Pay What You Owe

After every group dinner, there comes a time to divvy up the check.

In the non-profit world, this can get a little tense. We often meet with donors, lawmakers, and other groups' officers at a corner bar about a half mile from our office. It's a great setting for after-work strategy sessions, but they don't do split checks. At all. And we don't do expense accounts.

Usually we write down our share based on what we ordered on the front. It's a good system. And people in our industry are pretty honest about these things.

For some reason this gets thrown out the window when we're talking about environmental cleanup. Sure, we still get a group tab - but the people who do the damage spend half their time saying they didn't do it. The other half of the time they lobby the rest of us to cover their share. When it comes to the damage done by invasive invertebrates, Asian carp, and other foreign species now squatting in the Great Lakes, well, the shipping companies have told states that it's everyone's problem. Shame they weren't so willing to share their profits.

We've thought about this a lot lately in the office. And we've come to the conclusion that the best analogy for the multinational shipping industry is the tobacco industry. It's another group of profit-seeking corporations which caused a lot of damage while leaving everyone else to clean up the very expensive, very painful mess.

No one wants to sue over a split appetizer. But when the numbers get into the hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe it's time to send in the lawyers.

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative of 2009 that included $475 Million to the Great Lakes and almost a billion for sewer infrastructure modernization appears to be the high water mark for Great Lakes awareness and action. But, as stunning an accomplishment as it was, I am not sure that statement is a positive one.



Since the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is such a momentous undertaking, we should expect, or even demand, momentous results. However, in the two years since its launch, there seems to be little to show. Even with some successful and needed projects, the EPA process of spending the funds has been wrought with delays, set backs, and disagreements. While a consensus cannot be expected with such contentious politics and such a large amount of money, the Great Lakes cannot afford to be lost in the shuffle.



To make matters worse, the horizon grows bleaker with each passing day. The “Super Committee,” certainly a misnomer, set to address the budgetary concerns that dominated Washington this summer continue to illustrate the growing gap in Congress. Despite Congressional delegates who care about the Great Lakes, it is easy to see a scenario in which the restoration of the lakes is compromised in hopes of getting a deal done. The large amounts of money that have been given in the past could vanish, taking the health of the Great Lakes with it.



In 2011 alone, the GLRI budget was reduced 35%. Coupled with the massive algae blooms in Lake Erie and crashing fish populations in Lake Huron, the Great Lakes are actually in need of significantly more funding. With the 2012 election approaching quickly and public outrage regarding the deficit, I fear that the GLRI budget will decrease when the lakes are only growing increasingly vulnerable.



Still, there remain ardent and vocal advocates for the lakes in Congress and in the public. It is now up to them, and us, to ensure that the GLRI is not forgotten. There is a reason why Congress felt it necessary to bestow the funding in 2009. While good faith efforts to spend those funds have been made, the fact of the matter is that new problems have emerged. Let’s not let these facts become lost on Congress. Long past the election, the Great Lakes will still have problems. Our representatives cannot forget that. Let’s help them remember.





Kevin Butler works for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lake’s Office.

Remembering the GLRI

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative of 2009 that included $475 Million to the Great Lakes and almost a billion for sewer infrastructure modernization appears to be the high water mark for Great Lakes awareness and action. But, as stunning an accomplishment as it was, I am not sure that statement is a positive one.

Since the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is such a momentous undertaking, we should expect, or even demand, momentous results. However, in the two years since its launch, there seems to be little to show. Even with some successful and needed projects, the EPA process of spending the funds has been wrought with delays, set backs, and disagreements. While a consensus cannot be expected with such contentious politics and such a large amount of money, the Great Lakes cannot afford to be lost in the shuffle.

To make matters worse, the horizon grows bleaker with each passing day. The “Super Committee,” certainly a misnomer, set to address the budgetary concerns that dominated Washington this summer continue to illustrate the growing gap in Congress. Despite Congressional delegates who care about the Great Lakes, it is easy to see a scenario in which the restoration of the lakes is compromised in hopes of getting a deal done. The large amounts of money that have been given in the past could vanish, taking the health of the Great Lakes with it.

