# Runoff would end up in AuSable River



## Splitshot

Joel,

Believe me I dont have total trust in the DEQ either and we should ask questions about out concerns. What I think is irresponsible is to make statements condemning people without any facts to back up those claims or to offer alternatives without knowing the effects they will have on the ground water. Water you pump into the ground will eventually get into the river anyway and it sounds much more expensive. If it was the only way, I wouldnt make the decision based on money, but I wouldnt want to put an undo burden on some company just because it would make me feel better.

N.Pike,

I understand you dont want anything to happen to the Au Sable and I can tell you I feel the same way about my home river and have concerns for all our rivers. What I wont do is condemn something without knowing all the facts. Even if Buddy Lee can come up with scientific facts that show the DEQ decision is bad for the river, I will get on the side of the river. For me this isnt about personalities but about what is right.

At some point we have to depend on someone to make decisions. Do we want decisions made on gut feelings or emotions or facts. So who should it be? Buddy and Wildcatwick or the trained professionals who deal with these issues every day. Sending it deep into the ground may create a bigger long term problem and just because it will be out of sight doesnt mean its okay.

I suppose there could be erosion problems but Im pretty sure that is part of the DEQ equation.


----------



## riverboy

Splitshot said:


> I understand you dont want anything to happen to the Au Sable and I can tell you I feel the same way about my home river and have concerns for all our rivers.


Maybe then if this was to happen on your "home river", you would have a different opinion. To many of us the Ausable is our "home river".


----------



## Splitshot

Riverboy,

What is happening to the river? There appears to be some ground water contamination and the company is treating the water just like Gaylord and Mio treats their sewage and dumps the clean treated water into the river.

We should all have the same concerns for all rivers not just our favorite river. I have served on the board of directors on my home river for years. Why? Because I want to make it better and help protect it. If the same situation existed on the Little Manistee I would side with the DEQ because it is much better to clean the water than to leave it because some of it will get into the river every time it rains and every spring only untreated.

If there is a scientific reason that shows there will be a negative effect on the headwater stream or the main stream, I will be the first to work against it.

Some of you cry about big business, but overlook small businesses that might have more to gain by lobbing for special rules for their clients and the regulations on the Au Sable show that more clearly than any other area in the state. If someone pretends to speak out for the river and/or cry that the sky is falling with nothing to back up their claims, some people might think it is just a PR ruse to bolster their bottom line.


----------



## Xstream Outfitters

I'll try and swing by and talk to Rusty this weekend to see if he has any specific facts on this issue. Hopefully this thread won't be closed by then ....


----------



## Shoeman

Any impact study is going to reveal some "impact". Now will it fall into what would be called "allowable" or is it something that won't be realized years down the road and may have been overlooked initially?

It just seems that most government agencies are more lenient toward cash/job-generating ventures than personal ones. 

Many practices that were deemed safe historically are now major clean-up sites.


----------



## Splitshot

Ralf,

I don't even know what they are trying to clean up. It is possible that people in the DEQ are on the pad and Merit Energy doesn't care if they kill all the fish in the entire system.

I also don't know what an impact study will show either. Has big business been guilty of past infractions? No doubt about it. Are some still making descisions with little regard for the enviroment? No doubt about that either.

Is it prudent to ask questions and want to know what the long term effects are? Of course and should we be skeptical? No doubt!

All I'm saying is that it is not responsible to make accusations with nothing more than a gut feeling. In the end, the DEQ will have the final say. Most people who work as scientists are hard working responsible people who work for what is right and not politics. At least the people I know. Actually they hate politics and that is why so many took the early out during the Engler Administration.

I work with water issues with clients all over the country and since the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. As amended in 1977, this law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act our rivers, lakes and ground water have become much cleaner.

Remember when parts of Lake Erie used to catch on fire and they called it a dead sea? Well that is changing because over the years, many other laws have changed parts of the Clean Water Act. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed by the U.S. and Canada, where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life. It also required EPA to help the States implement the criteria on a specific schedule.

It's not perfect, but it's getting better because it has too. We can't become complacent but the DEQ didn't have to take Merit Energy to court to force them to clean up the mess like they did Consumers Energy when they dumped coal into the river below Tippy and fought to the end before the courts made them clean it up.

As a result CE tried to stop fishing below Tippy because it was a fisherman who saw them dump it and turned them in. Since then to be fair, I think there attitude has changed a lot but I don't know if it is because they actually care or their PR guys are telling them they should.


----------



## TC-fisherman

GAYLORD - A state biologist blasted a plan approved by another state agency that would pump a million gallons per day of discharge water from a pollution cleanup project into Kolke Creek, headwaters of the Au Sable River.

Steve Sendek, a senior fisheries biologist with the state Department of Natural Resources, said he is "extremely critical" of Merit Energy's proposal to draw polluted groundwater from the Manistee River watershed, treat it and then pipe it into the Au Sable River watershed.
"Moving contaminated water from one watershed to another is not common practice," Sendek said. "We don't need to share the problem with the Au Sable watershed, just because it's the cheapest way.
"I'm not going to let this one get by," he said, and added he planned to recommend DNR denial of an easement application.

Sendek said the water piped into the Au Sable would not be guaranteed free of contamination and would double or triple the size of Kolke Creek.
It would increase sediment movement, erode the river banks and disrupt critical stream habitat. The change in balance of nutrients in the water would also change plant life, insect hatches and fish populations, he said.
The best solution would be to keep the treated water within the Manistee River watershed, Sendek said.
Ken Glasser, an Otsego County commissioner, called the project an outrage and said he's offended at how the DEQ handled it - never holding public hearings or informing local officials.
"It was done in such a way to preclude any public comment," Glasser said.

just exerpts above, the whole article at
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/may/13creek.htm


----------



## Splitshot

Thanks TC.

Steve Sendek is a respected biologist and has provided good reasons why this plan needs to be taken seriously. If those obstacles cannot be overcome lets hope the DEQ recinds their permit.


----------



## riverboy

TC-fisherman said:


> Sendek said the water piped into the Au Sable would not be guaranteed free of contamination and would double or triple the size of Kolke Creek. It would increase sediment movement, erode the river banks and disrupt critical stream habitat. The change in balance of nutrients in the water would also change plant life, insect hatches and fish populations, he said.


There you go Spiltshot. Thats what may happen to the river. Would you want that to happen to "your" little manistee?

I dont want to start arguing or bickering because thats why I dont bother posting much here anymore, but come on Ray I know you are a heck of a fisherman and I know you care about the resources so how can you stick up for what may happen?


----------



## Splitshot

Riverboy,

Read what I wrote and my last post. I have been consistant throughout this thread and have stated that you need scientific evidence before making assumptions. Now that we have some, I too am against the plan until those issues can be resolved.

I don't want pollution dumped into any river even the River Rouge down near Detroit and my fishing abilities have nothing to do with anything.


----------



## Buddy Lee

I accept your apology splitshot.


----------



## Splitshot

Buddy you can't accept something that wasn't offered, but nice try. Just because you got lucky doesn't mean you weren't irresponsible in the first place and why am I not surprised that you would take this as some kind of victory to your little game.


----------



## Buddy Lee

Splitshot said:


> Buddy you can't accept something that wasn't offered, but nice try. Just because you got lucky doesn't mean you weren't irresponsible in the first place and why am I not surprised that you would take this as some kind of victory to your little game.


I fail to see how I was "irresponsible in the first place"?


----------



## riverboy

I didnt see your last post Ray you beat me by a minute. LOL!!!


----------



## Steve

Ok guys in case you haven't noticed this is not the politics forum or the bickering forum so let's knock it off or I'll shut it down.


