TELL YOUR STATE SENATOR: NO OIL INDUSTRY LOBBYIST FOR DEQ DIRECTOR - MI Chapter Update, 8-7-16

Snyder taps ex-BP official to run DEQ

Chad Livengood and Jim Lynch, The Detroit News11:22 a.m. EDT July 14, 2016

(Photo: Handout photo)

Lansing — Gov. Rick Snyder on Thursday appointed a former BP America official who managed public relations in the company’s 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill to run his troubled Department of Environmental Quality.

Heidi Grether of Williamston will replace interim DEQ Director Keith Creagh on Aug. 1. Creagh will return to the Department of Natural Resources as director, according to the governor’s office.

“Heidi has decades of experience in environmental quality issues, and has effectively served during times of crises and recovery,” Snyder said in a statement.

Grether was a registered lobbyist for BP America in Lansing from 1993 to 2008, state records show.

More ...

Nestlé Pumps Millions of Gallons for Free While Flint Pays for Poisoned Water

As Flint residents are forced to drink, cook with and even bathe in bottled water, while still paying some of the highest water bills in the country for their poisoned water, we turn to a little-known story about the bottled water industry in Michigan. 

In 2001 and 2002, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality issued permits to Nestlé, the largest water bottling company in the world, to pump up to 400 gallons of water per minute from aquifers that feed Lake Michigan. This sparked a decade-long legal battle between Nestlé and the residents of Mecosta County, Michigan, where Nestlé’s wells are located. One of the most surprising things about this story is that, in Mecosta County, Nestlé is not required to pay anything to extract the water, besides a small permitting fee to the state and the cost of leases to a private landowner. In fact, the company received $13 million in tax breaks from the state to locate the plant in Michigan. 

The spokesperson for Nestlé in Michigan is Deborah Muchmore. She’s the wife of Dennis Muchmore—Governor Rick Snyder’s chief of staff, who just retired and registered to be a lobbyist.  More ...

Michigan Chapter Update - June 5, 2016

Does MDEQ put economic growth ahead of people?

Keith Matheny, Detroit Free Press 11:55 p.m. EDT March 26, 2016

In the public health crisis over the lead contamination of the City of Flint's drinking water, a cascade of culpability has been leveled at federal, state and local officials. But, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has borne much of the blame.

In his testimony before a congressional committee on March 17, Gov. Rick Snyder said his administration's investigations into the crisis, "uncovered systemic failures" at the DEQ

"The fact is, bureaucrats created a culture that valued technical compliance over common sense — and the result was that lead was leaching into residents’ water," Snyder said.

But Flint wasn't the first time the DEQ took that approach. And as public anger and outcry over the crisis continues to grow, more scrutiny is being heaped on to the DEQ and its processes and mission, which critics say values business over people.

More ...

Michigan Chapter Update - March 20, 2016

The Defeated Citizen: State Integrity and Flint Water

The Defeated Citizen: State Integrity and Flint Water

By Jeremy Johnson, Communications Intern for the Michigan Sierra Club

A report from The Center for Public Integrity (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/11/09/18693/only-three-states-score-higher-d-state-integrity-investigation-11-flunk) ranks Michigan last in terms of government transparency, ethics, and integrity. Many say that this (http://michiganradio.org/post/where-does-michigan-rank-state-integrity-investigation-dead-last#stream/0) report is the result of money slowly driving the shadowy aspects of our government’s decision making. Michigan has become so weak on transparency and disclosure that the voices of ordinary people are being drowned out by special interests, corporate polluters and lobbyists. This ranking is an embarrassment to the state that I am so proud to live in. This is not a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I wasn’t surprised to find out this ranking because I've seen first-hand that the United States political system is dominated by money more than ever before. This makes it unsurprising to see more and more secrets spill over Flint’s water issues, and seeing no movement on the dangerous Line 5 pipeline that could destroy the Great Lakes. The state allowed Flint to add the wrong chemicals to drinking water pumped from the Flint River. That failure allowed the more corrosive river water to leach lead from the city's aging pipes and through faucets throughout the city. Tens of thousands of people were exposed to lead poisoning, which will have irreversible effects on the city's children.

