Tag: For Love of Water

A Young Organizer Raises Awareness with a June 3 “Floatila” in Traverse City

Published on April 5th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Young people are changing the world.

More evidence is an effort by a young Elk Rapids advocate, Zander Cabinaw, to help organize a June 3 event promoting awareness of aquatic invasive species prevention in the Great Lakes.

Hundreds of canoeists, kayakers, paddleboarders and more will turn out for the event at the beach of Traverse City State Park at 2 p.m. on June 3. FLOW will join other organizations there to support the educational effort.

We asked Zander, 14, an eighth-grader at Cherryland Middle School, to tell us about the event.

Where did the idea come from?

My science teacher, Mr. Morris, came to me with the idea of helping him and his non-profit (Stand Up For Great Lakes) for my school community project. I was honored he asked me, eager to help him, and wanted to make it something everyone would enjoy but also educational.

What do you hope to accomplish?

I hope to teach as many people as possible about how to protect the Great Lakes and all waterways. One way I’m doing this is by teaching people how to properly clean their canoes, kayaks, stand up paddle boards, etc., as well as inform them of the “why”, importance of it. I’m also excited to have people from different areas of the community who are knowledgeable about environmental and boater safety present to help educate in other ways.

What kind of response are you getting?

So far people have been really supportive and helping as much as they can. It seems like every person I tell about it either has an idea or can help in one way or another. My mom says it’s heartwarming to have so much support from the community.

What can interested people do?

People can help by telling their friends about the event, showing up to participate in the event, or they can help by setting up an educational booth.

Please go to the Facebook event page for more information.

FLOW Statement on MDEQ Approval of Nestlé Water Extraction Permit

Published on April 4th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

The MDEQ and the Snyder Administration have failed (again) to fulfill their public trust responsibilities as defenders of our waters.

While we are continuing to analyze the state permit and accompanying documentation, and will have a comprehensive response in the near future, some things are clear. The DEQ issued Nestlé a permit to pump up to 400 gallons per minute, or 576,000 gallons per day, on the condition that Nestlé submit a monitoring plan and hydrogeologic measurements on flows and levels and agree to reduce pumping to 250 gallons per minute when the measurements show adverse effects.

The DEQ is going to issue the permit now and wait to make the determination of harm later. This is not a “reasonable basis for a determination” of effects before the permit was issued, which was what the law required.

We’re disappointed that the MDEQ not only ignored the clear opposition of tens of thousands of Michigan citizens who have opposed this giveaway of publicly-owned water, but also ignored serious deficiencies in Nestlé’s application.

Michigan went down the wrong path a decade ago when it approved a law treating private capture of water and sale for profit as just another water withdrawal. It is not. Commercialization of public water is a betrayal of the public trust.

Violation of the Public Trust: The Time Is Now for Decisive Court Action to Stop the Destruction of Lake Erie from Harmful Algal Blooms

Published on April 3rd, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Public Trust Tuesday

FLOW’s organizing principle is the public trust doctrine. What sounds like an exotic concept is quite simple. This centuries-old principle of common law holds that there are some resources, like water and submerged lands that by their nature cannot be privately owned. Rather, these commons – including the Great Lakes — belongs to the public. And governments, like the State of Michigan, have a responsibility to protect public uses of these resources. We explicitly address public trust concerns on what we’re calling Public Trust Tuesday.

Last week, the Ohio EPA designated a thousand square miles of toxic green algae that spreads over the western end of Lake Erie in summer months “impaired.” This sudden reversal came after Ohio EPA filed a report under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Epiphany? No, that opportunity ended with Lent. So why did Ohio’s EPA and Ohio Governor John Kasich finally come around? A metanoia that allowed them to drop the years of delay on requiring any action by corporate agriculture, allowing them to address phosphorous reduction from runoff and climate change-influenced weather on their own time.

Why did they change their minds? Because nature doesn’t wait. But that’s only part of it: Lake Erie fishing, boating, swimming, beaches and tourism have been severely damaged since the western third of Lake Erie turned into a green mat of algae in the summer of 2011. If that wasn’t enough, in 2014 toxic algae shut down the public drinking water supply of 400,000 people in Toledo, and another 100,000 up the coast all the way to Monroe, Michigan. Now the shadowy green mat of harmful algae is as much an annual event as the corn crop production in the Ohio, Indiana and Michigan river valleys that causes it.

In 2014, the international Joint Commission (“IJC”) urged a 40 percent reduction of phosphorous levels in Lake Erie within four years; states like Ohio picked this target up but gave it lip service by moving the target back to 2025. Nothing has been done to set a target to prevent impairment or destruction from algal blooms. Professor Don Scavia at University of Michigan has warned that prolonged delay in achieving limits will be offset by increased global warming and extreme weather events caused by climate change.

