Diversion pact
Kathi
Protecting Michigan's water wonderland
Rules on water use by farms, firms draw fire as diversion pact debated
By Gary Heinlein / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080513/METRO/805130382
LANSING -- State lawmakers are carefully maneuvering Michigan toward
joining a historic international compact reserving Great Lakes water
for the states and Canadian provinces around them.
The compromise they also seek would set state rules governing water
use within Michigan. And it's those rules, rather than the compact,
that pits environmentalists against businesses, the state House
against the Senate, and Democrats against Republicans.
"We're getting closer," said Sen. Patricia Birkholz, R-Saugatuck. "I
expect something to pop in the next week or two."
Birkholz and Rep. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, are the chief
negotiators because they are leaders in their respective chambers on
environmental issues. Both are being lobbied heavily by special
interest groups.
The Michigan Farm Bureau and Manufacturers Association say too much
regulation could further damage the state's fragile economy by
impeding businesses. But the Michigan Environmental Council and other
green groups want strict protection for streams, lakes and fish.
As Birkholz and Warren seek a balance that protects Michigan water
while capitalizing on the economic potential of its abundance, the
clock is ticking. There's a sense that the Great Lakes states and
provinces should waste no time approving a compact that protects the
lakes from dry states and regions that covet their water.
"At a time when we're struggling, our natural resources -- notably the
Great Lakes -- are a great source of strength to us," said Richard
Studley, vice president of the state Chamber of Commerce.
"The Great Lakes are critically important, not just for our quality of
life but as an economic resource for agribusiness, forest products,
shoreline owners and our hospitality industry."
In addition to approval by the states and provinces, the 27-page pact
must be adopted by Congress -- but it would be politically difficult,
for now, for Congress to override state and provincial approval.
The compact has been signed by Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota and New
York and approved in principle by Ontario and Quebec. The other four
Great Lakes states -- Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio --
are considering it.
The Great Lakes Compact essentially allows governors to veto any plan
to divert Great Lakes water to other regions of the country unless all
of the governors in the region agree.
It would require unanimous approval by all of the states and provinces
for any proposed project that would suck 5 million gallons or more per
day from the Great Lakes, connecting tributaries, rivers or lakes in
the basin. That's less than 1 percent of the 700 million gallons that
Metro Detroit's 4.2 million water customers tap daily from waters in
the basin, which includes all of Michigan's inland lakes, streams and
aquifers.
Pact supported, but not rules
States and provinces have to approve the compact as is, or it goes
back to the drawing board. Each state also must enact accompanying
water-use regulations. Those don't have to be the same for every
state, but they do have to comply with the broad provisions of the
compact.
Michigan policymakers are unanimous in their support for joining the
regional compact. But there are disagreements over differing House and
Senate rules to govern water use within Michigan. Studley and the
chamber say lawmakers probably should approve the compact now, and
worry about the rules later. But Warren and Birkholz agree the time is
ripe for approval of both, following years of research and discussion.
The House and Senate versions agree that anyone pumping more than
100,000 gallons a day from Michigan waters must pay modest annual
registration fees and file regular reports with the state. And both
would require the 100-200 water bottling plants in Michigan, and any
new ones, to get state approval to pump more than 200,000 gallons a
day from the ground or waterways. Residential wells are exempt from
the rules.
Despite agreements on those points, there are some significant
disagreements:
• The House proposal would require a state permit for any project
drawing more than 1 million gallons a day -- the amount used by a farm
irrigation system -- from groundwater and inland waters, and more than
2 million gallons a day directly from the Great Lakes. The Senate
version would require a permit for withdrawals in excess of 2 million
gallons a day inland -- quantities used mostly by public water systems
and power plants -- and 5 million gallons directly from the Great
Lakes.
Before issuing or denying a permit, the Department of Environmental
Quality would have to consider the impact of large-scale withdrawal on
lakes, streams, aquifers and other users. Permits would cost $2,000,
and permit holders would have to submit regular water-use reports to
the state and pay annual fees. Violators could be fined up to $10,000.
