Tag: EGLE

FAQs: Making public comments to EGLE on the Line 5 tunnel

Published on July 28th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is taking public comments on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel through August 29, 2025. The State of Michigan now has the power to deny the tunnel permit, and protect the Great Lakes from years of construction upheaval, wetlands damage, and other risks. Michigan can assert its sovereignty, stop the exploitation of our publicly-held resources for private profit, and protect the waters today, and for future generations. Here’s how you can engage with EGLE on this important issue:

(1) Attending a virtual public information session on August 12 (6:00pm EDT). This is an opportunity to ask EGLE representatives questions and learn more about the application and next steps.

(2) Attending the virtual public hearing on August 19 (6:00pm EDT) and providing oral comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application .

(3) Submitting written comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application by August 29.

Here are answers to some of the questions we’ve received about the EGLE permit process, and how to get involved:

If I have already submitted comments on the project, can I submit comments during this public comment period?

Yes. The current application for a Water Resources Permit under Michigan’s Wetland Protection Act (Part 303) and Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (Part 325) is distinct from the review of earlier permit applications for the project, so it is important to submit comments on the current proposal to ensure your voice is heard.

Flow Water Advocates will be providing both oral comments at the August 19 hearing and written comments by the August 29 deadline, and we encourage interested members of the public to do the same.

Do I have to live in Michigan to contribute comments?

No, we all have an interest in protecting the Great Lakes and there are no restrictions on who can participate in the public comment period.

What makes a strong public comment?

The most effective comments are grounded in the facts of the proposed project and its likely impacts, and the requirements for permit approval under the law. Highlighting your personal connections to the waters, ecosystems, communities, cultural resources, and economies that stand to be impacted by the project is also powerful.

When preparing to provide oral comments at the public hearing, we recommend that you write down what you would like to say in advance and practice sharing it a couple times, as each person is usually allowed only 3 minutes to speak. Three minutes of speaking time is about 400 words, depending on how quickly you speak.

What are some of Flow Water Advocates’ major concerns with Enbridge’s permit application?

First, Enbridge has not provided sufficient information–on the full project, its potential environmental impacts, or the available alternatives–for EGLE to properly consider its application for a Water Resources Permit under Part 325 and Part 303 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act .

Second, when all of the necessary information is considered, it is clear that the tunnel project cannot be lawfully permitted because the project will have more than minimal environmental effects, and because the shutdown of Line 5 is a viable, and much preferable, alternative to constructing an unprecedented tunnel project to house a new section of oil pipeline through the heart of the Great Lakes.

Finally, Enbridge does not have the necessary legal authorization to operate the proposed tunnel project in the Straits, as required under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and Michigan’s public trust doctrine.

For more information on the potential environmental impacts of the project, deficiencies with the application materials, and the viable alternatives that must be considered, visit our website: https://flowwateradvocates.org/line5/.

If we don’t have time to comment on everything, are there any aspects of the permit that we should prioritize?

There is certainly a lot to cover–the gaps in the application, the many potential environmental impacts, and the available alternatives to the project that must be considered.

When you have limited time to prepare comments, a good strategy can be to focus your comments on an issue or two that you care about or in which you have particular insight or expertise, knowing that others will do the same.

Oil and Water Don’t Mix has compiled a list of several issues that can be raised and expanded on in public comments.

Earthjustice has also provided a helpful comment submission form with a message to get you started.

If you have additional questions about submitting comments, we encourage you to attend the public information session hosted by EGLE on August 12.

When you register for the session, there is the option to include questions that you would like to be addressed by the agency and there will also be time for additional questions at the end of the session.

Factory farm webinar: Weigh in on how Michigan regulates factory farm waste.

Published on July 21st, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), threaten our waters with immense quantities of sewage, which too often are sprayed on fields where it can then runoff into streams and leach into groundwater — including into our drinking water. 

On August 8, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE ) will hold an hybrid remote public hearing in Lansing on the long-contested 2020 NPDES-CAFO General Permit, to regulate factory farm waste discharges to our waters. 

To prepare for this important hearing, join Flow Water Advocates on July 31 at Noon for a briefing on the issue, and learn how you can weigh in to support effective regulation and clean waters in rural Michigan and the Great Lakes. 

Flow has been an intervenor in an administrative contested case and litigation on this permit over the past 5 years. 

