# Bottlers aim to drill in Newaygo County



## Hamilton Reef

Bottlers aim to drill in Newaygo County

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-10/11596977184010.xml&coll=8

Sunday, October 01, 2006 By Jeff Alexander CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER

A water bottling company that triggered a fierce debate over water rights in Michigan is considering pumping groundwater from two sites in Newaygo County, including one believed to be near the headwaters of the White River. 

Nestle Waters North America is looking for more sources of spring water for its Ice Mountain brand, which has been bottled since 2002 at a facility in Stanwood, south of Big Rapids. Nestle has been studying two new possible well sites in Newaygo County for the past three years, company spokeswoman Deb Muchmore said. 

"There are a couple of sites in Newaygo county we're interested in because of the proximity to the (Ice Mountain) facility in Stanwood and the possibility of the company building a second bottling facility in the region," Muchmore said.

Muchmore said Nestle is considering building a second bottling plant in Michigan or Indiana. Its existing facility in Stanton, which employs 250 and has a $15 million annual payroll, bottles about 80 million gallons of groundwater pumped annually from four wells at a hunting preserve southeast of Big Rapids. That water comes from underground springs that are part of the Muskegon River watershed. 

Newt Dilley, a property owner along the White River, said he fears pumping millions of gallons of water out of the White's watershed could hurt the river, which is much smaller than the Muskegon.

"If they put wells near the headwaters of the White River, I can't help but think that it's going to have a serious impact on the most valuable natural resource this county has," said Dilley, a Grand Rapids attorney who owns a riverfront cottage northeast of White Cloud. 

Nestle's Stanton bottling facility sparked a 2002 lawsuit from a group of residents who claimed the pumping operation harmed nearby waterways. A Mecosta County judge ordered Nestle in 2003 to stop drawing water from the wells, but the decision was put on hold during Nestle's appeal. 

Nestle earlier this year settled the 2002 lawsuit that was filed by the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation. The two sides agreed that Nestle could withdraw an average of 218 gallons of water a minute from four wells east of Stanton, half as much as the company wanted; Nestle has appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. 

As the court case drags on, Nestle is forging ahead with plans to make its Stanton bottling plant the hub of a sprawling water bottling business that is fed by a surrounding network of groundwater wells. The company also bottles water it buys from the city of Evart. 

"I don't know how Nestle feels it can go ahead and expand when there is still a lawsuit pending," said Terry Swier, president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.

One of the possible pumping sites in Newaygo County spans hundreds of acres in Monroe Township, near the headwaters of the White River, a state-protected trout stream, said Dilley. The site surrounds Kinney Lake, northeast of White Cloud, and is just south of the Oxford Swamp, the headwaters of the White. Some water from the swamp also feeds the Pere Marquette River system. 

The Chronicle couldn't reach the property owner for comment. 

Muchmore did not identify where in Newaygo County Nestle was considering sinking new water wells. Sixteen ounce bottles of the water typically sell for about $1 each.

Monroe Township Supervisor Joe Catalano said he was unaware of Nestle's interest in groundwater in the township, but added: "It's going to be a point of interest if it's true." 

After speaking to Nestle's attorney, and the former and current owners of a large parcel of land in Monroe Township the company apparently is studying as a possible pumping site, Dilley said he is convinced the project will happen. 

"They have spent a lot of money on this over a long period of time; I can't believe they're just going to pack up and go home," Dilley said. 

Nestle would have to obtain a state permit to pump more than 100,000 gallons of groundwater per day from its new wells. The company has not yet applied for any of the required permits, local and state officials said. 

Muchmore said Nestle hopes to announce plans for a second bottling facility early next year and have it open by 2009. She said the company spends years studying potential well sites to ensure there is enough water to meet the company's needs without harming the environment. 

Muchmore said the groundwater Nestle hopes to pump with its new wells is "a small amount." She noted that other companies, including farms and factories, use more groundwater daily than Ice Mountain bottles and sells throughout the Midwest. 

Tom Hamilton, vice chairman of the White River Watershed Partnership, said he was disappointed: "After the Muskegon River watershed and the White River watershed, which river is next for Nestle?" said Hamilton, a former government fisheries biologist. "Is any river in the state safe from this?"


----------



## TSS Caddis

Hamilton Reef said:


> "I don't know how Nestle feels it can go ahead and expand when there is still a lawsuit pending," said Terry Swier, president of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.


Because they know they are going to win.


----------



## 22 Chuck

Probably some 'resources' strategically place will help Nestles cause.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Bottler aims to take more from rivers

http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-10/116514479922520.xml&coll=8

Sunday, December 03, 2006 By Jeff Alexander CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER

Nestle Waters North America Inc. is gearing up for a major expansion of its Michigan water bottling business with a plan that targets some of the area's most treasured river systems. 

Nestle, which bottles water in Michigan under the Ice Mountain label, currently bottles about 270 million gallons of spring water annually at its sprawling facility in Stanwood, company officials said. That water comes from underground springs in rural Mecosta County and the city of Evart's municipal water system. 

Nestle is seeking state permission to pump 70 million gallons of spring water annually from the headwaters of two trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River near Evart in Osceola County. If approved, that project would reduce the annual flow of the Muskegon River by 70 million gallons, according to company documents.

Nestle also is considering seeking permission to pump millions of gallons of spring water each month from a site in Newaygo County's Monroe Township that is the headwaters of the White and Pere Marquette rivers. 

Anglers, environmentalists and property owners in the White and Pere Marquette watersheds are up in arms over Nestle's bid to pump groundwater from natural springs that feed those rivers. 

"We have to take a stand; we can't look the other way," said Tom Thompson, chairman of the White River Watershed Partnership. "This is just not right." 

Nestle officials said they are careful to ensure their water pumping doesn't adversely affect the environment, and that the company needs new drilling sites so existing wells don't dry up. 

Nestle will conduct a series of well tests over the next several months that will determine whether it seeks state approval to pump groundwater from the natural springs in Monroe Township. 

"The location -- a 460-acre property in Monroe Township -- is an attractive source of water for several reasons," Ice Mountain officials said in a recent letter to property owners near the proposed pumping site. 

"It has significant water resources, both underground and in the White River," according to the company's letter. "This is important because a water withdrawal at this site would be unlikely to adversely affect the environment."

