Reading the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in the Ice Mountain case today yields mixed reactions. The Court at least did not buy Nestle's unscientific assertion that its huge and unsustainable pumping rates of water from springs feeding a Muskegon River tributary were doing no harm. The Court put a strict limit on the amount of water to be pumped.
But by applying a "balancing test" to Nestle's use of the water, the Court made a terrible mistake that only the people of the state, it appears, can correct. In effect the Court held that Nestle has a right to use of the water just like any streamside cottage owner, farmer, or manufacturer -- even though it removes 100% of the water from the watershed, unlike all the others, and claims to own the water as a product. The implication of that reasoning is that every stream in the state could be open to a water taking and sale operation. And that private ownership of water will be untrammeled despite the fundamental difference between it and all traditional water uses.
It's regrettable and unfortunate that the Michigan DEQ supported a balancing test in its legal briefs. If the agency -- charged with being the public's advocate -- had held firm in defense of public trust protection of all waters, the Court might have ruled differently.
If the Legislature won't protect traditional water users, including agriculture, manufacturing, municipal water supplies and private cottage owners, then the people will have to do it themselves through a referendum. Otherwise, the Great Lakes are vulnerable to a hostile takeover by private water takers, and sellers.
It's heartening to see Gov. Bob Taft and Sens. DeWine and Voinovich of Ohio making a public case for a strengthened federal funding commitment for Great Lakes restoration. If the all Great Lakes governors and the Great Lakes Congressional delegation are this firm, something "great" could happen in 2006.
Administration officials would not discuss whether they might offer less as a last-minute alternative. Gov. Bob Taft and Joe Koncelik, director of Ohio's environmental programs, met with administration officials Monday, and Koncelik said he proposed that the federal government come up with about $300 million next year and more later.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1133343158258910.xml&coll=2
And, it appears, unfortunately ducks the main issue of who owns the water, the public or private parties...a law is needed to resolve this in the public's favor.
A controversial bottled water plant near Big Rapids may continue to pump groundwater for its Ice Mountain brand, but at reduced volumes that won’t harm streams and wetlands, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a decision released this morning.
The court sided with environmental groups and a lower court judge who found that the Nestle Waters plant’s 400-gallon-per-minute maximum pumping rate was likely to reduce water levels and harm natural features in the area.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/NEWS11/51130003
Opinion in full here:
254202 MICHIGAN CITIZENS FOR WATER CONSERVATION V NESTLE WATERS NA INC
[Consolidated with 256153]
Panel: WBM HNW MRS
Lower Court: MECOSTA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, No. 01-014563-CE
Opinion & Order - Auth - Remand & Ret Juris (MRS)
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20051129_C254202_116_254202.OPN.PDF
Opinion - Concurring (WBM)
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20051129_C254202_117_254202C.OPN.PDF
Opinion - Concurring (HNW)
http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20051129_C254202_118_254202C2.OPN.PDF
By LAWRENCE COSENTINO
Since his boyhood in Duluth, photographer Ed Wargin of Petoskey liked lighthouses — who doesn’t? But he still wasn’t thrilled when he got an offer two years ago from his publisher to photograph them for a fancy coffee table book.
“They’ve been done so much already,” Wargin said. “It’s almost bordering on an Elvis painting.”
But a year later, he was bouncing in storm-tossed kayaks, hiking miles of rocky beach and leaning out of airplanes to get the shots he wanted.
http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/051130/art/index2.asp
Good news about another Great Lakes cleanup. But it's a little misleading to call the law that produced it Bush's Great Lakes Legacy Act. It's actually Congressman Vern Ehlers' Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Prez signed it but that's about it. He has not requested full funding for it.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051128/clm523.html?.v=11
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper has "grave concerns" about the proposed Great Lakes water conservation compact and agreement:
Unfortunately, the most recent draft Sustainable Water Resource Agreements include a permitting process that provides access to Great Lakes water by communities not actually located in the basin. In effect, this process creates a new right to Great Lakes water, one that we believe was absent under common law and the public trust doctrine. Further, this provision is substantially weaker than Ontario's own existing laws, which explicitly prohibit diverting water out of the Great Lakes Basin.
http://www.waterkeeper.ca/lok/index.cfm?DSP=showletter&NewsID=1400
Chicago Sun Times likes the agreements:
http://www.greatlakes.org/news/pdf/ChicagoSunTimesEditorial112105.pdf
A cabinet-level task force looking at how to restore and protect the Great Lakes is expected to publish its recommendations in the next few weeks. But it's already been leaked that the Bush administration does not intend to pay for the group's plan. Ohio's two Republican Senators are among those pushing for the funds.
http://www.wksu.org/news/story/18618
A cabinet-level task force looking at how to restore and protect the Great Lakes is expected to publish its recommendations in the next few weeks. But it's already been leaked that the Bush administration does not intend to pay for the group's plan. Ohio's two Republican Senators are among those pushing for the funds.
http://www.wksu.org/news/story/18618
This one deserves much more media attention than it has received:
Former DuPont Top Expert: Company Knew, Covered Up Pollution of Americans' Blood for 18 Years
Documents: Company Couldn't Find Safe Level of Exposure in 1973 to Chemical that Never Breaks Down, Clings to Human Blood
http://ewg.org/issues/pfcs/20051116/index.php
Since Congress has failed to act, the Great Lakes states seem poised to try legislating an 8-state approach to regulating invasive species in the ballast water of oceangoing vessels. In Michigan, State Sen. Patty Birkholz launched the initiative, pushing through a law that takes effect in 2007. Minnesota may be next. The approach is generating some editorial support.
Minnesota is known for its lakes, so it makes sense to protect these vital natural resources.
Attorney General Mike Hatch and state Sen. Ann Rest are proposing a bill aimed at slowing the spread of invasive species into Lake Superior and other waters in the sate, according to published reports. Rest will introduce the bill in the next legislative session.
http://www.mankatofreepress.com/editorials/local_story_328214349.html
OTTAWA (CP) - Critics say a draft agreement among Great Lakes states and provinces to ban large-scale water diversions is deeply flawed and would weaken Canadian sovereignty.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20051123/ca_pr_on_na/great_lakes_diversions_1
Ask any Great Lakes state official if it is good public policy to assert public ownership over, and impose standards on and fees to compensate the public for the removal of minerals (iron or oil or others) by private parties and they say yes.
Ask him or her if it is good public policy to assert public ownership over, and impose standards and fees on the removal of water by private parties and you're treated as though you're speaking a foreign language. Which may be the case. Traditionally, the Great Lakes states have regarded water as a limitless resource that anyone can use in any quantity, subject to litigation.
But if water is indeed "the oil of the 21st Century," a term that actually understates water's importance, then the states need to change course.
Here's what they need to do to fix the compact that is currently pending (link below) and set to be signed in Milwaukee December 13. If they don't do this, they are signing the waters of the Great Lakes Basin over from public to private control -- and that ultimately means control by large private interests outside the U.S. and Canada.
http://www.ecobizport.com/AnxCompact111005Draft.pdf
1. The definition of “Product” must be modified to remove the possibility that it includes water itself as a product in any sized container or package. The first sentence would read, “Product means something produced in the basin by human or mechanical effort or through agricultural processes and used in manufacturing, commercial or other processes.” The remaining portion of the definition would remain the same.
2. The Bulk Water Transfer provision in the agreements must be deleted because it would be no longer necessary with the clarification of the definition of “Product.” It would be up to states or provinces to decide how to treat water exports, including water in bottles or smaller containers. All interested and affected parties would have equal rights and remedies to make whatever arguments exist under existing law.
However, in the alternative, if the definition of “Product” is retained, it must be revised to make it clear that states must authorize and license water for sale as an export before it qualifies as “Product” under the agreements: “‘Product’ means something lawfully produced in the Basin by human or mechanical effort or through agricultural processes and used in manufacturing, commercial or other processes, or authorized and licensed under state law and intended for intermediate or end use consumers.”
3. And, if the Water Transfer provision is retained, the savings clause should be clarified to read: “Each Party reserves the complete sovereign power to authorize, license, and permit (or not) the export of water as a Product in a manner it sees fit, so long as the exercise of such power is otherwise lawful.” This clarification is perhaps most important of all, because regardless of what the agreements say, the states expressly reserve their sovereign power to require authorization, licenses, or other requirements before the water in small containers can be exported or transferred. This would also minimize the risk of commerce clause or NAFTA challenges to subsequent state regulations or restrictions.
Thanks to public trust expert and leading environmental Jim Olson for these points.
The new proposed Great Lakes compact again proposes an exception to the anti-diversion rule for communities in "straddling counties," that is, counties whose land area drains in part into another watershed. That's an explicit concession to communities that want access to Great Lakes water because they're overusing their existing non-Great Lakes water supply. It's an explicit concession, first of all, to Waukesha, Wisconsin, which will be first in line to get a diversion exception.
But some Wisconsin advocates believe Waukesha should explore other alternatives first.
WAUKESHA - A coalition of environmental groups is asking that Waukesha choose to implement several water conservation measures before seeking additional water sources.
http://www.gmtoday.com/news/local_stories/2005/November_05/11172005_02.asp
Proposed Great Lakes Plan Would Convert Water into Product for Export
November 22, 2005, Traverse City, Michigan. Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, the citizen group that won a major court victory against Nestlé Waters North America over the export of bottled water out of Michigan’s watersheds and the Great Lakes Basin against, announced it can not support the current version of two agreements for the future protection of waters of the Great Lakes. The agreements, Great Lakes Water Resources Agreement and Compact were negotiated for nearly four years. Last week copies were released, leaving a short three weeks before the governors are slated to sign them on December 13, 2005 in Milwaukee.
“These two agreements may save the Annex process that so many have worked hard for, but they will not save the Great Lakes,” Terry Swier, MCWC’s President said. “There is a hole in these pacts, and over time the agreements could sink under the national and global demands for our Great Lakes water,” she said. “The negotiators and Council of Great Lakes Governors should be commended for how far they’ve come, but these agreements should not be signed in their present form.”
“The court case reaffirmed that water is a commons, that these waters cannot be diverted for sale where it violates common law principles that protect the integrity of lakes and stream and the public trust in these waters,” said Jim Olson, the environmental lawyer who won the successful court victory, now before the Michigan appellate court. “Unfortunately, the two proposed agreements could seriously undermine these common law protections,” he said.
MCWC applauds the negotiators for the progress on some issues, but calls for its rejection on other key issues. The Agreements seek to ban all diversions from the Basin except for those that would help cities that straddle the Basin extend water service lines to their residents and businesses. They also would impose environmental and conservation measures for those who use the water here – such as manufacturing, generating electrical power, golf courses, tourism, and importantly farming. They even reinsert the idea of public trust in the waters. “But the agreements collapse when it comes to guarding against exports of water as a product, “ Olson said. “In fact, the agreements appear to bore a gaping loophole in favor of those who want to profit off these public resources as private products without authorization or license from the states on behalf of their citizens. This is simply too large of a hole to accept. The governors need to insist that the agreements be clarified and changed to correct this major failure.”
