Constitutional ban on drilling in Great Lakes could come before Michigan voters this November
Michigan voters could be asked in November to approve a constitutional ban on drilling in the Great Lakes if a package of bills announced today makes its way through the Legislature.
State Reps. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, and Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, joined their colleagues in the state House to make the enthusiastic announcement, calling it a plan to protect the Great Lakes by permanently banning drilling.
Both lawmakers said the initiative is a direct response to the recent BP oil spill that is wreaking havoc on the environment in the Gulf Coast.
President Barack Obama walks with Alabama Gov. Bob Riley past oil containment booms being cleaned during a tour of the Theodore Staging Facility in Theodore, Ala., Monday. He was visiting the Gulf Coast region affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
Charles Dharapak | The Associated Press
"If we've learned anything from what's happened in the Gulf, it's that no matter how sophisticated we think we are with technology, and no matter how precise we are, things can go wrong," Warren said.
Byrnes said a permanent ban on drilling in Michigan's waters would help keep the Great Lakes from becoming BP's next victim.
"No amount of oil is worth risking the health of our Great Lakes," she said. "A permanent ban on drilling is the only way to prevent a catastrophic oil spill like the one in the Gulf from happening here. Workers and communities across our state depend on our waters for everything from their health to their jobs — things we can't jeopardize to drill for oil."
If the initiative is successful, Michigan would be the first Great Lakes state to enact a permanent ban on drilling.
Drilling in the Great Lakes already is against state law, but the Michigan Legislature and governor could change that at any time. The plan is to get voters to add the ban to the state constitution.
Michigan shares ownership of Great Lakes waters with seven other states and two Canadian provinces. Only three other Great Lakes states — Ohio, New York and Wisconsin — currently prohibit drilling in the Great Lakes.
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota and Pennsylvania allow drilling. In addition, Canadian law permits both onshore and offshore drilling in the Great Lakes.
Warren, who chairs the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee, said the drilling ban will be the first part of a series of water-related bills to come through her committee. State Rep. Dan Scripps, D-Northport, will be the primary sponsor, but others will be co-sponsors, she said.
Warren said she's expecting strong support in the House. The initiative also will need a two-thirds vote of support in the state Senate.
"We're stewards of a pretty special natural resource, so I think we do have to take that seriously," Warren said.
The April 20 explosion of the BP-owned Deepwater Horizon oil rig caused a massive oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico that remains out of control. The gushing oil has caused billions of dollars in economic damage, paralyzing fishing, boating and tourism industries from New Orleans to Key West.
Byrnes said a similar accident in the Great Lakes would have a disastrous effect on businesses along Michigan's more than 3,000 miles of coastline. She said it would devastate the Great Lakes' $7 billion fishing and $9 billion boating industries and the hundreds of thousands of jobs associated with them, while destroying the state's vital tourism industry.
For more information, visit www.dontdrillMIlakes.com.
Ryan J. Stanton covers government for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
bedrog
Thu, Jun 24, 2010 : 1:35 p.m.
i was recently dismayed to learn that rebekah warren, who has environmental views i fully support, has among her visible endorsees some who are associated with the naked anti-semitism displayed in front of a local synagogue for the past 7 years, and in other ill-informed one sided israel bashing locally.. see the a2.com thread on a letter by one such, marina brown, for problems ms warren may, and should,face in the election as a result of such affiliations...unless they are publically repudiated as obama sensibly did with rev. jeremiah wright.
Mick52
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 12:45 p.m.
I guess we should pass an amendment on no drilling in Barton Pond.
Mick52
Mon, Jun 21, 2010 : 12:42 p.m.
I had the same thought as posted by DerekD here. Is there any drilling going on now in the Great Lakes? Are there plans? Does anyone think there are huge deposits of oil down there? If not then its foolish to promote this, especially since other GL border states have not banned drilling. Seems to be a waste of time without the agreement of Canada and the other Great Lake states. Neither one of these two candidates has done anything in the past other than make us think that when we came up with "term limits" it should have included, "no more terms, anywhere, any office. Go away." Nor have I heard a peep from either about doing something about the Asian carp, which is a real, known issue threatening the Great Lakes. But of course the President is from Chicago and he's not dong anything about the end of the Great Lakes (starting with Lake Michigan), so why should we expect anything from either of these two on this serious issue? Can't step on those toes, right?
Booradley
Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 11:52 a.m.
