U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–636 PDF 2008

THE IMPACTS OF NUTRIENTS ON 

WATER QUALITY IN THE GREAT 

LAKES 

(110–127) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 12, 2008 (Port Huron, MI) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice Chair 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Freeman, Carl, Professor of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Department of Biology, Detroit, Michigan .............................................................. 6 

Henning, Lynn, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Water Sentinel, Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, Clayton, Michigan .............................................. 6 

Leady, Lieutenant Colonel William J., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit 

District, Detroit, Michigan .................................................................................. 29 

Lehman, John, Professor of Biology, University of Michigan School of Biology, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan ........................................................................................... 6 

Richards, R. Peter, Senior Research Scientist, National Center for Water 

Quality Research, Heidelberg College, Tiffin, Ohio ........................................... 6 

Ridgway, Jim, P.E., Executive Director, Alliance of Rouge Communities, Detroit, Michigan ...................................................................................................... 6 

Stow, Craig, Physical Research Scientist, Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Ann Arbor, Michigan .............................................. 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 38 

Stupak, Hon. Bart, of Michigan .............................................................................. 42 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Freeman, D. Carl ..................................................................................................... 46 

Henning, Lynn ......................................................................................................... 49 

Leady, William J. ..................................................................................................... 62 

Lehman, John T. ...................................................................................................... 71 

Richards, R. Peter .................................................................................................... 73 

Ridgway, James W. ................................................................................................. 75 

Stow, Craig ............................................................................................................... 82 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Bill Parkus, written statement ...................................................................................................................... 93 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, ‘‘Understanding Great Lakes 

Water Level Fluctuations and Current Conditions’’ ......................................... 96 

vi 


42636.001
vii 


42636.002
viii 


42636.003
ix 


42636.004
x 


42636.005
xi 


42636.006
xii 


42636.008
xiii 


42636.009
(1) 

THE IMPACTS OF NUTRIENTS ON WATER 

QUALITY IN THE GREAT LAKES 

Monday, May 12, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, Port Huron, MI. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 12:11 p.m., in the 

Board of Commissioners Room, St. Clair County Commission, 200 

Grand River Avenue, Port Huron, Michigan, Hon. James L. Oberstar presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. 

Welcome, and good afternoon. I want to thank at the outset Con- gresswoman Candice Miller for inviting me and the Subcommittee 

to participate in a full regular hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Water Resources and Environment in Port Huron in this part of 

her district that borders right on one of our great treasures of the 

Great Lakes system, and to express my appreciation for her participation in the work of the Committee and for advocacy for clean 

water in the Great Lakes and for our whole nation. 

As all of you who are here, I am quite confident, understand and 

concur, these Great Lakes of ours are home to one-fifth of all the 

fresh water on the face of the Earth except for that which is locked 

up in ice. And all the water there ever was or ever will be on Earth 

is with us today, can’t make any more of it. So it is up to us in 

this generation to pass on to the next generation that treasure of 

clean water, hopefully in better condition than we received it. 

So Congresswoman Miller’s advocacy for clean water strikes a 

very responsive cord with me and—and I think with most Members 

of Congress and certainly with those who serve on our Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

Our Subcommittee Chair had intended to be here to chair this 

hearing but she had an unavoidable conflict in her own district, so 

you get the Chairman of the Full Committee to chair the hearing. 

I would have been here anyway but I don’t get to chair very many 

meetings because the Subcommittee Chairs do that so I’m—I’m delighted, and I just want to observe that Miss Miller is also a very 

hardworking Member of our Committee. From where I sit I can 

look down and see who’s—who’s present, who’s doing their homework and who’s not, and Miss Miller shows up for our Subcommittee hearings and for our Full Committee markups and she’s 

doing her homework and I appreciate that. 

2 

We’re meeting to receive testimony on the impact of nutrients on 

Great Lakes water quality. Nitrogen, phosphorous, in appropriate 

amounts, are essential for aquatic systems and for land based systems. But excessive amounts of nutrients result in harmful consequences, the worst of which is algae blooms. They also result in 

reduced spawning grounds, reduced nursery habitat for fish, they 

also cause fish kills, hypoxic or dead zones and public health concerns that result from impaired drinking water and increased exposure to toxic microbes. Excessive nutrients have significant impacts 

over large areas and within entire watersheds. 

The effects can be local, they can be downstream, they can lead 

to degraded estuaries, to deteriorated river systems, to adversely 

effected drinking water reservoirs, and to the creation of hypoxic 

dead zones where fish and aquatic life cannot exist. 

The focus of this hearing is on the impact of nutrient contamination of the Great Lakes. Wide spread nutrient contamination is a 

national issue. It’s one that deserves the Committee’s continued attention, to which we have already devoted attention and will continue in the course of this Congress. 

Some widespread examples are the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River system and its Delta. In the Chesapeake Bay, excessive nutrient loading has been widely cited as the primary cause 

for water quality deterioration, loss of shell fish and fish life, deterioration of the blue crab community and the oyster community. At 

one time oysters were able to filter all the water of Chesapeake 

Bay, the largest estuary of the world. Now that’s not happening. 

Implementing proper control mechanisms are widely recognized 

as necessary to meet the 2010 deadline for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and yet we’re falling ever further behind. The problems 

of the Chesapeake Bay don’t begin at the waters edge on Kent Island, but they go all the way to upstate New York, to upstate 

Pennsylvania, to West Virginia, to Maryland. 

Similarly, in the Gulf of Mexico, the Mississippi River system 

contributes the pollution and other toxic loading from 11 states and 

to that estuary that extends from New Orleans out into the Gulf. 

But because of the national scale of the problem and the reluctance of states along the Mississippi, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri River 

system to shoulder their appropriate share of responsibility, the 

dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is unlikely to be resolved anytime 

in the near future. 

Now the first, I would say even the—having served on the Committee since I started in 1963 as Clerk of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, serving for my predecessor John Blatnik, who was 

Chair of that Subcommittee and later Chair of the Full Committee, 

go back a long ways; not to when the Hill was founded but just 

shortly afterward. The most extraordinary moment of the Cuyahoga River catching on fire, the large fish kills in Lake Erie, and 

the solemn pronouncement that Lake Erie was dead in the 1960s 

when excessive nutrients escalated the growth of algae, and soon 

it became the dominant plant species blocking out light, killing 

fish, covering the beaches with a slimy, mossy covering, and absorbing all of the oxygen galvanized the nation and the Congress 

to demand to do something. 

3 

The doing something was the Clean Water Act of 1972. But what 

was clear even before the enactment of that legislation was that 

phosphorus was the limiting element, that is if you remove the 

phosphorus even more than removing nitrogen, you will begin to 

restore oxygen levels and water quality. But plants and algae growing, dying and decomposing in Lake Erie causing oxygen deficiency 

at the bottom of the lake, or anoxia, resulted in fish kills and 

beaches covered with the slimy residue of—of the algae. 

Well, enacting the Clean Water Act of 1972 and the funding 

reached almost $6 billion a year for building of sewage treatment 

facilities, interconnecting sewer systems, collector systems and the 

Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, also in ’72, 

began to reverse the process. 

Lake Erie was then proclaimed a dead lake. One group of scientists suggested that we ought to just punch a hole in the bottom 

and let it all drain somewhere was for a while seriously considered, 

but then people realized that that was not a very good idea. That 

treatment of the watershed was critical, treatment of the point 

sources was critical, and industry, municipalities, individuals, federal and state government and local governments all joined together and restored the water quality of Lake Erie. 

But we’re beginning to see the re-emergence of a dead zone 

again. The bottom waters in the central basin are becoming anoxic 

at high summit partly due to excessive nutrient loadings, and some 

because of the nutrients that already were on the bottom haven’t 

been cleaned out were beginning to resurge. We’re also seeing 

harmful algal blooms at Bear Lake, at Muskegon Lake, Saginaw 

Bay and western Lake Erie. 

Now, why? Well, we’re beginning again to see runoff from lawns, 

from roads, from farm land, accumulate at a rate that overfeeds 

the algae that normally exist in the environment. And add to that, 

invasive species, the zebra muscles and the quagga muscles that 

are filter feeders that filter the food in—in the water column, and 

filter it out, deposit their own wastes in the bottom, and then allow 

more light to penetrate more deeply and create more growth that 

then create another cycle of deterioration. 

Those are issues that witnesses today will help us to understand 

better, to give us a deeper understanding of how best to take on 

the problem of nutrient pollution, how to control it, contain it, control it and reverse it. And I’m looking forward to witnesses who can 

give us their insights on monitoring and control mechanisms, their 

sufficiency, the need for additional action, for perhaps funding for 

treatment of—or rebuilding of our waste water treatment systems 

and how together, federal, state and local government can work to 

successfully address this vexing but very, very dangerous problem 

of the resurgence of nutrient stimulated deterioration of lake quality. 

Chair now yields to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Miss Miller, for her statement. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to welcome all of our witnesses certainly and 

those of you that are joining us in the audience today, and I certainly want to first of all, recognize and thank the county commissioners for allowing us to use their beautiful room here. 

4 

I know we have a couple of county commissioners in the audience, I saw Jeff Bloom and—and Commissioner Heidemann as well 

a little bit earlier. We also have some state representatives who 

have been working on many of these issues in the state level, State 

Representative Pavlov and Espinoza join with us as well as many 

people from the environmental community. I know the Farm Bureau is represented here and people who are really interested in 

this issue. 

But most of all I certainly want to thank and welcome to Port 

Huron, the maritime capital of the world of the Great Lakes here, 

our wonderful Chairman, and you all heard a—had an opportunity 

to hear his opening comments here, but Chairman Oberstar and I 

share a very principal advocacy of protecting our Great Lakes and 

when I had an opportunity to go to Congress I said if I could get 

on any Committee there I would like to get on the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee for a number of reasons, not the 

least of which is because of the wonderful leadership that Chairman Oberstar has demonstrated and I knew he was a Great Lakes’ 

guy and those very—issues very near and dear to me and the 30 

years that I’ve been involved in public service and having an opportunity now to be on this Committee and work with him and other 

Members of the Committee on Great Lakes issues, which are so 

critical to all of us, has been a tremendous thing. 

Our Committee just passed with his leadership, finally, after— 

its way overdue, but we—he has pushed this through the—our— 

our Subcommittee, our Full Committee, went to the full House and 

is now waiting at the Senate for action on invasive species, which 

you mentioned, and ballast water discharge. 

All of us are painfully aware of the negative impact that invasive 

species have had on our Great Lakes and this—this piece of legislation essentially requires the salties, the ocean going freighters, before they come through the St. Lawrence Seaway entering into the 

Great Lakes, to discharge their ballast water out in adequate depth 

in the ocean before they come into the Great Lakes. 

We’ve also worked together on state revolving funds, which was 

something we were discussing on our way traveling in from the airport today to the—to the hearing, which will allow for states and 

local municipalities to access funding to assist them with inadequate underground infrastructure. 

We are in a community right now that is dealing with such a 

thing where you have combined sewer overflows that happen after 

heavy rains. It’s not particularly inherent to—to Port Huron or any 

of the older industrial towns that have experienced growth, certainly since the time that they built their infrastructure, and we’re 

trying to assist with those kinds of things and the Committee has 

been very, very involved and these are wonderful pieces of legislation. 

We also have worked on the Water Resources Development Act, 

again something that was long overdue, and you really pushed that 

thing through and I appreciate that. It’s very important for the 

Great Lakes, a number of different critical components of that—of 

the reauthorization of the WRDA Bill, as we call it, very important 

to the Great Lakes, so so many different issues that this ComVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:56 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42636 JASON
5 

mittee has worked at and all of—pretty much all of the Great 

Lakes issues do go through this—this Committee. 

Transportation, of course, is absolutely a huge part of our national agenda, but often times as I say, people don’t recognize all 

the water quality issues that go through the Committee, so it’s 

been a wonderful experience for me. 

