Editorial: Reflections And Meanders

This is the twenty-third straight issue where Judy and I have been your editors. And it has been more than eight years since Harry Campbell and I began a new version of your newsletter and named it The Riverwatch. (We collaborated on the first two and Harry then edited the third by himself. The initial newsletter, edited by Jim Enger, was named Au Sable News and Notes.)

Beginning this summer, with the next issue, the new editor will be Bob Linsenman. Most of you know him by the books he's written and the fishing articles he's published in national journals. Bob will bring many fresh ideas to The Riverwatch. I am delighted that we could find someone like Bob to take over.

In the past eight years some of the more important environmental and conservation stories reported in The Riverwatch have been: Camp Grayling, the pollution of its firing ranges, and the initiatives and oversight of the military activities by the Au Sable Manistee Action Committee (AMAC); the relicensing of the dams on the Manistee and the Au Sable, and the continuing oversight of these and other dams throughout the state by the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Coalition (MHRC); the virtually unregulated Antrim gas development which has devastated large segments of the north woods and has caused serious damage to our trout streams, the Au Sable being most affected; the destructive anti-environmental agenda, including the fragmentation and emasculation of the DNR by the administration of Governor Engler; the restoration of the Au Sable and Manistee Rivers which has been overseen by the Au Sable River Watershed Restoration Committee (ASRWRC); the continuing and precipitous decline of large trout in our favorite river with still not a clue about why it's happening; the tentative but inadequate moves toward a rational and comprehensive watershed management; and the never-ending search for solutions to river use conflicts and the need to bring some controls to the commercial canoe business on both the Manistee and the Au Sable.

This list is not complete. But it illustrates the diversity of the problems facing any river advocate today. I would like to think that The Riverwatch has played a role in bringing these issues to your attention. (If you really want to stay on top of these and other issues you should subscribe to The North Woods Call.)

Our organization has been involved in many alliances, such as: a strong ally of AMAC throughout the ten years and an active participant in its lawsuits and other initiatives; a charter member of MHRC, involved in the precedent setting hydro settlement with Consumers Power; a charter member of ASRWRC (see story in this issue) in the restoration of our favorite river; an early ally of Michigan Environmental Trust, Ltd. (METL) which took the DNR and the NRC into court to increase the spacing of Antrim wells and to put an end to the trenching of rivers for pipeline crossings, and won; a member of the Michigan Energy Reform Coalition (MERC), a project of the Michigan Land Use Institute which is trying to bring some sense into the Antrim development; an affiliated member of the Federation of Fly Fishers; an affiliate of American Rivers; a friend of the Michigan Environmental Council; and a member of the Au Sable/Manistee Roundtable. Have I omitted any? Probably. But I cite these to show that we have a good track record in forming coalitions with those whose goal is to provide some protection and restoration to our rivers.

In the past ten years, we have taken on the Pentagon, the oil and gas industry, big power, an indifferent, if not malevolent governor, and the worst enemy of all, apathy, to protect our rivers. Have I left any foe out of my list? If I have, I apologize.

We have enjoyed some success, usually in small doses, and have taken our lumps, usually in larger ones.

As we were assembling this issue I realized we lacked any major stories on some of the major issues of the past ten years. It doesn't mean they're resolved, or that they have assumed a lesser importance. Antrim development is still rampant and, as this is written, remains a threat to the Jordan Valley; the Guard will be playing war games in their newly constructed high-tech shooting gallery just north of the Mainstream this summer, firing their rockets on the north range, and continuing the past use of other ranges while polluting the soil and groundwater with lead, RDX, DNT, HCE, and TNT; Jim Schramm and the hydro coalition, supported by the Anglers, are busy trying to protect other rivers and are involved in other projects; though stream restoration will continue and remain an important task (the projects this year will be on the North Branch) the big endeavor on the upper Mainstream is largely completed; the trout populations in all three branches have continued their decline according to the latest electro-shocking data; and the canoes haven't disappeared.

Some future threats are on the horizon: I've heard rumors that some ambitious developers want to build an Indy-style race track somewhere north of Grayling; there is the immenent possibility of a huge residential development with two "world-class" golf courses and other "improvements," such as large ponds and green lawns near the Mason Tract within a mile of the South Branch; and there are malicious rumors of three new canoe liveries on or near the Mainstream.

Moreover, I've heard that someone, obviously ill-informed, in the Legislature tried to get rid of the Natural Rivers Act. The last time I looked we still had Engler as Governor with a shredded DNR led by an amiable cipher who apparently lacks the necessary backbone to defend our conservation heritage in the politically-charged environment of today, and Harding is still doing his Darth Vader impression over at the DEQ. So things, in my way of thinking, are looking kind of bleak.

Since I mentioned Engler I might as well say more. But first I want to thank Rusty and all the board for the support they have given throughout the past eight years regarding the editorial policy of The Riverwatch. I have rarely received any criticism for anything in our newsletter even when at times a story or editorial seemed to border on partisan politics. Given the behavior of the majority of Republicans in Congress and our own good governor, it has been difficult in recent years to be an environmental advocate, especially for rivers, without seeming to be anti-Republican. I also have not received any serious criticism in the mail or by phone from any member. But I do know that Rusty has protected me a little and has deflected many complaints received by him personally. Even though I appreciate it, he shouldn't have done it. I can take care of myself. But Rusty is a good friend and a gentleman.

