Pursuant to the last e-mail I sent thinking I'd opened up the latest one in|
the discussion (and this time I checked!), there are concerns about the content of the water the pipes will be spewing, but it's very complex, involving aerobic and anaerobic conditions. The substance of concern, Pamak, is a fatty acid, which DEQ doesn't have any automatic authority to turn down. Investigation has shown that, particularly for aquatic life, it may be quite hazardous. However, the well contaminations were for iron and manganese, elements in Nugent's process which when in the anaerobic conditions of groundwater separated from the Pamak and were left behind in the well water. They claim this won't happen in aerated conditions. In general, way more questions than answers.
The reason we've focused to a certain degree on the dune issue is that there is plenty of legal basis for stopping it there. Nugent's case hinges on the definitions of "structure" versus "use," and amounts to a pile of rubbish. There is no way that a pipeline through a dune is anything but a structure, and I've had at least 2 lawyers agree with this. By focusing on the riprap system that will be put on the shore to diminish the force with which all this water will come out, somehow they've been able to bring it over into the guidelines for a "use," though even that they had to stretch absolutely into the determination that the required alternatives were "imprudent."
What makes all this even worse -- and may have been mentioned in the original article -- is that the whole reason for doing this is that they want to build a residential development on the area when they're done sand mining. Somehow they made a hydrologic miscalculation so that one of their manmade reservoirs is too high for their originally planned number of houses. So they need to drain it off in order to avoid having to redo their plans and lose a number of buildable lots. Honestly, the whole thing would be amusing if it weren't so dreadful.
>From: "Bill Tobler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Enviro-Mich" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: E-M:/ Judge OKs dune waste pipe
>Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2004, 12:21 PM
>Enviro-Mich message from "Bill Tobler" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I haven't seen it mentioned here, but at least part of the objection to
>the discharge into Lake Michigan is that the discharge is allegedly
>laden with various chemicals.
>I learned this several weeks ago in communications with the Muskegon
>Save Our Shoreline group when they were asking for "sign-ons".
>Previously, a substantial number of residential wells were abandoned
>because of contamination with the chemicals that Nugent also uses.
>I think the waters of Michigan have been abused enough by discharge of
>chemical wastes into the public lakes and streams and groundwater. We
>shouldn't be issuing "permits" to create even more contamination. More
>pollution by dilution.
>> Enviro-Mich message from Kym Spring <email@example.com>
>> Bill and other Enviro-michers,
>> It seems you are mistaking this Muskegon Save Our Shoreline group
>> one on your side of the state focused on extreme property rights to
>> wetlands destruction, etc. This Muskegon SOS group has worked (and
>> continues to work) diligently to prevent shoreline destruction by the
>> proposed Nugent Sand Company to put a pipeline through a critical
>> build a structure on the beach to direct an 8 million gallon a day
>> discharge into Lake MIchigan -- for which they have already received
>> NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit from
>> DEQ. Muskegon Save Our Shoreline has garnered support from twenty-
>> organizations and has convinced four municipalities to officially
>> Nugent Sand's project. They have delivered over 1300 letters and
>> signatures to Governor Granholm's office opposing the project. They
>> definitely need and deserve our support. -Kym Spring
>> Kym Spring, Community Organizer
>> Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund
>> Ph- 616-742-4084
>> E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
>> 959 Wealthy St SE, #2
>> Grand Rapids, MI 49506
>> This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
>> the person(s) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information
>> privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
>> If you receive this communication in error, please notify me
>> email, telephone or fax and delete the original message from your
>> Thank you.
>> At 12:01 PM 2/27/2004 -0500, Huron Ecologic LLC wrote:
>> >Since SOS owns our shoreline, I'm not sure whether to say more power
>> >the ALJs or that this is an excellent opportunity for SOS to educate
>> >themselves and work with Michigan environmentalists on a MEPA suit.
>> >is just one of many egregious decisions by these ALJs we have
>> >EPA was even critical of them in its review of Michigan's wetland
>> >Engler used his imagination to get what he wanted, and I can only
>> >this administration would do the same. One way or another, Granholm
>> >get the DEQ out from under these ALJs to the extent possible
>> >(understanding that most agency decisions are subject to
>> >review), whether by recombining the DEQ with the DNR (and saving $$
>> >we're at it), creating the promised NRC-type citizen commission for
>> >DEQ, or reorganizing the Civil Service Commission. In other
>> >Majesty" should get a "bustle" in the "hedgerow" and do a
>> >clean for the May Queen".
>> >FALL 2002:
>> >Key elements of the Granholm/Cherry environmental plan include:
>> >* A ban on new sand dune mining in coastal dunes.
>> >* Expansion of Michigan's bottle deposit law to generate additional
>> >for the Natural Resources Trust Fund for purchasing critical dunes
>> >* Creation of a citizen oversight commission for the DEQ to assure
>> >participation in decisions on sand dune protection and other critical
>> >environmental issues.
>> >* Protection of more than 12,000 acres of critical dunes identified
>> >scientific experts but never brought under protection by the
>> >Engler-Posthumus Administration.
>> >* Vigorous enforcement of environmental laws and a crack down on
>> >Bill Collins
>> >Huron Ecologic, LLC
>> >3335 Crooks Road
>> >Rochester Hills, Michigan 48309 USA
>> >phone & fax: 248-852-4682
>> >e-mail: <mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >Huron Ecologic provides wetland delineations, wetland permitting,
>> >mitigation design & monitoring, tree inventories, botanical &
>> >surveys, natural area protection, nature education, and technical
>> >>-----Original Message-----
>> >>From: <mailto:HAMILTREEF@aol.com>HAMILTREEF@aol.com
>> >>To: <mailto:email@example.com>firstname.lastname@example.org
>> >>Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:11 PM
>> >>Subject: E-M:/ Judge OKs dune waste pipe
>> >>OKs dune waste pipe
>> >>A state judge recommended Wednesday Nugent Sand Co. be allowed to
>> >>pipeline through a protected 4,000-year-old Lake Michigan dune.
>> >>Saying the environmental impact of millions of gallons of treated
>> >>wastewater flowing over the Lake Michigan beach will be minimal,
>> >>Department of Environmental Quality administrative law judge
>> >>Patterson sided with Nugent. He overturned a denial of the permit
>> >>DEQ's Grand Rapids district office.
>> >>Darlene DeHudy, vice-president of Save Our Shoreline, a local
>> >>group opposed to the project, blasted Patterson's decision.
>> >>"The public is nearly unanimously against the Nugent pipeline and
>> >>discharge into Lake Michigan," said DeHudy. "Twenty-five
>> >>and three municipalities have declared opposition to the project.
>> >>1,250 letters and signatures have been delivered to Gov. Granholm
>> >>opposing the project."
>> >>The case then goes before DEQ Director Steven Chester, who will
>> >>agency's final decision on Nugent's request.
>> >>"The director can accept it, reject, modify it or send it back for
>> >>rehearing," said Dennis Mack, an administrative law judge with the
>ENVIRO-MICH: Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
>and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action. Archives at
>Postings to: email@example.com For info, send email to
>firstname.lastname@example.org with a one-line message body of "info enviro-mich"