Will Special Interests Win the Battle for the Great Lakes?

Catching the sun set by Andrea Marz ~Enlarge

Much has been made, deservedly so, of the $400+ million that the Obama administration has allocated to Great Lakes restoration in 2010. Many good restorative projects would not happen without this infusion of cash.

But money alone won't restore the Great Lakes.

Earlier this year I wrote in this space that the success of Great Lakes restoration would be determined not by how much money we secured, as important as that is, but by our willingness to show political will and to say no to special interests.

Remember, the Chesapeake Bay's largely failed restoration effort is attributable to compromises made, under the banner of collaboration, with agriculture and real estate developers, among others.

Perhaps the wisest words I've heard on the topic of special interests came from an experienced policy expert who said, "passing out money makes everyone happy. Great Lakes restoration will not make everyone happy."

How are we doing? Well, I'm concerned and here's why.

Great Lakes Compact

While not directly connected to restoration, the Great Lakes Compact's passage set a bad precedent when the architects, with the support of environmental groups collaborating with business, decided to support an exception to the ban on diversions for the bottled water industry, a special interest if there ever was one.  

Wisconsin is now considering the first diversion request for Waukesha, a burgeoning suburb that rests totally outside the Great Lakes watershed. The Compact has provisions for this type of request and says that the states should establish rules on which the request will be measured. Makes sense, except that Wisconsin has decided to proceed without making the rules. This makes Waukesha look more like a special interest than a "community in need", as it portrays itself in public documents. This is dangerous because precedent will be set for subsequent diversion requests.

Michigan's Wetlands

My beleaguered home state of Michigan just finished a protracted process of trying to retain management of its wetlands program. It did but interestingly, the final bill contains a provision that sets aside land for cranberry growers.

According to press reports, business and agriculture, the special interests, played hardball and were willing to walk away from a deal unless they got what they wanted.

It appears that environmental groups wanted to keep wetland management in Michigan at all costs and agreed to a bad deal. Net result, wetlands protection degraded and special interests accommodated.

Maybe just once they should walk away and let the special interests and politicians have ownership of the result, instead of providing political cover for them. That's a tired strategy that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any.  

Lakes Shipping Industry

The Great Lakes shipping industry is looking for an exemption to new EPA rules that would require it to reduce emissions. In order to comply, it would have to invest in engine upgrades and it doesn't want to do that, crying poor in light of a tough economy.

The shippers have taken their case to influential Great Lakes congressmen David Obey of Wisconsin and James Oberstar of Minnesota. Both legislators have solid Lakes protection records but they're listening, and they've put a hold on appropriating money for the EPA until the issue is resolved. The shippers, according to their industry group the Lakes Carriers Association, have called for further study of the issue.

Didn't the EPA's Great Lakes coordinator Cameron Davis say that the time for study is over?

Where to from Here?

I understand the need to negotiate and compromise. We're pretty good at that in this region and at times, too willing.

We've embraced PR firm type slogans like let's not sacrifice the good for the perfect. We've stood with politicians even when they do the least. We've worked with business and industry and denied that a loophole is a loophole. We've watched the folks who live in the shadow of Dow in Saginaw be slighted for decades. 

That's the past -  that's what we've done.

As Toledo Blade reporter Tom Henry said in his column this week, global warming isn't about symbols like polar bears. It's about people, water quality, and a list of things that will be impacted. Similarily, Great Lakes restoration must be about results, not appearances or hollow "victories."

What now?

With money coming in the pipeline now is the time to show resolve. It is time to demonstrate that while we can compromise and collaborate, we also know where to draw the line and take a stand.

We need to challenge those special interests who will dilute and derail preservation and restoration, and the politicians who are aligned with them.

Because true Great Lakes protection and restoration can't make everyone happy.

gw

Update on Wednesday, October 28th.

The exemption for Great Lakes shippers (referenced above) to new emission rules was just approved by congress. It was facilitated by the Reps. Obey of Wisconsin and Oberstar of Minnesota, with the support of other Great Lakes legislators.

Here's the relevant quote from a press report.

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based advocacy group, said he was disappointed that Obey and Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, had sided with the shippers in talks with the Obama administration.

"They deservedly have a stellar record and reputation on environmental issues, but departed in this case to work essentially behind closed doors for a special interest fix for a favored industry," he said

And a (surprisingly candid) commentary by the Healing Our Waters coalition.

http://www.healthylakes.org/great-lakes-congressional-watch/congressiona...

gw