ELPC Lawsuit for Government’s Violation of the Clean Water Act

So, what else caused Ohio EPA to change its mind? The United States EPA and Ohio EPA were about to get slapped hard by a federal court for failing to designate the waters of western Lake Erie as “impaired waters” in violation of the federal CWA. The Environmental Law and Policy Center (“ELPC”) out of Chicago and a team of lawyers filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court on behalf of Toledo and Advocates for a Clean Lake Erie to reverse the federal government and Ohio’s denial of reality, ELPC’s lawyers recently argued the case before Judge Larry Carr in Toledo. In a move to avoid penalties and embarrassment by an adverse ruling in May, U.S. EPA changed its acceptance of Ohio’s “non-impairment” designation and ordered the state EPA to reconsider. Last week, Governor Kasich announced that Ohio’s EPA has designated the open waters of western Lake Erie as “impaired waters.”

What does this mean? While it is obvious to the naked eye that Lake Erie and its paramount fishery, boating, swimming, tourism, and its source for drinking water have been severely impaired for years, under the CWA “impaired” means that the State in consultation with U.S. EPA and others must set targets for the maximum daily load of phosphorous from farm runoff and to a lesser degree sewage discharges. The targets have to achieve and assure unimpaired waters for recreation and safe drinking water purposes.

While ELPC will see to it that Ohio EPA’s and the feds’ feet will be held to the fire, the CWA process for setting the targets and enforcing them by rule could take years– years Lake Erie, cities and towns, tourist businesses, property owners and citizens don’t have. Funding is short, political negotiations with stakeholders takes years, and, frankly, Ohio’s goal of achieving reduced phosphorous levels to prevent reoccurring algal blooms for 2025 is too late. Chesapeake Bay was designated “impaired” decades ago, and the so-called stakeholders are still fighting over a labyrinth of legal complications. Are businesses, communities, the public and citizens supposed to suffer billions of dollars in losses and natural resource damages while Lake Erie remains severely impaired?

It Is Time for a Lawsuit

The public trust doctrine is an ancient principle dating back to the Justinian Codes of Rome and some of the earliest court precedents in our country’s history. It holds that commons like air and water are held by each state as sovereign for the benefit of its citizens. When each state joined the Union, the sovereign title to navigable waters vested absolutely in that state in trust to protect the water and aquatic resources for the enumerated uses of fishing, navigation, boating, swimming, recreation and sustenance–drinking water—for present and future generations. The United States Supreme Court and every state in the nation recognizes the public trust doctrine. The doctrine has standards with teeth sharper than a Northern Pike: (1) no one can alienate or subordinate these public trust waters and uses for private purposes; (2) no one– not private corporations, persons, or any government or political subdivision–can impair or substantially interfere with the quality and quantity of these waters or the enumerated public trust uses; and (3) the public trust imposes an affirmative, high and perpetual duty on government to see that no alienation or impairment occurs!

So, what are we waiting for? What are Governor Kasich and the Ohio EPA waiting for? The state Supreme Courts of Indiana, Michigan and Ohio–where the phosphorous runoff is occurring– have all recognized and adopted the common law public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine prohibits foot-dragging like the failure to take swift definitive action against corporate farms and cities that are the combined source of this wholesale destruction of Lake Erie. To be sure, there are stakeholders with interests that must be accommodated and balanced, but not at the expense of the damage caused by the continued blatant violation of the public trust doctrine. The public trust standards are the outer limit, these standards are not discretionary, they are mandatory, they can’t be ignored and they can’t be subordinated. In other words, all of the stakeholders are subject to the non-impairment standard, and all involved are legally obligated to comply with the public trust principles first.

How is this done? It’s straightforward at this point. The ELPC lawsuit or a new lawsuit brought by plaintiffs who are citizens, communities, organizations, property and tourist business owners should seek to declare a violation of the public trust and take steps to enforce it by ordering those contributing to the damage to immediately prevent phosphorous from entering the streams and rivers that flow to Lake Erie. Two years ago, Michigan declared its share of western Lake Erie “impaired.” Now Ohio has determined its share is also “impaired.” If it’s impaired under the CWA, it’s also impaired under the common law of the public trust doctrine. Those who are causing or contributing to the impairment must be named defendants, all or some lead defendants, including the large corporate farms and the Ohio EPA and Michigan DEQ – unless of course Michigan wants to join as plaintiff in bringing this claim forward.

Because the waters are impaired in violation of the public trust, the only question is allocating liability and holding hearings to determine the remedy– the limitations and actions required of all defendants and others to reduce phosphorous and stop the harmful algal bloom destruction of Lake Erie.