Because the White and Pere Marquette rank among Michigan's best trout streams, Nestle's plans could further escalate the raging controversy over water bottling in Michigan. 

The White is a state-designated "Natural River" and the Pere Marquette is a federally designated "Wild and Scenic River." Those designations afford the rivers more protections than most rivers in Michigan. 

"It's not an issue about the amount of water they want to pump -- it's a question of saying yes or no," said Dick Schwikert, a member of the Pere Marquette Watershed Council board of directors. "We don't want any water taken from the watershed."

Neither the Pere Marquette Watershed Council nor the White River Watershed Partnership has taken a formal position on Nestle's proposal. 

Many Monroe Township residents, however, are opposed, township Supervisor Joe Catalano said. 

"I haven't heard any positive comments about the proposed Ice Mountain water withdrawal -- it's all been negative comments," Catalano said. 

Nestle officials will explain their plans at a Jan. 10 public meeting at the Monroe Township Hall. 

Officials from the state Department of Environmental Quality, which has the final say on all water withdrawal projects in Michigan, said they will make a decision on Nestle's proposed Osceola County well in January, and then take public comment on that ruling. 

A Nestle study concluded that that proposal -- pumping 70 million gallons of water from the headwaters of Chippewa and Twin creeks, two trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River near Evart -- would not harm the streams or the river. 

Critics alleged that Nestle wants to further exploit groundwater, which they said is a public resource owned collectively by the people of Michigan.

Nestle officials countered that Michigan's water is a commodity that is subject to commercial use, just as water is used to make beer, soda pop, shampoo, baby food or other food products. 

"From a scientific perspective, an ecosystem doesn't care where the water that is withdrawn ends up -- it doesn't care if the water goes in a bottle of shampoo, a soft drink or a bottle of water," said Gregory Fox, Nestle's Midwest natural resource manager. 

"Ecosystems only care about a water withdrawal if it has an effect on them."

Company spokeswoman Deb Muchmore said Nestle wants to develop more water wells so that it can meet increased demand for Ice Mountain spring water without harming nearby surface waters. 

"We want to ensure that we have sufficient water supply to meet the needs of our growing business," Nestle officials said in the letter to Monroe Township residents. "By using water from multiple and diverse sources, each of them remain sustainable for the support of the ecosystem and for everyone's use." 

Nestle's existing Ice Mountain bottling facility south of Big Rapids has divided the community since opening in 2001. 

Company officials said the bottling plant supplies a product consumers demand and created 250 well-paying jobs at a factory that boosts the local economy without polluting the environment. 

Nestle plans to announce in late 2007 where it will build a second water bottling plant. That facility will be built either in Evart, northeast of Big Rapids, or at a site in Indiana, Muchmore said. 

Muchmore said the new bottling plant will be the same size as the Stanwood facility, which spans 739,000 square feet, cost $150 million to build and cranks out about a half billion individual bottles of water annually, according to company reports. 

Critics portrayed Nestle, already the world's largest water bottler, as a corporation driven by greed.

"This is a carpet-bagging foreign company that wants to bottle our water and send the profits back to Switzerland (where Nestle's world headquarters are located)," said Jay Peasley, a member of the White River Watershed Partnership. 

Mecosta County resident Terry Swier, who heads a citizen group that fought Nestle's Stanwood bottling plant in the courts, said she is appalled that the company would seek to expand its operations while its legal battle still is pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. 

"I'm in shock, this is so disgusting and so discouraging," said Swier, who heads the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, or MCWC. "I don't think they should be pursuing new well sites when their case is still in the courts."

Swier's group sued Nestle in Mecosta County Circuit Court in 2001, claiming the company's water wells harmed surface waters downstream. MCWC won in circuit court, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's ruling that landowners along surface waters had water rights that superseded Nestle's. 

After a protracted legal battle, the two sides reached a compromise that allowed Ice Mountain to pump 114 million gallons of spring water annually from beneath a Mecosta County hunting preserve called The Sanctuary. 

In 2005, the MCWC asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the appellate court ruling because, Swier said, a Nestle court victory would open the door to more water bottling operations in Michigan. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether MCWC has legal standing in its lawsuit against Nestle. 

Noah Hall, a Wayne State University law professor and expert on water use, said the court likely will not answer the major debate surrounding the bottled water industry. 

"The $64,000 question is whether a private company can bottle and sell a public resource for a profit," Hall said. "That's really the heart of the legal, political and emotional debate surrounding bottled water." 

Hall said there is no state or federal law that defines whether bottling pure water is any different, legally speaking, than pumping water out of the ground and using it as an ingredient in other beverages or food products. 

"It's because we have this uncertainty in the law that these legal issues become cultural debates," Hall said.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Report: Nestle may buy Michigan-based Gerber

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...EWS99/61129011

November 29, 2006 Associated Press

VEVEY, Switzerland (AP)  Nestle SA, the worlds largest foodmaker, may buy baby-food company Gerber Products from Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG for as much as $5 billion, according to a published report.

Novartis already is in negotiations to sell Nestle a medical-nutrition business, and Nestle executives are interested in trying to make the acquisition of Gerber Products Co. part of the same deal, according to the Wall Street Journal, which cited people familiar with the matter.

Novartis spokesman John Gilardi said the company had no comment about the market speculation. But he said the company has received numerous offers for Gerber and has said in the past it wants to focus on its medicines business and that Gerber is not part of this core business.

Nestle spokesman Francois Perroud said the Swiss food company does not comment on rumors.

Gerber, based in Fremont, Mich., makes a variety of foods and juices as well as other products for babies and toddlers. It also has a life-insurance unit.

Also Wednesday, Nestle agreed to buy Australias Greens Foods Ltd. for 137 million Australian dollars ($106.8 million) to gain market share in Australia.

The Nestle Purina Petcare unit will pay 90 Australian cents (70 U.S. cents) a share, a 23 percent premium to Greens closing stock price Nov. 13, the last full day before the company commented on media speculation.

Greens, which owns the Supercoat brand, will first sell its consumer foods business and its holding in Bestcare to a unit of Guinness Peat Group PLC and CVC Capital Partners in a transaction worth about 42 million Australian dollars ($32.8 million), the company said in a statement.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Nestle drops spring-water well plan in Newaygo Co.

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6333758&nav=menu44_2

MONROE TOWNSHIP -- Nestle Waters North American is backing out of plans to put a spring-water well in northern Newaygo County.

