|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
March 9, 2005Michigan's fresh water remains on the marketNestle Waters North America hopes to strike a deal soon with Evart to buy water from one of the city's three spring-fed wells to transport to its Mecosta County bottling plant 40 miles away.The plant south of Big Rapids is restricted to drawing from its own wells a monthly average of 250 gallons a minute because of a 2003 ruling in a lawsuit filed by Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation. The environmental group argued that Nestle's high-capacity wells were harming nearby wetlands and a stream. A judge ordered Nestle to stop extracting up to a half-million gallons of water daily but the company won a reprieve, and the case remains under appeal. So far, there's little opposition to the Evart proposal. It's a good bargain for Nestle, which has checked out other potential spring water sources in northern Michigan - including Emmet County - since the Mecosta court ruling. This issue goes far beyond Evart. It spotlights a gaping hole in Michigan's water protection laws - a hole that could create a massive leak in the Great Lakes. The state has no regulatory framework for controlling exports of groundwater from the Great Lakes basin. The state and the Great Lakes basin could pay the price in years to come if Michigan doesn't do all it can to protect the Lakes from diversions now. Our governor, attorney general, legislators and environmental agencies must quit waffling. The federal Water Resources Development Act prohibits export of Great Lakes waters without agreement of the governors of the eight Great Lakes states. They should invoke it so that all the ramifications of the Evart-Nestle proposal can be studied. If they don't, the public must demand that they do. Here's why: - There is precedent. In 2001, then-Gov. John Engler used the federal law successfully when a city in New York advertised its water for sale. The city withdrew its plan. - Under the existing Great Lakes Charter agreement between the eight bordering states, bottled water probably would be considered a diversion. A proposed annex to that agreement, however, says that bottles of water smaller than 5.6 gallons are not a diversion. Would that make Great Lakes water a commodity, subject to interstate commerce laws? Could companies wanting larger quantities successfully argue discrimination? - The Evart deal could set a legal precedent that would allow municipalities to use publicly-funded water systems to sell water for a private purpose. - Does the Evart deal violate the state's constitution, which forbids the lending of state credit for private purposes? Water systems are publicly funded through taxes and bonds. Rates are based on nonprofit principles. There are so many questions that require answers. The Great Lakes basin is at risk. It's time for state officials and agencies to be leaders, not sheep.
|
|
