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

Re: E-M:/ Water Legacy Act



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Mike Bitondo" <mbitondo@chartermi.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's more than one number in the press release.  Besides 2 MGD, there is
100 MGY, which is less than half of Ice Mountain's 400 GPM.  I don't know
any more about this than what is in the press release but I would guess that
the 2 MGD number is intended to capture short-term high volumes while the
100 MGY is intended to capture long-term lower volumes.  It also says that
on January 1, 2010, all water withdrawals greater than 100,000 gallons a day
would be required to get a permit.

As somebody pointed out earlier, the proposal needs to be examined in detail
by those interested and/or knowledgeable about this issue.

Mike Bitondo
mbitondo@chartermi.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <geodynamics@comcast.net>
To: "ENVIRO-MICH" <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:40 PM
Subject: RE: E-M:/ Water Legacy Act


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from <geodynamics@comcast.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


All,

It appears that the 2mgd number is correct. That being the case, I would
rather the legislature drop the whole matter. The 2mgd number is so high
that it effectively guarantees environmental damage. Some damage is, within
reason, tolerable when we are supplying a community with domestic water but
it goes way too far for business operations. As I've mentioned before, it is
reasonable to allow agricultural operations to extract higher volumes when
under drought conditions. However, if a business needs an excess of water,
then it should locate its operations where their draw is much less likely to
cause a measurable impact. In other words, connect to a supply system that
draws from one of the Great Lakes, not from the groundwater regime. There is
ample water capacity for those willing to locate in Detroit, Chicago,
Muskegon, Port Huron...

It is obvious that the 2mgd number was not generated within the main-stream
scientific community. First of all, you cannot set a specific value for the
rate of withdrawal without knowing the details of the aquifer that you are
using.

-Tim-


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
[mailto:owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of
geodynamics@comcast.net
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:06 PM
To: ENVIRO-MICH
Subject: RE: E-M:/ Water Legacy Act--Where's the rage?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from <geodynamics@comcast.net>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave,

There's no reason to trade-in your slide rule. I too hope the 2,000,000 gpd
number cited is a misprint. That number is roughly equivalent to the supply
needed for a community of 36,000 people!

Please, someone with a bit of extra time, follow the press-release back to
the source and see if the 2M number is correct. If so, somebody got
hoodwinked and there needs to be a significant revision.

Regards,

-Tim-

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
[mailto:owner-enviro-mich@great-lakes.net] On Behalf Of Dllewell8@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:24 AM
To: "Daniel Farough"; enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
Subject: Re: E-M:/ Water Legacy Act--Where's the rage?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from Dllewell8@aol.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dan, and Enviro-michers,

Please correct my math if you can, but I believe that the 2 million gallons
per day listed in the legislative initiative is wrong.  Are we really
proposing that it would be OK for Ice Mountain to increase their output by
almost 4 times?

Ice Mountain's present "license" is for 400 gallons per minute.  My slide
rule says this is 576,000 gallons per day.  Ignoring the Grandfather clause
problem, are we going to accept that future Ice Mountain clones will also be
unaffected by this legislation?

Please tell me I'm wrong and should find other targets for my rage.

Dave Llewellyn

****************************************************************************
******************
In a message dated 3/4/2004 8:34:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Dfarough@house.mi.gov writes:

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Enviro-Mich message from "Daniel Farough" <Dfarough@house.mi.gov>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> FYI - From yesterday's press conference
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE
> RELEASE                     CONTACT:    Sen.
> Liz Brater
> March 3,
> 2004                                        517/373-2406
>                                                Rep.
> Chris Kolb
>                                                517/373-2577
>
> DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS INTRODUCE
> MICHIGAN WATER LEGACY ACT
> Act supports Governor's plan to regulate water withdrawal
> and protect water resources
>
>    LANSING - Two leading environmental Democratic lawmakers today
> unveiled a legislative initiative that would protect Michigan's fresh
> water aquifers and lakes by regulating water withdrawal.  During a press
> conference in the Governor's Capitol office, State Senator Liz Brater
> (D-Ann Arbor) and State Representative Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) joined
> Governor Jennifer M. Granholm and DEQ Director, Steve Chester, in
> announcing the Michigan Water Legacy Act, a comprehensive plan to manage
> Michigan's water resources and protect the Great Lakes' precious
> fresh water.
>
>    "The risk to Michigan's fresh water supply is greater today
> than perhaps at any other time in our state's history," Kolb said.
> "This is why it is imperative that we have a sound and prudent
> strategy to manage our precious water resources and proactively address
> the inevitable conflicts and disputes that will emerge."
>
> Under the proposed plan, new facilities that make withdrawals from
> surface water or groundwater greater than two million gallons a day or
> greater than 100 million gallons a year would be required to obtain
> permits.  Current water users would not be affected unless they sought
> to increase water withdrawals or use additional water sources.  The plan
> would have immediate effect, but requirements would be phased in over
> the next five years toward full implementation in 2009.  Annual
> reporting will be required of all permit holders.
>
snip





=====================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

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"
=====================




=====================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

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"
=====================




==============================================================
ENVIRO-MICH:  Internet List and Forum for Michigan Environmental
and Conservation Issues and Michigan-based Citizen Action.   Archives at
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/

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"
==============================================================