The new draft Great Lakes anti-diversion deal to be announced today is a distinct improvement over last year's version, but has to be strengthened to close some major loopholes. Even with those changes, some Canadians and First Nation members seem almost unalterably opposed.
A proposal to significantly limit water diversions from the Great Lakes falls far short of protecting Canada's precious fresh water and excludes aboriginal rights to the watershed, critics said Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050629/ca_pr_on_na/water_diversion_deal_1
Only 29 Michigan state representatives voted today against a Dow Chemical Company-backed bill to conceal awareness of widespread dioxin contamination in the Saginaw River watershed.
Approved 77-29, the bill would require the state specifically to test any one of the thousands of property units in a large area like the downstream stretches of the Saginaw River before declaring it contaminated. The goal is to prevent DEQ from publicizing the truth about such gross contamination by tying it up in prohibitively expensive testing. This would also prevent prospective land buyers from knowing when they purchase contaminated parcels.
The 77 votes are a veto-proof margin, should the Governor choose to deep-six the bill.
The 29 "good" votes were cast by:
Stephen Adamini of Marquette, Glenn Anderson of Westland, Kathy Angerer of Dundee, Doug Bennett of Muskegon, Steven Bieda of Warren, Pam Byrnes of Dexter, Dianne Byrum of Onondaga, Brenda Clack of Flint, Paul Condino of Southfield, Marie Donigan of Royal Oak, Matt Gillard of Alpena, Lee Gonzales of Flint, Hoon-Yung Hopgood of Taylor, Herb Kehrl of Monroe, Chris Kolb of Ann Arbor, Kathleen Law of Gibralter, Lamar Lemmons Jr. of Detroit, Alexander Lipsey of Kalamazoo, Gary McDowell of Rudyard, Andy Meisner of Ferndale, Fred Miller of Mount Clemens, Clarence Phillips of Pontiac, Gino Polidori of Dearborn, Alma Wheeler Smith of Ypsilanti, Steve Tobocman of Detroit, Mary Waters of Detroit, Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing, Carl Williams of Saginaw and Paula Zelenko of Burton.
Four representatives didn't vote:
Republican Jack Brandenburg of Harrison Township and Democrats Marsha Cheeks, Morris Hood III and Lamar Lemmons III, all of Detroit.
The rest have cast their lot with polluters.
TORONTO (CP) - Ontario and Quebec have reached another tentative agreement with seven of eight Great Lakes states to limit large-scale water diversions after the province refused to sign a deal reached in 2004, The Canadian Press has learned.
"A stronger Great Lakes agreement will be released for public comment on Thursday," said Ginette Albert, press secretary to Ontario Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050627/ca_pr_on_na/water_diversion_agreement_1
WASHINGTON -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm may soon have to decide which is a higher priority in her administration: protecting Michigan's environment, or reviving the state's struggling economy.
http://www.mlive.com/news/statewide/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1119521400216590.xml
The anti-environmental spin machine is working overtime. In its worldview, we cannot have both strong mercury controls and a healthy economy. We cannot have strong water conservation laws and a healthy economy. We must pick one or the other.
That's perverse economics. If you don't have strong mercury controls, your economy is burdened by increased health care costs and lowered IQ. Not to mention the billions Michigan sends outside its borders each year to pay for the coal that generates it.
If you don't have water conservation legislation, you ultimately lose control of your water to out-of-state, even out-of-nation private parties that will take the water and take the jobs with them.
Michigan's business lobby is smarter than this kind of first-grade reasoning.
The number of swim bans in Illinois has shot up dramatically in the last decade, and so have doubts about the way decisions are made to keep people from taking a dip in the water. "We really don't know what kind of water people are swimming in. We only know what kind of water they were swimming in yesterday," said Richard Whitman, whose main area of research is beach closures for the U.S. Geological Survey. "And by the time we know, it's a little late to tell them."
That's why the drumbeat is getting louder for better, faster tests to monitor when the water is safe for swimming.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-swim27.html
Here is Michigan DEQ's beach conditions site:
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/beach/public/default.asp
And Minnesota's, for Lake Superior:
Interested in knowing the water temperature before you head to a Great Lakes beach for a swim? The site below gives fairly recent temps...62.1 degrees off Muskegon last Thursday. That does beat the 36.8 off the Keweenaw Peninsula in Lake Superior.
http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/
As summer days send the pollution of Chicago and Milwaukee eastward to afflict the air quality of Michigan, a major threat looms on the horizon, literally:
Oak Creek, Wisconsin - Environmentalists and the state of Illinois are lining up against a proposal to construct a mammoth coal-burning power plant on the shores of Lake Michigan, warning it will pollute the air and water across the Midwest and set off a "coal rush" to build more such projects around the country.
