Tag: Public Trust

End Enbridge Stonewalling

Published on May 17th, 2016 by - H2Olson

Observations by some that the State of Michigan has no regulatory authority over hazardous liquid pipelines is correct to the extent that it is understood in the context of  safety regulations — standards, inspection and enforcement; safety code enforcement is covered by the federal PHMSA law, regulation and agency.  However, it is not true that Michigan does not have authority to demand the information Enbridge keeps under its control, and it is not true that Michigan does not have enforcement authority.

As concluded by the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report, 2015, Michigan has authority under the 1953 Easement, including the continuing obligation of Enbridge to conduct itself with prudence at all times, and it has authority under:

(1) its sovereign ownership of bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes since statehood in 1837 under “equal footings” doctrine. Michigan took title in trust to protect the basic rights of citizens as beneficiaries of a public trust imposed on the state.  This means the state has authority and duty to take actions to protect the public trust as a matter of its “property and public trust power,” whether or not it passes regulations on hazardous liquid pipelines or not.  Under public trust authority and principles, the state cannot transfer or shift control over waters and bottomlands held in trust to any private person or corporation; the retention of information by Enbridge that is required to protect the public trust or to determine whether the public trust is threatened with high unacceptable harm or risk violates this public trust principle, and the Attorney General can demand and take all action necessary to compel Enbridge to turn it over, indeed, even the easement recognizes and is subject to this public trust.

(2)  The Michigan Public Service Commission has authority over siting and locations of crude oil pipelines like Enbridge’s and others.  Anytime Enbridge or some other corporation applies for a change or improvement to the structure it regulates as to siting, including its consideration of risks to property and health or environment and alternatives, the MPSC has authority to demand all relevant information needed to  make a decision on the application for such change.  Unfortunately, the MPSC has not insisted on the full range of information it could demand, including alternative pipeline routes and capacity to Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac when it doubled capacity for Enbridge’s new replacement for the failed Line 6B that ruptured into the Kalamazoo River in 2010.

(3) Finally, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, Part 17,  NREPA, imposes a duty to prevent and minimize harm to air, water, and natural resources, and this includes the right to take action where necessary when a corporation’s actions are contrary to this duty to prevent and minimize harm; the MEPA, as it’s  often called, is derived from Art 4, Sec. 52 of the Michigan Constitution.

So while Michigan ponders the aging or new pipeline infrastructure for hazardous liquids and crude oil, the state, including the Attorney General, have the authority to take immediate action to prevent the high risk of Line 5 or other pipelines.  And, where that risk involves the devastating harm that undoubtedly may occur in the Straits, action should be taken immediately pending the coming one to two years of pondering.  In short, there is no legal excuse or justification for Governor Snyder, Attorney General Bill Schuette, or the Department of Environmental Quality to put up with Enbridge’s self-serving stonewalling on disclosure of all information related to its Line 5 hazardous crude oil pipeline.  And, there is no excuse or justification for our state leaders to delay action to eliminate the unacceptable harm from the Straits or other Michigan waters from Line 5.

 

 

FLOW’s Pioneering Work on Right to Water, Commons and Public Trust Join the Mainstream

Published on April 26th, 2016 by - H2Olson

The launch of FLOW’s new website comes at the same time FLOW’s work (beginning back in 2009 when Terry Swier, President of Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, my brother Eric Olson, Ted Curran, and a few others, saw the need to educate leaders and the public on the overarching  principle known as the public trust doctrine)  has been recognized by the most highly regarded body in the Great Lakes Basin—the International Joint Commission.  As part of a 15-year review of its efforts to protect the waters of the Great Lakes Basin, in January of this year, the IJC issued a landmark recommendation that the states, provinces, and countries implement the public trust framework as a “backdrop principle” to safeguard the integrity of the Great Lakes in the 21st century.   The launch also comes at the end of the second year of teaching the new water and sustainability course at Northwestern Michigan College’s Water Studies Institute.   This past week, the students heard a wrap-up lecture on the unifying principle of the course and water policy in the future—the framework for problem solving under the commons and public trust doctrine in water.[1]

What does this mean?  It means that FLOW’s vision, work,  and our supporters are at the forefront of efforts to educate and help leaders, citizens, businesses, and our communities address the systemic threats that face the Great Lakes region – and beyond—including climate change and water levels, invasive species, algal blooms, diversions and excessive and wasteful losses of water, exports, intensive aquaculture farming on the surface of public trust waters, and crude oil transport in, over, or near the Great Lakes. As highlighted by the IJC in a recent public opinion poll, fully eighty-five percent of citizens in the Basin put their concern for the Great Lakes at the top of their list – that’s 34 million out of the 40 million people who live in the Basin.  But the problem is we need to understand what we can do about the systemic threats to the Basin, and what principles will lead us there.  At FLOW we think the most fundamental principle is the public trust doctrine.

What is the public trust doctrine?

The public trust doctrine (as recounted by Traverse Magazine’s editor Jeff Smith in an article on FLOW’s pioneering work when he created the by-line name for this BLOG – H2Olson) is a background principle connected to the Great Lakes and other bodies of water.  It holds that these waters are held by the state as trustee and must be managed and protected for the benefit of the legal beneficiaries of this public trust – the 40 million citizens in the Great Lakes Basin.  It imposes a legally enforceable duty on government and leaders to affirmatively and perpetually take action to prevent harm or impairment to these waters, their ecosystem and public uses that depend on them – navigation, fishing, boating, swimming, drinking water, and sustenance.  It prohibits any person or entity – public or private – to enclose or transfer these waters for a primarily private purpose – these waters are held for the public. It means no public or private person can measurably impair the integrity of the quality and quantity of these waters from one generation to the next.  It means all of us share, collectively and individually, a right to water as beneficiaries of this trust.

Why public trust principles?

Before the victorious court decision curtailing Nestlé’s bottled water exports from Michigan, the common law prohibited diversions or exports that diminished the flow or level of a lake or stream.—this means the very heart or integrity of a stream or lake cannot be impaired.   After the decision, this “non-diminishment” standard was weakened in favor of a “substantial harm” test that arguably would allow water exports, diversions and losses from the waters of the Great Lakes.  In effect, the court left the door open for foreign and domestic interests outside the Basin to claim the right to divert or use large quantities of water, and if challenged, potentially seek damages or other relief in private tribunals under the auspices of NAFTA or other trade agreements – possibly even the recent TPP.  Moreover, the Great Lakes Compact diversion ban left the door open for water prospectors to package raw water in any sized container (not just bottles) and ship water out of the Basin as a “product.”  The Compact also exempted diversions for public water supplies in communities that straddle the Basin, like the ongoing controversy over Waukesha, Wisconsin’s request for water  that looks more like a plan to grow communities outside the basin that meet current public need for water.   These and other events have sounded the horn for caution and action.

FLOW’s public trust vision converges with the human shift toward saving and promoting the “common good.”