----------



## stinger63

Plain and simple if the water is being pumped up from underground and treated then it should go back to the same place.UNDERGROUND not into a stream where the aquifer will be depleted.Nothing to bicker about with this plan.Its not good and only the oil company will benifit from it by saving them a ton of money by trying to take and easy way out of something they should have done in the 1st place.Be responcible enough to not let this contamination enter the ground water.


----------



## kienbaumer

Is that treated water being dumped into the river naturally occurring?....Nope
Common sense tells me that its not something I want. Scientific data, well it doesn't mean its right. Yesterday the weather man said it was going to be rainy and cloudy...It was sunny all day. I'm going with common sense on this one...the river is to important to me to take a chance.


----------



## kienbaumer

O ya almost forgot..haha For those that support this issue, I will be more than happy to get a pincher of this water for you to drink out of. While I'm at it I'll get some of that treated sewage water too. It can't be that bad right?


----------



## Ranger Ray

As we jump in our cars with all the plastic parts that use chemicals to make and fill them up with gas that has to pumped out of the ground somewhere and refined somewhere, fish with monofilament that has to processed with chemicals and just about everything we use has a hazard chemical somewhere in the process we also need to understand that there are implications to all things made. We always like to blame the big companies for everything but yet we all want the products they make. Doesn't give those companies card blanch to pollute the earth and I think we can all agree on this. I think having this company come forward to clean up their own site is at least a start in taking something that was bad and try to make it better when they could have walked away and had the tax payers end up paying for it like we have at all the super fund sites.

One needs to look at all scenarios to come up with what is the best way to go about it. I think that the scenario of the Ausable getting the water was one that was thrown out for study. I do not like this idea but like Splitshot was saying, we must at least look at the proposal and see all implications and merits of such proposal before ruling it out.
[/color] 
I have seen first hand the DEQ work when they were involved in the WhiteLake ordeal with the marina at the White River mouth. The implication on lake and river was all negative, yet they ok'd the marina. The DEQ although taking public comment at the beginning ended up going behind closed doors and left the public out because of their opposition to the marina. As quoted by Ken Glasser:



> Ken Glasser, an Otsego County commissioner, called the project an outrage and said he's offended at how the DEQ handled it - never holding public hearings


This is the scariest part of the DEQ that we as sportsman need to be concerned about and should be outraged that this can even take place. 



The solution of piping the water into ground water is a little flawed also in that if you pipe it into the ground water with out going thru mother natures natural filter called the earth but will pump the pollutants directly into the drinking water. I propose they are made to run the water thru irrigation like a lot of the waste water systems do that way the water has a chance to be filtered by the soil, than if some pollutants do not get filtered out of the water at least the ground will filter some out before hitting the water table. Fool proof? No, but than again what is.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Well the bottum line from this Non-expert (as we all are anyways) is that when man intrudces things into nature it will have an effect. Sometimes the effects can be positive but most the time they are not. So now the law of averages are against putting "treated" water in with what mother nature has intended. 

The DEQ is not always right. Just like any agency is not always right. They are a great agency and much needed. But as history has shown us big bussiness has had their way with the DEQ in the past. When people sit back and get complacent and say " I trust the DEQ & their decisions" then they quickly lose accountability. I on the other hand along with people like Rusty Gates. Say no, we challenge you. Show us that your doing the best possible thing, not the cheapest. It only takes commonsense to know that this company is going to try to do the cheapest. I don't need stats. I don't know why we have to have these stats to understand how business works?  

I have a river I live on too. It's the St. Clair River. You want to talk about trusting the DEQ? St. Clair county has one of the highest cancer rates in the nation, I lost my mom to cancer. She died at a young age. We and many locals blame that river for young cancer deaths. I don't need a clip board FACT to see what's happening. I see with my eyes open. There is goop and crap in the bottom of that river that is toxic and won't be going anywhwere for along time. There are "controlled" releases and spills all the time. I have a hard time of seeing the effectivness of the DEQ in my own backyard. I think (no fact mind you) that the DEQ and government have a pretty hard time keeping these big bussiness under control.



> fish with monofilament that has to processed with chemicals and just about everything we use has a hazard chemical somewhere in the process we also need to understand that there are implications to all things made.


Ranger those are good points. That is always in the back of my mind too. 



> We always like to blame the big companies for everything but yet we all want the products they make. Doesn't give those companies card blanch to pollute the earth and I think we can all agree on this. I think having this company come forward to clean up their own site is at least a start in taking something that was bad and try to make it better when they could have walked away and had the tax payers end up paying for it like we have at all the super fund sites.



It's just simply time for all these companies to take responsibilty for their by-products and hazards. They should come forward. They should also do the right thing not the cheapest.

Just becuase I use monofillament doesn't mean that I want them to dump hazards into the water I want to use the line in.


"Well there's one thing I know Mr. Hooper." Quint
"What's that?" Hooper
"THat that there fancy college education they gave you doesn't even teach you the good mind to admit when your wrong."

Jaws Quint talking to Hooper about the facts! :lol:


----------



## Hamilton Reef

New water might hurt Au Sable 

In February, the Department of Environmental Quality issued Merit a general discharge permit. But the permit didn't show the DNR Fisheries Division that the company would pump water to Kolka Creek, which joins Bradford Creek to create the mainstream of the Au Sable, said Jude Woodcock, the Environmental Quality general permit specialist.

http://www.freep.com/sports/outdoors/outcol26e_20050526.htm


----------



## unregistered55

*Good link Hamilton Reef*-I strongly urge everyone read the Freep article- gives an excellent perspective on this issue. The concerns are from DNR fisheries Biologist Steve Sendek.
I'd trust Rusty Gates' word before any businesses or the DEQ- some don't like him but his interest is preserving the trout fishery.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

DEQ extends appeal period 
Field report should be done this week 

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/may/26deq.htm

GAYLORD - The state's environmental agency has extended the appeal period on a controversial water discharge permit to 45 days because of local concerns raised about its effect on the AuSable River system.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has received three comments from citizens who oppose the surface water permit issued to Merit Energy in March, said Judith Woodcock, an environmental quality specialist.
The permit would allow up to 1 million gallons of cleaned up groundwater to be released into Kolke Creek, the AuSable's headwaters.
The polluted groundwater from an old Shell Western well is in the Manistee River watershed. Under the proposed permit, Merit would pump it up, treat and then pipe it across a half-mile of state land to the creek. The Department of Natural Resources must weigh in on the permit because the pipe would cross state land.
Joyce Angel-Ling, a DNR manager in Gaylord, said the field report should be finished this week.
"I don't think it's going to be recommended, but that's unofficial," she said, until the field review is finished. She said the DNR Fisheries Division is critical of the plan.
DNR biologist Steve Sendek said previously that moving contaminated water from one watershed to another is not common practice and the discharge would disrupt critical stream habitat and change the balance of plant life, insect hatches and fish populations.
If the DNR denies the easement, Woodcock said there are other water discharge options. 
She also said the DEQ would participate in any public meeting held about the project, whether hosted by a state agency or private organization.
Anglers of the Au Sable, a river advocacy group, is prepared to file for a contested case hearing with the DEQ. They hope it won't be necessary if the DNR denies the easement, said Rusty Gates, the group's president.
Merit spokesman Jay Prudhomme said the company will work to resolve any issues with the cleanup project, but it does not have alternate plans if the easement is denied. 
The deadline to appeal the DEQ surface water discharge permit is July 15. Comments can be sent to: Judith Woodcock, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, P.O. Box 30273, Lansing, MI, 48909, or by e-mail to [email protected].