And—and when I asked the Chairman about the possibility of 

having a field hearing in Port Huron his reaction obviously was 

very positive. And, not to talk out of school here, but I think I can 

tell the folks, that he’s been to Port Huron many times besides today’s event. His favorite uncle was a resident of Port Huron and 

so he’s spent many happy hours here as a child and growing up 

and probably knows the City of Port Huron as well as anybody sitting in this room I will tell you, and so we had an opportunity to 

go take a look at the bridge and talk about the bridge plaza 

projects and we looked down at Desmond Landing, I was explaining to him some of the different waterfront development things, 

things that are happening, the positive things happening in the 

city. 

And I also mentioned, and we are going to showcase with our 

testimony here today, how proud we are of our water quality monitoring system which can be a national model, and we’ll talk about 

that during the Committee hearing here with our testimony, but I 

was mentioning to him about how SC4 just recently received some 

federal appropriation to—for their curriculum where they’re going 

to be training young men and women on water quality monitoring 

systems and as—as our state changes a bit from some blue collar 

jobs to some green collar jobs we have wonderful opportunity right 

here in the Blue Water area to do that and as well working with 

the Chairman and other Members of the Committee on the phosphorus issues and on the nutrient issues which will be very interesting to hear the expert testimony on this today. 

As many people know, there are two states that have been actually a leader on this, both Florida and Minnesota, the Chairman’s 

state, have passed statewide restrictions, or bans, we’ll hear some 

about that for phosphorus, and Michigan of course, has now got 

some legislation in the state house, a similar thing because we 

have so many of our local municipalities that are passing their own 

individual ordinances to deal with phosphorus. We see it in Lake 

St. Clair, we see it in the muck issue all around the thumb area 

into Saginaw Bay and various other parts of our state on the West 

Side and so I think from the federal level today we’ll be interested 

to hear about what we can do as a Congress to bring more attention to this issue and what may be appropriate role for us to play, 

again all with a impetus toward protecting water quality and—and 

what we can do that is reasonable but is very, very necessary to 

protect the quality of our, as I say, our magnificent Great Lakes. 

So again, I welcome the Chairman to Port Huron, and welcome 

back to Port Huron, and we are so delighted to have you and to 

have this hearing here today. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Miss Miller. And to that splendid 

recitation, I told you she does her homework, follows the work of 

the Committee and active participate. 

6 

I want to add, in light of your initiatives here in Port Huron, 

that we passed H.R. 569, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007, 

through Committee and through the House to provide a billion six 

hundred million dollars in federal grants to communities to address 

their combined storm and sanitary sewer overflow problems. If only 

the United States Senate would act on it now and get that over to 

the President, have it signed, we did that last year, in the first session of this Congress. 

So, without any further comment that might get me in trouble 

with the United States Senate, which I’ve done on many occasions, 

we’ll proceed with our very distinguished panel of witnesses, the 

first panel of witnesses, and we’ll—we’ll begin with Dr. Craig Stow, 

Physical Research Scientist, the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory of NOAA at the Department of Commerce. 

Dr. Stow? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. CRAIG STOW, PHYSICAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST, GREAT LAKES ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ANN ARBOR, 

MICHIGAN; MR. CARL FREEMAN, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENT 

OF BIOLOGY, DETROIT, MICHIGAN; MR. R. PETER RICHARDS, 

SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, NATIONAL CENTER FOR 

WATER QUALITY RESEARCH, HEIDELBERG COLLEGE, TIFFIN, OHIO; MR. JOHN LEHMAN, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF BIOLOGY, ANN 

ARBOR, MICHIGAN; MR. JIM RIDGWAY, P.E., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE OF ROUGE COMMUNITIES, DETROIT, 

MICHIGAN; MS. LYNN HENNING, CONCENTRATED ANIMAL 

FEEDING OPERATION WATER SENTINEL, SIERRA CLUB 

MICHIGAN CHAPTER, CLAYTON, MICHIGAN 

Mr. STOW. Thank you again, and good afternoon Chairman Oberstar and Congresswoman Miller. I am Dr. Craig Stow, a scientist 

at NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab in Ann 

Arbor—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Please bring your microphone a little closer. 

Mr. STOW. I’m sorry. Is that—is that better now? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. A little—little closer. 

Mr. STOW. All right. As I said, I’m a scientist at the NOAA Great 

Lakes Lab in Ann Arbor, also known as GLERL, and I’ve been 

working on the issues related to nutrient inputs it aquatic ecosystems for almost the past 30 years. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Not to interrupt, but I still don’t 

think people can hear you. Could you bring that—there you go. 

Mr. STOW. Is that—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Pull it right up to you. 

Mr. STOW. That—that going to be adequate? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There you go. 

Mr. STOW. Okay. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That’s better, yeah. 

Mr. STOW. All right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You can even bend that microphone down a little 

bit. There you go. 

7 

Mr. STOW. Okay. Well, thank you for inviting me to testify today 

about GLERL’s activities that relate to the larger issue of nutrient 

related pollution in the Great Lakes. 

Our newest project is a study of the impact of multiple stressors 

from human activities such as toxic contaminants, invasive species, 

over fishing, changing water levels and excessive nutrients in Saginaw Bay, an area where we have a long history of studies. The 

combined effects of these stressors have compromised the health of 

Saginaw Bay and resulted in the loss of many ecosystem services 

that people value. 

This five-year project began in 2008 and is funded by a $3.76 

million grant from the NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Oceans 

Research. On this project the NOAA Great Lakes Lab is working 

in partnership with the University of Michigan, Michigan State 

University, Limno Tec, which is a private consulting firm, Western 

Michigan University, University of Akron, and Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality, and this 

last association is important, they are integral partners on this 

project, and as information becomes available it is something they 

can use to effect changes as they see necessary. 

The project also includes surveys to assess public values so that 

decision makers can devise policies that are consistent with public 

attitudes, and currently we are initiating a citizen monitoring program to provide additional data and engage residents in the area 

in our research. 

Excessive nutrients, phosphorus in particular, have been important stressors in Saginaw Bay and the other Great Lakes areas for 

many years. Nutrients are essential for aquatic ecosystems but excessive nutrient inputs can cause eutrophication. And eutrophication has a number of undesirable symptoms that include nuisance 

and harmful algal blooms, reduced oxygen levels and sometimes 

fish kills. 

These problems were recognized in the Great Lakes in the 1960s 

and limits on phosphorus inputs were set in 1978 under the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The goal in Saginaw Bay at that 

particular time was to reduce problems associated with taste and 

odor at the drinking water intakes. These initial controls were fairly effective and resulted in documented decreases in phosphorus 

concentrations in the water and the symptoms of eutrophication diminished through the 1980s. 

In the 1980s and 1990s our focus sort of shifted to toxic pollutants such as PCBs and nutrient related problems faded into the 

background. However, in the mid to late 1990s it became apparent 

that problems with eutrophication persisted, not just in the Great 

Lakes, but across the country. Non-point source nutrient inputs 

such as runoff from farm and towns are an ongoing problem and 

in some aquatic ecosystems phosphorus has accumulated in the 

bottom sediments serving as a continuing supply even though inputs have been reduced. 

In addition, Saginaw Bay has experienced profound changes 

since the 1990s. In particular, the introduction of invasive zebra 

mussels and more recently the closely related quagga mussels. 

These mussels live on the bottom and filter large amounts of water. 

This filtering activity removes particles and other pollutants which 

8 

makes the water clearer and is generally considered a beneficial effect, but it also fundamentally changes the way nutrients and other 

pollutants move through the system. Zebra and quagga mussels are 

also believed to foster the growth of toxic algal species promoting 

harmful algal blooms. 

A major concern around Saginaw Bay currently is muck, which 

is what the local folks refer to as the—are the decaying algae that 

accumulates on the beaches. We believe that muck is primarily 

Cladophora, a species of algae that grows on the bottom, and has 

been a problem periodically in the past. The growth of Cladophora 

is fostered by the clear water that results from filtration by the 

zebra and the quagga mussels. As the water becomes clearer more 

sunlight can reach the bottom causing the Cladophora to grow. 

Cladophora growth may also be stimulated by the accumulation of 

phosphorous near the bottom that also results from filtering by the 

zebra and the quagga mussels. 

Low water levels may also be contributing to this problem. With 

shallower water more light can penetrate to the bottom and there 

are more shallow areas and more exposed beach area. So Saginaw 

Bay is now fundamentally different than it was when phosphorus 

limits were established. 

Additionally, as our concern with nutrients waned in the 1980s, 

so did nutrient monitoring and as we began this project it was unclear if phosphorus limits that were established under the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement were being met currently. Further, since the introduction of the invasive mussels, it’s unclear if 

these limits are even still relevant. 

Given the influence of these invasive mussels and the lower lake 

levels, it may not be practically feasible to reduce phosphorus 

enough to effectively control these troublesome symptoms of eutrophication. 

The goal of our multiple stressors project is to shed some light 

on these processes and to work interactively with managers and 

stakeholders to clarify possible management approaches and identify management limitations. Some of the problems I’ve mentioned 

are specific to the Great Lakes but the general problem of interacting stressors effects lakes and coastal ecosystems everywhere. 

So thank you for inviting me to testify and I’m happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your splendid scientific work and 

the contribution you’ve made today, broader and deeper understanding of this issue. 

Our next witness, Dr. Carl Freeman, Professor of Biological 

Sciences, Wayne State University, Department of Biology from Detroit, welcome. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today about water quality monitoring. 

We sit here at the headwaters of a massive river, the St. Clair 

River, which flows at 6000 cubic meters per second, making it one 

of the largest rivers in North America. This massive volume of flow 

is incredibly important to what I’m going to say today. And I’m 

going to apologize for sounding like a teacher, but this is one of 

those important facts I would really like you to remember as I go 

along. 

9 

Why do we need monitoring? Because people, agriculture, and industry all use water and unfortunately also contribute to the pollution of the remaining water which others use. I’m going to argue 

that we need to enhance our monitoring capabilities to look at more 

types of organisms and more kinds of chemicals in the water than 

we presently screen for. And because of the flow of the river and 

the rapid time scale at which events occur, we must use more rapid 

monitors than we currently do. Let me first demonstrate the need 

for monitoring. 

To quote from the Sarnia Chemical Industry brochure, ′′Sarnia is 

Canada’s largest cluster of chemical, allied manufacturing and 

R&D facilities. It includes companies such as Basell Canada, Dow 

Chemical Canada, INVISTA, Imperial Oil Limited, LANXESS (formerly Bayer), NOVA Chemical, Praxair Canada, Shell Canada 

Products, Air Products Canada, Terra International (Canada), SCU 

Nitrogen, Inc.′′ Among these are both nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer plants. These manufacturers ultimately use the St. Clair 

River or Lake St. Clair, as either a source of processing water or 

cooling water. 

In July of 2006, GAO reported on chemical spills greater than 50 

gallons that occurred in the connecting channels of the Great Lakes 

during the period 1994 to 2004. 

And let me quote here, ′′EPA spill data is of limited use.′′ According to the data available, there were 991 spill reports from the U.S. 

Side of the corridor while Canadian authorities reported only 157 

spills. However, GAO noted that ′′these reports do not accurately 

portray the actual number or volume of spills.′′ This is a huge understatement. 

According to GAO, ′′Spill notification on both sides of the corridor 

is largely dependent upon reporting by parties responsible for the 

spill, and many spills likely go unreported by responsible parties.′′ 

Now as my friend Doug Martz notes, this system of self-monitoring 

and self-reporting is likely no more effective in this venue than it 

is with speeding on the freeway—in my opinion, the policy of selfpolicing is fatally flawed. 

The GAO report went on to state that, ′′According to {EPA} officials, with the current resource constraints, they can only inspect 

facilities once every 500 or more years.′′ The report noted that EPA 

inspections had occurred—that had occurred often disclosed 

′′significant numerous spill prevention deficiencies,′′ yet EPA issued 

only four fines from 1994 to 2004. 

The Canadians have also examined their industry. According to 

the Canadian Industrial Pollution Action Team Report, quote, ′′We 

found a system that was largely in compliance with its regulatory 

requirements, yet where spills to air and water still occur... We 

could not therefore avoid the conclusion that the existing system of 

approvals, inspection, enforcement, and prosecution is not working 

as well as it should.′′ 

So, from this I conclude that industry has polluted the river and 

that there is ample opportunity for continued pollution. And that 

apparently will increase as they put in a new tar sands refinery in 

Sarnia. 