We already have laws on the the books that prevents directly and side drilling for oil in and along the Great Lakes. This bill is just a ploy by Democrats to make it seem they are leading the way with a new bill but we already have the legislation signed and passed. Don't the Democrats have anything else to do, like jobs and the economy, instead of repeating legislation that is on the books? If the legislation wasn't there I'd say yea, go for it. But why repeat? What a waste of time.
Rasputin
Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 7:27 a.m.
@ nxil2009, I wear Brickenstocks. Peace out!
The Picker
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 6:54 p.m.
Maybe it time to revisit ANWAR!
nxil2009
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:34 p.m.
"The only reason why we still have oil as a primary source is because of an industry and a government that refuse change and wish to maintain the status quo." The only reason we use this oil (again 19% for fuel 81% for your North Face 3 in 1, for your Merrell sandals, and for your reusable Whole Foods grocery bags) for fuel is because the other "clean...renewables" use more energy (larger carbon footprint) to make/process than you get out. Why does need to be repeated? It is fact. The sources of this information are abundant and readily accessible.
Pete Thirtytwo
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 3:48 p.m.
'"They told us drilling in the Gulf was safe." WHO told you it was safe?' BP told the American people it was safe when they applied for the permit to drill.
Carl Duncan
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
This proposed constitutional amendmendment would be useless in a day and age when directional drilling makes more sense than using offshore drilling rigs on Lake Michigan in the area between Traverse city and East Jordan. I'd rather have a constitutional amendment banning the immigration of Kentucky Tuna otherwise known as Asian Carp.
abc
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 1:03 p.m.
You all might also be interested in this: Canada has 500 offshore gas wells in Lake Erie and 23 that run under the lake from shore.
demistify
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 12:05 p.m.
The participants in this discussion seem to be unaware that there has been a lot of drilling in Western Michigan for a long time. It has yielded a substantial amount of natural gas, much less oil, from multiple relatively small wells. In recent years there has been a lot of slant drilling (confusingly called "horizontal drilling" by the industry) because the technology evolved to where it is cheaper to redirect a hole laterally than to keep drilling more holes. Reservoirs under lakes are tapped from slant holes on-shore. This is much more convenient and cheaper than off-shore drilling. Even if there were no environmental restrictions, there is not much incentive for off-shore drilling in Michigan because the geology (no big reservoirs, many thin hard-to-map layers) does not justify the major investments that would be required.
Pete Thirtytwo
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:59 a.m.
"it's very clear that our President's team botched the decisions to control the accident" I wasn't aware that the oil rig belonged to the President.
Rasputin
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
The bottom line is that we need to ween ourselves of this filthy, archaic oil and coal technology! We have, literally, invented dozens of new power sources and technologies that are clean and renewable, e.g. hydrogen, solar, gas etc. The only reason why we still have oil as a primary source is because of an industry and a government that refuse change and wish to maintain the status quo. Change is good, let's make it happen already and spare our lakes!
a2patriot
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.
"They told us drilling in the Gulf was safe." WHO told you it was safe? Have you ever been near an oil drilling rig, on land or at sea? These are highly complicated work sites, where safety is managed on a minute-by-minute basis. Accidents happen. Sometimes they're accelerated by bad decisions--let's not rush to judgement but instead take the time to carefully identify those errors and prevent them from recurring. (That doesn't equate to a blanket moratorium, let alone a constitutional amendment in Mich.) In the meantime, though, it's very clear that our President's team botched the decisions to control the accident and the subsequent ecological disaster. BTW, we all use natural gas furnaces because they are "safe"--but we hear at least once a year about a home here in SE Mich that has an accident resulting in a catastrophic destruction and fire.
Pete Thirtytwo
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:21 a.m.
"It may very well be safe but we don't know" They told us drilling in the Gulf was safe. They said they did know. So I don't really care to hear any claims about the safety of drilling in, under, or near the Great Lakes. It shouldn't be done.
JSA
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:09 a.m.
Once again we have an emotional and somewhat irrational response from a couple of politicians with a number of wildly outrageous comments by the left leaning and undereducated members of the public. We do not have enough information yet on the difference between shallow water drilling which is the great lakes. Slant drilling, which is drilling on a slant from land and going under the lake bed may pose no threat at all. It may very well be safe but we don't know and I am certain these pitiful politicians don't know either. They're just playing to their supporters and telling them what they want to hear instead of addressing a serious issue seriously. That is the problem with most politicians, they're looking to make points instead of solve problems.
