Michigan request denied in Great Lakes carp case

Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:18am EST

Related Topics

* High court won't order closing of two Chicago-area locks

* Federal government said Michigan was unlikely to prevail

* Closing locks would hurt shippers

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request by the state of Michigan for an injunction to force the closing of two Chicago-area waterway locks to keep the Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes.

The voracious Bighead and Silver carp are considered a dire threat to the lakes' $7 billion fisheries.

The state last month took the unusual step of asking the high court for an order that would close the two locks and would require authorities to take all other action necessary to keep the carp from entering the lakes.

Michigan asked that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the state of Illinois and Chicago's sewer authority take more steps to block the carp during flooding and ultimately to separate the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River watershed.

Closing a lock and dam and the other measures could help keep the carp from entering the lakes, but it also court hurt shippers, who transport 15 million tonnes of commodities through the connecting waterways each year.

Nearby Midwestern states such as Minnesota and Ohio supported Michigan's request while Illinois and the federal government opposed it.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan told the court that Michigan failed to show likely irreparable harm, that the state cannot prevail on the merits of its theory and Michigan cannot justify the mandatory relief it demands.

If the Army Corps makes a final decision to reject the steps Michigan wants, then the state can ask a federal judge to decide if the agency acted lawfully, Kagan said.

While the court rejected the preliminary injunction, it took no action on Michigan's separate request to reopen cases dating back to the 1920s that control how much water Chicago can withdraw from Lake Michigan.

A huge engineering project a century ago reversed the direction of the Chicago River and diverts lake water into a canal that connects Lake Michigan to the Mississippi River watershed. The goal was to stop sewage releases into the lake.

Kagan said Michigan was trying to use old cases about water flows and allotments to litigate an entirely different environmental protection issue involving the carp. (additional reporting by Andrew Stern in Chicago; editing by David Storey)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
afpjr wrote:
As someone who works in the shipping industry, this was a bad decision by the courts (presumably, MI based its case on the wrong approach).

Yes, the Great Lakes are an expedient shipping lane. But the reality is, there are other ways to move goods, and now with US Customs and Border Protection requiring ISFs and remote port processing thriving, moving goods around the lakes by truck or by rail is inconvenient and more expensive, but that’s about it.

Stopping the invasive species from interrupting a $7 BILLION industry (and protecting a lot of jobs, I’d imagine) should be a much higher priority for our nation’s courts.

Try again Michigan, because it’s important to do it, and this time, demonstrate the “likely irreparable harm” that the carp are likely to cause.

Jan 19, 2010 12:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
stan0301 wrote:
What they were proposing was a lot like cutting off your head so you wouldn’t get a pimple–Plus those fish are going to get there anyway–and happen to be delicious.
Seven billion isn’t a drop in the bucket compared to the value of Great Lakes shipping–and the guest fish aren’t going to annihilate the native fish–a generation ago it was said that the lamprey was going to end fishing in the Great Lakes forever–it didn’t.

Jan 19, 2010 1:17pm EST  --  Report as abuse
OrdinarySpud wrote:
In an unrelated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction prohibiting gays and lesbians from swimming in the lake on grounds that it posed a threat to heterosexual marriage.

Jan 19, 2010 1:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.