has been remediated under the Act.
• Allow contributions from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to be counted as all or part of the nonfederal cost share for Legacy Act projects as long as that contribution is above and beyond what is required under a legal settlement.
• Allow all nonfederal contributions to Legacy Act projects to qualify for cost-share accounting, regardless of the timing of such contributions.
• Remove the maintenance of effort requirement, which can penalize project sponsors that invest in remediation efforts prior to the start of a Legacy Act project, and which is not appropriate for remediation projects in which costs can fluctuate widely from year to year.
• Allow the disbursal of Legacy Act funds to nonfederal contractors if doing so enhances the timing and effectiveness of a project.
• Extend the life of appropriated Legacy act funds beyond two years so that funds are not lost due to significant, unanticipated delays in completing complex projects.
• Reduce the current 35 percent nonfederal cost-share requirement to 25 percent for orphan sites where no responsible party is available to support the nonfederal cost share, to lessen the burden on states and local communities.
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. The original Great Lakes Legacy Act enacted in 2002 authorized $270 million over five years to remediate contaminated sediments in Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
To see the full recommendations, as approved by the Commission’s Board of Directors, visit http://glc.org/advocacy/legacyact.html. Contact: Matt Doss, mdoss@glc.org.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Great Lakes Citizens Health Report Blocked by Feds
For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.
Researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.
The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Certainly this is the greatest piece of government censorship to date in the Great Lakes.
Thanks to Sheila Kaplan and the Center for Public Integrity, the report is now online. It is in your best interest to start reading it now.
Researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.
The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
Certainly this is the greatest piece of government censorship to date in the Great Lakes.
Thanks to Sheila Kaplan and the Center for Public Integrity, the report is now online. It is in your best interest to start reading it now.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Town Hall Meeting with State Representatives On Water Withdrawal and Export Issues
The Great Lakes Great Michigan Coalition will host a town hall meeting with local community leaders in Muskegon to help answer the question: "Who decides where our Great Lakes waters go?" on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 7pm. Panelists include Dr. Mark Luttenton of Grand Valley State University, Don Studaven, Blue Lake Township Supervisor and Cyndi Roper from Clean Water Action. Representatives Doug Bennett and Mary Valentine and Senator Gerald Van Woerkom will also weigh in on pending legislation in Lansing, and answer questions and concerns from participants.
Town Hall Meeting
Thursday January 24, 2008
State Representatives Doug Bennett, Mary Valentine and State Senator Gerald Van Woerkom
Muskegon Community College, Collegiate Hall, 221 South Quarterline Road, Muskegon, MI 49442
7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Meeting
Thursday January 24, 2008
State Representatives Doug Bennett, Mary Valentine and State Senator Gerald Van Woerkom
Muskegon Community College, Collegiate Hall, 221 South Quarterline Road, Muskegon, MI 49442
7:00 p.m.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
378 Million pounds of pollutants flowed into Lake Michigan in 2005-06
Pounds of pollutants discharged into Lake Michigan and tributaries during 2005-2006
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.791
Acenaphthene 0.038
Acenaphthylene 0.042
Aldrin 0.001
