But Olson, officials of the Michigan Environmental Council and other environmentalists are not sanguine about the developments. They're glad the DEQ admits it blew it when it said in 2001 that the Mecosta operation did not need a permit.
They're concerned, however, about Granholm's tendency to split the difference on controversies; other aspects of the state's balancing act, including how they will play out when the Court of Appeals hears oral arguments June 14 on Nestle's appeal of the circuit court ruling; and what Nestle challenge might come in the federal courts on disallowing export of bottled water out of the Great Lakes basin.
But look at the positive side. I liked the Cox/DEQ assertions that:
• "The State possesses broad authority to regulate activities that affect the waters of the State, which includes the groundwater and surface water within its borders."
• "The Circuit Court correctly applied rules of statutory construction that DEQ's administrative rule definition of 'enlarge or diminish an island lake or stream' was not consistent" with some of the 48 court rulings and 27 statutes that Cox cited in his brief.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/editorial/0505/29/A17-196498.htm
Posted by Dave at May 29, 2005 12:43 PM