Flint's water crisis is the product of ethical failures and prolonged inaction by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Governor Rick Snyder's office, and the City of Flint itself. This leads to another difficult question: when something goes horribly wrong, how does government police itself? What's required is accountability: not just to get mad and lay blame, but to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again. At the very least, we need to vote for elected officials who will not tolerate environmental negligence.

Michigan Chapter Update - October 18, 2015

Flint water crisis: failure of Michigan government

RSS Feed Widget from Google News

A Changing Tide: Michigan's Environmental Laws Become More Divisive

In a period of just 14 years, the environmental protection laws being enacted in Lansing have become sharply more partisan and less restrictive, according to a MIRS analysis. 

It's a trend that's supported by data and it doesn't surprise many of those who monitor environmental policy closely at the Capitol.

Plus, there's a slew of theories for what's contributed to the shift.

Some say it has do with Gov. Rick SNYDER's efforts to overhaul the state's regulatory approach. Some say larger national trends are at play: an increase of money in politics; a move to the right by Republicans; or possibly, an overall increase in political partisanship. Still, others say the deep economic recession has altered how lawmakers weigh environmental protection versus economic impact.

All sides agree, however, that there's been a notable shift in approach for how the state handles environmental laws that impact its businesses and residents.

"Unfortunately, some people have taken our natural resources for granted," said former state lawmaker Patty BIRKHOLZ, a Republican from Saugatuck Twp., who once chaired the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

"They have not stepped up to the plate with their vote like they have in the past," she added.

MIRS looked at about 200 new environmental protection laws that the Legislature enacted from 2000 to 2014. More closely, MIRS examined the nature of the 47 environmental protection laws put in place from 2001 to 2004 and compared them to the 41 put in place from 2011 to 2014.

Seven years apart, those periods reveal major differences in the types of environmental laws that gained final approval.

From 2001 to 2004, 44 of the 47 new laws -- or about 93 percent -- increased regulations, exclusively sought to protect the environment or extended sunsets on fees levied against businesses. Only three of the 47 laws -- or about 6 percent -- had a specific impact of decreasing regulations or lifting governmental burden.

Then, there are 41 laws from 2011 to 2014. Of those, only 10 -- or about 24 percent -- increased regulations, exclusively sought to protect the environment or extended sunsets on fees levied against businesses.

Meanwhile, 31 of the environmental laws enacted from 2011 to 2014 -- or about 75 percent -- decreased regulations or lifted the governmental burden placed on businesses.

On top of the nature of the laws, the political divisiveness of those laws has also changed -- and changed drastically.

Of the 47 new laws from 2001-2004, only nine -- or about 19 percent -- passed the House with fewer than 75 "yes" votes.

In a much different fashion, of the 41 new laws from 2011 to 2014, a majority or 27 -- about 65 percent -- passed the House with fewer than 75 "yes" votes.

The 2001-to-2004 period covers four years where the Legislature was controlled by Republicans. For two of the years, the state had a Republican governor while for two others, the state had a Democratic governor.

During the period, the Legislature enacted laws to increase landfill standards, to boost recycling of scrap tires, to increase septic fees, to allow storm water discharge fees and to increase pollution prevention loans.

The 2011-to-2014 period also covers four years where the Legislature was controlled by Republicans. But Snyder, a Republican, was the governor for all four of those years.

The environmental laws enacted during the 2011-to-2014 period include measures to start a "Clean Corporate Citizen" program, to require the Department of Environmental Quality to meet new standards for denying permits or pursuing civil enforcement and to reform state law that deals with underground storage tanks.

The two periods MIRS examined point to a major change in approach over a decade.

Asked about it today, Sen. Tom CASPERSON (R-Escanaba), the chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, said it's exactly his hope that the environmental laws that have been enacted in the last years are less restrictive and work better with businesses than past laws.

Previously, he said, environmental groups had gone too far, making policy "all or nothing" and "our way or the highway."

"The pendulum went so far," Casperson said. "We were out of balance."

Now, if Casperson and others have their way, the pendulum is going to swing the other way a bit.

Jason GEER, the director of energy and environmental policy for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said the economy and actions on the federal level have impacted the direction state lawmakers have chosen on the environment.

Plus, he said, whenever there is a change in administration, there is going to be a shift in approach.

Snyder, who became governor in 2011, still wants to protect the environment, Geer argued, but wants to do it in a smarter fashion and make things work better.

Geer used Snyder's Office of Regulatory Reinvention as an example.

"I think the goal is the same," he said. "I just think it's the path to get there (that's different)."

But Geer agreed that current Legislature is more pro-business than previous versions.

"They want business to be successful and they're working with the business community to make regulations that work for business and residents," Geer said.

Multiple sources said today that under Snyder, when businesses have issues with environmental regulations they can work with the administration to solve them. That wasn't the case, the sources said, under former Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM.

But many in the environmental community believe the new policies have gone too far toward the pro-business side and that could be a reason for why the nature of the new laws have changed over the last 14 years.

Mike BERKOWITZ, the Michigan legislative director for the Sierra Club, said environmental policies have become more partisan and the number of lawmakers in the Republican Party who are pro-environment have decreased.

A report card the Sierra Club issued today showed that in the past four years, 85 percent of House Democrats voted the way the group preferred on 24 particular bills. House Republicans, on average, took the Sierra Club's stance 38 percent of the time.

"It's not just a trend we're seeing in Michigan," Berkowitz said. "It's really a trend we're seeing nationally across the country."

Berkowitz said redistricting has played a role in the change because there are fewer competitive districts, forcing candidates to run further to one side or the other.

Plus, he said, the amount of money in politics has skyrocketed. Campaign spending by energy companies and industries has jumped, he said, and that's helped those interests in the legislative arena.

Of lawmakers in the term-limited environment, Jack SCHMITT, deputy director of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters (LCV), said, "They are going to rely on the people who helped get them there for information."

Schmitt also acknowledged that there are fewer Republicans that take pro-environment stands and that the economic recession has impacted the policies coming out of the Legislature.

The recession, he said, could make it easier for lawmakers to justify weakening environmental policy.

In the last years, he said the state has seen a "pretty systemic attempt to dismantle actions" taken by the Department of Natural Resources and weaken wetlands protections.

But supporters of the policies that have been advanced in recent years don't agree that they've been bad for the environment.

"Overall, legislators are very interested in protecting human health and the environment," observed Andrew SUCH, director of regulatory and environmental policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association. "The ones I deal with want to know what it's costing and what's the environmental benefit."

Such has worked on environmental policy in Lansing for about 30 years.

He said in general, the state's approach to environmental laws sees shifts when administrations change.

On the other hand, Birkholz, who's now the director of LCV's West Michigan Office, believes larger factors could be at play.

There's more money involved in campaigns today, as she said, and businesses write checks to candidates and then want the candidates to help them when the candidate become officeholders.

And Birkholz agreed that the economic recession has played a role.

"People were just grasping at straws, whatever they thought could help them make a buck or get a job whatever it was," she said. "In the midst of all of that, we forgot our dedication to our natural resources."

Birkholz said her hope and prayer is that going forward, the state takes a wide-eyed look at what's happening with its natural resources.

"It's really easy to contaminate a river or part of a Great Lake," as she said. "It doesn't take long for that to happen. It takes many more years and millions of dollars more to clean it up."

Put Michigan families before business and pollution

Editorial: Put Michigan families before business and pollution

By The Detroit Free Press Editorial Board

May 9, 2014

A fence separates Salina Elementary School from a sprawling Industrial area in Dearborn on Thursday, April 23, 2014. Residents in Dearborn feel and smell the pollution from the plants in the Industrial zone where Severstal steel. The Michigan Economic Development Corp. worked with Severstal and Dearborn officials to lobby the DEQ to allow the steel plant to operate under older, less strict air pollution regulations. Jessica J. Trevino/Detroit Free Press

Let's be clear about who Gov. Rick Snyder's allegiance should be to: the residents of Michigan.

There's no question that the state can't thrive without a healthy business environment and a robust economy. But when the health and well-being of businesses and residents are in conflict, residents should win. Hands down. Every time.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that Snyder doesn’t understand that.