The lawsuit or lawsuits can be filed in the same way any public interest litigation proceeds. The court oversight after the BP Deep Horizon spill worked to minimize the impairment of the Gulf of Mexico. In a major settlement, tobacco companies were forced to pay damages caused to the public health in each state.

There is nothing new here, and in fact a public trust case like this would be both simple and unifying. First, the factual finding is done – there is impairment. Second, this impairment violates the public trust. Third, it is well documented to a strong degree of certainty who and what causes the harmful algal blooms. Sorting out and allocating fault is not a barrier to a public trust case, it is simply what a court does in the name of equity and justice to fairly apportion responsibility. If a hearing on the allocation and remedies is needed, then hold it and bring in the experts. There are many in Ohio, Michigan and throughout the Great Lakes region, including the fine scientific universities and groups working on the algal blooms and climate change under the auspices of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the IJC.

This is the time to end the impairment and destruction of harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie (and elsewhere in the Great Lakes). We have three branches of government. The courts are one. When the other branches fail or are unable to take the action that is needed when it is needed, our constitution assigns to the courts the role of taking over the controversy, especially when the harm is severe and an imminent threat to public health, property, safety and the general welfare.

Jim Olson, President and Founder

We don’t need a bureaucracy to get around to doing something on its own time through a drawn-out process like the somewhat uncertain establishment of targets and enforcement under the CWA. Why rely only on the CWA and federal and state bureaucracies when a court can take charge, find a violation, set the target, allocate the responsibility, and order actions that reduce phosphorous and stop the destruction of Lake Erie. Ask the legally protected beneficiaries of the public trust doctrine, our citizens and businesses and communities who continue to suffer devastating harm. The time for judicial action and supervision action under the public trust doctrine is now!

The Lake Michigan Mermaid: Co-Authors Discuss Their New Work

Published on March 30th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Poets Anne-Marie Oomen and Linda Nemec Foster will read from their new book, The Lake Michigan Mermaid, at a fundraiser for FLOW on Thursday, April 19. The reading and reception take place from 5:30-7:00 p.m. at the Centerpointe conference center, top floor, on the west arm of Traverse Bay.

Published by Wayne State University Press for the Made in Michigan series, The Lake Michigan Mermaid tells in poetry the story of a troubled young girl who seeks a mythical creature, the true spirit of the lake, a beautiful mermaid that she believes lives in Lake Michigan waters. The Lake Michigan Mermaid is a tale of friendship, redemption, and the life-giving power of water.

At the event, the poets will read poems interspersed with the story-of-the story: how the book came to be.

For more information about the book, click here.

How did this project begin? How long have you been talking about it?

Linda Nemec Foster (LNF): This project began as a result of both of us being published in an anthology of women writing on the Great Lakes titled, Fresh Water (edited by Alison Swan and published by Michigan State University Press). In 2008, we were invited to give a reading at the Saugatuck Center for the Arts for the anthology (along with some of the other contributors) and the idea for the poetry sequence was planted that night. Actually, we weren’t talking about it for long before we started writing the poems.

Anne-Marie Oomen (AMO): As Linda said, the idea hatched the night of that reading over ten years ago–you’ll hear about that story when you come to our presentation–springing from a single mysterious remark by a key person among the writers. Writers never know exactly where or when ideas will rise up and make demands, but I think our participation in that rich lake of words–all those stories inspired by the Great Lakes–created the conditions for the idea to flourish.

What inspired the mermaid motif? And the connection to a girl?

LNF: At the reading (that I described above), someone said it was too bad there were no Lake Michigan mermaids. Both Anne-Marie and I were intrigued by the question. Later that night we had the first of many discussions about creating a poetry sequence that would weave a contemporary fairy tale involving a mermaid, a young girl, and their connections to Lake Michigan.

AMO: I had a new cell phone, and I was driving home late at night, sleepy and a little dreamy with ideas. I called first. Linda answered immediately. Call and response. The pattern was set. You’ll see when you read the book because the two voices go back and forth. (Side note: During later research, we found that among the native peoples of the Great Lakes, there are also representations of mermaids and mermen. Our mermaid is not necessarily inspired by those, but we found it reassuring to learn that fresh water mermaid tales do exist.)

Your promotional materials say the book was written in secret over a decade. Could you explain that (unless that would give away too much of what you’re saying at the event)?

LNF: Yes, the ten-year-old secret is true and there were two reasons for keeping the project “under wraps” for so long. But, as you stated, I’d rather have us explain the details at our presentation–more interesting that way—so the intrigue continues!

AMO: What we can say is that ten years built a bond of trust in each other. We kept coming back to the pleasure of the partnership and the richness of writing about this subject. Trust is not something that just happens; it grows as you come to a deeper knowledge of another person. That came with each poem, each time we returned to the project.

There must be extra challenges to co-authoring a book of this kind. How difficult was it?

