Traverse City Record-Eagle

Region

March 24, 2010

Scripps' water rights bill draws criticism

Measure aims at protecting water from export

TRAVERSE CITY -- Some area residents are simmering over a state legislator's efforts to strengthen groundwater protection laws.

State Rep. Dan Scripps, D-Leland, introduced a bill last year in the Michigan House to amend the state's natural resources and environmental protection law and close a loophole.

It would declare Michigan waters, including groundwater, as belonging to the public trust, meaning all citizens own it and it can't be considered a commodity for export.

"I'm trying to end the idea of groundwater as a commodity," Scripps said.

Not everyone sees it that way.

Jim Fuscaldo, a retired scientist and lawyer from Cedar, argues if water is considered in the public trust, it means the state can claim ownership and potentially tax citizens to use water on their own property. It could have implications for homeowners, farmers and businesses, he said.

"It transfers all private property water rights to the state without proper compensation. That's unconstitutional," Fuscaldo said. "Regulation of use is different than the unequivocal taking of property. They want to regulate the use, but they are going about it the wrong way."

Maple City water well driller John Zientek agrees.

"It's the state taking something away from a property owner without any compensation. I don't think it's right to take property rights away," he said.

Zientek worries the state will not only claim ownership, but may one day look to user fees as a new revenue source, if groundwater is placed in public trust.

Bill proponents calls such arguments "emotional fear-mongering."

"Public trust means water isn't owned by anybody. It's considered to be common property," said Jim Olson, a Traverse City environmental attorney and bill supporter. "It's not a government taking. A landowner has no ownership of the water under their land. Groundwater belongs to all citizens."

Scripps' bill is before the House's Committee on Great Lakes and Environment and no hearings have been held. Scripps sits on the committee, but isn't sure how quickly the bill will progress, he said.

The Great Lakes Compact became federal law in 2008, and is intended to prevent states and countries outside the Great Lakes Basin from tapping into water supplies here with certain exceptions. Water can still be shipped from the area in containers smaller than 5.7 gallons.

Scripps said that allows continued bottling of Michigan's groundwater, as Nestle Waters North America does in Mecosta County. His bill is meant to protect private landowners from withdrawals that are not sustainable and may impact groundwater supplies on neighboring properties, he said.

"I actually think it strengthens private property rights," Scripps said.

But Scripps said he is not deaf to his critics. He will try to prevent any additional taxes to groundwater use through separate legislation, he said.

"That was never my intent. And if that door is opened, I want to make sure it's slammed shut," Scripps said.

Michigan House Bill No. 5319

A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled "Natural resources and environmental protection act," (MCL 324.101 to 324.90106) by adding part 4.

The people of the State of Michigan enact:

Part 4. Public trust resources

Sec. 401. (1) The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people, and the air, water, and other natural resources of the state shall be protected from pollution, impairment, and destruction.

(2) The waters of the state, including groundwater, are held in trust by the state. The state shall protect these waters and other natural resources that are subject to the public trust for the benefit of present and future generations.

(3) The attorney general, on behalf of the state, or any other person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction to enforce the public trust in the state's natural resources, either alone or in conjunction with other provisions of this act or other legal remedies that are appropriate. The circuit court may apportion costs, including attorney fees, if the interests of justice require.

Text Only

Latest News
Life
Sports
Business

Record-Eagle+
Unlimited access to Record-Eagle.com
Subscribe Sign In