# The next water war?



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

The Legislature's having a big discussion right now that's not about WHETHER water should be withdrawn from Michigan's rivers for the purposes of agriculture and business, but rather HOW MUCH "adverse resource impact" is socially acceptable. 

A 2006 public law specifies that no large-scale water withdrawal can have a "adverse resource impact," but that does not translate into "no" resource impact. 

The bills are part of the multi-state, multi-provincial Great Lakes compact designed to govern water withdrawals from the basin. Currently, as the bill's sponsors have stated, there is nothing more than a "paper wall" protecting the Great Lakes from these uses. 

In a nutshell, scientists have developed a withdrawal assessment tool based on a limited study on the affects of water withdrawals on the sport fish in a stream. When water is withdrawn, temperature increases and those thriving species can decline because of the habitat change.

In its current wording, the bill allows a 5-percent reduction in trout populations -- and a reduction of flow of more than 20 percent in some cases -- on cold-water trout streams. There are other limits for cool and warm water streams. 

I've not even scratched the surface here and have written about this much more in-depth for an upcoming outdoor news publication. But here's the question -- is that a socially acceptable adverse resource impact?


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

What the hell is wrong with these people?

I hunt out west, and they grow lots of crops with out irrigation.

The best Fishing of my life was in the Mid 90's about the same time we had a few years of record high water levels on the great lakes and its feeder streams.

Tourism is the second largest industry in our state, and the number one employer, why it continues to be abused by the govt to try and prop up an industry that already receives massive federal subsidies is beyond me. With out natural resources we don&#8217;t have Tourism.

We are all well aware of the drought of 07, how the small rivers have become unfishable, reducing flow in those rivers will do nothing but pack more people onto the Joe, Grand, Muskegon, and Big Man, further reducing access to thousands of anglers who dont own a boat or would prefer to fish in waders....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Here's an issue the is paramount and it pales all others. I can see this issue arising in attempts to boost the State's fiscal crisis by selling our water!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep us informed Joe.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

First of all, the amount of water to be withdrawn is so arbitrary, I can't see how it can determined; at least to a point of no effect on the fisheries.

Secondly, if the state does get its way, which I'm sure they will, I need to ask one question, who owns the mineral rights in Michigan. If you say the state does, than the next question is, who is the state. Isn't it the citizens? I believe you'll find it is, and if so, then who really should be getting the money? It seems its that way in Alaska for the oil, and Michigans water is no different in mineral status than oil.


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Maybe we should be selling it to "Ice Mountain"??


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

CL-Lewiston said:


> Maybe we should be selling it to "Ice Mountain"??


I would suspect that selling it to Ice Mountain would merely be the tip of the iceberg...........no pun intended due to the fact that this is a much more serious thread than what most realize.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes it would be milty, but, Ice Mountain and the other one, I can't remember who it is, takes about 100 million gallons/year. That can't be good.


----------



## Falco (Apr 24, 2007)

Whit1 said:


> I would suspect that selling it to Ice Mountain would merely be the tip of the iceberg...........no pun intended due to the fact that this is a much more serious thread than what most realize.


While I don't like the idea of more water being drawn from our rivers for irrigation and don't agree with it, at least the runoff water stays in the same watershed and will eventually find it's way back to the rivers or lakes.

Bottling water from our region and shipping it outside our watershed guarantees that we will not see it again for a long long time.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

If you want to see what drawing water from rivers does to their flow and fishery during the summer months all you need to do is go to a Western State, say Montana and see what goes on.

Actually this tip of the iceberg goes much deeper (again no pun intended) than bottling aquafer water. Can you say Arizona? New Mexico? Georgia? Florida? the Carolinas? Tennessee? and other drought striken areas with a growing and water demanding population??? That's were the deep rooted problem could arise.

This is but another example of the need for sportsmen and women to get allied with environmental groups.....tossing out the whack jobs on both sides.......and moving to protect the most valuable natural resource we have here in the Great Lakes...........our water.


----------



## brookid (Aug 25, 2004)

i sleep better knowing that at least some of our water will be put to good use...