----------



## stinger63

US anglers and users of this river need to speak up about this plan.If this Merit oil company is allowed to carry out this project 2 rivers watersheds are going to suffer significantly not to mention the ugly destruction across the landscape building this pipeline..We need to get busy writing.This plan has nothing but Merits interest in mind to save them big money and nothing else.FTR I did write a letter voicing my concerns speaking out against merits plan.

Also I have a few questions about this issue,How long is it going to take Merit to clean up the aquifer and how long with this discharging water into Kolke Creek last,are we talking months or years?What about the pipeline thats going to be built for carring water from source A to source B,Is it going to remain after its built or will Merit be responcible for the dismantling and removal?


----------



## Duck-Hunter

**** that!


----------



## WILDCATWICK

also include that you are strongly opposed to the new operation that Savoy energy is trying to get approve right next to the South Branch of the Au Sable in the famed Mason Tract. 

To the naysayers of this crud I hope this serves as evidence of what can happen when you build wells near our water sources. I urge these companies to explore other options and use land near our rivers as a last option. I don't understand how fellow sportsman can actually be fine with these compnaies building right next to our precious rivers. The rivers that helps some of the communities stay in businees. A major disaster on some of these rivers will wipe out some of these towns. Better to be safe and deny the energy companies access, then to risk the lively hood of a town IMO.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Meeting will discuss Au Sable cleanup 
All who are interested are invited to attend

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jun/16kolke.htm

GAYLORD - Two conservation groups will host a meeting at Kolke Creek to discuss an oil well pollution cleanup proposal that could affect the headwaters of the Au Sable River.
The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday at the creek near Mancelona and Lynn Lake roads in Otsego County's Hayes Township.
Merit Energy wants to take contaminated groundwater from the Manistee River watershed in Hayes Township, treat it and then discharge the sterile water into the Au Sable River watershed.
The informational meeting will be hosted by the Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited and Michigan United Conservation Clubs. Conservationists, anglers and other interested people are invited to attend the session.
"It's to allow the folks who are interested to hear from the DNR and DEQ about what options are being looked at and considered, and what is the best option for the discharge," said John Walters, president of the Headwaters Chapter of Trout Unlimited.
The Texas-based oil company received a surface water discharge permit in March from the state Department of Environmental Quality, which reported the project would not hurt the environment. An easement is needed from the state Department of Natural Resources because the company wants to pipe up to 1.15 million gallons of treated water a day across state-owned land before dumping it into the creek, which is part of the Au Sable's headwaters.
The DNR fisheries division is critical of the proposal.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> The DNR fisheries division is critical of the proposal.


Thank goodness they are. They should be critical of anything that could potentially screw up our rivers.


----------



## holly

I live about a mile from Merit's Hayes 22 CPF that has gone unmonitored by any third-party agency, thus contaminating soil and water. Several private water wells have been contaminated and the plume is moving 6 1/2 inches per day. Merit's clean-up proposal, which the MDEQ supports, is merely the cheapest, not the best.

The underlying problem is that the oil and gas industry operates virtually un-monitered. This particular contamination took place many years ago un-reported by the oil and gas companies that have operated this plant. There are many, many gas wells and plants in my area that have also been unmonitered by the MDEQ, Supervisor of Wells. How many more have leaked?

There really needs to be a third-party survey of the situation and the solution, not just one by Merit. The oil and gas industry has a history of irresponsible and careless operations. The oil and gas industry has no respect for property owners or the environment.

The oil and gas industry should not dump their mistakes into ANY river or stream. The DEQ should have regular, ongoing monitoring of the operations of these facilities, not just go on the word of the companies themselves.

The DNR needs to hold the DEQ to monitor these operations and halt the dumping into any creek or river and to fine, and suspend operation if need be until a reasonable clean-up method can be determined by an outside source.

Now the Michigan Oil and Gas Association(MOGA) wants to add one additional gas well to an already existing gas well site doubling our problems out here. The oil and gas industry has shown shoddy, careless operations and should not be able to double up on the wells, doubling the contamination, noise, deforestation and pipeline trenches.


----------



## TC-fisherman

GAYLORD - Otsego County wants a contested case hearing on the Kolke Creek surface water discharge permit to make sure the state considers public opinion.
County commissioners unanimously voted last month to have their attorney draw up the petition for the hearing. The deadline to file is Friday.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jul/14upthe.htm



The part of the article that drove me F***ing nuts!!!

Landowners along Kolke Creek were not notified of the project, nor did the state do any studies to determine potential effects of the discharge. *Instead, the DEQ relied on information supplied by the oil company*

unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WILDCATWICK

What a crock. And we are suppose to trust these types with the Mason Tract!


----------



## Hamilton Reef

State AG may be asked to intervene
Conservation District looks into dispute 

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/aug/24kolke.htm

By SHERI MCWHIRTER, Record-Eagle staff writer

GAYLORD - County soil and water officials may step into the fray about a Kolke Creek surface water discharge permit the state issued to Merit Energy.
Board members for the Otsego Conservation District will meet to decide whether to call on the Michigan Attorney General to intervene on their behalf and file for a contested case hearing with the state Department of Environmental Quality. That special meeting could be as early as today.
The conservation district's role in soil and water issues means it could have some project oversight, administrator Patricia Osburn said.
A DEQ-approved cleanup plan involves removal of dangerous hydrocarbons from groundwater polluted by a toxic plume from an oil and gas facility in Hayes Township. Contaminated water from the Manistee River watershed would be treated and pumped at the rate of 1.15 million gallons per day into Kolke Creek, part of the Au Sable River headwaters.
Neighboring property owners and conservationists in both Otsego and Crawford counties filed for a hearing, with a deadline of Sept. 15. 
Many oppose the cleanup method, arguing it's an unnecessary risk to the Au Sable River. Others say poor public notice - project notification wasn't published in any local newspapers - and lack of public input means the DEQ should start over.
Mike Nelson lives about a mile from, and in the direct path of the plume, which each day moves an average of six inches closer to the Manistee River. He accused the DEQ of bungling the situation and said the agency failed to act when pollution was found in 2001.
Four local water wells have already been contaminated and Nelson said he intends to have his tested. He contends hydrocarbons should be cleaned in a way that avoids risk to other watersheds.
"We don't want to dump our problem onto somebody else," Nelson said.
A pipe to transfer the water would cross state land and officials with the Department of Natural Resources have yet to decide whether to grant an easement. Local DNR fisheries and wildlife experts recommended denial.
No petitions have yet been filed for a contested case hearing, said DEQ supervisor Rick Henderson.


----------



## TC-fisherman

DEQ approves Kolke Creek cleanup project
GAYLORD - A state environmental official approved the Kolke Creek groundwater cleanup project in Otsego County, despite local objections.
Stanley Pruss, deputy director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, approved the cleanup project earlier this week, contending that the proposed runoff of 1.15 million gallons a day into the creek was the best method for disposal of the treated groundwater.
The project is meant to clean up a toxic plume in the Manistee River watershed that moves 6 inches closer to residential areas every day. Some conservationists and local residents opposed the method, which would move the treated water into Kolke Creek, the headwaters of the Au Sable River.
The DNR fisheries division opposed the easement request by Merit Energy for the project because of the proposed transfer of water from one watershed to another. Officials in Lansing approved the easement last week, DNR spokeswoman Mary Detloff said.
The deadline to file for a contested case hearing was extended to Sept. 23. Anglers of the Au Sable and the Otsego County Conservation District are expected to file objections, along with some riparian landowners near the project.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/sep/20kolke.htm 


Simply unbelievable!!!!!!!!