Ammonia 471,623
Anthracene 0.018
Arsenic 493
Benzene 51.31
Benzo(a)pyrene 11.83
BOD, carbonaceous 3,173,501
Cadmium 548
Carbon, total org. 466,675
Chemical oxygen demand 1,755,074
Chloride 54,825,485
Chlorine 86,224
Chromium, hex 1,918
Chromium, total 475
Chromium, total rec 2,005
Coliform, fecal
Copper 5,573
Cyanide, free 172
Cyanide, total 8,295
Cyanide, weak 88.322
DDT 0.001
Dibenzofuran 0.791
Flourene 0.02
Flouride 405,745
Iron 73,840
Lead 6.995
Magnesium 4,398,293
Manganese 1,867
Mercury 32.9
Napthalene 1.39
Nickel 2,047
Nitrogen, nitrate 1,500,946
Nitrogen, nitrite 14,467
Oil and grease 5,495,460
Oxygen demand, chem. 1,755,047
PCBs 0.275
Phenanthrene 0.01
Phenolics 13,476
Phosphorus 143,140
Selenium 18.88
Silver 92.7
Solids, dissolved 227,734,078
Solids, suspended 18,303,779
Sulfate (SO4) 59,671,523
Sulfide (S) 326.7
Tetrachloroethylene 14.86
Thallium 0.13 N/A
Zinc 30,287
Total pounds of pollutants discharged into Lake Michigan and tributaries during 2005-2006: 378,594,633
(Source: Indiana Post Tribune, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, International Joint Commission, Indiana State Department of Health)
2,4-Dimethylphenol 0.791
Acenaphthene 0.038
Acenaphthylene 0.042
Aldrin 0.001
Ammonia 471,623
Anthracene 0.018
Arsenic 493
Benzene 51.31
Benzo(a)pyrene 11.83
BOD, carbonaceous 3,173,501
Cadmium 548
Carbon, total org. 466,675
Chemical oxygen demand 1,755,074
Chloride 54,825,485
Chlorine 86,224
Chromium, hex 1,918
Chromium, total 475
Chromium, total rec 2,005
Coliform, fecal
Copper 5,573
Cyanide, free 172
Cyanide, total 8,295
Cyanide, weak 88.322
DDT 0.001
Dibenzofuran 0.791
Flourene 0.02
Flouride 405,745
Iron 73,840
Lead 6.995
Magnesium 4,398,293
Manganese 1,867
Mercury 32.9
Napthalene 1.39
Nickel 2,047
Nitrogen, nitrate 1,500,946
Nitrogen, nitrite 14,467
Oil and grease 5,495,460
Oxygen demand, chem. 1,755,047
PCBs 0.275
Phenanthrene 0.01
Phenolics 13,476
Phosphorus 143,140
Selenium 18.88
Silver 92.7
Solids, dissolved 227,734,078
Solids, suspended 18,303,779
Sulfate (SO4) 59,671,523
Sulfide (S) 326.7
Tetrachloroethylene 14.86
Thallium 0.13 N/A
Zinc 30,287
Total pounds of pollutants discharged into Lake Michigan and tributaries during 2005-2006: 378,594,633
(Source: Indiana Post Tribune, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Indiana Department of Environmental Management, International Joint Commission, Indiana State Department of Health)
Great Lakes Surfing, Refining, on Tap for Chicago Coastal Allies Network
Join the Chicago Coastal Allies Network for two January events that are guaranteed to get your blood pumping.
Surf's up at the Alliance for the Great Lakes Chicago office on Thursday, Jan. 17 from 5:45 p.m. - 7:30 p.m., when the C.A.N. is scheduled to host a screening of "Unsalted: A Great Lakes Experience," the documentary by Michigan filmmaker Vince Deur.
Great Lakes surfers are a rare breed, indeed, described by the movie's trailer as comprising a mix of "one part obsession, one part addiction and an unending quest for adventure."
Deur has shown his movie in California, New Zealand and South Africa -- all places that surfers call home. Enjoy free popcorn and beverages while meeting friends and other Great Lakes lovers.
On Jan. 22, from noon-1 p.m, bring a lunch and join C.A.N. members in the Chicago office for a brown bag luncheon featuring the timely issue of refinery expansion around the Great Lakes.
As oil companies plan to expand refineries along Great Lakes shorelines in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan to process crude oil extracted from Canadian tar sands, the Alliance and others are weighing in. The harmful implications for water quality in the Great Lakes were underscored during last summer's controversy surrounding BP's water pollution discharge permit.
Lyman Welch, Alliance water quality program manager, and Joel Brammeier, Alliance vice president for policy, will discuss lessons learned from the BP experience, pending proposals for refinery expansion, and what can be done to protect the Great Lakes.