The revised agreements provide that water withdrawn by mechanical means for use elsewhere is a “product,” not a diversion. That means any amount of water put in any sized containers or packages – bottles or bags for example – is a product not subject to the ban on diversions. “Basically, the agreements are illusory when it comes to preventing the sale and export, as opposed to diversion, of water from the Basin,” Olson said. “The agreements can be interpreted as making water a product at the point of withdrawal for those who intend to wholesale or retail it somewhere else. This is not the kind of stewardship intended by the public trust as recognized in the agreements themselves.”
The agreements also provide that the export of water in containers over 5.7 gallons would be prohibited. But this prohibition conflicts with the agreements definition of the export of water as a product. The agreements allow export of water in containers less than 5.7 gallons, what some have labeled the bottled water exemption. “But this is not about bottled water, it’s about the private capture of water for export,” Olson said. “You can export hundreds of millions of gallons of water a year in a bottle from watersheds, as much as in a ship or large containers.” The agreements provide a savings clause that states can determine different treatment for bottled water exports, but it is unclear what “treatment” means. “Clearly, the savings clause does not reserve the right of states to determine whether the water should be authorized or licensed in the first place. Once it’s a product, it will be very difficult to turn-back the clock to regulate or control it in the future,” Olson said. “It’s better to correct this flaw now rather than be sorry later over such a momentous decision. We’re talking water for the ages, both present and future generations, here.”
“Despite what other industry and well-intended environmental groups may say in favor of adopting the agreements we don’t’ think they speak for most citizens and businesses,” Swier said, “and these groups have not addressed the product export loop-hole.” MCWC is urging citizens to contact Governor Granholm and the other Great Lakes states governors with their concerns.
####
ST. PAUL - A state lawmaker wants to clamp down on oceangoing ships to control the spread of exotic aquatic species such as killer shrimp and zebra mussels.
Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, said Tuesday she will push next year to make oceangoing ships get a permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before entering the state's waters on Lake Superior. The bill is modeled after a Michigan law that takes effect there in 2007.
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/13234763.htm
One of the U.S. Department of Energy's leading wind-power advocates told two audiences in the Toledo area yesterday that he sees the open waters of Lake Erie as a great possibility for utility-scale turbines.
Coming to Lake Michigan soon, too?
Governors along Great Lakes states apparently are ready to sign an updated agreement on using the lakes’ water.
The pact, which the governors are expected to sign Dec. 13, would prohibit massive water withdrawals from the nation’s greatest freshwater source.
http://www.post-trib.com/cgi-bin/pto-story/news/z1/11-22-05_z1_news_10.html
Could an historic alliance of Great Lakes native peoples prevent the destruction of the lakes as we know them today?
“Imagine a future where there are bus tours of shipwrecks on the former bottomlands of the Great Lakes,” says Frank Ettawageshik, Chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. “We can’t let that happen.”
Ettawageshik is one leader bringing tribes from the U.S. and first nations from Canada together to oppose diversions and large-scale withdrawals from the Great Lakes basin. The nascent group, now called the United Indian Nations of the Great Lakes (UINGL), has met twice during the past year and is forming stronger relationships among themselves and with other groups involved in Great Lakes water protection.
The movement focuses on the future of the Great Lakes, while rooted in history and native tradition that knows no artificial national boundaries.
http://www.northernexpress.com/editorial/features.asp?id=1546
Graceland Fruit Inc. and the state have been negotiating a civil settlement in a dumping case involving thousands of gallons of blueberry waste.
Donald Nugent, a member of the MSU Board of Trustees, is president and chief executive officer of the Frankfort-based company.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, or DEQ, began an investigation into the dumping in 2003, and eventually recommended that criminal charges be pursued against Graceland Fruit Inc. and Bonney Bros. Pumping Co., the company responsible for hauling and dumping the waste.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox denied the request to prosecute the case, and opted to pursue the civil settlement instead.
http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=33306
The new draft Great Lakes compact and agreement between the states and Ontario and Quebec.
http://www.ecobizport.com/AnxCompact111005Draft.pdf
http://www.ecobizport.com/AnxAgreement111005Draft.pdf
This comes from citizens who ejected Perrier (now Nestle) from Wisconsin and believe the new compact draft is dangerously weak on the private capture and sale of the public's water.
Dear Governor Doyle:
As you consider the historic Great Lakes Compact there is one glaring provision which I ask you to reject and amend.
The compact permits the exporting of bottled water out of the Great Lakes Watershed in containers less than 5.7 gallons. Water shipped in containers greater than 5.7 gallons would be considered a diversion. (I have yet to see people carrying around a 5.7 gallon container of bottled water.) This should be amended so that any bottled water shipped out of the Great Lakes watershed should be considered a diversion.
In our rural community, Nestle proposed to take 720,000 gallons of spring water a day, over 26 million gallons in a year, and ship it out in small containers. The millions of dollars of income from this extraction would enrich Nestle but do little for the people of Wisconsin. There is no tax on extracting and shipping our spring waters.
Had they been successful, our ecosystem would have suffered irreparable damage. The traffic and pollution from their bottling plant would have transformed our rural community. We won our fight against Nestle. or so we thought, but we should have known better.
