Drought for Dollars

An argument often made in support of protecting waterways and wildlands is that these resources have economic value by virtue of drawing tourists who spend money on food and lodging, equipment, guides, etc. The argument is valid, but I often suspect it's self defeating in the long run. I've been thinking about this while following debate over a piece of water legislation in the Michigan Senate.

The senate is currently reviewing a bill that would ratify the multi-state Great Lakes Compact on water withdrawals from the lakes. We surely need an instrument like that--but not this one.

The measure would allow up to a 25% reduction in the average summer flow of rivers. It would allow commercial interests to withdraw up to two million gallons of groundwater daily without a permit. Hearings on applications for larger withdrawals would exclude comments of citizens affected by them. The bill would impose a uniform measure for determining the sustainability of water withdrawals across the state--withdrawals from the headwaters of a blue-ribbon trout stream would be viewed no differently than withdrawals from urban watersheds whose rivers contribute comparatively little economically or in terms of quality of life.

So whose idea was this? Sen. Patty Birkholz (R-Saugatuck) sponsored the legislation, though critics suspect she and other Republican supporters of the bill are acting on behalf of Nestle (which already operates one bottled water plant in west Michigan) and other businesses that would like to sell water outright or use it in the course of other projects--condo development, say, or more waterparks. A different version of this legislation, placing stricter limits on water withdrawals and accommodating citizen participation in the permitting process, passed the Democrat-controlled house, but republican senators claim protections in the house bill would hobble economic growth, especially in northern Michigan.

According to those opposing the senate bill, the fundamental point at issue is whether state government should manage groundwater resources as a public trust or as a commodity to sell off as it sees fit. That's exactly where the battle should be fought. I'm not an economist, but it's hard for me to believe the payoff from low-impact recreation will ever match that from intensive industrial or tourist development. Outdoor recreation tends to create low paying seasonal jobs with few benefits. At ground level, it's an enterprise dominated by small businesses who don't hire all that many people, and who don't have the cash to sway legislation in their favor. Legions of construction workers don't descend on a town to build a trout stream or a wilderness area and lay out cash for food, beer, and housing for months as they work. In short, the argument about the economic value of preserving lands and waters only works until someone proposes a use for those resources that pays better.

The house bill doesn't close the door on intensive development. But it offers stronger protections to Michigan's great fishing waters against any kind of development and, most importantly, acknowledges that in managing its resources, the state has greater obligations than wringing out of them every dollar possible.

That last notion has fallen out of fashion nationwide in the last few decades. I'm pleased to see some officeholders still fighting for it here. If you live in Michigan, add your voice to theirs. Call your state senator today and ask them to support the house version of the Great Lakes Compact bill. (For a quick overview of the legislation and concerns about it, click here.) I'll be dialing (for the second time since New Years') as soon as I click "Publish."