The project is actually a $2.15 billion expansion of a 1950s-era plant in this Milwaukee suburb 80 miles north of Chicago. The resulting complex would produce enough electricity for 615,000 homes, burn 1.5 million tons of coal a year, and draw 2.2 billion gallons of water from the lake each day, or almost as much as Chicago and 100 of its suburbs use.
Has anyone ever heard of efficiency and renewable energy sources?
http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/062405EC.shtml
Enough policy talk. Here's a reminder of the great past of the Great Lakes.
Two dedicated paddlers started out on a dream trip this week — paddling the historic Voyageur’s Highway from Rainy Lake to Lake Superior and the Grand Portage National Monument.
http://www.grandmarais-mn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=2&story_id=203767
IN MEMORY OF BARBARA J. MADSEN, PhD
From the Cranbrook Institute of Science:
Last week, Michigan lost one of her finest botanists and wetland ecologists. We are deeply saddened by the sudden death of Barbara J. Madsen, Ph.D.
Barb will be best remembered for her deep knowledge and passion for Michigan's bogs, fens, and coastal wetlands. She knew the ecology of Michigan's peatlands (from the hydrology to the plants) more than any other person in the state. She has studied the dynamics of Michigan's coastal wetlands for decades-through periods of high and low lake levels. Both State and Federal resource agencies have relied on her wetland expertise, and on her ability to enlighten us, imparting not only information but understanding. Barb was not only a scientist, but a teacher, and a friend to many of us.
Barb was most recently working as the collections manager for the Cranbrook Institute of Science. She was a sought-after expert working to protect the environment and provided critical testimony to Michigan's legislature and in several lawsuits. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Michigan where she was mentored by Michigan's botanical legends Ed Voss and Howard Crum. In addition to her work to protect Michigan's environment, Barb was passionate about singing, particularly her work with the vocal ensemble Vox.
As per her family's wishes, the Cranbrook Institute of Science has established a memorial fund at the Institute that will support future botanical research and collections development at Cranbrook.
Please send any donations to:
Director's Office
Cranbrook Institute of Science
39221 Woodward Avenue
PO Box 801
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48303-0801
Another editorial voice (out of Ohio) calling for a ban on oil drilling in the Great Lakes. Let's hope a certain Michigan Congressman who is blocking this ban (on the grounds that it would 'federalize' the Great Lakes) and who is also a major recipient of oil and gas PAC money will get out of the way.
Such a ban would no more federalize the lakes than has the Clean Water Act. In both cases, the law would set a protective standard which all states must meet or exceed in the national as well as state interest.
Ohio and some other Great Lakes states have not banned oil and gas drilling in and under the lakes, so it's proper that Congress step in to get the job done.
Watch for the many faces of Nestle...Aberfoyle, Arrowhead, Calistoga, Deer Park, Great Bear, Ice Mountain, Ozarka, Perrier, Poland Spring, Zephyrhills.
And drink something else, preferably tap water.
Not in the top 10, but that's if you count "artificial" lakes. The leader? Texas!
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5461623.html
It's great to see pediatricians and nurses officially fighting EPA's lax mercury pollution policies.
In their first-ever direct legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency, four national health organizations representing some 300,000 medical professionals nationwide are joining a national fight to challenge the agency's failure to properly control mercury emissions from power plants, the largest source of mercury pollution in the U.S.
Mercury is a toxic pollutant that is linked to permanent damage to the central nervous system. Unborn children, breast-fed infants and children exposed to mercury are at risk for lowered intelligence and learning disabilities. Adults exposed to even low amounts of mercury may also be at higher risk for altered sensation, impaired hearing and vision, and motor disturbances linked directly to exposure from eating contaminated fish.
http://www.southernenvironment.org/Cases/mercury/casepage.shtml
Bottom line, Michigan is behind, but can catch up by adopting rules that go beyond federal minimums, and joining the interstate lawsuit to overturn the Bush Administration's weak stance on a pollutant recently linked to autism as well as many other health disorders.