Register for Flow's pre-hearing webinar on July 31 at Noon

How to join the EGLE public hearing on August 8 at 9:00am:

Location: Microsoft Teams Meeting
Meeting ID: 293 614 609 636 1
Passcode: 6FV72vK3
Call in (audio only)
Telephone: 1-248-509-0316 (Toll)
Phone Conference ID: 581 485 136#

Science alone won’t save the lake: Agricultural runoff in the Western Lake Erie Basin.

Published on July 16th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Facing facts and moving forward: Notes from the 2025 State of the Western Lake Erie Basin Conference.

On June 26, the State of the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) conference, hosted by Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), brought together researchers, agency staff, and community advocates working in one of Michigan’s most heavily farmed—and heavily polluted—regions.

The focus was on advancements and priorities in the WLEB, especially efforts to tackle harmful algal blooms (HABs). Highlighted tracks included:

  • Implementation Science in Agricultural Systems: Potentials for and Assessments of Innovative Behavior Change Interventions
  • Healthy Soils, Healthy Waters: Understanding Links Between Soil Health and Water Quality on Farms in the Western Lake Erie Basin
  • and Understanding Legacy Phosphorus in the Western Lake Erie Basin.

A common theme ran through all sessions: the problem is well understood—now is the time to implement real solutions to reduce pollution.

Agricultural runoff is the main issue.

EGLE made it clear that the biggest threat to the WLEB is non-point source pollution, particularly runoff from agricultural sources. That aligns with what they’ve stated in their MI Environment article about harmful algal blooms (HABs). The article explains, “In May, the State of Michigan updated its Domestic Action Plan (DAP) for combating harmful algal blooms (HABs). The plan contains measures to reduce phosphorus runoff by a sustained 40% from a 2008 baseline measurement by targeting nutrient-rich releases from wastewater treatment plants and phosphorus runoff from farm fields and fertilized lawns.”

Presenters reiterated throughout the day that this problem isn’t new and it’s not only about current practices. Decades of fertilizer use have left legacy phosphorus in soils and sediments. Addressing these long-term consequences is critical to building effective, lasting solutions and achieving sustainable land management.

People are trying new things.

Despite the challenges, there were some encouraging updates. One session focused on using behavioral science—not just facts and figures—to help understand how farmers make decisions. Findings show that simply providing more information doesn’t always lead to action; real change requires meeting people where they are.

Another panel showed how improving soil health can also help reduce runoff. However, even with these promising tools, a major theme emerged again: none of it will scale up without stronger policies to support it.

Policy support is the missing piece.

A major challenge is the damage resulting from environmental rollbacks. During the Trump administration in 2020, agencies like the EPA and USDA weakened review processes, referring to it as “permitting reform.” In truth, these changes limited public input and undermined environmental protections. Fact sheets from that time detailed reduced deadlines and page counts—presented as cutting red tape—but in practice, these reforms made it easier for large-scale projects, including agricultural operations, to bypass environmental scrutiny. That’s a serious concern in regions like Western Lake Erie.

Science alone won’t save the lake.

The conference underscored a key takeaway: science alone isn’t enough to solve nutrient pollution. Policies rooted in strong science—and the enforcement to support them—are essential. Otherwise, even the best ideas remain stuck in pilot programs.
The case of the Western Lake Erie Basin shows what happens when known problems go unaddressed—but also what’s possible when land use and water protection are treated as urgent, interdependent priorities.

At Flow Water Advocates, the work continues to advocate for policies that protect Michigan’s water and communities. Clean water depends on effective protections—and real accountability—when it comes to farming, development, and pollution.

Michigan’s water withdrawal program lacks tools needed to protect our water—Here’s why it matters

Published on July 14th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Michigan sits at the heart of the Great Lakes—the largest freshwater system on Earth. Despite this abundance, our water resources are not immune to overuse and mismanagement. A 2024 audit released by the Office of the Auditor General highlighted several important areas where the state’s water withdrawal program can be improved to better protect our water resources.

Download the audit report (PDF)

Weak enforcement mechanisms in the law, flaws in the methodology for predicting impacts, and poor data security are all major concerns. Without stronger systems in place, it’s possible for some users to withdraw volumes of water that threaten stream health, aquifers, and the principles of the Great Lakes Compact. In this piece, we unpack the audit’s findings, why they matter, and the changes we need to ensure Michigan protects its most vital resource—our water.

About Michigan’s water withdrawal law.