Lobbyists for Nestle, Coke and Pepsi have successfully inserted the 5.7 gallon provision to protect their multi-million dollar enterprise. If you allow this provision to remain unchanged in the compact, spring waters throughout the watershed would be fair game.
We look to you to protect our springs and watershed. Don't let a handful of profiteers destroy even one spring in our state, because they will never be satisfied with only one spring.
Please amend this provision and protect our state's most precious natural resource.
The Great Lakes region's eight governors and two Canadian premiers have chosen Dec. 13 as their day to consider signing a pair of documents intended to block any future attempts to pipe Great Lakes water across North America or export it in tankers to other parts of the world.
The summit, to take place at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, would be the first of its kind since Great Lakes governors and premiers met in Niagara Falls, N.Y., in June, 2001, to begin negotiating a regional water compact called Annex 2001.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051118/NEWS06/511180361/-1/NEWS
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) — After four years of talks, negotiators have reached a deal aimed at preventing outsiders from raiding Great Lakes water and encouraging more efficient use of the coveted resource within the region.
"There were many difficult issues that required compromise, but a consensus has been reached," David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, said Friday.
Regulation of water use within the basin would be left up to each state and province, in keeping with standards designed to protect the ecosystem. They would be required to adopt conservation programs.
In other words, the concept of a common standard for all the states to enforce -- the ecosystem management rationale that inspired the document -- is now abandoned. The new drafts have some merit, but this is a disappointment.
Federal officials say they won't pay for the $20-billion plan President George W. Bush sought last year to improve the health of the Great Lakes by restoring coastal wetlands and keeping out sewage and invaders like zebra mussels.
A bipartisan coalition of elected leaders says it was stunned when an Environmental Protection Agency report recommended that Bush focus on "improving the efficiency and effectiveness of existing programs" instead of launching expensive new efforts...
Thomas Skinner, chief of the EPA's Great Lakes region, said the agency's report that Great Lakes projects need no additional funding shouldn't be a surprise.
"Everybody knows there are substantial needs ... but no one realistically expected at the end of 12 months that we would be ready to put down x-billion dollars toward this," Skinner said in an interview Wednesday. "This was always intended to be a step-by-step process. The money comes later."
Yep, after tax cuts for the rich.
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051118/NEWS06/511180443
Among other interesting comments:
Industry had chafed at conservation provisions. Jon Allan of Consumers Energy, a utility in Jackson, Mich., told reporters at the recent Great Waters Institute for Journalism and Natural Resources that the agreement didn't have "a chance in hell" of passing the eight state legislatures.
But changes since then stress efficiency of water use, which Allan said Thursday is "a better basis than the just-use-less, can't-have mentality" of an earlier draft.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-divert18.html
To change course, Minnesotans must hold our governor accountable and call upon him to restore the mission of the MPCA. Instead of protecting polluters, the MPCA must use science and law to protect our children, our air and our water from the effects of pollution.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/5733658.html
Once one of the Detroit River's most toxic sites, the Trenton backwater has been cleansed of more than 470,000 pounds of toxics-laced sediment as the first completed project under the federal Great Lakes Legacy Act cleanup program.
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051117/NEWS02/511170512/1004
Michigan Congressman Vern Ehlers should be credited with sponsoring the Great Lakes Legacy Act that made this possible.
If Congress won't act, state legislatures in the Great Lakes region must to ban this kind of practice within their borders.
Public comments are now being accepted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its newly proposed federal regulation regarding the testing of chemicals and pesticides on human subjects. On August 2, 2005, Congress had mandated the EPA create a rule that permanently bans chemical testing on pregnant women and children. But the EPA's newly proposed rule, misleadingly titled "Protections for Subjects in Human Research," puts industry profits ahead of children's welfare. The rule allows for government and industry scientists to treat children as human guinea pigs in chemical experiments in the following situations:
1. Children who "cannot be reasonably consulted," such as those that are mentally handicapped or orphaned newborns may be tested on. With permission from the institution or guardian in charge of the individual, the child may be exposed to chemicals for the sake of research.
2. Parental consent forms are not necessary for testing on children who have been neglected or abused.
3. Chemical studies on any children outside of the U.S. are acceptable.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/17/21149/768
During the past two years, Eliason and a team of shipwreck hunters found or helped to find six shipwrecks, including three this summer.
http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i051115.html
EPA's response to the latest biennial Great Lakes water quality report of the International Joint Commission is a 37-page restatement of all the good work government is already doing. In approach it is likely to be much like the much-anticipated strategy for Great Lakes restoration -- not the $20 billion rescue plan proposed in July, but a restatement of what is being done, perhaps with a new cover slapped on existing programs. And maybe a few more pennies on the dollar, if the Lakes are lucky.
http://www.epa.gov/docs/grtlakes/glwqa/ijc12th/Draft%205-13-05.pdf
Great Lakes governors are scheduled to meet in Chicago on December 13 and have been expected to sign or announce agreement on the final version of an interstate compact and agreement with Ontario and Quebec to prevent harmful water withdrawals and exports. That's four weeks from Tuesday. It's apparent that the most recent drafts are changing dramatically behind the scenes, but without any public oversight. Tear down that wall, Great Lakes governors, and put your agreement into the light of day.