To RSVP for either event, e-mail coastalllies@greatlakes.org or call Tricia Piper at 312-939-0838 ext. 221. Can't make it into the office for the brown bag lunch? Conference call capability will be available closer to the date.
The Alliance Chicago office is located at 17 N. State Street, Suite 1390 (at Washington and State streets in downtown Chicago).
Surf's up at the Alliance for the Great Lakes Chicago office on Thursday, Jan. 17 from 5:45 p.m. - 7:30 p.m., when the C.A.N. is scheduled to host a screening of "Unsalted: A Great Lakes Experience," the documentary by Michigan filmmaker Vince Deur.
Great Lakes surfers are a rare breed, indeed, described by the movie's trailer as comprising a mix of "one part obsession, one part addiction and an unending quest for adventure."
Deur has shown his movie in California, New Zealand and South Africa -- all places that surfers call home. Enjoy free popcorn and beverages while meeting friends and other Great Lakes lovers.
On Jan. 22, from noon-1 p.m, bring a lunch and join C.A.N. members in the Chicago office for a brown bag luncheon featuring the timely issue of refinery expansion around the Great Lakes.
As oil companies plan to expand refineries along Great Lakes shorelines in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan to process crude oil extracted from Canadian tar sands, the Alliance and others are weighing in. The harmful implications for water quality in the Great Lakes were underscored during last summer's controversy surrounding BP's water pollution discharge permit.
Lyman Welch, Alliance water quality program manager, and Joel Brammeier, Alliance vice president for policy, will discuss lessons learned from the BP experience, pending proposals for refinery expansion, and what can be done to protect the Great Lakes.
To RSVP for either event, e-mail coastalllies@greatlakes.org or call Tricia Piper at 312-939-0838 ext. 221. Can't make it into the office for the brown bag lunch? Conference call capability will be available closer to the date.
The Alliance Chicago office is located at 17 N. State Street, Suite 1390 (at Washington and State streets in downtown Chicago).
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Face It: There is a Solution to Global Warming
According to Architecture 2030, there is a ‘silver bullet’ solution to global warming and it’s time the nation faced up to it. To get its message out, the non-profit organization will be hosting a nationwide webcast, called Face It, focusing on the solution. During the webcast, they will unveil two competitions about the solution with $20,000 in prize money.
The half-hour webcast will be broadcast from Architecture 2030’s website, www.architecture2030.org, beginning at 9 am EST on January 30, 2008. Focus the Nation, a national effort to engage students, faculty, administrators, citizens and government officials in discussions to address global warming, takes place January 31, 2008.
The Face It webcast will build on the information provided during Architecture 2030’s highly successful webcast, The 2010 Imperative Global Emergency Teach-in. The Teach-in, which broadcast live in February 2007 and focused on the role of design education in global warming, reached a quarter of a million students, design professionals and government officials worldwide.
The solution to global warming, according to the founder of Architecture 2030, Edward Mazria, is two-fold. “Energy use is at the heart of global warming. There are two sides to energy use, supply and demand, so any viable solution must address both sides of this coin.” On the supply side, Mazria advocates first for a US and then a global moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of existing coal plants by 2050. On the demand side, he advocates for adoption and implementation of The 2030 Challenge, a global initiative calling for all new buildings and renovations to reduce their fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas-emitting consumption by 50% by 2010, and that all new buildings be ‘carbon neutral’ by 2030.
To Architecture 2030’s credit, the organization’s 2030 Challenge has been adopted and supported by numerous groups, including the US Conference of Mayors, American Institute of Architects, National Association of Counties, US Green Building Council, California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and EPA’s Target Finder, as well as many individual cities, counties and states. Beginning in 2008, the federal government will require the Challenge energy reduction targets for all new and renovated federal buildings.
The Face It webcast is part of Architecture 2030’s larger Reverberate Campaign, which will involve several events throughout 2008. The first of these are the two Reverberate Competitions to be unveiled during the webcast. Students will be asked to create something (you’ll have to tune in to the webcast to learn what) that will reverberate throughout their campus and society at large. There will be two categories, graphic design and video. In addition to the $20,000 in prize money that will be distributed amongst the winners, the winning graphic design entry will appear in a full-page ad in Metropolis magazine and the winning video entry will be featured on the Metropolis and Architecture 2030 websites.