Look at the most recent outrageous display of backroom pandering to emerge from the Snyder administration: E-mails obtained by the Free Press show that the Michigan Economic Development Corp., Snyder’s business development agency, seemingly worked to smooth the path for a high-polluting industrial plant that wants to release even more toxic air emissions.

Dearborn-based Severstal North America is “by far the most egregious facility in the state” when it comes to air quality requirements, according to an e-mail written by a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality employee, with 117 complaints and more than 20 violation notices issued since 2010. That’s one reason the MDEQ strongly opposed the company’s efforts to alter its permit, which would allow Severstal to release pollutants at levels up to 725 times higher than the company’s permit allows.

Until the MEDC got involved. More ...

It’s time to lead: Citizens Groups React to Gov. Snyder’s Energy Framework for Michigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

News from Clean Energy Now

December 19, 2013

Contact: Marissa Luna, 989-798-3051, marissa@progressmichigan.org

It’s time to lead: Citizens Groups React to Gov. Snyder’s Energy Framework for Michigan

Clean Energy Now coalition calls for action on clean energy policies

LANSING – Citizen groups criticized Governor Rick Snyder today for failing to lead on clean energy when releasing his energy framework for Michigan. The comments came after the governor, the Michigan Energy office, and the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) wrapped up a yearlong discussion on the future of Michigan’s energy policies. The discussion compiled data and significant public comment on Michigan’s energy issues. Yet, the governor did not propose any specific changes to the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, casting doubt on whether he considered the recommendations from these statewide findings.

“Governor Snyder has done his due diligence and studied this issue intensely for over a year, now it’s time to lead,” said Tiffany Hartung, a Beyond Coal campaign representative for Sierra Club. “He must take action now to ensure that Michigan’s clean energy economy will grow and thrive. The longer we wait to increase these standards, the more businesses will start to close and lay off their workers after the state’s current renewable energy and energy efficiency standards are met in 2015.”

Michigan still gets more than half its electricity from coal-fired power plants while the national average is 38 percent. Burning coal is the number one source of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes, which leads to contamination in fish and consumption advisories. It is also the leading trigger of asthma attacks, costing Michiganders billions of dollars every year in health care costs associated with hospital admissions, respiratory issues and cardiovascular problems. Shifting to clean energy technologies will put a stop to public health problems and environmental issues caused by over-reliance on outdated, dirty energy.

“We expected Governor Snyder to outline concrete goals for how he will move Michigan’s energy policy forward,” said Clay Carpenter, campaign organizer for Clean Water Action. “Months of public participation, research and analysis has prepared the governor to make informed energy choices for Michigan, yet his announcement today fell short of providing specifics on what he plans to accomplish. Governor Snyder should send strong recommendations on expanding Michigan's renewable energy and energy efficiency standards to the legislature.”

During the yearlong energy discussion, Clean Water Action members and volunteers delivered 16,527 letters in support of renewable energy and energy efficiency to Governor Snyder and state lawmakers, presented technical testimony at the governor's energy forums, gave dozens of public comments at the energy forums and provided over 1100 public comments on the MPSC and Energy Office’s draft reports.

###

About Clean Energy Now: CEN is a coalition of groups that supports policies that will move Michigan beyond coal power and toward greater use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency as a way to protect the environment and build prosperity. Follow the campaign atCleanEnergyNowMI.org.

How the Republican Party is pillaging Michigan’s natural resources

The Lansing City Pulse has published an article about the retreat from conservation by the Republican elected officials in Michigan: 

The pendulum has swung

By WALT SORG

How the Republican Party is pillaging Michigan’s natural resources

(Editor’s note: The writer was recently named to the board of the Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council as a general public member.) 

Si Quaeris Peninsulam Amoenam Circumspice If you seek a pleasant peninsula, look about you.

It is the official motto of a state now advertising itself as a “19-million-acre playground that’s Pure Michigan.”

Environmental and recreation organizations are leading a growing chorus of those worried that the playground is endangered by a Legislature and governor more concerned with short-term economic advantage than with long-term conservation of resources.