********************************

_Water park planned for Arizona desert

· Drought-hit Phoenix will play host to Lost Coast
· Developers offer year round watersports 

Ed Pilkington in New York
Wednesday November 21, 2007
The Guardian 

The city of Phoenix in Arizona sits in the middle of a desert that for the past 11 years has been suffering a punishing drought. Temperatures in the city rose above 43C (110F) for a record 30 days this year and water levels in the rivers that supply its 1.5 million people with drinking water are at near-record lows.
A perfect spot then to build what is described as a "year-round watersports paradise", in which visitors will be able to revel in whatever watery pastime takes their fancy.

Scuba diving? No problem. White water rafting? Step this way to the largest man-made white water channel in the world. Surfing your thing? Then come barrel under perfect 12ft waves.
The businessmen behind Waveyard say they plan to recreate the seascape of Indonesia or Hawaii in an area that has just eight inches of rainfall a year. They have earmarked a site about 15 miles outside Phoenix on 125 acres of land that normally supports nothing but saguaro cacti and creosote bushes and that is 200 miles from the nearest beach.

Jerry Hug, one of the brains behind the project, summed up its simple concept. Watersports such as snorkeling, canoeing and boogie-boarding have "traditionally been delivered in the back country in nature's environment. We are bringing that into an urban environment."

To relocate nature's environment into the city will require an initial 189m litres of water to fill the facilities, and then up to 380m litres a year to replenish them allowing for spillage and evaporation. The developers think the cost in water will be more than compensated for by the attraction of what they call the "lost coast", which will provide the ultimate day at the beach.

Its publicity reads: "Lie on our white sand, rent a beach chair, ride a boogie board, build a massive sand castle. The Lost Coast will deliver the beach, the waves and the coastal lifestyle."

Residents in the nearest town of Mesa voted earlier this month by two to one to support the project, won over by promises of 7,500 new jobs. Opposition to the proposals in the area has been muted.

But the long-term wisdom of creating a massive waterpark in the middle of a desert may yet be doubted. Last year Arizona had a record dry winter. Snowpacks on its mountain ranges - essential once they melt for replenishing the state's sophisticated system of underground reservoirs - were unusually thin.

The current report for Arizona shows more than half the state, including the Phoenix area, in the moderate to extreme drought zone.

Rita Maguire, a water expert who has advised Waveyard on water supplies for the development, told Associated Press that she had come round to the idea. "Initially, the reaction is: 'Oh my. Is this an appropriate use of water in a desert'? But recreation is a very important part of a community."

She added that the project would not use more water than a golf course, which sounds reassuring, until you learn that the Arizonan desert is already pockmarked with 402 golf courses.
_


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Brookid, that clip just totally infuriates me. How sensless. As far as I'm concerned once you do something that stupid you should not get any aid whatsoever in the water department.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Water park in AZ? Not a drop! Not ONE DROP of Great Lakes Basin water for that sort of nonsense.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

This bill is moving too quickly and will probably come up for passage soon. My guess is that if you follow the money from Nestle, you will find it in the coffers of the Republicans who wrote and support this legislation. As usual, they are bowing to special interest, mainly Big Water. of all the issues confronting those who love and use water in Michigan, this issue is of the highest concern. NO water....no recreation, no fish, less game. 

yrs,

Mike


----------



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

Water withdrawal bill sparks debate

LANSING - How much of Michigan's natural water resources are expendable for the sake of agriculture and industry and potential economic gain?

Boiled down, that's the heart of a growing discussion among lawmakers and interested groups over a recent bill package introduced by Senate Republicans.

Click here for the story.


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

lets say i came home one day, and a group of people were waiting for me. they came to the decision that a piece of my body could potentially make others rich. they were concerned about my health, but not so much that they wanted to keep their hands off me. so the compromise was that they cut my leg off below the knee. i could still function, albeit with more difficulty than if i was left alone, and they could still make their money. and with that, and without my consent, they held me down and cut it off. is that fair?


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

Phly..

