Officials in Great Lakes Region to Act on Algae Problem, Water Diversion

Last month, Quebec City hosted a conference of the 8 Governors from the Great Lakes US States and 2 from Canadian Provinces to discuss issues facing the Great Lakes.  One of the top issues discussed was the algae blooms on Lake Erie; to which Michigan, Ohio, and Ontario pledged to a reduction of 40% by 2025.

While the pledge is a step in the right direction, environmental groups have tried to call attention to this issue for years but have been largely ignored by government officials in the region.  In 2011, a sixth of Lake Erie was covered with toxic algae blooms. It reduced fish populations, fouled beaches, and most importantly it contaminated the drinking water. The bloom produced a concentration of a liver toxin that was 1,200 times the limit set by the World Health Organization.

The drinking water contamination continues to be one of the largest issues associated with the algae blooms. Just last August, Toledo was without drinkable water for 3 days because of dangerous toxin levels.

Some environmental groups are not only angry with the delayed action, but with the announcement itself. The conference provided no details on how the reduction will be carried out nor any mechanism to ensure compliance. The governors only said that “adaptive measures” will be taken by State environmental agencies.

The Sierra Club and the Food and Water Watch believe the announcement just shows how the agricultural industry continues to remain untouchable. Since the algae blooms are largely created by agricultural runoff containing phosphorus, measures would be taken to regulate agricultural pollution. Unfortunately, no such measure was expressed in the announcement.

A spokeswoman for the Food and Water Watch issued a statement “Relying on voluntary action is irresponsible and leaves a major source of drinking water for the region at the mercy of an industry looking to profit above all else”.

Another big issue raised was whether or not Great Lakes water should be diverted to Waukesha, Wisconsin. This community has had a polluted well for years, and now the Wisconsin DNR requests access to the safe water in the Great Lakes. In order to have access, the request needs approval from all 8 Great Lakes States. Just one vote against it can deny the whole proposal.

State leaders are expected to proceed with caution in forming their response because they believe the decision will become precedent for all future water diversion requests, which will be highly significant in the near future as water becomes scarcer around the country.

Michigan will arguably be the most important voice in the matter as it is the only state completely in the Great Lakes Basin. While it is important to provide those in need with available water sources, Michigan has the most to lose if diversion requests start to flood in.

How Aquaculture can be a Positive for Michigan and the Great Lakes Region

Paul Bohn, Esq.

At the start of the month, a scientific advisory panel was commissioned by State agencies to revisit the issue of commercial net-pen aquaculture in the Great Lakes. This panel of environmental experts will objectively evaluate proposals to allow commercial net-pen aquaculture and present the results to the DNR, DEQ, and MDARD by October.

The hope of this panel is to understand what to expect if such aquaculture was to begin, as well as how to prevent or mitigate the negative impacts these fish-farms would have if we were to allow them in Michigan waters.

Net-pen aquaculture refers to the offshore floating enclosures used to cultivate large numbers of fish. Currently, it is only practiced in the Ontario waters of Lake Huron. It remains unpopular off the Michigan coasts because of the potential environmental impacts it could bring.

Personally, I support the allowance of net-pen agriculture in our waters, IF they are managed properly. The United Nations estimates that nearly ¼ of the protein in human diets comes from seafood, and 21% of the world consumption of seafood comes from aquaculture. With the expected global population increases, this provides a unique and profitable opportunity for our State. This new Michigan industry could bring much-needed capital to the state, create new jobs, and have various spin-off benefits.

Sounds good right? Only if these fisheries are properly maintained. If not, the unintended consequences could destroy the Great Lakes ecosystem and the surrounding economies. Previous studies on the net-pens of Ontario, poor management of the facilities led to elevated phosphorus levels, reduced water transparency, algal blooms, and dissolved oxygen depletion. All of which significantly endanger the sea-life in the Lakes and hurt industries that rely on the Great Lakes and its inhabitants.

Another problem is the potential of the farmed species escaping into the open waters. A recent study simulated a jail-break of Rainbow Trout in Lake Huron and monitored their survival rates. These domesticated fish were able to assimilate into the wild easier than expected. The introduction of a new population of fish could have a negative cascading effect in the ecosystem and result in the extinction of native species.

Even with these risks present, I believe they can be easily avoided with smart planning and management of the facilities. Examples include: assessing the carrying capacity of potential sites, adequate monitoring of the site, allocation of waste loading, and using highly digestible diets which are less polluting and contain less phosphorus.

Our State was blessed with a precious and abundant source of freshwater. We should take advantage of this opportunity to grow local industries, feed the growing population, and above all, utilize current technology to ensure the safety of our Great Lakes.