Trepang674
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:01 a.m.
Obama is quite the beauracrat in a crisis...He was more interested in blame than getting the job done. Refusing Norways equipment offer and not getting around to a face to face with BP exec Tony Hayword till just now. I'm sure he feels badly about it, but he isn't technically skilled enough to assess the right action to take. Definately his Katrina
paddyboy
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 10:07 a.m.
good effort and support any ban on oil and gas in our great lakes. some places are just too precious to drill. but, i will say that there is currently a federal moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the great lakes. so, while this effort is a good one....we are protected.
Technojunkie
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 10:05 a.m.
Since drilling in the Great Lakes is already illegal under Michigan law, this is just grandstanding buy a couple of Democrat politicians. It's not like the Democrats can run on their economic record. If you're worried about those evil Canadian drilling sites, the pressures and overall scale being dealt with are minuscule compared to the Deepwater Horizon rig drilling in mile deep water. A similar disaster happening in the Great Lakes is geologically impossible. A smaller disaster certainly is, given enough incompetence, so I'm not very interested in changing Michigan law. The Norwegian government offered to send massive amounts of cleanup equipment 3 days after the Deepwater Horizon blew up. The offer, made through official government channels, was refused by the Obama Administration. Louisiana Gov. Jindal's attempts to get federal permission to build sand berms was granted only in the past several days. When a disaster like this happens you sit ideology aside, take all the help you can get, and spend all your effort to fix the problem rather that acting like a lawyer and doing little more than shooting your mouth off and trying to pin blame. And why wasn't the Jones Act suspended so foreign ships could help? W waved the act after Hurricane Katrina.
nxil2009
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 10 a.m.
19% of oil goes for fuel. The other 81% goes for lots of other stuff. Things like shingles for your house, soles on you shoes, threads in your shirts, bags for your groceries, etc... What are you willing to replace these things with? Wood? Leather? Stop being blindly foolish in your wildly ideological point of view. What do you think is a very large part of those solar panels you pine for? How about those wind generators? Plastic. Where does plastic come from? Get it? Even with conservation, a 50% increase in mpg of CAFE, $10 a gallon gas, and every other silly contrivance you can dream up, the net affect on oil consumption will be a literal drop in the bucket. So the real question is, do we use our own oil or buy it from marxists/fascist or terrorists? Drilling in water so deep you have to do things by remote is not smart. Drilling on land or in shallow water were humans can put their hands on things is fine. So drilling in the Great Lakes is ok as long as there is preventative measures in place.
Tommy
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:59 a.m.
i just noticed the RIDICULOUS irony of my profile picture!! LOL Please note that my picture is of a posthole digger that i used to till my ORGANICLY grown garden, and is not a tacet wink of approval towards big oil. lol
tlb1201
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:58 a.m.
Knee-jerk election year overreaction from a couple of opportunist politicians trying to gain from the gulf catastrophy. We don't need a permanent ban. We need effective regulation and enforcement, not a constitutional amendment.
John of Saline
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:52 a.m.
There's a big difference between deepwater drilling and shallow drilling. The deepwater wells are new, and BP wasn't careful enough (obviously). The oil companies explored out there after being banned from drilling in shallower waters, using proven technology. Anyway, I wonder if this will ban "slant drilling" from land to under the lakes.
Blue Eyes
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.
Our Great Lakes are too important to take a risk with! That said, I live on a lake and have no problem with the company that wants to drill under our lake. I do think something needs to be done about the Asian Carp (and all other incoming invasives)to help protect all of our lakes.
Tommy
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:48 a.m.