The company announced Thursday that area in Monroe Township does not meet its criteria for development.

Some local citizens voiced their concerns about the plans during a meeting in January.

Nestle wanted to pump groundwater from two sites, including one believed to be near the headwaters of a state-protected trout stream. 

In March 2005, the Evart City Council approved a 10-year water purchase agreement with Nestle in its community.


----------



## FiberOptic

Hamilton Reef said:


> Nestle drops spring-water well plan in Newaygo Co.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Nestle to buy Gerber for $5.5B, becomes No. 1 in baby food market

GENEVA (AP) -- Nestle SA, the world's biggest food and drink company, said Thursday it will buy Michigan-based Gerber Products Co. from pharmaceutical maker Novartis SA for $5.5 billion, giving it the largest share of the global baby food market.

The acquisition helps further Nestle's recent focus on health and nutrition, following its purchases of the U.S. weight control company Jenny Craig and Novartis Medical Nutrition.

Gerber was started in 1928 in the small Michigan community of Fremont, about 160 miles west of Detroit. Sandoz Ltd., a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, bought it in 1994. In 1996, Sandoz merged with another Swiss pharmaceutical to form Novartis AG.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...IOL-?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

On the Net: 
Gerber Products Co.: http://www.gerber.com
Nestle SA: http://www.nestle.com


----------



## MI_Bowhunter

Well, a lot of folks on this site want Michigan to diversify from the auto industry and this is not auto. How many people opposed to this buy bottled water? My guess is most.

here we go with the "not in my back yard" syndrome.

Not for or againest, just sayin.


----------



## wally-eye

Some damn fine people work there AND they have been members of this site for ages. Just thought I had to say that, not sure why.


----------



## steely171

MI_Bowhunter said:


> Well, a lot of folks on this site want Michigan to diversify from the auto industry and this is not auto. How many people opposed to this buy bottled water? My guess is most.
> 
> here we go with the "not in my back yard" syndrome.
> 
> Not for or againest, just sayin.


 In my family. We buy no water from them. If it dose happen there is holy he77 to pay for it! If you know what I mean! I am a auto worker and I will not sacrifice my love for fishing for this. These lakes that are around us hold some of the most fresh water in the world. I think like all of them are in the top five? I could be wrong. I know one is. The bigger question is. If we cant eat just so many fish how can thy sell this water to the rest of the US without precautions? I am glad to see thy are not going to go forth with this. I also feel we need to be ready for the next time! After all. It is the water we enjoy!


----------



## Westlakedrive

Whatever happens happens. Drilling for water is no no. Expand the plant and diversify would be great. However so far the only people getting rich so far are Gerber decendents many of whom are already worth 100's of millions.


----------



## Shupac

steely171 said:


> In my family. We buy no water from them. If it dose happen there is holy he77 to pay for it! If you know what I mean! I am a auto worker and I will not sacrifice my love for fishing for this. These lakes that are around us hold some of the most fresh water in the world. I think like all of them are in the top five? I could be wrong. I know one is. The bigger question is. If we cant eat just so many fish how can thy sell this water to the rest of the US without precautions? I am glad to see thy are not going to go forth with this. I also feel we need to be ready for the next time! After all. It is the water we enjoy!


I don't buy any bottled water if I can possibly avoid it. These kinds of operations are taking a toll on watersheds and fisheries all over the country.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Northern express
http://www.northernexpress.com/index.asp

12/31/07

Shaking up the Great Lakes
Anne Stanton 

Michigan may be in the doldrums right now, but more and more companies will likely belly up to the Great Lakes states when water gets scarce in the South and Southwest. Thats one reason why state lawmakers are moving now to protect the Great Lakes and rivers, but theres a lot of dissent on how to do that. A proposed Senate bill would allow groundwater withdrawals that would decrease river flows on some river stretches by up to 42%. 

NATURE OR MANUFACTURING?

The proposed Senate Bill 860 reflects a computer models analysis that says reducing water flow would cause no adverse effect to rivers as long as it doesnt cause a fish loss of more than 20% of the fish in warm rivers, 5% of the fish in cold-water streams, and 10% of fish in rivers that are neither warm nor cold.

The model only looks at the effects on fish mortality with the reasoning that fish are at the top of the food chain, and their numbers reflect total damage to habitat. The assessment tool does not attempt to quantify damage to specific habitatsuch as bird nestingnor the effect on canoeists or riverside property owners.

The state House has come up with a different package of river protection bills, which is supported by environmentalists and would keep river flows level. Theres intense interest in this bill by manufacturers, water bottlers, farmers, fishermen, and conservationists.

A work group is now trying to come up with a bicameral billa compromise bill between the House and Senate.

This issue puts northern Republican lawmakers in a tight spot because tourism and environment rank high with their constituents as opposed to the manufacturing interests of their downstate brethren.

A spokesman for Senator Jason Allen said he is waiting on the final compromise bill before offering comment; the senator was one of 15 secondary sponsors of the Senate b ill. Representative Howard Walker, also of Traverse City, said he is researching the issue and will put his comments on his web site. Rep. Gary McDowell of Rudyard in the Upper Peninsula was one of several sponsors for the House bill. So far bill sponsors are falling along political lines, but theres hope that partisanship will fall by the wayside. 

POWER OF THE CITIZEN

The plan is to end up with a final bill for a vote in mid-January, and thats where the average citizen comes in. Right now, inside the room where the competing bills are getting thrashed out, industry lobbyists outnumber conservationists by five to one, and senators and representatives will need to hear from the public, according to Brian Beauchamp of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters in Ann Arbor.

Nestle is at the table, the National Association of Water Bottlers is at the table, the Michigan Water Bottling Association is here. I would say the public interest in the room is outweighed in terms of lobbyists by five to one. Industry is heavily represented in these meetings, so were lucky, in a room of 60 people, to have five folks representing conservation or environmental interests, Beauchamp said.

Youll hear the Michigan Manufactur-ing Association stressing concern that they dont want any regulatory structuretelling them how they can and cannot use Michigans water, he continued, so we go through this time and time again on every issue; regardless of what we propose that seems reasonable, the business community cries foul. The House bills dont put anyone out of business. They simply must report to the state that they are using water efficiently and protecting the resource.