Thanks for the link to the story. My guess is that they thought this might slide under the radar this time of year, but it seems that people are finding out. I have a forum piece coming out in the Record Eagle in Traverse City on Sunday, I think, or Monday....not sure yet. It seems like T.U. and other outdoor groups should be all over this one. What we have here is a fine example of prostitutes disguised as politicians. 

yrs,

Mike


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

mike delp said:


> Phly..
> 
> Thanks for the link to the story. My guess is that they thought this might slide under the radar this time of year, but it seems that people are finding out. I have a forum piece coming out in the Record Eagle in Traverse City on Sunday, I think, or Monday....not sure yet. It seems like T.U. and other outdoor groups should be all over this one. What we have here is a fine example of prostitutes disguised as politicians.
> 
> ...


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

Toto,


I'm certainly not a lawyer, but when it comes to the waters of Michigan, we own Michigan water collectively as citizens. 

Mike


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Mike, and that, my friend, is exactly my point. If we, as citizens, own the water, then how can the legislature just sell it? I mean, at least not without our approval. It seems as though the people of this state, and many others, I'm sure; have forgotton that little bit of governmental largese. 

If my government classes were correct, it for the people, by the people, etc. Why on earth do we sit back and just allow this to happen? Frankly, we can talk about this all we want, but the fact is, WE are the only ones who can stop it. Its high time we talk up and say, you know what, Michigan is the state it is, because of the water, trees, and any other outdoor activity that comes to mind. I no longer live in Michigan, but if things go well enough in the near future, I'll be back, sooner rather than later, I hope.

I realize some will say, yeah but you aren't a citizen of Michigan, no I am not at present, but this happens in other states as well. In fact, if your one doesn't believe that the "Taking" of water isn't an important issue, lets take a look at the Colorado River. If you were to go accross the Hoover Dam and see how much water is there, you would believe it could never dry up. But that isn't the truth, the Colorado River dumps into the ocean near the Baja Peninsula, or should I say it used to. With the amount of farming downstream, and I'm talking in the true desert areas of Nevada, Arizona, and California, you will find that the Colorado does not reach the ocean any longer. It gets pumped out for irrigation, drinking water, etc, to the point it dries up. That is my biggest fear here. Who's to say when enough is enough, and eventually rivers that are at marginal flow now, won't be gone before its over? Dr. Paul Seelbach, who I've met, is a smart guy and he is one of the ones working on this issue, and he feels that some amount would be okay, but who's putting in the checks and balances? Is it the scientists, biologists, and academia who study these things, or is this a negotiated amount that money once again wins out? 

Its our water people, fight for it, fight for your right to use it, fish it, boat on it, and generally keep it where it is. Look at it this way, the draining of waters of these rivers, is nothing more than a backdoor to pumping water from our great lakes. In my humble opinion, it is my belief that people like Nestles, and Perrier should be paying the citizens of Michigan for each and every gallon of water they take, and I'm not talking about paying the legislators, I'm talking about each and every citizen of Michigan. Its done in Alaska for the oil, and water is just as much a mineral right as oil, and just who owns Michigan, and its mineral rights? Thats right, the citizens, and I digress. Sorry for some of the repeat from an earlier post, but I thought I would expound on the issue a little further.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

Thanks for the quick response. One of the basic problems here is that too many politicians are at the Nestle trough. Nestle is constantly sniffing up places to drill for water, and in a state that is cash poor/job poor, they spend money to essentially bribe people. If this new legislation is enacted, it will be a nightmare, not only for water levels, but also for fish and insect populations. So....we'll keep up the fight here and I hope others will do so in their own neighborhoods as well.


----------



## ontheroad (Jan 1, 2005)

but get together soon and plan. down here in new mexico, your average local is happy living as he always has: without Great Lake water. But developers with links to the (hopefully) outgoing administration are trying to cash in fast while the hibernation season sets in and before the elections.

if it's any hope, people down here got together (and I mean ranchers, with businesses, with town councils, with environmental and conservation groups -- EVERYBODY put aside their petty differences for the greater cause) and fought off oil drilling in the Valle Vidal, a real high country treasure. The administration with its links through the national forest system tried to slip one through while everyone was enjoying the powdery slopes, but the area is now protected. A real win for your average Joe who knows beauty and enjoys a trek in the outdoors.

it took a couple of years.

get on it.

ontheroad


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Dumbheads in Lansing... I guess they have not heard of the Federal Statute on Great Lakes Water Diversions.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/4053/default.aspx

Or the Boundry Waters Treay of 1909.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042575/International-Boundary-Waters-Treaty

Both the legislation and the treaty forbid diversion of water... as defined as from the lake, and any bays, inlets, etc - but does not address main stream flows of tributaries. I don't think this will go anywhere. 