Michigan:
Michigan can and should insist upon reductions in mercury pollution on a more aggressive timetable than new federal rules require, according to recommendations released Monday by a work group appointed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
But how to get there -- through voluntary compliance favored by the electric utilities that generate most of the state's mercury pollution, or by legally enforceable rules favored by environmentalists -- is Granholm's dilemma.
http://www.freep.com/news/metro/date21e_20050621.htm
Wisconsin:
The Bush administration ordered Tuesday that power plants cut mercury pollution from smokestacks by nearly half within 15 years, but the worst polluters will be able to buy pollution "credits" from plants that give off less mercury than allowed.
By contrast, the state rule, effective last Oct. 1, required the state's four major power plants to cut mercury emissions in two phases - by 40 percent by 2010 and by 75 percent by 2015.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/11144550.htm
Minnesota:
Minnesota joined a dozen other states Thursday in challenging a recent federal rule they say fails to protect expectant mothers and children from dangers posed by mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/local/11751878.htm
The lawsuit brought by Nestle against Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's recent decision to require the company to limit shipments of bottled water from its Evart, MI project to the Great Lakes Basin has a dark underside not noted by all media.
The lawsuit, assigned to U.S. Chief District Judge Robert Holmes Bell, also seeks to have a federal water law declared unconstitutional.
The Water Resources Development Act says water from the Great Lakes or tributaries can move outside the region only with the blessing of Great Lakes' governors.
The 1986 law is a "naked ... delegation of federal legislative authority" to governors, Nestle's lawsuit said.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1119089910314080.xml
And this contention is a naked display of Nestle's indifference to the fate of the Great Lakes and exposes the hollowness of its claims to the contrary. The 1986 law gives the governors of all eight Great Lakes states the power to stop new or increased water diversions. Leaving aside the legal issues -- doesn't Congress have the authority to delegate its commerce clause power to states when it chooses? -- Nestle's attempt to undo this law through the courts shows its thirst for profit exceeds its stewardship.
Facts to contemplate:
23.8 gallons--per-capita consumption of bottled water in 2004; up from 11
gallons in 1994.
53.7 gallons--per-capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks last year, up
from 49.9 gallons in 1994
$3.14 versus $2.24--Cost of one gallon of domestic bottled water versus one
gallon of gasoline
73% versus 43%--Percentage of teens who drink bottled water versus
percentage of people over 65 who do
$9.2 Billion--Total 2004 sales of Pepsi's Aquafina, the most popular single
brand
13--number of brands of Nestle Waters North America the market-share leader,
sells in the US
4 in 10--Number of people who say they drink bottled water because of poor
water quality in their home
Interesting story. Sounds like different kinds of barriers than those installed in the Chicago River to keep Asian carp out of Lake Michigan.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5463544.html
It's far from a done deal, but natural resource officials are pressing to build two unprecedented fish barriers on the Mississippi River in Iowa to block the upstream migration of Asian carp. The barriers, to be located near Dubuque and Davenport, Iowa, would emit bubbles and sound to deter the carp from entering locks when their gates are open.
WAUKESHA - Draft copies of a new Great Lakes Basin Water Resources Compact outline a plan that would allow Waukesha to apply for connection to Lake Michigan water, The Freeman has learned...
The city of Waukesha is west of the subcontinental divide that marks the western edge of the basin. But the eastern part of Waukesha County is within that basin, particularly those parts east of Sunny Slope Road in New Berlin. In fact, the subcontinental divide runs nearly through the middle of Brookfield Square...
Bob Biebel, the special projects engineer for a regional water study being conducted by the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, said the Lake Michigan hookup presented in the draft compact is good news.
"It offers another opportunity to solve the problem," he said Wednesday.
Biebel is heading the SEWRPC two-year study on water use and he said each possible option will be weighted in that review.
But Biebel said a major impediment for Waukesha could be dealing with the return flow of water back to Milwaukee and Lake Michigan. The draft compact still calls for Waukesha wastewater to be returned to Milwaukee so there is not a steady reduction in Lake Michigan. That would require a costly piping infrastructure to be built, he said.
