Regulatory Effectiveness and the Environment

Two Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel articles, unintentionally, started me mulling on my thoughts for this post.

The first, an article by Dan Egan, "The Lake left me.  It's gone." looks at the decline and death of commercial fishing in Lake Michigan, focusing on the departure of Milwaukee's last commercial fishing boat to Alaska.  The article notes that although the fishing stock began to decline due to the overfishing, the death blow was the arrival of the quagga mussels that pretty much took over the lake bottom, estimated in numbers at 900 trillion (yes, that's the number in the article, with a 't'!).  The invasive mussels arrived in ballast tanks that were discharged into the lake waters.

What could've saved commercial fishing?  As noted in the article, there were two factors; the overfishing and the mussels.  Both are situations where stronger regulatory efforts could've preserved those jobs.

1. Better controls (or other solutions) on catchs allowed by commercial fishers could've preserved the fishing stock.  Overfishing is an ongoing problem all around the world.  Unfortunately, fishing interests and sympathetic lawmakers have stymied efforts worldwide.
2. Better regulations on ships entering the Great Lakes from other parts of the world could've prevented the entry of mussels into the eco system.  Part of the problem is shipping interests that dislike regulations (just like any other industry), and part of the problem is resistance on the part of some ("Republicans" ) to any regulatory efforts.

The second article that caught my eye was Sand mines create jobs, concern by Lee Bergquist.  It covers the growth of mines extracting sand in western Wisconsin.  Those mines have a special type of sand used to extract oil and natural gases. 

But there are concerns:

Opponents have raised concerns about air and groundwater pollution, and residents living near sites have objected to truck traffic and concerns over falling home values....

Questions are also being raised over whether the industry needs more regulation. A chief concern is crystalline silica, an air particulate of sand mining that has prompted public health concerns.

A decision on whether Wisconsin should limit silica emissions has not been made, and there has been little progress since it was first considered seven years ago, a DNR report acknowledges.

"It's an emerging situation with plenty of questions that deserve to be answered," said John W. Welter, an Eau Claire attorney who recently ended a six-year term on the state Natural Resources Board and now serves as conservation coordinator in the western Great Lakes region of Trout Unlimited.

"There isn't a lot of regulatory oversight and now is the time for research and vigilance to find out what level of protection is necessary."

As someone who looks at housing issues frequently, I am very familiar with the issue of Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) and doubtless that may be motivating some of the opponents, but when you have a large scale operation like a mine with potential environmental problems (one might even say proven instead of potential), there are valid concerns.

But because those mines are moving into rural areas with little zoning oversight, it's unlikely that there will be much resistance.  After all, what county board is going to fight this:

"Anytime you can inject $100 million in capital in a 50-mile area, that's huge," (president and chief executive officer of the Chippewa County Economic Development Corp)Walker said.

It seems that jobs always truimph.

A spokesman for a company, Unimin, said "I don't think that people are focused on the fact that silica is one of the most prevalent substances on Earth - it's sand."  Guess what?  Water is also one of the most prevalent substances on the earth, but if you try to breath water, you're going to have problems, too!