BY REBEKAH WARREN
June 17, 2008 12:00 am Michigan is blessed to have an international treasure in its back yard -- the Great Lakes and 11,000-plus inland waters. The Michigan Legislature is about to enact stronger protections for this amazing resource, but several remaining differences between the chambers' packages -- public trust language, coldwater protections and permitting thresholds -- must be resolved before these bills take effect. Gov. William Milliken recently wrote, "The public trust is the common heritage of humankind -- especially the waters that we share and which are so vital to our history and future." My colleagues and I in the House agree with Gov. Milliken and feel it is imperative to articulate that groundwater is held in trust by the state on behalf of its citizens -- essentially, that it cannot be owned by any individual or company. This is especially important as we consider a future in which water shortages are more common and international trade laws treat water more as a commodity than a natural resource. Home to Michigan's most sensitive fish populations, our world-renowned coldwater streams need special protections. I propose we prohibit withdrawals that would cause a 1 percent or more reduction to a stream's fish population. The Senate allows larger reductions, up to 3 percent loss. While the difference may seem insignificant, the impacts can be devastating. Slight changes in flow or temperature can disrupt entire stream ecosystems, crippling local economies that rely on fishing tourism. Michigan has abundant water, but we must treat it as the valuable resource it is. Reasonable permitting thresholds for new water withdrawals must ensure responsible use. The Senate's 2 million gallon-per-day blanket threshold would so rarely be triggered it can barely be considered protective. We propose that when a new use would reduce stream or river flow by a significant portion (14 to 20 percent depending on the type of water system), that proposal undergoes additional scrutiny to prevent negative impacts to other users. Assertions that this approach would cause job losses or economic destruction are baseless. Minnesota enforces a 10,000 gallon-per-day threshold and enjoys a thriving economy. Economic success and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. Let's carefully consider policies that compromise natural resources. My colleagues and I on the Great Lakes and Environment Committee developed a package based on respected scientific research. It includes landmark technology to streamline approvals by enabling new users to independently forecast adverse impacts. We also heard testimony from scientists like Dr. Bryan Burroughs, a fisheries expert from Trout Unlimited: "A proposed limit of 1 percent reduction in thriving fish abundance in coldwaters still equates to 15 percent to 22 percent of summer low-flow water volume available for removal ... removing this 'surplus' water will remove the streams' resilience to warming factors, and will push healthy cold waters to the edge of being able to support coldwater fish." Protecting our water is critical to our future, and I hope all Michiganders -- elected leaders included -- will come together to give it the protection it deserves. About the author: Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, represents the 53rd House District and chairs the Great Lakes and Environment Committee. About the forum: The forum is a periodic column of opinion written by Record-Eagle readers in their areas of interest or expertise. Submissions of 500 words or less may be made by e-mailing letters@record-eagle.com. Please include biographical information and a photo.
—
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