• In the House bills, projects that could reduce the "thriving fish"
population in any of Michigan's 3,000 cold-water streams by even 1
percent would need a permit. The Senate legislation sets a 5 percent
threshold.
• The House plan would declare Michigan's water to be a public
resource, held in trust by the state. The Senate version would
recognize that courts have upheld the state's dominion over its waters
without making a statement about it. Proponents say the trust document
would emphasize the state's authority to protective Michigan water;
opponents fear it could open the door to additional anti-business
regulations.
Residents would be affected
The proposed regulations will make a difference to residents who rely
on the waterways for business and recreation.
"Folks in Lansing are writing bad law, especially about trout waters,"
said Rusty Gates, who caters to fly fishers at Gates Lodge, nestled
next to a stretch of the Au Sable River near Grayling. An avid
conservationist, Gates said he believes neither the House nor the
Senate version is strong enough.
"You first have to accept the fact that we would be willing to kill
any fish," he said. "When you go as far as to kill 1 percent of the
fish, you've changed where they live. The whole water ecology has been
altered."
Such principles already are well-established in two major court cases
that lawmakers should consult before passing the new rules, Gates
said.
Martin Bahr, a bank vice president living in Bayport in Michigan's
Thumb region, doesn't know which version is best. But he's worried
about Saginaw Bay's levels.
Former bottom land, now exposed, is thick with weeds. Bahr bought an
airboat to reach his duck blind, because the water is too shallow.
"It absolutely impacts property values," Bahr said. "It impacts the
number of people using the marina and the bay, which hurts businesses
in town. You don't want to see the water go any lower, but how do you
protect it?"
Across the state, near Centreville in southwestern St. Joseph County,
farmer Larry Walton stews over the possibility that lawmakers will
saddle him with well-intentioned water protection laws that will add
tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of growing seed corn,
soybeans, green beans and wheat on 700 acres.
Around Centreville, 100,000 acres of cash crops and vegetables are
maintained by irrigation rigs -- tall, wheeled sprayers that rotate
around a central axis and shower a million gallons of groundwater a
day during the peak growing season.
The Michigan Farm Bureau estimates that the 13 irrigation rigs on the
Walton family farm could cost $2,000 each in yearly license fees and
$40,000-$100,000 for one-time hydro geological and environmental
analyses under the House-proposed water rules.
"I can understand the public's concern about protecting the resource,"
Walton said. "(But) with probably $80,000 invested in just our
equipment and $1,000 a month to run it, I'm not going to use any more
water than I need."
The Farm Bureau and Manufacturers Association particularly oppose the
House's public trust language and stringent limits on damage permitted
to cold-water fish. They maintain the strictures would virtually
padlock development in areas with cold-water streams, much of the
economically depressed Upper Peninsula, northern Lower Peninsula and
western Lower Peninsula.
"We can't support a bill that results in a no-growth policy for half
of the state and we can't support a bill that gives the governor
control over private property," said Michael Johnson, regulatory
affairs director for the manufacturers.
The Michigan Environmental Council responds that the House bills would
engender only a dozen permit applications a year, most of which
readily could be approved. Environmentalists say conservative limits
on damage to fish populations are warranted until scientists get a
better fix on the effects of water withdrawals.
"The question is how much is too much," said James Clift, policy
director for the council. "What percentage of fish habitat
(destruction) are we willing to accept to attract new business?"
.
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider ----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to 100,000+ newsgroups
Bruce Burden
:
: Before issuing or denying a permit, the Department of Environmental
: Quality would have to consider the impact of large-scale withdrawal on
: lakes, streams, aquifers and other users. Permits would cost $2,000,
: and permit holders would have to submit regular water-use reports to
: the state and pay annual fees. Violators could be fined up to $10,000.
$10k fines? Give me a break. That is barely a slap on the
wrist.
And, I agree with the fish "kill" provision. There is just
no way to regulate it, much less prove it, so it is a stupid
rule. Besides, what is "magic" about 1%? Why not 0.5%? As Dilbert
noted last week, one imaginary number is as good as another.
Bruce
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I like bad!" Bruce Burden Austin, TX.
- Thuganlitha
The Power and the Prophet
Robert Don Hughes