In 2011, FLOW convened a conference to address systemic threats to the Great Lakes that fall outside water laws from the 20th century.  In 2012, FLOW with the Council of Canadians presented an in-depth study to the International Joint Commission, a binational body charged under a 1909 treaty to protect the Great Lakes.  The study urged the IJC to adopt a new overarching principle based on the ancient pubic trust doctrine:  This doctrine charges government, as trustee for citizen-beneficiaries, with a perpetual duty to prevent impairment or private control of water, as a commons, from one generation to the next.

From 2013 through 2015, FLOW submitted additional reports with the IJC and other governments to demonstrate how this this game-changing principle would address threats to water as a commons and human right. FLOW launched public presentations, a new water policy course with Northwestern Michigan College, and recommended solutions to address algal blooms, extreme water levels, climate change, invasive species, and recent scientific and policy reports that called for removal of oil in a pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac.

Since 2011, we’ve witnessed massive algal blooms shut down Toledo and Monroe’s water supplies and destroy fishing in Lake Huron.  We’ve seen law and high swings in water levels exacerbated by climate change effects.  We’ve seen the shut-offs of water  that services thousands of  Detroit residents and families, the Flint water crisis and exposure of thousands of innocent children and people to lead poisoning.   We see continuing in action on the time-bomb of shipping crude oil in or near the Straits or other waters of the Basin.  We see efforts to legalize private occupancy of acres of public waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes to operate concentrated fish farms, when farming belongs on land and the surface of the Great Lakes belongs to the public.

In summer 2015, FLOW submitted a report on the IJC’s 15-year review of protecting the Great Lakes.  FLOW demonstrated how public trust principles would act as a backstop against known and unknown threats to the Great Lakes.  In January, 2016, FLOW’s work took a giant step forward.  As noted at the outset, the IJC issued a landmark recommendation that the states, provinces, and countries implement the public trust framework as a “backdrop principle” to safeguard the integrity of the Great Lakes!

Recently, in his encyclical letter on climate and our earth’s predicament, Pope Francis captured the awareness and reality of a world faced with massive loss of water, soil, and social and economic injustice.  He pointed out two ethical principles: Protect the common good and do so from one generation to the next.   All other endeavor, including economic, must honor and respect these principles.

What we are excited about at FLOW is, we find ourselves lockstep with the solutions to crises and threats to water here and elsewhere because the public trust doctrine in water brings legal principle to ethical principles to  promote the common good.

[1] For those readers who want to gain a general understanding of FLOW’s work and the commons and public trust framework,  watch the wrap-up lecture and discussion at the NMC’s WSI 230 water and sustainability class. https://ensemble.nmc.edu/Watch/Xa45Sfy9

 

California Drought and the Public Trust

Published on January 29th, 2016 by - H2Olson

By Jim Olson

This has been a long time coming, inevitable really: Since the California Supreme Court’s decision in the National Audubon “Mono Lake” case back in the 1980s, courts have recognized the hydrologic connection between navigable and non-navigable but tributary streams and the groundwater that replenishes them.  Indeed, it would be archaic to recognize a claim to protect the public trust ecosystem, fish, habitat and public enjoyment in navigable waters from harm caused by diversions of smaller non-navigable streams, but not protect public trust from diversions from tributary groundwater. Both are tributaries; it should matter one wit if water is pumped at the rate of 1 million gallons a day directly into a pipe from a stream or groundwater.  If both feed the downstream public trust waters, the same amount of water is lost to the system and the same harm would occur.

This is similar to the court decisions in the Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle bottled water case a few years back. The courts found the removal of 400 gallons per minute from the groundwater that fed the stream and lakes to unreasonably harm the downstream uses and habitat, and cut the pumping rate by  half most of the year, and down to approximately 125 gpm in the dryer summer months.  The courts also found that the removal of water caused impairment of the stream and ecosystem, and lowered the pumping rates under Michigan’s Environmental Protection Act — the “Sax law”, named after the late Professor Joe Sax, Boalt Hall Law School, in Berkeley, for which he was awarded the international Blue Planet Prize — a citizen suit law that allows affected citizens to bring lawsuits to protect common waters, natural resources, and the public trust in those resources.

It would be illogical to recognize the legal connection of groundwater and riparian law, or groundwater and appropriation law (even California’s own Katz case limited groundwater diversions that would affect streams), but not recognize the connection between groundwater and public trust law. Public trust law protects the navigable portion of lakes, streams, and rivers, including the Great Lakes. Riparian and public trust law now recognize what scientists have been saying for years, groundwater, streams, lakes are one hydrological system. In fact, Hawaiian courts have held that the impacts from land uses, like farming and algal blooms in Lake Erie, adjacent to or connected to lakes and streams that impact the riparian rights or public trust rights of others, can be controlled or prevented. Professor Sax recognized this when he drafted the Michigan Environmental Protection Act back in 1970:  Any use within a watershed that impacts the flows, levels, quality of private and public downstream uses or ecosystem can be prohibited if the impacts amount to pollution or impairment. So California and other states facing challenges from drought, climate change, or wasteful use of groundwater can regulate it under the common law of the public trust doctrine. Go for it, California!

U.S.-Canadian Boundary Water Governing Board Recommends Game-Changing Public Trust Framework to Safeguard Great Lakes

Published on January 21st, 2016 by - Reports & Media Releases

IJC Report Released Today on Great Lakes Diversions, Consumptive Uses, and Climate Change Adopts Policy Prescription from FLOW, Great Lakes Water Law and Policy Center

TRAVERSE CITY, MI — The International Joint Commission issued a much anticipated report today on the success of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Sustainable Water Resources Agreementand Compact ban on diversions and excessive consumptive water practices. While the IJC gave the Compact and efforts by states and provinces a positive grade, it also noted there is more work to do to assure these efforts are not undermined by lack of vigilance or unanticipated effects such as impacts from climate change and regional and local competition for water, energy and water in the coming decades.

“This is for the most part a good news story,” the IJC report concludes. The report notes that particular advancements are needed to address pressures for diversions and exports from droughts, worldwide water scarcity, and algal blooms from agriculture and sewage treatment plants, exacerbated by climate change. The report recommends immediate support for more data and better assessment of cumulative impacts from smaller incremental diversions, consumptive uses, or other human-induced changes such as global warming. It also emphasizes that decision-making standard for exceptions like the proposed Waukesha diversion must be strictly applied to avoid undermining the Compact.

Michigan water and environmental lawyer Jim Olson, President of FLOW (For Love of Water), a Traverse City-based Great Lakes water policy center, who submitted formal comments to the IJC on its initial draft of today’s report, said, “The IJC report and the in-depth consultants’ report not only document the success of the Agreement and Compact among the provinces and states to ban diversions and control consumptive uses to protect and conserve the waters and ecosystem in the Basin, it also spotlights the importance for governments to consider implementing a new game-changing, public trust principle as a ‘backdrop’ to safeguard the Great Lakes and citizens. It will prevent the Agreement and Compact from being undermined by possible political, economic, or uncertain or unexpected natural forces.”