The Michigan Legislature passed, and former Governor Granholm signed into law, a bill regulating large-scale water withdrawals in 2008. The legislation was needed to fulfill Michigan’s responsibilities to manage water quantity under the Great Lakes Compact. The law requires the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to register large quantity water withdrawals between 100,000 and 2 million gallons per day, collect annual water use data, make determinations about potential impacts on water resources, and process permits for withdrawals greater than 2 million gallons per day.

What the audit found.

The Office of Auditor General’s 2024 performance review of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) pointed to several challenges in implementing the state’s water withdrawal program, including:

  • Enforcement limitations: Hundreds of large water users failed to report their actual withdrawals, and in many cases, no follow-up action was taken.
  • Flawed oversight: EGLE’s review process for new large-scale withdrawals was plagued by delays and inaccuracies, leaving some withdrawals underestimated or unregulated.
  • Data security risks: Weak access controls in EGLE’s databases could lead to unauthorized changes to withdrawal records.

These findings suggest that Michigan’s ability to track and regulate large-scale water withdrawals needs reinforcement. Without timely and accurate data, the state may not be able to prevent overuse or ensure compliance with legal standards—posing risks to long-term water sustainability.

A particular concern is that the tools used by EGLE to evaluate the impact of proposed water withdrawals do not always result in the same calculations. The Auditor General found that in one case, the difference might have resulted in an adverse resource impact. The difference in the permits the Auditor General reviews was minus 2.4 to plus 4.7 million gallons per year. The Michigan Water Use Advisory Council has called for state funding investments in groundwater and surface water data collection to help address this need.

Why does it matter?

Although Michigan is rich in water resources, scarcity is already a worsening problem in some local areas of the state. In recent years, these areas have faced lower stream flows, stressed aquifers, and polluted water supplies – particularly in agricultural areas where heavy irrigation and fertilizer use put additional pressure on water resources.

The audit raises important questions about how well Michigan is upholding its commitments under the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact (commonly known as the Great Lakes Compact). This regional agreement, supported by Michigan and seven other states, is designed to prevent overuse and privatization and ensure the long-term sustainability of Great Lakes water. Under the Compact:

  • Any new or increased large-scale withdrawals in Michigan must be properly reviewed to ensure they do not harm water resources.
  • Withdrawals that could affect Great Lakes levels or cause environmental harm must be subject to strict review and regulation.
  • The state is responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance.

Michigan has a responsibility to ensure that large-scale withdrawals are properly reviewed, monitored, and publicly reported. The audit underscores areas where more robust enforcement and improved oversight could help fulfill that commitment and close potential gaps in implementation.

What needs to change.

To protect Michigan’s water future, we believe the audit should be a catalyst for improvement. Key actions include:

  • Strengthening enforcement: Water users who fail to report their withdrawals must face real consequences. The legislature must give EGLE the tools to enforce the law, including stronger penalties and authority to move swiftly after violations.
  • Ensuring compliance with the Great Lakes Compact: Michigan must ensure that every large-scale withdrawal follows the Compact’s rules. That includes proper environmental reviews, accurate monitoring, and transparent public reporting. Improvements in water withdrawal assessment tools are critical, and so is the data collection needed to make the tools work.
  • Increasing transparency: The public has a right to know how much water is being taken from Michigan’s lakes, rivers, and aquifers—and whether that use is sustainable. EGLE should make water withdrawal data publicly accessible to increase accountability.

Why this matters to you.

Water is Michigan’s greatest natural resource. From the Great Lakes to groundwater aquifers, it sustains our communities, ecosystems, and economy. When large-scale withdrawals are not properly monitored or enforced, we will all pay the price—in the form of depleted rivers, contaminated wells, and strained public water supplies.

At Flow Water Advocates, we see this audit as an opportunity for constructive action. By addressing the issues raised and strengthening our water withdrawal program, Michigan can honor its Compact commitments and ensure long-term water security.

You can help by:

  • Staying informed about water policy issues in Michigan.
  • Supporting stronger water withdrawal protections.
  • Calling on EGLE and state lawmakers to enforce the Great Lakes Compact and strengthen oversight of water withdrawals.

Our water is a public trust. Let’s keep it that way.

Polluter accountability bills Introduced in Michigan Legislature

Published on June 10th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

New bills would help clean up, prevent environmental contamination

June 11, 2025

Polluter accountability legislation, including Senate Bills 385, 368, 387, 391, 392, and 393, was introduced this week by State Senators. Several of the bills have already been introduced in the House as HB 4636-4640, and the remaining bills will be introduced this week. The package would save taxpayers millions of dollars and result in a cleaner, healthier environment. Flow submitted written testimony in favor of the legislation. Flow has worked on this issue for several years, and collaborated with lawmakers and coalition partners to draft the legislation.