LNF: Yes, there can be challenges, but this project was a thoroughly enjoyable experience because of the deep respect, admiration, and (above all) trust that Anne-Marie and I have for each other. I feel so fortunate to be on this journey with her.

AMO: Ditto on all counts. The biggest challenge, which is the challenge all artistically inclined people face, is the way life simply interrupts the flow of artistic work. Part of being a literary artist is exercising tenacity, staying with it–even through ten years of life stuff. Not to be too self-aggrandizing, because there were moments when I thought the project might have slipped away–as others have–but one of us always brought it back.

Illustrations are critical to a work like this. How did you go about finding an illustrator and what were you looking for?

Linda Nemec Foster, Anne-Marie Oomen, and Meridith Ridl

LNF: The illustrations are absolutely critical. As a matter of fact, the editor (at Wayne State University Press) accepted the manuscript for publication on the condition that we find an illustrator. We “passed over” three different artists before we discovered the haunting and beautiful work of Meridith Ridl. There are more interesting details to this part of the book’s back story, but I’d like to save them for our presentation.

AMO: We knew this mermaid would NOT be a Disney Ariel (from the Little Mermaid) but something darker, more haunting and mysterious, like our lake. It takes a particular artistic vision and skill to create that feeling in an image. That Meredith Ridl brought that vision full circle is such a gift; you’ll hear that story too.

How do you each feel about the condition of our water? Do you think a book like this can inspire action?

LNF: The Great Lakes play a significant part in my personal history. Although I’ve lived in west Michigan for most of my life, I was born and raised in Cleveland near the shores of Lake Erie. I saw firsthand the devastating effects of rampant pollution: the spontaneous combustion of flames on the Cuyahoga River and the impact on the fragile ecosystem of Lake Erie. Although more work needs to be done, it’s gratifying to see the positive changes that have occurred in those waterways during the last fifty years. We can contribute to the nurturing and healing of our waters and environment: it just takes a dedicated mindfulness. I hope our book reflects that mindfulness. Because even though the main characters of the book are a young girl and her mermaid companion, the true spirit of the tale is the deep heart of Lake Michigan.

AMO: Lake Michigan has, over and over, healed me with beauty, with wildness and calm, with cool water, and strong breathtaking color. It is my life’s blood, and also a life source for me as an artist–even when I am writing about farm life and rural work. All that is threatened when water becomes a commodity instead of a commons. In a world where science is often disregarded or misused for profit, I wonder if our mythical story might be an entirely different approach to encouraging people to think about water, and the lakes, as living entities. I wonder if a single make-believe (is she really make believe?) creature of the lake might help people embrace the aesthetic and spiritual side of these waters. It’s not just about the imbalances, the invasives and the pollution, it is also that when we turn away from the spirit of this lake, we turn away from something essential in ourselves. If we could be touched by the “mermaid,” as the girl is, could we be saved (a little bit) from our own acquisitiveness?

Humoring Ourselves to Get Off the Bottle

Published on March 28th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Today at FLOW, we are launching our latest campaign. It’s called Get Off the Bottle, and it combines facts, law, and policy with good old fashioned humor about the absurd implications of bottled water, whose sales surpassed the sales of soda for the first time in 2016.

Just think about that for a moment. Did you ever think there would be a moment in your lifetime when bottled water sales would outstrip soda sales? For some of us, the question is even more basic: did you ever think companies like Nestle, Coke, Pepsi, Evian would make billions of dollars annually by selling you tap water (which you already paid for via taxes and fees) in plastic water bottles? I don’t know about you, but I guess I spent a lot of my childhood dehydrated!

The “Get Off the Bottle” campaign is designed to get citizens thinking and to empower them to make smart, protective decisions for our Great Lakes. We raise important questions about the cost, misleading labels, flavor, safety, energy waste, harm to streams and wetlands, lack of disclosure, plastic waste and other related issues. And what better way to explore these subtle yet complex issues than with humor?

Bottled water is part of a larger conversation and awareness about interconnected issues of failing water infrastructure, water affordability, equity, and privatization. As we launch this campaign, we will get bottled water in people’s thoughts and out of their hands.

Can One Person Make a Difference? This Sixth Grader Already Has

Published on March 26th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Hope is in the air, and the water.

On a recent trip to Chicago to attend the Patagonia Action Works conference, FLOW Executive Director Liz Kirkwood met an extraordinary young advocate, Marcella Carter. Spurred into action by her concern about the oil and gas pipelines threatening the Straits of Mackinac, Marcella organized friends and classmates and raised $1,000 to support FLOW’s work to shut down the lines.

We wanted to know more about Marcella and her work. A sixth-grader at the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, just blocks from her home in Hyde Park, Marcella is 12.

