News Story

Change In Basic Water Use Law Could Hit Michigan Farms

Bill aims at particular water bottler, could restrict fruit and vegetable growers

The King Orchards produce company has two locations in Northern Michigan and sells its canned tart cherries online.

“Give your cherry recipes a homemade feel with these Montmorency tart cherries, packed in water,” reads the company’s online ad.

Fruit and vegetable sales represent the largest “export” of water from the state of Michigan.

In 2016, irrigation for agriculture accounted for 44% of “consumptive water use” in Michigan, according to data from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy. Commercial use of water was just .19% (less than 1%). The department defines consumptive water use as “the portion of a water withdrawal that is not returned locally due to evaporation, incorporation into products, or transport out of the Great Lakes Basin.”

Under recently proposed legislation, King Orchards, and any Michigan farm or business whose farm products are shipped out of state, could be required to obtain permission to use water under a public trust doctrine from state environmental regulators before growing a single cherry, tomato or bushel of corn.

State Rep. Yousef Rabhi, D-Ann Arbor, introduced House Bill 5290 in December.

Rabhi's office said in an email that the provisions in the bill would not apply to agricultural products. Under the bill, farmers could need to get permission to access ground water needed to grow crops but once grown would not be prohibited from exporting the water out of the state in containers.

The real target of the bill is a particular Michigan water bottling operation run by Nestle that sells, or “exports,” water to other states. But the legislation proposes a broad-brush regulatory regime that would affect every food grower and producer in the state.

Specifically, the bill would empower state environmental regulators to impose rules that are, in its words, “necessary to sufficiently ensure the protection of the public trust in the waters of this state.” The ultimate reach of the bill would be defined by rules imposed by state regulators after the proposed legislation became law.

The term “public trust” is key to this proposal. It is a legal term of art meaning that prior government permission is required for water use. The doctrine is prevalent in arid parts of the western U.S. but not in the east.

But Michigan has always operated under a “riparian rights” water use doctrine. This grants property owners a right to use groundwater without prior government permission, as long as their use does not impair neighbors’ access. The right comes with a duty to not impair others’ use of the resource, and to compensate them if that happens.

Editor's note: This story was updated to provide comments from Rabhi's office. This story was modified to reflect their comments.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

Commentary

Rational Environmentalism in 2020

Find a balance between human welfare and environmental concerns

Environmental issues sit at the top of many Michigander’s list of policy priorities for 2020. But discussions about electric vehicles, solar panels, climate change, animal rights and many other issues are often emotionally charged, and can easily morph into ideological warfare, with both sides digging in and resorting to lobbing rhetorical bombs at each other. Is there room for rational debate in 2020?

There is, but it will not be easily obtained. Partisans and the media often fan the flames of environmental debate, as confrontation and divisiveness can serve their purposes well. Here are a few considerations that might help foster more reasonable conversations about environmental issues.

Some perspective on climate change: the early Earth experienced massive climate change for hundreds of millions of years when mass extinctions occurred, such as the Permian extinction and the Chicxulub asteroid that radically altered the environment and wiped out the dinosaurs. But no one mourns those events because no self-reflective life existed when they occurred. Consider a lifeless planet or even a lush planet without self-reflective life. Is it a disaster if a supernova destroys the planet? Nearly everyone would say “no,” and no one would lose sleep over it.

The lesson here is that it is self-reflective life, human life, that imparts value to the environment and grieves at damage to the natural world. As such, human life must be pre-eminent in discussions about climate change. No matter the damage humans have caused the environment, the welfare of humans should be at the center of any climate change action. Though we may value and nurture all life, from the snail to the chimpanzee, without self-reflective life, living things experience nothing more than determinative phenomena.

A related reminder is that human rights and individual liberty go hand-in-hand with environmental protection and improvement, evidenced by the fact that the cleanest environments are in places where human rights are honored and protected. Not China, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Turkey or North Korea. The demand to protect the natural world proceeds from free peoples with adequate food, shelter and legal rights, not controlling governments. Expanding individual liberty is a key component of making the world a cleaner place.

Understanding risk can help us decide where to focus our attention and energy. For instance, we often hear about the risks to human health associated with certain chemicals or the chemical composition of our water and air, but in our daily activities we routinely accept risks that are even more “dangerous” to our health, such as driving, biking or skiing. This doesn’t mean we shake off concerns about these chemicals, or water and air pollution, but we should keep these concerns in proper perspective and seek to understand the degree of risk that corresponds to the amount of chemical present before we make it a high priority.

A final reminder: Do not let your effort to save the world get in the way of cleaning up your community. A downside of the hyperawareness we have of climate change is that it can drown out local and, sometimes, more pressing concerns. Too many politicians and advocacy groups promote bold and sweeping national or international policy objectives that may distract from, or even hinder, important regional and local problems. Frequently, we can make more progress by focusing locally and regionally, knowing that best practices will cascade to the world at large, as has occurred in the last century with many technologies and practices.

A literary image that might help those who differ politically or ideologically is the Shire, from J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of The Rings book trilogy, a land where liberty, commerce, spirited debate and love of nature coexist. Tolkien’s hobbits refuse to choose between commerce and nature, or between freedom and responsibility to community, or between frank communication and civility. We can have that too, if we agree that balancing human welfare and environmental concerns is possible, and even perhaps the best approach to developing effective environmental policies.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.