Share on Instagram

Senate Bill 392 would dramatically reduce the creation of “dead zones,” or areas where groundwater contamination is pervasive, by requiring that it be cleaned up to residential standards (except where that is technically infeasible). Current law has facilitated the frequent use of institutional controls, like deed restrictions and local ordinances, to prohibit the use of contaminated areas rather than clean them up. SB 392 would promote active cleanup of contaminated sites to better protect public health and the environment. As of June 2025, there were 4760 institutional controls in Michigan.

Senate Bill 391 would provide more information to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and the public about sites and cleanups by requiring reports on past pollutant releases, reporting on self-managed cleanups of releases, post-cleanup monitoring to detect migration of contaminants in groundwater, and that owner/operators file due care plans detailing how they will fulfill their duty to protect the public. Other bills in the new package would streamline the process EGLE follows to revise and strengthen cleanup criteria; increase transparency in the cleanup program; and provide a cause of action in court for funding medical monitoring needed by people exposed to contamination.

The legislation introduced this week is similar to bills that passed the Senate last fall, but did not receive consideration in the House. The need for reform is especially urgent as Michigan grapples with over 300 confirmed PFAS contamination sites, and thousands more suspected locations – many without a responsible party identified. Polluter accountability laws would create a legal pathway to hold manufacturers and industrial polluters liable for cleanups and long-term health impacts.

Michigan had a “polluter pay” law in place between 1990 and 1995, which held owners and operators of contaminated sites strictly liable for their cleanup. The law generated approximately $100 million in polluter payments, but it was repealed in 1995 by the Legislature and then-Governor John Engler. The repeal has cost Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion in cleanup funding over the past 25 years.  There are more than 24,000 contaminated sites in Michigan, with groundwater and soil too polluted to use. Approximately 11,000 of those sites are considered to be “orphaned” without a legally responsible owner. They comprise an area that is cumulatively twice the size of the City of Grand Rapids. Many of the orphaned and unremediated sites are located in or near low-income communities and communities of color, exacerbating environmental injustice and putting already vulnerable populations at heightened health risks.

EGLE estimates that approximately $13 billion in public funds will be needed to clean up all orphan sites, where those responsible for the pollution are now bankrupt or defunct. Billions more will be needed from private parties that caused contamination of other sites. Polluter accountability laws can help ensure these funds are available for cleanup.

“The rollback has compromised the health and safety of Michigan residents, and put an unfair financial burden on taxpayers who are forced to bear the cost of cleaning up messes created by corporate polluters,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW. “Common sense reforms to bring back polluter accountability will enable Michigan to chart a cleaner, healthier future and help communities and businesses thrive.”

The so-called “institutional controls” – deed restrictions and local ordinances that substitute in many locations for cleanup – were studied by FLOW and the Institute for Water Research at Michigan State University. The study found that the true economic, ecological, and social costs of relying on land and water use restrictions to address contamination are likely significantly higher than estimated.

In several locations around the state where contamination has not been cleaned up, toxic chemicals have volatilized into homes, businesses, and even a day care center, necessitating evacuations to protect the occupants.

Michigan can no longer afford to let polluters off the hook. For too long, families, small businesses, and communities have borne the health and financial costs of toxic contamination they didn’t cause. Restoring polluter accountability is not only common sense–it’s a moral and fiscal imperative. These reforms will ensure that those who profit from pollution pay to clean it up. The Legislature has a clear opportunity to correct decades of environmental injustice and protect Michigan’s water, land, and public health for generations to come. FLOW and its partners urge the Michigan Legislature to act swiftly on this bill package to restore polluter accountability. With mounting cleanup costs, growing public health threats, and an increasingly contaminated groundwater system, delay is not an option. The time to act is now.

Community power: CEIC works to restore Sadony Bayou and Mirror Lake

Published on May 29th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

By Carrie La Seur
FLOW Legal Director

In April 2023, FLOW’s Dave Dempsey blogged about contamination at a quiet place called Sadony Bayou, north of White Lake along the Lake Michigan coastline, where lime piles and decades of industrial waste have decimated once-thriving habitat. The bayou doesn’t look like much from the road running by, but inside, it’s a struggling universe – an ancestral home and migration territory to dragonflies, long-horned caddisflies, damselflies, purple martins, blue herons, belted kingfishers, caspian terns, wood frogs, green frogs, Fowler’s toads, and a former spawning ground for pike. Once, bullfrogs sang.