Architecture 2030 Architecture 2030 is a New Mexico-based 501c3 research organization that focuses on the role of buildings in global warming. The Building Sector accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US annually. By galvanizing and collaborating with the key players in this sector, Architecture 2030 is working to achieve a dramatic reduction in the global-warming-causing greenhouse gas emissions of buildings by changing the way they are designed and constructed.
The half-hour webcast will be broadcast from Architecture 2030’s website, www.architecture2030.org, beginning at 9 am EST on January 30, 2008. Focus the Nation, a national effort to engage students, faculty, administrators, citizens and government officials in discussions to address global warming, takes place January 31, 2008.
The Face It webcast will build on the information provided during Architecture 2030’s highly successful webcast, The 2010 Imperative Global Emergency Teach-in. The Teach-in, which broadcast live in February 2007 and focused on the role of design education in global warming, reached a quarter of a million students, design professionals and government officials worldwide.
The solution to global warming, according to the founder of Architecture 2030, Edward Mazria, is two-fold. “Energy use is at the heart of global warming. There are two sides to energy use, supply and demand, so any viable solution must address both sides of this coin.” On the supply side, Mazria advocates first for a US and then a global moratorium on the construction of any new conventional coal plants, and the gradual phasing out of existing coal plants by 2050. On the demand side, he advocates for adoption and implementation of The 2030 Challenge, a global initiative calling for all new buildings and renovations to reduce their fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas-emitting consumption by 50% by 2010, and that all new buildings be ‘carbon neutral’ by 2030.
To Architecture 2030’s credit, the organization’s 2030 Challenge has been adopted and supported by numerous groups, including the US Conference of Mayors, American Institute of Architects, National Association of Counties, US Green Building Council, California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission and EPA’s Target Finder, as well as many individual cities, counties and states. Beginning in 2008, the federal government will require the Challenge energy reduction targets for all new and renovated federal buildings.
The Face It webcast is part of Architecture 2030’s larger Reverberate Campaign, which will involve several events throughout 2008. The first of these are the two Reverberate Competitions to be unveiled during the webcast. Students will be asked to create something (you’ll have to tune in to the webcast to learn what) that will reverberate throughout their campus and society at large. There will be two categories, graphic design and video. In addition to the $20,000 in prize money that will be distributed amongst the winners, the winning graphic design entry will appear in a full-page ad in Metropolis magazine and the winning video entry will be featured on the Metropolis and Architecture 2030 websites.
Architecture 2030 Architecture 2030 is a New Mexico-based 501c3 research organization that focuses on the role of buildings in global warming. The Building Sector accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US annually. By galvanizing and collaborating with the key players in this sector, Architecture 2030 is working to achieve a dramatic reduction in the global-warming-causing greenhouse gas emissions of buildings by changing the way they are designed and constructed.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
OOOh, I love a good court battle!
Groups Appeal Court Decision Blocking Ohio Citizens from Lake Erie Shoreline
COLUMBUS, OHIO (January 8)-Conservation groups today took the first step to appeal an Ohio lower court decision that blocks Ohio citizens from walking, fishing and recreating along the shores of Lake Erie.
The groups seek to overturn a December 11th decision by Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene Lucci, which redefines the boundary separating public and private property along the Lake Erie shoreline from the ordinary high water mark to the point at which the water meets land from moment to moment—effectively barring citizens from the shores of Lake Erie unless they are in the lake itself.
“We are filing this appeal to protect the historic right of all citizens to stroll, fish and recreate along the shores of Lake Erie,” said Neil Kagan, senior attorney for the National Wildlife Federation. “The law is clear: The Lake Erie shoreline is a public trust for all to enjoy.”
