2006 House Joint Resolution W (Repeal riparian water use doctrine and restrict diversions )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Pam Byrnes on April 25, 2006, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to require legislative approval for any diversion outside the Great Lakes basin of the "waters of this state," except for a "consumptive use," meaning water that has become part of an agricultural product, but not bottled water. The measure would establish a new legal framework under which the "waters of this state," presumably including groundwater, would be held by the state in trust. Under current law the owner of real property has a property right in the reasonable use of groundwater to the extent it does not diminish the ability of neighboring property owners to obtain water. This property right would no longer exist, and instead the use of ground water would be subject to state approval and regulation.
- Referred to the House Natural Resources, Great Lakes, Land Use, and Environment Committee on April 25, 2006.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Pam Byrnes on April 25, 2006. New Comment

1) Federal audit [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
I think that a Federal audit or investigation or who every thought of this. Lets find out who's getting payed off on this one.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink--Ancient Mariner [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
Great story! Just blame it on the Ancient Mariner. No bribes involved. Relax. You've been watching too much TV today.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) I really think we're one of the few states that doesn't have this already! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
I don't think this is some deep conspiracy!
Reply New Comment

Line

4) A federal audit? Please! Save the money! I posted this idea... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
online here. Somebody listened or great minds think alike. We need to plan for the future. Our climate is changing. How fast depends on our actions. We are water rich as a state. All depends on how we treat our water how long we'll stay that way. Save the taxpayer money an audit. I love this site. You can express yourself and give good ideas without leaving your home. And frequently they listen. So when you say we need a part time legislature, I disagree.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Don't most states already do this in this area? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
I don't think they're reinventing the wheel here.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Michigan would be unique in the Great Lakes [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2006]
No other Great Lakes state has a regime like this except Minnesota, because its western half is semi arid. Not even New York and PA - heavy regulation states - have anything close. This is not about water - it's all about land use. If you want to stop all development - the the Sierra Club and MEC do - the way to do it is to control access to water. With the recent legislation on this issue, the legislature has taken something that used to be a comparative advantage for Michigan - abundant groundwater - and turned it into yet another huge demerit in our business climate, in the form of a monumental uncertainty and a full employment act for lawyers. My advice to young people is get the hell out of Michigan now - it's in for several decades of decline, and measures like this are part of the reason why.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Some things more important than business, like having clean DRINKING water [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2006]
for future generations. MONEY AND BUSINESS are important, but there is more to life. It's a free country. Pack your bags if you really can't abide by such wise leadership. Take a few young people with you if you must.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Perhaps YOU should go because the YOUNG people are educated about the... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2006]
about the environment, and we know we need to be more responsible about pollution. That is a priority. Sure times are tight, but we've got a lot going for us here in Michigan. We'll be fine.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) I don't think we have ABUNDANT clean water, look to the future. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2006]
I hope legislators would communicate its intentions in the media. Is this to help ensure clean drinking water for the people of Michigan? Help us to understand, please. What are other states doing?
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Very proud of you, legislators!:) [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
This is an important turning point in history. You just don't know it yet. This is the proper course of action, the right path. It would be very easy to ignore the issue of clean water. Maybe even the more popular thing to do, but... This is definitely the path less taken, but I believe it will make all the difference. Excellent. Thank you!
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Curious what other states are doing with water rights? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
Anyone?
Reply New Comment

Line

12) Responsible action, Rep. Byrnes! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
Please share the details with the media, though.

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION W

April 25, 2006, Introduced by Reps. Byrnes, Donigan, Accavitti, Gleason, Condino, Espinoza, Bieda, McDowell, Kathleen Law, Hopgood, Tobocman, Lipsey, Vagnozzi, Zelenko, Byrum, Cushingberry, Lemmons, Jr., Miller, Spade, Polidori, Gonzales, Angerer, Alma Smith, Kolb, Anderson, Waters, Sak and Meisner and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Great Lakes, Land Use, and Environment.

A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state

constitution of 1963, by adding section 55 to article IV, to

prohibit the diversion of the waters of the state out of the Great

Lakes basin unless specifically authorized by the legislature.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state

constitution of 1963, to prohibit the diversion of the waters of

the state out of the Great Lakes basin unless specifically

authorized by the legislature, is proposed, agreed to, and

submitted to the people of the state:

ARTICLE IV

Sec. 55. The waters of the state are held by the state in the

public trust for the use and enjoyment of the public as provided by

the legislature.