“Every morning I enjoy getting to walk to school with my older brother (Gabriel) who is a freshman in high school and my mom, who works at the University of Chicago Cancer Center as a Regulatory Affairs Manager,” Marcella says. “There are some good and bad things about walking to school, one of the great things being that we are not polluting the earth with gasoline every morning.”

We e-mailed her some questions about what led to her leadership on Line 5.

Where does your interest in the environment and water come from?

Throughout my childhood I have grown up around nature and learning to love it. My family and I go camping often. When we lived in Georgia, we had a spot that we found one year after hiking for 10 miles and it was perfect for us, with the raging river right there, little sandy coves, and secret trails. So, every year after that we hiked the full 10 miles and set up camp in our spot. We have many stories and had great adventures camping, many including my dog CastaLuna, a spanish greyhound.

Another thing that I grew up around was my parents’ cloth diaper business, Better for Babies. They started making and selling reusable cotton diapers to help decrease the amount of disposable diapers going into landfills and then they had the idea to sell an even wider variety of sustainable items, so they started Better for Grownups as well. They started selling reusable tissues, makeup rounds, etc.

I remember walking down the block from Miss Marni’s Preschool with my dad by my side in his electric wheelchair towards the building where all Better for Babies and Better for Grownup things happened. As I opened the door and walked in, I was greeted with the sound of sewing machines and the seamstresses’ voices shouting my name in welcome. I spent my afternoons there, climbing the wooden structure that held the huge rolls of soft cotton fabric and sitting there watching. These things have made me very passionate in helping to protect the amazing environment that we all live in.

What inspired you specifically about raising money to protect the Great Lakes from Line 5? What do you hope the result will be?

I learned about the problem with Line 5 one day when my dad got an email from Patagonia alerting people and asking for help to get Line 5 shut down. The email included a link to the movie Great Lakes, Bad Lines. My dad and I read the email and were shocked! We started the movie and I immediately wanted to do something to help.

I love Lake Michigan, it is a part of my life. I see it almost every day and it makes me smile. When I moved to Chicago and saw Lake Michigan for the first time in person, I was in awe. I had never seen a lake look like that. At that time my definition of a lake was the lake that my house was next to in Georgia, Lake Carroll. I have memories of going out on the lake in my grandfather’s boat in the summer but it just doesn’t compare to Lake Michigan. Lake Carroll is small and filled with dirt because of a construction accident when all of the dirt that they were digging up tumbled down the hill and blew into Lake Carroll. Because of that you can’t see the bottom of the very shallow murky water, and when it rains the dirt will all come up to the surface and you can easily get an ear infection if you swim in it.

Lake Michigan is special, with the way that one day when the sun is out it can look like the ocean next to a Hawaiian beach, the next day it’s so clear that you can see everything beneath it, then on a rainy day its waves are raging and it’s a dark mysterious grey. It looks like Lake Michigan has many different feelings or emotions and expresses them through colors and texture of the water. I don’t think that anyone wants one of those new colors to be black oil.

I don’t just want to protect The Great Lakes from Line 5 because of its beauty or my memories of reading on the warm rocks while my dad, who used to be in a wheelchair for 10 years, is swimming, but also because Lake Michigan is a very important source of freshwater. If Line 5 broke and spilled oil then we would lose so much water. We may still have lots of bottled water, but bottled water is not good for the environment and many people can’t afford it, so tap water is a great solution. But, if Line 5 doesn’t get shut down, there goes a ton of our tap water. I hope the result will be Lake Michigan still being what it is and not ruined by oil.

Do you see yourself working on environmental issues in the future?

Yes, I definitely do! I hope to continue what I am doing now, helping issues by raising awareness or money, working with the sustainability club to make our school more green, and going to events to learn more. As for when I am older, it has always been my dream to become a fashion designer. As I learned more about the problems with fast fashion, child labor, poor work environments, and factory pollution, I brainstormed ways I would make my fashion brand more environmentally friendly but also sell clothes and collections that are fashionable and that make women feel confident. I am going to keep researching and working on my sewing and design skills so hopefully my dream can come true.

What advice do you have for other young people who care about protecting our environment?

First of all, that’s great! We need more young people who care about protecting our environment because we are the next generation and can make a big impact. I would say know that you can make a difference and don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t or you’re “too young”. I would also say that some of the best ways to start protecting our environment is first with your own lifestyle. Make sure you are recycling, ask your parents if you can start composting, and when your parents go to the grocery offer to tag along and bring reusable bags. When you are at the grocery, help your parents make more sustainable choices. For example: If you are buying applesauce, instead of buying a box of individually wrapped squeezes, ask your parents if they could get you the big glass jar of applesauce — without being bossy (Ms. Williams gave the Sustainability club that tip!).

