In 1972, the Great Lakes Program was created by both the US and Canada to protect the integrity or the five Great Lakes. In the US, the EPA administers the Great Lakes National Program, which has a budget of $15 million per year to spend on restoring and maintaining the ecosystems and cleanliness of some very important bodies of water. Also recently, The Great Lakes were deamed a "national treasure" by an executive order issued by the President in 2004 which created a task force for the lakes.
What I did not realize was HOW important these lakes are. The Great Lakes account for 18% of the all the fresh water on the planet (Daniels and Daniels 246)! Also, "The water in the Great Lakes accounts for more than 90% of the surface freshwater in the U.S. (EPA)." Plus their watershed supplies drinking water to 30 million people in Canada and the US. There is also a lot of economic prosperity associated with the protection of the lakes, including recreation with hunting, boating, and fishing.
So, to protect these vital water resources, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was created to recognize areas of concern and address their biological, physical, and chemical properties. However, last year The Center for Public Integrity released an article that contains a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that the public agencies tried to keep from the public because they claimed it was too "alarming." The problem is that water quality standards may not be properly enforced or high enough to protect the health of the surrounding citizens; they reported an increase in infant mortality and rates of cancer. What I found interesting was that there was nothing on the EPA's website about this Executive Summary of the Public Health Implicaitons of Hazardous Substances in the 26 Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
One of the visions of the EPA concerning the Great Lakes is: "The Great Lakes are protected as a safe source of drinking water." However, it seems that there is not enough being done because many other reports have been done about the quality of the water aside from the previous one mentioned about human health. There were a few concerning mercury content found in fish, and how "every year, over 24 billion gallons of sewage and wastewater discharge are dumped into the Great Lakes" (The Epoch Times) because of poor management during rainy weather that causes spillover of hazardous chemicals into the lakes.
I think this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed more in-depth because of the growing demand for fresh water resources. If we do not take care of our current supplies, the cost of cleaning up that pollution will be much more than the cost to prevent it going into the Great Lakes, in terms of health and money.
Hopefully the newest program, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which includes a $475 million budget in 2010 to protect the Great Lakes and address non-point pollution, which as we have learned is very difficult to do and is a huge problem for water quality, will make a difference and restore our "national treasure."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Great Lakes are also home to a huge freight industry. The St. Lawrence river provides inland access for shipping, which adds to the pollution within the lakes. Another threat to the Great Lakes "national treasure" status is the Asian Carp described in my entry. This invasive species continues to inch towards the Great Lakes and has the potential to whipe out numerous native species to the region. The Great Lakes millions with fresh water, food and even income, and if the water and ecosystem are not protected, the losses will ripple through the US economy.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by the information provided that the government has not attempted to preserve and protect the Great Lakes before starting the Restoration Initiative program. This is a step in the right direction concerning the standards of the water quality and pollution prevention. I too find it quite interesting that the EPA is almost “covering up” studies which show upsetting and contradictory results. I feel as though the goals of the project could be more stringent and push for harsher legislation and water quality standards in order to put a stop to more health concerns and preserve the aquatic life.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Hamilton