The most important thing is to call your state representative or senator over the holidays or sit down with them over a cup of coffee. The more people who do that over the holiday break, the better chance theyll represent the public interest, Beauchamp added.

Senator Patty B irkholz of Saugatuck, the Senate bills major sponsor, said that the interests of manufacturers must be taken into account.

First of all, Michigan successeven though were not where we should beis very dependent on water resources. Tourism, recreation, agribusiness and manufacturing. Im not going to tell Gerber that they cant withdraw enough water to make Similac or baby food or Coca Cola, which is 90% of water. Coca Cola buys their water from the city of Detroit. We have a lot of people depending on it. Every car in this state uses 30,000 gallons of water in manufacturing. I live in Allegan County, which is a huge agricultural area and needs water for irrigation.

Jim Olson, one of the states top environmental attorneys, said he respects Senator Birkholzs attempts to fashion a bipartisan bill, but the make-up of stakeholders at the table guarantees a compromise that will dilute an already weak 2006 water law.

This is public water, not private the perspective h ere should be to maintain the flows and levels of all water for all users here in Michigan, not satisfying every use inside and outside Michigan by allocating a percentage of it. That would be a tragic comedy of the public trust in these waters, Olson said.

NEW TOOL

Senator Birkholz is given credit for her work on a computer model that predicts how much water can be withdrawn before a river is harmed. The model is called an assessment tool, and it will go online so that anyone who plans to use groundwater must register with the state.

Ideallyand for the first timethe state will have a single database that 
can collect all the information on groundwater use.

What we have now are laws that depend heavily on the DEQ for subjective decisions, and a lot of people object to the subjective decision-making process. This is based more on science, Senator Birkholz said. 
Environmentalists also like the idea of the model, but complain that the proposed Senate bill would make it the sole criteria for making decisions. The assessment tool predicts that no harm would come to a river when flows of river stretches are reduced by the following amounts, according to a Michigan Environmental Council analysis: 

- 42 percent, Betsie River 
- 22 percent, Pere Marquette River 
- 25 percent, Sturgeon River 
- 22 and 16 percent, Au Sable River 
- 22 percent, Manistee River 
- 25 percent, Boardman River 
- 16 percent, Pigeon River 
- 25 percent, Jordan River 

Under the proposed Senate bill, a third to half of the summer low flow of a trout stream could be withdrawn, said Dr. Bryan Burroughs, executive director of the Michigan Council of Trout Unlimited in a press release.

Theres also alarm that the bill is proposed at a time when river levels are at 30-year record lows and the prospect of global warming may push them down further.

Birkholz and other Senate bill supporters initially disputed the accuracy of the a bove percentages, but now concede the assessment tool is still in its early stage of development and that perhaps on-site inspections and even permits should be required for rivers that are more fragile. Birkholz said she put the proposed Senate bill out there as a point of negotiation, not as a final law. But the bill outraged Jim Olson, the Traverse City attorney who fought Nestle on its annual multi-million gallon withdrawals from streams and rivers in the Big Rapids area. He said Senator Birkholz doesnt understand that its wrong to negotiate breaking the lawthe state Constitution and the state Environmental Protection Act mandates protection of natural resources. This shows you how twisted the Republican Party has become in Michigan, and how absolutely ignorant they are about the damage this would wreak, Olson said. They somehow buy into black box science and the statements of others that they can craft compromise language at the expense of a public resource. The duty of the state is to protect our fish and aquatic resources.

Olson said it would be dangerous and irresponsible to base decisions solely on the assessment toolas the Senate bill proposessince it extrapolates the flow of rivers based on flows of similar rivers. Extrapolate is another word for fudge, he said.

Olson also said he has seen firsthand evidence of the failure of computer models trying to predict water flows. In the Kolke Creek case last summer, for example, the actual measurements of a river showed that DEQs web page estimates of river flows were overstated in a range of 200 to 2,000 percent. 

WATER BOTTLERS

Olson is less concerned about manufacturers and farmers because the water is normally drawn out of deeper wells, with less impact to the river flow. Water bottlers are a different story, especially those that are after spring water, which is extracted from the shallow aquifers of a rivers headwaters.

A 2006 law was a first step at re gulating water bottling issues. It requires a permit from water bottlers that pump 250,000 gallons or more a day. Not surprisingly, water bottlers have kept their new operations under that maximum since it was passed. The law says the pumping may not harm trout, but presumes no harm if wells are at least 150 feet deep and 1,320 feet from the nearest trout stream.

Under the 2006 law, Nestle acquired approval a year ago to pump in the headwaters of Twin and Chippewa Creeks just north of Evart. It would pump 216,000 gallons of spring water a day, the well is deeper than 150 feet, and its more than 1,320 feet from the nearest trout stream.

Olson isnt buying that the pumping is safe; the 70 million gallons taken from the creeks annually will leave the creeks upper reaches short on water and long on harm, he said.

The newly proposed Senate bill says that if a user already has registered to pump water and increases water usage by less than 100,000 gallons a day, they won t need to register with the state. It also converts the diversion of water in bottles to an export that is no longer subject to a current federal ban on diversions out of the Great Lakes. 

PUBLIC TRUST WATER

Environmentalists are seriously pushing to define groundwater as belonging to the public trust in the compromise bill, said Dr. Grenetta Thomassey, policy director at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. 
Right now, public trust extends to surface water only, she said. Public trust means there are certain common resources that are so precious, that no human has absolute ownership rights over themthe quality of air, the water we drink.

The state has the solemn duty to protect those interests for everybody. People cannot live without water. The water in our state belongs to everybody. There is private ownership and rights that come with water, but when its all said and done, theres a public interest that has to be in the mix. We firmly believe that should ha ppen. In this day and age, scientists and regular folks appreciate that surface and groundwater are hydrologically connected.

There are a lot of thoughtful people who are working toward a compromise and are really interested in the impacts, Dr. Thomassey said.

There seems to be an effort to make a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. But were really far apart right now.

WHY NOW? 

The proposed water withdrawal legislation is part and parcel of a proposed compact between the Great Lakes states, along with the premiers of Ontario and Quebec. The governors signed the final version of the Great Lakes Basin Compact in December 2005. Since that time, only Minnesota and Illinois have approved it. The Compact is under consideration in Michigan and the other states and the two provinces. If all states approve the Compact, it then goes to Congress for ratification as a compact under the federal constitution. The Michigan legislature will take up the adoption of th e compact next month.

