Michigan’s waterways need restoration – The Michigan Daily

Report on Industrial Water Pollution in Michigan and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Waterway Contamination and the Imperative for Action

Industrial activities across Michigan have led to significant pollution of local waterways, which subsequently impacts the Great Lakes system. This contamination poses a direct threat to environmental stability and public health, challenging the state’s progress toward several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This report outlines the sources and impacts of this pollution and examines remediation efforts through the lens of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with a particular focus on SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

Sources and Nature of Industrial Pollution

Industrial facilities are a primary point source of waterway contamination in Michigan. These factories discharge a range of harmful substances directly into streams, rivers, and lakes, undermining efforts to ensure responsible production as outlined in SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Key Pollutants Discharged

• Chemicals: Man-made substances such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are prevalent, with the Huron River facing significant contamination.
• Excess Nutrients: High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are released, disrupting aquatic ecosystems.
• Heavy Metals: Toxic metals, including lead, are discharged, posing severe health risks.
• Plastics: Microplastics and other plastic waste contribute to the pollution load.

The severity of this issue is highlighted by the designation of 65 Superfund sites across Michigan, indicating areas with hazardous pollution requiring long-term cleanup.

Impact on Ecosystems and Public Health: A Challenge to SDGs 3, 6, and 14

The consequences of industrial discharge are far-reaching, directly impeding progress on goals related to health, clean water, and aquatic life.

Ecological Degradation and SDG 14: Life Below Water

The introduction of excess nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus accelerates eutrophication, leading to harmful algal blooms. This process severely degrades aquatic habitats, which is a direct contradiction to the objectives of SDG 14.

1. Oxygen Depletion: Massive algal blooms consume dissolved oxygen in the water.
2. Creation of “Dead Zones”: The lack of oxygen creates areas where fish and other aquatic organisms cannot survive.
3. Toxin Production: Certain blooms, such as those in Lake Erie, produce cyanobacteria containing toxins like microcystin, which are harmful to both wildlife and humans.

Public Health Crises and SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Contaminated water sources present a grave risk to human populations, undermining SDG 3. The Flint Water Crisis serves as a stark reminder of the consequences of heavy metal pollution, where lead in the drinking water led to long-term neurotoxic effects, including learning disabilities and developmental disorders. Broader impacts of water pollution on human health include:

• Water-borne illnesses affecting millions in the U.S. annually.
• Skin infections and respiratory problems.
• Long-term risks such as cancer, organ damage, and reproductive disorders from chemical poisoning.

Remediation Strategies and Success Stories: Advancing SDG 6 and SDG 11

To counteract the damage and advance SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), various cleanup projects have been initiated across Michigan.

Cleanup Methodologies

• Bioremediation: Utilizing microorganisms to break down harmful substances. The Bioxane student team at the University of Michigan demonstrated that bacteria could degrade the 1,4-dioxane contaminant plume near Ann Arbor.
• Mechanical Removal: Physical processes like skimming and dredging to remove pollutants from water bodies.
• Chemical Treatments: Neutralizing excess nutrients to prevent algal blooms.
• Wetland Reconstruction: Restoring wetlands to naturally filter and control waste flow, a method used successfully in the Muskegon Lake Watershed.
• Advanced Technologies: Implementing new solutions like advanced filtration systems and nanotechnology.

Case Studies in Restoration

Muskegon Lake: A successful remediation effort resulted in the lake’s removal from the EPA’s Great Lakes Area of Concern list, demonstrating that targeted action can restore ecological health.

Project Clarity: An ongoing initiative in Holland aims to clean up Lake Macatawa, contributing to the health of the larger Lake Michigan ecosystem.

Economic and Policy Considerations for Sustainable Development

The Economic Case for Restoration: Aligning with SDG 8

While cleanup projects require significant investment, they yield substantial economic returns, contributing to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth). The restoration of the River Raisin in Monroe, which cost nearly $100 million, is projected to generate $53 million annually for the local and state economy. This economic revitalization stems from the creation of parks, wildlife refuges, and a new “green urban identity” that attracts tourism and investment.

Policy and Funding Challenges

Despite the clear benefits, progress is threatened by policy decisions. Proposed budget cuts for the upcoming fiscal year would eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars from key environmental and health departments, including:

• $200 million from the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).
• $17.4 million from water quality programs.
• Significant reductions for PFAS regulation and public health programs.

Such cuts directly jeopardize the state’s ability to fund essential cleanup projects and protect its citizens and natural resources, hindering the achievement of multiple SDGs.