Now, currently EPA requires drinking water plants to monitor 

the quality of both raw and processed water. However, they have 

10 

infrequent testing. For example, the Detroit Drinking Water Plant 

tests for lead and copper every three years and volatile organic 

compounds four times a year. This frequency in testing is determined by EPA. 

Now, the assumption that they’re making implicitly is that water 

quality is static. This assumption is false. 

In January of 2001 Nova Sarnia reported the release of 220,000 

gallons of toluene, benzene and xylene—carcinogens and mutagens. 

This volume of chemicals would pollute 18 billion gallons of water, 

yet the Detroit Drinking Water Plant did not report the spill. It’s 

quite likely they weren’t monitoring for volatile organics that day. 

Ironically, they must monitor for pesticides used on cotton and 

pineapple fields—the closest of which are thousands of miles away, 

but drinking water plants are not required to monitor for most of 

the chemicals that have actually been spilled upstream of their intakes. 

Three years ago, I compiled a list of chemicals that had been 

spilled and compared it to the EPA’s priority pollutants list. Their 

list contained only 20 to 30 percent of the chemicals that had been 

spilled. So even if drinking water plants were monitoring, their 

equipment will likely not detect most of the chemicals (harmful or 

otherwise) that are spilled. 

Through the help of Congresswoman Miller and Senator Levin 

and state and local governments, a near real-time monitoring system now stretches along the U.S. Side of the border all the way 

from Marysville here in the upper reaches of the St. Clair to Lake 

Erie. The system has a variety of meters to detect changes in water 

quality, most of these are presently implemented. However, the 

heart of the system is a series of membrane induced mass spectrometers that are capable of analyzing more than 10,000 different 

chemicals in less than five minutes. This part of the system is still 

being deployed. Nevertheless, the system, when completed, will be 

the first in the country that analyzes water quality on the same 

temporal scale as the flow of the river, and it will be able to detect 

the overwhelming majority of the industrial pollutants likely discharged in the system. 

If this system were coupled with a three-dimensional flow model 

of the river, it would be possible to compute when and where a spill 

occurred and thus to hold the polluting party responsible. The system itself needs to be expanded, it needs to involve more depths 

and more locations. As it stands now it looks only at the drinking 

water intakes and so the majority of the spills pass above it in the 

water column. 

Now, I was going to address biological monitoring. I don’t know 

if you’d like me to still do that, my time seems to have expired. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think—I think we’re going to—we’ll come back 

to that—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. Okay. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —in the question period. We have a full agenda 

and we need to conclude by about 2:00—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —but we’ll—we’ll return to that. And meanwhile, 

I want you to think about that three-dimensional flow model of the 

river and how it could be implemented. 

11 

Dr. R. Peter Richards, Senior Research Scientist, National Center for Water Quality Research at Heidelberg College, Ohio, welcome. 

Mr. RICHARDS. Thank you Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

testify today. Like the others, I’m going to address my remarks primarily to the need for improved monitoring of the systems that 

we’re dealing with in the Great Lakes. 

I am with the Heidelberg College, National Center for Water 

Quality Research, formerly the Water Quality Lab, and our group 

has been monitoring the major tributaries to Lake Erie on the U.S. 

Side since the early ’70s and so we have considerable experience 

with what’s going on in Lake Erie. 

Mr. Chairman, you’ve already given the first half of my testimony for which I thank you. But I’d just simply point out that 

early in the process of trying to rehabilitate Lake Erie, a target 

load was established of 11,000 metric tons of phosphorus inputs on 

an annual basis from all sources. At that time the loads were on 

the order of 20 to 25,000 metric tons, so getting down to that level 

is quite a substantial achievement. But this was done about 1983 

and since that time the loads of total phosphorus have fluctuated 

about that quantity, sometimes a little higher, sometimes a little 

lower, primarily in response to the non-point source component 

which is driven by weather events and is uncontrollable and fluctuates from year to year. 

What I would point out is that we know pretty well what’s been 

going on with Lake Erie and its loadings and how they meet the 

target primarily because we monitor and we have a very intensive 

monitoring program that provides very detailed data. The—Dr. 

David Dolan, who is the person who does the data gathering and 

calculations that allow us to assess what the total loads to Lake 

Erie are, indicates that if it weren’t for the data that our lab produces he simply would be unable to calculate a respectable load estimate so this enhance—re-enforces the value of the monitoring. 

And, in fact, phosphorus loads have not been calculated for any 

of the other Great Lakes since the mid 1990s because there simply 

is not enough data to support an estimation of the loads. So we 

don’t know what’s going on, what’s going into those other Great 

Lakes the way we do with Lake Erie. 

Monitoring data also provides us a way of assessing how we’re 

doing at meeting environmental goals. With the data that we’ve 

gathered for example, we could now show conclusively that the 

loads of—of sediment and of the phosphorus attached to the sediment have decreased continuously over the last 30 years in the 

Maumee and Sandusky Rivers which are two of the major tributaries to Lake Erie. 

If we look at the data in a careful and thorough way we can also 

demonstrate that these reductions are not just a factor of weather 

or chance or something like that, they’re directly accountable to the 

management practices we put on the agricultural landscapes, primarily conservation tillage, no till, and other buffer strips and 

grass waterways, things of that sort. So, very often skeptics will 

say well, how do we know these Best Management Practices are 

working? We know because we monitor and we have the data to 

prove it. 

12 

Now at the same time over the last decade or so we’ve seen an 

alarming trend toward increases in the loadings of dissolved phosphorus, not the stuff that’s attached to the sediment but the stuff 

that’s dissolved in the water, going into Lake Erie through the 

same tributaries, and this is alarming enough that Ohio EPA has 

convened a Lake Erie Phosphorus Task Force to consider the problem and what the state’s response should be to it. Again, we know 

about this problem because we’re monitoring. 

If we were not monitoring currently, we—we’d observe problems 

in the lake, we would now be running around try to figure out 

where the problems are coming from, it would take us a decade to 

establish with confidence the importance of the tributary inputs for 

this process, and we would never know about the substantial increases that have occurred since the mid 1990s when the dissolved 

phosphorus units were at their minimum. 

What—what we find is that anytime you mention monitoring 

people throw up their hands and say well, we can’t do that, it’s too 

expensive and I guess I just have to say expense is a relative thing. 

You know, we—we operate our monitoring program which produces 

about 500 samples per year per tributary for $35,000 a station a 

year. Is that expensive? Well, it’s money. But, you know, we—we 

visit doctors once a year to monitor our cholesterol and our blood 

pressure and so forth. That’s expensive. We take our cars into the 

shop every 3,000 miles or so to change the oil and see how the engine’s doing. That’s expensive. We do these things because the alterative is potentially much more expensive and I think the same 

analogy applies here to the Great Lakes. 

What’s the cost of not knowing what’s going into the Great 

Lakes? In my view, these lakes are so valuable that the potential 

cost of not knowing what’s happening and trying to in effect manage them ′′blindfolded′′ is—far outweighs the cost of implementing 

a respectable monitoring program for them. 

It’s a simple fact that the current state of monitoring the Great 

Lakes is woefully inadequate and I just would encourage the Committee to do anything in their power to establish a more adequate 

monitoring program for the other Great Lakes. 

That completes my testimony, thank you very much. I’d be glad 

to answer questions at an appropriate time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much Dr. Richards, for your 

splendid contribution. 

Professor John Lehman, Professor of Biology, University of 

Michigan, School of Biology at Ann Arbor. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Representatives Oberstar and Miller, thank you for 

inviting me to speak with you today. 

And Mr. Oberstar, I have to congratulate you on having an excellent grasp of some of the principles that I was going to begin my 

talk with, so once again. 

The underlying cause of excessive, nuisance growth of the aquatic flora, known as algae, is excessive abundance of plant mineral 

nutrients, particularly the mineral phosphate. Phosphate is ubiquitous in nature because it enters waterways through erosion and 

weathering of rocks and soil, but its abundance is greatly amplified 

by human activities. It’s customary to distinguish between two categories of phosphate sources: Point sources and non-point sources. 

13 

Point sources include for instance, outfalls from sewage treatment 

plants. Non-point sources are diffuse, as for instance, drainage 

from streets and parking lots. 

Control of phosphate income to the Great Lakes has been a cornerstone of management strategy for water quality since the 1970s. 

The strategy rests on a simple principle, in order for algae to flourish to excess, they need an abundance of simple mineral building 

blocks from which they can make their living cells. These most 

common are carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, but those are freely 

available either from the gases of the atmosphere or from the molecules of water itself. 

Next in importance are nitrogen and phosphorus. Of these, one 

group of algae that is symptomatic of nuisance conditions can use 

nitrogen gas from the atmosphere to make their own proteins. So 

that leaves phosphate as the critical control point for preventing 

nuisance conditions. 

Phosphate is an absolutely essential mineral, it has no gas phase 

at environmental temperatures, and thus the supply of phosphate 

to lakes is a fulcrum point that leverages the size of the algal crops 

that can develop. 

Historically, the focus of regulations limiting phosphate discharges to waterways has been point sources. More recently, nonpoint sources have been attracting increased scrutiny. In part this 

may reflect the fact that each incremental gain in phosphate removal from point sources comes at an accelerating cost, and there’s 

a belief that modest and relatively inexpensive behavioral changes, 

such as retaining buffer strips of vegetation along stream banks, 

can yield positive results. 

At the societal and political level, there’s a cost-benefit analysis 

in which immediate costs associated with technical improvements 

to phosphate removal can be quantified relatively objectively, but 

future benefits are necessarily prospective and theoretical. 

Good environmental management decisions depend first on decision-making being informed by good environmental data and second on existence of a predictive theoretical framework to interpret 

the data. 

In the case of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair 

that’s now finalizing its report, it was fortunate that a body of data 

about phosphate in tributary streams exists. Those data had been 

collected in 2004 and 2005, recently enough to represent modern 

conditions. My analysis of those data caused me to conclude that 

the division between point source and non-point source phosphate 

in the Clinton River, one of the most notorious sources of nutrient 

pollution, is almost exactly 50-50. This suggests that future management controls on either point or non-point sources are equally 

viable strategies. 

One strategy for controlling non-point sources of phosphate that’s 

gaining political momentum is to restrict the use of lawn fertilizers 

containing phosphate. Many soils, particularly those derived from 

sedimentary rocks, contain enough phosphate to grow grass perennially, especially if the clippings are retained on the—on the lawn. 

Unfortunately, at this stage I must report that there is not 

enough scientific evidence to demonstrate that statutory limitations 

have produced the demonstrable improvement in water quality in 

14 

jurisdictions that have adopted the policy. It must be acknowledged 

that research in this area is in its relative infancy owing to the fact 

that the statutes and ordinances are new, and in many cases baseline data are scarce. 

That is not so for the U.S. Streams tributary to Lake St. Clair. 

For—for the existence of baseline data makes these watersheds excellent candidates for phosphate control measures that can be subject to evaluation and assessment of effectiveness. 

Such an assessment is currently underway nearby in the Huron 

River watershed of Southeastern Michigan. Ordinances banning 

phosphate from fertilizers were predicted to produce a mere 25 percent reduction in phosphate loading to the river. Statistical analyses indicate that it will take two years of weekly measurements 

now under way to learn whether the desired effect was achieved. 

With respect to reducing point sources, the aging infrastructure 

at many wastewater treatment facilities makes them ripe for renovations and upgrades to incorporate modern phosphate removal 

technologies. As opposed to the present vagaries about water quality improvements that may result from non-point source controls, 

it’s very easy to predict the reductions to phosphate loading that 

would result from reductions in the effluent phosphate concentrations from wastewater treatment facilities. In the case of the Clinton River, a 50 percent reduction in phosphate discharge will 

produce a 25 percent reduction in phosphate levels and a corresponding decrease in maximum algal biomass that can develop. 

