|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
December 18, 2005Update of water quality plan is up nextTRAVERSE CITY (AP) - Within 24 hours this week, leading Great Lakes policymakers pledged to pursue two ambitious goals: cleaning up their troubled waters and protecting them from becoming a giant reservoir that could be tapped at will by an ever-thirstier world.The Canadian and U.S. governments soon will tackle another project with far-reaching implications for the region's environment. They will review and possibly overhaul an agreement signed more than three decades ago to cooperate on nursing the ailing lakes back to health. The flurry of activity is partly coincidental. But it also reflects a growing sense of urgency to deal with long-festering threats to the largest surface freshwater system on the planet, says Dennis Schornack, co-chairman of the International Joint Commission, a watchdog organization that advises both governments on Great Lakes issues. "The Great Lakes are hot right now," Schornack told The Associated Press in a recent interview. "They've hit the radar screen at the highest levels of both the federal governments and the states and provinces." President Bush appointed a Cabinet-level task force in 2004 to develop a blueprint for restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem, which scientists say is in danger of collapse under the cumulative weight of toxic pollution, exotic species, sewer overflows, disappearing wetlands and other stresses. Joined by state, local and American Indian tribal representatives, the group released a 15-year plan Monday in Chicago for dealing with those and other problems. The next day in Milwaukee, eight states and two Canadian provinces signed agreements prohibiting most diversions of water outside the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin. Much haggling over details and funding remains for the cleanup plan. And the compact to protect Great Lakes water from outside raids won't become effective until ratified by the eight states' legislatures and Congress, which could take years. But it's significant that governments at all levels are committing to protect the lakes, Schornack said. With interest running high, it's an ideal time to revisit the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States, which hasn't been revised since 1987, he said. "If I were a teacher, I guess I'd give it an 'incomplete,"' Schornack said. "It's done some significant things ... the cleanliness of the water is much better. But a lot of people think the current agreement has become out of date" because it doesn't address many of today's urgent challenges. The agreement was signed in 1972 by President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. It's reviewed periodically and has been altered several times. It serves primarily as a guide for the two countries, setting joint goals and priorities. The original pact focused on phosphorus and bacterial pollution, while subsequent versions targeted toxic discharges. With another review due, the International Joint Commission solicited comment from the public this fall on how the agreement is working. It is preparing a report to the two federal governments, which are expected to begin talks on updating the agreement in spring 2006. The report probably will suggest new issues for the governments to approach jointly, such as the exotic species invasion, which has worsened considerably since the agreement's 1987 update. Scientists have counted more than 160 foreign species in the lakes and discover another roughly every eight months. Both countries are working on the crisis, but "the U.S. is going down its road and Canada is going down its road," Schornack said. They urgently need a common standard for regulating ballast water discharge from oceangoing ships, widely suspected of ferrying unwelcome invaders such as the zebra mussel to the Great Lakes from Europe, he said. Among other issues that could be added to the water quality agreement agenda: the presence of chemicals such as fire retardants and pharmaceuticals in the lakes; runoff from urbanization and large-scale farming; global warming's effects on water levels and quality. And some problems that had been considered largely solved are recurring, especially phosphorus pollution, said Herb Gray, Schornack's Canadian counterpart on the International Joint Commission. "You can never say you've completely eliminated a threat," Gray said. "There's a need for constant vigilance." Other longstanding goals aren't close to being accomplished. The 1987 version targeted 43 heavily contaminated "areas of concern" around the Great Lakes region for cleanup; two have been finished. "I'm pretty disappointed with how that process has been going," Schornack said. The Alliance for the Great Lakes, a Chicago-based environmental group, was among many that submitted comments on the water quality agreement. Cameron Davis, its executive director, said the agreement is "on the brink of becoming irrelevant" because its recommendations cannot be enforced. "The next generation of the agreement has to guarantee action. It can't just be about more planning," Davis said. "It needs to ensure follow-through, or else people in the region will be scratching their heads wondering why they should care." As an advisory body, the International Joint Commission can't force either nation to act, Schornack said. But it can provide information and apply pressure. "Sometimes people say the IJC is an institutional nag," he said. "Well, sometimes you need a nag to keep the darn process moving. We'd like to be a stronger nag, if you will."
|
|
