It's a socialist plot....All of this environmental stuff. As a Social Darwinist, I say let the fish fend for themselves. Baa Humbug

"Do you have a better idea?"
-
Spending money just to spend it is never a good idea. If in fact the money is needed fine, make it worth the expense to future Americans (we are borrowing money to make this happen) by ensuring you clean up things once and not twice. The principle reason of beach closings not to due to waves or erosion it is bacteria from animals and humans. If the current way untreated water is dumped in the lakes is not corrected the cleanups will be never ending; not a wise spending of borrowed dollars. http://www.great-lakes.net/beachcast/bw....

retired-you keep focusing on the cleaning up aspect. But it looked to me that the money was also for "habitat,wildlife protection and restoration" and "23,000 acres of coastal wetland shoreline and upland habitat for wildlife" and also preventing pollution from farmland runnoff (which is what usually closes our beaches) and erosion. All of these things will benefit by preventing the same types of pollutions from occurring in the future. Do you have a better idea?

To see ignorance in what the Great Lakes provide our world is disturbing...amazing how anyone could say we get "no return" on our Great Lakes....I support this effort from job creation alone...but many other reasons why we should invest in our natural resources exist as well.

janesvillean yes the story from Chicago sounds deserving of action but it does nothing to address issues like fixing what contaminated the more than 100 beaches modern day. Should we just keep cleaning them up over and over irrespective of the cost without addressing the issues that are causing the need for the cleanup; like the deep tunnel (MMSD) dumping in Milwaukee county?

greengina8, if you consider the money a different way, it's $1 for every 12 million gallons of water in the lakes.
.
RetiredAirForce, I'm probably wasting my typing fingers, but you seem ignorant that it has been some 100 years since the first "simple law" was passed following Upton Sinclair's revelations of the obscene pollution from the Chicago slaughterhouses. Yet Bubbly Creek, the sewage canal filled with cattle blood and other contaminants, remains today -- a century later -- in need of cleanup, long after the demise of most of the companies responsible. This is one potential project that could be undertaken with this money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubbly_Cree...
.
It is, unfortunately, often the case that companies choose bankruptcy over environmental cleanup for which they should be responsible. Nor is it simply possible to expect cleanup to take place at water treatment plants. First of all, that simply shifts the costs to local governments -- it doesn't make it cheaper. Second, we're talking about everything from asbestos to PCBs. What needs to be done is removing these contaminants at the source. That takes hazmat decontamination effort that is difficult, expensive, and even dangerous. For example, the cleanup of Waukegan Harbor, the bottom of which accumulated PCBs from years of manufacturing effluent dumping, cost tens of millions of dollars. One harbor in one city. And third, the toxins are not just in drinking water, they are in the entire lake ecosystem -- plants, fish, birds, and anything that feeds on them. Including humans.
.
Of course it would have been best if we had recognized the dangers of these toxins before they were put into the water, and barring that, best if the companies responsible had always obeyed the "simple" law. But we don't live in that Pollyanna world.

Cleaning up...if that is so desperately needed does no good unless provisions (laws/policies) are put in place to correct the actions from reoccurring. Spending the money without this is a waste no mater how many people are employed to perform it.

Retired-I don't think youre understanding the long-term impact this will have in our area of the country and the amount of jobs it will create for all those who have lost theres d/t the bad economic situation around here. They are going to need PEOPLE to initiate,organize,and do the work involved in these clean-up and restoration projects. Not to mention the environmental impact this will have four ourselves and futureb generations.

Desperately needed...?

RetiredAirForce-Wisconsin is not the only state to receive this cash. There are six other states that will receive this money. Toxins from the rivers are only one small part of the whole picture. My background in environmental geography and aquatic biology let me know that this money is desperately needed, moreso than bank and auto bailouts in my opinion. I won't argue that it is a lot of money, it's true.$475 million is a lot of cash, and when it's divided equally between all the bordering states, it leaves little over $67 million for each state; not much at all considering every impact on the watershed. I don't believe it is a waste; it is a necessity. I'm done arguing with you.

The water is already treated before drinking just like most water supplies. A simple law will stop the spread of toxins if that is what worries you...that does not take 475 million dollars; why don't you understand that?

Retired Air Force-Yes, we are using the water already, but it is not as clean as it could be and should be. Do you really want to injest all the toxins currently present in the system? Probably not. It's BS that you think clean water is not important. How about we give you the toxic water to use? That money we don't have, as you say, will create jobs and protect and preserve the water for the future. What don't you understand about that?

greengina8...we already are using the water. What does the 475 million add we don't already have besides wasting money? As I said, no return...I agree it is BS!

This means that people like me can obtain long term employment! HOORAY!

Returns nothing? It's the largest source of fresh water in this hemisphere! Millions of people depend on that water. How does this have no return? It creates jobs, it returns groundwater recharge areas to their natural functional state and restores animal habitats(wetlands filter toxins from water naturally), and it secures water for the future of the midwestern US. No return? BS......

"It may not be obvious, but what is good for the ecosystem is also good for the economy," Kuper said.
-
How is spending money we don't have to invest in something that returns nothing improve the economy?