Protect our cold water trout fisheries!

The Michigan Legislature is currently considering legislation (HB 4343) that will protect water diversions out of the Great Lakes by implementing the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact.  HB 4343 needs the support of our members!

Unfortunately, the State Senate also is considering legislation that will benefit large companies that want to withdraw groundwater in this State – at the expense of cold water fisheries.  Senate Bills 858, 859 and 860 were purposely designed to eliminate the public’s involvement in decisions regarding large-scale water withdrawals. 

They do this by relying on something similar to an ATM machine to make decisions about impacts a given withdrawal would have on cold water fisheries.  Under these bills, a company that is interested in withdrawing between 100,000 and less than 2 million gpd would be required to register with the DEQ and use a new computer program ("assessment tool").  The intended user will input some information into the computer and the computer will determine if a proposed withdrawal will result in an "adverse impact" and whether the withdrawal falls in a Zo

 ne A, B, C or D category.  If the computer categorizes a withdrawal as falling in category Zone A or B, the intended user can begin making the withdrawal right away without any hydrologic studies or review by DEQ personnel. The assessment tool has never been used before and it is acknowledged that more information is needed and there is uncertainty as to whether the model can accurately predict impacts to a stream and fish populations. 

One of PHY's main concerns with the Senate legislation is that, unlike many other Michigan environmental statutes, it does not provide any significant opportunity for the public comment on a proposed withdrawal that is either 100,000 to 2 million gpd or greater than 2 million gpd prior to it being allowed. Applications for a permit to withdraw groundwater in excess of 2 million gpd can be contested by an "aggrieved person," such a hearing can be requested only AFTER the withdrawal has been allowed and the hearing process is fairly complex.  No such hearing is allowed for withdrawals when the assessment tool is used.

Another concern is the way the Senate Bill defines what constitutes an "adverse resource impact." An adverse resource impact is defined as decreasing the flow of a stream by part of the index flow which results in: (1) a 5% or more reduction in thriving fish for a cold water stream; (2) a 10% or more reduction in thriving fish for a cold transitional stream; or (3) a 20% or more reduction in thriving fish for a warm water stream. Theoretically, as currently written, a third to half of the flow of a trout stream could be withdrawn without meeting the definition of an “adverse resource impact.” For example, for the Betsie and Pere Marquette Rivers, 42% and 22% reduction in flows respectively would be permissible.  It is PHY's position that there should be a 0% impact to thriving species in cold water or cold transitional streams. 

Also, in many places throughout the Senate legislation, the DEQ must rely on a "clear and convincing scientific evidence" standard to show that there is an adverse resource impact.  On the other hand, withdrawers using the assessment tool for a proposed withdrawal get a presumption of no adverse impact and only have to show that the water withdrawal is not LIKELY to cause an adverse resource impact.  If the DEQ, must show clear and convincing evidence, the regulated community must show clear and convincing evidence that the withdrawal will NOT cause an impact.

Save our cold water fisheries.  Contact your State Legislators TODAY. Tell them that you want them to vote AGAINST Senate Bills 858, 859 and 860, as currently written! 

Instead, urge them to support House Bills 5065-5073.  These bills require public input prior to allowing large groundwater withdrawals and do not rely on a computer to make decisions like an ATM machine! 

Please feel free to use the form letters below for your letters and emails. 

Go to this website link to find who your Representative is and to contact him/her:  http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

Go to this website link to find who your Senator is and to contact him/her:  http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm


SAMPLE LETTER

"Dear [Representative/Senator]:

As one of your constituents, I urge you to vote against Senate Bills 858, 859 and 860.  I object to these bills because they do not allow local public involvement in the permitting process, place the permitting process in the hands of the regulated community and rely on an untested computer model that allows groundwater withdrawals to reduce trout populations. 

As this package of bills is currently written, permitting water withdrawals will be operated like an ATM machine.  A company or other entity that is interested in withdrawing large volumes of groundwater will input information IT generated into an untested computer model that will print out a "permit" that allows the company to proceed with the withdrawal - without any public involvement.  Using the computer model, a third to half of the flow of a trout stream could be withdrawn without meeting the definition of an “adverse resource impact.” For example, for the Betsie and Pere Marquette Rivers, 42% and 22% reduction in flows respectively would be permissible.

Moreover, the withdrawals will be PRESUMED not to cause an adverse resource impact - even though the withdrawal may be seriously affecting trout populations. This is unacceptable!

Instead, I urge you to support House Bills 5065-5073 (and their Senate versions).  These bills require public input prior to allowing large groundwater withdrawals, will be based on sound scientific opinion rather than assumptions, and do not allow companies to use Michigan as an ATM machine for water withdrawals.

Respectfully,

[Your name here]"