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/June_05/06162005_03.asp
Michigan's Granholm Administration recently took a strong step toward defending the state's vulnerable water resources by announcing its plan to move ahead in drawing up rules protecting lakes and streams from the damage that large water withdrawals cause. But at the same time, the state filed an "amicus brief" in the Nestle water bottling case appeal that, as attorney Jim Olson explains at the link below, could damage the state's chances to defend against water exports.
http://www.davedempsey.org/610granholm.pdf
The critical point in Jim's letter is that the state's brief critiques a portion of the lower court ruling that was part of the citizen victory over Nestle. Instead of holding that reasonable uses of water within a watershed take precedence over exports, the state proposes a "balancing test" that measures the benefits of the in-basin versus out-of-Basin uses.
As Jim observes, "MDEQ's argument for a 'balancing test' on diversions out of a watershed would acknowledge the lawfulness of diversions and exports out of the [Great Lakes] Basin that meet this test...Further, under the MDEQ's 'balancing test,' the more money there is to be made (i.e., the greater the economic value of water bottling or other water export or marketing operations), the more harm companies like Nestle may inflict on ordinary citizens and the hundreds of thousands of riparian owners on our lakes and streams."
Time for the state to rethink this. Fast.
The Canadian Department of Transport has proposed new ballast water regulations to deal with invasive aquatic species that go beyond anything on the U.S. side.
http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2005/20050611/html/regle6-e.html
Jen Nalbone of Great Lakes United has offered the analysis below. "NOBOB" vessels are those with no ballast on board; but these ships often contain invasives in the "unpumpable slop" in the bottom of the ballast tanks, and so many ships are said to be NOBOB that U.S. regulations are riddled with holes.
It's not the answer, yet, but it's encouraging that political pressure is driving even transport agencies to propose doing something about ballast water threats.
Within the regulations are proposals for a ballast water standard and proposals to regulate NOBOB vessels (if a NOBOB vessel takes on water and plans to discharge in Canadian waters it will be required to expose residuals to salinity conditions equivalent to ballast water exchange). A serious concern is that the ballast water standard is defined as the International Maritime Organization’s standard…while this is a good step and goes beyond what regulations the U.S. is enforcing, the IMO standard is widely considered not protective enough for the Great Lakes. Lacking from these regulations are aggressive deadlines to phase out ballast water exchange and NOBOB management, and to phase in the ballast water standard for all ships.
Nestle's news release about the Court of Appeals case yesterday contained a misleading statement about its Michigan bottled water operation that was picked up by some in the news media as fact. Nestle says there are about 20 bottled water operations in the state.
According to state records, there are five self-supplied (i.e., not from city water supplies) permitted bottling operations that use more than 100,000 gallons per day at some points in the year. Two are owned by Abso-Pure, one by Shay Water Company, and two by Nestle. Nestle's smallest operation, its plant pumping in Stanwood, is more than four times larger than the next largest, Abso-Pure. And its infamous Sanctuary Springs wells have a permitted capacity about 30 times that of the rivals.
There are a number of very small operations that don't have the capacity to transfer large amounts of Great Lakes water out of the Basin.
But it's true that at some point at least the large non-Nestle plants will have to come under some kind of law that makes it clear water can't be captured from springs or groundwater, bottled and sold like private property.
More on yesterday's Court of Appeals hearing here. The key point:
The judges' queries, fired at lawyers during the hour-long hearing, "zeroed in on the question of who owns the water, and is it allowed to be diverted out of the watershed, or is there a different standard?" said Jim Olson, attorney for the citizens group.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/water15e_20050615.htm
Today was a fateful day in the history of Michigan and the Great Lakes. The state Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the appeal brought by Nestle to overturn an historic December 2003 circuit ruling ordering the company to shut down its "Sanctuary Springs" water wells in Mecosta County. The grassroots Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation won that case and its attorney, Jim Olson, made strong arguments today to uphold the lower court ruling and stop Nestle's attempt to turn public water into a fountain of private profits.
But here's what Nestle said in its release:
Oral Arguments Heard Today by Michigan Court of Appeals in Water Bottling Case
Ice Mountain water bottling operations comply with Michigan laws and permit requirements; water use is environmentally safe
That's just the head line and sub-headline, and entirely misleading. One of the reasons Nestle claims to comply with "Michigan laws" is that the Legislature has failed to pass a law governing the large-scale withdrawal of water. Nor has it offered a law or even a policy on whether private interests can bottle the public's water and make a profit on it.
It's easy to be in compliance with the law when it has gaping loopholes.