Then, help your school by starting a club if there isn’t already one. You and your club can find non-environmentally friendly things about your school and figure out ways to fix them. You can also talk to local restaurants, coffee shops, bookstores, etc. about ways they can reduce waste. For example, research compostable straws and find a brand that looks reliable and share it with the store, asking them to use that instead of plastic ones, and make sure to tell them that even if they don’t have a compost, the compostable straws are still better than plastic ones because they will decompose in 3 to 6 months even in a landfill, but plastic straws take up to 200 years! If the store doesn’t want to change their products you can also just set a good example for others by bringing your own reusable straw with you and use that instead of reaching for a single use plastic straw.

Others may ask you about your reusable straw and that can give you a good chance to teach others. Sometimes all they need is some information and shocking facts to think twice about grabbing that straw and maybe they will even go online and buy a reusable one! If you want to learn more about environmental problems and how to help, ask your parents to take you to some events, then bring back the information you learned to your club and see what you can do.

Thank you!

FLOW is grateful to the University of Chicago Lab School’s Sustainability Club, Marcella and her family for their commitment to environmental stewardship. The future will be brighter because of them.

The Environmental Governor

Published on March 23rd, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

On Monday, Traverse City’s own William G. Milliken, the state’s longest serving governor, turns 96. It’s an appropriate time to reflect not only on his outstanding environmental record — the best of any chief executive of Michigan — but also on his legacy of civility and decency, as scarce these days in public life as rainfall in the desert.

Taking office a year before the first Earth Day in 1970, Governor Milliken put environmental issues high on his agenda. During his nearly 14 years in office he was instrumental in crafting the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, the Wetland Protection Act, and the state’s nationally-renowned deposit law for beverage containers. He also signed laws improving management of hazardous and solid waste, protecting sand dunes, banning oil drilling in the Great Lakes, and creating the predecessor of the state’s monumentally successful Natural Resources Trust Fund.

He was the first governor to warn of the threat of Great Lakes water diversion, convening a conference on the subject in 1982. That led to Michigan law and regional policies banning most diversions.

Governor Milliken

It wasn’t always easy, or popular in the Governor’s own political party. He overrode objections from a key

party backer to support a rule reducing phosphate content in laundry soaps, leading to an almost immediate reduction in algae blooms.

Governor Milliken also considered the fate of Detroit closely linked to the vitality of Michigan. It’s regrettable that his strong support for mass transit in southeast Michigan — and the significant environmental and social benefits that would have resulted — was thwarted by skeptics.

The Governor credited his youth in northern Michigan as a major influence in his political support for environmental protection. He spent summers at his family’s cottage at Acme on the east arm of Traverse Bay. He enjoyed fishing, canoeing, and sailing.

Moderate in political philosophy, Republican Governor Milliken was statesmanlike in tone. He was willing and able to work with legislators of various political philosophies, and refrained from demonizing any. That, too, is part of his legacy.

“In Michigan,” he said, “our soul is not to be found in steel and concrete, or sprawling new housing developments or strip malls. Rather it is found in the soft petals of a trillium, the gentle whisper of a headwater stream, the vista of a Great Lakes shoreline, and the wonder in children’s eyes upon seeing their first bald eagle. It is that soul that we must preserve.”

The Governor’s work goes on. It is the work of all Michiganders.

World Water Day

Published on March 22nd, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Today is World Water Day, focusing attention on the importance of water. The theme for World Water Day 2018 is Nature for Water – exploring nature-based solutions to the water challenges of the 21st century.

In Michigan, citizens are rallying to call attention to the failure of state policymakers to protect our water. Shannon Abbott, vice president of the Grand Rapids Water Protectors, said water contamination has been largely ignored by state officials.

Pressing issues for the Great Lakes

FLOW shares these concerns and others related to water:

The state’s failure to exercise its public trust prerogatives to shut down the Enbridge Line 5 pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. A rupture of one of these lines would have catastrophic impacts in Michigan.
The state’s failure to block efforts by Nestle to dramatically increase its Michigan water extraction to increase private profits it derives from selling the public’s water.
Proposals to install factory fish farms in the open waters of the Great Lakes.
State legislative efforts to give special interests veto power over state rules protecting water and other resources.
A state legislative proposal to give automatic approval of major water withdrawal proposals for factory farms — and keep the information on which the withdrawals are based from becoming public.

These policies are inconsistent with the wishes of Michigan citizens. They want clean, abundant water. World Water Day is an opportunity to speak out for our water and the Great Lakes.