If the compact is adopted by all the states and then by Congressand thats a big ifthere is no way another company, state or nation will be able to divert water outside the Great Lakes basin, unless it is bottled water or water in containers less than 5.7 gallons, or unless it is the Chicago River diversion, or a diversion to a neighboring community.

Basically, the compact bans bulk diversions, but not products which arguably could include unlimited exports of water in small containers.

Theres more involved than simply ratification, however. Each state must pass water conservation laws to show they arent wasting water, according to Brian Wilson, policy adviser for the state Senate majority policy office.

The challenge for Michigan is to pass a stringent water protection and conservation law at the time it approves the compact. If it doesnt, then Michigans legislature will have left the gates open for future attacks on the diversion ban and the greater likelihood of exports.

For a full explanation of the relationship of state water legislation to the Compact, see Jim Olsons piece on Navigating the Great Lakes Compact: Water, Public Trust, and International Trade Agreements, just published by Michigan State University Law Review. Download it at http://msulr.law.msu.edu/issue2006_5.html

HOW TO HELP, WHAT TO ASK FOR:

If youre interested in speaking out, here are the major concerns expressed by Great Lakes, Great Michigan, a coalition of environmental groups which supports the House bill. Ask that the final bill: 
- Regulates users who pump 100,000 gallons a day or more. 
- Uses the assessment tool as an initial screen, but require on-site inspection and actual flow measurements for large-scale withdrawals.
- Allows for local input and public participation on decisions involving large-scale withdrawals. 
- Considers how withdrawals will affect riverside owners and aquatic life on the rive r. 
- Defines groundwater as belonging to the public trust. 

Editors note: You can reach 
Senator Jason Allen at 1-866-525-5637, Rep. Howard Walker at 1-800-737-1046, Rep. Gary McDowell at 1-888-737-4279, and Senator Michelle McManus at 866-305-2135.


----------



## axisgear

If the big corporations and the lobbyists get their way,you may as well rotenone a third of these fine MI streams right now! 

- 42 percent, Betsie River
- 22 percent, Pere Marquette River
- 25 percent, Sturgeon River
- 22 and 16 percent, Au Sable River
- 22 percent, Manistee River
- 25 percent, Boardman River
- 16 percent, Pigeon River
- 25 percent, Jordan River 

Please,tell me WE can make a difference here! 

I have another idea!Tell them they can get their water from the Saginaw river,instead.


----------



## toto

I, for one, am totally against it, no matter where they get the water. I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, but I'll ask just one question. Who owns the water? If you say, "the state of Michigan" then the follow up question is who is the state of Michigan? If they allow this drilling, then the water companies should pay the citizens of Michigan a certain amount of money per citizen for the mineral rights. Thats what happens in Alaska for the oil, and frankly just what is considered minerals? I should think anything taken from the ground, and the people of Michigan need to be compensated for it.


----------



## stinger63

> third to half of the summer low flow of a trout stream could be withdrawn


This is BS also:rant:

I seen this happen down south where a community setup a well to draw water from a spring fed aquafier in one area.It impacted 3 different spring fed streams which were reduced to trickles or no flow during hot summer periods.


----------



## Steve

This is ridiculous. I wonder where the MUCC stands on this. I haven't heard anything out of them on this issue...?????


----------



## mondrella

I see this trend of selling off are water as a ever growing trend. Are State officials seem to be more interested in Dollars than protecting what we have in natural resources. If this is to continue it needs to be treated like a mineral (which it is) and all within the cone of depression gets thier cut. This is the only way to slow its growth IMHO at this time. Look at the lack of protection from federal goverment the great lakes get. It would put a huge dent in $$ generated by putting laws in effect to prevent the introduction of Exotic species. 
With the ever raising temps. With the cycle we are in right now Salmon and trout will be or could be in serious trouble in the future. There is little concern by our state goverment to do what is best. Its about jobs and $$$.
They speak of farmers irrigation using more water. That is true still a percentage of that water remains in the water shed not all of it shipped off to some far away place.


----------



## Whit1

This is just the tip of the iceberg in what will eventually become the "water wars". Take a look at basics first. Which political party seems to be more willing to divert water from our streams for private enterprise? Get this information......facts rather than conjecture.......and then vote accordingly as to what you think is right.

We need to stringently protect our watersheds and this means underground as well as surface.......IMO.


----------



## Steve

Again I ask, what is the MUCC's stand on this and if they don't have a stand why don't they?


----------



## Ranger Ray

Wonder how many against this withdrawal of water, drink bottled water? I only bring this up because I know a awful lot that fit this scenario. The best way to fight this crap is not buy it.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Steve, Individuals within MUCC staff support the Ice Mountain Company water withdrawal. They consider it much like water mining and jobs. I don't remember any specific present MUCC resolution for Nestle's benefit, but that will probably change with the next round of resolutions at June 2008 convention. Right now MUCC is playing coy with a weak bottle bill (phony public image) and a huge future loophole to benefit Nestle's Great Lakes water diversion 5.7Gal containers (@$4.50 ea).

It is no secret that MUCC Director Dennis Muchmore's wife (Debra Muchmore) is none other than the famous well paid spokesperson working for the Nestle Ice Mountain Company. MUCC says that is not conflict of interest, but then the Muchmore family is still building wealth supporting the 'free taking' of Michigan "Public Trust" ground waters.

I support Clean Water Michigan position in we need to first correct a glitch in the present legislation to bring ground waters into the same Michigan "Public Trust" protections as surface waters. A few corrupt Nestle legislators are fighting that to allow future Great Lakes water diversions and Nestle to steal public waters. Once that "Public Trust" legislation is corrected, then there will be separate discussion to treat ground water mining just like oil per barrel with royalties and taxable. Wars today are over oil. Wars tomorrow will be over limited fresh water resources interstate and global.


----------



## mondrella

Ranger Ray said:


> Wonder how many against this withdrawal of water, drink bottled water? I only bring this up because I know a awful lot that fit this scenario. The best way to fight this crap is not buy it.


I never buy bottled water. Why would I? Ice Mountains wells are 10 minutes from my house and I get better tasting water right from my tap. 
I will admit to buying my pop everyday which is just as bad. I have cut back greatly buying Orange juice and milk instead most of the time. 

