Obama details $5 billion plan to help restore Great Lakes 3

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   CJG Posted 11:31 pm
   18 Sep 2008

   Combined Sewage Overflow"The fund would be aimed at...fixing leaky sewers that often empty into the lakes."
   I think this needs to be expanded upon beause this is one the single most impactful problems in the Great Lakes Regions.  As a resident of the Cuyahoga River Watershed (yes, that one, but you should take a second look--its doing much better since that infamous fire), those leaky sewers aren't really leaky...the problem is different and worse.
   Simply, when heavy rains come, they directly pour raw sewage and run off into the Cuyahoga.  I believe there many watersheds where communities perform this practice.  It's called combined sewage overflow.  Instead of installing two pipelines in the commuity--one from human waste, the other for the rainwater that runs off roofs, roads, etc.--many Great lakes communities installed one pipe where both runoff and sewage were combined.  Its usually ok when there aren't torrential rains, and all sewage/runoff pipes go to a treatment plant, but on heavy rainy days, there is too much liquid for the plant to treat.  So, they open the pipes and directly flow the pipes contents (think urine, feces, car oil, chemicals washed off the ground, etc.) in the rivers, which eventually lead to the Lakes.  During the early century, when tax dollars were tight for infrastructure and urban planning was non-existent, this type of piping seemed to make the most sense to people.  Now we know better.
   While this issue should be addressed federally, the solutions will only come on all levels of government...and business.  The cost of changing the piping is ridiculous for Ohio cities...expecially since they are struggling to pay for many other services in these tight economic times.  For example, in Akron, a municipality under 250,000, I have heard replacing the treatment plant and the piping to more modern way will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.  Thats one plant, one community.  Now multiply that as many times as there are communities with combined sewage overflows in the Great lakes region (there are alot), and I am confident to bet that the sum will be far greater than 5 billion dollars, as Obama outlines.  This not a cheap problem to fix.  However, I am glad that someone cares.  In a century where water will become more and more precious in this country, the Great Lakes region will be very important for the country.

   Permalink

2. 

   noahhall Posted 4:05 am
   19 Sep 2008

   A critical look at Obama's Great Lakes PlanObama/Biden should be congratulated for putting something on the table for Great Lakes restoration.  Their campaign seems to be listening to Great Lakes advocates and responding with something better for the lakes than the status quo.  In contrast, the McCain/Palin campaign hasn't yet offered anything beyond supporting the Great Lakes compact.  That said, it's still important to take a critical look at the details of the Obama/Biden Great Lakes plan.  
   Aside from the cash, the most promising part of the Obama/Biden plan is the commitment to addressing toxic pollution.  Specifically, they promise to more strictly regulate mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act, something that the Bush administration has undermined for the past eight years.  This is a critical public health issue in our region important to anglers, children's advocates, and younger voters.  Further, as coal-fired power plants are a major source of mercury emissions, this commitment complements the Obama/Biden plan to transition to renewable energy technologies.
   The rest of the Obama/Biden plan is less impressive.  I agree that we must take "more aggressive steps" to prevent invasive species from coming into the Great Lakes, but all of the specific actions noted in the plan (regulating ballast water discharges, using electric barriers, funding education and research) are already happening.  The Obama/Biden plan for addressing invasive species doesn't offer anything that's not already being done by the states or being won through citizen lawsuits.  The plan touts a "zero tolerance policy for invasive species" but fails to say what that policy would be.  I would like to see Senators Obama and Biden join their Democratic colleagues Sen. Russ Feingold and Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, who have suggested a moratorium on overseas ships entering the Great Lakes until treatment technology is available to stop diseases and invasive species from spreading.
   I'm also very skeptical of the Obama/Biden proposal to "designate a Great Lakes Coordinator" in the U.S. EPA.  According to their plan, the new "Great Lakes Coordinator" is needed "to prioritize coordination of Federal, State and Local Agencies' agendas, policies, expertise, funds and staff."  Designating a senior level "Coordinator" to "prioritize coordination" means creating a new federal bureaucrat to coordinate the work of other federal bureaucrats.  Even more problematic, the proposal seems to suggest that this new EPA bureaucrat will have some control over the agendas, staffs, and funds of state and local governments.  The proposal does not explain how or why other agencies will follow the priorities set by a new EPA Great Lakes Coordinator.  Further, the Obama/Biden plan is basically proposing to create what already exists: the US EPA has a Great Lakes National Program Office in Chicago with a staff of 46 and a budget of almost $15 million.  If local, state, and federal agencies are not working together on Great Lakes protection, it's not for lack of EPA Great Lakes bureaucracy.    
   Finally, while I appreciate Barack Obama's support for the Great Lakes compact as both a senator and Presidential candidate (it's a prominent part of the Obama/Biden plan), this in no way differentiates him from Sen. John McCain, who also strongly supports the Great Lakes compact.  It's also a bit of an overstatement for the Obama/Biden plan to claim that Sen. Obama "is a key leader" on the Great Lakes compact.  He co-sponsored the compact approval legislation along with every other senator from the eight Great Lakes states (16 senators in all), and presumably supported it when it passed the Senate by unanimous consent.  But give him credit for recognizing a good thing and getting on board with it.    
   These minor criticisms aside, Obama/Biden should be acknowledged for their commitment to Great Lakes protection.  Their plan may lack some details and have some minor flaws, but I like that the campaign is focusing on important regional environmental issues.  Hopefully, the McCain/Palin campaign will make a similar effort.  The millions of voters in important swing states that care deeply about the Great Lakes could decide this election.
   For more info on this and other issues, see the Great Lakes Law blog at http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 3:57 am
   20 Sep 2008

   The Sewage ProblemHere in San Francisco, the city is rebuilding its sewage system and taking public comments on how it is to be rebuilt.  After talking with a few experts, I learned the following:
   There are two choices for building a sewage system as CJG describes above.  The advantage to separate systems for runoff and human waste is that during heavy rains human waste won't be dumped into waterways.  The disadvantage of that system is that runoff is discharged directly without being treated.  The advantage of the combined system is that it allows runoff to be treated before being released.  The disadvantage is that it causes human waste to be discharged with little or no treatment during heavy rains.
   Again, the solution comes down to priorities.  There's no reason that separate systems could not also provide treatment for runoff, but it's more expensive to do so.  Also keep in mind that "treatment" consists of using toxic chemicals, such as chlorine, so that treatment is not an ideal solution to this problem.  What would be much better would be to require composting toilets instead of flush ones and to require cities and towns to capture as much runoff as possible before it reaches natural waterways or watertables.  But again, composting toilets would be a turnoff to some or most people, and capturing and dealing with runoff would cost a lot of money.  You all know or should know where I stand on this, but I'll leave the conclusions to the readers.

   Permalink