High stakes

Here’s what’s at stake in Great Lakes protection:

The Great Lakes contain almost 20% of the surface freshwater in the world.
The Great Lakes contain 84% of the surface water supply of North America.
Only 1% of the volume of the Great Lakes is renewed annually from precipitation and runoff; the water balance of the Lakes is delicate.
The average drop of water takes 191 years to pass through Lake Superior.
Spread evenly across the 48 contiguous states, the Great Lakes would turn the U.S. into a swimming pool 9.5 feet deep.
There are approximately 35,000 islands in the Great Lakes, including the largest lake island in the world, Manitoulin.
There are about 10,900 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, 200 miles less than the distance between Detroit and Perth, Australia.
Measured by surface area, Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Huron is third, Lake Michigan is fourth, Lake Erie is tenth and Lake Ontario is twelfth.
Lake Superior could contain all the other Great Lakes plus three more lakes the size of Lake Erie.
Eight states and Ontario border the Great Lakes. Michigan is the only state almost entirely within the Great Lakes watershed.

MSU Extension Has No Business Supporting the Privatization of the Great Lakes

Published on March 21st, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts

Although proponents of Great Lakes aquaculture say it can be done without compromising the lakes, accidents have led tribes and First Nations peoples to call for a shutdown of Atlantic salmon net-pen farming along the West Coast of North America. photo: NOAA

It would be hard to imagine Michigan State University Extension studying how to accommodate corporate factory farms on the campus grounds or private fish farm cages in the Red Cedar River that passes through. And yet MSU Extension is promoting its view in articles and at trade conferences that the public waters of the Great Lakes are a great place for private fish farming.

The extension service’s latest message on aquaculture describes how to reduce the likelihood that private fish farms would spread disease, trigger algae outbreaks, or weaken genetic diversity among native fish in the Great Lakes. The research is misplaced – literally. Instead of trying to help private companies minimize their damage while occupying public waters, MSU Extension should turn its focus to helping grow the aquaculture industry on private property not relying on the Great Lakes or their navigable tributaries.

Public Trust Law Prohibits Great Lakes Fish Farms

In legislative testimony and public outreach, FLOW has maintained that, by definition, concentrated fish farms occupying navigable waters of the Great Lakes are subject to public trust law and would directly violate Michigan’s public trust obligation to manage and protect these waters for the enjoyment of current and future generations.

As FLOW has outlined in its recent Great Lakes fish farming issue brief, the use of public waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes, or tributary navigable waters, for the occupancy and operation of concentrated fish production raises substantial legal, environmental, aquatic-resource, and water-use impact issues, including:

Exclusion of public access and occupancy of bottomlands for private purposes, impairing the public rights of boating, fishing, swimming, drinking water, and other forms of paramount public uses protected by public trust law;
Likely impacts from wastes, including pharmaceuticals, and nutrient loading, and;
Escaped fish competing with wild fish for food, spreading disease, and threatening genetic diversity and the sport-fishing industry.

The public trust doctrine applies to all navigable waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes up to the ordinary high-water mark, whether by common law or statute, including Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act. Accordingly, any decision involving enclosed, cage or net-pen concentrated fish-farming operations must be reviewed by the framework, principles, and standards set forth under public trust law.

Anglers, Scientists, Lawmakers, & State Agencies Oppose Great Lakes Fish Farming

Numerous Great Lakes advocates, including environmental and anglers’ groups, tribes, scientists, legal experts, a trio of state agencies, and lawmakers in both major parties, say that net-pen aquaculture in the Great Lakes is not legally authorized and is too risky for the environment, native species, and the multibillion-dollar sport fishing economy.

In the Great Lakes, a small number of commercial fish farms have been allowed since the 1980s, but only in Canadian-held waters in Lake Huron’s North Channel and Georgian Bay. Michigan began to seriously consider Great Lakes fish farming in 2011 when three state agencies—the departments of Natural Resource (MDNR), Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD)—partnered with the aquaculture industry. Together they created a “road map” to help aquaculture operators navigate the regulatory process, consider the industry’s possible expansion into the Great Lakes, and grow the state’s current $5 million industry into a “major part of Michigan’s agriculture sector.”

The road map paved the way for two commercial proposals in 2014 to build net-pen rainbow trout operations—each harvesting as much as one million pounds of fish a year—off Michigan’s coast in northern Lake Michigan near Escanaba and northern Lake Huron by Rogers City.

Spurred by the proposals, the state agencies extensively studied the economic and environmental impacts, legal framework, and public perception of net-pen fish farming in the Great Lakes. In the face of troubling environmental and economic findings and stiff public opposition, the agencies’ March 2016 report strongly recommended against fish farming in the open waters of the Great Lakes “at this time,” citing “significant risks to fishery management and other types of recreation and tourism,” objections from Indian tribes, lack of a multimillion-dollar state funding stream to start up and maintain a program promising modest returns, and the absence of legal authority to issue permits.

Closed-Loop Fish Farming on Land Holds Promise

While several lawmakers, agencies, and organizations oppose opening the Great Lakes to commercial fish farming, many support closed-loop aquaculture systems on land that are completely separated from public-trust rivers, lakes, and streams For example, a Norwegian company in January announced plans to build one of the world’s largest, land-based salmon farms in Maine. The plan calls for up to $500 million in investment creating up to 140 jobs.

Advocates contend that these closed-loop fish farm operations can be a sustainable source of nutritious local food and economic development. The trio of Michigan resource agencies—MDEQ, MDNR, and MDARD— overseeing aquaculture have expressed support for assisting the industry in the development of closed-loop, recirculating aquaculture facilities.

Contained systems on land continually recirculate and filter water in the fish tanks and offer advantages over, and address several key concerns regarding, open-water fish farming, including:

No reliance on public waters;
Capture and treatment of waste, including excess feed and chemicals;
Disease prevention;
Little or no chance of fish escaping into the wild;
Tight control of the temperature, flow, and water quality to ensure optimum rearing conditions; and
Less water use than other aquaculture systems.

According to Michigan Sea Grant, the disadvantages of closed-loop systems are high complexity, start-up costs, energy use, and failure rates. Taking up the challenge, the Michigan Office of the Great Lakes, in its 2016 statewide water strategy, expressed support only for closed-loop or recirculating aquaculture systems and called for the state and industry to collaborate to establish operational best practices and grow the industry.

Michigan Lawmakers Should Ban Great Lakes Fish Farming Before It Takes Root

Lawmakers in Michigan should learn from the experience in Washington state, where the legislature just voted to ban Atlantic salmon fish farming in Puget Sound after an Atlantic salmon net pen failed last August, releasing 250,000 Atlantic salmon into local waters. FLOW has called on the Michigan legislature to expressly prohibit factory fish farms in the Great Lakes and its tributaries before corporate proposals to privatize and farm Michigan-controlled waters take root.

The bottom line is that it is the government’s perpetual duty under public trust common law to protect the Great Lakes and its tributaries for the public’s current and future benefit, including for drinking, boating, fishing, swimming, sustenance, and navigation for the enjoyment of current and future generations. Ongoing efforts by the state of Michigan, aided by Michigan State University Extension, to justify and minimize – rather than prohibit – private farming of fish in public waters are completely misguided.

Kelly Thayer, FLOW Contributor

It’s time for Michigan lawmakers to follow the lead of Senator Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, and Rep. Gary Howell, R-North Branch, who have introduced legislation to ban open-water fish farms in Michigan’s Great Lakes waters to protect “our clean water, our water-based economy, and our outdoor way of life.”

Click here to learn more about FLOW’s program to challenge aquaculture in the Great Lakes.

Click here for related news on Anglers of the Au Sable lawsuit challenging the Grayling Fish Hatchery.

Wisconsin Water Diversion Proposal Flouts Public Trust

Published on March 20th, 2018 by FLOW Editor - Blog Posts, Public Trust Tuesday

A proposal by the City of Racine, Wisconsin to divert 7 million gallons a day of Lake Michigan water to support an industrial development risks a dangerous precedent that could undermine the Great Lakes Compact, and is inconsistent with the public trust.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is accepting comments until tomorrow on the City’s application. The City, and Wisconsin state officials, have made no secret of the fact that the water is largely going to supply a new business development, Foxconn, outside the Great Lakes watershed.

The Compact, however, is clear that any water exempted from its general ban on diversions “shall be used solely for Public Water Supply Purposes.” State and local government officials have explicitly stated that the water will be used primarily to facilitate a single industrial use. The Compact’s definition of Public Water Supply Purposes is “a group of largely residential customers that may also serve industrial, commercial, and other institutional operators (emphasis added).” This clearly means that any industrial or commercial uses must be incidental, not the primary purpose.

From FLOW’s perspective, an equal or greater concern is that the proposed use is inconsistent with the public trust doctrine. The waters of the Great Lakes and navigable waters of Wisconsin are subject to the doctrine, which requires any diversion of this kind to promote a primarily public, not private purpose, under U.S. Supreme Court, Wisconsin, and Michigan Supreme Court law. The doctrine also requires the Wisconsin DNR to consider the effects of the diversion or transfer out of the basin on the Great Lakes and all navigable waters and the uses dependent on those waters that are potentially affected by the transfer, use, or return and/or net loss.

Under the rules of the Compact, review by the other seven Great Lakes states for this diversion is not required. That’s largely because the jurisdiction in which Foxconn will be sited is the Village of Mount Pleasant, a so-called “straddling community” that sits partly inside and partly outside the Great Lakes watershed. If the Village were entirely outside the watershed, all eight Great Lakes states would formally participate in the decision.

The Wisconsin DNR is obligated to consider comments from the public on this proposal. You can make your thoughts known by email to DNRRacineDiversionComments@wisconsin.gov.