Whit,
I agree totally with what you say. I even took the time to hand right letters to my state Reps. to voice my concern. More need to do the same thing and bombard them with letters and emails. We cannot sit back and wait.


----------



## Steelman

"I support Clean Water Michigan position in we need to first correct a glitch in the present legislation to bring ground waters into the same Michigan "Public Trust" protections as surface waters."

This is the part I left out of my letter to my representative. Thanks for that idea. 

I think these big companies are smelling blood here in Michigan, guessing that we are so far down we'd sell off the future health and prosperity of our state for short term gain. 

Protecting the public trust has worked in Michigan in the past. I went to Michigan State and the expansive land it sits on was granted under the Morrill Act. In many states all of the land was immediately sold off in disgraceful transactions that hurt the public. States like Missisippi could have used that land for education like Michigan did. But they didn't.

Thanks for keeping me informed.


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Group wants tougher water law 

http://www.mlive.com/news/chronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-13/1200066315207910.xml&coll=8

01/11/08 By Jeff Alexander [email protected]

Michigan's 2006 water withdrawal law needs to be strengthened to better protect groundwater and give local units of government a say in where corporations pump large quantities of water, environmentalists said Thursday. 

Two dozen members of the Great Lakes, Great Michigan Campaign came to Muskegon to show support for a series of Democrat-sponsored bills that would tighten water withdrawal regulations. They criticized a package of Republican-sponsored bills as too lenient. 

After holding a press conference in Hackley Park, the group delivered 600 petition signatures to the nearby office of state Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores. Van Woerkom is on a Senate committee considering changes to the existing water withdrawal law.

Environmentalists want the state to require permits for groundwater withdrawals over 100,000 gallons annually. They also want to ensure that the public and local units of government have a hand in determining whether water bottlers or other corporations receive permits to pump surface waters or groundwater. 

"As it stands now, local units of government basically have no input," said Jim Cordray, a Blue Lake Township planning commissioner. "When Nestle put in test wells last year in our township, the township board didn't hear about it for several months." 

Nestle Waters North America, which bottles Ice Mountain water in Stanwood, sampled spring water last June at the Owasippe Scout Reservation without informing local officials. 

The 2006 state law required companies to obtain a state permit only if pumping more than 250,000 gallons of water out of the ground annually. The law does not require public notices or hearings on large water withdrawals. 

Competing legislation backed by Senate Republicans would establish a scientific assessment tool as the primary method for determining whether a new water withdrawal would harm a stream or underground aquifer. 

Critics said the assessment tool focuses on how water withdrawals affect fish populations while ignoring other signs of ecological health. 

Van Woerkom said the assessment tool is based on "very conservative" scientific judgments, which err on the side of protecting streams. "I think they've done a very good job with the assessment tool," he said. 

Cyndi Roper, policy director of Clean Water Action's Michigan office, said the Senate legislation would allow corporations to reduce water flow by 22 percent in parts of the Pere Marquette, AuSable and Boardman rivers. It would allow stream flow to be reduced as much as 46 percent in parts of the Betsie River. 

Environmentalists also want groundwater specifically protected under Michigan's public trust doctrine, a legal principle that ensures state control of natural resources. Michigan's 1963 constitution afforded public trust doctrine protection to lakes and streams, but lawmakers at the time didn't know that groundwater and surface water are connected. 

Van Woerkom said some companies fear extending the public trust doctrine to groundwater could give the state ownership of the water and prevent some individuals and companies from using water beneath their land. 

"We're trying to find an appropriate compromise so we can protect the water of Michigan without preventing our residents and companies from having appropriate uses of that water," Van Woerkom said. 

Donald Roy, a Ferris State University professor who opposed Nestle's water bottling operation, said the oversight has made Michigan's abundant groundwater fair game for water bottlers. 

"The opposite of public trust protection is privatization," Roy said. "If we don't protect our water, it won't be there when we need it for sustainable business operations."


----------



## RoadKillCafe

Problem is you have to get unilateral agreement from all the great lakes states and Canada. Good luck with that. 

If anything, we need more power generating plants in Michigan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower electricity costs for businesses that want to come to Michigan. I don't know the stats on water usage, but I assume its better than bottling and shipping it out.


----------



## FlyFishingAttorney

What's the State Board of TU's position on this issue?


----------



## Hamilton Reef

RoadKillCafe said:


> Problem is you have to get unilateral agreement from all the great lakes states and Canada. Good luck with that.
> QUOTE]
> 
> FYI both MI House and Senate are ready to pass the Great Lakes compact, but a few senators like Gerry Van Woerkom bought off by Nestle are trying to keep the diversion loophole in place to privatize the "Public Trust" waters.


----------



## RoadKillCafe

Hamilton Reef said:


> RoadKillCafe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is you have to get unilateral agreement from all the great lakes states and Canada. Good luck with that.
> QUOTE]
> 
> FYI both MI House and Senate are ready to pass the Great Lakes compact, but a few senators like Gerry Van Woerkom bought off by Nestle are trying to keep the diversion loophole in place to privatize the "Public Trust" waters.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't Canada use a lot of Great Lakes water in some of their industries (I cant remember which ones). Seems to me a Great Lakes Compact is very important to save the Great Lakes (this is one area where Govt intervention is a good thing). If big industry had their way, the lakes would be polluted and we'd have a lot more shoreline due to reduced depth.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Nestle and MCWC in 2008 
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008
To: MCWC Members

MCWC notified Nestle's attorneys last week requesting mediation to prevent and minimize further harm to the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake, and the plaintiffs riparian rights, including the aesthetics and enjoyment of their property and the public's enjoyment of kayaking, canoeing, and fishing. At present, there is not enough water during low flow months for these purposes. 

Should mediation fail to address the issues with the present order, then MCWC will file a notice for hearing with the circuit court. MCWC will then enter into discovery, filing briefs, and a hearing sometime in late summer or early fall. 

MCWC appreciates your support and donations during the seven year battle with Nestle. Funding for MCWC is ongoing and we will be holding two fundraisers in May, a Texas Hold 'Em on May 23-26 and a garage sale on May 30. Volunteers are needed for both fund raisers. Please begin to save items for the garage sale and mark your calendars to set up and/or work on Friday May 29 and May 30.