----------



## WILDCATWICK

As I said in the beginning what a crock! So Sedneck has reservations and recommends that the DNR does not allow the easment and they don't. But then the politicians in Lansing goes over the DNR heads and allows the easment  

Well as I said before the DEQ & Government has hard time keeping businesses in check. It looks like Merit makes a phone call and get their way. DNR loses, Residents lose, & conservationist lose. But hey businesses wins again so all is good??   :rant: 

I still read nothing about "permant solution". They are feeding a load of B.S. and some people are buying and enjoying it  Once they dump it, it's gone what the heck is this other permanant solution?


----------



## stinger63

Well tobad things work out this way I guess we can say bye bye to quality ausable river :rant: Dealing with DEQ and DNR when it comes to water polution goes nowhere,the businesses seem to always win.I speak from personal experience with dealing with polution problem on the st clair river as well.


----------



## Scuba Steve

"That about sums it up Buddy and I'm glad you said it. Surface water off parking lots and city streets is a totally different situation and is a common practice in most cities and it is a problem that is being addressed through the "Clean Water Act"."

...and this is coming from a guy who holds all his fish by the gills. Grrrrrr!!


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Disputed cleanup plan gets underway
Treated water to be dumped into Kolke Creek

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/dec/07kolke.htm

December 7, 2005

GAYLORD - Groundwork on a contentious pollution cleanup project in Otsego County is underway and a legal maneuver may be in short order.
Construction workers are laying pipe for more than 1 million gallons of treated groundwater to be dumped daily into Kolke Creek, part of the Au Sable River headwaters. The project was approved by state regulators to clean up a plume of hydrocarbons in the Manistee River watershed, where toxins inch toward a residential area. 
But a local conservation group may seek a temporary restraining order in 46th Circuit Court to prevent the start of the cleanup.
"What usually happens is when you turn a pipe on, it's difficult to get it turned off," said project opponent Rusty Gates, president of Anglers of the Au Sable.
It could take 10 years to complete the cleanup and objectors say there are better ways to remove contaminants and return the treated water to its point of origin. Local DNR officials criticized the project because of the proposed transfer of water from one watershed to another, and feared it could disrupt critical habitat and change the balance of plant life, insect hatches and fish populations in the Au Sable.
Pollution came from leaking tanks, pipes and a flare pit at a Shell Western facility in Hayes Township. Merit Energy bought the property in 2003 and plans air-stripping methods to remove hydrocarbons from contaminated groundwater. The treated water would be pumped across a half-mile stretch of state land for discharge into Kolke Creek.
The state did not conduct an environmental impact study and Merit will monitor cleanup work with unscheduled DEQ inspections.
Cleanup work will begin as soon as possible, Henderson said, despite the objections of three conservation groups and two property owners who filed for a contested case hearing.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> *The state did not conduct an environmental impact study*


Brilliant. But as others suggests let's just trust em all!  

This is not the way things should be done. I hope to gosh this doesn't wind up effecting a dang thing, but once again we have to go on faith alone. What a sham.

Still nothing on the permant solution Merit keeps talking about. :rant:


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Friends -- this is a BIG victory in the fight to protect the Mason Tract and the South Branch Area on the Huron Manistee National Forest! AW

For immediate release December 7, 2005

Contact:
Rusty Gates 989-348-8462
Anne Woiwode or Marvin Roberson 517-484-2372

Judge blocks pre-drilling work near Au Sable River

Michigan anglers celebrated a victory today, when a federal judge halted plans by oil and gas companies to bulldoze Forest Service land near the Au Sable River in preparation for drilling. A federal court judge in Bay City issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in response to an emergency motion from the Anglers of the Au Sable, the Sierra Club and Tim Mason.

The courts are showing what Michigan anglers have known all along: that the Au Sable River is one of the most special places in our state, and shouldnt be hastily destroyed, said Rusty Gates, President of the Anglers of the Au Sable. Not only is the Au Sable a world-class trout stream, its part of our heritage that we want to pass on to our children. 

Fishing and oil just dont go together, period. What about that is so hard for the Forest Service and Savoy Energy to understand? added Alan Diodore of Grayling. 

The groups argued successfully that the courts need to hear all the facts before companies can rush forward with oil and gas drilling at this site. Experts for the conservation organizations spelled out the damage to hunters, anglers and other recreational users of the area, and the likelihood that the proposed bulldozing would set back old growth conditions on the site 150 to 500 years, causing irreparable harm. 

The lawsuit was brought after the federal agencies failed to consider viable alternate sites for Savoy to use to access the oil and gas rights they have leased under the Mason Tract. The Forest Service approved the permit despite the largest outpouring of opposition in the history of the Huron Manistee National Forest to any proposed project. Motion for a preliminary injunction requested by the conservation organizations were filed today as well. 

The two experts for the Anglers and the Sierra Club were Charlie Guenther, former head of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division, and Dr. Burton V. Barnes, emeritus professor with the University of Michigan. Scientific experts have shown how critical this area is to our environment, said Marvin Roberson of the Sierra Club. But the biggest experts of all are the generations of hunters, anglers, hikers and others who have been coming here for generationsand we are speaking out to say no to drilling.

###############################
Anne Woiwode, State Director
Sierra Club Mackinac (Michigan) Chapter
109 E. Grand River Avenue, Lansing, MI 48906
517-484-2372 fax 517-484-3108
Enjoy, Explore and Protect - www.michigan.sierraclub.org 

"We know what to do. We have everything we need save the political will - which is, after all, a renewable resource. This is the time. This our moral moment and [I am confident] we will rise to the occasion." Former Vice President Albert Gore, at the Sierra Club Summit, September 2005


----------



## stinger63

Well a victory in long uphill battle.It buys us time for now.Maybe a better plan can be implimented.


----------



## Splitshot

Butch,

While I dont question your motives, I have to question your concerns. How much will the water warm up? I dont know the exact ground water temperatures, but they are probably in the low to mid 40's Consider the water from Kolke Creek warms up as it flows through Lake Tecon before even entering Lynn Lake. Isnt it possible that the treated water might even help the cooling process a little?

A million and a half gallons a day equates to 17.36 gallons per second. The flow of the Big Manistee near Shermam, MI shows an average flow of 11,200 gallons per second. Consider the flow in the Deward area at half that, and I dont think the watershed will miss the 17.36 gallons per second even over 20 years. I also dont think the erosion problems some people are equating with adding 1.5 million gallons of water a day will be affected much either, especially when you consider it adds only 17.36 gallons per second into Kolke Creek.

All I ever hear about this issue are emotional cries with no facts to back up the claims of how devastating this is going to be to the watershed and how terrible I am because if I dont agree with the alarmist who automatically assume there is something wrong with me because I dont automatically jump on the band wagon. Sorry, but Im just waiting for all the facts before I commit to a cause that will be hard for me to back away from later if Im wrong.

TC,

You should stick to posting in the political forums where your frivolous statements are lost with all the other frivolous statements. 



TC-fisherman said:


> yeh dumping 1.15 million gallons a day ito the headwaters is a good idea. Especially when there are alternatives. But wait it's cheaper than reinjecting the treated water into the ground. Can't have the company spend too much to clean up its own pollution.
> Do Big downpours happen every day 24/7.
> 
> That's logical.:lol:


I can see your disdain for me in the above post, but what does it offer in terms of information that can be used in a meaningful discussion?


----------



## 4lbtest

If the water is treated lets get all the folks at Merit to DRINK IT! I been watchin this coming and I'm pro buisness, in fact guys I work at a chemical company and I have my "storm water polution prevention" certificate from the DEQ. I interact with state, regional, national and international firms and the bottom line is the most important. little things like rivers are only obstacles to overcome. what I will tell you is it's like politics and everybody cheats, or at least makes mistakes, and it will be the "mistake" that everyone is talking about in the future...Enviromental legislation can change like the wind depending on the current "politic" in charge, and once you open the door to dumping into the AuSable you might find it hard to stop...I'm all about business and makin money but if I can't spend it playin in the river I love then what good is it.