Steelie


----------



## garyb (Jan 23, 2003)

i wish the 2 groups could get together but i believe it will never happen....the government likes it that way...we are less powerful when divided...


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

garyb said:


> i wish the 2 groups could get together but i believe it will never happen....the government likes it that way...we are less powerful when divided...


'


Now there's a truism that isn'tconsidered very often.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

Steelie,

It's already going somewhere, too fast. Write letters or emails or better yet, call.


yrs,

Mike


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Are there any links to what the legislature is doing on this?


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Federal law and international treaties trump state law. The feds, Canadians, and various other conservation groups will come down hard on this proposed legislation. Not to mention other States bordering the Lakes. Also - with Lake Michigan nearing a record low level, that won't help these legislators either. (http://blogs.woodtv.com/?p=2994) On top of that add in various towns along the lakeshore that depend on high lakes levels for their marinas and by extension tourist dollars. The Army Corps of Engineers who does the dregding of channels and ports will not like this either.

Garyb - the two sides have come together... but not in a good way. It is rumored that the Granholm administration is staying mum because they like the idea - more money for social programs.

Steelie


----------



## garyb (Jan 23, 2003)

this is what i was referring to, that the sportsmen groups and the environmental will not come together in a good way and the victor is government


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

garyb said:


> this is what i was referring to, that the sportsmen groups and the environmental will not come together in a good way and the victor is government


And that needs to stop. The only way this can happen is each group needs to dump the whackos.....one on the far left and one on the far right and find common ground. By continuing the gap of division that prevents two groups who have so much in common.........the environmental movement was started by anglers and hunters including, Aldo Leupold, Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, and others, but since the 1960s there has been a widening gap and the movement away comes from both sides.

It's time to come together once again.


----------



## steelie (Sep 20, 2000)

Good Day,

Indeed Whit - conservation has been bastardized into "environmentalism" or tree hugging. We certainly could use a Teddy Roosevelt about now!

Steelie


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

What I don't understand is just why the legislators think they can just get away with it. Not only that, but with the DNR's problems and the budget, never mind the $10m windfall they found, don't they have any clue that the outdoorsman pays for the DNR, and the more outdoorsmen they have the more money they generate? 

It just trully amazes me that these people only think about one thing, and its money. I am sick and tired of government making these decisions based on how their bank accounts will swell, its high time we make it clear this needs to stop. When will we finally get a group together, a watch dog group if you will, that can be trusted to watch these things? At this point in time we know we can't trust the MUCC, or the DEQ, or even the NRC. We need some sort of "Citizens Watch" group that will hold the legislators of Michigan accountable. 

Over the years, these people have come up with all sorts of dumb ideas on our outdoor pursuits, do you recall the infamous "Worm Bill"? I know a lot of people didn't like Fred Trost, but at one time he wrote an article about the beginnings of the DNR, and the Administrative Procedures Act. In the beginning, it was law that the Legislation of Michigan had absolutely no say in what the DNR did with the wildlife in this state. The reasoning, and it was sound, is how could some legislator know what it takes to manage wildlife? They don't have the degree, and they don't have the background for it, thats why they hire biologists.

In this day and age, it seems if it involves money, it seems like the legislators of this state have taken it upon themselves to be keepers of our wildlife and its overall issues, while at the same time having no knowledge of what their decisions will mean as an aftereffect. Thats where you ,and I need to come in, and say, "enough is enough". The sooner this is done, the better. This group could "tap" into the knowledge base of our DNR, and others who have knowledge of this stuff. That is the only way we can get a handle on this, by having someone we can trust to tell us the truth, and nothing but the truth. Sorry for the rambling, but I just am quite passionate about this subject.


