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

E-M:/ Re: / Water Legacy Act



Title: Re: / Water Legacy Act
I have been thinking all along that the discrepancy was to be found in
someone multiplying 2 million gallons a DAY as if it were 2 million gallons
a WEEK. Can this be? Or am I misreading it, and it has something to do with
the phase-in?

But under any circumstances, it would seem that some notice needs to be
taken of the actual aquifer (as "Tim" geodynamics mentioned the other day) before setting any kind of number. I think #2 tries to get at that, but it doesn't seem to go far enough. We still need much more knowledge about and mapping of aquifers. I hope the recently-passed legislation is sufficient to get what's needed to make these difficult decisions.

Cynthia Price
----------
>From: James Clift <jamesmec@voyager.net>
>Cc: ENVIRO-MICH <enviro-mich@great-lakes.net>
>Subject: Re: E-M:/ Water Legacy Act
>Date: Mon, Mar 8, 2004, 1:22 PM
>

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Enviro-Mich message from James Clift <jamesmec@voyager.net>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I just wanted to clarify some of the details on the proposed Water Legacy
Act.
>
>1) The bill would phase-in the permitting of major water users, starting at
2
>million gallons a day (or 100 million gallons per year). This is
approximately
>equivalent to a medium-sized farming operation. This level would capture a
>facility the size of the Nestle/Perrier water bottling facility in Mecosta
County
>in the future.
>
>2) The bill would also require permitting of any facility causing or is
likely to
>cause an "adverse impact" on the quality or quantity of waters of the state
or
>water-dependant natural resources -- with the ability for the department to
place
>conditions on such withdrawals to minimize or eliminate impacts. For
example, if
>the factual findings of Judge Root are upheld in the Nestle/Perrier they
would
>need to obtain a permit under this proposed legislation.
>
>3) After five years, all withdrawals over 100,000 gallons a day would
require a
>permit.
>
>4) After five years, all major water users will also be required to prepare
and
>implement reasonable water conservation measures.
>
>A pdf version is now available on the MDEQ website at:
>
>http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wd-gwcac-waterlegacyact.pdf
>
>James Clift, Policy Director
>Michigan Environmental Council
>
>
>Mike Bitondo wrote:
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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"
>> ==============================================================
>
>
>
>==============================================================
>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"
>==============================================================
>