In 2011 alone, the GLRI budget was reduced 35%. Coupled with the massive algae blooms in Lake Erie and crashing fish populations in Lake Huron, the Great Lakes are actually in need of significantly more funding. With the 2012 election approaching quickly and public outrage regarding the deficit, I fear that the GLRI budget will decrease when the lakes are only growing increasingly vulnerable.

Still, there remain ardent and vocal advocates for the lakes in Congress and in the public. It is now up to them, and us, to ensure that the GLRI is not forgotten. There is a reason why Congress felt it necessary to bestow the funding in 2009. While good faith efforts to spend those funds have been made, the fact of the matter is that new problems have emerged. Let’s not let these facts become lost on Congress. Long past the election, the Great Lakes will still have problems. Our representatives cannot forget that. Let’s help them remember.

Kevin B works for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lake’s Office.

Oral Legislative Testimony on proposed Ballast Water Legislation

There is a threat of national legislation overruling the groundbreaking standard adopted by New York. In particular, the regulations proposed by the Coast Guard or the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill as amended by the LaTourette amendment would prohibit states from receiving EPA funding if they have adopted ballast water requirements that are more stringent than federal requirements. Therefore, we tried to convince the Senators to adopt a national standard containing the biological performance standards adopted by the States of California and New York.

Before the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works:

Thank you, members of the Committee, for this opportunity to testify before you today. My name is Corina Helfenstein. I am the campaign coordinator of the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes office. NWF is America’s oldest and largest conservation organization. But I am also a resident of the beautiful shores of Lake Ontario. As such, I have personally witnessed some of the disastrous consequences of the deterioration of Lake Ontario’s ecosystem. And I can tell you, the concern about invasive species that I address today is real, and it is most urgent.

I know that this particular problem has been and is currently a big concern for this Committee as well. And I applaud your commitment to the protection of the wildlife habitat of the Great Lakes, one of our nation’s most valuable natural resources.

My testimony today will focus on two issues: first, the threats by invasive species the Great Lakes are currently experiencing; and second, the importance of effective and stringent legislation against such species. The bottom line is this: the New York standards, which implement the national ballast water discharge permit, provide an effective means to fight invasive species. It would be regrettable and a huge lost opportunity to overrule them by laxer federal standards.

Aquatic invasive species are one of the biggest threats facing the Great Lakes and their tributaries today. These species have few natural predators, so they outcompete native species, reproduce massively, and damage the Great Lakes ecosystem. Once they have established themselves in the Great Lakes, it will be basically impossible to get rid of them. To give only one example, there is the Asian Carp, who’s entry into the Great Lake ecosystem is imminent, Because they eat primarily plankton and they can attain such a large size, scientists suggest that these carp have the potential to deplete zooplankton populations. Thus, they basically leave none left for many populations of native species that rely on this food source, including fish with a high value for the fishing industry. Apart from causing great ecological damage, invasive species also imply enormous economic costs. Research suggests that the annual cost to the Great Lakes region from invasive species introduced by shipping exceeds $200 million annually.

Thus, ballast water discharges from cargo ships are by far the largest source of invasive species in the Great Lakes. The groundbreaking standard adopted by New York implements the national ballast water discharge permit of the Clean Water Act. It adopts very stringent biological performance standards. This basically means that no ship can enter the Great Lakes unless it has the technology to disinfect its ballast water to stop the discharge of invasive species. Therefore, the New York standard provides exactly the stringent regulation that we urgently need to face the threat of invasive species. In contrast, the rules currently under discussion by EPA and the Coast Guard clearly fall short of this aim.

It has been claimed that with current technologies, it is impossible to meet the New York standards. But this is not true. The required technology will soon be widely available. While it is not yet in widespread use, this is simply because there was no market for it. If the New York standard is adopted nationally, this will provides sufficiently strong incentives to drive development and implementation of the technology. This is just the sort of development that Congress wanted to see when it adopted the technology-forcing Clean Water Act.

Some opponents of the New York standard claim it to be "scientifically unsupportable." However, I would call the alternative of not having stringent standards “economically and ecologically unsupportable”. We have to keep in mind that the ecological and economical costs generated by invasive species will be borne for centuries to come.

Therefore, I encourage you to dismiss any proposal for a national ballast water control less stringent than the standard introduced by New York.

Thank you.