Here is where the last set of documents was posted:
http://cglg.org/projects/water/annex2001Implementing.asp
As negotiators for the Great Lakes states and provinces move behind the scenes to dot the i's on a third draft of an anti-water export compact, this op-ed from a former premier of Alberta suggests what some Canadians think is next. Although not referring specifically to the Great Lakes, the piece underscores the fears of some north of the border that the U.S. will bargain for Canadian H20 when water scarcity looms.
A thirsty Uncle looks north
By PETER LOUGHEED
I predict that the United States will be coming after our fresh water aggressively within three to five years. We must prepare, to ensure we aren't trapped in an ill-advised response. It would be a major mistake for Canada to handle this issue badly. With climate change and growing needs, Canadians will need all the fresh water we can conserve, particularly in the western provinces.
I've been involved in this issue for years. In the early 1980s, when I was Alberta premier and worked with the knowledgeable Henry Kroeger, then Alberta's minister for water management, he convinced me that we should
transfer water from Alberta's more northerly rivers to the dry areas in the southern and eastern parts of our province. When we took the proposal to caucus (we held almost every seat) we were shocked by the aggressively
negative reaction.
I learned then that water is an emotional political issue; I was usually able to get support from the caucus -- but not when it came to fresh water.
As Alberta premier, I'd travel to Washington each spring to lobby U.S. senators for market access to our surplus oil and natural gas (we finally obtained this access through the free-trade agreement). I became friends with the U.S. senator from Washington state, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, who was chairman of the Senate's energy committee. He visited Alberta and was the first senior elected U.S. official to recognize the potential of the oil sands. One evening "Scoop" asked me what I knew about Section 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Next to nothing, I responded. He convinced me that it would be a great positive for Canada to take advantage of Section 21 of GATT and secure a free-trade agreement between Canada and the United States.
I took this idea up at my final first-ministers' conference in the spring of 1985, and proposed the concept to then prime minister Brian Mulroney. As history records, he quickly adopted the idea. (The Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada was coming to the same conclusion). The free-trade agreement was negotiated with President Ronald Reagan.
After I left government, I worked with the Business Council on National
Issues (now the Canadian Council of Chief Executives) to help implement
the FTA. Remember, Canada was a supplicant in this matter. In the spring of 1987, a number of us were in Washington making the pitch for the FTA to a group of senior senators. At a crunch time, Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas
asked us whether fresh water should be included in the deal. It was quite a moment: I bent down to tie my shoelace, one colleague dropped his book, another colleague dropped his pencil. The moment passed; another senator changed the subject. Fresh water was not included in the FTA. (Had we been
pressured, the Canadian strategy, as I recall, was to reject the inclusion of water, but we would have had to trade something else of major value in
exchange.)
Fast forward to today. I spend time in Arizona and observe the dryness, the barren riverbeds and the constant concern about water shortage there and in neighbouring states, including California. I talk to a lot of people about water. My political instincts tell me that some time soon water availability is going to rise to the top of the U.S. domestic agenda and the Senator Bentsen of the day will say: "What about Canada? They have lots of excess water and we have the free-trade agreement. Let's demand they share their water with us."
With the population and political shift from the U.S. northeast to Texas,
Arizona, Nevada and California, what has not been on the agenda soon will
be. My strongly-held view is, we Canadians should be prepared to respond firmly with a forceful "No. We need it for ourselves!"
Why should we not export fresh water?
There are many compelling reasons. Water is essential to our life and its
supply is not always certain. Water is essential to our food production,
and why increase our dependence on foreign food supplies? Water can be a
determinant in job location; let's bring good jobs to Canadians. Finally, if there is an acceptable way for inter-basin transfers, let's confine such to Canada.
So, how can Canadians prepare for this thirst for our water?
1. Governments and their departments of environment must put out current,
reliable data and encourage the exchange of data across Canada. We must
include the entire 49th parallel as well as the Great Lakes, which have
their own important water issues.
2. The federal government House Leader should join with other house
eaders to hold a special "water debate" in the House of Commons no later than next spring.
3. The provincial governments through their premiers should move the water
issue to the forefront and prepare for legislative debates next spring, perhaps on a resolution framed as: "Should we export any of our fresh water to the United States?"
4. The first ministers planning secretariat should plan for a late spring meeting with the water issue specifically at the forefront.
5. Private sector research groups across Canada should pick up on the Canada West Foundation's January 2005 report Balancing Act: Water Conservation
and Economic Growth (the export issue is targeted on page 16).
6. Environmental groups and business associations should form an alliance
to pressure political parties to make the water issue a priority.
No doubt there will be a significant segment (I'd guess a minority) who
either believe the water issue is overblown or that bulk water sales to
the United States should not be discouraged. My sense is that once they are
alerted to the probability of a U.S. grab for our fresh water, most Canadians will react as the Alberta government caucus did in the early 1980s when they told their then premier: "Get lost!"
I hope that when the time comes, Canada will be ready. The reality is that
fresh water is more valuable than crude oil.
In an environmentally conscious state with a lackluster economy, Poland Spring has been a decades-long delight: a nonpolluting industry that relies on a renewable resource to provide hundreds of good-paying jobs in small towns where they are often hard to come by.
The clear plastic bottle of spring water with the dark green label has become as much a part of Maine's image as a pair of L.L. Bean boots. The company's longtime slogan says it all: "Poland Spring. What it means to be from Maine."
But the love affair is showing signs of strain.