“Tragic and scary.” That’s how Haslett’s Anne Woiwode, executive director of the Sierra Club’s Michigan chapter, described a legislative drive to scale back the conservation mission of the Department of Natural Resources.

“They are saying Pure Michigan is only Pure Michigan when it’s convenient,” said Hugh McDiarmid, communications director for the Michigan Environmental Council.

At issue are a host of executive actions and legislative bills over the last two years that take direct aim at Michigan’s centurylong legacy of conservation and scientific management of public lands. They are issues that don’t often create headlines because, unlike years gone by, environmental issues tend to be less visible.

In the 1970s, McDiarmid noted, “you had laws such as the Clear Air and Clean Water acts because the threat was in our face: belching smokestacks, rivers catching fire, water supplies that caused cancer.”

“There was momentum back then. It was the beginning of Earth Day,” he said. “The effects (of environmental neglect) were visible, immediate and alarming. Now, it’s harder to see the damage that is being done.”

Two legislative efforts are at the top of the environmental threat list: changing the core mission of the Department of Natural Resources and diverting money from the state’s 37-year-old Natural Resources Trust Fund.

Legislation sponsored by U.P. Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, would effectively take the state’s Department of Natural Resources out of the business of protecting natural habitats by outlawing the DNR’s nascent biodiversity program. The DNR program, which hasn’t yet been implemented, would designate portions of state land for special protections to maintain endangered species, both plant and animal.

---

“The pendulum has swung. It’s a cyclical thing. When people realize that it’s not a good thing to tear down these longstanding protections they’ll start paying attention and things will change.”

-Hugh McDiarmid, Michigan Environmental Council

---

The concept is anathema to some in the timber business who see it as artificially limiting access to state forests by private logging companies. Before his election to the Legislature, Casperson worked for his family’s U.P. log-hauling company.

The bill would also delete the protection of biological diversity from the DNR’s duties regarding forest management; require the department to balance its forest management activities with economic values; eliminate the requirement that the DNR manage forests in a way that promotes restoration; and delete from state law an earlier legislative finding that most losses of biological diversity are the result of human activity.

The bill passed the Senate in early March on a party-line vote, 26-11. It’s now in the House Natural Resources Committee.

“It is essentially a bill denying science, and a bill prohibiting scientific management of our forests,” McDiarmid said.

Casperson countered in a Detroit Free Press op-ed column that his bill would merely exercise legislative oversight “to ensure that real conservation is achieved while allowing use of the resources for recreation, tourism and economic activity.”

In his view, the DNR and environmental groups are the enemy.

“They want department bureaucrats to unilaterally develop policies that will result in public land being managed to prohibit human activity. This extreme philosophy promotes the misconception that humans, true conservation and protective measures can’t exist together.”

McDiarmid sees the potential for the opposite impact if Casperson’s bill became law.

Even the holy grail of sportsmen — deer hunting — could be adversely impacted.

“If the DNR was determined to manage a parcel of land specifically to encourage hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer, this legislation might open the door to a challenge. If you are going to make it illegal to manage land to protect an endangered species, why is that any different from managing it to encourage white-tailed deer for hunting opportunities?” A companion bill introduced in the state House last year positions the debate over biodiversity in a larger context:

a United Nations-led conspiracy to attack private property rights.

Really. State Rep. Greg MacMaster, R-Kewadin, introduced legislation last session that would prohibit, in his words, “any Michigan governmental entity from adopting, or implementing policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to, the United Nations’ ‘Agenda 21’ or any other international laws that would infringe or restrict, private property rights without due process. The legislation also prohibits certain transactions with certain entities that assist in implementing Agenda 21,” according to MacMaster’s press release announcing the bill. So far, it hasn’t been reintroduced.

Agenda 21 is a 1992 U.N. publication that focuses on the need to balance environmental and economic concerns in third-world countries. It is a non-binding, voluntary action plan which, according to the ICLEI — a global environmental advocacy group representing local governments — “does not advocate for abolishing private property or have any bearing on U.S. local and state land-use decisions. In other words, it isn’t being forced on anybody, anywhere, by any organization.”