At the outset of its report, the IJC observed that public comments from organizations and others “broadened considerations and strengthened the report,” including FLOW’s proposal to add “a new recommendation that states and provinces consider developing, harmonizing, and implementing a binational public trust framework as a backstop to the Agreement and Compact.”

“The recommendation of the public trust doctrine is leadership at its best,” Olson said. “This ancient principle holds that the waters of the Great Lakes are owned by the states and provinces in trust for the benefit of all citizens.  Governments have a solemn duty as trustees to sustain these waters unimpaired as much as possible from one generation to the next. Understanding and applying public trust principles as a beacon to do the right thing will not only strengthen the diversion ban and the regulation of water use under the Compact,” Olson said, “it also will empower and guide governments, communities – including our tribes and indigenous peoples, businesses, and citizens – to find solutions to the massive threats that we face in the 21st century.  What better way to harmonize our differences and focus our science and energies than bringing us back to the basic reality that we all live in a common home.  It’s a traditional body of law that sets constructive guideposts, which, if we follow, will keep our countries, states, provinces, and people on course in protecting these highly valued public waters.”

The IJC report finds that “the Agreement and Compact will not necessarily be sufficient to protect the long-term ecological integrity and the many public and private uses of the Great Lakes. Binational adoption of public trust principles could provide an effective backstop,” and “it will fill the gaps and deal with as-yet-undefined stresses likely to negatively impact the Great Lakes in the future.”   

Background to the IJC’s 2016 Report on Diversions and Consumptive Uses

An attempt by a corporation to divert water out of Lake Huron and ship it in tankers to China in 1999 sounded the alarm for Canada, the United States, all eight Great Lakes states, and two Great Lakes provinces to adopt an international agreement among all of these jurisdictions, and a separate Great Lakes Compact among the states. Prior to entering into any agreements, the IJC issued a scientific and policy report in 2000 on a protocol for protecting the Great Lakes from diversions and consumptive uses of water within and outside of the Basin. Negotiations between the jurisdictions and stakeholders from industry, communities, nonprofit organizations, tribes and public participation led to a draft agreement in 2004.

In response to more than 10,000 comments and letters, the draft was renegotiated around a call for the prohibition of any diversions of water outside of the Great Lakes Basin, with a handful of narrow exceptions, including one-time transfers for humanitarian purposes or to meet the needs of communities that straddle the Basin’s divide (such as the currently contested diversion of Lake Michigan water from Milwaukee to cities and towns in Waukesha County).  In 2005, the governors of the states signed a Compact, and the governors and premieres of Ontario and Quebec signed a parallel international Agreement.  The Compact was signed into law in 2008.

The 2016 IJC Report and the Future of the Great Lakes

In 2014, as part of its continuing responsibility to protect the flows, levels, and integrity of the Great Lakes and ecosystem, the IJC began an in-depth study to review its findings and conclusions in its 2000 report to account for significant changes or events each decade.  Expert consultants to the IJC, Ralph Pentland, a Canadian water policy expert, and Alex Mayer, a U.S. science and engineering professor at Michigan Technological University, released draft findings for public review and comment from spring to the end of June in 2015.

IJC’s consultants Pentland and Mayer wrote in their 83-page report, which forms the basis of the IJC 2016 report, that the public trust would help address future water issues and trends, including the “uncertainty of climate and lake levels” and “losses that could approach the magnitude of losses related to diversions and consumptive uses.” They also found that “increasing droughts, storm events and the ‘nexus’ of intense competition for water sources for food, energy and development could override commitment to protect the Lakes,” and cited the California drought as “a reminder of communities literally running out of water.” Their findings also noted the current and evolving state of science that may better measure effects from human and natural forces in the future, prompting the need for a harmonizing public trust framework.  An “uptick” in NAFTA or other international trade law claims against water restrictions and outside political pressures could shackle the Agreement and Compact in the future.

FLOW submitted comments on the draft IJC report last summer. Since 2011, FLOW has concentrated its work on the public trust doctrine as a potential framework for protecting and managing the Great Lakes, when it submitted, along with the Council of Canadians, a request to the IJC to review the public trust doctrine as a principle for its decisions under its 1909 treaty.  FLOW has continued to submit research comments and published papers demonstrating the practical application of public trust standards to water levels, algal blooms, adaptive management practices, the straddling diversion exception in Waukesha, Wisconsin, net pen aquaculture, oil and gas state land leases, and crude oil pipeline transport on the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

FLOW’s June 2015 comments on the IJC draft report analyzed the potential importance of the public trust as a guiding background by applying to the issues facing the Great Lakes. There is a vast body of precedent that shows that governments have a perpetual and affirmative duty to take necessary actions to protect water, people, public health, and the integrity of watersheds and ecosystems.

FLOW board member Keith Schneider, the senior correspondent for Circle of Blue’s Water News, said, “Elevating the public trust doctrine to a modern governmental strategy to secure water resources is an idea of momentous import for our region and North America.”

“The Agreement and Compact recognize water is a ‘public treasure’ that is ‘held in trust’ to benefit our citizens and communities,” Olson added. “Why not use it given the threats we see from climate change, invasive species, water exports and diversions, and increased water scarcity and greater competition? Without developing a legal framework that transcends the multi jurisdictions in the Great Lakes, we’re seeing increasing public health and environmental crises like the Flint water crisis, poisoning residents with lead and other chemicals for 18 months, and algal blooms in Lake Erie shutting down Toledo’s municipal water supply. Why wouldn’t we want a time-tested body of public trust law that applies equally to all 40 million beneficiaries designed to safeguard the Great Lakes?”

 

For References, see:

IJC 2016 10-Year Review Report

FLOW’s Public Trust Report on the Great Lakes to IJC

Some Thoughts for the New Year: Common Home and Common Principles – Living and Working for the Common Good

Published on December 31st, 2015 by - H2Olson

 

Jim Olson FLOW Founder

 

 

By Jim Olson

President, FLOW For Love of Water, Traverse City

Attorney, Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C., Traverse City

 

 

 

 

When I look back over the past year, I can’t help but feel hope in the common goodness of people and communities.

I say this not without heart felt and serious concern about events in the world that point in the opposite direction – despair: increasing violence from guns, war, and sweeping droughts and floods, causing death and dislocation of millions of people and children, global warming and the push-back from unprecedented storms and extreme weather that compound drought, floods, landslides, which in turn destabilize countries like Syria fomenting conflict and conditions for ISIS. To paraphrase Circle of Blue senior journalist Keith Schneider, “The earth is angry and she’s fighting back.”