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

Toto,

It's too bad there isn't a coalition of water resource related interests who can band together to exert the necessary clout. The war against Nestle is being fought with little money and large amounts of passion. The agencies you cite, especially the DEQ are utterly worthless. It is insane that citizens of a state have to even mount a campaign to save their own water. Follow the money from Nestle into the pockets of legislators and remember them at the polls.

yrs,

Mike


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

I just read some of the new language in the revised bill and it's worse than ever.....can't find a link yet. It reads as though it was written by Nestle lawyers, and probably was. Senator Birkholtz needs to be held accountable for this monster, and so does your Senator.


----------



## brookid (Aug 25, 2004)

Is this bill targeting any particular watersheds or does it make all of them fair game?


----------



## mike delp (Mar 27, 2003)

I'm not sure, but these greedy bastages will take all of it they can.


----------



## Fox (Nov 21, 2007)

It's state wide.
Fox


----------



## Fox (Nov 21, 2007)

Also, keep in mind it isn't just companies like Nestle that make large ground water withdrawals. There's a lot of less obvious withdrawals out there that take more ground water than nestle is.


----------



## Halffasthog (Feb 20, 2008)

Please forgive my naivete, but what can I do as an individual?


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

Halffasthog said:


> Please forgive my naivete, but what can I do as an individual?


Its not naive, its a good question. We, as people who heavily utilize Michigan's waters as they are, should be at the fore-front of the fight. Here's some suggestions for _everyone _here:

1. Write your state senators and representatives. They are the ones who will pass this or not. They need to know that this is not going to fly in our state.

2. Join a group that is actively fighting this bill. The best example is Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation. A web search for their name will bring you to their page.

3. If you belong to any hunting or fishing groups, get them involved, or make sure they stay actively involved. 

4. Watch out for traitors to the cause. Those groups you would think would be the strongest voices against this, but are strangely silent. Biggest example, the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). I can't find a thing about it on their website. Does that seem strange? Well consider that their executive director, Dennis Muchmore, is married to Deb Muchmore who just happens to be spokesperson for Nestles. I can't prove a connection, but it seems obvious to me. MUCC should be leading the fight, but they are silent...

Can you imagine your favorite river or stream if the flow was reduced 20-30%? I can't. Please get involved.


----------



## Halffasthog (Feb 20, 2008)

michiganwaternotforsale.com


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

gregm said:


> So if the legislation is not proposed, then NOTHING is done and the water is free to flow to the southwest? or Nestle, or wherever?
> 
> Nice.


Water is already flowing pretty freely to Nestle.


----------



## Halffasthog (Feb 20, 2008)

Did I read it right? 100,000 gal/day before they even need to register?


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

gregm said:


> So if the legislation is not proposed, then NOTHING is done and the water is free to flow to the southwest? or Nestle, or wherever?
> 
> Nice.


 
I believe this to be slightly misleading. There is a few different pieces of legislation. I can't speak for everyone, but I can not see much of a problem with Senate Bill 212 which ratifies the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact. _That_ is the piece of legislation that would at least give the power to prevent our water being shipped elsewhere. That's all well and good. I think more people have an issue with Senate Bill 860. This bill does nothing to keep water in the state and in fact allows for:

A) FOR A COLD-WATER STREAM, THE WITHDRAWAL WILL RESULT IN A
5% OR MORE REDUCTION IN POPULATIONS OF THRIVING FISH.
(B) FOR A WARM-WATER STREAM, THE WITHDRAWAL WILL RESULT IN A
20% OR MORE REDUCTION IN POPULATIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC FISH.
(C) FOR STREAMS THAT ARE NOT COLD-WATER STREAMS OR WARM-WATEr STREAMS, THE WITHDRAWAL WILL RESULT IN A 10% OR MORE REDUCTION IN POPULATIONS OF CHARACTERISTIC FISH.

I am surprised you haven't yet understood that is the part that most people are upset about. And if you read what the Tribes are objecting to, its certainly not ratifying a pact to keep water in the Great Lakes Basin, they are objecting to potential stream flow reductions that are part of SB 860.

http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/ap-michigan-tribes-object-to-michigan-water-legislation/

""Any such reductions would amount to an unconstitutional taking of the tribe's property right in fish resources of rivers and streams," said the letter, signed by Tribal Chairman Robert Kewaygoshkum.""