It is estimated to go into mediation and/or return to Circuit Court will cost MCWC approximately $70,000.00. I am seeking grants to help with the cost of this undertaking to continue to rely on the expertise of MCWC's environmental experts and Jim Olson, environmental lawyer for MCWC. MCWC is asking for your help with individual donations. Please drop a check in the mail today so MCWC can continue to fight the David and Goliath fight. Mail to MCWC - P.O. Box 1 - Mecosta, MI 49332. 

The trial of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Water North America began in 2002. The trial judge from the Mecosta County Circuit Court ruled that Nestlés pumping and diversion was unlawful because it reduced flows and levels in the Dead Stream in Mecosta County  which ultimately flows to the Muskegon River and into Lake Michigan. The Court of Appeals also ruled that Nestles water removal was unlawful, but changed riparian landowner law to a balancing test that has opened the door for companies like Nestle to export water even where they have caused substantial harm if the company can show the benefits of export outweigh the harm. MCWC won in three courts. Judge Root's ruling on the harm was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court did not interfere with the Court of Appeals decision. Michigan courts have found Nestlés withdrawal illegal but it has not stopped Nestle from going after more water sources to exploit.

Nestlé presently takes about 400 to 500 gallons of spring water per minute from Mecosta and from two municipal wells in the City of Evart. Thats approximately one-quarter billion gallons a year. Nestle plans to mine 70 million gallons of spring water yearly from the headwaters of two trout streams in Osceola County - Twin Creek and Chippewa Creek. These two creeks are state-protected trout streams that flow into the Muskegon River. In these two trout streams, there is a variety of cold and cool-water fish; brook and brown trout are the most abundant. Nestle petitioned the MDEQ and the DEQ says the proposed withdrawal of spring water in Osceola County is not likely to cause an adverse resource impact. MDEQ's determination implies agreement with Nestles argument that there is surplus water in Michigan trout streams and other water bodies that can be taken without harm to the ecology of the resource.

Because of the questions, concerns, and environmental impact these withdrawals have, MCWC is asking for donations to continue to counterattack findings from Nestle's experts.

Thank you for your support.

Terry Swier
President Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
[email protected] 231-972-8856


----------



## Hamilton Reef

The public notice documents, including the draft permit, for the proposed issuance of NPDES Permit No. MI0058486 to Nestle Waters North America for the Nestle Waters North America, Ice Mountain Spring Water, Stanwood Bottling Plant are available via the Internet at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/owis/ - click on Permits on Public Notice. If you have any questions regarding this Public Notice, please contact me at [email protected] or by telephone at 517-335-4188.

FROM:
Jeff Fischer
Permits Section, Water Bureau
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality


----------



## 22 Chuck

No one seems to care about all the oil used in the bottle making-or all the bottles thrown along the high/byways.

Whatever happened to adding water bottles to the 10 cent system?? Legislators must have not had time to consider as they we 'working on the budget.'


----------



## Hamilton Reef

CL-Lewiston said:


> No one seems to care about all the oil used in the bottle making-or all the bottles thrown along the high/byways. Whatever happened to adding water bottles to the 10 cent system?


Patricia Birkholz Republican 24th Senate District and Jerry Van Woerkom Republican 34th Senate District are complete bought off corruption for the Nestle Company and are sabotaging all attempts to protect the "Public Trust" of state ground waters and Great Lakes waters. They are the Republican leaders working together with Debra Muchmore spokesperson for Nestle Company. They will also not allow any meaningful deposits on water containers including the $4.50 deposits on the 5.7G containers that are designed to be the loophole for diverting the Great Lakes to the rest of the country. That is why the Muchmores are supporting the most corrupt supreme court judge Clift Taylor that screwed Michigan ground waters on behalf of Nestle Company.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Here is MUCC's official position -- and this is an abbreviated version. Obviously, this issue is not nearly as simple as some on the outside looking in might make it seem. MUCC has been at the table since the beginning of these discussions and these bills would create far and away the most stringent and restrictive groundwater regulations in the nation. Remember, we have no groundwater withdrawal regulation now. We can hope that the legislature will pass a package with zero resource impact or we can make certain that this package of bills - which again provides unequaled protection of fisheries -- is passed and not allow weaker legislation to be created, or worse yet, continue to have unregulated withdrawals. MUCC is choosing to be proactive and working to ensure results and protection of our fishery and water resources.

The full report will be available on MUCC's website, www.mucc.org, on Monday. 

*MUCCs Position on the Groundwater Protection Bills*​ ​ *Background*: Michigan is a water-rich state. Our waters give us both a significant natural resource and an economic advantage. For hundreds of years, people have withdrawn from surface and ground water without understanding the impact that withdrawals will have on Michigans fishery or other water-dependent natural resources. Fortunately, even with business, industry, power companies, farmers and others withdrawing from ground and surface waters, we still have a world-class fishery with naturally reproducing brook trout, brown trout, and salmon -- a true rarity in this country. 

The groundwater protection bills (bills) currently before the legislature are the end result of more than *six years *of work by the legislature and various water stakeholders, including MUCC. These workgroups produced over ten new public acts related to water use regulation and are built upon the knowledge and experience gained in prior years. 

*Current regulation over groundwater withdrawals*: The current law which regulates the removal of ground or surface water provides minimal protection to fish and other water-dependent natural resources and is enforceable only through court decisions Common law regulates ground and surface water by protecting the navigability of streams and allows for courts to determine the _reasonable use_ of ground and surface waters in disputes between water users. 

The current law provides that a person may not withdrawal groundwater from a lake, river or stream if it will cause an _adverse resource impact_. An _adverse resource impact_ is defined as decreasing the flow of the stream by part of the average flow such that the streams ability to support characteristic fish populations is functionally impaired (The law does not provide a standard for measuring functional impairment). The law assumes that a withdrawal does *not *cause an adverse resource impact if the location of the well is 1.4 miles from a lake, river or stream or if the well depth is greater than 150 feet. In order to prevent withdrawals, the state must prove beyond a _preponderance of evidence_ that the withdrawal is causing an adverse resource impact. If the well is less than 150 feet or less than 1.4 miles from a lake, river or stream, than the person making the withdrawal must prove that they are not causing an adverse resource impact if they are challenged in court. 

All withdrawals must be registered if they are either new, are in excess of 100,000 gallons a day, or if they constitute an increase of more than 100,000 gpd over baseline capacity. Baseline capacity was required to be reported to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) by April 1, 2007. 

