This week was filled with committee meetings and workgroup meetings pertaining to the Senate (primarily SB860) and House bills  (primarily HB5069) that will regulate future large quantity water withdrawals in Michigan.  As I mentioned, the two parties (Democrat and Republican) have been working toward a compromise and negotiation of the differences that existed in their original bill packages.  They continue to do so, with the stated goal of still reaching a complete compromise.  However, this past week, the two parties decided to each draft up a bill, ~85% similar (representing prior recent compromise), but are different in three main remaining ways.  First, the Senate had informally aggreed to a less than 1% reduction in coldwater fisheries, as part of the negotiations of many other issues, but recently decided to backslide on it, keeping the parts of the compromise they received, but taking back what they had given.  They now propose to allow a 5% reduction if coldwater fish abundance (which also equates to a 25% reduction in summer low water volume).  The House Democratic package is staying at less than 1% reduction to coldwater fisheries.  Both bills currently propose a 5% reduction in fish abundance in "cold-transitional" or marginal trout streams, and much large levels of fish abundance reductions in cool and warm water streams and rivers.  Secondly,  the House bills propose permitting requirements for withdrawals approaching the allowable threshold in coolwater and warmwater rivers and streams, while the Senate bill does not (unless the withdrawal is over 2 million gallons per day - as its required by the Great Lakes Compact).  This permitting criteria is what allows for public input in the decision making process.  Their currently is no permitting criteria required for withdrawals less than 2 million gallons per day for cold and cold-transitional waters, in either bill (part of the negotiation/compromise outcomes).  Lastly, the House bill seeks to explicitly recognize that the state has duties to protect groundwater under the Public Trust, since surface waters are a Public Trust resource and groundwater and surface waters are interconnected.  The Senate bill resists explicitly recognizing this for fear of its ramifications in providing for greater public oversight of water management (and thus more uncertainty for the regulated community - aka commercial ventures). 

In the coming weeks, these remaining issues will likely be negotiated further.  Commercial interests are actively lobbying for the best deal for their interests - SB860.  It is very important that we speak up on behalf of coldwater fisheries.  1% or 5% reduction in coldwater fish abundance may not sound like a big difference.  However, for coldwater small streams, its the difference between 14% or 25% of the summer low flow volume.  It is also about setting an important precedent in law - that its unacceptable to allow future private commercial endeavours to damage our precious public resources.  If they are predicted to cause an impact, they should do improvements in order to offset the negative impact.  Less than 1% impact does not mean there wont be water for use in the future, just the opposite - we can use water and not have an impact.(between 14 -22% of the summer low flow volume is available for withdrawal).  If affecting the best possible outcome on this is important to you - you must speak to your elected officials about immediately.  Commercial interests will be speaking to them, and telling them that 1% (14% - 22% of the water) impact to fish isn’t enough.  It will be important to remind them of the economic importance of our rivers and streams in Michigan. 

Coldwater fisheries are our highest quality rivers and streams are part of the unique fabric of Michigan and its high quality of life, and are the economic backbone for the majority of northern Michigan communities.  Individuals purchase vacation properties and homes in certain "up north" communities because of these fisheries and pay taxes which help support these communities.  In-state and out-of-state residents travel to these areas and contribute money to local businesses because of these fisheries.  The livelihood of businesses such as licensed fishing guides, fishing lodges and motels, sporting goods shops and canoe liveries directly depend on the characteristics of rivers, the abundance of fish in them and the amount of water flowing in them during summer.   In total, fishing in Michigan is estimated as a $7 billion a year economy, and supports 46,000 jobs in this state.  Despite the reliance of Michigan’s economy on these current economic uses of the water, they are not “grandfathered” and are not being valued and protected like other commerical water "users".  Demand that they are.

You can find your appropriate legislators online at http://www.house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp, and http://www.senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm or at http://www.mctu.org/advocacy.html. Of particular importance is contacting your Republican legislators, as Democrats are already largely in favor of the better House bill, but letting all of the legislators know your opposition or support is crucial.  Please make the phone call to express your opinions on this.  If you are not comfortable making a phone call, than at least send an email.  Let them know that you are a voter in their district, this matters to you, and you will be watching what they do about it.  Government works by individual citizens letting their local elected officials know what you want them to do on your behalf. 

Below are suggestions to help you provide your legislators with useful information:

-        Tell them to set a clear precedent and not allow our coldwater fisheries to be damaged, accept nothing more than the less than 1% impact to coldwater fisheries’ standard. 

-        Tell them you support the opportunity for meaningful public input concerning decisions about public resources, and support permitting requirements.

-        Tell them they should recognize that the waters of the state are all connected, and must be managed for the public trust.

-        Tell them that you do not support SB860 as it is currently written, and expect them not to either.  Tell them the House version of this legislation, HB5069, is better for the public interest 
          and you’d like them to support it rather than the current version of the Senate bill.

-        Tell them how you personally will feel about your favorite river being a 1/4th lower every summer from now on.

-        Ask them to express these comments to their caucus leaders and the bill sponsors.

-        Let them know that there is nothing more important than water law, and that their actions on this will be remembered at election time and will be part of their legacy to the future of
        Michigan. 

-       Or if you are not comfortable saying much, just tell them that you are voter in their district and a member of Trout Unlimited, and you wish that they support the interests of Trout
        Unlimited on this issue, they were given as testimony in both relevant committees.

Thank you for your interests and support on this most important of issues.  Encourage others you know, who are interested in this issue, to also contact their elected officials and share their opinions on this issue with them.