Closer to home, Detroit water shut-offs continue despite the devastating impact on the poor who can’t afford to pay a normal water bill, let alone the $100 a month or more claimed by the Detroit Water Board. State leaders finally stop denying the Flint water-crisis more than a year after residents demanded help, that its children and residents were exposed to high levels of lead from the city’s public water system. The problem is more endemic than Detroit or Flint, since both crises grew out of the unbridled power of Governor Snyder’s emergency manager law to usurp the power of city assets and revenues to pay debts regardless of the impacts to citizens. Flint’s emergency manager thought only of economic expediency in turning off water supplied from Detroit, and tapping into the filthy, polluted Flint River. Then there is the continual threat from the flow of oil in the aging, nearly 63-year old Line 5 pipeline under the Straits; the harm from a release or leak would be so catastrophic, the risk is unacceptable to everyone; yet the flow of oil continues without immediate temporary measures while state officials continue to study it as if it was an “issue,” and not the clear and imminent endangerment of the Great Lakes and the Straits of Mackinac – the fact is there is enough capacity within the pipeline system in the Great Lakes without Line 5 endangering the Straits.

So why the hope? Other events have happened this past year that point to a new way of understanding and, perhaps, solving many of the threats that we face in the world and our communities.

First, Pope Francis issued his encyclical on climate change and the environment, connecting the reality of our excessive consumptive materialism, global inequality, poverty, ecological and community devastation, and violence that follows. He carefully documented that our way of seeing and doing, our post-modern god of the law of free markets and legally justified greed, our fragmented attempts at dishing out money to help the poor are not working. He says this because we are living a material, market place illusion, and not in harmony with the reality that the earth is our “common home,” and that if we do not share its gifts and respect its inherent natural limits, earth’s water, weather, soil, and the biological diversity on which all life depends will continue to worsen to even greater extremes. He points to a new paradigm, a framework in which we work and live with the understanding that a body of water, whether ocean, Grand Traverse Bay, or Lake Chad, are a commons, part of the gift of earth as commons to all. If we do this, not only with water, but the ridge lines and forests, the beauty and land that are home to our relationships, our cities, the neighborhoods within our towns, the soils beneath our feet, the air we breathe, then we will begin to reshape our life around truth and the given limits of nature, and this will guide our living, our way of life, or economy, full and rich with newly directed creative and sustainable opportunities and entrepreneur ship.

Second, amidst a world of conflicts, from Syria to the Ukraine, from our own cities, to Nigeria, Sudan, and Afghanistan, and in the aftermath of the mass murders from extreme terrorists in Parrs, the nations of the world cooperated: leaders of large and small, developed and developing, or undeveloped countries, recognized the responsibility to each other, agreed to something, the world temperature will not rise more 2 degrees, and maybe less. While it is not law yet, if taken implemented, it will help stave off global calamity greater than two world wars last century, by reducing the irreparable damage we face from climate change and global warming. There is hope in the agreement that we stop denying and see the mounting harm and set a goal that through hard-work and common sacrifice offers a way out of an unthinkable alternative for people everywhere.

Third, we witnessed the bridging of differences by our Supreme Court in precedent setting cases that demand human dignity for marriage between two people, human rights to housing and water for the poor without access, as wells as the genuine search for a common goal to address wasteful and harmful water rights in the middle of the historical California droughts.

Fourth, our political debate heating up even before the 2016 presidential election has pointed to something more than the old, increasingly polarized beliefs in market economy, through money at wars and problems, rather than considering the root of the problem might be the way we are looking at them. Regardless of my own or others’ political persuasion, there is a fresh voice in Bernie Sanders, laying out the case for a community based on sharing of wealth, taking care of neighbors, and our neighborhood, what Pope Francis calls our “common home,” and at the same time helping with services to the poor, respecting and honoring diversity, and encouraging new business innovation. We have been trapped in this country in a red and blue, right and left, straight-jacket of false ideology, rather than identifying those things that are essential to every one of us and providing for them as principle of our country—the common good.

Fifth, then Michael Moore comes out with his latest film Where to Invade Next? Good God, here we have the message that we here in the USA had the idea, come up with the ideas, of common good, yet go in the opposite direction of individualized competition based on a law of the jungle called free markets. Everything is about profit and money and bottom line. The world is not a corporation, it is a commons in which corporations organizations are simply a means, not an end.

Do we really have a choice? Our common home and communities are simultaneously local and global. It’s not just act locally, think globally, or act globally, think locally. It’s all of this and more. If we don’t act, for example, on climate change, or understand that climate change is not just an energy issue but about water and food, if we don’t move toward a renewable economy within a few years, small island countries will literally disappear, rainforests and biodiversity will disappear, coastal cities and other areas will increasingly flood and fail from even more extreme storm events or the day-to-day failure to change, adapt and embrace resilient cooperation—the common good. All one has to do is read through “4 Degrees Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience,” a report published by renown scientists and even sponsored by the more conservative World Bank. The picture is not pretty, and it would it is ignorant, even immoral, at this time in history not to act, even out of self-interest, for this common good.

So I end this year and start the next with hope. At FLOW, the Great Lakes and Water Policy Center, here in Traverse City, and other organizations throughout the region, we have chosen as a mission and goal to protect the waters of the Great Lakes basin as a commons with principles, known as the public trust doctrine, that require government as trustee and people as beneficiaries, to work together to respect and protect water and community that depend on it from impairment. Private control of public waters and other public commons has always been prohibited; this is because some things essential to all of us are common to all of us. If we don’t protect the commons, we undermine the air, water, community and neighborhoods where we live. To work and live toward the common good is to work for the commons and at the same time work for yourself, family and friends. To not work for the common good, is to continue the long, slow, or perhaps not so slow, disintegration that leads to destruction of the earth, water, air, community, people, and leads to a world violent and unsafe.

It is hopeful and reassuring to see positive events pointing toward this new way of seeing, understanding and doing – living and working for the protection and sustainability of our common home and the common good. They are one and the same. Here’s to another hopeful New Year.

 

 

 

Holiday Thoughts on the Paris Climate Change Agreement: A Christmas Gift of Hope and Reality

Published on December 18th, 2015 by - H2Olson

By Jim Olson, President

FLOW (For Love of Water)

 

We can be thankful that nations of the world have opened the door to the foyer to address climate change. Most encouraging is the senses of cooperation to protect this home we call earth.

The other end of the promise and hope of the Paris accord is the reality that the thick tail of climate change has been rampaging and will continue to do so, erasing soil, melting glaciers, flooding and erasing people, landscapes and communities from the face of the earth.

Keith Schneider, NY Times journalist and senior editor at Circle of Blue, once again, in his true to form visionary hard-core journalism, lays bare this reality in his article in the New York Times. The whipsawing swing of climate has, is, and will strike hard. In the midst of humanity’s hope, so the message is clear: We must face reality, start the change, start finding and living the new renewable life, move toward inevitable near fossil-fuel free economies and lives, and we must do so as fast as possible to shift to the inevitable renewable energy economy.

