today's money shot
Lake Michigan from a commercial airliner.
Links
June 28, 2008
June 27, 2008
Michigan's bottle deposit
Howard Meyerson is a former colleague and an outstanding conservation writer. But this column will not make his greatest hits collection.
Michigan's deposit law is a huge success. Retailers have opposed it since before it was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1976. Now (and for the last dozen years or so) they've been all for recycling -- as long as they're not involved. And they have not stepped up to the plate to fund an alternative with a reasonable chance of success. Even worse, they toss out nonsense like this:
Dechow and some pals decided to see what drivers were tossing out on the highway. They visited the Kent County Landfill where they tore open the trash bags used in the Adopt-A-Highway Program. "We went through a ton of litter collected from highways and found as many deposit bottles as non-deposit bottles," she said.
"Those were a minuscule amount compared to the other items."
That's hard proof that water bottle litter is not a problem? Come on.
Monday morning quarterbacking
Highlights of a comment on today's earlier post...
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.
[snip]
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.
[snip]
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.
The allegation of Monday morning quarterbacking might be more accurate had this issue not been discussed here and elsewhere in great detail before not just this week's 'deal,' but the even worse one cut in 2006.
Michigan is ahead of the curve? Excuse me. What is the standard threshold for water withdrawals that require review under the new Michigan law? Is it anywhere near Minnesota's 10,000 gallons per day? Putting your reliance for conservation in a 'science-based tool' that defines allowable resource damage is hardly a novel innovation.
Who said anything about will to win? This is about political judgment, plain and simple. Bad judgment.
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.
June 24, 2008
the fight goes on, for some
It's a relief to know that Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, the grassroots group that has been fighting the commercialization of the Great Lakes, is not supporting (nor opposing) the deplorable compromise water legislation on its way to the desk of the state's governor. (The governor, as a candidate in 2002, said she would never sign legislation that permitted the sale and export of water; if she signs these bills, it will be the second breaking of that promise.)
Jim Olson, who has represented MCWC in its litigation, is also holding firm. See his comments attached.
concrete protections? or just concrete
A
bipartisan agreement announced today establishes important and concrete
protections for Michigan’s streams and makes water conservation an
integral part of the state’s water stewardship efforts.
[snip]
..Coalition members said they would regroup in coming months to fight for
additional protections not included in the package.
“We are extremely disappointed that the legislature failed to strengthen our important public trust protections, which affirms that water is a public resource that belongs to Michiganders and not to corporations or profit-takers,” said Cyndi Roper of Clean Water Action. “We intend to revisit this issue.”
So the one thing that two former Governors, a leading member of Congress and others said was critical is not part of this deal? "Pyrrhic victory" might be a better headline. If you want to put your faith in government bureaucracy to save Michigan's water, this package is a winner; if you trust citizens over special interests, it's not.
"The idea that we are just supposed to treat those water miners the same way we treat farmers or manufacturers or municipal water systems is absurd," Roper said.
In a key concession to the industry, the compact provides that water packaged in containers of 5.7 gallons or less and shipped outside the basin is not a diversion of Great Lakes water.
June 20, 2008
Lake view
What it's all about. The work, the play, the commitment.
(Photo courtesy of Patricia Pennell.)
June 19, 2008
Michigan's shame
This Muskegon Chronicle editorial suggests the tide has turned in the state; now the public and major media all 'get' the critical issues. Why can't the legislature move ahead in ratifying the Great Lakes compact (warts and all)? And why are some in Lansing opposed to requiring major water-for-sale operations to submit their projects to a public interest test? There is no constituency opposed to this, and in favor of commercializing Michigan's water, except in Lansing.
It will be Michigan's shame if legislation putting the state's water up for grabs and for sale is passed and signed by the Governor.
MI: pass the compact, don't surrender the public's water
As intransigent legislators and lobbyists in Michigan -- for no defensible reason -- refuse to assure public ownership of water in that state's pending water conservation legislation, the advice from the Detroit Free Press yesterday makes more sense. Break the link between the legislation and Michigan's approval of the Great Lakes Compact, and pass the latter. Come back again and again on the other bills until the public trust is protected.
There is no clamor in the general population for commercializing Michigan's water. In fact, any decent public opinion survey would show an 80-20 margin against. So why are a few special interests in Lansing refusing to enact language that expresses the people's will?
an iconic Great Lakes scene
...hammock perch overlooking Lake Michigan.