The lower court ruling goes against more than 100 years of Ohio legal precedent, which holds that the land up to the high water mark be held in public trust.
“Our appeal comes down to one thing—beating back an attempt to strip Ohio citizens of their centuries-old right to access the shores of Lake Erie,” said Keith Dimoff, executive director for the Ohio Environmental Council. “This flawed decision will mean fences and "KEEP OUT" signs along our shore; we will not let that happen.”
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is expected to file a notice of appeal today, even though Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has sided publicly with the plaintiffs who are attempting to keep Ohio citizens off the shores of Lake Erie.
“We stand arm-in-arm with the Attorney General to uphold the right of all Ohio citizens—not just a privileged few—to enjoy access to Lake Erie,” said Larry Mitchell, president of the League of Ohio Sportsmen. “We will vigorously defend the public trust doctrine and we will prevail.”
The case, Merrill v. State of Ohio and NWF, et. al., is similar to a landmark Michigan lawsuit that resulted in a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court decision upholding the public trust up to the high water mark.
The National Wildlife Federation, Ohio Environmental Council and League of Ohio Sportsmen filed the notice of appeal with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio.
“We are looking to re-affirm a core belief of this country grounded in legal precedent—that regardless of class or race or social standing, every American citizen has the right to enjoy access to the Great Lakes, one of our country’s natural treasures,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. “This is the foundation of not only our outdoor heritage, but our society as a whole. It’s just plain right.”
For more information visit:
http://www.nwf.org/news/
http://www.leagueofohiosportsmen.org/
http://www.theoec.org/
COLUMBUS, OHIO (January 8)-Conservation groups today took the first step to appeal an Ohio lower court decision that blocks Ohio citizens from walking, fishing and recreating along the shores of Lake Erie.
The groups seek to overturn a December 11th decision by Lake County Common Pleas Court Judge Eugene Lucci, which redefines the boundary separating public and private property along the Lake Erie shoreline from the ordinary high water mark to the point at which the water meets land from moment to moment—effectively barring citizens from the shores of Lake Erie unless they are in the lake itself.
“We are filing this appeal to protect the historic right of all citizens to stroll, fish and recreate along the shores of Lake Erie,” said Neil Kagan, senior attorney for the National Wildlife Federation. “The law is clear: The Lake Erie shoreline is a public trust for all to enjoy.”
The lower court ruling goes against more than 100 years of Ohio legal precedent, which holds that the land up to the high water mark be held in public trust.
“Our appeal comes down to one thing—beating back an attempt to strip Ohio citizens of their centuries-old right to access the shores of Lake Erie,” said Keith Dimoff, executive director for the Ohio Environmental Council. “This flawed decision will mean fences and "KEEP OUT" signs along our shore; we will not let that happen.”
Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann is expected to file a notice of appeal today, even though Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has sided publicly with the plaintiffs who are attempting to keep Ohio citizens off the shores of Lake Erie.
“We stand arm-in-arm with the Attorney General to uphold the right of all Ohio citizens—not just a privileged few—to enjoy access to Lake Erie,” said Larry Mitchell, president of the League of Ohio Sportsmen. “We will vigorously defend the public trust doctrine and we will prevail.”
The case, Merrill v. State of Ohio and NWF, et. al., is similar to a landmark Michigan lawsuit that resulted in a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court decision upholding the public trust up to the high water mark.
The National Wildlife Federation, Ohio Environmental Council and League of Ohio Sportsmen filed the notice of appeal with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals of Ohio.
“We are looking to re-affirm a core belief of this country grounded in legal precedent—that regardless of class or race or social standing, every American citizen has the right to enjoy access to the Great Lakes, one of our country’s natural treasures,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. “This is the foundation of not only our outdoor heritage, but our society as a whole. It’s just plain right.”