The United States is a signatory to Agenda 21, which has become a rallying point for conservative Republicans. The 2012 Republican Party platform denounced it as “erosive of American sovereignty.” The U.N. approved it in the last year of the George H.W. Bush administration.

Woiwode called the legislation a “response to paranoia,” noting that the DNR’s biodiversity program does not deal with private land, but only poses potential restrictions on the exploitation of public lands.

Says Woiwode: “This (biodiversity management ban) is about confiscating publicly owned resources for the benefit of extractive industries and ensuring that there would be an emphasis on maximizing the timber industry’s profit from our public resources, maximizing the mining industry’s profit from our public resources. That is what I think just stuns people.”

Trust Fund diversions 

The second alarm bell for environmentalists are efforts led by Casperson and Mac- Master — and supported by House Speaker Jase Bolger — to divert earnings of the 37-year-old Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund for maintenance projects, specifically harbor, road and park maintenance.

Created by the Legislature in 1976, the trust fund takes a portion of royalties from mining and forestry operations for the public purchase and development of recreation areas and facilities. It has been used to buy forestland, build harbors and boat ramps, and also develop urban recreation opportunities.

It quickly built up reserves in the hundreds-of-millions of dollars, a pot of money that proved too tempting for lawmakers and governors. Twice, in the late 1970s and again in the 1980s, lawmakers dipped into the trust fund, diverting money to economic development. That prompted two constitutional amendments protecting the fund from future raids. Both measures creating the “conservation lock box” won by two-toone margins.

The first proposal, in 1984, “was wildly popular and passed in 81 of 83 counties,” noted John Greenslit, back then the first executive director of the Michigan Recreation and Parks Association and now Eaton County parks director.

Since its creation, the trust fund has purchased and preserved for future generations 135,000 acres of ecologically significant land and has funded 1,600 public recreation projects at a cost of $935 million.

“The original mission is still pertinent 37 years later, to use mineral extraction royalties to be reinvested in natural resources,” Greenslit said.

But Republican lawmakers want to change that mission to fund maintenance programs. A Senate bill introduced in February by Casperson would allow trust fund money to be used to dredge Great Lakes harbors. House Republicans are pushing for using the funds for other types of maintenance, including road repairs. The bill is in the Senate Natural Resources, Environment and Great Lakes Committee.

The trust fund reached its constitutional cap of $500 million in 2010. Any mineral revenues coming into the state now go into the Park Endowment Fund, which was established to provide a stable source of money for operating, maintaining and improving state parks.

Operating only on interest earnings, at today’s extremely low interest rates only about one in four projects is approved.

“The demand far exceeds the money available, and any diversion will just make things worse,” Greenslit said.

The fund’s mission, he said, is “acquisition and development only. Grant recipients must agree, as a condition of a grant, to pay for any needed maintenance in perpetuity.”

In its early years, trust fund money was used primarily in rural areas for the purchase of hunting habitat and development of waterrelated recreation facilities such as beaches, fishing habitat and boat ramps. Now more of the funds are directed to urban areas.

“There was a realization that a majority of the people in the state live in the southern part of the state,” DNR Grant Management Director Steve DeBrabander told the Detroit Free Press. “So there’s been an emphasis on urban projects.”

Last year’s projects grants signed into law last week by the governor include improvements along the Looking Glass River in DeWitt Township ($142,000); Patriarche Park playground reconstruction in East Lansing ($300,000); and walking trail improvements in Lansing’s Francis Park ($300,000) and Okemos’ Wonch Park ($45,000). (Editor’s note: The writer is a board member of East Lansing Rotary Club, which participated in the Patriarche Park grant application.)

Disappointment with the governor 

Gov. Rick Snyder’s attitude toward the diversion — and the change in the DNR’s mission — will be critical.

Inquiries to the Governor’s Office on both issues were referred to the Department of Natural Resources. DNR spokesman Ed Golder said the department opposes diverting money from the Natural Resources Trust Fund based on an attorney general’s opinion that funding maintenance through the Trust Fund was unconstitutional.

Golder said the department has taken no position on passage of Casperson’s biodiversity bill, and took issue with concerns of environmentalists that the legislation cripples the DNR’s mission.