Although I don't have a treaty in place with the state, I feel the same way. Stop trying to equate the two pieces of legislation, they are not the same. 860 does nothing to keep water in the state and will allow for withdrawals from our trout streams with a subsequent reduction in fish population. This, all at the same time that many of these esteemed legislators are pushing Michigan as a tourist destination.


----------



## gregm (Feb 13, 2002)

Actually, what I'm surprised about is that this issue has been in Lansing for nearly 4 years with LOTS of hard work. As usual, everyone complains about the outcome AFTER the hard work is done instead of rolling up their sleeves and trying to work to solve problems. I've worked environmental issues in several states and by far, Michigan is the worst at this. When the problem comes to light, everyone here runs for cover, only to emerge and berate those who did roll up their sleeves to try to solve the problem. 

Okay onto the issue. Fishenrg -- you are closest to anyone so far, at least you made an attempt to read the legislation, for that -- kudos. 

However, notice a something about what you printed. Cold water streams are only allowed a 5% reduction in THRIVING (not characteristic) fish populations. Many cold water streams are ALREADY below that threshold due to impounding, sedimentation, siltation, development, runoff, etc.... Water withdrawal is so far down the list of adverse impacts, that a complete moratorium on water use development is unlikely to impact the fish population.

The information I have from independent studies show that S 860 basically sets 2/3's of the coldwater stream segments in this state off limits to any further surface or groundwater withdrawal development. 

Next, S 860 and S 212 are tie barred, in essence, they are one piece of legislation. S 212 needs S 860 as it is the "teeth" of the compact. Without it you have a treaty but no way to implement it. So if I address them as one piece of legislation, excuse me, but that's how tie bar's work. 

So, once again, I ask.

If you don't like 860, what would you substitute in its place? 

I mean that with all seriousness. I wish someone, on their own, instead of quoting some misinformed "journalist" or Chief Little Turtle, would just answer that simple question. It is VERY late in this game, but doesn't mean ammendments and changes can't be made. Realizing that the "evil" industry most likely to be impacted by this is your local drinking water utility (if you're on "city" water). 

Something has to be substituted. Simply stating "I wish they had never introduced it" or "I don't like it" is not exactly high level problem solving. That sounds more like something my 7 year old says when he doesn't get his way. If I sat down and desiged legislation S860 would not be it, but I'm just one of a very large group of stakeholders that worked on this, so as a compromise, this is what you have. 

I don't know, maybe I should stop trying to interject logic and science in a rant thread, especially around here. It goes against every grain in my body to not address incorrect information, but as one wise saying goes, sometimes the smartest battle is the one not fought.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

current regs for


> Currently, "adverse resource impact" means either of the following:
> -- Decreasing the flow of a stream by part of the index flow so that the stream's ability to support characteristic fish
> populations is functionally impaired.
> -- Decreasing the level of a body of surface water so that its ability to support characteristic fish populations is functionally impaired.


why should that be changed? Why do some people think its a companies right to negatively impact a stream?

very simple solution to what needs to be done to bill 860. Keep the old language or replace all the BS in 860 with "water withdrawals cannot negatively effect fish populations." Very simple.




gregm said:


> Many cold water streams are ALREADY below that threshold due to impounding


What threshold. Are these regs based on cumalative impact of existing adverse conditions? No they are on the effect of new impacts.


from Birkholz's senate bill 


> For a cool large river, the withdrawal would result in a reduction of at least 12% in the density of thriving fish populations as determined b


So it would be okay to kill 11.9999 percent of the fish in a large river system?

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/Senate/pdf/2007-SFA-0860-S.pdf
pg 2 


another good one


> Further, the term would mean decreasing
> the flow of a stream, small river, or large river by more than 25% of its index flow.


 decrease flow 25%???????


What's the difference between thriving and characteristic fish populations. Just a guess but if the trout water is planted I bet that it doesn't qualify as thriving. So kiss goodbye marginal trout water.



How can anyone honestly say this is an improvement?


