Sedimentary Processes and Sequence Stratigraphy of Lake Michigan, United States

Having had the opportunity of working out the distribution of broods V., VIII. and XXII. in Indiana, brood XV. in Ohio possessed a peculiar interest for me, as in studying it I was able to profit considerably by my acquaintance with the others. I perhaps ought to say a word in regard to the three other broods mentioned, as one of them (XXII.) is treated of at considerable length in the Report of the Entomologist of the United States Department of Agriculture for the year 1885, and it was while connected with the Department as one of its special agents that these three broods were studied. Brood XXII. covered the entire State of Indiana, except a narrow strip of land around the lower end of Lake Michigan, from ten or fifteen to twenty miles wide, which area was exactly covered by brood V. in 1888.

Download Full-text

The Chicago Drainage Canal and St. Lawrence Development

The American Journal of International Law ◽

10.2307/2189864 ◽

1929 ◽

Vol 23 (2) ◽

pp. 307-328 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

J. Q. Dealey

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Great Lakes ◽

Lake Michigan ◽

The United States ◽

United States Government ◽

Drainage Canal ◽

Great Achievement ◽

Chicago River ◽

Legal Difficulties ◽

Federal Control

In 1900, by the opening of the Chicago drainage canal, there was provided a watercourse for the disposal of sewage and for navigation from Lake Michigan by way of the Chicago River to the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers. Entailing as it did the reversal of the flow of the Chicago River, this, from the engineering standpoint, has been hailed as a great achievement. The large abstraction of water from Lake Michigan through the canal, however, had its effect in a lowering of levels in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River with consequent injury to navigation. This brought about constant opposition to the canal from the Federal Government and from Canada. Thus the Sanitary District of Chicago has been involved in a host of legal difficulties and put to much expense in adjusting its plant to the demands of the United States Government. The diversion in the meantime has been a constant source of ill-feeling towards the United States on the part of Canada and at present, although under federal control, offers an obstacle to the further development of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence waterways.

Download Full-text

Accumulation of As, Pb, and Cu Associated with the Recent Sedimentary Processes in the Colorado Delta, South of the United States-Mexico Boundary

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology ◽

10.1007/s00244-008-9218-2 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 56 (4) ◽

pp. 680-692 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

L. W. Daesslé ◽

K. C. Lugo-Ibarra ◽

H. J. Tobschall ◽

M. Melo ◽

E. A. Gutiérrez-Galindo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

The United States ◽

Sedimentary Processes ◽

United States Mexico

Download Full-text

Proceed with Caution, then Sue the Bastards in Michigan

DDT Wars ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190219413.003.0008 ◽

2015 ◽

Author(s):

Charles F. Wurster

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Lake Michigan ◽

The Other ◽

Dutch Elm Disease ◽

Department Of Agriculture ◽

Chlorinated Hydrocarbon ◽

Grand Rapids ◽

Spring Lake

At that first meeting on October 6, 1967, the new trustees of EDF had voted to “proceed with caution,” given the precarious position of this essentially nonorganization with no assets. It was an easy motion and it passed unanimously, but before long caution was thrown to the winds when Lew Batts described an imminent planned application of the insecticide dieldrin in western Michigan. Intended to eradicate an alleged infestation of Japanese beetles, dieldrin was to be applied to 3,000 acres in Berrien County near Lake Michigan by the Michigan and United States Departments of Agriculture. Lew wanted EDF to stop them. We already knew something about dieldrin, a chlorinated hydrocarbon relative of DDT and an environmentally destructive material, more acutely (immediately) toxic than DDT. We knew it would kill birds and mammals and could damage fish. Furthermore, Lew Batts was connected with a Michigan foundation that had more money, but less arrogance, than we did. EDF was designed to litigate, and Batts’s organization certainly was not. He guaranteed the assembled new trustees of EDF that if we would tackle the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) in court to block the dieldrin application, he would support the effort with $10,000. The fat was in the fire! EDF’s trustees voted to cautiously sue the Michigan Department of Agriculture, and anybody else if necessary, to prevent the dieldrin treatment. Furthermore, several communities within the Lake Michigan watershed in western Michigan were using DDT in an attempt to control Dutch elm disease, a futile exercise with which we were very familiar (Wurster DH et al., 1965). With both of these destructive chemicals contaminating the fish, it would be difficult to separate the effects of each chemical from the other. So we decided to sue not only MDA in connection with its proposed dieldrin application, but we would add as defendants nine cities in western Michigan within the Lake Michigan watershed that were using DDT (Fremont, Muskegon, Greenville, Rockford, Lansing, East Lansing, East Grand Rapids, Holland, and Spring Lake).

Download Full-text