I'm sure the boys from Haliburton don't drill where they fish!!!!


----------



## Splitshot

Sorry, but meaningless comments.


----------



## TC-fisherman

I think the best frivolous statement is someone equating pumping 1.15 million gallons into a small stream with that of a "downpour".

I am glad there are "sportsman" who stick up for the resources. Kudo's to Rusy Gates.

BTW reported flow rates at the site in the winter were .14 cfs. What happens when you add a discharge rate of 1.8 CFS. Thats a little more than a downpour. 

Just another meaningless comment to add to the others. We all know there is only one "expert" here whose clearheaded rational thinking should shame us all.


----------



## Splitshot

So your saying that 13 gallons per second at a single point is more than a downpour over the entire watershed? Remember the 1.15 million gallons is in a 24 hour period which equates to adding a little more than 13 gallons a second at a single point. I can see why your on Rustys side in this issue. Calculate how much one inch of water equates to over a mile of Kolke Creek and 200 feet on either side of the creek and tell me how much water that is. 

I know you want to confuse the issue, but what site are you talking about where the flow rate is .14 cfs or 1.05 gallons per second? And what is the significance of this statement? 

I will reserve comment on wether this statement is meaningless until I hear your answer but you are right about one thing, I never claimed to be an expert, but any clearheaded rational thinking does shame some of you guys.


----------



## TC-fisherman

flow rates at the site in Kolke creek where they plan on discharging the water were measured at .14 CFS in the winter. The discharge is 1.8 CFS. Increasing the flow that much will have no effect???

How many downpours go on 24/7 for ten years?????

Oh i eagerly await your judgement on wether the statement is meaningless.


----------



## Splitshot

I wont make you wait long, Meaningless! It doesnt matter if it is 24/7 or not. Adding a little more than 13 gallons a second to Kolke Creek will have the same as no effect. The point about a good rain, is it adds much more water to the system which means the erosion caused by 13 more gallons a second will be negligible and might even help for reasons I stated earlier.

Certainly at .14 CFS there are very few trout that survive in this water. It is approximately about 8 miles until this extra 13 gallons meets the Au sable where the flow is above 1,000 gallons of water per second. Since the water is clean I have a hard time seeing where the damage will occur. Again, it appears that the extra water will enhance Kolke Creek and in 20 years, I expect you guys will be crying about Merit stopping the flow and how that will be a threat to the ecosystem.

Without a doubt, we will face many threats to the environment and it makes no sense to me to use all this energy and emotion on a non issue. Should we be concerned and be suspect of oil companies who have a history of not showing much respect for our environment. Indeed I do, and I think we should monitor this situation to make sure that Merit does keep its promise to do the right thing. 

I hope things are changing and one fact you cannot deny is that it was Merit Energy that found the problem and reported it to the DEQ with a plan to make it right. I live in Lansing and the city of Lansing treats their sewage and dumps the treated water into the Grand River as do many many other cities and towns in the state. I was impressed with Grayling and Gaylord as they treat their sewage and spread it out on some farm fields. That water of course drains into the ground and ends up in either the Manistee or Au Sable rivers depending on where they dump it. 

Merit is doing the same thing. First they treat the water making it clean and then dump it into the watershed. It is nothing new. 

Now it is pretty clear to everyone who reads this thread what we think of each other and in the future if you want to make sarcastic statements, send me a PM and I will do the same and it will save everyone the agony of our disagreement.

If you disagree with what I say and have relevant facts that will add to the discussion, please post them like you did in your last two posts minus the acrimony.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Splitshot said:


> I hope things are changing and one fact you cannot deny is that it was Merit Energy that found the problem and reported it to the DEQ with a plan to make it right.


Well like many of your undeniable facts this one isn't true either. The pollution was discovered by Shell energy the previous owners of the well in 2001. Merit Energy bought the wells as part of a larger deal from shell at a discount due to the pollution in 2003. Merit obvously thought they could find a cheaper way to solve the pollution problem.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Splitshot said:


> the erosion caused by 13 more gallons a second will be negligible and might even help
> 
> Again, it appears that the extra water will enhance Kolke Creek and in 20 years, I expect you guys will be crying about Merit stopping the flow and how that will be a threat to the ecosystem.


Boy, does everyone have it wrong. Merit energy is actually going to improve the creek. I wonder why DNR fisheries was against dumping wastewater in the creek? They are probably too shortsighted to realize all the benefits.


----------



## ESOX

> I won&#8217;t make you wait long, Meaningless! It doesn&#8217;t matter if it is 24/7 or not. Adding a little more than 13 gallons a second to Kolke Creek will have the same as no effect.


 If they are saying X number of gallons a day, and not over what time period it would actually be discharged, the discharge rate could be much, much higher. IE if they are discharging the same amount of water a day, but only in a 12 hour time period, the erosion impact would be even bigger than a constant flow rate. It does matter if it is a 24/7 discharge, or the erosive effect or a fluctuating, much more esrosive discharge rate.


----------



## Splitshot

Paul,

The way I understand it the flow will be constant and continous. The 24/7 I was referring to was in response to TC's remark about a storm not occuring 24/7. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

TC,

That theory makes more sense than the chicken little one I have been hearing. Actually I only said it might enhance the stream and I posed it only as a possibility.

By the way it is treated wastewater and is a lot different from wastewater and as I said something necessary in every city in the state. The DEQ will test this site just like they test every other site. If you don't trust them, contact your local water and sewer authority and talk to the engineer in charge and learn something.


----------



## 4lbtest

lets see their contingency plan. That is the plan they will have to have in place for the containment and cleanup of an accident, maybe if we understand what they are prepared to do in the event of an accident we will all fear less, or maybe we will fear more. In our industry a little hear and there that goes unoticed is acceptable, and the DEQ is far from bullet proof they miss alot. Trying not to write meaningless comments, but Ive gone through a dozen ISO 14001 enviromental audits and could write a book about what was overlooked, and again I hold the SWPP cert. for my company and I'm a sales manager, hmmmmmmm


----------



## johnboy

If you are concerned about the long term changes to the stream channel then I believe you need to look at how much the proposed discharge will change the Bank Full Flow. Bank full flow has about a 1.5 - 2.0 year recurrence rate. It is often referred to as the channel forming discharge. Big storms will make significant short term changes but it is the BF flow that determines the depth, width, and such for a stream channel. I would think that if you make a significant change to the BF flow you will change the channel over time. www,Stockton,edu/~epsteinc/rosgen~1.htm
Change commas back to periods to use the link above.


This is not the first pump and treat system installed in the headwaters areas of Northern Michigan. I know of one in particular but am reluctant to mention specifics and drag those folks into the fray going on here. The one I know of doesn't move water between watersheds but I think everything else is quite similar. I have not heard of any problems on that one. Does anybody know of similar systems and what problems may have actually occurred with them? 

Nothing like looking at theory put to the test; AKA Reality Check. :yikes:


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Date: May 30, 2007
PRESS RELEASE

Contacts: Rusty Gates, President
Anglers of the AuSable, Inc.
989-348-8462

Jim Olson or Jeff Jocks, Attorneys
Traverse City
231-946-0044 office
231-499-8831 cell

Susan Hlywa Topp, Attorney
Gaylord
989-731-4014

Michigan Court Shuts-Off State and Merit Energy Co. Plan to Discharge Millions of Gallons of Oil-Field Waste Water into Headwaters of the AuSable River

A Michigan trial judge issued a 32-page opinion and order on Tuesday, May 29th, blocking an attempt by an oil company and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to use Kolke Creek as a drainage way for the discharge of 1.15 million gallons per day of treated waste water. Kolke Creek forms the headwaters of Michigans famed AuSable River and the proposed 
discharge was to come from a large contaminated groundwater plume from Michigans oil patch located in the Manistee River watershed.

