03/01/2006
Michigan Governor Signs Law to Protect State's Waterways from Overuse
2/28/06
Today, Governor Granholm signed into law important new protections
for Michigan's waterways, after a 15 month campaign initiated by
members of Michigan's environmental community. For the first time,
major water users in Michigan will need to get a permit from the state
that proves they will not adversely impact waterways.
"Though we still have a ways to go, this takes us leaps and bounds
beyond where we were and we thank the legislature and the Governor for
their leadership," said Cheryl Mendoza of the Alliance for the Great
Lakes. "Michigan is finally taking real steps toward being a leader in
caring for the Great Lakes waters."
A coalition of over 50 organizations gained critical support from a
bipartisan coalition in the House for improving the bills that
originated in the Senate. It was the support of these legislators, led
by State Rep. Brandenburg, Rep. Sak, Rep. Law, Rep. Kahn, Rep. Steward
and Rep. Gillard, that made stronger bills a reality. These bills also
stemmed from the Governor's Water Legacy Act and include significant
components of her proposed law.
"Michigan citizens should be proud of this victory for Michigan's
waters," said Becky Beauregard of the Michigan League of Conservation
Voters Education Fund. "Through the combined effort of hundreds of
thousands of citizens, we were able to win new and significant
protections for Michigan's waterways."
The new laws include:
* Permits for new withdrawals over 2 million gallons per day for
inland lakes and streams and 5 million gallons per day from the Great
Lakes.
* An immediate prohibition against new large-scale water
withdrawals (100,000 g/d averaged over 30 days) that threaten fish
populations in Michigan's waterways, starting with trout streams and
expanding to all inland waterways in 2 years.
* Uniform reporting requirements for all large capacity
withdrawals with a reporting accuracy requirement within 25 feet of the
well.
* A definition of diversions as water sent out of the Great Lakes
basin in containers of 5.7 gallons or more. Under 5.7 gallons
container sizes are considered consumptive uses.
* A new, first-of-its-kind permit system for water bottlers that
has higher standards than other withdrawals. The permit system also
protects riparian rights and reinforces the public trust doctrine
through public notice and hearing procedures.
* A dispute resolution process that creates a forum for citizen
participation when water resources are threatened, and encourages water
users to avoid adverse resource impacts.
* Authority for the Department of Environmental Quality to
temporarily restrict (for 30 days with a possibly additional 30-day
extension) water withdrawals before they have devastating effects.
* Authorization via legislative approval for all water diversion
projects if the current Michigan law against diversions is overturned.
* A requirement that each sector develop water conservation
standards for their sector.
* Appointment of additional representative to the Groundwater
Advisory Council from an agricultural organization, a registered well
driller with hydrological expertise, municipal water supplier, and a
statewide conservation organization.
* A charge that the Groundwater Advisory Council will develop
criteria and indicators to evaluate the suitability of the groundwater,
the development of assessment tools to review withdrawal proposals and
projects, and recommendations for a timetable to update the assessment
tool.
* Assurance that existing legal protections, including those
afforded by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, will continue to
apply to water withdrawals.
"A paramount issue in this package is protecting all of Michigan's
water resources , not just those with a certain fish population."
stated E. John Trimberger of the Dwight Lydell Chapter of the Izaak
Walton League of America. "Though we still need to focus on more than
fish to measure the health of a waterway, this is still a huge step forward."
"The next step is for our legislature to pass what will be a regional
water use law that has been in the making over the past four years with
the other seven Great Lakes states." According to Mendoza.
For more information, contact Cheryl Mendoza, Water Conservation
Program Manager at
Email or 616-850-0745.
Jamie Morton
Alliance for the Great Lakes (Formerly Lake Michigan Federation)
Manager of Outreach Programs 700 Washington Ave., Suite 150
Grand Haven, MI 49417
616-850-0745
jmorton@greatlakes.org
23:55 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
02/28/2006
CALL TO ACTION!
Help with the Nugent issue! You are cordially invited to see the environmental advocacy film Requiem for a Stream by David J. Ruck. Your participation and support will help our efforts to protect the environment. Arrange a showing to a group, attend area showings to be announced, buy the DVD at requiemforastream@yahoo.com, suggest film festivals or groups who should see it, or make a contribution toward its production costs. David Ruck may be reached at 231-766-3070 or david.ruck@gmail.com. Thank you!