For the rest of the spin, go here:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050614/detu016.html?.v=13
Or read the hopeful view of MCWC, fighting for us all and for the public's water:
Lansing, MI, June 14, 2005 – Jim Olson, legal counsel for Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in its two-year court battle against Nestlė Waters North America, Inc, presented the law and facts today before three Court of Appeal judges who will decide a controversial case involving water rights in Michigan. In November 2003, Judge Larry Root of the Mecosta County Circuit Court ordered the shut down of the pumps at the Sanctuary well field because the private diversion and sale of spring water by Nestlė/Ice Mountain diminished stream flow and lake levels and was illegal under Michigan water law.
Dead Stream has and is suffering serious damage due to a combination of low precipitation and pumping by Nestle over the past 2 years. The condition of the stream and riparian system continues to be impacted each day. The claims in this case arise under the common law of water rights, especially of riparian landowners to natural flow and water level, and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA).
http://www.great-lakes.net/lists/enviro-mich/last30days/msg16416.html
Mark Van Putten, a Michigan-born and nationally-recognized conservationist, offers a provocative point of view in BioScience.
"Until we get the politics right again, more science and more clever policies won't make a difference in transforming the US government back into a leading voice for and actor in global and national environmental progress."
http://www.conservationstrategy.com/images/BioScience_Viewpoint_06-05.pdf
Still trying to find a report on what he said at the biennial Great Lakes Water Quality meeting of the International Joint Commission Friday, but here is a hint of what he was going to say:
"The Great Lakes are in trouble, and industrial fish farming is only one threat of many," says Dr. Suzuki. "Although Canada holds 20 per cent of the world's fresh water, our seemingly endless water supply is a myth."
He's a celebrated conservationist, and his website is worth checking.
To date, no one seems to be paying adequate attention to the legal and political rights of Native Americans/First Nations in the Great Lakes water export and management debate. This can't continue, for as the tribes say in a recent Great Lakes declaration:
"Issues between two equals cannot be resolved by the court of one."
http://www.anishinabek.ca/uoi/pdf/UINGL/UINGL_principles.pdf
Sign of the season via a note from NOAA:
The NOAA Center of Excellence for Great Lakes and Human Health (CEGLHH) has just launched the first draft of a "Harmful Algal Bloom Event Response" website:
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLWL/Algae/HAB/EventResponse/EventResponseDraft.html
We'll apologize in advance for the somewhat rough appeance of the site - the recent hot weather has caused some blooms to start developing a month ahead of our anticipated web-development timetable. The primary purpose of the website is to quickly make publicly available any harmful algal bloom data discovered in the course of CEGLHH or GLERL research that has potential human health consequences. We've also provided links to a variety of resources (news reports, FAQ sheets, public health contacts, research profiles, etc) and will be adding more as the summer progresses. Please bookmark the main GLERL webpage (http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/) for a link to this site as the above URL is subject to change.
For the amateur microscopists out there, I am also launching an early draft of the Algae section of the Great Lakes Waterlife Photo Gallery http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/GLWL/Algae/Algae1.html. Segments on "Dominant Planktonic Algae", "Blue-Green Algae" and "Macroscopic Algae" are complete -- other segments are still 'under construction'. The gallery includes links to a host of web-based information, genus-level profiles, and field-guide style amateur keys, in addition to photos.
For more information contact:
Kanika Suri
CEGLHH
or
Rochelle Sturtevant
Great Lakes Sea Grant Network at GLERL
How many years before lynx wander back to northern Wisconsin and Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and perhaps establish a self-sustaining population?
Listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, lynx have been seen in increasing numbers in northeastern Minnesota since 2000. And Moen is proving, kitten by kitten, that the cats are reproducing in Minnesota, not just occasionally wandering in from Canada, where they are abundant.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5449563.html
Despite government claims that pollution is decreasing, a new study says Canada released a billion kilograms of toxic chemicals annually in the Great Lakes basin from 1998-2002 with no significant decline.
"The numbers are staggering," said Paul Muldoon of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, which produced the report together with Environmental Defence of Toronto.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050607/ca_pr_on_na/toxic_great_lakes_1
Time to note a major triumph brought about by action in the 1970s: bald eagles are able to reproduce in the Lake Superior Basin without interference from DDTs and PCBs. Governments banned both 30 or more years ago.