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> If you don't like 860, what would you substitute in its place?


And once again, I'll say this bill should not have been proposed in the first place. This has nothing to do with the Great Lakes compact, which I support. This has everything to do with saying that it's OK to further *&^% up our ecosystems for the sake of industry and that's...at best, horse****. Groups have been working for years to protect and/or ressurect some of our river systems and here comes some bill that essentially slaps them in the face. And people are supposed to be supportive of that bill?


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

gregm said:


> Actually, what I'm surprised about is that this issue has been in Lansing for nearly 4 years with LOTS of hard work. As usual, everyone complains about the outcome AFTER the hard work is done instead of rolling up their sleeves and trying to work to solve problems. I've worked environmental issues in several states and by far, Michigan is the worst at this. When the problem comes to light, everyone here runs for cover, only to emerge and berate those who did roll up their sleeves to try to solve the problem.


It's time to get past how long this legislation has been in the works. Because we were not on some working group does not matter, nor does it make our opinion less valid. Very few of us live in the Lansing area, where I assume all this work has been taking place. Secondly, we all have lives and jobs and limited resources. We can't all have jobs where being on a legislation working group is part of that job.

This is how the system works, and is supposed to work. There is more to public participation than being on some "working group". Typically a legislator, or group of legislators, along with their lobbyist pals will work on a bill or measure to address a perceived problem, then they will introduce or propose it, and that is typically where the greater public becomes involved, including the media. Before then, to most people, it is only theoretical. Perhaps its flawed, I don't care to debate that part, but that's how it is. Any opposition or questioning of it is not lessened because the opposition was not part of the development of it.

And simply, what is this problem you and your fellow hard-workers rolled up your sleeves and solved for us?



> Okay onto the issue. Fishenrg -- you are closest to anyone so far, at least you made an attempt to read the legislation, for that -- kudos.


Thanks for not being condescending. But theoretically, politicians are elected to represent our interests in the legislator. This is not ancient Greece where everyone can directly participate in decision making. Frankly a lot of things happen in Lansing that doesn't interest people. I bet you yourself don't read 99% of the things that happen there. When our elected representatives put forth something that doesn't represent our ideals, then its our duty to let it be known, no matter how much work has already been done. I personally had never heard of this until it was introduced and was never asked to be part of any "working group".




> However, notice a something about what you printed. Cold water streams are only allowed a 5% reduction in THRIVING (not characteristic) fish populations. Many cold water streams are ALREADY below that threshold due to impounding, sedimentation, siltation, development, runoff, etc.... Water withdrawal is so far down the list of adverse impacts, that a complete moratorium on water use development is unlikely to impact the fish population.
> 
> The information I have from independent studies show that S 860 basically sets 2/3's of the coldwater stream segments in this state off limits to any further surface or groundwater withdrawal development.


Why make a provision for any reduction in fish population at all? Why has not this work gone into ways to increase fish population, thriving or characteristic? Why not work on reducing these other adverse impacts of impoundment, sedimentation, siltation, development? Why work in the negative of hurting fish population further instead of working on reversing the damaging trends out there and building fish population instead?



> Next, S 860 and S 212 are tie barred, in essence, they are one piece of legislation. S 212 needs S 860 as it is the "teeth" of the compact. Without it you have a treaty but no way to implement it. So if I address them as one piece of legislation, excuse me, but that's how tie bar's work.


That's silly. 860 does nothing to even address the true aims of the water compact. The main goals of the Great Lakes Compact are to increase the efficiency of water use and to prevent withdrawals of water that leave the Great Lakes Basin. Since I only read the legislation once my memory could be mistaken, but 860 does not seem to address either. Why tie these together at all? The compact should be adopted and then something should be developed that really addresses the goals of the Compact. I've got nothing against municipal water supplies, people definitely need water. The cool thing about municipal water supplies is that all the water, minus some consumptive losses, will stay in the basin. It seems to me disingenuous that this is the teeth of the water compact since it neglects the two main points of it: water use efficiency and keeping water in the basin.



> So, once again, I ask.
> 
> If you don't like 860, what would you substitute in its place?