As an immigrant from Kansas I can't say enough about how special this state is when it comes to lakes, rivers, and forests. And, since I have been here--it's been a while, about forty-seven years--we have had governors who understood that. Let me name them for you: Milliken, Williams, Romney, Swainson, and yes, even Blanchard. They all, Democrat and Republican, knew there was a need for vigilance, enforcement, and tough regulation to protect the air, water, and lands of this great state. It is only recently that we have been cursed with the biggest threat to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the rivers we love to wade: the worst anti-environment, anti-conservation, and, yes, anti-fishing and anti-hunting chief executive that this state has had since way before I even knew what Michigan was blessed with or, possibly, even before I knew where it was.

It is easy to list all of the havoc that John Engler has wrought in our state, but it would only occupy precious space and all of our readers ought to know what it is anyway.

There are developments in Wisconsin and on Cape Cod that may ultimately give us some relief at Camp Grayling. The most significant is the shutdown of all firing ranges at the Massachusetts Military Reservation because of the threat of toxic residues from both exploded and unexploded ordnance. The EPA also has ordered the National Guard to immediately begin the cleanup of lead and unexploded ordnance from all the firing ranges on this relatively small base--small when compared to Camp Grayling. It had previously ordered the suspension of firing by the National Guard of live munitions and the cessation of demolition training because of the threat of toxic residues entering the soil and groundwater.

Propellants have been the issue in the latest order since, logically, they must be used when firing inert rounds as well as live rounds. The propellants used at MMR are the same as those used at Grayling; they contain dinitrotoluene (DNT), classified by EPA as a probable human carcinogen. One of the most commonly used pyrotechnics at MMR is the same as that used at Grayling: a hand smoke grenade which contains hexachloroethane (HCE), a likely human carcinogen.

Some of the other carcinogens of interest at Cape Cod are RDX (Royal Dutch Explosive), lead, and TNT which can leach into the soil from unexploded ordnance (UXO) and from the firing of various ordnance, including the mortars used on Grayling's south ranges. (RDX is also a major component of C-4 explosive, commonly used at Grayling.)

Many of us in Michigan with access to Internet have been following with great interest this developing story at Cape Cod over the past few months. As Yogi Berra once said, "It's like deja vu, all over again." For those who would like to learn more about this development you can go to the website for the Cape Cod Times, called Cape Cod Online. It's URL is: http//www.capecodonline/.

Of some amusement to me has been the military's claim that it really doesn't know what the residues from propellants are and/or that it doesn't know if they're toxic. Many years ago we brought to the attention of our DNR and our National Guard a technical article published in 1985 that detailed the research by scientists at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Research Institute, located in Chicago. It was published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Health. These scientists analyzed propellant combustion products which are formed when firing an M16 rifle and an 105mm gun. They found many species in the residues that were toxic with great potential for adverse health effects. Moreover, their data suggest that the amounts of combustion products formed are directly proportional to the masses of propellants burned. The scientists concluded:

If it is assumed that all the propellants and explosives used in the Vietnam conflict produced combustion products similar to those of the weapons studied here, it is apparent that large amounts of potentially harmful materials would have been formed.

We then concluded that though firing ranges used intensively for seven decades wouldn't match the intensity of ordnance use experienced in some of the killing fields of Vietnam there still was some cause for alarm. The article cited other references including research done at Edwards Air Force Base in 1969, another titled "The Composition of the Exhaust Products of Military Weapons," describing the results of an Air Force research project, and a third titled "Characteristics of Combustion Products from Military Propellants," regarding research done for the U.S. Army. (The dates for the last two were not given.)

All of this research was done before 1985, and I find it unbelievable that the Army is ignorant of it. I also am skeptical that there hasn't been additional research conducted by at least one of the military branches in this country and possibly overseas as well.

Somebody should do a thorough literature search on this subject, even though it may be expensive and even though most of the research uncovered probably is classified and unavailable even to the EPA, but maybe it would still be available to Michigan's Senator Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The other development is in Wisconsin where there is documented groundwater pollution at nearly a dozen sites at the Fort McCoy Military Reservation (where incidentally, I received my Army commission in 1949; it was then known as Camp McCoy). In spite of this pollution, the EPA has announced that it will not require cleanup, but will require land and groundwater use restrictions. This announcement would place deed restrictions on private property near Fort McCoy, a 60,000 acre installation, including restricting the use of groundwater near contaminated areas. The contaminants are lead and arsenic. It is unknown if the Army has tested the groundwater at McCoy for RDX, TNT, etc.

Laura Olah, the Executive Director of Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, states:

There are no timelines for compliance. We have no way of knowing if the groundwater standards will ever be met. Fencing off land and restricting groundwater usage is not cleanup. If small businesses and private citizens have to comply with our State's groundwater standards, so should the U. S. Army.

Michiganders, who have been contesting the expansion of Camp Grayling, have heard something similar to this for years with regard to Range 40, haven't we? Like when over three years ago the Chief of the DNR's Waste Management Division observed that "the Range 40 study ... has confirmed the fact that soils, sediments, and groundwater ... have been impacted," and nothing has been done about this "impact" since then. The Waste Management Division is now in the DEQ under the direction of Russell Harding. Enough said.

Deja vu, all over again. RWOL

[Top] [Home]