07/26/2007

Court limits environmental law

LANSING (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on a long-standing state law that allows Michigan citizens to sue over drilling, dredging and development they think would hurt the state's environment.

The ruling came in a case involving a multinational company's right to take groundwater for its Ice Mountain bottling plant in Mecosta County. Local residents had sued Greenwich, Conn.-based Nestlé Waters North America and its bottled-water operation in 2001 over potential damages to nearby waterways.

In its 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Court of Appeals decisions that said the residents had the legal standing to sue the company over how its water withdrawals might affect the Dead Stream and Thompson Lake.

But it disagreed with the lower court's ruling that the residents also had the legal standing to sue over a nearby lake — Osprey Lake Impoundment — and three wetlands, saying residents didn't prove they used those areas.

Justice Marilyn Kelly criticized the majority's decision, writing in her dissent that "it extinguishes a valid cause of action for no reason other than its belief that the cause of action granted by the Legislature is too broad.”

A Nestlé spokeswoman said the court simply was being consistent with an earlier ruling that limited the law's scope.

But David Holtz, director of Clean Water Action Michigan, said the court's ruling makes it even more important to pass legislation protecting Michigan's waters. A package of bills was introduced this week in the state House to strengthen a permit system for water withdrawals.

"Four justices have cast their vote in favor of big business and against citizens, local governments and communities,” Holtz said in a release. "Michigan's future is much more at risk today because of the court's attack on Michigan's constitutionally protected natural resources.”

A request for comment was left Wednesday with a lawyer for Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, which brought the case.

In their majority opinion, Justices Robert Young, Clifford Taylor, Maura Corrigan and Stephen Markman said citizens can claim an environmental injury only when they can show that someone's actions would directly affect their recreational, aesthetic or economic interests.

The opinion also threw out the Court of Appeals finding that many of the streams, lakes and wetlands in the area where Nestlé is operating are joined by an inextricable, hydrological link.