Analysis

Without Context, Water Use Claims Are Misleading (Millions? Billions? Trillions?)

Water use debate often occurs in an information vacuum

On Jan. 8, Michigan Capitol Confidential reported that about 55 trillion gallons of rainwater fall on this state every year.

On Jan. 7, a Michigan Capitol Confidential post on Facebook reported that Berrien County uses 791.6 billion gallons of water every year.

On Jan. 3, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s news site reported that the St. Lawrence River removes, on average, about 110 million gallons per minute from the Great Lakes Basin.

This information was published to provide context for Michigan residents who have been on the receiving end of a multiple-front campaign against a certain water bottling plant in particular, and against human use of water resources in general. The campaign is misleading because, in the appropriately named Great Lake State, it ignores the huge magnitude of this resource compared to the relatively tiny scale of all human uses. Just 0.2% (less than 1%) of “consumptive use of water” in 2016 was due to bottled water, according to a state report. The state defines it as,  “Consumptive water use is 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.” The largest consumptive user was agricultural irrigation, at 44%.

Various bills have been introduced to replace the legal doctrine that has traditionally governed water use in Michigan, called riparian rights. They would replace it with a public trust doctrine where water is managed by government for the public.

Applying the approach taken in the American West to Michigan ignores the incredible volume of water that lies around and under this state.

The news site MLive reported on these bills with the headline: “Bills would ban Nestle from distributing Michigan water outside Great Lakes watershed.”

The story reported: “New bills in the Michigan legislature would limit distribution of the state’s water resources to the Great Lakes watershed by removing an exemption that currently allows companies like Nestle to ship bottled water outside the basin.”

The MLive article also quoted the lead sponsor of the current water bill, State Rep. Yousef Rabhi, who referred to Nestle’s operations as a theft of water.

Much of the reporting on Nestle focused solely on the amount of water it uses – about 400 million gallons a year. But even Nestle critics admit that compared to all the water in Michigan, Nestle’s operation is the proverbial drop in the bucket.

But without information about the amount of water available in this state, residents won’t know how small a player Nestle is in terms of water leaving the Great Lakes watershed. Often, the comments of Nestle opponents reflect this lack of appreciation for the magnitudes involved.

For example former Republican congresswoman Candice Miller expressed outrage in a Michigan Radio interview about Nestle’s Michigan operation, calling it “absolutely appalling.” She repeated, several times, the statement that Nestle uses 400 million gallons a year and appeared to not realize how little that is when the broader context is included.

Miller said Nestle was “allowed 250 gallons per minute, which is enormous in itself. Now to 250 to 400 gallons per minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Some have criticized the Michigan Capitol Confidential articles and Facebook post for comparing the enormity of the water leaving via the St. Lawrence River and falling onto this state via annual rainfall with the estimated 400 million gallons of water Nestle uses every year in Michigan. They all share one thing in common — they are all part of the Great Lakes Basin.

Nestle opponents like the nonprofit activist group Freshwater Future exploit this absence of context with statements that compare water to gold as a natural resource.

“Cases like Nestlé may seem like an blip on the map in this context, but they reflect a deeper cultural anxiety about a potential future in which water is the new gold and the Great Lakes the world’s largest gold mine—and potentially the site of the world’s largest gold rush,” the non-profit states. “But this demonstrates why the gold metaphor is incomplete. Unlike gold, water is essential to life; water cannot be substituted; water is not a good we can easily adjust our consumption of as prices rise and fall. This water war in mid-Michigan is a harbinger of the violent 21st-century wars that many predict will be fought over water resources.”

For now, there are no wars being fought over Michigan’s water. Not while 55 trillion gallons of “gold” fall on this state every year, called rain by residents.

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.

News Story

These Teachers Earning More Under ‘Right To Work For Less’

Their union is getting less, though

In December 2012, under a Detroit Free Press headline that read “Right To Work For Less,” a pair of letters appeared from two Michigan schoolteachers who condemned the state’s just-passed right-to-work law.

Teacher salary data is in the public record, and the records show whether and how much the income of those teachers has been changed since the end of 2012.

The letter from one of the teachers, Greg Talberg of Howell Public Schools, read, in part: “Right-to-work legislation will have a devastating impact on the already shrinking Michigan middle class. We have a capitalist system based on greed. That’s not a criticism. It’s a fact.”

He added: “Without powerful unions, middle-class workers are powerless to demand fair wages and benefits.”

After five years of employment in a right-to-work state, Talberg’s total salary as a public school teacher had increased from $57,804 in 2013-14 to $71,351 in 2018-19. Teacher salary figures may include extra pay for performing duties not required by the union contract.

Douglas Coates, a teacher at Livonia Public Schools, wrote the second letter, which was titled “The goal: Lower wages.” Coates wrote, “Right-to-work legislation’s real purpose is to drive down the wages and benefits of all workers, union and non-union.”

Coates’ salary rose from $86,586 in 2013-14 to $93,367 in 2018-19. Under most Michigan school districts’ union contracts, pay rates rise rapidly early in a teacher’s career but stagnate after an individual reaches the top of the union pay scale. This has been the case for decades, and it likely explains the modest increase in Coates’ compensation.

Right-to-work laws prohibit employers from compelling workers in unionized workplaces to pay the union as a condition of employment. There is more than anecdotal evidence that Michigan’s right-to-work law has not negatively affected workers’ incomes.

After adjusting for inflation, per capita personal income in Michigan has increased from the equivalent of $42,719 in 2012 to $48,423 in 2018. And median household income (also in 2018 dollars) has increased from $51,250 in 2012 to $56,697 in 2018.

But that’s not how critics of the right-to-work law predicted incomes would change in Michigan.

For example, in December of 2012, Ross Eisenbrey, then vice president of the union-funded Economic Policy Institute, was highly critical of Michigan passing the law.

"Right–to-work-for-less laws are about nothing more than weakening unions, lowering wages, and freeing corporate America to turn back the clock on employee rights and regulation of labor standards," Eisenbrey wrote.

University of Michigan economist Don Grimes questioned how much impact the right-to-work law has on a resident’s income.

“I think [the] major impact of right to work will be on union revenue,” Grimes said in an email. “Over a really long run, it might reduce wages a bit, but would also increase employment, so [its] effect on total personal income is going to be a combination of these two counteractions.”

Grimes continued: “But both wage gains and employment change are influenced by so many other factors, mostly much more important than right-to-work laws, that you would probably never be able to tease out a statistically meaningful effect on income.”

Talberg and Coates work in school districts whose teachers were unionized decades ago by the Michigan Education Association or its predecessor. In 2011, before right-to-work became the law in Michigan, 120,616 school employees were paying dues or fees to that teachers union. By 2018, this number had fallen 29.6% to 84,872. Annual MEA revenue declined from $145.4 million in 2011 to $113.3 million in 2018, according to disclosures required under federal law.

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.