"We've got this proposal which has been languishing in the legislature, the Water Legacy Act, which is derived from a Republican task force on protecting the Great Lakes. Yet nothing has been done on it"
About this Quote
Jennifer Granholm voices a double indictment: environmental urgency colliding with legislative inertia, and partisan rhetoric failing its own test. By pointing out that the Water Legacy Act stems from a Republican task force on protecting the Great Lakes, she strips away the usual excuse of partisan disagreement. If the proposal reflects the other party’s own recommendations, delay cannot be blamed on ideological distance; it is about will, priorities, and the politics of inaction.
The word languishing suggests more than a backlog. It evokes neglect of a living system that supplies drinking water, supports shipping and tourism, and anchors regional identity and jobs. The Great Lakes routinely face threats that do not wait for committee schedules: aging sewer infrastructure that spills during storms, nutrient runoff driving algal blooms, invasive species, and industrial contamination that compounds over time. These are problems whose costs escalate when postponed. Investment in water systems often lacks immediacy because the benefits are preventive and long-term, while the price tag is large and near-term. Legislatures frequently stall on such bills, even when consensus exists on the need, because the rewards are diffuse and the budget hit is concrete.
Calling it a Water Legacy Act frames the issue as stewardship. A legacy is not a press conference but what remains after current officeholders are gone. The phrase turns a policy instrument into a moral claim: do we intend to pass on clean water and resilient infrastructure or a deferred bill and degraded lakes? Granholm’s frustration also speaks to a broader American pattern where task forces produce findings, bipartisan photo ops announce principles, and then the recommendations die in committee as attention shifts.
Setting the proposal’s Republican origin against its stagnation exposes a gap between public commitments to the Great Lakes and the hard votes needed to protect them. It is a challenge to move from admiring the problem to financing the solution.
The word languishing suggests more than a backlog. It evokes neglect of a living system that supplies drinking water, supports shipping and tourism, and anchors regional identity and jobs. The Great Lakes routinely face threats that do not wait for committee schedules: aging sewer infrastructure that spills during storms, nutrient runoff driving algal blooms, invasive species, and industrial contamination that compounds over time. These are problems whose costs escalate when postponed. Investment in water systems often lacks immediacy because the benefits are preventive and long-term, while the price tag is large and near-term. Legislatures frequently stall on such bills, even when consensus exists on the need, because the rewards are diffuse and the budget hit is concrete.
Calling it a Water Legacy Act frames the issue as stewardship. A legacy is not a press conference but what remains after current officeholders are gone. The phrase turns a policy instrument into a moral claim: do we intend to pass on clean water and resilient infrastructure or a deferred bill and degraded lakes? Granholm’s frustration also speaks to a broader American pattern where task forces produce findings, bipartisan photo ops announce principles, and then the recommendations die in committee as attention shifts.
Setting the proposal’s Republican origin against its stagnation exposes a gap between public commitments to the Great Lakes and the hard votes needed to protect them. It is a challenge to move from admiring the problem to financing the solution.
Quote Details
| Topic | Nature |
|---|
More Quotes by Jennifer
Add to List
