PRESS
RELEASE
From: Michigan Citizens for Water
Conservation
Subject: FW: Sup. Ct. MCWC v
Nestle Opinion
Traverse City, July 25, 2007.
The Supreme
Court Clerk's office left a
message this morning that it issued
an opinion and order today. While Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, and
the Doyle and Sapp families reserve further comment after digesting the opinion
and order in more detail, for the moment,it appears the four
of the Justices --Justices Marksman,
Taylor, Corrigan, and Young -- have put another nail in the coffin of citizen standing, and that Michigan's environment
and individual and public rights have taken another severe blow at the hand
of this Court. The
Court now says it will require that any person bringing a lawsuit to
protect our air, water, and natural
resources, or the public trust in our waters, must
allege and prove harm
to waters, wetlands, or other environmental
features on the Defendant polluter's property; i.e. standing has been used as a sword to cut-off or cripple the citizen suit to
protect Michigan's environment, and
to give Nestle and
other businesses a license to destroy and pollute on their own
property unless a citizen can show a specific interest in
Defendant's property, such as use, aesthetics, recreation.
Nestle asked the Court to cripple the state's Michigan
Environmental Protection Act ("MEPA"). And Nestle succeeded in damaging
the rights of citizens to protect our water and water resources. The Court
followed suit. It's decision is
regressive, punitive, and illogical in the extreme. In 1963, citizens
enacted a Constitution that mandates the legislature to pass laws
to protect the
environment as an important public interest to the health and welfare of
people in the State. in 1970, our legislature passed a law,
the MEPA, that
granted citizens to
maintain lawsuits against those who propose or act in ways that are
likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air,
water or natural resources or the public trust. Why and how could an injured Plaintiff from
Nestlé's conduct not be able to maintain a lawsuit to protect all of the environment and water resources harmed by
Nestlé's pumping ? MCWC and
the Doyles and Sapp families in the MCWC v Nestle case proved
unreasonable harm from Nestlé's pumping. Once this has been shown, the law
intends all harm can be stopped or controlled. For the Court to condone harm on a company's
property is irrational. Such an approach ignores judicial restraint called for by the
doctrine of separation of powers that is
supposed to protect our constitution, the rights and interests protected by it,
and the powers of the legislature to follow it. The approach by the
Court condones the
piecemeal, wholesale destruction, and ruin of Michigan's
treasured and fabled water
resources and the environment. Four justices have cast their
vote in favor of big business and against individual
property rights, citizens, our
local governments and communities ,
and the waters, wetlands, and environment. In the bigger
picture, these Justices have also cast their vote in favor of big
business and
squarely against all citizens and the community in which they
live.
In addition, the
Court 's opinion fails
to address the important water law issues before
it, so critical to the people of Michigan, including
groundwater, riparian, the public trust and future of the waters of the Great
Lakes. The Court simply
affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the Court of Appeals
decision, not stating what was affirmed, but stating only that it has ruled on the MEPA standing issue, and
remanded that to the trial court. In my mind, this means, Plaintiffs will
go back to circuit court to (a) address standing in the wetlands and
Osprey Lake on Nestlé's property, and (b) request the trial court to explain how
the unreasonable harm, which is not in dispute,
constitutes an impairment under the MEPA to the riparian and public waters of
the stream and, if (a) is established, to the wetlands and
Osprey Lake on Nestlé's property. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
and individually harmed plaintiffs will continue to fight for
Michigan's water and related water
resources and the public trust.
It's time for all
citizens to take standing, our air, water and public trust
into their hands. The Constitution is
of and for the people. These issues belong to the people. It
is time
for massive unified action, without regard to our politics, to demand
respect for and protection of the environment by the Supreme Court, since that's
what our Constitution and laws demand. If necessary, this means citizens
should petition to amend the Constitution of the state to make it clear to
the Court, that when the people declare the environment is of paramount concern
and the legislature shall pass laws to protect it, they mean it. This includes the
authority to enact citizen suits without regard to the artificial barriers
erected by the Court. Such barriers destroy our heritage, our
water and natural resources, and communities. These
matters should be a first
priority on the agenda for the people in the State, and
particularly landowners and private
property owners who live on lakes and streams
or near industry, and
those with an interest in conservation, the environment, and the future
health of our
communities and quality of life.
In solidarity of the rights of citizens to vindicate the public interest
as declared by our State Constitution,
Yours,
Jim Olson
Attorney for Michigan Citizens for Water
Conservation
Contact: Terry Swier, President
MCWC, 231 972 8856
Jim Olson, Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C., 231 846 0044, 231 499
8831