Follow this link to see a earlier report on the environmental impacts of Great Lakes Aquaculture: http://ijc.org/php/publications/html/aquaculture/index.html#foreword

MDEQ Issues Permit Change to Further Limit CAFO Winter Manure Spreading

Paul F. Bohn, Esq.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) announced a change to its permits for large farms as part of the state’s efforts to better protect Michigan waters from agricultural runoff. Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) were already limited in when and where they could spread manure, but the permit change applies those limits to operations receiving that manure as well.

We have written previously on Ohio’s efforts to combat the “harmful algae blooms” plaguing Lake Erie, and this effort by MDEQ is certainly part of Michigan’s response to protect Lake Erie.

CAFOs are not allowed to spread manure on frozen or snow-covered grounds except under very strict, limited circumstances, but they were previously allowed to transfer their excess manure to other operations not specifically prohibited from “winter spreading.”

Now, large farms are not permitted to transfer their farm waste to other operations from January through March unless the recipient follows the winter spreading standards. Witnesses at the hearings on the CAFO permit renewal said that the transferred manure, which was spread onto the recipients’ lands, was running into streams and drains as the snow was melting during the spring thaw. 

“The change is expected to further minimize incidents of farm runoff to surface waters during spring melts, and will safeguard Michigan's valuable water resources while providing a reasonable regulatory framework for farmers," said MDEQ in a press release.

This permit change has been in the works since December of last year, and a public hearing was held in January. The final product includes revisions based on public comment. Both the permit and the summary on public comments can be viewed on MDEQ’s website here:

http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682_3713-96774--,00.html

Paul Bohn, partner at Fausone Bohn, LLP, has established a strong reputation in Michigan as a leading practitioner in environmental law. Mr. Bohn has been selected as a Michigan Super Lawyer since 2010 and was named one of the Top Attorneys in Michigan in 2014 by Crain’s Detroit Business. The team at Fausone Bohn, LLP has extensive experience dealing with MDEQ matters. If you need consultation, don’t hesitate to contact us at (248) 468-4536 or online at www.fb-firm.com. 

Fracking Debate Percolates in Michigan on Heel of New York Ban

Paul Bohn, Esq.

On the heels of the State of New York’s banning of hydraulic fracturing, debate on the practice is now percolating in Michigan. New York, which has had a moratorium on the practice since 2008, now joins Vermont as the only states to completely ban hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as “fracking.”

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) is set to draft rules in April to regulate the industry. These new rules will reportedly include provisions to limit a local government’s ability to pass zoning ordinances to prevent fracking.

In 2014, MDEQ also introduced a new draft of proposed Hydraulic Fracturing Rules. Interested readers can find that draft at: http://www7.dleg.state.mi.us/orr/Files/ORR/1298_2013-101EQ_orr-draft.pdf

The move by New York to ban fracking is sure to embolden anti-fracking activists, while at the same time signal the pro-fracking lobby to dig in their heels in other states – including Michigan. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said the issue was “probably the most emotionally charged issue I have experienced…”

The oil and gas industry in New York had their hopes shot down by the decision, as New York sits atop one of the largest natural gas deposits in the United States. Some energy companies have leased land in those areas and have been waiting for years to tap into those thousands of acres of land. And the wait will go on.

Michigan, too, has a sizeable natural gas supply. In-state natural gas represents about 20% of the total gas consumed in Michigan. And MDEQ notes in a one page briefing document on their website that fracking has been in regular use in Michigan since 1952, with no adverse effects to the state’s environment from the process. You can check out MDEQ’s “Five facts about Hydraulic Fracturing” here:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/Five_facts_about_HF_1_page_455379_7.pdf

However, a group in Michigan, known as The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, begs to differ. They hailed the decision out of New York. Also, with the abysmal turnout in this past election, the bar for getting a ballot proposal put on the 2016 ticket is far lower. For 2016, only 252,522 signatures are required to send a question to the Michigan voters, and the anti-fracking group is eyeing to do just that.

The group alleges that the industry has indeed been harmful to the Michigan environment, including wasting fresh water resources, putting aquifers in danger, and the introduction of harmful fracking wastes and radioactive materials. The group’s campaign, LetsBanFracking.org, hopes that the New York decision emboldens potential donors and volunteers.

So stay tuned for 2015 – fracking has been on the top of many an insider’s list of hot-button issues to watch. And if New York is any indication, it seems that will come to fruition.

Paul Bohn, partner at Fausone Bohn, LLP, has established a strong reputation in Michigan as a leading practitioner in the areas of environmental law, real estate, municipal regulations and construction law.