I do not support drilling in the great lakes. And I believe that BP should pay pay pay for this monumental botch. That being said: On a permanent ban : our governmental system is designed to NOT have permanent legislation in effect. A stroke of real foresight on the part of our founding fathers in that they knew for a fact that times would change and they were incapable of forseeing what those changes would make possible or necessary. Drilling in Michigan waters is all ready illegal. The concept of a permanent ban is a farce, and a dangerous violation to the very fabric of our legislative system. Ironic that the 'mistake that cannot be undone' would be solved by an emotional fix that can likewise, never be undone. Additionally, this permanent ban is even more-so an illusory warm fuzzy blanket in that Canada and other states with rights to the waters allow drilling, and are not switching anytime soon. On the government doing everything it possibly can: False. on day 3 of this whole mess, the Dutch all ready had offered to help. 12 other nations have offered their help. Multiple American companies have offered to help. All of them turned down by the current administration. The Jones Act has been suspended before, as recently as Katrina, and this needed to happen quickly. It is the height of arrogance to sit back, refuse the help of the world in the face of something like this, and claim to be 'in charge' of a 9 month fix when friendly nations can do it in 4 months, 3 if we help. Further, it is repulsive to me the amount of progress that is being made legislatively in developing green energy legislation when those resources could be utilized to fix the problem. Its like going to the ER with a bullet wound, and not getting treated until lead bullets have been banned and rubber bullets have been designed, approved for use, and legislated as the only viable ammunition supply. Show some leadership, display a little humility, accept the help of those who are better qualified to solve the problem and move on. on the function of a free market: there is no free market, only free access to the american market by countries that cannot afford to buy our products. that is not free trade, it is robbing the american industrial base blind. BUT, i digress, and that is entirely off topic. my apologies.
Pete Thirtytwo
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:44 a.m.
"How do we know that in 25 years time we won't have a safe, easy way to extract oil from the depths?" They told us we had a safe, easy way today. How did that work out?
bedrog
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
may i respectfully suggest that a great source of natural gas, that can be transformed to non- polluting causes would be tapping into the FOX network roster of commentators, a good chunk of the libetarian and republican parties and some of the commenters here... o'reilly /beck alone could power a small city...and limbaugh /coulter...why the imagination soars!!.
yaah
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
Why does it have to be a "permanent" ban" How do we know that in 25 years time we won't have a safe, easy way to extract oil from the depths? I tend to dislike measures like this that are knee-jerk emotional responses and attempt to use flightly current public opinion to get it passed. There should not be any sort of "permanent" measure passed. By all means stop it for a few years with the option to extend it. But then again, since politicians have proven their ability to insert so many loopholes that laws don't ever do what they say, it probably won't matter one bit anyway.
Freemind42
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.
The short-sightedness of some people on this post amazes me. "We can't ignore our energy resources!" "oh what about the jobs!" Have we learned nothing from the Deep Water Horizon disaster? The dangers far outweigh the benefits of drilling for oil in large bodies of water. Especially the largest supply of fresh water in the world. The Great Lakes are our best resource and will become even more important and valuable as the supply of fresh water in the world dwindles.
CountyKate
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
BHarding, thank you for the logical, coherent response. It is sad when people in this country cannot band together to deal with a crisis that effects everyone, but must, instead, pick apart those who are trying to do something. Everything becomes a political football any more. If the Gulf disaster has shown us anything, it's that oil companies don't have as much technical savvy as we were told they had and that human greed - in the form of cutting corners to save a buck - is still a danger to the common good. And, since that is the case and since we don't trust politicians to keep what is now the law, the constitutional amendment makes sense. I say that with some foreboding, however. The flaw in this plan is that there is no coalition of Great Lakes governments that would all agree to prohibit drilling in the Great Lakes. If Warren and Byrnes really want to protect these waters, they should be reaching out to those governments and trying to form such a coalition. Because a disaster on someone else's lake-shore is still going to effect Michigan. If we de-fang ourselves, but the others still have teeth, what have we really accomplished?
Pete Thirtytwo
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 7:53 a.m.
"We would not have to drill at 5000 ft..." No one forced BP to drill there. They chose to drill there because there is a large amount of oil there which cannot be reached from anywhere else. Whether drilling is or isn't banned in some other location is irrelevant.
BHarding
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 7:33 a.m.
I don't get why people say this is "Obama's Katrina", why all this political polarization? It was a BP disaster, unexpected and unintended, and while the government is doing everything it possibly can to clean up and contain the damage, it has promised to hold BP responsible. Is anyone complaining that the government is actually wasting our tax dollars on this?? Not me. I only hope we watch carefully and learn. I think we can live on this planet without destroying it.
Top Cat
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.
We would be foolish to approve such a ban and put energy that we need off limits. We would not have to drill at 5000 ft in the Gulf of Mexico if access to oil and gas in shallow water and on land was not banned in so many places. You can't run your car on a windmill or solar panel. The alternative is sending more of our money and jobs out of the country to pay others to drill. We need the money and jobs here.
Rasputin
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 7:07 a.m.
Let's try that again: I think the ban would protect something far more vital and precious: The world's largest reserve of fresh water (water without salt) which will become increasingly more important as we head further into an age of global warming and world over population. As the old adage goes: Don't relief yourself in the same spot where you eat or sleep. So, the ban is actually quite logical and smart. If you want to drill for oil, go to Utah or Arizona. Asian carp which is, evidently abundant, is an excellent protein source; not all bad given the worlds food shortages.
Rasputin
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 7:03 a.m.
I think the ban would protect something far more vital and precious: The world's largest reserve of fresh water (water without salt) which will become increasingly important as we head further into the age of global warming and world over population. Water will fresh water will become a As the old adage goes, you generally don't relief yourself in the same spot where you eat or sleep. So, the ban is actually quite logical and smart. If you want to drill for oil, go to Utah or Arizona. Asian carp which is, evidently abundant is a rich protein source; not all bad given the worlds food shortages.
InsideTheHall
Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 5:08 a.m.
Well, are these wundergurls also going to ban air travel? How about walking and chewing gum at the same time? This is a knee jerk feel good reaction by a DEM party that is desperate to avoid a solid turfing in November for a failed economy and being madhatter spenders. Hey DB: Reagan created jobs how is your boy Obama doing in that regard?
ThinkAboutThis
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 11:35 p.m.
Abolutely NO drilling anywhere that could leak into the lakes. Cut consumption by the readily available means, and stop underpricing oil so we can cut the small part of our consumption (about 4%)that comes from such incredibly risky actions. The stupid policies that cause such disasters are from UNDER regulation, and were in place years before Obama took office. They allowed cover excuses for oil companies to take such extreme risks, for profit for them and regardless of costs and injury to all the public. This is foolish policy, and is anti-free market [indirect costs to prevent and cure injuries must be included in the market price for the free market to work].
dading dont delete me bro
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 8:22 p.m.
something like this raises the question. HOW is this a constitutional question? ok, given what's going on now in the gulf, i think this is a no brainer if given to the public to vote on in november. as for obama and his incompetency starting to show, i saw it a LONG time ago. no one still can figure out this obamacare bill that went through. the liberals and uninsured wanted to hear "health care for everyone" those 4 words. they got them, but know one can tell me how it effects me.
a2badger
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 8:11 p.m.
Accomplishing so little for their constituents..... State Reps. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, and Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, now join their colleagues in the state House to make their "enthusiastic" announcement. No drilling in our back yard.\ Politics!
Marshall Applewhite
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 7:59 p.m.
David Briegel, Sorry to tell you, but this BP disaster is already Obama's Katrina. Even moderate democrats are beginning to see how wildly incompetent he is. No amount of "Reagan obfuscation" will change people's opinions. Obama is losing this country.
Chrest
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 7:37 p.m.
I'd be interested in a follow-up story comparing the current state of oil drilling in the Great Lakes to the situation in the Gulf. In those areas of the Great Lakes where drilling is permitted, how much is occurring, if any? How much is planned? By what companies? How does the safety record of the shallow-water technology that would presumably be used in the Lakes compare with that of the deep-water technology used in the Gulf? What governmental agencies from Canada would be monitoring drilling in the Great Lakes? How do their regulations compare with the regulations in place in the Gulf?
Ryan J. Stanton
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 7:14 p.m.
NY Times story today answers the question: Just how British is BP? http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/just-how-british-is-bp/?src=tptw
David Briegel
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 6:38 p.m.
You are absolutely correct. The "Great lakes" will become mud puddles as a tribute to the folly of Ronnie Reagan, pseudo- conservative, de-regulation and corporatization of America. Aren't we just the best soon to be Third World Nation? voiceofreason will scratch his head and wonder why the liberals allowed it to occur!! Can we please cut their taxes more? Please?
BHarding
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 5:39 p.m.
I'm overwhelmed with what damage the Asian Carp can do, and how the efforts to stop them are failing.......we have to learn something from this BP disaster, you can't undo the damage, so why risk it when there are alternatives?
voiceofreason
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 5:36 p.m.
Given that Asian carp are going to decimate the Great Lakes fishing industry, drilling might not be such a bad idea to prevent widespread unemployment.
David Briegel
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.
I think the sanity be darned may have given a clue!
kittybkahn
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 4:56 p.m.
Careful, David. People who don't know you might think you're serious. It's hard to make sarcasm clear on a blog. -Peace, Kitty
David Briegel
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 4:39 p.m.
Drill Baby Drill! Sanity be darned! No more regulations! Get Gov't out of the way and off our backs! Let the free market take care of it! Ronnie Reagan was a genius! Cut their taxes! :>)