The 2024 presidential election campaign is in the homestretch and results in the Great Lakes states of Michigan and Wisconsin could determine the winner. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump covet the electors in both states and polling indicates they could go either way.
Great Lakes Now selected three key topics — Great Lakes restoration, Line 5 and groundwater — and asked veteran policy experts Rob Sisson and Lana Pollack for their views on how a Harris or Trump presidency may deal with them.
Sisson, a Republican, is a former mayor of Sturgis, MI and previously served as U.S. Chair of the International Joint Commission (IJC), the U.S.-Canada agency that advises the two governments on Great Lakes issues. Sisson currently lives in Montana.
Pollack, a Democrat, was president of the non-profit Michigan Environmental Council for 12 years and also served on the IJC as the U.S. Chair. Pollack resides in Ann Arbor.
Sisson and Pollack were interviewed and recorded over the phone. Their words have been transcribed and edited for length and clarity.
Great Lakes Now: The Great Lakes restoration program (GLRI) has been the centerpiece of the federal government’s Great Lakes interest since 2010, funded with approximately $350 million annually, according to the GLRI site. As president, Donald Trump proposed eliminating GLRI funding, but was overruled by Congress. President Joe Biden continued the program including an additional billion dollars for toxic site cleanup. What’s ahead for GLRI from both candidates?
Rob Sisson: The Great Lakes, if a separate entity, would be the 6th largest economy in the world and is represented by a large contingent of bipartisan legislators who will safeguard the program and funding for it.
In March, I had the opportunity to have a one-on-one conversation with V.P. candidate JD Vance. I was very impressed with his knowledge of the issues and he said that he wants to be known as one of the great champions of the Great Lakes. Whether he’s in the Senate or vice president, I think he will offer great leadership from the Republican side of the aisle on Great Lakes restoration going forward.
I would expect a Harris administration to continue the Biden programming and also to follow the lead of the Great Lakes legislators.
Lana Pollack: The GLRI has enough bipartisan support as has been shown over the last 15 years that I would expect it will be continued at that funding level. Perhaps a Harris administration would be more generous than a Trump administration. But, I expect the bipartisan support to continue largely in the format it is because there’s been a good outcome.
The program has such an impact on the people who live in these districts that in most years we’ve seen bipartisan support in sponsorship coming out of Ohio and Michigan. There’s not a lot that Ohio and Michigan agree upon, in this we do. Lake Michigan, Lake Erie and the Great Lakes are important to everybody. That gets recognized in this stellar, longstanding and still needed approach to the Great Lakes.
GLN: The Line 5 oil pipeline that traverses the Straits of Mackinac has been in the spotlight since 2011. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel have tried to shut it down to no avail. Anti-pipeline activists have taken their case to the Biden administration including Energy Secretary and former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, without success. How are Harris and Trump likely to view Line 5?
RS: During my time on the International Joint Commission and holding public hearings on the Great Lakes, Line 5 was probably the number one issue that people brought to us.
It is outside IJC’s purview and area of responsibility because of a treaty between the U.S. and Canada regarding pipelines. I do not see either administration changing the current course.
LP: I would see those two administrations going in polar opposite directions. I’d wish that if there would be a Trump administration, it would be concerned with the health of the Great Lakes. But at the presidential level, I don’t see anything at all in his record that would indicate any concern or awareness of the dangers posed by an ever-aging pipeline. I expect with confidence that a Harris administration would recognize the threat to the Great Lakes posed by Line 5 and would be a source of support frankly, in two places.
By providing support for the state of Michigan to be able to exercise its legitimate authority to protect the lakes as stipulated in the treaty of 1977. It has language that is very clear that Michigan has authority when it comes to the clear environmental threat to the lakes which this poses.
The second thing is to address the issue through the state department and the administration has great interest and control over state department policies, given the existing laws, treaties and understandings. Canada has been grossly violative of the language and the spirit of the treaty of 1977. That needs to be addressed at the highest levels from the White House and from the Department of State — and I expect a Harris administration to recognize that and to direct the state department to be consistent with the agreements, treaties and laws.
