Michigan Water Use Legislation
April 14, 2008 10:00 PM Filed in: Lake St.
Clair |
Great
Lakes
Hello, Metro West members.
The status of the proposed water use legislation is that it is currently being debated in Lansing. Your legislators need to hear from steelhead/salmon fishermen and cottage owners right now.
This weekend and next week is VERY IMPORTANT timing to send your comments to your legislators. Indications are that the legislature will try to wrap up the deliberations and try to arrive at a consensus on the legislation in the next two weeks.
If you want steelhead and salmon out in the Great Lakes, it's time to speak up for the rivers and streams where they grow up as juveniles and return to spawn.
As you may know, the House and the Senate bills are very different in how they would implement the new set of rules and regulations over groundwater withdrawals in the state. The Senate version is very unfriendly to rivers and streams, and that includes the river stretches that support the spring and fall spawning runs of steelhead & salmon. Missing from these deliberations is the voice for "Water in its Place." That is, the importance of Michigan's water to stay where it is now...in its streams, lakes, and wetlands...for the multi-billion dollars of recreation, tourism and property values that make Michigan the unique state that it is.
The big water user pushing for the excessive limits of water use is the Farm Bureau. No, agricultural irrigation water does not all trickle back down to the aquifers. A significant amount of that water is taken up by crops. Whether it's in a pound of cherries, a sack of potatoes, or a gallon of ethanol, increased agricultural uses can mean lots of water leaving the state in finished agricultural products.
The critical period where groundwater withdrawals can most impact salmon/trout populations is in the warm, low flow summer months. The Senate version of this legislation would allow up to 25% of summer flows to be withdrawn...without any permitting process or any public input...and acknowledges that this would reduce trout populations. Making matters worse, this is mean monthly flow...meaning no restrictions on what might happen on any given day or days during the month. All current users/usages would be grandfathered...including all the lake-level control structures that affect streamflows in the Muskegon, the Platte, the Huron, the Clinton, and many more.
The "Groundwater Assessment Tool" is a great start at modern-day water management in Michigan. But, it's unproven science, and it is incomplete. It is based on an inventory of 11,000 stream segment types in the state. Yet, there are only 230 USGS streamflow gages operating in the state. If the summertime flow of water on a trout stream is signficantly reduced
by withdrawals in years to come, how will you or I or some other angler prove that it is excessive?
Have you fished a Michigan river in July, August, or September? If not, you have no idea how low these streams get...now, before any new rules. It is unimaginable to me that our state would enact water legislation that says it's ok to reduce stream flows by 25% in the summer months. Fish need habitat 100% of the time, not 99% of the time.
Will all of these dire things happen to the state's trout streams? We don't know. What we do know is that the Senate version of the legislation would provide no means for any member of the public (individuals, groups, property owners) to contest a proposed large-scale groundwater withdrawal. What we do know is that the package of laws being developed now will determine
how groundwater is used in Michigan for decades to come. All the circumstances argue to go slow and cautious as this gets implemented for the first time.
There are just too many unknowns to the consequences of such a far-reaching new set of regulations like this, to be comfortable with being so aggressive right out of the box. A lot of the good trout/salmon rivers will be unaffected...AuSable, Manistee, Pere Marquette. But, others could be really impacted because of where the are in the state and/or their unique
characteristics: The Muskegon and the smaller rivers in SW Michigan come to mind.
Below is my mid-March message on this issue. Its attachment is included on this message as well.
Let me know if you have any questions or need more information on this. If you need help figuring out who your legislators are (both Senate and House are important here), start with www.vote-smart.org and type in your zip code. Or, email me.
All you really have to say is that you are in favor of strong protection for Michigan's salmon/troutstreams, that you support the House version of the proposed legislation, and that you are opposed to the Senate version. Anything additional would just be icing on the cake.
Dan Keifer
Metro West Steelheaders Club
and Clinton River Watershed Council
Click here for the mid-March message