For more information visit:
http://www.nwf.org/news/
http://www.leagueofohiosportsmen.org/
http://www.theoec.org/
Friday, December 21, 2007
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation Testifies at Congressional Hearing
Washington, DC – The House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy in Washington heard testimony on environmental impacts of water bottling and extractions on communities and the environment across the country. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation’s (“MCWC”) president Terry Swier forcefully rebutted Nestle's claims. She pointed out that three courts have concurred that through the finding of fact Nestlé’s pumping has harmed public water resources and riparian rights. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation has been battling Nestlé Waters North America and its Ice Mountain brand of spring water in Michigan for seven years.
In her testimony, Swier explained to the panel that Nestlé’s harm to a stream, two lakes, and wetlands was upheld in three courts in the case Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America. The finding of fact that Nestle caused substantial harm at levels lower than it is 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.
Jim Olson, legal counsel for MCWC, said, "Nestle witnesses evaded questions from Congressional panel about harm caused by Nestle's pumping for bottling operation in Michigan. Nestlé told the committee it had not caused harm to a stream in Michigan. In fact, three courts in Michigan, trial to the Supreme Court, have limited pumping in Michigan because Nestle has and continues to cause harm there.
During 19 days of trial given sound science, Nestlé’s pumping was found to have reduced stream flow by over 27% for a large stream segment, dropped levels by 2 to 4 inches, and dropped the levels of two lakes by 4 to 6 inches. During natural seasonal or cyclical lows, this makes the difference between public use, fishing, and the integrity of the stream or harm or loss of aquatic organisms.
Dr. David Hyndman, an expert in the Michigan case, explained to the panel, how the exposed bottomlands and harm to the stream shown in a picture to Nestlé's representative and the Subcommittee panel was caused by Nestlé's pumping during low flow periods or the summer growing season.
“Nestlé purports to being a “good neighbor” company to our area, yet it continued to pump at high rates during a long period of low precipitation and lower recharge. Even when bottomland and other dramatic impacts and damage to the Dead Stream, Thompson Lake, and wetlands have occurred, Nestlé has continued to pump,“ explained Swier.
The hearings are a start for the federal government to begin to look at the issues of environmental risks of the water bottling industry’s extraction of water.
For background on MCWC and the various lawsuits, water law disputes, Jim Olson’s summary of key points and comment on testimony, and Terry Swier’s testimony, see MCWC’s web site at www.saveMIwater.org.
In her testimony, Swier explained to the panel that Nestlé’s harm to a stream, two lakes, and wetlands was upheld in three courts in the case Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America. The finding of fact that Nestle caused substantial harm at levels lower than it is 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.
Jim Olson, legal counsel for MCWC, said, "Nestle witnesses evaded questions from Congressional panel about harm caused by Nestle's pumping for bottling operation in Michigan. Nestlé told the committee it had not caused harm to a stream in Michigan. In fact, three courts in Michigan, trial to the Supreme Court, have limited pumping in Michigan because Nestle has and continues to cause harm there.
During 19 days of trial given sound science, Nestlé’s pumping was found to have reduced stream flow by over 27% for a large stream segment, dropped levels by 2 to 4 inches, and dropped the levels of two lakes by 4 to 6 inches. During natural seasonal or cyclical lows, this makes the difference between public use, fishing, and the integrity of the stream or harm or loss of aquatic organisms.
Dr. David Hyndman, an expert in the Michigan case, explained to the panel, how the exposed bottomlands and harm to the stream shown in a picture to Nestlé's representative and the Subcommittee panel was caused by Nestlé's pumping during low flow periods or the summer growing season.
“Nestlé purports to being a “good neighbor” company to our area, yet it continued to pump at high rates during a long period of low precipitation and lower recharge. Even when bottomland and other dramatic impacts and damage to the Dead Stream, Thompson Lake, and wetlands have occurred, Nestlé has continued to pump,“ explained Swier.
The hearings are a start for the federal government to begin to look at the issues of environmental risks of the water bottling industry’s extraction of water.
For background on MCWC and the various lawsuits, water law disputes, Jim Olson’s summary of key points and comment on testimony, and Terry Swier’s testimony, see MCWC’s web site at www.saveMIwater.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)