Sludge Watch ==> Study says: It would be cost effective to restore Great Lakes

[Maureen Reilly]

Restore the Great Lakes
Study finds return on investment would be double the $26 billion cost

09/11/07 6:58 AM


One key to the economic salvation of Buffalo and much of the rest of the 
American Rust Belt? We’re swimming in it.

Or we would be, if we weren’t worried about all of the untreated sewage, 
toxic pollutants, invasive species and other generally icky things that 
burden the Great Lakes.

Clean all that up, suggests a new think tank report, set the Great Lakes on 
a course of sustainable self-renewal, and the whole nation would benefit 
many times over from the expenditure of a mere $26 billion that Congress is 
being asked to provide over the next five years to fund the Great Lakes 
Regional Collaboration Strategy.

The Brookings Institution has outlined the problems with the current state 
of the lakes, their ancillary waterways and the human communities that have 
grown, thrived and, more recently, declined along their shores. The idea is 
not, anymore, to simply exploit the lakes for short-term human wants and 
needs, but to clean up the existing pollution and stop any more from coming 
in. The resulting usefulness, healthfulness and beauty of the lakes would be 
an economic draw that few locations in the world could match.

The five lakes of what they call American’s North Coast (or South Coast, if 
you’re Canadian) are still the center of some 35 million people and a source 
of drinking water, transportation and recreation for what was once, and 
could be again, one of the continent’s largest economic drivers.

If, that is, we stop using the lakes as a sewer.

Federal money to clean up the municipal and industrial wastes that go into 
the rivers and lakes would not only enhance property values and the tourism 
industry, it would also sharply cut the amount of money communities have to 
spend on treating the water when we pipe it back into our municipal water 
systems. Brookings puts the return on the $26 billion investment at $50 
billion in economic growth.

And that doesn’t count the value of increased civic pride that would accrue 
to Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, 
Duluth and other communities that only exist in the first place due to the 
bounty of the Great Lakes, and which have declined, in part, due to the 
mistreatment and abuse of the lakes.

Great Lakes area members of Congress, including those from New York, have 
been pushing the agenda. But with most members of Congress living elsewhere 
and caring all too little about cleaning up Buffalo’s main asset, it may be 
a long paddle upstream.

But it’s well worth the effort. And the whole continent will be the poorer 
if they fail.


........................................
Benefits of cleaning Great Lakes cited
$26 billion plan would bring in more, experts say
By DAN EGAN
degan at journalsentinel.com
Posted: Sept. 5, 2007
A road map to restore the Great Lakes has been circulating in Congress for 
nearly two years, but so far lawmakers have largely balked at the route.

Great Lakes
Recent Coverage
5/23/07: Lock the lakes, groups say
5/23/07: Landowners getting help to quicken shore cleanup

Troubled Waters Series Archive
Archive: The entire series of reports on acute problems plaguing Lake 
Michigan and the Great Lakes region.



Buy a link hereMoney is a big reason. Twenty-six billion dollars is the 
estimated cost to clean up the lakes' toxic messes, cork the chronic sewer 
overflows, restore trashed wetlands and stem the onslaught of invasive 
species, among other things.

But an independent panel of economic experts said Wednesday that the 
restoration plan shouldn't be viewed as an expense, but as an economic 
opportunity. They maintain that fixing the world's largest freshwater system 
would create an estimated $50 billion in long-term economic benefits.

The reason: Healthy waters are not only good for the people and wildlife 
that depend on them. In this increasingly thirsty world, they are also good 
at attracting investment.

"These restoration activities are not just a nice thing to do for the 
environment," said study co-author John C. Austin, a senior fellow with the 
Metropolitan Policy Program at The Brookings Institution, a Washington, 
D.C.-based think tank contracted to do analysis. "They are essential things 
to do for job creation in (the) region."

The gains would primarily be tied to increases in tourism, property values, 
fishing and other recreational activities.

The report also estimates the region would get a short-term boost of at 
least another $30 billion simply from the restoration dollars being injected 
into the regional economy, but study authors noted that such a benefit would 
occur with any public works project of that size.

The report is based on the benefits of funding a Great Lakes restoration 
plan created after an executive order signed by President Bush in 2004 in 
the heat of his re-election bid.

Released in 2005
The plan, put together by a group of environmentalists, scientists, civic 
and tribal leaders, among others, was released with great fanfare in late 
2005. The hope was the Great Lakes region could persuade the federal 
government to help fund a restoration plan similar to one under way in the 
Florida Everglades. But the cash never came.

Conservationists say too much has been made about its cost. On Wednesday, 
they said it was time to start talking about the benefits.

"It is a large initial outlay, but there will be economic returns that far 
exceed the costs," said Andy Buchsbaum, executive director for the National 
Wildlife Federation's Great Lakes office.

The restoration plan includes more than $13 billion for sewer system 
upgrades, $1.6 billion to improve drinking water quality by protecting its 
sources and about $800 million to clean up contaminated sediments. The plan 
also calls for spending up to nearly $1 billion to restore up to 550,000 
acres of wetlands.

The funding likely would come from a combination of federal, state and local 
governments.

Authors of the economic analysis said the clock is ticking.

"The report makes it clear that investing in the Great Lakes is a wise 
investment now, but the longer we wait to restore the Great Lakes, the 
higher the price tag will be," Austin said.

Bringing issue to election
Funding for the report came from The Joyce Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, 
Consumers Energy Foundation and Dow Chemical Foundation.

The report was released the day before the kickoff of the third annual Great 
Lakes Restoration Conference in Chicago; the event is expected to draw about 
250 scientists, government workers, environmentalists, tribal members and 
public officials.

One of the topics at the two-day conference will be how to make the 
restoration plan an issue in next year's federal elections.

Great Lakes advocates say it is an issue both parties should be paying 
attention to.

"If the lakes are sick, our economy gets sick," Buchsbaum said.