More than 50,000 Mainers have signed petitions in hopes of forcing a referendum on the proposed extraction fee on water that businesses draw from the state's aquifers for resale in containers. Campaign organizers say a handful of smaller bottlers would be hit by the tax, but Poland Spring would bear the biggest impact.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1306740&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
The 33-year-old Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement is up for review. At a recent hearing in Bay City, longtime environmental champion and hero Terry Miller had this to say:
I was thirty-three when I first answered the summons to become an activist...I am now 59, and although I will never quit, I am getting very tired of fighting the same battles, over and over – often with new opponents, but the same business greed, the same desire for short term profit over long term sustainability; the same governmental apathy or actually antipathy towards environmental protection or restoration. And the new ideological grassroots, that sees private property as inviolate, with politicians and citizens committed to defending its personal and private use regardless of the impact on the greater public; blind to the concept of public trust.
My teenage son recently received an Ipod, that amazing device, so tiny, capable of storing so much information, an icon of the communication revolution. And yet, in the ecosystem we are so dependent upon, like 14th century medieval villages we continue to treat our rivers as sewers. It is incredibly discouraging to read in local newspapers, after even minor rain falls, that hundreds of thousands of gallons of raw or partially treated human sewage has been dumped in the Saginaw River and ultimately the bay, the source of our drinking water. ..
In 2002...we discovered from documents obtained from the DEQ through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the entire length of the Tittabawassee River downstream from the Dow Chemical Company was contaminated with dioxin levels 80 times the state action level. The Tittabawassee, of course, flows into the Saginaw River and subsequent testing has discovered levels as high as 19,000 ppt.
It has been nearly four years since the state regulators became aware of the problem and not a foot of sediment or soils have been remediated. In many ways this problem is a microcosm of the national inaction on serious environmental contamination.
The responsible party, the Dow Chemical Company, has run an effective campaign of “manufacturing uncertainty” as the American Journal of Public Health has described it. The Company denies that dioxin is toxic, and that the unwanted chemical is responsible only for a skin rash called chloracne. This despite testimony from state and federal toxicologists, and hundreds of laboratory and real-life studies that implicate dioxin in cancer, reproductive and developmental illnesses. And a 15-year study that concluded that dioxin in the Great Lakes was responsible for the disappearance of lake trout.
The Company has donated $26,000 to the Saginaw County Health Department, salvaged funding for the Saginaw Civic Center, renaming it the DowEvent center, and spread thousands of dollars in highly visible charitable contributions in Saginaw and Bay City. Meanwhile, Republican legislators from Midland, as well as Midland activists, attacked the MDEQ as too aggressive, and threatened funding.
http://www.davedempsey.org/lone_tree_statement.pdf
Two barriers intended to keep gluttonous Asian carp out of the Great Lakes could be shut down because nobody wants to pay the electric bill.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/southsouthwest/chi-0511110276nov11,1,1380914.story
On Wednesday, Michigan Clean Water Action recognized Gov. Granholm, State Rep. Jack Brandenburg and State Sen. Liz Brater for their work on water protection issues. But the highlight of the event in Lansing was the recognition of Brenda Rothstein, an inspiring citizen activist from SE Michigan. Throughout Michigan's history it's been individual heroes like her who have made the difference. Her remarks are worth noting.
Good afternoon. My name is Brenda Rothstein. First of all, I would like to thank Clean Water Action for such an honor.
I must, however, share this award with those who have also been involved with the ongoing efforts of Toxic Free Shores, TFS. People like Lorol Brackx, Ralph Reich, Bruce Terwilliger, Connie Boris, Marie Mitchell and Mary Kay Worley, who have continued to devote their time and talents to advocate a thorough remediation of the PCB and heavy metal contamination found in St. Clair Shores four and one-half years ago deserve recognition for their continued efforts to enhance the health and safety of the environment, of the aquatic life and of the families in the immediate area as well as those living downstream from the site.
To my family and the families of the aforementioned: Thank you for your continued patience and support as we continue to pursue a thorough investigation, a complete cleanup and ongoing monitoring in St. Clair Shores.
I especially wish to thank the Clean Water Action staff which has been a constant source of support for me, for TFS, and for others facing water quality issues. It is people like Brad Wilson, Cyndi Roper, Sarah Roberts, David Holtz, and Christy McGillivray, and others whose knowledge, skills, and organizing efforts continue to play a vital role through community outreach and education as well as through their ongoing efforts to encourage and support policies and legislation to enhance water quality not only in and around St. Clair Shores, but across Michigan.
For those officials (Gov. Grandholm; Reps. Brandenburg, Levin; Sens. Brater, Levin, Stabenow; and others) who are striving to create and promote legislation that enhances the health and safety of our environment and our families, I commend you.
Over the course of the last four and one-half years, I have learned a great deal about an abundance of issues that are affecting the health and safety of our environment, our water supply and our families.
As a nurse and a mother, I am deeply concerned about the impacts of these issues on our children and on future generations.
The number of children who suffer from such problems as asthma and learning disorders has been and continue to be on the rise.
Studies have only continued to confirm the negative impacts of the persistent presence of toxics in our environment.
Today’s children are discussing what type of medications they are taking and what type of inhalers they are using.
Yet, steps to reduce, remove, or eliminate those known contaminants and the public health threats they generate are hampered by inadequate funding.
For instance, in St. Clair Shores, although PCBs were recently found (May 2005) above 32,000 parts per million in the first three feet of soil, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims this poses no health threat and plans on placing the area on the “National Priority List,” which in my eyes is a mere waiting list for yet another under-funded program (Superfund).
Moreover, funding for research to safely alter persistent toxics such as PCBs is essentially non-existent.
