GLIN==> engo statement at great lakes restoration conference

[Reg Gilbert <reg@glu.org>]

Great Lakes groups endorse state and local leadership of Great Lakes
recovery plan, call for reform of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Statement of Great Lakes United, Lake Michigan Federation, National
Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club

Presented at "Moving Toward a Sustainable Great Lakes: Diverse
Partners, Shared Vision," a conference sponsored by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the Great Lakes Commission, Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan

June 25, 2003

Great Lakes recovery

Our organizations wish to emphasize that Great Lakes recovery efforts
must move forward under the clear leadership of state and local elected
officials -- governors, premiers, and mayors. They, in cooperation with
the Great Lakes Congressional delegation and Parliament, must drive both
the planning and implementation of any Great Lakes recovery strategy. We
feel this is the only way to assure long-term, efficient, and effective
deployment of public and private resources toward restoration
goals.  

We look forward to being invited to the table by these officials and
providing input in collaboration with federal agencies in the United
States and Canada, and the region's private sector, to design a
compelling case for meaningful and sizable Great Lakes recovery
projects.

While they are important players in any planning and implementation
process, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Great Lakes Commission
cannot substitute for this leadership from state and local elected
leaders. For that reason, we would like to clarify that our participation
in this conference in no way implies any relaxing of our position that
the governors, premiers and mayors need to lead the planning and
implementation of a Great Lakes recovery effort. 

It is vital that Great Lakes recovery efforts be led by state and local
leaders to ensure the highest degree of accountability and public
involvement in designing plans and activities to protect and restore the
Great Lakes. While we recognize that the Corps is evolving, in the past
it has demonstrated a bias toward large-scale construction and
engineering solutions driven primarily by economic development
objectives, as opposed to smaller-scale, less costly approaches that
emphasize ecosystem protection. The Great Lakes Commission is not
sufficiently representative of Great Lakes citizens and communities to
ensure that goals and objectives of the plan are based on truly
protecting and restoring the Great Lakes, and not economic development
activities that may directly conflict with recovery efforts. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reform

In the coming weeks and months, the U.S. Congress will debate the Water
Resources Development Act, the omnibus bill authorizing projects and work
for the Army Corps of Engineers. Our organizations and many of our
colleagues across the United States believe it is essential that before
Congress approves any new projects or work by the Corps, fundamental
reform measures are essential to correct serious deficiencies in the
Corps' planning and decision-making processes. A number of critical
reports and investigations, including those from the General Accounting
Office, the National Academy of Sciences. and even the U.S. Army itself,
have recommended and endorsed many of these reforms. Some of the reform
measures needed include: independent review of costly or controversial
Corps projects; better access to information and increased stakeholder
involvement; addressing project backlog; and updating Corps principles
and guidelines, mitigation processes and cost sharing rules.

______________________________

Reg Gilbert

Senior Coordinator

Great Lakes United

Buffalo State College, Cassety Hall

1300 Elmwood Ave.

Buffalo, New York, 14222

716-886-0142

Fax: -0303

www.glu.org

______________________________