Over a six-week period between February and March, using nets and electro-fishing gear, a team of 25 biologists scoured the Chicago Waterway System for Asian carp. None was found. Though this was good news in the fight to keep the invasive species out of the Great Lakes (or to keep a sustainable Asian carp population from forming in the ecosystem), state and federal officials say much more still needs to be done. A team of fisheries and invasive species experts is now developing a longer-term monitoring plan as part of the $78 million Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework.
 
Cost of closing the locks: Studies come to different conclusions
One idea being pushed by some policymakers and Great Lakes advocates - but not included in the framework's short-term action plan - is to permanently close the shipping locks in the Chicago Waterway System. According to the Chicago Tribune, a petition opposing this idea (or even a partial closing of the locks) has been signed by more than 500 businesses and employees in the Chicago area. The Illinois Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, released a study in April concluding that permanent closure of the locks would lead to a net economic loss of $4.7 billion over 20 years. A previous study done for the Michigan attorney general's office estimated that the economic costs of permanently closing the locks would be $70 million a year, or $1.4 billion over a 20-year period. One reason for the difference in findings is that the Michigan study only focused on costs to the transportation industry, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports, while the Illinois study was broader in its scope. For example, the Illinois Chamber estimated that a permanent closing of the locks would necessitate $1.8 billion worth of changes to the Chicago area's system for handling storm water and flood waters. 
 
Supreme Court asked to weigh in
The next question to be answered about the Asian carp issue is this: What will the U.S. Supreme Court do? The Great Lakes Environmental Law Center provides insights on the history of the court's role in a nearly century-long dispute over the diversion of Lake Michigan water from Chicago via the Chicago Waterway System. The state of Michigan has asked the court to issue a supplemental decree declaring the system "a public nuisance." In the past, the court has been asked to weigh in on the diversion based on concerns about the impact on water quality in the Mississippi River system and on water levels in other parts of the Great Lakes. Michigan is basing its new petition to the court on the potential invasion of invasive species such as Asian carp into the Great Lakes via the Chicago Waterway System.
 
Push to ecologically separate Great Lakes, Mississippi River
Differences over what emergency measures should be taken to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes have sometimes pitted state against state, state against province and states against the federal government. But Great Lakes advocates and lawmakers are hopeful that there is room for regional consensus on a long-term fix to the invasive species problem - at least the one caused by the flow of species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River water systems. That fix involves an "ecological separation" of the two basins, which are connected in the Chicago area by a network of rivers and man-made canals. In February, the Great Lakes Commission passed a resolution that, while recognizing the lack of regional consensus on a short-term solution to the Asian carp problem, calls ecological separation the "best permanent solution." Joel Brammeier, president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, defines ecological separation this way: "No movement of live organisms between the two basins." In 2008, he co-wrote a study urging a permanent separation of the watersheds.
 
Focus on Army Corps study on separating systems
A permanent barrier won't be built anytime soon, but whether it ever does could hinge on the findings of a study being done by the Army Corps of Engineers. The federal agency is exploring the feasibility of ecological separation along with other options to prevent the movement of species between the two watersheds. Plans now are to have the study completed by 2012. Jennifer Nalbone of the group Great Lakes United would like the Corps to speed up that timetable, saying the federal agency already has "been slow out of the gate" considering the seriousness of the Asian carp threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem. One idea for the region's leaders, then, is to push the Corps to get the study done earlier, perhaps with the backing of congressional legislation. Nalbone also says she would like the focus of the study to be narrowed: Rather than consider options other than ecological separation, concentrate on how to go about achieving this feat. Then there is the question of how ecological separation will or should be defined. Would creating "dead zones" in the Chicago Waterway System, for example, meet this definition? Brammeier says building physical barriers is the only option that he views as being "100 percent effective," the only way to achieve true ecological separation. This would require a plan to deal with the recreational and barge traffic that would be affected. And the most daunting challenge, Brammeier says, would be to make ecological separation work while still allowing the Chicago Waterway System to fulfill its primary purpose: as a conduit for the Chicago area's wastewater and storm water. For example, he notes that a permanent closure of the locks would put "whole neighborhoods under water" because the system is relied on for flood control. An ecological separation, then, may only be feasible if it is part of a comprehensive plan to upgrade the area's navigational and water-management systems. Such a plan might enjoy regional consensus, but it also would require a commitment of significant federal dollars.