“We don’t believe the bill as it stands would prohibit managing state lands for biodiversity,” Golder said. “Instead, it would prohibit designating particular areas as biodiversity preserves through administrative rule or order. We think we can continue to accomplish the state’s biodiversity goals within the strictures of this legislation, even though some tools for that task would be limited.”

To date, environmentalists have been disappointed by Snyder’s performance. They say they were hopeful when he took office. Two of Snyder’s top advisers brought with them a long history of environmental and conservation activism.

Snyder’s senior policy adviser, William Rustem, was Gov. William Milliken’s point man on environmental issues in the 1970s, and coordinated passage of the 1984 ballot proposal enshrining the Natural Resources Trust Fund in the state Constitution. Dennis Muchmore, chief of staff of the Governor’s Office, is former executive director of Michigan United Conservation Clubs. His predecessor and longtime friend at MUCC, the late Tom Washington, was part of the environmental coalition that pushed through the initial Trust Fund legislation in 1976.

Despite the prominence of Muchmore and Rustem in the administration, Woiwode sees Snyder’s DNR as “more interested in getting permits out than in enforcement of the (environmental protection) laws,” and pointed out that the first two bills signed by the governor weakened clean air and water protection laws relating to agricultural operations.

McDiarmid sees a glass half full, calling Snyder’s environmental record “mixed.” He pointed to the Snyder’s strong advocacy of public transportation through creation of a Southeast Michigan Regional Transportation Authority and improved Amtrak and rail service through the state as positives.

‘We’ve lost track of our heritage’ 

Michigan’s conservation ethic dates back more than a century. It grew out of the aftermath of the exploits of 19th century lumber barons, who clear-cut tens of thousands of acres of northern Michigan timber.

“We created the state forest system with the goal of taking over lands that were tax reverted because they had been so badly destroyed in the logging era,” Woiwode said. “Three-quarters of our state lands came into public hands because they were tax reverted after timber companies clearcut them and left.”

The conservation movement gained momentum during the Great Depression when FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps planted hundreds of thousands of trees throughout northern Michigan and built much of the state’s campground system.

From its beginning, the movement has been marked by alliances between business leaders and environmentalists beginning with Henry Ford’s championing of scientific resource management of U.P. timber. It reached its zenith during the 14-year administration of Milliken, a Republican governor who worked with a bipartisan legislative coalition that enacted some of the nation’s strongest conservation and environmental laws — including the bottle bill, clean water and clean air acts, and the Natural Resources Trust Fund. Milliken’s singular role in promoting urban conservation is recognized in the largest project of the Trust Fund: Development of the William Milliken Riverfront Park in downtown Detroit.

The tension between short-term economic exploitation of natural resources and conservation is a never-ending debate over balance. In Woiwode’s view, the pendulum has swung dangerously.

“We’ve lost track of our heritage,” she said. “We deliberately chose a strong conservation ethic — an ethic of restoring the land — so it was of value to everybody: hunter, hiker or logger. The lumber industry came back because of that history. They have lost track of that history. We should be protecting these resources, not just pillaging them today.”

McDiarmid concurred that economic opportunities are “a pretty big driving force,” but he maintains “it is a false choice between protecting the environment or having good jobs in mining or oil and gas industries. We can do both.”

“The pendulum,” McDiarmid agreed, “has swung. It’s a cyclical thing. When people realize that it’s not a good thing to tear down these longstanding protections, they’ll start paying attention and things will change.”

Greenslit says concerns that conservation chokes economic growth are vastly overstated. “It seems to be a political strategy to let you think the world is coming to an end. I don’t think the DNR is trying to buy up the whole state (through the Natural Resources Trust Fund). It’s a great natural resource we have to protect. The lost revenue is miniscule, but the story is very popular in the coffee shop and the bar,” he said.

“It is a political strategy that you run against Lansing, you run against departments like DNR. I don’t that is helpful in solving problems.”

With the anti-government, pro-growth-at-any-cost mindset of many in the Republican-dominant Legislature, the battle over preserving the “Pleasant Peninsula,” the “19-million-acre playground” could be the roughest battle lovers of Pure Michigan have fought in a century.