Lost in the furor over the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s approval on Monday of a big increase in Nestle’s water withdrawal for bottling and sale was an insulting and self-serving comment in the agency’s accompanying news release.
Attributed to DEQ Director Heidi Grether, the statement reads:
“In full transparency, the majority of the public comments received were in opposition of the permit, but most of them related to issues of public policy which are not, and should not be, part of an administrative permit decision. We cannot base our decisions on public opinion because our department is required to follow the rule of law when making determinations.”
The statement implies that public opposition to private capture and sale of water is a policy preference — based on mere sentiment. But the little secret behind decisions like DEQ’s is that they are based on policy preferences — sentiment, if you will. That sentiment is pro-extraction, pro-utilitarian. In this and many other cases, DEQ and its ilk from the moment the application is received (or before, in private meetings and consultations), are looking for a way to say “yes.” The rule of law is a mask behind which the agency can justify its pre-existing preference.
This is also an insult because several groups, including the one I work for, compiled detailed analyses of the Nestle application showing it fell well short of meeting the requirements of law. DEQ brushed them aside in favor of trusting Nestle to put together a monitoring plan that will later show it is complying with the law.
If the rule of law meant what the DEQ release asserts, the state would long ago have revoked the easement it granted Enbridge for its Straits of Mackinac pipelines. Enbridge has repeatedly violated the standard of care required by the easement. In fact, as a state official said last November in a release also quoting Grether, “A year ago, Enbridge said there were no coating gaps in the Straits pipeline. Now, there are dozens. When will we know the full accounting of what Enbridge knows about Line 5?”
But revoking the easement and requiring a pipeline shutdown would run afoul of the state’s, and DEQ’s pro-exploitation sentiment.