Otsego County Circuit Judge Dennis Murphy ruled, Given the delicate ecosystem of Kolke Creek, this court finds that it is not a suitable location to discharge large volumes of treated groundwater....

This is especially true in light of the fact that Merit has other feasible and prudent alternatives to discharging the treated waste water. Judge Murphy heard testimony for 13 days from late February through mid-April before reaching his decision. He noted that the Plaintiffs expert testimony and arguments outweighed the less reliable company and DEQ testimony, which led to his decision that the discharge was unreasonable under water law and would impair the water, creek, wetlands, and aquatic habitat in violation of Michigans Environmental Protection Act.

The Court found that the discharge would cause flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and turbidity, and that it would increase phosphorous and chlorides in a pristine aquatic environment. On the other hand, the Court found there would be no immediate harm to Merit or other landowners near the plume while the company and DEQ implement one of several possible methods to treat and discharge the wastewater at the site. The Court also found particularly persuasive the fact that the treated water would be transported from a foreign watershed (the Manistee River) into the AuSable River watershed. This massive water transfer will have a substantial effect on both the watershed receiving the water, and the watershed being depleted of water, he stated, then observed, Even without considering the large volumes at issue, the fact that water is being carried from one 
watershed to another is a significant factor.

At the conclusion of his opinion, Judge Murphy issued an order stopping the company and DEQ from discharging any treated waste water unless Merit could acquire riparian rights from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) which owns the land where any discharge would enter Kolke Creek. Previously, DNR biologists and officials frowned on the project, saying it would harm the creek and fishery and violate a long-standing policy against allowing water to be diverted from one watershed to another. Even if the DNR were to depart from its policy and earlier considerations, the Judge concluded that, Assuming that Merit were to gain riparian rights, its use of the watercourse must be reasonable. Based on his findings, he concluded that Merits and DEQs proposed use of Kolke Creek would not be [reasonable]. The Judges order gives Merit 30 days to try and obtain riparian rights and, if it does obtain them, to work out some lower level of discharge with the Plaintiffs. If that cannot be worked out, the court will hold a limited hearing on whether a proposed level of discharge, if any, can be done without violating water law.

This decision is a vindication of the Anglers, Mayers, Forciers, and many, many citizens, including our members, of what they told the Department and Merit Energy when this whole thing finally became public, Rusty Gates, President of the Anglers group said. We stand and will continue to protect every flowing inch of the AuSable from misguided policy and projects like this, and hope this ends here.

My clients and citizens were stone-walled by a facade of arguments and statements that there would be no harm, or there were no alternatives to discharge the waste other than to Kolke Creek, said Jim Olson, attorney for the Anglers from the Traverse City law firm of Olson, Bzdok & Howard. The Courts opinion dismantled their facade stone by stone. The Court has set a sterling precedent for the AuSable and other streams, lakes, and watersheds in Michigan.

My clients are thrilled with the decision, but we also want it to stop here, Susan Hlywa Topp, Gaylord attorney for Janney Mayer Simpson and her family, and the Forcier family, who live on Lynn Lake a short distance downstream from the proposed discharge. They, like others who have 
fought this case, have had to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars to right this injustice to Kolke Creek and Lynn Lake, when Merit and the State could and should have put an end to this debacle a long time ago.

As for the future, Merit and the Department should turn away from any discharge to Kolke Creek.

They should use the alternatives that are available to return the water to the source of the contamination. Spreading it around would cause harm to both watersheds, said Jeff Jocks, also of Olson, Bzdok & Howard who tried the case with Mr. Olson for the Anglers. We think the handwriting is on the wall.

If Merit approaches the DNR to obtain an unprecedented conveyance of riparian rights from the State of Michigan, the Anglers of the AuSable will be there to intervene and stop this from going any further, Rusty Gates said.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Great news!

It's sad though that the DEQ has to be taken to court by private citizens to do their Job!!!!!!!!!! What does it say when the people of Michigan can't trust the DEQ to protect the enviroment? It's not just this case unfortunately. 

It's even sadder that people on this site instead of helping Rusty Gates attacked him and anyone opposed to the plan based on their personal agenda. makes you wonder.


----------



## everlast1

Just goes to to show the DEQ is a joke and some of the people on this site have their head up their ass.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Anglers reel in a victory in court
Ruling protects AuSable River

It's a wonderful precedent for environmentalism and a wonderful lesson in what a small, dedicated group of people can do to protect natural resources from the greed of businesses and the incompetence of bureaucrats.

This is a day to chalk one up for the good guys, in this case the Anglers of the AuSable and their president, AuSable river lodge owner Rusty Gates, and two families who live on Lynn Lake downstream from where Merit was going to dump the wastewater. They funded the suit and did tireless amounts of research to prove that not only was Merit's plan wrong from an environmental standpoint, the company didn't need to do it on technical or economic grounds.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070604/SPORTS10/706040355/1058


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Amen!


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> It's even sadder that people on this site instead of helping Rusty Gates attacked him


There are several here on this site who continually attack him in threads. They speak poorly about him without ever giving any reasons why they negatively speak about him. It's a shame. It seems very personal and not at all based on Rusty's track record of stewardship of the rivers in that area. It's one thing to disagree with a mans action, it's quite another to disagree with him on anything and everything and offer up no justification. 

Maybe it's just that some have fly-envy?:lol:


----------



## swampbuck

I think he is a river hugger, you know kind of like a tree hugger.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Plaintiffs ask for more than $250K

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/jun/26kolke.htm

06/26/07 BY SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]

GAYLORD  Plaintiffs in the Kolke Creek lawsuit seek more than $250,000 from the state and an energy company after successfully arguing that a proposed pollution cleanup plan in Otsego County would harm the environment.

Attorneys for the conservation group Anglers of the Au Sable and the Mayer and Forcier families filed a motion to collect $262,203.65 for expert witness costs and legal fees.

A hearing will be held July 11 in Gaylord before 46th Circuit Judge Dennis Murphy, who ruled on the case last month.

Murphy decided that Merit Energy's state-approved plan to pump 1.15 million gallons a day of treated wastewater to Kolke Creek was unreasonable. He said it would negatively and permanently alter a delicate ecosystem that forms part of the headwaters of the Au Sable River, famous for its legendary trout fishing and northern Michigan beauty.

"We're very pleased and we're hopeful this will set the bright line precedent from here on out that has to keep headwaters, creeks and streams off-limits in Michigan for dumping, or using these places as drainage ways, said plaintiff attorney Jim Olson, of Traverse City.

The plaintiffs also asked Murphy to make a final judgment out of his previous interim order, which halted the cleanup project in Hayes Township.

State officials said they've given up on the Kolke Creek concept.

"We've decided we're not going to appeal. What we're going to do is consider some of the other alternatives, said Robert McCann, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

He said the likeliest option is to use an existing 40-acre parcel near the cleanup site for aerial dispersal of the treated wastewater. That method also will require a groundwater permit, McCann said. 

Charles Barbieri, a Lansing attorney hired by Merit, could not be reached for comment.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

swampbuck said:


> I think he is a river hugger, you know kind of like a tree hugger.



Good. Certainly could use more "River Huggers" to embrace our rivers.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Tentative settlement reached in Kolke Creek case

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/jul/15kolke.htm

07/15/07 BY SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]

GAYLORD  Plaintiffs who prevailed in a lawsuit over whether an energy company could dump processed wastewater into the Au Sable watershed will receive $125,000 in reimbursed trial costs.

Judge Dennis Murphy, of the 46th Circuit Trial Court, accepted the settlement Friday. He'd previously awarded more than $155,000 in expert witness and legal fees to Anglers of the Au Sable and the Mayer and Forcier families, who collectively opposed the plan to dump wastewater into Kolke Creek. 

"We're glad to see Anglers assisted in their fight to protect Kolke Creek and the Au Sable system, said Jeff Jocks, attorney for the conservation group.

Attorneys for Merit Energy and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality agreed to the settlement. 

However, Tonatzin Alfaro Maiz, assistant state attorney general, told the judge she did not have final authority and that both the DEQ director and the attorney general must agree to the settlement before it can be finalized.

Murphy accepted the settlement under a seven-day order, pending contract language and approval by higher-ranking state officials.

Rusty Gates, Anglers president, said the settlement money will be used to benefit river projects.

"We know how to convert these dollars into habitat for trout. The money is going right back in the river, Gates said.

Murphy previously ruled that Merit Energy's state-approved plan to pump 1.15 million gallons a day of treated wastewater to Kolke Creek was unreasonable. 

He said it would negatively and permanently alter a delicate ecosystem that forms part of the headwaters of the Au Sable River.

Lansing attorney Charles Barbieri, who represents Merit, declined to comment, including on whether the energy company intended to appeal Murphy's ruling against the Kolke Creek disposal method for a contaminated groundwater cleanup project in Otsego County's Hayes Township.

Robert McCann, DEQ spokesman, said the agency will not appeal the judge's decision against the cleanup method. Instead, the state is investigating permit qualifications for aerial dispersal of the treated wastewater on a nearby 40-acre parcel owned by Merit, he said.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Kolke settlement crumbles
Paving Planned for 8.2 Miles of the Fred Meijer White Pine Trail State Park

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/jul/19kolke.htm

07/19/07 BY SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]

GAYLORD  State officials reneged on a settlement with a conservation group and riparian property owners in a case that involves a northern Michigan stream and an energy company's plan to dump wastewater into it.

A tentative settlement agreement fell apart this week among the energy company, the state and plaintiffs in a legal battle over Kolke Creek and a groundwater pollution cleanup project in Otsego County's Hayes Township. 

Merit Energy received state approval to daily dump 1.15 million gallons of treated wastewater into the creek, but the Anglers of the Au Sable group and two nearby property owners filed a lawsuit to halt that disposal method.

Judge Dennis Murphy, of the 46th Circuit Trial Court, ruled against the state and Merit, saying their discharge plan would permanently alter and be detrimental to the environment. He later awarded $155,000 in expert witness fees to the plaintiffs.

Now the state and Merit are appealing the judge's ruling and backing out of the $125,000 settlement, negotiated just last week. Both filed appeal claims with the Michigan Court of Appeals on Monday.

Bob McCann, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, said they don't believe the cleanup project can proceed as the judge ordered. Officials investigated and learned that permits cannot be issued for an alternate method, aerial dispersal on a nearby 40-acre parcel owned by Merit, he said.

"We are left without any other option now, so it throws this back to the point where we're asking the court to take another look at it, McCann said.

Lansing attorney Charles Barbieri, who represents Merit, could not be reached for comment. Last week he said he could not comment on the case.

The state's decision troubled the plaintiffs.

"The DEQ has shown its true colors. It wants to support and help defend the oil industry to do whatever it wants at the cost of Michigan's pristine trout streams and the environment, said Rusty Gates, president and founder of Anglers of the Au Sable.

Plaintiff attorney Jim Olson of Traverse City said his clients are not disheartened by the appeal. Rather, "they are more committed than ever to preventing this environmental injustice, Olson said.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Hamilton Reef said:


> Kolke settlement crumbles
> Paving Planned for 8.2 Miles of the Fred Meijer White Pine Trail State Park
> 
> What? How the heck did that get in there? :lol:
> 
> Kolke settlement crumbles
> State backs out on agreement


----------



## back2spool

I sent a letter to Granholm's Press Secretary asking (as Rusty Put it) Granmole to get a handle on the DEQ and their foolishness. Apparently, Jenny from the Block's Press Secretary did not want to answer the question and I was forwarded to the DEQ's secretary. Here is his response regarding the latest motions in the trial... Received 7/20/2007......

Mr. A -

I was forwarded your recent email to Governor Granholms office regarding the Kolke Creek court case. I appreciate the concern you have for protecting this important resource to our state, however, I would like the opportunity to explain how we ultimately arrived at our decision to appeal Judge Murphys ruling.

This project was proposed as a means to manage groundwater that had become contaminated from past spills at the oil production facility now owned by Merit Energy. The DEQ carefully evaluated every potential alternative cleanup method, and the final decision to discharge the clean, treated water into Kolke Creek was based on the best available science and regard for the public health and the environment.

The water that would be discharged would meet or go beyond all drinking water standards, and while the volume of the discharge may seem large, it in fact represents a relatively small amount in comparison to the natural water flows in the Kolke Creek watershed.

The DEQ did not go to court to defend Merit Energy or take sides in this case, but was rather named by the plaintiffs (The Anglers of the AuSable) as a co-defendant, which required our agency to defend our decision to the judge. Ultimately, as you know, Judge Murphy disagreed with that decision and filed an interim order that required us to once again explore alternatives for discharging the treated water

In the interest of trying to move this cleanup process forward as quickly as possible, we originally chose not to pursue an appeal and rather explore the possibility of discharging the treated water onto a 40-acre parcel of property that Merit Energy had acquired. During the review process, however, our team of water quality engineers determined that there would be an unacceptably high risk of spreading the contaminated groundwater to the Wilderness Valley residential area should this plan be utilized. That knowledge, combined with the court changing the interim order into a final order and thereby eliminating needed flexibility in the process, left us with no alternative but to file an appeal.

The decision to appeal was not made easily or without the knowledge that it may in fact cause a delay in the cleanup process, but when our only alternative was to utilize a cleanup plan that may very well make the problem worse, it was the right decision.

It is disappointing to hear some of the misinformation thats been portrayed regarding why we have made this decision. Our goal is not, nor has it ever been, to protect the interests of Merit Energy. Our goal is to ensure that this cleanup process succeeds and ensures the long term health of the residents of the community, as well as the quality of Kolke Creek, the AuSable River, and all of Michigans waters.

If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Robert McCann
Press Secretary
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Phone: 517-241-7397
Fax: 517-241-7401
Email: [email protected]


----------



## WILDCATWICK

> In the interest of trying to move this cleanup process forward as quickly as possible, we originally chose not to pursue an appeal and rather explore the possibility of discharging the treated water onto a 40-acre parcel of property that Merit Energy had acquired. During the review process, however, our team of water quality engineers determined that there would be an unacceptably high risk of spreading the contaminated groundwater to the Wilderness Valley residential area should this plan be utilized.


Soooo, they can treat it and put it in another watershed with no risk but they can't treat it and put it on their own property without risk?

Someone please help me with understanding that. Wouldn't the treatment be the same regardless of the release point? That just sound's like a load.


----------



## back2spool

WILDCATWICK said:


> Soooo, they can treat it and put it in another watershed with no risk but they can't treat it and put it on their own property without risk?
> 
> Someone please help me with understanding that. Wouldn't the treatment be the same regardless of the release point? That just sound's like a load.


I could not agree more wildcat!

This guy told me to call him if I had any more questions.

I do not want to talk to him because I guarantee it will ruin both his and my day. 

Insult my intelligence by using big words?? Not gonna happen buddy.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

When these proporsals for clean up are made by companies they are to submit viable alternatives. Apparently after all this time they never did that either. I'm amazed that some here question us about our questioning of the DEQ. This garbage has been happeining for years.


