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

Re: E-M:/ Re: / Water Legacy Act



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Bill Tobler" <williamtobler@critterswoods.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that it is meant to be 2 separate limitations.
One is 2 million gallons per day in a 30 day average (which would be 60 
MG for that month). The second would be 100 million gallons in a year.

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Enviro-Mich message from "Cynthia  Price" <skyprice@iserv.net>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> 
> > THIS MESSAGE IS IN MIME FORMAT. Since your mail reader does not 
understand
> this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
> 
> 
> 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"
> >==============================================================
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 



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