Alternative A (NOAA's preferred alternative) Boundary: 1,075 square miles Known Shipwrecks: 37 Potential Shipwrecks: 80
We, the undersigned leaders of the Wisconsin Conservative Coalition, comprised of several groups which support conservative and/or tea party values in northeast Wisconsin, are concerned with recent actions of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as they continue their plans to declare over 1000 square miles of Lake Michigan along Wisconsin's eastern coast a National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA has sold their proposal on the promise of education, tourism, and jobs. This promise has been made by NOAA to other NOAA sanctuary sites. We refute this promise based on the actual track record we have discovered in our research of other national marine sanctuaries. This letter will not allow us to present all the information we would like, but we offer the following for your consideration and ask that you respond to what we present below.
- The Lake Huron Thunder Bay Sanctuary has been in existence for seventeen years. NOAA sold this sanctuary on the promise of tourism and jobs. In 2012 The University of Michigan Institute for Research on Labor, Employment and the Economy found no increase in tourism or jobs after 12 years. This site was originally 440 sq. miles. Today it covers over 4,300 sq. miles, granting NOAA extensive control over shipping on Lake Huron. Alpena, MI passed a referendum in November 1997 opposing this sanctuary by a vote of 1770 against and 776 for it. NOAA had promised that they would abide by the community’s vote on this referendum, but refused to do so after the vote, and proceeded with the sanctuary.
- American Samoa was promised its fishing rights would not be harmed by NOAA and the proposed sanctuary. Now Samoa has brought a law suit against NOAA because its crucial fishing rights have been violated.
- Is there anything NOAA promises that Wisconsin is not already doing or could not do if we had the money? There, we suspect, is the nub of the matter. Wisconsin must, like its responsible families, balance its budget, so spending must be prioritized. The federal government has no spending limits; thus the $20 trillion of debt. What NOAA promises is passing current extravagance as debt upon our children.
- We believe any elected official who has signed a letter of support for this sanctuary no longer shares the concern that President Reagan had when it came to the federal government. His famous phrase was, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” With good reason he called this the scariest sentence in the English language because the federal government, with all its vast power, does not come to protect our personal rights and freedom as set forth in the Constitution. We see NOAA’s track record proving that this is the case. They promise something but do not deliver. They sell the local people on what is really a bait and switch effort. We give you __X__ and then we take control of your land, your water and your community’s resources.
Alternative B Boundary: 1,260 square miles Known Shipwrecks: 38 Potential Shipwrecks: 95
- In NOAA’s own published regulations, 15CFR922, they state the following:
- Harbor & approach channels are under threat when discharging material or other matter into the sanctuary.
- New pipelines, water intakes & wind turbines are not allowed if there is disturbance of, construction on or alteration of the sea bed.
- No disturbance of marine mammals, seabirds and sea turtles is allowed (think migratory waterfowl and Eagles).
- Exploring for, developing or producing oil, gas or minerals are forever banned.
- NOAA has the authority to write & enforce fishing and subsistence “taking” rules and limits.
- Each violation is subject to a civil penalty of up to $140,000 per day per violation. (NOAA has its own Office of Law Enforcement, and possibly its own system of courts. What chance does a citizen have if ensnared in that trap?)
- Commercial shipping, an important part of Wisconsin's economy, will have more expensive hoops to jump through just to perform necessary dredging, and anchoring in the sanctuary puts them at risk. Shippers should not have to beg for permission to operate.
- We fear that this sanctuary declaration will have permanency, backed by federal power. Historically, once a federal agency has been given control over any land, water or other resource they do not willingly give it back to the state or the people they took it from. This alone should make every WI citizen concerned with this sanctuary.
- Furthermore, we rejoice when we hear Republican local, state, and federal legislators proclaim “Federalism,” but we seldom see this asserted, especially when the feds come with the promise of jobs, an improved economy, and maybe a pittance of dollars. The fact that NOAA has 200 pages of sanctuary regulations should be a big warning flag but no elected government officials have expressed any concerns. When we have asked about this we are told this is a benign issue, nothing for we, the people, to be concerned about. We must disagree. There is nothing benign about the federal government's intrusion into our state and the lives of its people. Rather, it's a cancer that must be treated with the principles of federalism.
- Wisconsin has laws and regulations concerning ship wrecks, diving & salvage operations. If these are insufficient, our legislature can address the situation while we retain control over Lake Michigan and the lake's recreational and commercial activities. Wisconsin doesn't need Uncle Sam's help in this matter. Keep control in the hands of the taxpayers and business owners of WI where it belongs.
- You stand in disagreement with the Founders, who carefully enumerated a limited role for the federal government. Protecting shipwrecks, educating children, and honoring the dead were not among those enumerated powers. You see, we take seriously the principle of federalism and the rights of states because our liberties are assured by a serious application of those principles.
- We question also whether any elected state office holder has the power, under Wisconsin's Constitution, to cede control to the federal government. We ask, not rhetorically, where that power lies.
We are requesting a quick written response to this matter and the issues we have raised. In preparing your response, know that we fully support the preservation of shipwrecks, the educating of children, the encouraging of tourism, and certainly the honoring of the dead. Our point is that Wisconsin can accomplish those worthy goals in a fiscally responsible manner. NOAA cannot and should not.
Finally, although we are not single-issue voters, your support of the sanctuary is so disconcerting that it will remain on our mind during the next election cycle. More information is available at www.wi-cc.com\marine.sanctuary.html Responses may be sent to WI.Conservative.Coalition@gmail.com
Thank you,