[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
E-M:/ water upfor grabs, and sale
- Subject: E-M:/ water upfor grabs, and sale
- From: "Dave Dempsey" <davedem@hotmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:22:36 -0500
- Delivered-to: enviro-mich-archive@glc.org
- Delivered-to: enviro-mich@great-lakes.net
- List-name: Enviro-Mich
- Reply-to: "Dave Dempsey" <davedem@hotmail.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviro-Mich message from "Dave Dempsey" <davedem@hotmail.com>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's announcement by the Michigan DEQ regarding a new Nestle water
mining project in Michigan deserves some comment on Enviro-Mich. Here are a
few thoughts:
* DEQ's preliminary finding of 'no adverse impact' on two trout streams in
Osceola Township from the proposed 70-million-gallon per year withdrawal --
and its related finding that more than three times this amount of
groundwater could be extracted without harm to native populations -- has
troubling implications.
* First, it points out a major flaw in Michigan's new law that encourages a
rush to drill for water. The law's chief environmental standard for
determining impact is the effect on characteristic fish populations. Tougher
standards will come later, but only after a new tool is developed and
finalized by DEQ and legislated. So there is a potential for the equivalent
of a California gold rush for water until that new tool is in place.
* Second, the DEQ finding implies that there is a "surplus" of water
affecting these two streams that can be taken without adverse impact. In
rhis case, that is almost 700,000 gallons per day. Multiply that by a lot of
trout streams, and pretty soon you're talking big water.
* Third, the law gives no shrift -- not even short shrift -- to the public
trust values threatened by the Nestle and similar proposals. The issue of
public water ownership, and the risk that Nestle-type proposals will
establish a legal claim of ownership for private parties, is not addressed
by the law. But the law does say that water leaving the state in containers
less than 5.7 gallons in size is not a diversion.
Reform of this law is needed. With the exception of a curious failure to
disclose the Nestle project in response to a FOIA from Michigan Citizens for
Water Conservation, DEQ appears to be following the new law. Which is the
point. The law needs to be fixed.
_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
==============================================================
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"
==============================================================