NYT: Officials Lay Groundwork for Great Lakes Cleanup (will it be funded?)

[DeepModem Mom]

Officials Lay Groundwork for Cleanup of Great Lakes
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: December 4, 2004


WASHINGTON, Dec. 3 - Dozens of officials from the United States and Canada signed a declaration on Friday that outlines a comprehensive plan to clean up the Great Lakes and the major waterways that feed them.

As one of President Bush's major environmental initiatives, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration combines federal, state, local and tribal resources to broaden the continuing restoration efforts that have lacked such coordination....

***

The collaboration sets forth a framework for establishing committees, lines of communication and overarching goals leading to cleaner water - the Great Lakes contain about 20 percent of the world's fresh water supply and serve as a source of drinking water for more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada....

***

What the framework does not provide, however, is a financing scheme, asserting that those who signed the declaration acknowledge that participation "is subject to funding availability."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/04/politics/04lakes.html

[amandabeech]

1. The next president, a Democrat will fund it.

My biggest concern is that funding for this program will be conditional on mass diversion of Great Lakes water to the south and west. That would be worse than any carp, zebra mussels or lamprey eels.

[oneighty]

2. Yes

Precious water must be cleaned up before being shipped off to the southwest red states.

No Canadian water will be taken, only that water belonging to the USofA will participate.

180

[oly]

3. I grew up about 6 blocks from Lake Superior. I looked out

on the lake every school day K through 6th grade. Lincoln school was a block from the lake. The lake is amazing -- which is an amazing understatement. It has suffered greatly over the years.

This effort is not the first getting support from many groups. Much good has been done to protect the lake over the years.

Oneighty's comment about a pipeline to TX is not hyperbole. The idea has been around at least since the 60's when I first heard about it. Laws prohibit this today to the extent the water taken from the lake watershed must be replaced. (I think I'm reasonable current on this issue.) Two pipes, one with precious lake water outbound and one returning with questionable water, actually have been discussed in some quarters. (The Chicago River diversion was grandfathered into the law, by the way.)

I'm worried. I think that a "compromise" could be worked out by this Bush group whereby lake water could be legally diverted in exchange for cleanup money. I hope I'm wrong.