This past week the House finished passing all of the bills in their water withdrawal legislative package. Both Senate and House water bill packages now stand even in progress, and remain to be negotiated. Some differences remain:

Adverse Resource Impact Definitions for Coldwaters: The Senate bill allows a 3% reduction to thriving fish for Coldwater "streams" while the House version calls for "less than 1%" reduction of coldwater fish abundance in the coldwater streams and small rivers.

Permitting: the Senate calls for permitting only for new withdrawals over 2 million gallons per day average. The House calls for permitting for new withdrawals over 1 million gallons per day.

Date of Effect: House recommends immediate effect (consistent with existing law in effect that prevents an "Adverse resource impact"). The Senate recently introduced a last minute exception to allow for 1 full year before this law takes effect. This would allow new uses of water to be exempt of causing damage for a  one year period. This would create a large incentive for future users to rush in and register large quantity withdrawals before these laws (and existing ones) would apply to them (aka: be without rules for a year).

During the past week, their has been indication from the leaders of both parties, and the Governor's Office, that a formal conference committee may be purposefully avoided. The intent would be to drive the stakeholder groups involved in this to a final compromise faster (with less regard for the actual outcome). The indications and information received recently suggest that the politics involved on this may not have the compromise coming out evenly, with a forced settlement possible, as early as next week. This possible outcome is not certain, but is a possibility.

This may be our last chance to advocate for no impact to our coldwaters. The Senate is still holding at 3% impact to coldwater fisheries (a dangerous precedent to set). Now is the time to speak up and/or use whatever political means you or your chapter may have, to advocate for no allowed damage to coldwater streams (less than 1% reduction to fish abundance).

At this point, calls to your legislators may still be helpful. More helpful may be focusing on Senators, and urging them to do whatever they can to get the compromise to "<1% impact to coldwater streams". Better yet would be calls or emails to party leaders, bill sponsors, legislators who have claimed to be fishermen (ex: Sen. Patterson, McManus), and the Governor's office.

Also, at the last Natural Resources Commission meeting (June 5) the MDNR portrayed the difference in damage to coldwaters between the two bill packages as trivial, and suggested that it shouldn't be a point of contention. This is a very disappointing attitude coming from the state agency charged with protecting these resources. Contacting your local MDNR Commissioner or the DNR Director about the importance of this for coldwater fisheries would also be appropriate. The links to websites where you can find the contact information to these people are below.

http://www.house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm