Michigan needs to be in charge of regulating its natural resources, not Washington
It is 1976, and Lake Erie is nearly "dead" due to being covered in toxic algae. Governor William Milliken leads a fight to restrict phosphorous use in Michigan by passing an administrative order. The order took effect, the phosphorous run off was limited, and Lake Erie recovered. Our Michigan Legislature eventually codified the Milliken administrative rule into a statute, 32 years later in 2008.
Fast forward to present . . . our leadership in Lansing is considering House Bill 4326. If passed, it would prevent Michigan from enacting any environmental standards stronger than what the federal government has in place.
Michigan sits among over 20 percent of the world's fresh water, and is uniquely suited to determine how best to protect that invaluable resource. In effect, if passed the new law would give Nevada's U.S. senators as much authority as Michigan's, and give Texans and their U.S. House representatives nearly three times the sway as Michigan has. In sum, under HB 4326, Gov. Milliken would have been banned from being able to steward phosphorous limitations in the 1970's.
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to remove regulatory hurdles in order to make Michigan more "business friendly." Marginal mitigation of regulations in return for loss of control of the future of Michigan's natural resources? Is that would we voted into office last November? Stripping the state's ability to protect its water and wetlands would be short sighted, and foolish.
Robert M. Gordon
Ann Arbor
Comments
Maxwell
Tue, Jul 5, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.
"With no restrictions, we would be a leading mineral extraction location" Yeah - and the UP would be a wasteland. The Tilden and Empire mines together (they are adjacent to each other) is one of the biggest mining operations IN THE WORLD. They also pollute the ground water and adjacent lakes and streams. Google map them and look at the satellite view - real nice! The copper mines began to close when WWII ended because it was cheaper to extract the ore elsewhere where strip mining is employed. Since most the Copper ore is located under Lake Superior strip mining is (happily) not an option . White Pines was one of the highest yielding copper mines in the world when it was shut down in 1995 due to the same economic reasons (cheap South American strip mine copper) spurred with the fact that their powerhouse was an obsolete coal fired unit and bellowed a plume of mercury and sulfur laden smoke. Not only was it directly affecting public health it was killing the all those pine trees forests that is being grown in a sustainable manner. Rather than spend the money to update the powerhouse the mine company shuttered it. I assume when you stated Governor Granholm bought millions of acres you are talking about is the Michigan's Forest Legacy Program (FLP) is in partnership with USDA Forest Service. May I remind you that not only were some of the largest land owners also lumber companies and they where happy to sell the land that also that these sales were done with the direction of the Bush administration. I support the sustainable use of our natural resources. The UP copper mines were labor intensive underground operations. The copper will be there and when the costs go up to a rate worth the efforts of reopening them it will happen. I spend a lot of time in the In the UP so I do not support denuding it into a toxic wasteland and can tell you with confidence neither do the region's residents. They understand boon and bust economics well.
DonBee
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 1:22 p.m.
We need to balance the use of water and resources. In the UP, the restrictions on logging that Governor Granholm put in place have chased people out of the state to live elsewhere. She bought millions of acres of formerly private forest and put most of it off limits. Thousands lost jobs. If you want to see "poor" go to the UP and get off the tourist routes. Fish, water, lumber, oil, gas, iron, copper, and other natural resources are here in Michigan. With no restrictions, we would be a leading mineral extraction location. We have regulation, in some cases I have to wonder if they are too restrictive? Good regulation, that balances use of resources and the future of the environment are important. Right now scientist say that young forests remove more carbon than old forests. Locking carbon up in houses, furniture, and other long lived items is good for us. The question is how and where to find the balance. Right now we have the balance in some areas in the "Don't Touch It!" range. Is that the right place?
DonBee
Mon, Jul 4, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
Johnnya2 - I will counter with <a href="http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/31448" rel='nofollow'>http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/31448</a>. Which seems to indicate that forests with ages of less than 100 years consume and store more carbon. Your report assumes that the wood will end up being used as biomass or in the landfill. My report assumes the wood will end up locked up in buildings or in furniture. Your assumption is we should import lumber from Brazil and its rain forest or some other area of the world. My assumption is it is better to use local supplies.
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
Your assertion that "young forests remove more carbon than old forests" is just not fact. <a href="http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/forests-global-warming/global-warming-report/appendix-myths-facts-about-forests-and-global-warming" rel='nofollow'>http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/old_growth_protection/forests-global-warming/global-warming-report/appendix-myths-facts-about-forests-and-global-warming</a> The UP, the Artic and many places should be left alone. We do not need to use the scorched earth policies that I am sure Rick Snyder and the republican idiots like.
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 1:03 p.m.
Michigan should treat its water the same way Texas and Alaska treat oil. If those states without water want it, they must pay us big money for it. If a .5 liter of bottled water currently sells for about $1 at most gas stations, that means we should charge them about $9 a gallon for water.