Those numbers illustrate some of the insights and prediction that 

science can contribute to decision-making. Future water quality, 

however, depends ultimately on economic and political decisions, 

not on science alone. 

Thank you for your attention. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you’re so right in the latter observation, so 

often it’s not the technology but the political will to carry it out, 

that’s why we hold hearings. 

Mr. Jim Ridgway, Executive Director, the Alliance of Rouge Communities of Detroit. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. And a bunch of other things. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And a bunch of other things. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. I’m really honored to be speaking particularly to 

you, Chairman. This is probably the only time I will ever address 

Congress and I will not waste my five minutes repeating what 

they’ve said; nutrients are bad for our Great Lakes. I also will not 

sugarcoat the many challenges that will prevent us from averting 

the demise of our lakes. 

The Great Lakes will only be protected with strong federal leadership. I understand that you staffed the drafting of the Clean 

Water Act. At the same time, I happened to be in college and I was 

at the first Earth Day, I made it through a couple of engineering 

degrees, I’ve spent my career sort of on the other side, working 

with locals, working with industries, and we’ve done an awful lot 

of good, but there’s also things that are falling through the cracks. 

In 1972 the country looked to Congress to clean up our waters 

and Congress delivered. We’re looking at you one more time and 

we hope that you can deliver. 

15 

Right now nutrients are degrading the Great Lakes and I have 

no reason to believe that that degradation will abate in my lifetime. I’m speaking to you as a citizen to Great Lakes and a couple 

of other titles. 

The interesting thing about the Alliance for Rouge Communities 

is that the communities got together recognizing that the state was 

failing to do some things and the feds were failing to do some 

things, and the local communities got together to try to do those 

things. What I can say with all the folks I’ve worked with is they 

are the ′′A′′ students, they’re the choir to which we preach. They 

all want a clean lake and they all recognize more needs to be done. 

They’re willing to do what they can do but they are looking to the 

Federal Government to do more. They are also looking to the Federal Government for more support, and when I say more support 

I mean more money, money to facilitate the work that’s being done 

locally, money to facilitate the work that’s being done by the federal agencies and the state agencies. 

Is there really a problem? Yes. They’ve talked about it and they 

had not even really gotten to the worst cases which are blue-green 

algaes, ′′Red Tides,′′ botulism cases. There’s a lot of things about 

the nutrients that many don’t believe could happen on our Great 

Lakes. I know they can. 

Excess nutrients kill lakes. 

In the end of my testimony I’ve included a Google map. If you 

go to Google Earth, you look at it, and if you look at Saginaw Bay, 

Lake St. Clair, and western Lake Erie, it’s really obvious we’re 

overloading it. And I remind you that 90 percent of the water that 

goes over Niagara Falls, which you can visually see, goes through 

Lake St. Clair. And if you can get Lake St. Clair to turn that green 

in a hundred and eighty thousand CFS you’re really loading that 

lake up. 

So, Doug Martz likes to call Lake St. Clair the heart of the Great 

Lakes. 

I say it’s not a Great Lake but a damn good one. But reality is 

it’s the ′′canary in the coal mine,′′ and if we don’t address what’s 

going on in Lake St. Clair there’s no reason to believe that we are 

going to address what’s going on in the rest of our Great Lakes. 

I’ve also included a little picture of Lake St. Clair and when you 

look in my testimony and at first you think oh, it’s low water. No, 

it’s not, that is algae in a great, well, a damn good lake, in our 

Great Lakes. I have hundreds of those pictures. It’s not surprising 

that little lakes are eutrophying. It is concerning that Lake St. 

Clair is eutrophying. Clearly it’s nutrient loaded. Clearly the citizens are outraged. Clearly something isn’t working. 

What’s not working? Too many cooks are spoiling the soup. We 

get a lot of federal guidance. We’ve got the Army Corps, the EPA, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the USGS, NOAA, and they all have 

good opinions, but none of them are responsible specifically for the 

Great Lakes, and as a result, too many cooks are spoiling the soup. 

And it’s not overlapping authority that’s my concern, it’s that 

there are a lot of things that are unregulated. There are a lot of 

sources of nutrients that end up in our lakes that are unregulated 

and the under-regulated nutrients are everybody’s problem and 

they’re nobody’s problem and the discussions drag on for decades. 

16 

Permitting and enforcement is not working. There are pipes that 

are discharged that fall into the NPDES program and the states 

and feds do a good job of following those up. And then there are 

a lot of pipes that are not regulated. And the same pollutant from 

the same source falls out of the regulatory program. 

So my recommendation would be assign the responsibility for all 

regulation to one authority. They can delegate it, they can share 

it, but at the end of the day if there’s nutrients fouling our lakes, 

one authority should be responsible for it. 

Secondly, as been spoken before, there’s virtually no monitoring. 

The monitoring needs to be done and the recommendations here I 

think work. 

And lastly, you have to prevent—to provide funding and identify 

single agencies responsible for collecting, maintaining and disseminating that funding. When you started with the Great Lakes—or 

the Clean Water Act there was a great construction grant program 

when you did 75 percent funding plus 10 percent from the states. 

Municipalities got stuff done. Since that time there is not enough 

money. We all know the infrastructure is failing, the EPA gap 

analysis says the infrastructure is failing, and these same municipalities cannot afford to do the things that we know need to be 

done, reducing nutrients, putting in monitoring programs, because 

they cannot afford to build what they have. 

So, please as you work with your staff, and I know you’re doing 

certain jobs with the Clean Water Act right now trying to clarify 

some things that have been eliminated from recent court decisions, 

I hope that you’ll consider the—finding funding for the core programs, it’s not the sexy part of the business, monitoring, permitting, enforcement. Find the funding for that, find the funding to 

help the municipalities build the infrastructure that they need to 

do, and if you get back to the—some of the same principles that 

we imposed in 1972 and recognize that a lot of the nutrients need 

to be regulated I think we’ve got a half a chance. 

Thank you very, very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you for splendid testimony of which 

I—all of which I’ve read ahead of time and which I’m very appreciative. We’ll come back with some questions a little later. 

Miss Lynn Henning, Sierra Club, Michigan Chapter, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Water Sentinel. 

Ms. HENNING. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We welcome a Sentinel, thank you. 

Ms. HENNING. Thank you. I’m honored to be here, thank you for 

allowing me to provide testimony. 

I am a family farmer, we farm 300 acres in Lenawee County, 

Michigan. I’m a CAFO Water Sentinel. I’ve done water monitoring 

for the past eight years downstream from CAFOs. I have a quality 

assurance plan that’s been submitted to the Michigan DEQ. Within 

ten-mile radius of our farm we have over 20,000 cows and 20,000 

pigs. They have capacity of storage of over 200 million gallons of 

waste. 

I just brought a small map to show you visually, I live here 

where the red dots are, and all these areas are within ten miles 

of my farm. These are the headwaters of Lake Erie. 

17 

We have over 300 documented discharges downstream from each 

one of these CAFOs. We have 12. There’s over a hundred and sixtyeight chemicals in and around manure that was documented by the 

U.S. EPA in 2001. I’m going to show a very short PowerPoint to 

give you some visuals, maybe. 

First, I’m going to show you that the CAFOs are contributing nutrients and other pollutants to the Great Lakes. There are over 200 

CAFOs in the State of Michigan. We have already seen impacts of 

crypto sporidium, giardia, which has been DNA’d by Dr. Joan Rose 

in our area. At three drinking water intakes they have found 11 

sites of crypto and eight sites of giardia. We have seen algae 

blooms that we are being contacted by the people at lake area. I 

have brought a sample of the toxic blue-green algae from the Lake 

Erie water keepers. 

We are seeing impaired waters. Downstream from one facility we 

have two open waterways that have been put on the state’s impaired water list directly from the CAFO. We’re seeing risk to 

human health from land-applied pathogens that can reach waterways to spread disease, bacteria, parasites, viruses through drinking and recreational waters. We’re seeing nitrates in the ground 

water. 

We’re seeing the soluble phosphorus which contributes to the eutrophication, we’re seeing acidification which damages our forests. 

Mobilization of aluminum, which is toxic to fish, disturbs the nutrient uptake from plants and trees and enhances sensitivity to stress 

factors like drought and fungi, causes undesire—changes in species 

composition which is important to our bio diversity. Methane, 

which will effect our ozone. 

Overdosage of nutrients can lead to heavy metals such as copper, 

zinc and organo chlorines which accumulate in the food chain and 

become a health hazard. We’re seeing studies that invasive species 

that they’re using zebras, quaggas, round gobies and others in constructed wetlands to treat animal waste that can then be overflowed into the waterways. We’re seeing blood worms in our open 

waterways that can cause hepatitis, these are just to name a few. 

And I’ll go back to my PowerPoint. This facility, to show you 

some of the problems, it is highlighted in light green because it was 

built in a flood hazard zone. The facility at the top discharged into 

the crick to the—in the dark color beside it. 

The facility to the right has an open waterway running directly 

through the production area of the CAFO. 

The X marks where the CAFO is located. This was directly discharged into Lake Huron when they had this discharge. 

This is a annotated photo of one of the larger facilities in the 

state and you can look at it over on the side, it will show that our 

biggest problem are field tile. They’re using liquid waste on fields 

that if you put grass waterways in it will protect surface discharges 

but it does not protect what soaks through the ground and gets 

into the field tile systems that drain to our waterways. 

We’re seeing silage leachate, we’re seeing underground tile, we’re 

seeing storm water containments that are used as secondary containment for animal waste and open ditches that go to waterways. 

18 

Here is a sample of downstream from a CAFO, we are getting 

E. Coli readings up to seven-and-a-half million milligrams per liter. 

300 is full body contact. 

This ditch shows the effects of nutrient loading from a CAFO 

that is downstream from the CAFO. 

This is a brand new and empty animal waste storage pit with 

cracks before the animal waste is even put into it. This is a concern 

for our groundwater. 

This is a poultry facility, if you look at the pavement below the 

fans, they were cited twice for discharges of contaminants into the 

waterway because this drains off into a catch basin that goes to an 

open ditch that has tile. 

This is downstream, this is the drainage ditch, we’re seeing algae 

blooms where we’re having animal waste enter the waterways. 

This shows field tile entering the roadside waterway and this is 

one of our biggest contributors to our animal waste distribution 

into the streams. 

This aerial shows flowing straight through the production area 

of a CAFO. It was built in an undetermined flood hazard zone and 

the milk house they literally buried the tile below the facility. 

This is not just happening in Michigan, this is happening across 

the United States that they are being sited close to the headwaters, 

over county drains, near waterways with field tile, catch basins, 

dikes, tile risers, that all are pathways for pollutions and nutrient 

to our waterways. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Miss Henning. 

And again, thanks to all members of the panel that have given 

us very thoughtful and constructive thought-provoking testimony. 

I’ll begin with Miss Henning. What is the size of the CAFO, for 

those who aren’t familiar to the word, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, usually they—that refers to beef cattle fattening operations but in this case is it dairy farms that you’re talking about? 

Ms. HENNING. A dairy farm, yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And what is the typical—of these large—what is 

the typical size of the dairy herd? 

Ms. HENNING. Definition of would be 700 animal units. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. 700? 

Ms. HENNING. In Michigan. The largest facility in Michigan holds 

over 9,000. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. 9,000? 

Ms. HENNING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That’s a factory, that’s not a farm anymore. I 

mean, I’m used to 200 head of dairy cows is the average size farm 

in my district with a hundred milking and—and another hundred 

getting ready to be fresh, that’s a—that’s a big operation. 

What containment is there on these facilities to prevent bleeding 

of nutrient from the operation into a drainage ditch or creek? 

Ms. HENNING. Many of these facilities use an—urban lagoons 

which do have a capacity, I do not have the figures, but they do 

leak into the soil. They are allowed to—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It’s getting into groundwater you’re saying and 

then—— 

Ms. HENNING. It does leach. 

19 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —migrating—— 

Ms. HENNING. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. —from there. 

