Conscious Choice: War Costs = More Mercury in Tap Water

November 2005 | Editor’s Note

War Costs = More Mercury in Tap Water

If you think the columns of numbers are going too fast when you pump gas, check out a website called nationalpriorities.org, and click on its “cost of war” link. The website offers a running total of what the war is costing U.S. taxpayers. The numbers were clicking by so quickly it’s probably way past the approximately $199,637,327,000 it was at when I first checked it.

It also offers a running comparison of what those same dollars would give us in a variety of categories including public education. It revealed that, at that moment, we could have hired 3,459,745 teachers instead. Or provided four-year scholarships to 9,677,998 students at public universities, or fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for eight years.

Perhaps there should be another category, the one that sent me on my hunt for war dollars in the first place: the cost of fresh water. I began thinking about all those billions and billions of war dollars after reading a front page story in the Chicago Tribune that reported “the Bush administration is pulling back from an ambitious $20 billion plan to restore and protect the world’s largest source of fresh water,” our Great Lakes. The same story pointed out that the money would have helped address the 31 toxic “hot spots” ringing the lakes, but did not include funds to finish the Deep Tunnel. Deep Tunnel is the yet-to-be-completed flood-control project designed to stop sewage overflows into Lake Michigan, which is where we all get our drinking water.

That got me to thinking: When you compare the cost of the war to the cost of ensuring the safety of one-fifth of the world’s fresh water supply, well, that $20 billion seems like a tiny drop in the water bucket, so to speak.

Even though the costs of war website makes its point in a clever way, I wasn’t sure how accurate those numbers were. So I turned to a U.S. Department of State website, fpc.state.gov/c7690.htm, and in an October 3, 2005 report I found these statistics: “Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, CRS estimates that the Administration has allocated a total of about $361 billion for military operations, reconstruction, embassy costs, and various foreign aid programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for enhanced security at defense bases…

Based on a CBO estimate that assumes a gradual drawdown in U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan between FY2006 and FY2010, war-related costs could total about $570 billion by the end of 2010. DOD’s current monthly average spending rate is about $6 billion for Iraq, $1 billion for Afghanistan and $170 million for enhanced base security for the first nine months of FY2005.”

Then, when I started to check into the Great Lakes restoration situation, things got really complicated. Currently, there are several groups dealing with this issue, but to keep it simple, I’ll start by mentioning one: The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration. This group was part of a process put in place by President George W. Bush as part of an election year promise.

Back in July, the Collaboration, which lists as its members governors, mayors, tribal and government officials, released a Great Lakes restoration draft plan, which carried the estimated $20 billion price tag. However, no money had been allocated yet. In fact, the plan hasn’t even been finalized. That’s supposed to happen next month, in December.

Recently, a memo reportedly was leaked alleging that the Bush administration was going to try to water down the Collaboration’s plan and price tag. But nothing is definite, and it seems that there are as many theories as to what will happen to the plan as there are zebra mussels invading our great waterways.

So maybe with enough persuasion we can convince the federal government that we all think clean drinking water is a good investment idea.

We need to let our Congressional lawmakers know that we all support a strong Great Lakes restoration plan before the plan is finalized in December. And here’s the kicker: they also need to find the funds to pay for it.

Spending money to protect our lakes is very important now, especially for Chicago. A recent study released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association found that Lake Michigan has the highest mercury levels of all the Great Lakes. Mercury can cause nerve damage in young and unborn children. That’s why this issue has been eliciting across-the-board support. Even the Shedd Aquarium is getting into the act, issuing press releases and alerts.

Melanie Napoleon, the manager of the Shedd’s Great Lakes Awareness campaign, said the Shedd feels that if people know how critical the situation is, they will demand action of their government representatives on both sides of the aisle. “This is a bipartisan issue,” she said.

Indeed, among those supporting protection measures are Illinois Congressmen from both parties, including Republican Mark Kirk, from the north suburban 10th Congressional district, and Democrat Rahm Emanuel, of the 5th Congressional District in Chicago and the western suburbs. Kirk is a co-sponsor of Emanuel’s Great Lakes Restoration Act (HR 792), which would allocate about $4 billion over five years to deal with things such as industrial and urban runoff and invasive species. At last check, that measure was still in committee.

All this cooperation is encouraging to Great Lakes advocate Cameron Davis, the executive director of the Alliance for the Great Lakes. “We need a strong comprehensive plan,” he said, pointing out that the plan is “not dead, but it’s in jeopardy,” because no one is sure how it will fare in Washington. Visit greatlakes.org or glrc.us.

“People need to get in touch with their Congressman or woman,” Davis said. “And we need an equally strong investment to implement the plan or otherwise it will just be a piece of paper.”

By the way, at last count, the cost-of-war website was clicking along, way past $199,700,670,000.

— Marla Donato

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: