Nov 29, 2018
Michigan’s current lame duck legislative session is on a pace to be one of the worst in modern times. And that’s just considering the potential damage to the environment, one of several policy areas attracting harmful legislative interest. Lame ducks are officeholders whose successors have been elected but whose terms haven’t expired. While the adjective “lame” might suggest powerlessness, lame ducks possess a terrible power — to pass, amend or repeal laws without accountability. Here’s a partial list of environmental attacks the Legislature has launched with the hope of success before adjournment at the end of the year: * A sweetheart deal allowing Enbridge to keep operating its antiquated petroleum pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac for another decade; * Undoing protection of several million acres of wetlands; * Making it harder to set tough cleanup standards for contaminated groundwater and soils; * Exposing groundwater to toxic substances in landfilled coal ash; * Enacting weak water protections for wastes flowing from failing septic systems. To top it off, legislators have introduced bills to get rid of the nation’s most effective bottle deposit law, which voters approved overwhelmingly in 1976. Fortunately, the Michigan Constitution requires a 3/4 majority of both houses of the Legislature to amend or repeal a law initiated by voters, so it’s a long shot. Most of these ideas were not openly discussed before November 6 — because this might have inspired a public backlash. It is becoming apparent that just as citizens successfully reformed the legislative gerrymandering process with a constitutional amendment this year, they will have to reform the legislative process to eliminate lame duck sessions...
Nov 19, 2018
If you take something that belongs to someone else and give a little bit of it away, does that make you a good guy? That’s what Nestlé seems to think as it airs commercials boasting about its gift of bottled water to the suffering households of Flint, where citizens understandably don’t trust their tap water after years of false assurances from public officials. Of course, the bottled water Nestlé is providing is water that belongs to the public in the first place. It comes from springs that feed public streams in the western part of the state. Through misguided state policy, Nestlé gets the water from the public for almost nothing and sells it for millions in profits. And gives a little away to Flint. Nestlé will have an opportunity in 2019 to demonstrate that it really is a good guy. Legislation will be introduced to require licensing by the state of all bottled water sales and assessing royalties on the sale of public water. Given the huge volume of water that Nestlé sells, a small assessment of royalties could yield tens or hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support public water needs. Those needs would include replacement of lead lines and water affordability programs enabling people in Flint and elsewhere to have access to safe drinking water at a reasonable price. If Nestlé will support that legislation, it can broadcast all the advertisements it wants about its public spirited ethic. I look forward to seeing them. ...
Nov 10, 2018
Trying to discern why voters made the choice of one candidate over another is not an inexact science, it’s not science at all. In the wake of the November 6 Michigan statewide election, it’s difficult to tell what voters were saying about water — but they were saying something. In their campaigns, politicians typically reflect back in their advertisements and literature the concerns they pick up in polls, focus groups and other means of public opinion expression. By that measure, water was an important voter concern. The Flint drinking water disaster, Great Lakes restoration, state legislative votes on water pollution and even water as a Michigan value figured prominently in television and online advertising. Whether large numbers of voters put these issues at the top of their list and based their final choices of candidates on water concerns is impossible to know. Even a post-election poll won’t tell you that. There are many single-issue voters, but the environment seems to be the single issue for relatively few. Still, it’s safe to say there is widespread public concern about the safety of drinking water in Michigan. Flint and the alarming, continuing story of PFAS contamination have elevated this issue in public consciousness. Responsible public officials should care about it regardless. Government’s job is to protect public health, safety and welfare and drinking water is associated with all three. What does that mean? Most importantly, it means a divided state government in Michigan needs to come together to take meaningful steps to protect drinking water — even when doing so requires paying a political price in the short run. Michigan needs...