Ms. HENNING. It does leach. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Dr. Freeman, you—you made a very telling observation, self-policing is fatally flawed. We’ve seen that. Now the policy of self-policing is fatally flawed. We’ve seen that in our Committee. 

When the Coast Guard launched its Deep Water Program they 

were doing just fine until they got moved over into the Department 

of Homeland Security and then things went awry, and the result 

was we had an 11-hour hearing in our Committee on the process 

by which the Coast Guard issued a hundred million dollar contract 

to extend surface cutters for their interdiction of drugs and illegal 

immigration in the Gulf of Mexico, and they were told you self-certified, tell us you’re doing a good job, and they did except they 

weren’t doing a good job, and now the taxpayers are stuck with a 

hundred million dollars’ worth of vessels that we can’t use that are 

going to be scrapped. 

We found self-policing to be a fatally flawed policy with the FAA 

when they issued a customer service initiative to the airlines. Tell 

us you’re doing a good job and we’ll patty-cake with you when you 

say you’ve done a good job inspecting your aircraft, and now 985 

aircraft later pulled out of service for reinspection we found it was 

fatally flawed, 200,000 people flew in unsafe aircraft. 

So when you—when you say self-policing on production of chemicals that infect the waterways you’re—you’re right on. You’re monitoring—your suggestion of—of when you do monitoring for air that 

comes from thousands of miles away reminds me of hearings I conducted in the 1980s on Great Lakes water quality. 

What was happening, we are inquiring, when point sources have 

been addressed over $15 billion spent throughout the Great Lakes 

by federal and state government and industry alone, and yet while 

the fish were back they were back with cancers, the bald eagles’ 

eggs were still not reaching maturity because of DDT, and there 

was no DDT in the environment. 

What we found was researchers have told us it’s coming from 

Central America. We were exporting DDT to countries that were 

using—U.S. Companies in other countries that were using it to protect their banana plantations and other plantations, and so the 

aerosols were being caught up in the upper atmosphere in that— 

in that stream that goes up the Mississippi flyway and being deposited on the Great Lakes in 14 days, in fact, in eight days according to the monitoring, faster than the Sandinistas could get there 

as President Regan said, in 14 days they’ll be on our shores, well 

the DDT was there, and it was killing the bald eagles, the young. 

And we—and so you’re right, we need—we need better protection. 

Now I’m interested in your reference to the membrane spectrometer and—and the development of a three-dimensional flow model 

of the river. How would you do that? 

Mr. FREEMAN. Well, actually the U.S. Geological Service is the 

one that is best equipped to do that. We—we need not only the 

model of the river but also of the lake and—and that’s well within 

the—the capability of personnel here at the University of Michigan. 

20 

For example, Guy Meadows has developed a 3-D model of the lake, 

and what it does is it allows you to back calculate so you detect 

a substance at position X at time Y, you can then back calculate 

where it came from and then hold those polluters responsible. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now the Corps of Engineers has—has two very 

remarkable models, one of the Mississippi River and the other of 

the Chesapeake Bay, and Mississippi River model is in Vicksburg, 

Mississippi where the Corps can—can create flows of the river to 

simulate various conditions that they want and what the effects 

will be of high water, low water, on channels and on navigation. 

Now a good deal of that is done by computer modeling so the actual 

river water flow at Vicksburg is—is less used than it once was, but 

would you say that USGS would be the appropriate agency to—to 

develop such a—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. They’ve actually taken a stab at it. There’s a good 

2-D model that they have developed here, the Army Corps certainly 

has the capacity to do that. But if you coupled that with a device 

like the membrane induced mass specs, which can screen for thousands of chemicals in minutes, then you—you have a real chance 

of catching the polluters. 

You know, I’m reminded of when we had a vinyl chloride and a 

methel ethel ketone spill. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Uh-huh (affirmative.) 

Mr. FREEMAN. The state police flew helicopters over here to—to 

grab bottles of water and then they would fly the helicopters back 

to Lansing and they were able to process two samples a day. 

The system that we’re proposing would have processed those two 

samples for at—at least a hundred times the chemicals the state 

police were looking at in less than ten minutes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I’m—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. And you’re actually doing the monitoring on the 

same scale that the river flows and now you can really protect the 

public. Until you do that you’re just doing something to be doing 

it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I think we’ll pursue that with Miss Miller 

further on—on the Committee’s work as we go through the Water 

Resources Development Act, we just—I think we need to—to take 

that idea to the next level. 

Miss Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I 

think I’ll pick right up on that because that’s been a real—an issue 

I had been working on along with this monitoring system and 3- 

D model as well. 

But, first of all, let me say to all the witnesses you can see for 

all of your expertise and you are an unbelievably expert panel, 

you’re never going to pull one over on our Chairman, he knows— 

he’s—he has his own national treasure with his expertise on water 

quality and so many other issues under the transportation jurisdiction, so it’s again, it’s delightful to have him here. 

But the 3-D model that we’ve talked about for a number of years 

in the St. Clair River could serve dual purposes and so if—if there’s 

a possibility of us authorizing expenditures under the WRDA Bill 

or something, not only would we have the—and I—I do think the 

Corps of Engineers could probably build this thing, as you menVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:56 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42636 JASON
21 

tioned, the one in Mississippi which is—my dad was an aeronautical engineer and I remember when they would do various 

things at NASA, he always did wind tunneling. 

Well, this is an asymmetrical 3-D model, similar, similar concept 

of course, but not only would you be able to understand and pinpoint immediately where any contaminants were actually introduced into the waterways and how they transit their way down the 

river, whether that’s a sewer spill from a municipality or a chemical spill or what have you, that would be an invaluable thing. 

But I will also mention on our next panel we’re going to hear 

from the Corps about some of the various problems we might be 

having with water levels, but that has also been an impetus, it 

could serve dual purposes. Because as we’re aware, there’s a theory 

being advanced by one of the foremost coastal engineering firms in 

the—in the hemisphere really, that because of the extensive dredging that was done in the St. Clair River in the early, mid ’60s to 

open up the upper Great Lakes to shipping, subsequent dredging 

and erosion is causing a decline in the water levels so they—so 

they are theorizing. 

I know that you’ve been all working with the IJC and as I say, 

I’ll guess we’ll hear from the next panel, but that would be a tremendous way to compliment the monitoring system that we have 

so I think that is very important. 

I don’t know if you have any comment on that. Would you agree 

with that or—— 

Mr. FREEMAN. I completely agree with you. Not only your comments about the 3-D model but your comments also about the 

Chairman, he can serve on our faculty. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. He could teach your classes, I think 

that’s true. 

I might mention then, ask a question about the monitoring system here, and any of you that might have the expertise to answer, 

I was—I think Dr. Freeman was mentioning about the EPA and 

the still—the spill data that they had and that they were only 

able—they only had four fines, the EPA only had four fines from 

’94 to ’04, I was trying to take some notes while you were talking, 

and can only test for 20 to 30 percent of the potential chemicals. 

Now our monitoring systems have 29 specific chemicals that they 

can monitor for as well. 

Either yourself or Mr. Ridgway I suppose, do we have any incidents that we can report back to the full Congress of how the monitoring system has worked thus far, best practices, perhaps an incident where we have identified something and then how did we respond. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. It’s interesting, the challenge right now is getting 

the regulated and regulators to agree on some numbers because 

when you have no data you don’t care. But things like benzene, 

which we’re monitoring regularly, is going up and down because 

you can measure it and you—you know, can be coming from boats, 

can be coming from a spill, and so at this point we’re collecting a 

great deal of data, we can see changes in that data and we’re working with folks, and right now there’s something called the MCL, 

which is the Mean—— 

Mr. STOW. Maximum Contaminant Level. 

22 

Mr. RIDGWAY. Yeah, Maximum Contaminant Level, and we’re 

saying that anytime you hit 90 percent—or, well, 10 percent of the 

MCL you notify the operator, let the operator know something’s 

going on at the water plant, 50 percent you notify the operator and 

the drinking water people at the MDEQ, and at 90 percent you do 

those two plus the spill response folks. That trigger is automatic. 

That—the computer, when it hits that number, it goes—it is paged, 

people’s cell phones are text messaged and it says you got benzene 

at this number at this location. 

As we’re tweaking those, sometimes the alarms are too often, 

sometimes the alarms aren’t often enough, so we are measuring 

stuff, we’re getting good data, and now we’re just trying to decide 

how to manage the data we’re collecting. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. I think it is interesting that, I was 

mentioning this to the Chairman earlier, that as a result of us putting our monitoring system in place and chemical companies or 

others that might introduce the contaminant into the—into the waterways, and we’ve had rather horrific experience over the last several decades with the amount of incidents of contaminants into our 

waterways, now that they are aware that the monitoring system is 

up and is running and samples are being taken every 15 minutes, 

and that it is part of the notification protocol, and we are continuing to perfect it, but not only would we be able to understand 

rather immediately in real time that there has been something introduced harmful into the water supply, and we have the ability 

perhaps to actually figure out where it came from, I don’t know if 

it’s serendipity or coincidence or what have you, but guess what, 

the amounts of chemical spills have gone down dramatically. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. If there’s a radar gun on the expressway, I think 

I’ll drive slow. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. That’s exactly—that’s a very good 

analogy, a radar gun on the expressway. 

But, and I also want to say hats off to our wonderful Canadian 

neighbors because they have developed as well, their SWAT team, 

that’s what I call it, their SWAT team within the Environment of 

Ministry there, who is also doing a tremendous amount of policing, 

and we have to continue to work together on that. 

I’d also like to ask Mr. Snow I think, Stow, was telling us a little 

bit about the study that NOAA is doing in the Saginaw Bay and 

I’m somewhat familiar with that. I know you have almost $4 million I believe that’s been authorized for that. 

Could you just flesh out for us a bit exactly what you’re looking 

at because this muck issue is so—such a large issue in the Saginaw 

Bay. Is that enough resources to do an adequate study? When do 

you think you might have some findings that are of consequence 

and how is all that going? 

Mr. STOW. Okay. We are currently in year one of the study and 

in year one we’re focusing on sort of gathering up the data that exists on the system that had been collected in the past. 

When the original Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was established in the 1970s there were four mathematical models that 

were used to help support this effort. One of those models has been 

updated over the years now, includes processes associated with 

23 

zebra mussels and things like that, and so one of those original 

models is a—is a part of this project, the—the updated version. 

In year one we’re essentially focusing on developing some new 

approaches, looking at the existing data, and starting a light survey out on Saginaw Bay, in fact, today’s the first day, in principal 

there’s a boat out there right now that’s doing some initial monitoring. That—that will be effectively what we accomplish by the 

end of this year. 

Starting next year is our much more intensive field work—oh, 

and I should say we are also beginning some monitoring in the watershed looking at flows and concentrations of phosphorus in the 

tributaries into the Saginaw River, so all of that’s occurring essentially as we speak. 

Starting next year we’ll have some more intensive field years, 

we—where we’ll be out on a regular basis looking at such things 

as the phosphorus concentrations, the water—or the light penetration to the bottom, trying to establish some ways where we can 

measure the density of the algae that grows on the bottom, that’s 

not a particularly easy thing to do. 

And, in fact, our most recent surveys looking at the coverage of 

the zebra and the quagga mussels are from the late 1990s, it’s not 

like there’s somebody out there every year doing that sort of activity, so we’ll have some better estimates on the degree to which 

they’ve colonized the bottom of Saginaw Bay and may be influencing the dynamics, we’ll see. 

So we’re in the very early stages right now, as I say, monitoring 

is just beginning, we’re initiating our citizen monitoring, we’re 

working with DEQ representatives to get that up and going by 

hopefully the beginning of June, we’re—we’re in the ramping up 

stages as we speak. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. And you’ll have some sort of reporting mechanism so we’ll know as you’re progressing? 

Mr. STOW. Yes. We’re working, as I indicated, that a couple of 

investigators on the project are representatives from the DEQ and 

the DNR, they’re active—actively involved in the project, and they 

will be gathering information as it’s revealed and as we learn more. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Just one other question, in particular, since we’re talking about the possibility of the 3-D model 

being authorized under the WRDA Bill as well. 