As a former chair of the U.S. section of the IJC, I have some familiarity with the relationship between the U.S. and Canada. Canada would be apoplectic if the U.S. were to interfere in a similar way in the authority of the province of Ontario that is clearly stipulated under Canadian law.
GLN: Protection of wetlands and groundwater depletions could be ripe for federal intervention. Both are threatened and stewardship and regulation of them is muddled. For example, in 2023 the Supreme Court issued a wetland ruling in an effort to create a tighter definition of wetlands that are subject to federal regulation. But there are still gray areas subject to interpretation.
The threat facing groundwater screams for someone to be in charge. Will either a Harris or Trump administration address the issues affecting them, or are they too far down a presidential priority list?
RS: I don’t know if either Trump or Harris would take a leadership role but experts in the various agencies will begin bubbling groundwater and aquifers to the surface in terms of policy and science.
More attention needs to be paid to the science of groundwater. We need to increase the research and scientific knowledge about groundwater in the Great Lakes and everywhere. There’s a great void; science can step in and there needs to be an infusion of investment.
LP: Again, I believe there would be a sharp difference between a Trump and Harris administration. Sadly, I have zero expectations that Trump would indicate any concern for a resource like groundwater that is critical but unseen. I would expect unfortunately nothing by way of help to protect groundwater which has accumulated over thousands of years and can be depleted in a very short period of time, never to be replenished in the foreseeable future.
With a Harris administration, I would have hope and expectation that with sufficient well-organized advocacy, education and presentation of the science and the economics of the issue, there could be some progress. Groundwater is the forsaken step-child of the environmental movement, in part because it is out of sight. In so far as the public is aware of environmental issues, it is invariably supportive. When they’re not aware and informed it makes it easy for the resource to be exploited. It stands before the environmental community to organize and focus our resources to get the government at every level to take action.
GLN: What have we missed? Other Great Lakes issues that should garner the attention of the new president or the president’s agency heads?
RS: Along the U.S.-Canada transboundary there are 10 aquifers shared by the two countries. It would behoove the two governments to start leaning on the IJC to create or add that research and science portfolio to its existing work along the transboundary including the Great Lakes. That would compel experts from local, state and federal agencies to collaborate to build a common understanding of groundwater science and data, and monitor it going forward.
Over the 120-year history of the boundary waters treaty, the focus has always been on surface water. We now know that groundwater has much more to do with surface water than we’ve previously understood. The State Department is the agency that would drive the initiative.
And the next president should use the gravitas of the presidency to support the Great Lakes Science Plan, a forward-looking plan for resources to transform science efforts over the next generation.
The plan will focus on developing young scientists in the Great Lakes basin and will incorporate “Traditional Ecological Knowledge” and socioeconomic perspectives, to offer more robust data about Great Lakes water quality and its impacts. The more we can know about how the Great Lakes may change in the future, the better prepared we will be to face those challenges.
The new president’s endorsement of the plan would send a message on the importance of Great Lakes science.
LP: As to Line 5, the probability of a failure is too great to ignore. A break will at some point come, and then it will be too late to avoid serious damage to the Great Lakes. A break in the line would happen very quickly. We wouldn’t have a chance to see a slow drip and then decide that we should do something about it.
Letting Canada, our neighbor, with whom we share these waters, and who should know better, determine the fate of Line 5 and the Great Lakes, is unwise to the point of recklessness.
Having served for nine years as the U.S. Section Chair of the IJC, I know something of Canada’s politics. I know what the tar sands of Alberta mean to the politics of that country, whether governed by the Liberal or Conservative parties. While there is a growing awareness in Canada of the risks to the Lakes we share, we’re not seeing that awareness reflected in government policies, at least not yet. The next U.S. president needs to assert U.S. options to address Line 5, including support for Michigan’s authority to shut it down under the provisions of the 1977 treaty concerning transit pipelines.
Editor's note: Enbridge is among Michigan Public's corporate sponsors.
