Editorial: Will Cooler Heads Prevail On Carp?

After weeks of sensational, breathless coverage of the carp threat to the Great Lakes by the mainstream media, the arguments offered in the briefs filed by the state of Illinois and the Obama administration show a more thoughtful consideration of the issue.

Michigan is seeking a preliminary injunction closing the connections between Chicago-area waterways and Lake Michigan under a lawsuit that goes back to the 1920s, and was last modified in the 1980s. That suit was concerned with the amount of water Illinois was allowed to take out of Lake Michigan. The Supreme Court ruled in 1933 that Illinois could use the water only to maintain navigation, not for sewage disposal. The court itself allowed a greater than normal diversion in 1956 to raise Mississippi River levels.

Both Illinois and the Obama administration are arguing that the suit has nothing to do with protection from alien species, and thus Michigan’s motion is invalid. The government also says that everything that can be done to prevent the carp from entering the lakes is already being done—short of the drastic step of closing the locks.

The administration didn’t disagree with claims that introduction of carp to the Great Lakes might possibly cause harm to Great Lakes fishing.

But despite media hype, that harm is not “imminent”—unlike the immediate harm to the shipping industry and larger economy of the Chicago area that would result from lock closures. The head of the Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, one of the defendants in Michigan’s lawsuit, claims that Asian silver carp were found in Lake Erie during the 1990s, most likely released by someone who bought them live from a Chinese fish market, although they apparently didn’t establish a breeding population. Lock closures would do nothing to prevent this kind of carp infiltration.

The threat of hasty action is not to the inland shipping industry alone, as the mainstream media usually reports to make it seem as if a single, small special interest is pitting itself against a broader environmentalism. The ripple effects would be devastating. The corn industry says it could suffer losses of up to $500 million a year if it is forced to switch to non-waterborne shipping modes. Northern Indiana’s steel industry could suffer, as well as petroleum refineries in the Chicago area.

And commercial shipping is not the only area that would suffer. The Chicago area has a substantial recreational boating industry of its own that would be shut down if the waterways became stagnant. The Great Lakes Boating Federation estimates that well over 7,000 boaters in the Chicago area would be adversely affected by any permanent closing of the locks.

The costs for terminals to retool to accept alternative forms of shipping would be massive. Job losses could total in the thousands. And all the added costs would be passed on to Chicago residents, not to mention the increase in pollution and congestion from more trucks and trains.

Does it make sense to inflict immediate, massive harm now on the Chicago economy, and the nation’s, to prevent potential harm to the Great Lakes that might take years to unfold? That’s the question the Supreme Court must decide.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)