I think everybody talks about monitoring, how important it is. I 

think we agree, there’s a consensus that monitoring is absolutely 

critical. 

I think it was Dr. Richards that was mentioning what is the cost, 

is it really expensive, yes, but, you know, what is the cost of not 

doing such a thing, and just throw out to the panel would you generally agree that the Congress should perhaps look to our model or 

some model to replicate through the Great Lakes basin, do it for 

all of the Great Lakes states for having adequate monitoring system, and do you think this is one we should look at or is there a 

better system or—and I don’t know if you have any general idea 

of what the cost of such a thing would be throughout the Great 

Lakes but just—— 

Mr. STOW. One of the—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —certainly need to get started on it. 

24 

Mr. STOW. One of the limitations with these sorts of models is, 

for instance, in the—when we developed the Great Lakes Water 

Quality Agreement I mentioned there were several models used in 

parallel, and what tends to happen is we develop a model, we make 

some decisions, and the model kind of gets pushed off into the 

background. 

One of the particular features of this project is that we have one 

of these models that has been maintained over the years and I 

think having models that are maintained and updated as we get 

new information is essential for this sort of activity. 

In particular in this project we’re going to—there’s quite a debate 

among modelers about the best way to model different things and 

when we put this grant together to—or this proposal together to 

get this grant we didn’t try and justify one kind of model as being 

the absolute best, we said we’re going to try a couple at the same 

time and compare them as we go along, so models are essential, 

they allow us to extend what we know and part of the trick I think 

is having models that we work with over a period of time and update as we learn more. 

Mr. RICHARDS. I’d like—I would like to second that general 

thought. I think that monitoring can be crucially important in informing the models and allowing us to determine whether the models are really giving us a proper story or not. If you have to develop 

a model and you don’t have any data to test it with it may be telling you the totally—totally wrong answer but you have no way of 

knowing it, so modelling and monitoring should go—go hand in 

hand and—and feed back upon each other. 

I think, if I’m not mistaken, some of the folks in Chesapeake Bay 

have gotten into some fairly hot water because they were projecting 

that they were at such and such a place in saving Chesapeake Bay 

and somebody went out and looked and said, no, you’re not, and 

it turned out all they were doing was looking at the projections 

from the model and presenting them as if they were reality without 

the—without the monitoring to—to ground truth that, they were 

playing a rather dangerous game, so I think that there’s a need for 

both. They both do different things but they work very nicely together and we need to support both of them. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Beyond that they—they also need to inform action 

and decisions and decision makers. I’m reminded of Doug Martz’s 

experience with E. Coli counts where for 20 years health departments and others collected E. Coli, dutifully filed the counts away 

and nothing happened. 

And so what I like about the system that Jim Ridgway’s group 

has put together is that it does have some notification and it can 

inform decision making and action. We—we can’t do these things 

as ends unto themselves, they have to drive action. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. And I would just add one other piece and that’s 

I—I would ask you to decide who’s going to baby-sit this model for 

years to come. The area in which you are asking for a three-dimensional model has been modelled at least three times that I’m aware 

of in the last 20 years by different groups. The studies done answer 

a couple questions and it goes away. 

If you were to decide, I don’t care who it is, NOAA, this is the 

person that is responsible for handling this model forever and then 

25 

allow other people to use it and put data in and make decisions 

and all that kind of stuff, but you need someone to maintain it over 

the years or the study will be done and it will go away. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Similarly, monitoring data needs to be available, 

catalogued, made accessible to—to researchers and agencies in perpetuity. 

Given the massive flow, and—and Jim’s right about it starts here 

and then it goes over, you know, Niagara Falls, we really should 

have a center that maintains all of this information for the Great 

Lakes, all of the monitoring data that are collected by all of the 

agencies, and we don’t have anything like that. So we get isolated 

reports here or there, 12 towns combined sewer overflow discharged today. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. I suspect this panel has the best collection of data 

anywhere, but it’s in six different little files, and what I have Dr. 

Lehman doesn’t know about, and what Dr. Lehman has I don’t 

know about, and if there isn’t a central depository, every time you 

start a study the first thing you do is start trying to collect what 

data is out there. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you. That’s—and we’ll come back to 

Miss Miller in a few minutes, we’re going to alternate back and 

forth here a little bit. 

You gather all this information as you say and it’s deposited in— 

in different receptacles and studied and all too often scientists turn 

to each other and say this really is polluting, you know, this is 

awful, terrible, they agree with each other but somebody has to do 

something about it. The end of it is doing something about it and 

taking an enforcement action, building a treatment facility or upgrading that treatment facility, otherwise humans inevitably become the repositories of all the toxics we discharge into the waterways. 

And again I’m reminded of a hearing conducted on the Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement with Canada and—and the 

progress on the—of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Dr. Henry Lykers 

(ph), a microbiologist, member of the governing council of the 

Aquasagany (ph) people at the outflow of the Niagara River, Mohawk Indians otherwise known, said that in the early—in the late 

’70s, early ’80s, he had been noticing reports from people of—of his 

community of three times the national average spontaneous miscarriages, three times the national average tremors in joints, elbows, wrists, hips, knees, mental disorders and—and rising cancers 

that they’d never experienced before. 

And he undertook to do surveys of—of various scientific—given 

his scientific experience and background and training, he found 

they were all eating fish for 3,000 years they’d been eating fish. 

Fish are the repositories of the Niagara River, the outflow of all 

the Great Lakes, so they have three times the national average of 

everything of—of PCBs and dioxins and mercury, cadmium and 

lead, and so they stopped eating fish. And I said, ′′Was there any 

health consequence from that?′′ 

′′Oh, yes. Yes,′′ he said. ′′Our people now have twice the national 

average of diabetes, arteriolosclerosis, cardiovascular disease and 

other—because they’re getting their protein, they’re getting their 

food energy from other sources that were not healthy for them,′′ so 

26 

we create all sorts of problems that ultimately people become the 

bio accumulators and not just the fish or the plant life. 

So to get—get to the end of this, to stop this, we have to have— 

you have to have pollution prevention and pollution treatment. 

Now, Mr. Ridgway, you said—and I appreciate, you looked to 

Congress in 1972 and you delivered. I was chief of staff of the Committee at the time, we were ten months in conference with the Senate fashioning the Clean Water Act. It was a vigorously heated, debated both sides working toward the same objective but from different perspectives but we got there, we did it. Then it deteriorated 

when the—when the grant monies dried up. 

Now, as I said, we—we passed in the first session of this Congress, legislation to provide a billion six hundred million dollars to 

help communities with separate and combined storm and sanitary 

sewer overflows, but you also said we have eight agencies overseeing this work on the Great Lakes. Do we need a coordinating 

authority? 

Mr. RIDGWAY. God, yes. Can I be more clear? 

The problem you have right now is it—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, the day after Pentecost, yes. We don’t 

want—we don’t need the tongues of fire descending on eight agencies, all speaking in different tongues, maybe they need to speak 

with one tongue. 

Mr. RIDGWAY. You have a number of people, many of who have 

taken the responsibility to do their job. Congress has asked different federal agencies and the locals, but it’s like—it’s like taking 

a test, now the analogy here to say is you got a bunch of locals and 

the locals that are the ′′A′′ students are taking the test and doing 

a good job, and right before you turn the test in, your teacher says 

take your exam and hand it to the guy next to you, and you’re 

graded by the person next to you. 

The good work you do goes downhill and you receive the bad 

work of the student uphill and until you make all of those people, 

all of the locals, held to an accountable level, and that means farmers and waste water plants and people’s homes on—and I’m not 

saying you regulate it away, I’m just saying we have to address all 

sources—I suspect over 50 percent of the nutrients getting into the 

Great Lakes are unregulated or under regulated. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. How often do these, in your experience, and any 

members of the panel, how often do these eight agencies talk to 

each other? 

Ms. Henning? 

Ms. HENNING. I’d like to respond to that, because when I started 

water monitoring I would contact the locals and would get no response. As I got into the monitoring and being shoved aside I started addressing the U.S. EPA, the Michigan DEQ, the local health 

department, the drain commissioner, and then we finally started 

seeing action by making the communication line amongst the agencies to let them all know what was going on. So I felt they were 

not informing each other, there was no communication. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Some years ago I—when I chaired the Investigation’s Oversight Committee or Subcommittee, we—we looked at 

transportation provided by numerous federal government agencies 

who were not primarily transportation agencies, we found a hunVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:56 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42636 JASON
27 

dred and thirty-seven agencies providing transportation, the cost of 

over a billion dollars a year, and they weren’t talking to each other 

in three different departments of government. 

So, this would be before your service in Congress, Bill Klinger 

from Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican Member on the Committee and I, we held their feet to the fire and—and by golly they 

came to the—to the second hearing we held and said well, Mr. 

Chairman, we’ve decided as you suggested to have a coordinating 

council and talk to each other and eliminate the duplications and 

the overlaps. 

And maybe that’s what we need here on the Great Lakes to 

have—and—and who and how, how to create that is something 

that we’ll have to address. 

Mr. FREEMAN. Could you include in that council our Canadian 

friends as well since whatever they discharge makes it over on our 

side in a matter of a few minutes? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I’ll discuss that at the U.S.-Canada Parliamentary Group meeting later this week. We can’t legislate them 

into the picture but we can invite them in under the U.S.-Canada 

Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. 

Professor Lehman, what is the role of phosphorus and plant 

growth and how—how can we—what are the best means of eliminating it from the water column? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, phosphorus is an—is an essential mineral, 

it’s—it’s a component of DNA, RNA, and components of cell membranes, so it’s—it’s absolutely essential for life. And organisms contain about one atom of phosphorus for every roughly hundred 

atoms of carbon that they contain but they can’t get away with— 

they can’t live without it. 

Now, in terms of removal from the water column, frankly organisms, like micro algae, are extraordinarily successful at removing 

phosphate from the water column, hence their excessive growth at 

times when phosphorus is—is supplied to them in luxurious quantities. 

There are—there are—the best way to—to prevent it from getting into the water columns is to treat it near its source, either provide an improved means to the infrastructure at which phosphorus 

is removed at waste water treatment plants and if you correctly 

recognize the—the infrastructure is failing all across the—the rust 

belt, and it is—it is possible for some improved management practices and agriculture and—and industries to—to reduce it at its 

source. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In sewage treatment facilities, is there—are there 

improved means of treatment beyond tertiary to address phosphorus removal? 

Mr. LEHMAN. Well, there are a variety of techniques that would 

all fall under the category of tertiary treatment. You may be—you 

may be thinking of a particular chemical precipitation where iron 

is usually used to—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Right. 

Mr. LEHMAN. —complex with the phosphorus and the—the particular limitation there is that to remove the first few grams of 

phosphorus it’s relatively inexpensive. To remove the very last few 

grams it becomes progressively more and more expensive. But 

28 

there—there are new technologies based on—on membrane uses 

and not just biomembranes but chemical membranes. 

We had a presentation actually at the final meeting of the Blue 

Ribbon Commission on Lake St. Clair and that’s—that is not my 

area of engineering expertise, I mean, but—but we certainly heard 

about these techniques. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I have many more questions but I’m going 

to yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan, and then we have to 

get on to the next panel, but I certainly am grateful to all of you 

for your splendid contribution. 

Miss Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will 

just follow-up with a quick question, because we are running out 

of time, we want to hear from our next panel, with the Colonel 

from the Corps of Engineers, and we appreciate all of you being 

here, but I think I’ll follow-up with Professor Lehman just briefly. 

As the Chairman was asking about how we might actually be 

able to address the problem of nutrients and I was trying to take 

some notes when you were talking as well about the Blue Water 

Committee, which I do sit on, and you mentioned about the data 

we had from ’04 and ’05, et cetera. 

Mr. LEHMAN. Certainly. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. But you said something about the 

nutrient level in the Clinton River is 50/50? What did you mean 

by that? 

