[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

Re: E-M:/ Who's in charge?

Enviro-Mich message from Sue Julian <benj@tir.com>

Mr. McKenna, thanks for the follow-up posting to "Who's in Charge?."

The Drain Code is one of those loopholes that makes wetland destruction
LEGAL.  That's what a Drain Code is for--draining.  Drain Code is not part
of NREPA and the rules governing the size of any wetlands destroyed are
irrelevant   Section 10  of the Drain Code states up front:
	"Drains may be laid or extended into or along or from any lake or other
body of water surrounded wholly or in part by a swamp, marsh or other low
lands for the general purpose of drainage comtemplated by this act, but not
so as to impair the navigation of any navigable river."

Now the proposed bill HB 4803 will allow as few as five people from one
parcel of land to petition for drainage. This "protects minority interests"
say the drain commissioners.  You bet--development interests!

At 09:01 PM 11/25/00 -0500, joonmck wrote:
>Enviro-Mich message from joonmck <joonmck@gateway.net>
>The DEQ certainly isn't in charge. They provide the red carpets for the
>developing class. As many of you know, in October 1980 the State of
>Michigan enacted a landmark wetland statute that changed the rules for
>developers. Certain wetlands were regulated, including all those that
>were contiguous with (connected to in some manner) a permanent inland
>lake system. For counties with a population greater than 100,000 (like
>Ingham County) all non-contiguous (or isolated) wetlands greater than 5
>acres in size were also regulated. Everything smaller than 5 acres was
>unregulated, meaning that anyone could do whatever they wanted with
>Regulation did not mean protection, however. Developers -- of a housing
>project, industrial park, a Walmart etc. -- and homeowners could apply
>for a permit to develop property. If they were granted permission to
>destroy a wetland they were required to replace it by building another
>wetland in another place. They had to build a bigger wetland, at a ratio
>of 1 ½ new wetland acres to 1 old wetland acre.
>How has the program gone? Not very well. Unfortunately, the wetland
>mitigation rule has been poorly enforced. First of all, for most of the
>program's history, the DEQ never kept records of the permitted sites.
>Moreover, DEQ representatives rarely, if ever follow-up with a developer
>to check whether or not that had actually created a new wetland as they
>were required to do by law. 
>In the past three years, the DEQ has placed more effort into getting its
>house in order, and record keeping has improved. As of June 1999, the
>DEQ only had records of 23 permitted acres lost to 35.5 mitigated acres
>(replaced) for Ingham County. But the DEQ does not know whether those
>35.5 acres (listed on paper) were indeed replaced, in reality. According
>to Rob Zbciak, a surface water quality specialist for the DEQ, wetland
>mitigation did not begin in earnest until the mid-1980s, and even then,
>many  people didn't know about it. Even today the wetland overseers have
>"a limited staff stretched too thin." 
>Zbciak said that the number of 23 wetland acres lost to development was
>"probably low." He said that a better indicator of sprawl was wetland
>lost illegally; however he admitted that this number is hard to
>Moreover, the EPA reports that there has been "a high level of wetland
>loss in the Upper Grand River Watershed during 1982 and 1992." The loss
>of wetlands -- which are natural storm water buffers -- has come at the
>same time that the Grand was continuing to discharge tons of raw sewage
>into the Grand River after a storm event. In 1997 there were 713 million
>gallons of raw sewage that swept into the Grand River due to combined
>sewer overflows. 
>As Nietzsche said, "Insanity in individuals is rare, in nations, epochs
>and eras it is the rule." 
>Brian McKenna
>Sue Julian wrote:
>> Proposed Drain Code Changes Who is in Charge:
>> Current Federal Regulations
>> Protect Streams and Wetlands
>> [Image]
>> (Sign: "Stream Buffer Zone: No Grubbing, No Grading")
>> [Image]
>> (Sign: "Wetland Boundary")
>> Current Drain Code Maintenance on the Same Stream.
>> Environmental Safeguards are missing.  DEQ is not involved.
>> [Image]
>> A Recent World Resources Institute study found that freshwater species
>> are going extinct 20 times faster than other species due to
>> environmental degradation.
>> Proposed Drain code HB 4803 further limits DEQ involvement.  Current
>> law requires DEQ review and approval of pollution plans.  HB 4803
>> strikes that approval.  Additionally, neither individual citizens nor
>> environmental groups are able to appeal the scope of a drain project.
>> Drain commissioners are left in full control.
>> Why give more authority to the people who have allowed sewage and
>> sedimentation to flow into the Great Lakes?
>> To protest this bill, call or fax your Senator now.  The bill is up
>> for a vote on Nov. 28.
>> Senate contact information can be found at the Michigan Senate
>> website.
>> Thanks for taking time to voice your opinion about Michigan Drain law.
>> -Sue Julian and Willliam Bishop, Michigan Drain Code Coalition
>> (248)634-3513
>ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
>Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
>majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info

İİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİİçVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at

Postings to:  enviro-mich@great-lakes.net      For info, send email to
majordomo@great-lakes.net  with a one-line message body of  "info enviro-mich"