----------



## back2spool

This is what I sent today. I am just curious how there can be great risk using one method, but not in the other...

Mr. McCann,

Thank you for your response. Please clarify for me how the the discharged water will be beyond drinking water standards, yet there is a risk of contamination near a residential area. How can the discharge into Kolke Creek not face this same risk? What is it about the two dischardge processes that varies so greatly where in one the toxic groundwater could affect a residential area and in the other there is no risk to the AuSable watershed?

Thanks.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Let's see what he says. There is no doubt he and the attorneys has had to come up with something for this is that will be the main case for appeal. As of right now it sounds :fish2:


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Kolke Creek settlement puts the environment last

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/01edita.htm

08/01/07 TCRE Editorial

Call it an environmental oversight variation on the "Stockholm Syndrome. 

State Department of Environmental Quality officials  to the detriment of the environment they're hired to protect  have apparently begun to identify with an oil and gas company charged with cleaning up groundwater pollution near the Au Sable River.

"Stockholm Syndrome is the name given to a condition in which hostages begin after a time to empathize and eventually sympathize with their captors.

While DEQ officials overseeing the cleanup of groundwater pollution near Kolke Creek in Otsego County certainly aren't being held hostage by Merit Energy, the firm responsible for the cleanup, they seem to have shown an uncommon empathy for the company's plight.

The DEQ first approved a plan by Merit to dump up to 1.5 million gallons of treated groundwater a day from the cleanup site into Kolke Creek, which is a headwater of the Au Sable, a legendary trout stream.

When a fishing group and neighbors sued, the DEQ took Merit's side; state officials even turned a blind eye while Merit built a pipeline in anticipation of winning its case. 

Merit lost and entered into a settlement agreement with the DEQ and the plaintiffs. But a week later the firm and the DEQ reneged on the deal and appealed. DEQ officials said they realized they could not issue the permits necessary to allow aerial dispersal of the polluted water on a nearby 40-acre parcel owned by Merit, even though the agency has already agreed to the alternative.

A DEQ official has now declared "we are left without any other option, but that appears to be a false choice. At least one other method  deep-well injection  has been discussed; and if a pipeline to Kolke Creek was possible, why not one to an alternate site? 

What the DEQ seems to have also forgotten is that the onus for finding and paying for an acceptable disposal method is on Merit, not the state. That's "they, not "we.

The DEQ is supposed to be the people's advocate and watchdog. Right now it looks like we need a bit more of both.


----------



## back2spool

Hamilton Reef said:


> The DEQ is supposed to be the people's advocate and watchdog. Right now it looks like we need a bit more of both.


Could NOT say it better myself. Here is DEQ's reply to my question above...

Mr. A -

Good question, and I should have been more clear in my original email.

The water being discharged, whether it be to Kolke Creek or onto this
40-acre site, would absolutely meet or go beyond all drinking water
standards. The problem with the 40-acre site is that it lies upgradient
of the contaminated area, meaning that by putting the clean treated
water there, it will saturate the soil and seep back towards the
contaminated groundwater plume. The clean water would then mix back in
with the contaminated water and potentially cause it to spread in
various directions including, according to the models that have been
done, towards the Wilderness Valley area. The result of this would be
that we may be unable to conduct a complete cleanup of that groundwater
and the residential wells at the homes in this area may be adversely
impacted.

So, the issue isn't the quality of the water being discharged, its the
location of this particular site. There may be other alternative
locations where the same type of discharge to the land could work,
however without appealing the court's final order, we would be unable to
explore those possibilities.

I hope that answers your question. If not, or if you have any further
questions, please let me know.

THEY HAVE NEVER ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WHICH IS "WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNOR GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THIS OUT OF CONTROL AGENCY IS DOING????


----------



## Splitshot

The response to your question is clear and makes sense. It is a very good reason for not dumping the cleaned water on that forty, since ground water flows in a certain direction.



back2spool said:


> THEY HAVE NEVER ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WHICH IS "WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNOR GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THIS OUT OF CONTROL AGENCY IS DOING????


Had I read this insulting, demeaning question I would not have answered your first one, yet you still complain and insult them again. Please define out of control and how it applies to this agency along with any proof you have to support your claim.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

THEY HAVE NEVER ANSWERED MY ORIGINAL QUESTION WHICH IS "WHY DOESN'T THE GOVERNOR GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THIS OUT OF CONTROL AGENCY IS DOING????

Example: Remember how unqualified affirmative action and political appointees are hired and promoted to supervisory positions and then they control the agenda until retirement. This has screwed up the FWS, UFS, Ag, DNR, and DEQ. It takes decades to repair the damage and most cases the severe damage can never be reparied.

The Engler administration gutted the DEQ so they could not control pollution of his campaign contributors at the same time that administration appointed and promoted his cronies to protect the polluters. We watched this as happening for 12 years with DNR and DEQ staffers working hard to save our rivers. Those working for fishing and hunting were screwed over and replaced by Engler gang. Governor Granholm is stuck with much of the old gang until the bastards die or retire. Meanwhile the state resources continue to suffer until Granholm can get enough funding to repair the damage. The Republicans of course continue to sabotage any DEQ and DNR budget on behalf of their polluters.


----------



## back2spool

Enough said on that.

As for my original question. I could honestly care less about what this guy from the DEQ says or tries to explain. Bottom line is we don't need to create a new headwaters of the AuSable.

My question was "Why doesn't Governor Granholm take a more active role in environmental issues and get a handle on what the DEQ is doing?" She promised such in her last campaign.

Granholm's press secretary saw the word "DEQ" and immediately forwarded it to this guy. 

I do not trust the DEQ. I have dealt with them twice and both times they sided with business over environment.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Amazing what a press secretary will say


> The DEQ carefully evaluated every potential alternative cleanup method, and the final decision to discharge the clean, treated water into Kolke Creek was based on the best available science and regard for the public health and the environment.


[email protected]@@@!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A total lie!!

Thats what the trial was about. The DEQ didn't investigate alternatives. It took a court order for them to even investigate dumping it on a forty that merit owned. 



> There may be other alternativelocations where the same type of discharge to the land could work,however without appealing the court's final order, we would be unable toexplore those possibilities.


Where in the judge's order did he restrict the cleanup to only one alternative method on one site!!!!!!


And people wonder why the DEQ is held in such low esteem.



I wonder about the motivation behing the appeal. In the original ruling the judge basically said the DEQ's version of science is a joke. The level of rebuke was unprecedented. One has to wonder if this is more about future litigation then the present case.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

back2spool said:


> There may be other alternative
> locations where the same type of discharge to the land could work,
> however without appealing the court's final order


Just deny the permit! Then have Merit submit a plan that is viable. The DEQ should condemn Merit publicly for wasting everyones time and on top submitting alternative plans that are not even viable.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

US judge blocks gas drilling in Mason Tract area

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/307110008/1002/NEWS01

04/07/08

TRAVERSE CITY  A federal judge has overturned a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to allow oil and gas drilling in an environmentally sensitive area near the Au Sable River in Michigans northern Lower Peninsula.


U.S. District Judge David Lawson on Thursday ruled the agency had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in 2005 by giving Savoy Energy of Traverse City a permit to drill an exploratory well near the rivers south branch.

The proposed wellhead would be located in the Huron-Manistee National Forest about three-tenths of a mile from the Mason Tract, a wilderness area prized by outdoor recreationists.

Federal assessments had found the drilling would have no significant environmental impact.

Two environmental groups, the Sierra Club and Anglers of the Au Sable, sued the government to halt the drilling.


----------



## back2spool

An even bigger write-up on Yahoo!


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080712/ap_on_re_us/gas_drilling

Tonight I will have a drink in honor of all those who contributed to stopping this nonsense!


----------