Conclusion: A Call for Renewed Commitment to the SDGs

The pollution of Michigan’s waterways is a critical issue that intersects with global sustainability targets. Addressing this challenge requires a multi-faceted approach grounded in the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals. By investing in remediation technologies, supporting community-led projects, and ensuring robust environmental funding, Michigan can protect the world’s largest freshwater system, safeguard public health (SDG 3), restore aquatic ecosystems (SDG 14), and build a more sustainable and prosperous economy (SDG 8). Continued inaction and budget cuts will only exacerbate the existing crises, making it imperative for stakeholders to advocate for the restoration and protection of these vital water resources.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article extensively discusses the adverse health effects of water pollution on humans. It references the Flint Water Crisis, where lead contamination led to long-term developmental issues, depression, and learning disabilities. It also mentions that polluted water can cause water-borne illnesses, skin infections, respiratory problems, cancer, and organ damage, citing that “Waterborne disease affects seven million people in the U.S. every year.”
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • This is the central theme of the article. It focuses on the pollution of Michigan’s waterways, such as Lake Macatawa and the Huron River, by industrial discharge from factories. The article highlights the need to improve water quality and manage freshwater ecosystems sustainably, discussing issues like untreated waste, chemical contamination, and the importance of cleanup projects.
3. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • The article connects environmental health to economic activity. It notes that Michigan’s west coast tourism relies on its beaches and waterways. It also presents an economic case for environmental restoration, citing the River Raisin project in Monroe, which cost nearly $100 million but is expected to generate “$53 million annually” for the local and state economy, decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article discusses the impact of industrial pollution on specific communities like Holland, Flint, and Ann Arbor. It mentions the presence of “65 Superfund sites” in Michigan, which are highly polluted areas that pose risks to local populations. The narrative revolves around how industrial activities within or near these communities degrade the local environment and quality of life for residents.
5. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The article points to factories as a “point source” of pollution, directly linking industrial production patterns to environmental damage. The discharge of “man-made chemicals such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, excess nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus, heavy metals and plastics” into waterways is a clear example of unsustainable production practices that do not manage chemical waste responsibly.
6. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • The article details the severe impact of pollution on aquatic ecosystems. It explains how excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from factory discharge lead to eutrophication, which creates “huge algae blooms” and “dead zones” where aquatic organisms cannot survive due to oxygen depletion. This directly affects the health of freshwater bodies like Lake Erie and the broader Great Lakes system.
7. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • While focusing on water, this SDG is relevant as it includes the protection and restoration of inland freshwater ecosystems. The article’s call to action is to implement “cleanup projects in Michigan’s waterways” and highlights methods like “wetland reconstruction or remediation,” which was a successful practice for the Muskegon Lake Watershed, directly addressing the restoration of these vital ecosystems.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • The article directly connects illnesses to water pollution from hazardous chemicals. It describes how residents in Flint suffer from long-term health issues due to lead poisoning and how pollutants like microcystin from algae blooms shut down the water supply for 400,000 people in Toledo. The mention of “chemical poisoning, cancer, organ damage, reproductive and developmental disorders” as long-term effects aligns perfectly with this target.
2. Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.
   • The article’s main focus is on pollution from factories, which it identifies as a “point source” that discharges “waste containing man-made chemicals such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances…excess nutrients…heavy metals and plastics.” The call for cleanup projects is a direct effort to achieve this target by mitigating the effects of this pollution.
3. Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including… wetlands, rivers… and lakes.
   • The article explicitly advocates for the restoration of Michigan’s waterways. It provides examples of successful restoration, such as the “Muskegon Lake cleanup,” which resulted in the waterway being removed from the EPA’s Area of Concern list, and ongoing efforts like “Project Clarity” for Lake Macatawa.
4. Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to… water… in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
   • The article highlights the failure to manage industrial chemical waste, citing the Gelman Sciences contamination plume near Ann Arbor and the general practice of factories discharging waste into waterways. The entire premise of the article is about addressing the consequences of not meeting this target.
5. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities, including… nutrient pollution.
   • The article describes how land-based factory discharge leads to “excess nutrients of nitrogen and phosphorus” in waterways. This nutrient pollution is identified as the cause of eutrophication and harmful algae blooms in the Great Lakes system, specifically mentioning their presence in “Lake Erie since the late 1990s.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Concentration of pollutants in water:
   • The article implies this indicator by repeatedly naming specific pollutants of concern, such as “per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),” “nitrogen and phosphorus,” “heavy metals” (specifically lead), “plastics,” “microcystin,” and “1,4-dioxane.” Measuring the levels of these substances in waterways would directly track progress in reducing pollution (Target 6.3).
2. Number of polluted sites identified and remediated:
   • The article provides a concrete number by stating Michigan “contains 65 Superfund sites.” Progress could be measured by the reduction in this number. It also mentions the successful remediation of Muskegon Lake, which was “removed from the Environmental Protection Agency’s and Great Lakes Area of Concern,” serving as a qualitative indicator of restoration success (Target 6.6).
3. Incidence of water-borne diseases and health conditions:
   • The article provides a national statistic that “Waterborne disease affects seven million people in the U.S. every year.” It also describes specific health outcomes in Flint, such as “elevation of blood pressure, increasing depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, learning disabilities and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.” Tracking the prevalence of these conditions in affected communities would be an indicator for Target 3.9.
4. Prevalence of algae blooms and “dead zones”:
   • The article describes how nutrient pollution creates “huge algae blooms” and “dead zones.” The frequency, size, and toxicity (e.g., microcystin concentrations) of these blooms in water bodies like Lake Erie are direct, observable indicators of the extent of nutrient pollution and its impact on aquatic ecosystems (Target 14.1).
5. Funding allocated to environmental protection and restoration:
   • The article implies this is a critical indicator by highlighting proposed budget cuts: “eliminates $200 million from Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, $4.9 million from the Drinking Water and Environmental Health Division, [and] $17.4 million from water quality programs.” The amount of public and private funding dedicated to cleanup projects is a direct measure of the commitment to achieving environmental goals.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: michigandaily.com