Shouldn’t the protection of our most valuable and vital assets, our water / our children, be our real “National Priority!”
Currently we are working toward legislation necessary to protect our waters from private withdrawals. Did you ever stop to think why such legislation was necessary? Isn’t our drinking water adequate? Have we let things get so bad that we need to have a market for bottled water?
Earlier this year I went to my Township Board to express my dismay over wetland destruction in my township. While I was there discussing the importance of wetlands in protecting our water supply, I mentioned that I still had a persistent water quality issue, black particles in my tap water.
The Board responded by purchasing a refrigerator and bottled water for Township employees.
Consequently, legislation to prevent such large scale withdrawals for the booming bottled-water business is necessary because stricter policies and laws to protect water quality and the funding to ensure proper practices are not.
Allowing large scale withdrawals would only result in an increased concentration of the contaminants already found in our Great Lakes, and thus, in our drinking water supply. This will merely compound the problem.
We can learn from places like Hamburg, Germany, where the lifeless rivers run black.
We must protect our most valuable and vital natural resource, water, from continued insults and the resulting degradation by promoting legislation and policies that limit the influx of toxics, that limit diversions, and that fully fund the remediation and the rehabilitation of our waters.
Furthermore, we must ensure environmental justice for those who cannot afford fancy filtration systems or bottled water and who must rely on our “Great Lakes” for sustenance.
We must also act to protect our native aquatic life.
We must continue our efforts to ensure a safe environment for future generations.
To all of you who dedicate your lives to making the world a safer place, thank you for your time and for all that you do!
Good news:
Here's what a strong, effective "mandate" can do to reduce pollution. Michigan's 1970s eras actions on phosphorus dramatically improved the health of Lake Erie -- although that is now in some jeopardy. (Dishwashing detergents can still legally contain 8.7% phosphorus; and high-phosphorus lawn fertilizers are beginning to make up for the reduction in P that resulted from laundry detergent controls.)
Two statewide phosphorus control initiatives were also implemented. In 1971, Michigan enacted a phosphorus limitation of 8.7% by weight on all cleaning agents. Michigan’s phosphorus detergent ban was implemented in 1977, restricting the phosphorus content of household laundry detergents to no greater than 0.5% by weight.
The combined influence of these phosphorus control efforts can be seen in Figure 2a & b below. The result was greater than a 90% reduction in phosphorus concentration and loading from the Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant. Similar reductions occurred in other wastewater treatment plants, however, because of the Detroit plant’s 700 million gallon per day flow, the impact on Lake Erie was substantial. The Detroit Wastewater Treatment Plant would become the single largest reason for the reversal of cultural eutrophication of Lake Erie during the 1970s and 1980s. Lake Erie responded with dramatic improvements in water quality.
http://www.epa.gov/med/grosseile_site/indicators/dwwtp.html
Not so good news:
The ribbon will soon be cut on a brand-new, $9 million electric barrier built to keep the Asian carp from swimming up the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and infesting Lake Michigan, but Great Lakes lawmakers this week failed to persuade their fellow members in Congress to pay to turn it on.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/nov05/369463.asp
Interesting but old "news":
WASHINGTON, DC—In an effort to make America's natural wonders available to all citizens, the Department of the Interior announced Monday the creation of a $2 million National Parks Website. Jack Holm, designer of the website, believes nature lovers will find it superior to the real parks in every way. "You will experience the same grand mountains, lush grass and wide variety of fauna, without ever leaving your home," he said. "And when you spot an animal on your cyber-tour, like a majestic elk, you can click on the elk and access information about its habitat and diet. Elks in the wild do not offer this option."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39123
PRESS RELEASE
November 8, 2005
Contacts: see below
Senate Committee Considers Dismal Proposal
For Water Protections
Republicans Craft Temporary, Limited Protections
That Leave Michigan’s Waterways, Great Lakes Exposed
LANSING – Environmental groups sharply criticized a set of bills (SB 850-852) aimed supposedly at protecting water resources as they were debated in the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee today.
“The awful truth is that these bills are worse than current law,” said Sierra Club’s Anne Woiwode.
As currently written, the Republican-backed proposal would:
* Authorize adverse impacts to waterways that are not trout streams;
* Keep the public removed from decisions impacting our waterways; and
* Provide no new protections against diversions from the Great Lakes basin.
“What we need are laws that stand up for the public interest and our natural resources,” said PIRGIM’s Jason Barbose. “What we see instead is kowtowing to the special interests that are looking to treat our water and the Great Lakes like their own private well.”
“This proposal is a failure for every Michigander who cares about our state’s water and the Great Lakes,” said Cheryl Mendoza of Alliance for the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes, Great Michigan coalition – made up of 36 businesses, farmers, environmental groups, religious groups, and thousands of citizens – has been working since May with legislators to draft laws that will adequately protect Michigan’s waters.
Great Lakes, Great Michigan is working to convince the legislature to pass laws that will:
* Protect all of our state’s waterways and natural resources from harm;
* Provide new protections against diversions of Great Lakes water;
* Involve communities in decisions regarding their lakes, rivers, and streams; and
* Require all large users to practice water conservation and efficient use.
In both the House (HB 5366-5373) and Senate (SB 855-857) bills have been introduced that would create strong and comprehensive water use protections. Unfortunately, it is the weak package (SB 850-852) being pushed by Senator Patty Birkholz that is currently being fast tracked through the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee, with a vote expected on Thursday.