Unless authorized by the legislature, the diversion of the

waters of the state outside of the Great Lakes basin, or a sale or

other transaction resulting in a diversion of the waters of the

state outside of the Great Lakes basin, is prohibited.

When considering whether to grant legislative authorization

for a proposed diversion of the waters of the state outside of the

Great Lakes basin, the legislature shall consider section 52 of

this article and whether the project will serve a public purpose,

whether the project will result in no material harm to the waters

of the state, the public trust, or related purposes, and whether

the project will result in any improvement to the waters of the

state or the water dependent natural resources of the state.

As used in this section:

(a) "Consumptive use" means that portion of water withdrawn or

withheld from the Great Lakes basin and assumed to be lost or

otherwise not returned to the Great Lakes basin due to evaporation,

incorporation into products or agricultural products, use as part

of packaging of products or agricultural products, or other

processes. Consumptive use does not include the packaging of water

in bottles or containers.

(b) "Diversion" means a transfer of water by pipeline, canal,

tunnel, aqueduct, channel, modification of the direction of a

watercourse, tanker ship, tanker truck, rail tanker, or similar

means from the Great Lakes basin into a watershed outside of the

Great Lakes basin, including the transfer of water in bottles or

containers. However, diversion does not include any of the

following:

(i) A consumptive use.

(ii) The supply of vehicles, including vessels and aircraft,

whether for the needs of persons or animals being transported or

for ballast or other needs related to the operation of vehicles.

(iii) The use of water in a noncommercial project on a short-

term basis for firefighting, humanitarian, or emergency response

purposes.

(iv) Water transported from the Great Lakes basin by a person

for his or her personal, noncommercial use.

Resolved further, That the foregoing amendment shall be

submitted to the people of the state at the next general election

in the manner provided by law.

Reply New Comment

Line

13) I think these folks are doing a good job. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
Putting the water in trust sounds very responsible and NOBLE. Tell us more about this TRUST. Who would be in charge?

Sponsors Pam Byrnes - (primary)
Marie Donigan, Frank Accavitti, John Gleason, Paul Condino, John Espinoza, Steve Bieda, Gary McDowell, Kathleen Law, Hoon-Yung Hopgood, Steve Tobocman, Alexander C Lipsey, Aldo Vagnozzi, Paula Zelenko, Dianne Byrum, George Cushingberry, Jr., LaMar Lemmons, Jr., Fred Miller, Dudley Spade, Gino Polidori, Lee Gonzales, Kathy Angerer, Alma Smith, Chris Kolb, Glenn S Anderson, Mary Waters, Michael Sak, Andy Meisner
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Could we have a status of the water supply tv report, please? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
Thanks! Where are we at?
Reply New Comment

Line

15) It is WISE to plan ahead for our water needs! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
What's the plan? Have a press conference, please. Explain yourselves. Thanks!
Reply New Comment

Line

16) REP. Pam Byrnes, if you are looking out for common good of people... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
then nows the time to share that. Sounds like a good plan, but what are your intentions? Who will benefit?
Reply New Comment

Line

17) SOMEONE needs to plan ahead for our water. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
We are a water rich state as long as we keep it clean, and that means government LEADERSHIP. With global warming, we need to moniter the salinity levels of our state closely as ocean levels change/rise. If we play our cards right and keep an eye on our water, we will be in good shape as the rest of the world scrambles around. SOMEONE needs to step up and say the hard things. Is the government making this move so that they can ensure clean drinking water for the people in the future? I wish someone would speak out and tell the intention. I think the state has good intentions.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Welcome To.. [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
The Peoples Republic of Michganistan.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Unjust Taking [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
The rights of private property owners are under attack yet again. This law must not be passed.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) NO! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
We need to maintain riparian property rights. There are other ways to limit water withdrawl from the state. But there are too many other good aspects of the reparian law that must not be lost!

Lake Property Owner
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Property Rights [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2006]
This is just another way of taking property rights from state citizens. Michigan is becoming more and more like the U.S.S.R.!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Bad Idea [by Anonymous Citizen on May 24, 2006]
This would be a stupid law. That would stop privet property owners from dill wells to water lawns and gardens. This is another way to tax the people and remove a nother freedom.
Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site