Many places and people need this, we owe it to them as co-citizens.  We owe it to ourselves and our children, and the unborn children to come.  Earth is our common home — as Pope Francis puts it in his encyclical on climate and sustainable environment and communities. And, in the middle of this change, there is another shift, one that is based in ancient and modern principles — the commons of this world — air, water, soil, species, life itself, and the liberty of humans, depend on understanding and respecting this commons.  To do this, we must view and manage these as held in trust, a public trust, one that brings us to an ethical and legally implemented framework that manages and passes on these commons by maintaining or restoring a sustainable integrity of air, water, soil, species, including we sapiens, for centuries to come.

If we can shift to seeing our individual goals, dreams, needs as dependent on and fostered by the commons, we can solve these threats with incredible resilience, creativity, cooperation and entrepreneurship. But we must start this shift in paradigm to a comprehensive, unifying principle of commons and public trust now – in 2016– to guide our decisions, force the right decisions that if not made trespass on and impair the commons in violation of this trust, so that we truly solve these threats at the level of the problem. If we do this, the gift this Christmas may be the protection of liberty and dignity and survival that depend on this, a gift of reality that encourages us to change along the lines of both the hope and reality of climate change and our future.

Court Confirms 45 Miles of Lake Michigan Shoreline Owned by State Under Public Trust

Published on August 2nd, 2015 by - H2Olson

Court Confirms Indiana’s 45-Mile Shoreline on Lake Michigan Owned and Held by State for Public Recreation Under Public Trust Doctrine

By Jim Olson[1]

 

Another state court confirms that the 3,200 miles of Great Lakes shoreline are owned by states in public trust for citizens to enjoy for walking, swimming, sunbathing and similar beach and water related activities on public trust lands below the Ordinary High Water Mark (“OHWM”).[2]

When Indiana was carved out of the Northwest Territories and joined the United States in 1816, the State took title in trust for all waters of Lake Michigan and all land below the OHWM along the state’s 45-mile shoreline.Map of Indiana Shoreline with Counties

In 2012, the lakefront owners on Lake Michigan  in Long Beach, Indiana, filed a lawsuit against the town of Long Beach, claiming they owned all of the land to the waters’ edge. Lakefront owners asked the trial court judge to prohibit any interference with their private property by town residents and the city who used the beach as public for walking, sunbathing, swimming, and picnicking  since the town was incorporated. A group of local residents and homeowners organized into the Long Beach Community Alliance (“LBCA”),  and intervened in the dispute to defend their public right of access for walking and recreation over the wide strip of white sugar sand between the shoreline and the retaining walls and yards of the lakefront owners. The Alliance for the Great Lakes (“AGA”) headquartered in nearby Chicago, and Save the Dunes (“STD”), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the dunes on Indiana’s shoreline, also intervened to protect the interests of their members who were citizens of Indiana and used and enjoyed the Lake Michigan shore.

In late December 2013, the trial judge ruled that the lakefront landowners could not interfere with the town or residents’ efforts to pass ordinances recognizing the land below the OHWM belonged to the state and was held in public trust for residents and citizens of Indiana.[3]

Not satisfied, the lakefront owners appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals. In 2014, the appellate court recognized the trial judge’s ruling below, but remanded the matter back to the trial court for a more comprehensive decision on the State’s title and the public trust in the shoreline.[4] The court reasoned that the State of Indiana had not been made a party in the local suit, a prerequisite for a court ruling on a landownership and pubic trust shoreline dispute.

Another lakefront owner pressed forward with a related new lawsuit, again claiming ownership to the waters’ edge, based on their deeds that, they argued, gave them title to the waters’ edge, even if that meant their title cut off the rights of citizens of Indiana to the shoreline below the OHWM. This time the state was named a defendant, and the LBCA, AGA, and STD once more intervened.

It’s common knowledge that Lake Michigan water levels have fluctuated about 6 feet between highs and lows since the federal government started keeping records in 1860. In the late 1980s, the water levels and wave action threatened the lakefront owners’ retaining walls and homes. In 2013, the year the first court ruling came down, the water levels were so low, the distance from the waters’ edge to the lakefront owners’ retaining walls was wider than the length of a football field.

Longbeach, Ind Shoreline photo

While the knowledge may not be so common for many citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court and the courts of states abutting the Great Lakes have routinely ruled that each state took title to the waters and lands of the Great Lakes up to the OHWM. In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the Great Lakes’ waters and bottomlands to this ordinary high water mark are owned by the states in trust for all citizens.[5]  The Illinois legislature deeded one square mile of Lake Michigan on Chicago’s waterfront to the Illinois Central Railroad company for an industrial complex. However, the Supreme Court voided the deed, and found that the public trust in these lands and waters is inviolate and could not be sold off, alienated, or even legislated away.

Despite this history, lakefront owners the Gundersons, pushed for exclusive ownership of the beach to exclude residents from the beach between their homes and the waters’ edge.  The State of Indiana Department of Natural Resources, LBCA, AGA, and STD defended public ownership and the residents and citizens’ right to use the public trust shoreline for walking, swimming, sunbathing, and similar water-related recreational activities.

On July 24,  2015, LaPorte County Judge Richard Stalbrink wrote a near text-book-perfect decision on the public trust doctrine and ruled against the lakefront owners in favor of the state, LBCA, AGA, and STD,  confirming that the beach below the ordinary high water mark to the waters’ edge belongs to the state and is subject to a paramount public trust that cannot be interfered with or impaired by lakefront owners.[6]

First, Judge Stalbrink followed the Supreme Court cases holding that the state obtained title to the waters and bottomlands to the OHWM when it joined the Union in 1816. Second, Stalbrink ruled that this beach land below the OHWM was held in trust for public walking, swimming, fishing access, and other public recreational uses. Third, the Court confirmed that Indiana’s definition of the OHWM was proper, given that the definition takes into account the physical characteristics that define a permanent shoreline as reasonable evidence of the public portion of the shoreline.  Finally, Judge Stalbrink recognized that because water levels of Lake Michigan fluctuate, the width of the beach is subject to change, but that there is always a paramount right of the public to access the beach for proper public trust recreational activities.

As Judge Stalbrink observed near the end of his decision, ”Private lot owners cannot impair the public’s right to use the beach below the OHWM for these protected purposes. To hold otherwise would invite the creation of a bach landscape dotted with small, private, fenced and fortified compounds designed to deny the public from enjoying Indiana’s limited access to one of the greatest natural resources in this State.”[7]

 

(Author’s End Note: See rulings by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2005. Glass v Goeckel, 473 Mich 667, 703 N.W. 2d. 58 (2005), Ohio Supreme Court in Merrill v Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 130 Ohio St. 3d 30, (2011) (on remand before Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio for factual determination of OHWM); the Gunderson decision upholding public trust in Long Beach should control the decision in the companion case, LBLHA, LLC v Town of Long Beach et al., supra note 2, on remand to the Laporte County trial court).