Any person who makes a new or increased withdrawal over two million gpd from the waters of the state (except the Great Lakes) must obtain a water withdrawal permit prior to making the withdrawal. Any person who makes a new or increased withdrawal of more than five million gallon a day from the _Great Lakes_ is also required to obtain a permit prior to making the withdrawal. 

*Proposed Water Protection Legislation: *The Senate and House Bills are identical in most areas, including, but certainly not limited to the following:


The Senate and House bills establish a regulatory standard which provides that nobody may create an _adverse resource impact_ from the removal of groundwater. These bills are *identical *in what they determine is an _adverse resource impact_ on cold small rivers, transitional streams, transitional small rivers, transitional rivers, cool streams, cool small rivers, cool rivers, warm streams, warm small rivers and warm rivers. 
The Senate and House Bills prohibit more than 25% of the index flow of a stream, or river to be removed, whether or not an _adverse resource impact_ is occurring. Again, this is roughly twice as protective as the Councils recommendation based strictly on fish data: it is sensitive to uncertainties in the fish models and also to other social values of rivers and is therefore quite protective. The index flow of the stream is the _aggregate flow_ for a water body on its lowest flow month. It is *not* 25% of the flow of a river. 
Both bills do not allow opportunities to mitigate an adverse resource impact. A person can take measures, however, to increase the flow to a stream to ensure their withdrawal does not cause an adverse resource impact. 
To determine whether such an impact will occur, all new or expanded uses must submit information through the _groundwater assessment tool_. This tool aggregates water flows from 8,000 river segments across the state and applies models that predict the impact a removal of the flow would have on characteristic and thriving fish populations. These models have been peer-reviewed and are also accepted for fish management purposes.
 
Both bills require a site-specific review to determine when a withdrawal falls into zone where water supplies are identified by the water assessment tool as being more limited or when it shows that the water withdrawal could cause an adverse resource impact. And for trout streams, this tool is especially sensitive - withdrawals enter this zone more easily, providing extra protection.
Both bills provide even more protections for the most thermally-sensitive trout streams -the cold-transitional category. A small withdrawal of groundwater can change the nature of the stream. Recognizing that these are the most sensitive streams needing the most protection, both the House and Senate set very strict limits on the amount of flow that can be taken from a stream or river.
Each chamber has passed a bill that would adopt the Great Lakes St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.
 *Major differences between the House and Senate Bills:*

Evaluation of the _Water Assessment Tool_: The House removed language from the Senate bill that would have created an effective 1 year evaluation period for the water use assessment process. House Bill 5065 requires MDEQ to utilize the water use assessment process and the adverse resource impact definitions prior to having the water use assessment tool available for public review. *MUCC believes that the public should have an opportunity to review the water assessment tool. It is a major change in state policy and should have a period for testing before taking effect. *
 
Adverse Resource Impact of Cold Water Streams: The Senate defines _adverse resource impact_ for cold water streams at a reduction in thriving fish population of 3%. The House defines adverse resource impact at 1%. *MUCC would support moving to 1% adverse resource impact for cold water streams. MUCC also recognizes that scientific research shows a negligible difference on the impact of a fishery between the House and Senate legislation. This recommendation seems surprising but a detailed, long-term study conducted by Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) at the Hunt Creek Research Station (available here) showed that removal of up to 90% of the summer flow could not demonstrate an impact to the trout population. However, **Michigan**s cold water rivers are like to other in the world and deserve additional protection.*
 
Permits: The House bills include provisions that would require a large quantity withdrawal within zone C to apply for a permit if the use would reduce the flow of a cold small river by 14%, a cool river or warm river system by 20% or more of its index flow (these reductions could still be permitted up to 25% of the index flow of the river). The Senate bills require permit applications at 2 mgd. *The House is requiring permits for withdrawals that are not causing an adverse resource impact. Recognizing the limited resources, both financial and staff, MUCC questions whether these permits add any value when both bills prohibit a person from causing an adverse resource impact from their water withdrawal. *
 
Aggregate Exemption: The House bills exempt aggregate companies from requirements of the bill. *MUCC does not support this provision. We do not believe that any business sector should be able to create an adverse resource impact on **Michigan**s fishery. *
 
Public Trust: The House requires the MDEQ to apply the public trust doctrine to the groundwater withdrawal. The public trust doctrine is found in common law and very generally protects the publics rights to access the shore for fishing and navigability purposes. Michigan courts have not extended the public trust doctrine to groundwater. Doing so would have implications for property rights which are better determined by the courts. *MUCC does not support the current language in the House bill. MUCC would support MDEQ for considering whether the proposed withdrawal impairs or diminishes the public trust in connected surface waters.*
 *MUCCs position*: MUCC believes in the collaborative policy process represented by the work of the Council and numerous Senate workgroups, and supports the recommendations that have emerged from these informed and earnest processes. We believe that these recommendations represent a social balance that includes strong consideration of natural resource values and uses. Because of our participation, the Senate bills have strong natural resource safeguards that are supported by sound science. It is not about opening the spigot or creating a dead fish policy; it is about creating a resource-focused policy that recognizes that water is also critical to our public health, our economy and our quality of life. MUCC believes that the Senate Bills protect the states fishery resources and are significantly better than the status quo. While MUCC supports many of the provisions of the House package of bills, we have not taken a position on the House package of bills, partially because the House has had no similar collaborative workgroup sessions.


----------



## itchn2fish

Thanks, Tony


----------



## Hamilton Reef

Yea thanks Tony, John Engler would be proud of the Senate Republican spin to screw the Great Lakes and Michigan's resources. Great job.


----------



## Westlakedrive

:lol:
I agree the house bill in more stringent and a better plan overall.
I think that it gives more power to the people so to speak and has more of a do whats right for the people of michigan feel to it.


----------



## itchn2fish

Holly Hughes was re-elected to a second term as RNC National Committeewoman. This year, Holly is running in one of our most competitive state legislative races. Her victory will be a big step towards regaining our House Republican Majority.


----------



## MOODMagazine

Hamilton,

I'm curious, what would be your better plan? And we're talking about a plan that can be voted on, passed and implemented that will create standards more stringent than any in the nation. We aren't talking about a plan that will be debated until it dies in committee and we continue to have unregulated withdrawals. So what's your plan?


----------