First I would put an effective water use efficiency program in place. When the southwest does come knocking for our water we need to be able to say that we are doing our best to efficiently use our own resources or we won't have a leg to stand on when we say no way.

Second, put in place no more withdrawals that remove water from the Great Lakes basin. No more making a profit from a resource that belongs to the people of Michigan.

Third, develop a plan that improves our cold and warm water streams, not one that minimizes damage to an "acceptable" level.



> I mean that with all seriousness. I wish someone, on their own, instead of quoting some misinformed "journalist" or Chief Little Turtle, would just answer that simple question. It is VERY late in this game, but doesn't mean ammendments and changes can't be made. Realizing that the "evil" industry most likely to be impacted by this is your local drinking water utility (if you're on "city" water).


I answered your question on my own. Those "misinformed journalists" are part of how the system works. They bring information on what our elected representatives are doing. If they are misinformed, then perhaps our representatives need to do a better job of educating and selling what they are trying to do...as our representatives.

Chief Little Turtle? Really? Who are you, General Custer? I know it still exists, but silly racist attitudes like that have no place in any debate. They have a treaty with the state that gives them fishing rights. They are saying this treaty will be void if fishing quality is further degraded and I would say Chief Little Turtle has a point, and a vested interest.

Local drinking water utilities don't bother me at all. At least local drinking water stays in the basin. They should definitely be behind water use efficiency programs though.

Its not late in the game. Its how these things go all the time. It is not at all practical that all the public has a say in the development of each piece of legislation, no matter how important to them it is. They can, and should, protest and make noise when something not right is introduced however. Especially if its being floated as being the "teeth" of the Great Lakes compact but does nothing to address the aims of the compact.



> Something has to be substituted. Simply stating "I wish they had never introduced it" or "I don't like it" is not exactly high level problem solving. That sounds more like something my 7 year old says when he doesn't get his way. If I sat down and desiged legislation S860 would not be it, but I'm just one of a very large group of stakeholders that worked on this, so as a compromise, this is what you have.
> 
> I don't know, maybe I should stop trying to interject logic and science in a rant thread, especially around here. It goes against every grain in my body to not address incorrect information, but as one wise saying goes, sometimes the smartest battle is the one not fought.


While I appreciate the work that you have done on this, and to some extent I appreciate your passion about it (I am passionate about many subjects myself), your attitude to people who disagree does not help your issue at all. Calling us 7 year olds or saying we are not worthy of science and logic belittles us. Just saying over and over "its too late" is not logical or scientific, and in fact, ignores how the process works.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> I wish someone, on their own, instead of quoting some misinformed "journalist"


Considering this statement basically insults a very close, personal friend of mine, I'm gonna try and keep my response as calm as possible. 

First off, Joe Boomgaard is anything but misinformed. If you don't like what he has to say in the article, then perhaps it's because it's painfully obvious what a piece of crap this bill really is. 

Secondly, to belittle him by putting journalist in "" marks is pretty bush league. He's won several AP awards recently for his work--not outdoor related, but real journalism since his job was as a reporter for a newspaper. He's since moved on to being an editor for a well known west Michigan business publication. 

Joe does not put something in print unless he's done his homework and investigated things. He is not a hack as you imply him to be. He is a man of character and integrity and I am proud to consider him one of my best friends. 

I could say a lot more about this idiotic attack on him, but it would get me banned. Needless to say, if you don't like what he says in his article, then it speaks volumes about just how messed up this bill really is.


----------



## fishenrg (Jan 9, 2008)

thousandcasts said:


> Considering this statement basically insults a very close, personal friend of mine, I'm gonna try and keep my response as calm as possible.
> 
> First off, Joe Boomgaard is anything but misinformed. If you don't like what he has to say in the article, then perhaps it's because it's painfully obvious what a piece of crap this bill really is.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, but you know the liberal media! Them and Chief Little Turtle and us unwashed masses of lazy, uninformed people who come to the process too late are just trying to mess up a great bill! (That's all sarcasm by the way)


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

In reference to Joe B., the author of the article he is definately NOT misinformed. He has a passion for what he does as a journalist and as an angler. I for one would trust his judgement.


----------

