Published: March 13, 2009 08:00 pm      

Op-Ed: Wetlands flung into Fed swamp?

Yet another threat looms to landmark environmental protection legislation Michigan enacted decades ago to raves beyond our borders.

The latest threat is that Gov. Jennifer Granholm wants to abolish Michigan's 1979 Wetland Protection Act and transfer wetland conservation permitting and enforcement to the federal government.

The proposal is "foolish and destructive," says Dave Dempsey, environmental adviser to 1983-90 Democratic Gov. James J. Blanchard; former policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council; and a member of Granholm's 2002 transition team. "Improvements to the state's program are always possible, but ending it is a monumental mistake."

Indeed it is.

Upon reading those Dempsey comments in a letter to the Charlevoix-based North Woods Call, I called him in Minnesota, where he is communications director for Conservation Minnesota while remaining active in Michigan environmental issues.

Among Dempsey's several superb books is "Ruin and Recovery: Michigan's Rise as a Conservation Leader." So I asked: "Is Michigan still rising, or falling?" He said: "Michigan has stumbled into the woods and can't find its way out" -- and lacks strong conservation leadership.

But he is encouraged by the environmental credentials of some legislators, including such new members as Rep. Dan Scripps, R-Leland.

Granholm, as part of her State of the State Address emphasis on the need to cut state spending, recommended "returning enforcement of wetlands protections to the federal government where more staff exists to effectively safeguard our natural resources."

But Bill Murphy, of the Michigan Resource Stewards, a group of retired conservation professionals who bring considerable wisdom to contemporary issues, wrote in the North Woods Call:

"Those of us who are familiar with the day-to-day realities of the ability of federal agencies to manage programs such as this know that the end result will unquestionably be a reduction in wetlands protection, a much longer timetable for permit processing, and the end of the ability for Michigan residents to contact a local official with whom they can meet to resolve issues or obtain answers to complex questions."

There is this from 1969-82 Republican Gov. William G. Milliken, the MEPA champion who signed the wetland act into law in 1979:

"This law, 30 years after its passage, remains a national model. Federal agencies simply do not have the authority nor the funding to administer adequately the protection of Michigan wetlands. Repeal of the law would be a huge setback to this and future generations."

Granholm, like Milliken and other governors before her, must cut to balance the books and will face criticism with each cut. This one is estimated to save about $2 million.

The Michigan Resource Stewards contend the result will be "a negative impact on economic development initiatives ... the loss of which will cost far more than any short-term savings gained by its elimination."

This is not just environmentalist bleating. There also are concerns in the business community that putting wetland regulation under federal jurisdiction would lead to further delays in getting permits.

Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City, chairman of the Senate Commerce and Tourism Committee, said he has been hearing increasing concerns on this point. He said, "It's potentially a real problem."

It was a stunning setback in 2007 when the so-called Engler Majority of Four on the seven-member Michigan Supreme Court dismantled the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA). It did so in a 4-3 vote to reverse a Court of Appeals ruling that had given standing in a dispute with the Nestle Waters Ice Mountain bottling operation in Mecosta County to certain citizens under MEPA.

The fifth Republican on the court, Betty Weaver, called it "a tragic day for Michigan" and dissented from the decision "because the Michigan Constitution does not restrict the ability of the Legislature to grant standing to the citizens of the state-- "even if they are not directly impacted by an event.

There could be good news on this front. Traverse City attorney Jim Olson, who represents Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation in its ongoing Mecosta battle, says there are at least two other out-of-state cases with standing issues that may reach the Supreme Court.

It's a good bet that the high court, which now has three Democrats, would rule 4-3 to restore original rights of citizens to file challenges under MEAP.

Soo locks

Last week, Allen held a hearing on the shipping locks at Sault Ste. Marie and introduced a resolution urging Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "to fund fully" the building of a new lock.

The Lake Carriers Association said that if the 40-year-old Poe Lock were to become unusable, 70 percent of the current cargo would not be able to pass through the locks.

The budget signed last week by President Barack Obama included a $17 million earmark requested by Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Menominee, for work on a new lock.

Although Allen called it "a good step," his resolution urges full funding for the $480 million project that was first authorized in 1986.

"A new Poe-sized lock is shovel-ready and would generate thousands of needed jobs and nearly $500 million in economic activity," he said.

George Weeks retired in 2006 after 22 years as political columnist for The Detroit News. His weekly Michigan Politics column is syndicated by Superior Features.