[1]President and Founder, Flow for Love of Water.

[2]See Melissa Scanlan, Blue Print for a Great Lakes Trail, Vermont Law School Research Paper No. 14-14 (2014).  (Professor Scanlan proposes walking trail within public trust lands and without interference with riparian use based on public trust doctrine in the Great Lakes); James Olson, All Aboard: Navigating the Course for Universal Adoption of the Public Trust Doctrine, 15 Vt. J. E. L. 135 (2014) (Author documents the application of the public trust doctrine in all eight Great Lakes states and two provinces of Canada).

[3]LBLHA, LLC  v Town of Long Beach et al., Cause No. 46C01-1212-PL-1941. (The author, Jim Olson, discloses that he was one of the attorneys, along with Kate Redman, Olson, Bzdok & Howard, P.C., Traverse City, Michigan, in this case for the Long Beach Community Alliance in favor of public trust in shoreline).

[4]LBLHA, LLC v Town of Long Beach et al., 28 N.E. 3d. 1077 (2014). The Indiana Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to add the State of Indiana as a party; this case will not proceed in same fashion as the Gunderson case discussed in this paper, which was decided by the same LaPorte County trial court.

[5]Illinois v Illinois Central Railroad, 146 US 387 (1892).

[6]Gunderson v State et al., LaPorte Superior Court 2, Cause No. 46D02-1404-PL-606, Decision, July 24, 2015, 22 pps. (Judge Stalbrink, Richard, Jr.); Indiana Law Blog, Ind. Decisions, July 28, 2015 http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2015’07/ind_decisions_m_709.html.; see also U.S. v Carstens, 982 F Supp 874, 878 (N.D. Ind. 2013).

[7]Id., Indiana Law Blog, at p. 3.

FLOW Urges the Department of Environmental Quality to Strengthen Its Proposed 2014 Fracking Regulations to Protect Michigan’s Water, Air, and Land Resources

Published on August 1st, 2014 by - Reports & Media Releases

August 1, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Liz Kirkwoood, Executive Director

231 944 1568 or liz@flowforwater.org

FLOW Urges the Department of Environmental Quality to Strengthen Its Proposed 2014 Fracking Regulations to Protect Michigan’s Water, Air, and Land Resources

Traverse City, Mich. – On July 31, 2014, FLOW submitted extensive public comments to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding their proposed fracking regulations on water withdrawals, baseline water quality sampling, monitoring and reporting, and chemical disclosure. FLOW’s comments urge the DEQ to take a number of steps to strengthen the oil and gas regulations governing high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) or fracking.

“As a whole, the DEQ’s proposed new rules to address the risks, impacts, and uncertainties surrounding HVHF in Michigan do not measure up to the values and principles embodied in Michigan’s history, law, and policy,” said FLOW’s president and founder Jim Olson. “They are not strong enough to protect our air, water, natural resources, the public trust, and public health and welfare from the risks HVHF poses.”

FLOW’s written comments elaborate on comments made by Executive Director, Liz Kirkwood, at the DEQ’s Gaylord public hearing on July 15, 2014. “Existing oil and gas laws are built around the assumption that the rule of capture applies to all oil and gas production and that fracking is simply a technique to “enhance” the recovery of another fungible oil and gas liquid.” said Liz Kirkwood, “The DEQ cannot and should not bootstrap fracking into conventional oil and gas development regulations.” Key recommendations included:

Notice and Comment Requirements: The application process on drilling permits should be subject to formal notice, comments, and hearing procedures as required under current Michigan law.

Comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment: The environmental impact assessment should examine the entire area of potential impact, beyond the drilling pad site, and consider alternatives and cumulative impacts as required by the Oil and Gas

August 1, 2014Act and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

Good Faith Effort Not Enough for Pooling Authorization: The department should prohibit the drilling of wells prior to all properties being leased or a compulsory pooling hearing is conducted; otherwise, the proposed rules are likely to run afoul due process and takings challenges. Fracking should be prohibited on any property that has not voluntarily agreed to be leased.

Chemical Disclosure in Drilling Application: The regulations should require full disclosure of all fracking chemicals as part of the drilling application, not 30 days after the well has been completed.

Baseline Sampling Before, During and After Drilling: Baseline testing should be integral part of the drill permit application and after the drilling has occurred. Given the large water withdrawals associated with fracking and the impacts of surface and ground waters, baseline testing should sample both water levels and flows.

Evaluation of Adverse Impacts: Mitigate adverse impacts to all water bodies, especially headwaters, by requiring a separate high-volume water withdrawal approval with adequate hydrogeological baseline data to be filed along with the drilling permit application.

Interference Requirements: Increase isolation distance between hydraulically fractured wells (> 660 feet) and offset wells in the current regulations.

FLOW urged the DEQ to consider these additional changes, as well as review the pending final Graham Sustainability Institute’s Integrated Assessment, which examines the reality of fracking and the entire regulatory framework. Failure to do so increases risk of waste, health, safety and welfare, harm to the environment, and threatens property owners and citizens who use and enjoy Michigan’s abundant water and natural resources.

FLOW’s submitted comments enhance and support its Local Government Ordinance Program to provide technical assistance to township and counties in Michigan experiencing associated fracking impacts to their local air, water, and land resources.

FLOW also was a signatory to an another public comment submitted by the Anglers of the AuSable, Michigan League of Conservation Voters (LVC), Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, Moms Clean Air Force, and more than 20 other environmental and conservation organizations.

View the full comments here: DEQ Comments 

FLOW is the Great Lakes Basin’s only public trust policy and education 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Our mission is to advance public trust solutions to save the Great Lakes.

 

 

FLOW signs-on to Letter Requesting Survey of Pipelines Crossing Michigan’s Waters

Published on July 9th, 2014 by - News

A letter sent to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration included with the authorized signatures of…

Anglers of the Au Sable • Clean Water Action • Detroit Riverkeeper • Dwight Lydell Chapter Izaak Walton League of America • FLOW (For Love of Water) • Friends of the AuGres-Rifle Watershed • Flint River Watershed Coalition • Friends of The Boyne River • G.R.E.A.T (Grand River Environmental Action Team) • Grand Valley Metro Council • Great Lakes Council of the International Federation of Fly Fishers, Inc. • Great Lakes Environmental Law Center • Gull Lake Quality Organization • Huron River Watershed Council • Les Cheneaux Watershed Council • Michigan Environmental Council • Save the Wild U.P. • Michigan Land Use Institute • Michigan League of Conservation Voters • Michigan Trout Unlimited • Miller-Van Winkle Chapter Trout Unlimited • Muskegon River Watershed Assembly • Saginaw Field and Stream Club • National Wildlife Federation • respectmyplanet.org • • Sierra Club Michigan Chapter • Sturgeon For Tomorrow •The Watershed Center ~ Grand Traverse Bay • Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council • Upper Black River Council • Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition • West Michigan Environmental Action Council

The Honorable Cynthia I. Quarterman

Administrator Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

East Building, 2nd Floor

1200 New Jersey Ave.,SE

Washington, DC 20590

Director Linda Daugherty

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Office of Pipeline Safety

Central Region Office

901 Locust Street, Suite 462

Kansas City, MO 64106

July 7, 2014

RE: Water Crossing Survey of Michigan Pipelines

Dear Administrator Quarterman and Director Daugherty:

The undersigned organizations hereby request that the United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) conduct a water crossing study to evaluate the risk of ruptures and leaks in all sections of pipeline that cross Michigan’s rivers, streams, and lakes.

