What others have said >

Detroit, Michigan, November 2, 2005

Key points presented at the public meeting

• Thank you for the IJC's intense efforts to put together these public meetings, and to ensure that citizens and groups have plenty of opportunity to participate in the Agreement's review.
  
  
• A revised Agreement can be a model for sustainable development, a regional water management policy that all elements of the basin can work from. The current Agreement has worked well to establish cooperation between the two countries, and to establish common objectives. The possible revision of the Agreement is an opportunity to recognize the human needs within a healthy ecosystem, to focus on the ecosystem as a whole with all elements focused on equally, and to ensure a sustainable economy, environment and lakes ecosystem. The governments should take this opportunity to revise the Agreement so that it emphasizes a regional water management approach to policy that focuses on sustainable development, economic development, and environmental protection.
  
  
• Industry must be a continuing and active participant in the Agreement's review process, because a viable Great Lakes region must include communities with places to work, live and be educated.
  
  
• The IJC has and can again play a vital role in elevating the importance of the Agreement, and of the Great Lakes themselves.
  
  
• Since attending IJC meeting in Indianapolis in 1983, have come to appreciate just how important the Agreement is to Great Lakes restoration, and the role the IJC has played in past in Great Lakes initiatives. The IJC's role has lessened in recent years, and the respect it has in the region has also declined.
  
  
• The reports the Great Lakes advisory boards produced in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s were the most thorough and professional documents produced in both countries. Those reports are not produced anymore, and are sorely missed.
  
  
• The biennial meetings of that time had hundreds of people in attendance, and Great Lakes issues were front and center in the public's minds.
  
  
• Whether the lessened role and output from the IJC is because of the 1987 Protocol to the Agreement or that the media and others have moved on to other topics, this history is important to consider because of the important role the IJC played as a well-respected and very central part of the Agreement process. The Agreement review should take an honest look at the current role of the IJC and its loss of stature.
  
  
• The IJC should be reinvigorated as a forum for binational dialogue and cooperation and education, an honest broker of the truth about the Great Lakes, and a facilitator to develop potential solutions to issues facing the lakes by contributing its credibility, sound science and policy recommendations.
  
  
• The IJC makes it possible for accountability to occur in the Great Lakes region, through its reports, statements and proclamations, and allowing the rest of us to hold the governments accountable for their actions to fulfill the commitments they have made.
  
  
• The IJC cannot fulfill its mandates without a strong, well-funded and well-staffed regional presence, through the Great Lakes Regional Office.
  
  
• As resident of Gary, Indiana for more than 30 years, would like to concur with previous speaker's comments concerning the change in public participation in the IJC's Agreement work over the past decade, and the need to revitalize their opportunities for the public to be involved in the IJC and the Agreement.
  
  
• The Agreement is supposed to be reviewed every six years, and it's been almost 18 years since this has occurred.
  
  
• The IJC needs to bring back its focus on involving the public through its conventions and other education efforts because no one else will do this, and it is an essential element to help the public understand binational Great Lakes protection efforts.
  
  
• The Agreement has been a key document in pushing environmental policy in both countries; we need to see a very proactive role by the IJC to ensure that the Agreement can once again be the important document that it once was.
  
  
• The Agreement's goals of zero discharge and virtual elimination are good words, but they are still failing to protect citizens from new chemicals of emerging concerns.
  
  
• The Agreement is at a critical juncture; the US government has taken a giant step backward with its recent announcement that funding will be drastically cut for the GL binational initiative.
  
  
• Contaminated sediments must be dealt with more clearly and directly. Invasive species are also a primary concern.
  
  
• The Agreement should keep its ecosystem and human health focus, and not be broadened to include economic development, which has many other programs to support it.
  
  
• The Agreement has been a very effective tool for binational cooperation between the two countries, and also between Michigan and Ontario.
  
  
• The Agreement review needs to recognize other initiatives underway throughout the region and not duplicate these efforts.
  
  
• The Agreement needs to recognize the dynamics of the lakes' ecosystem as more than just a chemical or biological entity, focusing on water uses as a top priority.
  
  
• Industrial and commercial interests must be included in the review so that the Agreement reflects the best management practices that they can use to meet the goals of the Agreement.
  
  
• It is imperative that the scope of the Agreement's review embraces the invasive species issue, and any revised Agreement should include much stronger language to address this issue. The damage from invasive species to Lake St. Clair has been devastating. The Agreement should include common standards that embrace best management practices to control existing alien species and prevent future introductions, as well as a timetable to create and enforce these standards. We've had enough advisory reports on this issue, we need action on invasive species.
  
  
• The Agreement should be a multilateral rather than just bilateral agreement. Responsibility for land use management decisions needs to be brought into the umbrella of the Agreement, which is a local governmental issue. Eight of the Clinton River Area of Concern's impairments are almost entirely created by actions taken by local governments. The RAP process and the public advisory committees include local government representation.
  
  
• The Agreement review should include strengthening the RAPs' local government and public advisory committee roles to create greater accountability for local land us planning and Great Lakes protection.
  
  
• The Great Lakes need to be protected more thoroughly from mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants.
  
  
• We need to protect the Great Lakes from any diversions.
  
  
• The Great Lakes need to be restored and the human needs for clean water must be protected from Superfund sites and other sources of significant pollution to the lakes.
  
  
• There are approximately 200 factory farms in Michigan alone, which affect Great Lakes water quality in drastic ways. The US EPA has identified agriculture as the #1 source of environmental degradation, of which 70 percent can be directly attributed to factory livestock farms. They collectively put more pollution into the lakes' ecosystem than storm water, air and land combined. These farms should be eliminated in the region eventually, and in the meantime should be subject to the same pollution restrictions as municipalities are required to follow.
  
  
• The majority of grain crops grown in the US feed livestock, and these crops are all being sprayed with pesticides and other chemicals. We need to encourage alternative agricultural practices.

Last update: