Aram Kalousdian

MI-AWWA Opposes Water Legislation

The Michigan Legislature is considering legislation related to water withdrawal regulation. This activity is associated with the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Compact (Compact), and a push within the Great Lakes region to adopt this agreement to move toward a comprehensive regional (Great Lakes states) water management structure.

     The Michigan Section of the American Water Works Association (MI-AWWA) supports the adoption of the Compact (as presently proposed by Senate Bill 212 and House Bill 4343) as a means of maintaining control of the Great Lakes water resources within the basin and avoiding certain diversions outside of the basin.  However MI-AWWA has strong concerns with the associated implementation legislation that is currently under consideration.  In particular, the bill package under consideration by the House (HB 5065 through 5073) has the potential to impact public health and the welfare of the public water supplies’ customers to an extent far greater than the package under consideration by the Senate.

     It is likely that some form of implementation legislation (along with adoption of the Compact) will move forward. Therefore, MI-AWWA is urging the public to contact their legislators to voice opposition to the House bill package in favor of a package no more restrictive than the Senate package, and to continue to address potential impacts to the public water supplies in the Senate bill package. Here is a brief synopsis of primary concerns:

    The proposed legislation, particularly the House bill package, has the potential to restrict the ability of public water supplies to deliver the quantity of water required for the protection of public health, the welfare and safety of their customers and to provide the only source of financial support required for the repayment of debts and commitments that were required to pay for the development of the public water supplies' infrastructure and improvements that were mandated by federal and state statutes.

     Public water supplies should not be subjected to regulation that will impact their ability to provide for the needs of their service areas and customers.

     One definition of adverse resource impact in the House bill package is one that causes a 1 percent drop in thriving fish populations in a cold stream or river. A determination of this impact could result in the denial of a public water supply well.  Such small impacts to fish populations should not be cause to jeopardize the ability for a public water supply to provide water for the protection of its customers’ public health, welfare and safety, and such small ranges are likley within the margin of error of the model data.

     Recommendation: Provide more reasonable definitions of adverse resource impact, and base them upon measurable ranges outside the margins of error of such determinations.

     Current legislative proposals call for the use of an internet-based water withdrawal assessment tool for evaluating environmental (ecosystem) impacts of proposed water withdrawals. The House bill package calls for public water supplies' withdrawals to be assessed using this tool in lieu of the site and withdrawal specific evaluations called for by the Senate package (note that the Senate package utilizes the assessment tool as a screening tool as opposed to a determination tool). The complexity of the withdrawal assessment tool and small proposed margins of measurement/regulation (e.g. a 1 percent drop in fish population as a determinant of adverse resource impact) call into question the validity of the tool and resulting output. 

      Recommendation: For the public water supplies who already have a permitting process, this tool is duplicative and not needed. Public water suppliers should be exempt from the use of the assessment tool in favor of more realistic site and withdrawal specific evaluations.

      In summary, MI-AWWA is in support of adopting the Compact. However, MI-AWWA cautions against the enacting of implementing legislation ahead of the time frames required by the Compact, and urges careful consideration of negative impacts to public water supplies in the development of any implementing legislation.
     Michigan has for many years had a strong and effective regulatory framework in place for public water supplies, according to MI-AWWA. The current system has proven successful in allowing for appropriate future planning and in maintaining a safe supply of water to the 7 million Michigan citizens that rely upon public water supply for the protection of their health, welfare, and safety,       By changing the rules for public water supplies, the state would be increasing the cost of regulation; and putting in jeopardy public financing bonds, which have been used to build our water systems throughout the state and improve them to stay current with federal and state mandated requirements, MI-AWWA says.

       Michigan's public water supplies pay fees to support the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ) regulatory program.  In 2007/2008, these fees range from $328 for the smallest systems (serving less than 100 persons) to $109,889 (serving more than 500,000 persons). In sum, public water supplies pay almost $2 million to the state to support the administration of these programs. The proposed legislation is likely to increase the cost of the MDEQ regulatory program, resulting in increased costs to public water suppl, which are in turn paid by the water users (residents, businesses, and industries).  The proposed additional regulatory oversight is likely to increase costs of the DEQ’s regulatory program. Additional information is available at www.mi-water.org.

Posted by Aram Kalousdian on April 8, 2008 | Comments (0)