As others have pointed out, our greatest success in controlling toxic chemicals has been through bans, not trying to calculate "acceptable risk" and how much poison in the environment is tolerable, which is mostly what has happened since the 70s. Scores of chemicals still in use are known or suspected of causing cancer, birth defects, and development abnormalities. The Great Lakes region should be a leading advocate of banning these and finding safe substitutes.
http://www.iaglr.org/jglr/release/31/31_2_227-235.php
Michigan's business community has permitted itself to be seduced by Nestle into thinking that public water privately sold as a product in bottles is just like water used to make cars, baby food and other products. If this is a sign of the IQ level of said business community, it does not bode well for Michigan's future economy.
Here's an example of the overheated, misguided rhetoric from the Michigan Manufacturers Association:
The Michigan Manufacturers Association (MMA) says that the Granholm Administration may be undermining the "economic use of water in Michigan," referring to the Governor's recent Executive Directive relating to water bottling operations in the State. Mike Johnston, MMA director of regulatory affairs said, "MMA member reaction has been strong and immediate. The governor’s recent moves imply that the sale of every product made in Michigan using water either in the process or as part of the product will be limited to just the Great Lakes Basin. What about pop, beer, pharmaceuticals, latex paint, cement, baby food? Will they be banned from sale outside the basin too? This directive undermines Michigan’s economic base and sends a clear message to the manufacturing community that the regulatory climate is unpredictable." MMA said it will be "considering all legal and legislative options to ensure Michigan manufacturers can operate and compete nationally and globally using Michigan water."
And here's what's wrong with it, in the words of a seasoned observe who understands what is really at stake:
MMA continues to let Nestle cozy-up in its manufacturers members' bed.
Nestle is using MMA and other users of water within our watersheds and the
Basin to change the law -- common or statutory -- so Nestle can extract and
sell water somewhere else in competition with those like MMA members who use
the water here. If ever properly explained Big Auto, manufacturing,
beverage, chemical and utility companies and workers would kick Nestle out
of bed in a moment. One Nestle has changed the law so that sale and export
is on the same playing field to get Michigan water, MMA members will be
sorry. Not immediately, but within a few years they will regret it.
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) -- Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm's moratorium on new or expanded bottled water operations in that state until its Legislature passes a water withdrawal law drew praise Tuesday from leaders of a campaign in Maine to impose a tax on water extractions.
Granholm ordered the moratorium May 27 following approval by state environmental regulators of a permit for Nestle Waters North America Inc. to buy water from a city's municipal system for bottling.
Granholm's action, combined with concerns about a contract Maine has negotiated with Nestle's, underscores the importance of having a policy to protect state water resources, said Jim Wilfong, leader of H2O for ME.
Wilfong's group is circulating petitions in hopes of forcing a referendum on its proposal to impose a 3-cent tax per 20-ounce bottle of water drawn from Maine aquifers. That amounts to about 20 cents per gallon of water, which the campaign says would bring in about $100 million in state revenue per year. Maine Gov. John Baldacci opposes the water tax.
http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw116856_20050607.htm
Circulating now among the Great Lakes states and provinces is draft two of an agreement that was roundly attacked last year. Promised by mostly-departed governors and premiers in 2001, the agreement supposedly strengthens defenses against water overuse and export. It may be made available for public comment by the end of this month.
The new draft contains some improvements over the previous draft and over current Great Lakes water management. It also contains at least one significant and gaping loophole.
Page 11, paragraph 1:
"A proposal to Withdraw Water and remove it from the Basin in any container greater than 5.7 gallons (20 liters) shall be considered to be a proposal for a Diversion. A proposal to Withdraw Water and to package it within the Basin (emphasis added) for human consumption in containers 5.7 gallons (20 liters) or less shall be considered to be a proposal for a Consumptive Use."
Why does that matter? Because new diversions are largely banned under the draft agreement.
But new consumptive uses are not banned; and are not necessarily even subject to state regulation, depending on their volume.
This is a loophole carved out by bottled water company lobbyists. Note the clever wording, "packaged within the Basin." Not "consumed within the Basin." In other words water leaving the Basin in large containers is a no-no, but in small containers is encouraged, as long as the latter are packaged within the Basin.
The issue of private water ownership of public waters -- which Nestle and others are trying to establish -- is apparently not even dealt with in this agreement. That is a fatal flaw.
The agreement terms the Great Lakes a "shared public treasure." Merriam-Webster defines "treasure" as follows:
(1) wealth (as money, jewels, or precious metals) stored up or hoarded
A "public trust resource" is a far more appropriate term, and far more in keeping with the majesty of the Lakes.
Copy of the agreement should be posted within 24 hours.
Here's part 2 of Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun News Editor Eric Baerren's trip down the underappreciated Chippewa River in central Michigan. Smooth reading.
http://www.themorningsun.com/stories/060605/loc_canoe001.shtml
This is about Minnesota, but could be about Michigan, Wisconsin or any other place that tries to boost renewable energy.
How many lobbyists does it take to kill a bill at the Legislature? Consider the effort the utility/energy industry mounted to defeat a proposal to set a 20 percent renewable energy standard by 2020.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5438842.html
It's not, strictly speaking, an environmental story, but it says a lot about Michigan's public debates in general.
MACKINAC ISLAND - Former Gov. William G. Milliken decried increasing partisanship and decreased civility in local, state and national political discourse, and said it hurts Michigan's ability to compete in a global economy.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jun/05millk.htm
It's one of Michigan's least appreciated rivers, but has surprises. Eric Baerren of the Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun paddled its length recently and tells about it in today's paper.
http://themorningsun.com/stories/060505/loc_canoe001.shtml
On May 27, Michigan Governor Granholm issued a commendable executive directive to try to bring sense to Michigan water policy. Its chief newsmaking feature was a moratorium on new bottled water operation permits.
http://michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-36898-118987--,00.html
Problem: the issue isn't bottled water per se. It's bottled water as a subset of a much bigger problem. Are we going to permit water, which belongs to all of the people, to be captured by private parties, ownership of it claimed, and profit made through its sale?
Whether the water leaves in bottles, tankers, or pipelines, as long as it's a private sale of same, it should be barred.
So item 1 in the directive, which now says:
Until further notice, state departments and agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, shall exercise administrative discretion to refrain from issuing any permit or approval for a bottled water processor unless the applicant certifies that the delivery or sale of all bottled water production will be limited to the Great Lakes Basin. This temporary moratorium is intended to afford the Michigan legislature an opportunity to debate and enact a comprehensive water withdrawal law and legislation addressing the issue of what constitutes a diversion of Great Lakes water.
Should say:
Until further notice, state departments and agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, shall exercise administrative discretion to refrain from issuing any permit or approval for the private capture and sale of water. This temporary moratorium is intended to afford the Michigan legislature an opportunity to debate and enact a comprehensive water withdrawal law and legislation setting forth policy (or barring) the private capture and sale of water.
Some interesting regional environmental news from this week:
Great Detroit Free Press editorial on the need for water conservation laws in Michigan.
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/ewater1e_20050601.htm
More talk about harnessing wind as an alternative energy source in the region. And if that's not an answer (once concerns about bird kills are addressed) what hope is there to avoid more coal burning? The open waters of the Great Lakes create huge wind power potential.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/business/11803198.htm
Back to Michigan, where Dow Chemical Company seeks to police itself. You're not allowed to grade yourself in school, or make your own calls in sports, so why would the even more serious matter of cleanup of a poisonous chemical be something to leave to an interested party?
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/dioxin3e_20050603.htm
This short article profiles a hopeful new system for "real-time" monitoring of Great Lakes beach safety. In the past, tests to indicate the presence of fecal coliform often took 24 hours or more, meaning beach warnings went up well after contamination was present -- and maybe when the beach was safe again.
http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/06-03-05_z1_news_17.html
Bring on the Great Lakes surfers...
GRAND HAVEN, Mich. - After seeing Vince Deur's new movie, surfers looking for the next hip spot to hang 10 may be inspired to head for the West Coast — of Michigan.
The 38-year-old filmmaker hopes his documentary, "Unsalted: A Great Lakes Experience," will expose what could be the nation's best-kept surfing secret: Under certain conditions, great waves can be found in the Upper Midwest.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050531/ap_en_mo/film_surfing_the_great_lakes_1
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/mercury1e_20050601.htm
Michigan could soon enforce tougher mercury emissions cuts than new federal rules require.
Or, not.
It will be a closely watched decision by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who is to receive recommendations from a task force that wrapped up 20 months of work May 19.
Environmentalists and health officials are pressing Granholm to make good on a campaign promise to cut Michigan's mercury emissions by 90%. The controversial federal rules require a reduction of less than 70% by 2018, but those goals are under attack. A lawsuit filed by 13 states contends the federal rule is inadequate to protect human health. Michigan is not part of the lawsuit.