By John Bebow - May 15, 2008
In conversation after conversation in recent months, participants in the Michigan's Defining Moment Public Engagement Campaign have urged economic growth and fierce protection of Michigan's water resources.
Action in Lansing continues to illustrate just how difficult that compromise can be.
The Michigan Legislature took a great step this week in passing the Great Lakes Compact. But the two chambers continue to spar over implementing legislation. In a classic business-versus- environment fight, the Senate has voted to allow more lenient water withdrawals than a competing version in the House.
Environmentalists are outraged, as evidenced by this press release from the Michgian Environmental Council:
"The Senate bills, as an example, allow up to 25 percent of stream flow in some parts of some rivers to be taken by water pumpers with no permit or oversight," said Cyndi Roper of Clean Water Action. "They also allow excessive mortality of trout in coldwater streams and shut out meaningful public input on big withdrawal proposals. And water users would need to pump 2 million gallons per day to even require a permit – a threshold that would apply to no one except power plants and large municipal water systems."
In contrast with the Michigan Senate's 2 million gallon permit threshold, Minnesota has a permit threshold of 10,000 gallons.
"Why is Michigan – located smack in the middle of the Great Lakes – failing to care for its water resources better than states with much less to gain?" asked Rusty Gates, president of Anglers of the AuSable.
Farm and manafacturing groups argue the stricter rules proposed by the House keep most of northern Michigan off-limits to water-related development
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," Michael Johnson, regulatory affairs director for the Michigan Manufacturers Association told the Detroit News.
Despite the ongoing controversy, water law expert and Wayne State law professor Noah Hall was upbeat this week in assessing the progress for the Compact, which may be the Great Lakes Region's best prospect for keeping those water resources in the basin.
"We've had great news out of Wisconsin, a potential breakthrough in Ohio, and a clear bipartisan consensus supporting the compact in Michigan. In Wisconsin, the legislature came back for a special session to approve the Great Lakes compact as part of a major overhaul of the state’s water law. (See www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2008/05/wisconsin-legis.html"). In Ohio, a proposed constitutional amendment to protect property rights in water should address concerns that the compact may lead to the “taking” of such rights. (See www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2008/05/constitutional.html). In Michigan, Republican state senator Patricia Birkholz and Democratic state representative Rebekah Warren have lead the bipartisan push for the compact, even as the legislature works towards a compromise on the details of how to implement the compact with state regulation of water use.
3 Comments
"Why is Michigan – located smack in the middle of the Great Lakes – failing to care for its water resources better than states with much less to gain?" asked Rusty Gates, president of Anglers of the AuSable.
---- Well people(states) with so much of one resource tend to have a skewed perspective of how long it will last and how generous we can be with it and still have plenty lying around.
---- However, the facts are that many areas of the nation are experiencing drought. Many states refuse to use their revenue to solve the problem and instead want to siphon off water for cheap from a big source - our great lakes.
The result of that is the Great lakes would soon deplete and no longer BE the great lakes but great ponds.
Those that dont live and use the great lakes for lifestyle and living dont care about them nor do they care about our needs as a shoreline state.
They selfishly continue to allow urban and suburban sprawl and expansion in a DESERT!!
I just flew over the western region last fall, and i saw numerous canals, aquaducts, stealing water resources from supplies, so people can move into a hot dry desert, plant a farm, build a golf course, have green lawns and shade, waste water on athletic fields, and basically act like uncaring pigs, so long as they get what they want, all surrounded by dry desert plains and mountains.
They want hot dry sun and climate with ample water for playtime and luxury.
As far as I'm concerned, they should let those areas go back to being dry and move to places where Human beings and animals like to be - hydrated land with rainfall.
Instead of forcing a problem to exist and then suing and stealing water from states that need their resources for future development and quality of life.
-I have a suggestion for dry areas.
Use your money and make the people who live there PAY for their climate and water, and build massive desalinization plants and pipe the endless supply of salty seawater in for usage and agriculture.
A.) They would create a huge new business industry with the increased demand.
B.) they would fuel new advances and technology to lower the costs
C.) they could irrigate millions of acres of land that has been dry and hot for centuries thereby increasing foliage which in turn, sucks up more CO2, keeps erosion and dust storms down, lowers chances for land fires, adds farming production in a society that is seeing hard increases in prices and demand for food worldwide.
D.) they would then be justifying their prescence in a desert, or just naturally dry areas near the oceans where little rain falls and lots of Seawater lies.
E.) if enough countries adopt the technology, it could alter the sea levels that have been rising for decades, and potentially provide a possible remedy to global warming and melting icecaps.
Rehabilitating inland bodies of water should be a priority for humanity.
Lake Tahoe continues to go down, Lake mead - although man made, contiues to drop, the Great Lakes are all down to some degree, in other parts of the world same thing only worse, the Black Sea is at about HALF of what it was 60 yrs ago.
This one idea alone, of using desalinization plants to pump seawater into inland areas for massive hydration and human use, along with better land management techniques could turn the tide of global warming and has potential to save rainforests, boating, shipping, agriculture, housing, waterways, fishing, etc.
As an example, one small facility advertised by a company in Florida can currently desalinate 5 million gallons per day.
imagine permanent plants 10 times larger, Times 10 for every state on a coastline.
The national water tables would fill back up and inland water flow from where many states are currently sucking water from would rise and they wouldnt even have to change how they get their water.
Why do power plants need so much water? Is it because they are coaland nuclear powered?
"The national water tables would fill back up and inland water flow from where many states are currently sucking water from would rise and they wouldnt even have to change how they get their water."
If we start accessing the oceans for our water needs, global warming may increase because most of the earth's oxygen is produced in the oceans via phytoplankton- and say goodbye to seafood. Snip snip.
BobD, thanks for posting this. A partial answer to your question is that power plants need water to cool energy processes so that work can be done by the temperature difference and also to manage "thermal waste". Not sure where you're going with this but there's something for you. Best regards, Mike
Post a Comment