“These bills not only fall short in protecting rivers and streams in Michigan. They actually authorize adverse resource impacts to any waterway that’s not a trout stream,” said Kate Madigan of Michigan Environmental Council.
The Great Lakes, Great Michigan coalition is demanding that Senate Republicans go back to the drawing board to build bipartisan support for strong, comprehensive water use laws as bipartisan lawmakers in the House have done in supporting HB 5366-5373.
Michigan is currently behind every other Great Lakes state in passing laws regulating how our water is used. As a result, Michigan is a target for irresponsible users, and our water is vulnerable to being diverted out of the basin through pipeline, barge, rail, or in bottles.
Contact:
Anne Woiwode, Sierra Club, (517) 484-2372
Cheryl Mendoza, Alliance for the Great Lakes, (616) 850-0745
James Clift, Michigan Environmental Council, (517) 487-9539
Jason Barbose, PIRGIM, (734) 662-6597
Endorsing Organizations
Alliance for the Great Lakes
Bazzani Associates
Clean Water Action
Detroit Audubon Society
Dwight Lydell Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America
Earth Matters Alliance
East Michigan Environmental Action Council
Ecology Center
Generations Financial Service
Gray Panthers of Metro Detroit
Huron River Watershed Council
Inner City Christian Federation
Intercounty Citizens Action Group
Interface Fabrics
Kalamazoo Environmental Council
Lott3Metz Architecture, LLC
Macomb Land Conservancy
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
Michigan Division of the Izaak Walton League of America
Michigan Environmental Council
Michigan Farmers Union
Michigan League of Conservation Voters
Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network
Peace and Justice Program of Sister of St. Joseph, Nazareth
Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM)
Religion, Ecology and Spirituality
Sierra Club, Mackinac Chapter
Sirius Resources, LLC
Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Sustainable Research Group
Thomas J. Newhouse-Design
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Voices for Earth Justice
West Michigan Environmental Action Council
Women in Steel, District 2
The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Detroit Branch
"The lore of this lake is richer than we ever expected," he said.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1526/5713455.html
Thirty years after the cold waters of Lake Superior swallowed the infamous carrier the S. S. Edmund Fitzgerald on Nov. 10, 1975, a statewide Minnesota concert tour commemorates the fateful wreck that took the lives of 29 crew members. “The Gales of November,” an adaptation of the play “Ten November” by Eric Peltoniemi and Steven Dietz, presents a poetic narration of the tragedy set to music by an all-star cast.
http://www.grandrapids-mn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=3&story_id=210643
Michigan is on the verge of adopting the water regulations it promised two decades ago in a historic agreement with seven neighboring states and two Canadian provinces to protect the Great Lakes.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/metro/0511/06/B01-373351.htm
Yes, but -- the bills set to be pushed through the State Senate this week fall well short of what's needed to protect the Lakes. Written to protect special interests, they're not even half a loaf.
WASHINGTON A House panel wants to know why the Bush administration hasn't banned imports of Asian carp -- a fish species that threatens the Great Lakes' ecosystems.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4072482&nav=4QcS
The governors and mayors of the Great Lakes region aren't taking the "no new money for the Lakes" theme coming out of the Bush Administration lying down. The states can show their seriousness, too, by putting up some money now to anticipate and match any new federal bucks. That would do as much as any letter to Washington.
http://www.ecobizport.com/GLRCLetter110105.pdf
Nov. 1--Great Lakes governors, famous for hoarding almost every drop of the world's largest freshwater system, are pushing for a tighter water-diversion law they hope will serve as a deadbolt when thirsty outsiders start banging on the door.
Perhaps they should pull their eyes off the peephole and take a look behind them to see what might already be going down their own drain.
An engineering study funded by a group of Canadian lakefront property owners this year claims a 1962 Army Corps of Engineers dredging project, done in conjunction with St. Lawrence Seaway construction, essentially pulled the plug on Lakes Michigan and Huron, sending an average of nearly 1 billion gallons a day out to sea.
Waukesha and its neighbors have a problem right now.
And right now the Baird study claims the lakes are losing an average of about 845 million gallons a day.
"It puts things in perspective," says Waukesha water utility general manager Dan Duchniak. "We're talking about a public health issue."
So -- the Army Corps of Engineers manipulates the Lakes and turns on a spigot sending over 800 million excess gallons of water a day out of the system -- and that's why we should manipulate the Lakes some more and permit Waukesha to take Great Lakes water? Why not turn off the first and prevent the second?
Waukesha's problem is not public health, but urban sprawl and inefficient use of water.
Minnesota’s bald eagle population has increased by 28 percent during the past five years, state Department of Natural Resource officials announced Tuesday. Scientists found 872 nesting pairs last spring, according to authorities, nearly 200 more than were found in 2000.
“Any way you look at it, Minnesota’s bald eagles have made a dramatic comeback over the past half century and continue to tell an endangered species success story,” said Rich Baker, project coordinator for the DNR.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/5702045.html
Some hope on the horizon for cleaner energy:
“This is wind power’s time,” VanderVeen said, “for energy security, long-term firm pricing, preserving farmland, cleaner air, cleaner water, less pediatric asthma, less mercury in our lakes and streams. Now is the time for wind power to take its place at the table and complement coal and nuclear power and natural gas.”
http://www.whitelakebeacon.com/news.php?story_id=8496
Great River Energy on Friday issued a request for proposals for 120 megawatts of wind-generated power.
http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2005/10/24/daily60.html?from_rss=1