[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ A warmer, lower Lake Erie

Enviro-Mich message from Gary Stock <gstock@net-link.net>

> David Holtz wrote:
> http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060730/NEWS06/607300610

The climate-change-denial crew have hinted at this before -- but once
they put dollar values on these data, their claims that climate change
will improve the economy (and our quality of life) will rise again with
a vengeance.

We already know how they'll court the media -- precisely what they'll say...

>  * The surface area of the lake, now covering 9,910 square miles,
>    will be reduced by about 2,200 square miles.

August, 2013, by Peter O. Leum, Chair of GDP (Grow Detroit's Pie):
   "We foresee a tremendous benefit:  1.4 million acres of 
   readily developable land will be added to the tax rolls! 
   This finally puts to rest the question of where displaced
   people from the seacoasts will move -- they'll move to the
   heartland.  It heralds a great resurgence in the economic
   engine that made America great..."

May, 2011, by C.D. Erpoint, CEO of Six Flags over Swampland:

>  * New islands already are appearing in the western basin, close to
>    Toledo.

   "Our expansion to these new islands will bring much-needed 
   revenue into our community.  Our new facilities will 
   reinvigorate the tourism industry, which has fallen sharply
   since last year's catastrophic hurricanes in Central Indiana 
   and Illinois.  Here, we can recreate the theme park experience
   we fondly recall from the days when Florida's three peninsulas
   were still joined."

Hey:  the conservation community needs to get ahead of this!  

State and federal legislators are at work redefining wetlands.  The
notion of historic lake levels is nearly absent in existing legislation.
 If there hasn't been any water at the OHWM for twenty years, how do you
defend it?  (When you're reviewing proposed rules, consider how they'll
apply -- legislators won't think of it!)

Would these areas be preserved?   If not all of them, which ones?

Would these areas be granted building permits?  Perhaps, in return for
protecting equal expanses of quality habitat outside the historical lake
boundaries?  Who will identify those receiving zones?  

Will wetland permits be required?  Will mitigation standards be applied?

Consider last year's Michigan Supreme Court ruling:  if the public
enjoys passage when a beach is only several yards wide, what uses will
be permitted when the "beach" is several _hundred_ yards wide?

Would these areas be zoned for temporary uses only?  (For zoning
purposes, many land uses that seem "permanent" are not:  for example,
legally, a gravel pit may be treated as a "temporary" use.)

What kind of insurance will be required for building in a lake bed?

Will the newly exposed thread of "dry" land around each lake be
exploited as the least controversial location for major transportation
corridors?  No farms, no wetlands, no habitat, cheap through eminent
domain... seems ideal to the folks who want to push it through.  What
about for a new airport?  What about for a new spaceport?

As usual, I'm just pointing out options a decade or two before "the
system" gets into it.  Once the realization of potential profits arises,
it'll be too late to demand any meaningful decisionmaking...


Gary Stock                                        gstock@unblinking.com
UnBlinking                                   http://www.unblinking.com/
Googlewhack                                 http://www.googlewhack.com/

ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"