no, focus stays on Michigan; why was the public trust brushed aside?

A news release from Michigan environmental groups Thursday would have you believe that this week's legislative action there on the Great Lakes compact and related water legislation "shifts the focus to Congress" for ratification of the compact.

Sorry, not yet.

The release also says the deal locks "in key safeguards for Michigan streams."

Seldom have so many tried to put so much lipstick on a pig.

For the second time in 3 years, the legislature and Governor have held that unlimited volumes of water exported out of Michigan in small containers are not a diversion, and are perfectly legit. Nestle couldn't be happier. Since there is no 'science-based' resource-based distinction between 300 million gallons a year exported in a tanker and 300 million gallons a year exported in bottles on tankers, the entire premise of the law and compact is at risk in the courts.

The bottled water loophole was created in the compact in 2005 when, without direct public participation, the National Wildlife Federation and others cut a deal with Great Lakes industry advocates. At the time NWF defended this by saying the compact provided a floor, not a ceiling; that states could go beyond the compact and ban bottled water exports if they wanted to. Regrettably, NWF has not supported such consistency in water policy in any of the eight Great Lakes states -- certainly not to the extent of making it a top priority.

More to the point, most of the groups (Clean Water Action EXCEPTED) working on the 2006 and 2008 Michigan legislation have lost their way. Anxious for a 'win,' just as NWF was in cutting the 2005 deal, they have overlooked the gaping flaws in these twin packages.

So before attention shifts to Congress, a few questions:

1) How many water withdrawals a year in Michigan will be required to obtain permits under the 'locked-in protections'?

2) Where will the funding come from to staff and enforce the law and how much money and how many bodies will be required?

3) What exactly assures the public that the Michigan DEQ will suddenly become a fierce protector of water and apply a strict conservation approach to implementing the law, when it has already applied the 2006 law to facilitate Nestle projects?

4) What is the maximum reduced flow of a stream under this law? What is the maximum reduction in fish populations permittable under the law? Is anyone worried that quantifying allowable levels and volumes of damage to fisheries and stream flows might not be a great idea?

5) When if ever will public ownership of water be a priority issue for the groups that have given it away as a bargaining chip twice in Michigan? And will it be possible then to turn the clock back to 2006 and 2008 and undo what was legislated then?

It may well be time for a new group focused solely on protecting the public trust in Michigan's waters in an era of looming commercialization. Wait, that would be Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation -- which has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in car washes, bake sales and grants to fight on behalf of all of us. MCWC, which does not exist inside the figurative Michigan Beltway. You know, the Beltway, where public ownership of water is considered an issue not worth spoiling a bill signing party and news release over.

Comments

[Kevin]

This is indeed sad. Michigan's Governmental representatives apparently have decided that there is no need to protect the Public (i.e., Michigan Citizens) trust. The reason are completely obvious.

Nevertheless, the way I see it the surface and groundwater at my property is now under my sole individual ownership and complete control. The Gov. Reps. have given away all Public claim to it. Sometimes incompetence has its benefits.

[Hugh McDiarmid Jr.]

It’s disheartening to watch your team leave it all on the field in a grueling overtime game that leaves them bloodied and battered; and then be told in an ill-informed bit of Monday morning quarterbacking that they didn’t play hard.

The Sierra Club; Michigan League of Conservation Voters; and especially Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council and Michigan Environmental Council fought tooth and nail for months – years – side by side with Clean Water Action and Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation try and wrestle the public trust language to fruition. Many other of our 60-plus member of the Great Lakes, Great Michigan coalition contributed substantially.

It is grossly unfair to lump those groups in with those who either sat on the sidelines passively during the fight for public trust or, like MUCC, sold out early in the game.

You wouldn’t know it from the selective quotations, but all the coalition’s positions and press statements consistently and forcefully say it expects to redouble its efforts to pass strong public trust protections that were not included in this legislative package. (third paragraph of the last release, Dave)

This blog post also leaves the impression that Michigan is behind the rest of the region is protecting water, when, in fact, it is ahead of the curve in permitting, scientific review, public involvement, promoting water conservation and protecting water resources from cumulative impacts. The campaign has also raised tremendous public and media awareness of the public trust issue to set the playing field for the next stage of the game.

No other Great Lakes State, to my knowledge, has achieved this level of protection or public awareness. Including Minnesota.

Dave knows as well as anyone that policy gains on the environmental front often come at the pace of “three yards and a cloud of dust”.

We’ll all be reviewing the game tapes to see where our play calling could have been better – and if we missed an opportunity to push the Public Trust legislation through a State Senate stacked against us.

But to be told we lacked the will to win; or sacrificed Public Trust for the sake of a photo op or a good headline on a press release is unadulterated bull**** and deserved to be called such.

Hugh McDiarmid Jr.
Michigan Environmental Council

[Gary Wilson]

Mr. McDiarmid and the Michigan environmental groups just got this one wrong.

The Public Trust doctrine is not an area for compromise and they should not have provided Senator Birkholz and the Michigan Senate an inch of cover on this issue.

And saying that you'll revisit the issue after caving in to the special interests is like telling the bully who just bloodied your nose that you're not done with him yet.

One thing is sure though - the Michigan environmental groups who
supported this debacle of a compromise, now have ownership of the outcome.

As a journalist, this could be a headline written by McDiarmid.

"Michigan Pols and Environmental Groups Reaffirm Private Sale and Export of Public Water"

gw