|
Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council introduces Jennifer McKay, our new Policy Associate. As part of her duties, Jennifer will
serve as editor of the MWAC newsletter.
With this posting, the newsletter should now be back on schedule for
a bi-weekly release. Thanks for your
patience during our time of transition.
In
This Issue:
·
BILL TO EXEMPT MITIGATION
·
BUDGET WOES THREATEN WETLAND
PROTECTION
·
COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF
WETLAND PROTECTION
·
SPEAK UP FOR GREAT LAKES RESTORATION
|
EXEMPTION OF WETLAND MITIGATION
|
|
HB 4892 would amend Part 303 of
the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to specify that
the DEQ could not impose conditions designed to mitigate the
impact to wetlands from “road work,” which is defined as the maintenance,
repair, improvement, or reconstruction of a road. Essentially, this bill exempts County
Road Commissions from having to mitigate for any wetland destruction
within the right-a-way of a road, which can be much wider than the existing
roadway. This destructive policy
has already been passed by the House of Representatives and has been
referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Environment.
Analysis
of HB 4892
We hope the Senate will be more
thoughtful on exemptions for mitigation than the House was to ensure that
this bill does not pass.
Please call or write your Senator
and urge them to oppose HB 4892.
|
|
BUDGET CUTS THREATEN TO CUT WETLAND PROTECTION
|
|
Due to the current state
budget woes, it looks as though wetland protection could take a hard blow
in the next fiscal year. The DEQ Land and Water
Management Division is expecting a $2 million cut to their General Fund,
which would severly hinder their ability to effectively protect our
wetlands. As a result, there is current discussion about a fee increase
for permitting in accordance with Part 301, the Inland Lakes and Streams
Act and Part 303, the Wetland Protection Act. The fee increase is proposed to offset
the decrease in General Fund support.
As well, a significant change in the fee structure for Wetland
Protection permit applications is being proposed. This change would replace the current
system with a fee structure based upon the acreage of actual impact to
wetland resources. Without the
funding from increased fees, the DEQ could lose the federal assumption of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act programs. If that happens, authority to protect Michigan’s wetlands
would be placed back in the hands of the EPA. Passing the fee package through the
legislature will be quite a challenge and MWAC members will be essential
in ensuring that these changes will go through before fiscal year 2006.
|
|
JUDGE SIDES WITH STATE IN WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT CASE
|
|
The state Court of
Appeals ruled Wednesday that an Oakland County developer is not entitled
to cash from the state after regulators prohibited him from developing
wetlands. K&K Construction
Inc. claimed it was entitled to compensation for the “taking” of property
and lost value after the DEQ denied a permit to fill 27 acres of land
that were deemed wetlands. In the
court system for 17 years, lower courts and a previous appeals case had
ruled in favor of K & K, but the Michigan Supreme Court sent the case
back for reconsideration. The
Court of Appeals based its decision on the Supreme Court’s consideration
that the Wetland Protection Act is equitable,being
both beneficial and detrimental to property owners and, furthermore,
found that no compensation was required because the developers were aware
of the wetland regulations when they purchased the land and were able to
build on non-wetland portions of their property. While this can be hailed a victory for
the protection of natural resources, K&K will seek reconsideration of
the case and will appeal it to the state Supreme Court if necessary still
claiming that despite development on part of the property, the wetland
restrictions made the property unprofitable.
|
|
WETLANDS AND GREAT LAKES RESTORATION
|
|
The Great Lakes
Regional Collaboration released a draft action plan on July 7, 2005. One of the
recommendations within the plan calls for the long term goals of
restoring 1 million acres of wetlands and one million acres of streamside
buffers. While this plan is a good
first step toward comprehensive restoration of the Great Lakes, it will only be meaningful
if it is fully funded. Without a
federal and state financial commitment, the plan will not be implemented
and would remain merely words on paper. We are in the midst of a 60 day
public comment period for recommendations to be considered for the final
document. We urge you to attend
public meetings this month to show your support for Great Lakes restoration. To learn more
about the GLRC, and how to speak up for the Great Lakes, visit www.restorethelakes.org
|
|
|
Beach
Walking
Decision Due
Any Day
|
|
The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to release
their decision on the highly controversial and publicized Glass v.
Goeckel case on July 31, 2005 or shortly thereafter.
This decision could have significant
consequences to the health and protection of coastal wetlands.
Look for the
decision and what it means for Michigan’s Coasts in the next newsletter.
|
|
|
|