The award winning 2006 film explores the challenges faced by ordinary individuals who work to accomplish extraordinary things in a society that nurtures the concepts of disposability and instant gratification. Citizens organize to protect their water supplies.
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency drops the ball. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is running out of money and manpower.
Corporations with deep pockets use financial strength to speed deregulation and weaken laws that protect human health and the environment. Despite these odds citizens are fighting to save what is sacred.
Ruck recounts the Washington, D.C. lead issue, Hooker Chemical Company’s toxic pollution in Whitehall and Montague, Michigan, and finally Nugent Sand Company’s proposal to discharge their treated wastewater directly into Lake Michigan in Norton Shores, Michigan between two water filtration plants.
Requiem for a Stream won the Audience Choice Award at the Muskegon Film Festival on February 4, 2006. Running time: 54 minutes. DVD price: $20 plus shipping and handling.
Call the Harbor Theater and ask them to show it: 755-7469
00:44 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
02/22/2006
February 2006
Nugent Appeals Chester’s Pipeline
Denial in Ingham County
Circuit Court
Court case puts dunes in crosshairs
By Jeff Alexander, CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
The fight over Nugent Sand Co.'s proposal to build a wastewater pipeline through a Lake Michigan dune has moved into the courts, where a company victory could trigger more construction in coastal dunes statewide.
A Nugent Sand subsidiary, Dune Harbor Estates LLC, recently filed an appeal in Ingham County Circuit Court challenging the state's refusal to issue a permit needed to build a 600-foot pipeline through a 4,000-year-old dune.
The company wants to lower water levels in two man-made lakes at its Norton Shores mining site by piping up to 8 million gallons of processed wastewater daily into Lake Michigan.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Director Steven Chester denied the pipeline permit in December. Chester said the pipeline would "fundamentally alter the physical characteristic of the dune."
Dune Harbor's lawyers claimed the company didn't need a state permit because the proposed pipeline is a lake level control outlet -- not a structure, "use or contour change" regulated by the state's Sand Dune Protection and Management Act.
In the court filing, Dune Harbor attorney William Fulkerson said Chester's order "is not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence."
"The order is arbitrary, capricious or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion," Fulkerson said.
Bob Chandonnet, owner of Nugent and a principle in the Dune Harbor development, could not be reached for comment.
Opponents of the pipeline said a court victory by Dune Harbor could weaken the state's dune protection law, which limits construction in coastal dunes.
"This is a real test of the dune law," said Jamie Morton, manager of outreach programs for the Alliance for the Great Lakes. "There has been a lot of focus on (Nugent's) water in the past, but this fight is really centered on the dunes."
Chester said the court case would have statewide implications if it reaches the Michigan Court of Appeals, the next step in the legal process.
"If our position isn't sustained, it will make it a lot easier for parties to get exceptions (to the dune law) and avoid regulation," Chester said.
"I'm very comfortable and confident with my ruling and I think it will withstand the challenges being raised."
Chandonnet wants to build 65 homes around one of two man-made lakes at the Nugent site. The development would be called Dune Harbor Estates.
Nugent officials have said they were surprised when water levels in the man-made lakes rose six feet after mining ceased on the south portion of its 440-acre site. The company is still mining sand in and around a man-made lake on the north end of its property.
Chester has said Nugent could resolve its high water problem by building fewer houses around the south lake and providing larger setbacks from the water.
Darlene DeHudy, vice president of Muskegon Save Our Shoreline, said she fears Nugent and Dune Harbor will eventually prevail in the courts.
"Obviously, they're determined to put the pipeline in," DeHudy said. "The problem is the public thinks it is never going to happen; I'm afraid it is."
The DEQ already has issued Nugent a permit to discharge its sand-mining wastewater into Lake Michigan. State officials have said the discharge would not pollute the lake; critics claim the discharge would jeopardize the drinking water supply for most residents in the greater Muskegon area.
Critics also have said the proposed pipeline -- which would transport treated wastewater from Nugent's sand-cleaning process into a 1,925-square-foot, rock-filled plunge pool on the Lake Michigan beach -- would be an eyesore and a potential hazard to kids playing on the beach.
In his December ruling, Chester said the proposed pipeline project would not threaten human health or public safety. But he said the proposed plunge pool constituted a structure and, as such, was prohibited by the dune law from being built on the beach.
©2006 Muskegon Chronicle
© 2006 Michigan Live. All Rights Reserved.
23:27 Posted in Blog | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this