The Great Lakes represent one-fifth of the world’s fresh surface water. Forty million people rely on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, and millions more benefit from the commerce and business that depend on the waters of the Great Lakes.

Michigan is the Great Lakes state with more freshwater coastline than any other state in the nation. Our lakes, rivers, and streams define not only our boundary but also provide a path to environmental, economic, and social progress. The health of the people of Michigan, our economy, and our quality of life depends on clean water. The Great Lakes ecosystem provides unparalleled recreational and economic opportunities to the 10 million people that call Michigan home. Studies show that the Great Lakes provide Michigan with 823,000 jobs that represent nearly 25 percent of Michigan’s payroll. Additionally, Great Lakes tourism generates billions of dollars each year from those who spend leisure time around our lakes and streams.

Pipelines crossing Michigan’s rivers, streams, and Great Lakes put these resources at risk – threatening our health and economic viability. These treasures demand increased attention from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration to accomplish its pipeline safety mission by ensuring the safety of pipeline crossings in Michigan waterways.

We request that PHMSA conduct a water crossing survey of Michigan pipelines to:

  • Develop a comprehensive map of pipeline waterway crossings;
  • Determine the status of all existing pipelines running underneath Michigan’s water bodies;
  • Evaluate the pipeline integrity and risk of ruptures and leaks at each pipeline crossing; and
  • Outline what should be done to prevent future pipeline failures.

We request that PHMSA review all the documentation necessary to determine the status of all pipelines running under Michigan’s rivers, streams, and lakes. PHMSA should analyze and critique the structural integrity of each pipeline and the standards required at the time of installation of each pipeline to assess the risk of ruptures and leaks. The review should include a variety of factors including each pipeline’s age, thickness, and degree of corrosion; the condition and operation of all shut-off valves; the valve distances from the streams or rivers; what products the pipelines are carrying; the pipeline diameters and burial depth; and what pressures the pipeline products are under. It should also include identification of any critical information gaps that exist in the pipeline network within Michigan.

In addition, PHMSA should work directly with pipeline operators to complete the water crossing survey. PHMSA should request any and all information related to structural integrity and potential risks from pipeline operators whose infrastructure crosses a river, stream, or lake. PHMSA should also require that companies fill any critical information gaps found during the analysis. This may prompt operators to perform in-depth studies/analyses on all their major pipeline water crossings. All of this information can then be used to make recommendations to prevent any future failures that damage Michigan’s pristine rivers, streams, and lakes.

The state has various programs related to the regulation of pipelines. However, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) is the only state agency with direct regulatory authority over safety of pipelines. The MPSC’s authority is restricted to natural gas pipelines. All other safety-related authority, including jurisdiction of hazardous liquid pipelines, rests with PHMSA and preempts state regulation of safety factors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon PHMSA to fulfill its mandate and conduct a study to ensure the protection of Michigan’s citizens and environment from the risks that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by pipeline.

The Great Lakes and inland waters are Michigan’s natural resource treasures; they shape our state, our lives, and our economy. The waters of Michigan have already suffered as a result of a July 26, 2010 pipeline rupture that released an estimated 843,000 gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River, a Lake Michigan tributary. It is imperative that history not be repeated elsewhere in Michigan. It is critical to ensure the integrity of pipelines at major water crossings that affect rivers, streams, and lakes in Michigan. To do this, PHMSA must compile a comprehensive inventory of pipelines at water crossings and determine if they are currently safe.

Therefore, the undersigned organizations formally request that the United States Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration conduct a water crossing survey of Michigan pipelines.

If you have any questions regarding this request or would like to discuss further, please contact Jennifer McKay at Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council at (231) 347-1181 or by email at jenniferm@watershedcouncil.org.

Sincerely,

Bruce Pregler President Anglers of the Au Sable

Nic Clark Michigan Director Clean Water Action

Robert Burns Detroit Riverkeeper

Duane De Vries President Dwight Lydell Chapter Izaak Walton League of America

Rebecca Fedewa Executive Director Flint River Watershed Coalition

Liz Kirkwood Executive Director FLOW (For Love of Water)

Jacque Rose Co-Founder Friends of the AuGres-Rifle Watershed

Carl J Wehner President Friends of The Boyne River

Kenny Price President G.R.E.A.T (Grand River Environmental Action Team)

Wendy Ogilvie Director of Environmental Programs Grand Valley Metro Council

Jim Schramm President Great Lakes Council of the International Federation of Fly Fishers, Inc.

Nick Schroeck Executive Director Great Lakes Environmental Law Center

Susan Houseman Vice President Gull Lake Quality Organization

Laura Rubin Executive Director Huron River Watershed Council

G.K. Herron Treasurer Les Cheneaux Watershed Council

James Clift Policy Director Michigan Environmental Council

Hans Voss Executive Director Michigan Land Use Institute

Erica Bloom Policy Manager Michigan League of Conservation Voters

John Walters Vice Chairman Michigan Trout Unlimited

Gregory Walz President Miller-Van Winkle Chapter Trout Unlimited

Gary A. Noble Executive Director Muskegon River Watershed Assembly

Andy Buchsbaum Director, Great Lakes Office National Wildlife Federation

Matt Wandel Founder & Managing Director respectmyplanet.org

Alexandra Thebert Executive Director Save the Wild U.P.

Anne Woiwode State Director Sierra Club Michigan Chapter

Brenda Archambo President Sturgeon For Tomorrow

Christine Crissman Executive Director The Watershed Center ~ Grand Traverse Bay

Gail Gruenwald Executive Director Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council

Carol Moncrieff Rose Chair Upper Black River Council

Nancy Warren Acting President Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition

Nicholas Occhipinti, MPP Policy and Community Activism Director West Michigan Environmental Action Council

Mike Meyer President Saginaw Field and Stream Club

cc: Rick Snyder, Governor, State of Michigan

Dan Wyant, Director, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Bill Schuette, Attorney General,

State of Michigan State of Michigan Congressional Delegation

Allan Beshore, CATS Manager, PHMSA Harold Winnie, CATS Manager, PHMSA

Harold Winnie, CATS Manager, PHMSA

Environmental groups demand Governor and State take immediate action to protect the Great Lakes from hazardous Enbridge Mackinac Straits oil pipeline

Published on July 2nd, 2014 by - Reports & Media Releases

July 2, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Liz Kirkwoood, Executive Director

231 944 1568 or liz@flowforwater.org

 Michigan Governor Snyder urged to exercise full authority over Enbridge Pipeline No. 5 under public lands easement agreement and Great Lakes Submerged Land Act 

Traverse City – 17 Conservation, water and environmental groups and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians today sent a letter to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder urging greater state action to regulate Enbridge Pipeline No. 5. The 61 year-old pipeline transports nearly 23 million gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products under the Straits of Mackinac each day.