Mr. LEHMAN. What that is we—we talk about two types of 

sources by which phosphate enters water bodies, one is the point 

source is discharged from the end of a pipe and the other is nonpoint source which could be overland runoff, runoff from parking 

lots, streets and so forth, and the—the analyses that I did by two— 

two different independent ways indicate that if you look at the 

total phosphorus content of that Clinton River and say which is 

more important, is it the point sources that are contributing the 

majority or is it the non-point sources. It turns out the breakdown 

is almost exactly 50/50. 

And—and my point about that was that if you focus—if you—if 

you aim your—your attention at either one of those sources and 

you have a viable means for reducing the phosphorus, you—you— 

you have two equally good strategies by which you could reduce 

phosphate concentrations. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. If you were the Chairperson of the 

Clinton River Watershed and you were making a recommendation 

to the municipalities within the watershed on several things that 

they could do rather immediately to help the health of the Clinton 

River, what would they be? 

Mr. LEHMAN. I would have them look pretty carefully at how 

their waste water treatment plants are operating and see if they 

can improve their—their effectiveness. They would get an absolute 

improvement by—by any kinds of increases in the efficiencies of 

phosphorus removal that they can implement. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. I see. 

Well, thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all 

of the panelists again coming today, you really are a fantastic resVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:56 Jun 25, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\42636 JASON
29 

ervoir of information and we certainly appreciate all of your testimony, thank you very much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You’ve given us much thought—food for thought 

for follow up on the testimony you’ve given today. Thank you very, 

very much. 

Our second panel consists of Lieutenant Colonel William Leady, 

he’s the Commander of the Detroit District Office of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. He testified before the Subcommittee at Green 

Bay, our hearing there on water quality issues and we welcome 

you, Colonel. I read your very thoughtful, thoroughly prepared 

statement with excellent history on—on the Great Lakes and on 

the St. Clair River issue and I welcome your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL WILLIAM J. LEADY, 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, DETROIT DISTRICT, DETROIT, MICHIGAN 

Colonel LEADY. Good morning—or good afternoon, sir. 

Chairman Oberstar, Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Lieutenant Colonel Bill Leady, Commander of the Detroit District U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

before you today on the lake levels in the Great Lakes. 

In supporting the nation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provides expertise to monitor and forecast Great Lakes water levels, 

and technical support to the International and Joint Commission, 

or the IJC, by regulating outflows of Lake Superior and Ontario. 

Lake levels directly affect the natural environment, commercial 

navigation, recreational boating, shoreline property, municipal 

water intakes and many other important features. 

Before I discuss current lake levels I would like to provide some 

background on the main factors that affect lake levels. To illustrate 

this, I would like to direct your attention to the Hydrologic Components chart which you have in front of you, sir and ma’am. 

The information on this chart uses long-term averages and does 

not represent any specific period. The poster illustrates four components, precipitation onto the lake in red, runoff from rivers and 

streams in orange, evaporation from the lakes’ surface in yellow, 

and flow from one lake to the next in blue. Man-made diversions 

are also shown. 

The relative importance of each of these factors shifts as the 

water flows from the basin’s headwater of Lake Superior to the 

outflow on the St. Lawrence Seaway. For example, 57 percent of 

Lake Superior’s water is precipitation that falls directly onto the 

lake whereas on Lake Ontario this accounts for only 7 percent of 

the inflow. 

I would like to note that Lake Michigan and Huron are, for many 

purposes, treated as a single lake since they are joined at the 

Straights of Mackinaw and rise and fall together. 

There are five man-made diversions on the Great Lakes basin. 

The Long Lac and Ogoki diversions which bring water into Lake 

Superior, the Lake Michigan diversion at Chicago which removes 

water for water supply, sewage disposal and commercial navigation. The Welland Canal provides a shipping route around Niagara 

Falls and the New York State Barge Canal diverts a small amount 

30 

of water from the Niagara River. The last two diversions stay within the basins so they don’t affect the overall Great Lakes. 

The water levels on the Great Lakes fluctuate in three distinct 

cycles: Short-term, annual and long-term. Water levels fluctuate on 

a short-term basis usually due to winds and changes in barometric 

pressure. These changes can last a few hours to several days. The 

lakes also fluctuate on a seasonal cycle. On the Great Lakes, water 

levels decline to their lowest levels in the winter because more 

water leaves the lake due to evaporation than enters during this 

period. As the snow melts and spring precipitation increases, the 

lake levels rise. These factors contribute to more water entering 

the lakes and waters raise to their peak during summer months. 

Long-term fluctuations occur over periods of consecutive years. 

Continuous wetter and colder than average years will increase 

water levels while warmer and drier than average years will cause 

levels to decline. Ice cover is a very significant factor affecting lake 

levels because ice acts as a lid preventing evaporation which is a 

major source of water outflow on the Great Lakes. 

The IJC, with the Corps as one of the supporting agencies, does 

have some ability to influence relative lake levels. 

Lake Superior outflows have been regulated by the IJC since 

1921 by the IJC’s Lake Superior Board of Control. The objective of 

the Lake Superior outflow plan is to have a relative balance between the long-term average of Lake Michigan, Huron and Lake 

Superior. Regulation of Lake Superior’s outflow has a small effect 

on the lakes but to a far less degree than the effects of precipitation and evaporation. 

Outflow from Lake Ontario is managed by the IJC St. Lawrence 

River Board of Control. The criteria for regulating outflows recognize the need of three major interest groups: riparian property 

owners, hydropower, and commercial navigation. 

Now I’ll turn to historic water levels on the Great Lakes and current conditions. The Corps began monitoring water levels in the 

19th Century. The Great Lakes Water Levels poster shows these 

long-term fluctuations from 1918 to the present. On these graphs, 

the blue line represents the actual monthly average level and the 

red line represents the long-term average. 

Several observations about Great Lakes water levels become apparent when the information is presented in this format. First, the 

lakes are rarely at their average level. Also, even at this scale, the 

average annual cycle, with lakes peaking in the late summer and 

dipping to the lowest point in the winter is apparent. 

Each lake is independent of the other lakes. That is to say that 

one lake may be in an above average period while at the same time 

another lake may be at a below average period and the third lake 

can be near average. 

Lastly, from 1918 to the present, there is not a definite or predictable pattern of level fluctuations on any single lake or the system as a whole. 

For the reasons I mentioned earlier, water levels on the Great 

Lakes have gone through periods of high periods and low periods 

over the last 90 years. Following a period of above average levels 

across the lakes from the 1970s through the 1990s, the upper lakes 

have experienced low levels since the late 1990s. The increased 

31 

water temperature, reduced ice cover, reduced precipitation and increased evaporation have contributed to the decrease in the upper 

lakes. Lake Superior and Lake Michigan-Huron are currently significantly below average while Lake Erie and Lake Ontario are currently above average. 

There is some good news. A very active 2007-2008 winter storm 

track brought abundant amounts of snow to the Great Lakes basin. 

Also, ice cover formed much earlier over the northern lakes, and 

was much more extensive, limiting evaporation. Soil moisture 

across the Great Lakes basin is above average. These conditions 

hold promise for increased water levels on the Great Lakes this 

coming spring and summer. 

Lake Superior has been below average since 1998 and is currently in its longest period below average in the 1918 to 2000 period of record. The lake set new monthly lows in August and September of 2007 and these records were brought on by drought conditions across the basin for the previous 15 months. Then the basin 

was inundated with ten inches of rain and water levels rose accordingly 9 inches. Lake Superior is expected to remain below average 

for the next six months although it will be 8 to 15 inches above last 

year’s levels. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. That’s good. 

Colonel LEADY. Lake Michigan-Huron has been below average 

since 1999 and is currently in its second longest period below average since the period 1918 to present. The lake is currently below 

last year’s levels. It will likely remain 12 inches to 16 inches below 

its record lows and 15 to 18 inches below its long-term average. Let 

me correct myself. It will likely remain 12 to 16 inches above its 

record lows but 15 to 18 inches below its long-term average for the 

next six months. 

Lake St. Clair has fluctuated around average for the last two 

years. The April monthly average was two inches below average 

and one inch above last year’s level. The forecast for the next six 

months shows the lake will remain slightly below average and near 

last year’s levels. 

Lake Erie has fluctuated around average for the past two years. 

The April monthly average level is seven inches above average and 

three inches above last year’s level. The forecast for the next six 

months shows it will remain near or above average. 

Lastly, Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario has fluctuated around average for the last two years but ended 2007 slightly below average. 

Since December 2007, the lake has risen significantly and in April 

the monthly average was 12 inches above average. The forecast for 

the next six months shows Lake Ontario will remain above average. 

Another issue that received recent attention and possible cause 

for lower lake levels on Lake Michigan-Huron are flows in the St. 

Clair River. In order to answer these questions about the St. Clair 

River over time and the impacts on the rest of the system, the IJC 

has included these issues in the International Upper Great Lakes 

Study. The study will re-evaluate the regulation of Lake Superior 

and is investigating issues on the St. Clair River. 

32 

The Corps believes the IJC study is the appropriate vehicle to investigate the Lake St. Clair River issues. The Corps is one of several agencies supporting this study. 

To close, I would once again like to thank you Mr. Chairman, for 

allowing the Corps of Engineers the opportunity to come before this 

Subcommittee and discuss the Corps’ role in monitoring and forecasting Great Lakes water levels. 

I would be happy to answer any questions that you or Representative Miller may have, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, thank you very much Colonel, for participating today and—and again, contributing to the work of the Committee. 

The issue of low water levels was addressed in the Water Resources Development Act Bill that our Committee moved in the 

first session of Congress and the Senate eventually did, President 

vetoed it, Congress overrode the veto, unfortunately the administration didn’t include any of the projects in WRDA Bill in its fiscal 

year ’09 budget. Among those issues is dredging of the channels 

and the harbors on the Great Lakes. 

Our iron ore carrying ships from Minnesota and from the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan are going out as much as 7500 tons light because from Minnesota they can’t pass through the St. Mary’s River 

because the 18 inches low water level compared to normal, and 

some of the lower lake harbors were as much as 40 to 50 inches 

low so that ships had to go out light, that means three extra voyages or more per vessel per season raising the transportation cost 

of iron ore to our lower lake steel mills. So we directed accelerated 

dredging to be done in the WRDA Bill and we’re hoping in the appropriation process they can find money to do that. 

I want to touch though very specifically on the St. Clair River 

issue. The compensating—weir compensating facility and the weirs. 

When is the IJC likely to complete its ongoing study? 

Colonel LEADY. Sir, the IJC has accelerated the study. It was 

originally a five-year study, which began last year. But the issue 

with the St. Clair River has been accelerated and moved forward 

in priority because it is such an important issue and that information should be done by the end of next summer, next fall sir, the 

fall of 2009. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now you note that the—in your testimony that 

the issue of bottom sediment material removal in the river goes 

back into the mid 1800s and to the early part of the last century, 

but at one point compensating works in the 1930s were authorized 

and then deauthorized in the ’70s. 

What would be the cost estimate of weirs developed in the—can 

you just give us a horseback estimate of what that would cost and 

how much of a structure would be involved to install such facilities 

in the St. Clair River? 

Colonel LEADY. Sir, I’ll try to—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I’m not going to hold you to—come back in a year 

and say ′′You told us,′′ but I just want a horseback estimate. 

Colonel LEADY. That would be a project that would be similar in 

scope to building major locks. It would be a very expensive thing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. On the order of a couple hundred million dollars. 

Colonel LEADY. It could be that high, sir. 

33 

Two things I would like to point out with this issue, sometimes 

they’re not clear, there are two separate but related issues. One is 

what the IJC is looking at now which is what the Baird Report, 

or what some people refer to as the Georgian Bay Association 

Study, states that there is an ongoing problem in the St. Clair 

River that the bottom of the river is eroding and more water is 

flowing out of Lake Michigan-Huron, you know, every year, because the river is getting larger or the bottom is eroding. That 

issue is being looked at by the IJC. 

