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

Re: E-M:/ When is Great Lakes diversion not a diversion?



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Alexander J. Sagady" <ajs@sagady.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The real question for Michigan environmentalists, 
among others,  is when will they 
treat groundwater mining for electric power and ethanol production with 
out of basin transport from evaporation to the atmosphere from cooling towers
as big an insult to Great Lakes water management as the water bottling plants.

Just because you cannot see the water leaving in a bottle, and just because
the water is not being sold as a product, doesn't mean that the water isn't, 
in fact, leaving the basin and that the electric power and ethanol producer 
water miners aren't making a profit on a process that sends water out of the 
basin in vapor form.

Your garden variety small electric power plant or 110 million gallon (ethanol)
/year ethanol plant will consume 0.25 to 1.0 million gallons/day of groundwater.

The cone of depression from that kind production water mining well is fully capable of drying up 
adjacent wells and wetlands.

And this issue is never considered in Michigan's braindead approach to 
having overall environmental review of industrial permit decisions, which the Granholm Administration 
hasn't fixed and seems to have no intention of fixing.

At 08:37 AM 12/10/2006, you wrote:
>The question of who really owns Michigan's waters--private corporations or the public--will be answered this year as Nestle Corporation eyes up to nine water mining projects in Michigan under the state's new 2006 water use law.  That law, famously, redefined what a water diversion means to exclude anything in containers of 5.7 gallons or less. What was less discussed at the time the bill was passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor was the two-year free-for-all given Nestle and other water mining companies.  During this "grace" period even the law's limited standards for preventing adverse impacts on rivers from water mining may not apply, or will apply only if a huge hurdle of proof is overcome.   Thus the rush by Nestle to get pumps in the ground ASAP. 
>
>As author, blogger and Clean Water Action policy advisor Dave Dempsey has noted, Michigan is opposing as an unlawful diversion a proposal by New Berlin, WI to remove from the Great Lakes basin 340 million gallons a year.  Yet if all of Nestle's proposed or studied water mining and packaging operations are approved in Michigan, they would total well over 500 million gallons per year.  
>
>So when is a diverson not a diversion?  Maybe when it happens in the Great Lakes State.  

==========================================
Alex J. Sagady & Associates        http://www.sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy, 
Expert Witness Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and 
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
Prospectus at:  http://www.sagady.com/sagady.pdf 

657 Spartan Ave,  East Lansing, MI  48823  
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); ajs@sagady.com
========================================== 



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