The letter points out potential violations in operations and public disclosure requirements established by Public Act 10 of 1953 and the Great Lakes Submerged Land Act. Public Act 10 granted the Michigan Department of Conservation public trust authority to allow this particular easement on public trust bottomlands and waters of the Great Lakes provided they are “held in trust.”

The letter cites the lack of disclosure and transparency by Enbridge and the failure of the State of Michigan to enforce accountability and compliance consistent with the requirements of the public trust in the waters and bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

“The lack of information leaves too many questions; it makes it impossible to truly assess the risk of a devastating crude oil spill under the Straits of Mackinac, “said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW and a principal author of the report. “For instance, the 1953 easement agreement sets the maximum operating pressure of pipeline No. 5 at 600 psig. Data from the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), show that Enbridge’s maximum operating pressure significantly exceeds 600 psig, and instead typically runs at nearly twice the allowed pressure at about 1000-1250 psig. We have to get to the bottom of this and other crucial safety questions. ”

 Enbridge had a catastrophic spill on its pipeline near the Kalamazoo River in 2010, causing severe environmental impacts and massive cleanup costs.

“We urge you, the Attorney General, and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to fully assert your authority under the easement, Public Act 10 of 1953, the GLSLA, and public trust law to ensure that any use by Enbridge of Line 5 under the Straits does not, and will not likely, subordinate, interfere with, or impair these public trust waters and bottomlands or the public use and enjoyment of these waters  so essential to the quality of life and economy of Michigan,”  the letter states.

The groups praised the Michigan Attorney General and the Department of Environmental Quality for their joint April 29, 2014 letter to Enbridge. Recognizing that the Straits pipeline present a “unique risk” and an overwhelming magnitude of harm to the Straits, Lake Michigan-Huron, the ecosystem, and the public and private use and enjoyment that depend on them, the Attorney General and DEQ demanded that Enbridge provide critical detailed information about:  pipeline construction, modification, useful life and replacement, (2) existing and potential future uses of the pipelines, (3) pipeline inspection, (4) pipeline leak prevention, detection, and control, (5) contingency planning and spill response, (6) compliance with easement terms, and (7) access to Enbridge records under the easement.

“We appreciate the recognition by the Attorney General and the DEQ of the State’s public trust or stewardship responsibilities to protect these waters, bottomlands, and public uses from potential harm and risk associated with Line 5,” said Jim Olson, founder of FLOW, a Great Lakes water policy center. “But even if Enbridge complies with the requests of the Attorney General and DEQ in this letter, it will not have fully complied with the terms of the easement, Public Act 10, the GLSLA, or public trust law that protects the integrity of the Straits and Great Lakes.”

In the April 29 letter, the Attorney General and the DEQ state, “Strong currents in the Straits could rapidly spread any oil leaked from the pipelines into both Lakes Huron and Michigan, causing grave environmental and economic harm. Efforts to contain and clean up leaks in this area would be extraordinarily difficult, especially if they occurred in winter or other severe weather conditions that commonly occur at the Straits.” These currents could rapidly move this oil spill plume throughout Lake Michigan-Huron.

“The Great Lakes supply drinking water to 42 million people,” said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “We can’t afford another potential Enbridge oil pipeline spill like what happened in the Kalamazoo River.   Let’s work to try to prevent another costly disaster. All of the Great Lakes states have a vital stake in avoiding oil spill hazards in the Straits of Mackinac.”

The letter urges the Governor, Attorney General and DEQ to fully exercise authority under the easement, Public Act 10 of 1953, the GLSLA, and public trust law to ensure that any use by Enbridge of Line 5 under the Straits: “does not, and will not likely, subordinate, interfere with, or impair these public trust waters and bottomlands or the public use and enjoyment of these waters – so essential to the quality of life and economy of Michigan.”

The letter enumerates four necessary next steps:

  1. Submit the information the AG and DEQ requested in their April 29 letter and make such information available to the public;
  2. Disclose in detail all oil and other liquids or substances that have been, are, or will be transported through Line 5 pipelines under the Straits;
  3. File a conveyance application for authorization from the DEQ under the GLSLA and public trust law, coupled with a comprehensive analysis of likely impacts on water, ecosystem, and public uses in the event of a release, and demonstrate that Line 5 will conform with the State’s perpetual public trust duties and standards for occupying and using the waters and bottomlands of the Straits and Lake Michigan-Huron; and
  4. Achieve full compliance with all express terms and conditions of the easement.

Enbridge recently increased Line 5 pipeline product flow under the Straits by 10 percent from 490,000 to 540,000 barrels per day, or 2.1 million gallons per day. Enbridge increased Line 5’s pipeline pressure by 20 percent, depending on the viscosity of the product being pumped and transported.  Enbridge has increased the transport of oil in this aging 61-year-old pipeline containing heavy oil characteristics or compounds from tar sands.

“The effects of a catastrophic spill under the Straits would devastate the tourism industry so vital to the economy of northern Michigan,“ said James Clift, Policy Director of Lansing-based Michigan Environmental. The effects of a catastrophic spill under the Straits would devastate the Straits and Mackinac Island as an international attraction, the tourism industry so vital to the economy of Michigan.”

The State of Michigan has not yet conducted a proper public trust analysis under common law, the GLSLA, Constitution or Michigan Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”). Mandatory evaluation is required under the law to determine whether or not the occupancy and use by Enbridge of Line 5 is “likely to pollute, impair or destroy the air, water or other natural resources or the public trust in these resources,” according  to Kirkwood.  In other words,  Enbridge must affirmatively prove that this five-mile submerged pipeline,  with its recent oil and product changes and increased volume and pressure will not likely harm public trust waters, the ecosystem, and uses for fishing, commerce, navigation, recreation, and drinking supplies that depend on these waters.

“Michigan residents need to get active and make it known they demand accountability,” said Jim Lively, Michigan Land Use Institute.

Environmental and conservation advocates have long been frustrated by the lack of information available about Line 5. The letter points out that the public trust requires complete transparency, disclosure, and accountability on the part of Enbridge. The State of Michigan has unfettered authority to demand such transparency, disclosure, and accountability.

The Great Lakes hold 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water.

A copy of the full letter is available here.

# # #

FLOW is the Great Lakes Basin’s only public trust policy and education 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Our mission is to advance public trust solutions to save the Great Lakes.