Toledo water crisis: Credibility in question, critical thinking needed

Commentary

The worst of Toledo’s recent water crisis — 400,000 people without water for three days — is over.

But the algae bloom season has yet to peak and with Toledo’s aged water infrastructure, another crisis could happen. That said, the taps are flowing with Lake Erie water free of harmful toxins, for now.

With Toledo’s citizens safe, it’s time for a post-mortem on what people said.

I’m talking politicians primarily, but also the Ohio press, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups. Their views are important.

I set the bar high.

I wanted to hear considered, non-knee jerk reactions that didn’t lean on pre-packaged talking points.

This was a major environmental and health failure in a significant Great Lakes city. It deserves honest discussion not about blame, but on accountability and recognition that the algae policies had failed.

Here’s what we got:

Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman released statements that were quick to point out what they’ve done in the past to tackle the algae problem — the things that didn’t work.

At the state level Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s office didn’t return a call to the New York Times reporter who asked about Ohio’s phosphorous programs.

State legislators announced hearings. Legislators love hearings. They give the appearance of doing something.

A coalition of environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for the Great Lakes and the Ohio Environmental Council, released a problem and solution statement.

It could be strong medicine and move the ball closer to a regulated environment for phosphorous management from agriculture.

The coalition calls for a declaration that the Maumee River is a “watershed in distress.” That gives regulators authority to impose stricter rules for managing fertilizer and manure runoff.

These groups have been reluctant to push for regulations on farmers. It’s a tough sell. Their statement appears to be a change in position.

A powerful conservation outlier

Not all environmental organizations agree with a move away from voluntary pollution reduction measures toward a regulated environment.

“Set aside the regulatory versus voluntary debate” says Dennis McGrath, director of The Nature Conservancy’s Great Lakes Project.

McGrath said many will disagree. But a long prepared statement he made about the issue focused primarily on voluntary measures:

“We  think the more important conversation addresses performance agriculture for cleaner water, what we must do differently to manage/solve the problem, what gaps do we need to fill and, if needed, how will we pay for it.”

The Nature Conservancy is the largest environmental organization in the country and is known for working closely with business interests, in this case agri-business.

Editors with different views

Ohio editorial boards weighed in and Toledo Blade editors didn’t equivocate.

“Voluntary isn’t good enough” they said in reference to setting targets for phosphorous reduction that don’t have the force of law.

“This is not a matter for endless further hearings, studies, debate, and incremental gestures.”

It’s clear — the Blade wants responsible officials “to impose whatever mandates are required for a quick, effective cleanup.”

Contrast that with the editors at the Columbus Post-Dispatch.

While acknowledging the severity of the problem Post-Dispatch editors used their space to emphasize the voluntary efforts in place.

“Ohio hasn’t ignored the algae threat; a state law passed in May creates standards and offers training with which farmers can establish voluntary plans to manage the nutrients they put on their fields.”

A distant EPA

The U.S Environmental Protection Agency kept its distance from Toledo’s water crisis.

U.S. Representative Marcy Kaptur said that all she got from the U.S. EPA in response to her inquiries was a referral to the Ohio EPA. She demanded more transparency.

I scoured the EPA website for the Great Lakes region and found nothing about the Toledo crisis. Internet searches provided the same results.

I contacted the EPA’s Great Lakes office in Chicago to see what gives — why no Toledo statement?

The office provided a generic statement about the science of algae and how EPA works with state agencies to raise awareness of harmful algae, but nothing about the Toledo crisis.

“EPA received and addressed numerous media inquiries regarding the Toledo water situation last week,” said Anne Rowan, chief of the Public Affairs Section. “(That) is a statement that was shared with media outlets.”

In its Great Lakes Restoration Initiative the EPA has declared combating algae one of its top priorities.

Regional administrator Susan Hedman was visible last November when she announced a $500,000 grant for the Lake Erie Commission to study algae.

But when there’s an algae driven crisis, the EPA’s executives have nothing to say.

There’s something wrong when a taxpayer funded EPA accountable to citizens can find its way to a podium to pass out money for a study, but not in a crisis.

Regional setback, credibility questioned

Toledo’s water crisis is a setback for a region trying to shed a retro, rust belt image. Our credibility when it comes to protecting our waters is in question.

Why?

We failed to protect Lake Erie, part of the “national treasure” that we say the Great Lakes are. We failed because we didn’t have the will to address a solvable problem that has been brewing for years.

That’s on us, no excuses. And the setback may not be the first.

At least a decade ago, we declared Asian carp to be the bête noir that could destroy, guess what… the Lake Erie fishery — one of the greatest in the world.

But we’ve only taken minimal steps to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes and there is no federal or state leadership willing to do more.

Don’t believe me

We need to focus on what’s important, encourage critical thinking and challenge assumptions — including mine.

A major city bordering a Great Lake went without water for three days in this water-wealthy region.

The water was too polluted to drink. This is 45 years after Time magazine wrote that Lake Erie “is in danger of dying by suffocation” and subsequent action that refuted that dire pronouncement.

As the algae threat raises that sad specter once again, we ought to stop and think about that.