The effects of dredging on the Great Lakes, the establishment of 

the 27 foot—first the 25-foot channel, then the 27-foot channel 

through Lake St. Clair and through the St. Clair River and certain 

stretches of the Detroit River, that is not being looked at by the 

IJC because the IJC has already looked at that in the 1930s and 

in the 1960s with Corps help and help from many other agencies, 

and the effects of that were determined to be lowering the Great 

Lakes—excuse me, lowering Lake Michigan-Huron by about seven 

inches. That is fairly undisputed by the scientific community, to include the Corps of Engineers, so that is a separate issue. The compensating weirs that were issued or authorized in the 1960s and 

in the 1930s when those deepenings were done, that was to compensate for that, so the IJC is looking at a slightly different related 

issue: is it the bottom of the river now eroding or is it changing 

shape that allows more water to move through the St. Clair River. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we—we have another Water Resources Development Act under consideration by the Subcommittee and I am 

looking to move a bill by mid summer or certainly before September, and if there is some—some recommendation from IJC from 

the Corps that we can include, I know Miss Miller would—would 

be happy to sponsor that. 

Miss Miller. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. You’re absolutely right, Mr. Chairman. I’d be delighted to sponsor it and we are looking for some recommendation from both the Corps and the IJC on how we might 

proceed with that. 

You mentioned Colonel, your best guesstimate, about what something compensating works would cost for that, but isn’t part of 

that, I mean, at least I have heard this discussed, is actual weirs 

out in Lake Huron before it comes into the St. Clair River as well, 

is there some talk about that or—— 

Colonel LEADY. The actual proposals that took place in the 1970s 

were weirs within the river themselves and ma’am, I’m not clear 

whether they would be fixed weirs or they would be adjustable 

weirs, because we’ve gone through high water periods like we did 

in the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s so during a high water period would you need the ability to adjust those weirs would be a 

question. 

And one point I’d like to add to, is when I said seven inches, that 

is the effect that is not widely disputed, of the Corps, the federal 

dredging of the channel. Other human activity, which is slightly 

less documented, is estimated to be an additional seven or more 

inches, so a total effect on the level of Lake Michigan and Lake 

Huron is around 14 or more inches from human activity through 

the late 19th and 20th Century. 

34 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. You know, just discussing these 

weirs, I’m aware that at some point in the past the Corps of Engineers had talked about actually doing compensating works in Lake 

St. Clair as well with weirs. 

I don’t know if you’re familiar with that or why they never did 

it or is there any use to be talking about such a thing now to compensate for the decrease in the water levels there? 

Colonel LEADY. I am not familiar with it ma’am, but the effect 

on where you put the weirs would certainly have an effect on 

whether it is upstream or downstream of Lake St. Clair. I am not 

aware of anything that was ever proposed on Lake St. Clair, it may 

have been done, I just may not be aware of it, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Yeah. Just one other weir question, 

since we’re on the weirs here but, at—in the City of Mount 

Clemens at Shadyside Park at the mouth of the spillway, talking 

about the Clinton River—— 

Colonel LEADY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —back in the ’50s there was a manmade diversion which you don’t list, and perhaps it’s such a small 

diversion that we don’t talk about it, but you’re essentially diverting the flow of maybe not the water but the flow of the Clinton 

River, we now divert it down the Clinton River spillway rather 

than letting—— 

Colonel LEADY. I’m familiar with that area, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —rather than letting the water go 

where Mother Nature wants it to go, and I think that has—I mean, 

you’d never be able to build something like that today, and it is 

controlled by the—not the Corps but the authority there, the drain 

authority, Macomb County Drain Authority I think, but they have 

an inflatable weir there that they inflate depending on the—on the 

water levels, I’m not sure if you have any comment about that. I 

don’t know whether we should even have that weir and some people talk about that we should not have a spillway there anymore 

either. 

Colonel LEADY. Ma’am, I’m familiar with that location, I know it 

was constructed by the Corps and turned over to the city, I would 

agree with your comment; it would probably be difficult to do 

today. 

I have been asked what would it take and how long it would take 

to do this and my response was that an Environmental Impact 

Statement, which would necessarily be done, would be at least a 

two-year process because it would effect so many people on the 

shores of Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, so that itself would be 

a very long detailed process. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentlewoman—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Certainly, of course. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. What is the depth of the river at that—at this 

point that we’re talking about? 

Colonel LEADY. The depth of the river varies significantly, sir. 

Right under the Blue Water Bridge, it is as deep as 60 feet, at 

other areas it is less than 20 feet. 

In major sections of the river, the Corps, in the 1920s dredged 

it to 25 feet to allow navigation, so it was obviously less than 25 

35 

feet there, and then the 1960s again the Corps deepened it to 27 

feet, sir. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Just one other question about diversions and man-made diversions. 

I know you were talking about the five man-made diversions in 

the—in the basin, in the Great Lakes basin, two of which you said 

didn’t really impact—— 

Colonel LEADY. Yes, they—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —the water levels because it returns 

it to the basin. 

Colonel LEADY. In fact, Niagara River, but they take water that 

would have gone through the Niagara River and put it into Lake 

Ontario anyway. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Another project that could probably 

never happen today, but happened about a hundred years ago, was 

the change in the direction and the flow of the Chicago River—— 

Colonel LEADY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —for the Chicago Diversionary Canal 

of which I do understand has gone through the Supreme Court and 

I get all of that, but when you think about 1.4 billion, I think that’s 

the number, gallons of water each and every day that is being diverted outside of the basin because it’s being used for sanitary purposes, for drinking water, et cetera, but also to be floating the 

barges in the Mississippi and when water diversion is such a huge 

issue in the Great Lakes I just raise that as—I don’t know if you 

have any comment or if your—— 

Colonel LEADY. Well, ma’am—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —your superiors would allow you to 

comment on whether or not that’s an appropriate thing to do but, 

if you feel—— 

Colonel LEADY. —the history of the—— 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. —you can do that. 

Colonel LEADY. —Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal is a very interesting engineering history, it was done about a hundred years ago, 

a little less I think, because of the sewage that the City of Chicago 

and the metropolitan area was putting into the lake, and they 

couldn’t put their intake water for their drinking water out far 

enough to get clear of their own sewage so, just from a net effect, 

the Long Lac and Ogoki diversions were put in during World War 

II in Canada, and take water that would have gone into the Hudson Bay, put it into Lake Superior, and you can’t really do a direct 

comparison because water evaporates along the way, but they put 

in a little more than five million cubic feet per second and the Chicago Sanitary Shipping Canal is a little more than three million 

cubic feet per second on average, that is a long-term average, and 

they vary quite a bit, so the net effects of diversions, at least the 

major diversions of the Great Lakes, is an add to the Great Lakes. 

I am not trying to justify the Chicago Sanitary Ship Canal; I am 

trying to highlight the facts, ma’am. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Yeah. Well, it’s great if you’re in Chicago from a sanitary purpose and in the Great Lakes we didn’t 

want all of that in the Great Lakes. Perhaps if you live in St. Louis 

you’re not so happy with all of that flowing by you now, but at any 

rate, it is an interest thing. 

36 

And the whole issue of water diversion, and I’ll close on this because I know we’re out of time, is a huge issue obviously for all of 

us in the Great Lakes basin. There’s a—as we see the other parts 

of the country that are very hot and dry and thirsty, et cetera, and 

they are looking very enviously at our Great Lakes and I think for 

all of us in the Great Lakes basis we always want to be ever vigilant to make sure that there is not a wholesale diversion of our 

Great Lakes. 

So I appreciate your testimony Colonel, and you’re doing a great 

job, and thank you for your service to our nation as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I concur. Yeah, you’ve been a great contribution 

to this particular hearing and as the Corps always does it’s extraordinary work at the command of Congress. People often blame the 

Corps for this, that or the other thing but it’s Congress that gives 

the Corps its marching orders and the Corps carries them out 

whether—whether we do a right job or not, whether we’re on the 

right mark or not, you carry it out or you tell us not to do it. 

I was a little concerned that you say the IJC is not going to address this matter of the—of the weirs? 

Colonel LEADY. Well, sir, what the IJC, their study is going to 

look at whether there’s an ongoing—or not is going to, is looking 

at the—specifically looking at what the Baird Report or what some 

people refer to as the Georgia Bay Associates Report, is whether 

the bottom of the St. Clair River especially upstream, the kind at 

the headwaters and throughout the whole reach, is eroding due to 

dredging and due to human activity, so in very general terms that 

report alleged that by breaking through the rock basin and the clay 

basin there, the bottom is now eroding and the levels of Lake Erie 

really and Lake Huron are coming more in line. And there is some 

evidence that they report to and certainly, you know, Lake Erie is 

above average and Lake Michigan and Huron are below average. 

That is what that report stated. 

The IJC is looking to see if that is substantiated and they are 

looking at it from a more detailed long-term perspective than that 

original report. But the issue of whether or not human activity lowered Lake Michigan and Huron in the late 19th and early 20th 

Century, they are not looking at it specifically because it is pretty 

much a documented fact that it has, how much, whether it is 14 

inches or 17 inches is up for scientific debate, but there is no doubt 

that it is in that range or at least that is what the scientific community to include the Corps and the IJC and others believe now, 

sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Going back even to the early 1900s when sand 

and gravel was removed without permitting and without any oversight and—and probably some three million cubic meters were removed. 

Well, we—we will need some further consultation with your— 

with you and your staff and—and maybe with the division, probably with the Chief’s office, as we go through this WRDA to see 

whether—WRDA, Water Resources Development Authorization, see 

whether there’s something we can include to accelerate this work 

on the St. Clair that has a great many people concerned. 

Colonel LEADY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Miss Miller, any further comments? 

37 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. I just wanted to thank the County 

Board of Commissioners again for their gracious hospitality in letting us utilize this beautiful room for the—for the hearing today. 

And Colonel, we’re aware that you’re going to be traveling in theater in Iraq in several months and we certainly wish you well as 

an ambassador of freedom, we certainly and again, appreciate your 

service to the nation, and all of our witnesses were terrific. 

And again Mr. Chairman, I can’t tell you how absolutely delighted I am personally and I think I speak for—on behalf of all 

the citizens of the Blue Water area here, and Port Huron, one of 

your adopted homes, to welcome you back and we certainly sincerely appreciate you traveling here today and I think the Committee has a lot to digest and think about as we continue our work 

to protect our magnificent Great Lakes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We’ve had a great start on doing that and I thank 

you for your kind words and—and again, thank the Board of Commissioners for this splendid facility. We’ve held hearings throughout the country, rare—rarely do we have something quite so accommodating as—as this and quite—that reflects our Committee hearing facility in Washington. 

I again, thank all of the witnesses and all those that came to 

participate, I hope you’ve learned as much as we have and we’ll 

take these lessons back to the Committee with us and—and work 

to weave them into legislative action. 

Committee is adjourned. 

Mrs. MILLER OF MICHIGAN. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 2:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

38 


42636.010
39 


42636.011
40 


42636.012
41 


42636.013
42 


42636.014
43 


42636.015
44 


42636.016
45 


42636.017
46 


42636.018
47 


42636.019
48 


42636.020
49 


42636.021
50 


42636.022
51 


42636.023
52 


42636.024
53 


42636.025
54 


42636.026
55 


42636.027
56 


42636.028
57 


42636.029
58 


42636.030
59 


42636.031
60 


42636.032
61 


42636.033
62 


42636.034
63 


42636.035
64 


42636.036
65 


42636.037
66 


42636.038
67 


42636.039
68 


42636.040
69 


42636.041
70 


42636.042
71 


42636.043
72 


42636.044
73 


42636.045
74 


42636.046
75 


42636.047
76 


42636.048
77 


42636.049
78 


42636.050
79 


42636.051
80 


42636.052
81 


42636.053
82 


42636.054
83 


42636.055
84 


42636.056
85 


42636.057
86 


42636.058
87 


42636.059
88 


42636.060
89 


42636.061
90 


42636.062
91 


42636.063
92 


42636.064
93 


42636.065
94 


42636.066
95 


42636.067
96 


42636.068
97 


42636.069
98 


42636.070
99 


42636.071
100 


42636.072
101 


42636.073
102 


42636.074
103 


42636.075
104 


42636.076
105 


42636.077
106 


42636.078
107 


42636.079
108 


42636.080
109 


42636.081
110 


42636.082
111 


42636.083
112 

Æ 


42636.084