(click to enlarge)

Once known as “Stump” (because a stump served as a post office) and Ferrysburg or Ferrisville, the community that formed at the old channel connecting the bayou to Lake Michigan was the first settlement in the White Lake area – a bustling logging town.

In the 1860s, Government Channel was constructed, connecting White Lake to Lake Michigan. By 1877 the Old Channel had been blocked off. Although still receiving water from Pierson Creek, Sadony Bayou had no way to cleanse and revive itself by moving water and sediments in and out, as bayous must to survive. Then, in the 1950s, Dupont Chemical arrived next to the bayou, depositing lime and other industrial waste on its property, which then migrated into soil and water. A 1965 berm breach in Dupont’s Pierson Creek Landfill, uphill from Pierson Creek, which feeds the bayou, caused extensive contamination with toxic waste. In 1967, a valve opened over Pierson Creek, diverting wastewater into the creek, killing everything.

(click to enlarge)

On top of the chemical burden, blowing and drifting dunes deposited enough sediment that algae began to choke the strangled bayou. Sadony Bayou was once very deep and flowed directly into Lake Michigan. Now it’s shallow, without flow. The sun beats down, warming the water. Nutrients from upstream agriculture and a golf course consume available oxygen, degrading habitat. Kayaks and canoes have disappeared, and anglers no longer line up to cast lines off the bridge by the Old Channel Inn for pike, perch, and largemouth bass.

When the Chemours Environmental Impact Committee (CEIC, pronounced “seek”) formed in 2018 to represent the concerns of local residents and ensure a thorough cleanup, they were focused on the many landfills and spill areas on the Chemours property. Over the past 6 ½ years, CEIC has communicated regularly with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s Hazardous Waste Section, as it works with Chemours on its Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures Study. Last summer Chemours and EGLE signed an enforceable document, known as the Corrective Action Consent Order, which allows EGLE to approve actions and impose deadlines. Currently CEIC is awaiting release of the report that will provide insight into cleanup plans in the Corrective Measures Implementation plan.

Back in 2018, CEIC did not imagine that they would sidetrack into a related, yet unrelated mission – the restoration of Sadony Bayou. In 2023, Marty Holtgren, an aquatic biologist with experience in restoring waterways, joined CEIC’s efforts as project manager. CEIC, with the Muskegon Conservation District as fiscal sponsor, received an EGLE grant for an “Evaluation of Sadony Bayou to Support Restoration.” That work continued into 2024 with the help of experts brought in by Marty.

Meanwhile, Marty, CEIC, and fiscal sponsor Muskegon County Environmental Coordinating Council, received a grant from the White Lake Community Fund, called “Establishing a Vision for Sadony Bayou.” Marty and his team listened to residents in three visioning sessions while looking at historical data, maps, and photos of the bayou since the early 1800s.

These smaller grants prepared the way to begin restoration in earnest. Marty Holtgren and Caroline Gottschalk of the University of Wisconsin, with FLOW as fiscal sponsor, have submitted a pre-proposal for a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation-National Coastal Resilience Fund grant, to arrive at a community- and township-supported restoration design that is ready to advance to final design and permitting.

—–

(click to enlarge)

CEIC has also been busy these past several weeks with another water body, this one located on the Chemours property, just south of the giant lime pile and in the center of the plume of contaminated groundwater. In the words of one resident who visited Mirror Lake as a teen in the 1960s, “It was a wildlife paradise. A lot of ducks: Green- and blue-winged teal, black, and mallards. (A lot of them.) Mink, muskrats, red-tailed hawks, goshawk (like a big falcon), ruffed grouse. You would see them down there everywhere.”

CEIC has known for years that Chemours intended to dredge the lime from Mirror Lake, and when they suddenly received a Public Notice of Chemours’ application for a permit to “excavate the escaped lime from wetland area and at edge of Mirror Lake,” CEIC jumped into action, submitting comments and encouraging community members and supporters to respond as well, which would earn a chance for a public hearing. Comments ranged from where they intended to deposit the dredged lime, to the apparent lack of a restoration and monitoring plan, to concerns of how the dredging might influence the water level and the migration of the plume of contaminated water.

On May 5th, CEIC was pleased to receive a formal announcement of a virtual Public Hearing on May 27th at 6:00 pm. This notice is accompanied by a Restoration and a 10-year Monitoring plan developed by the Muskegon Conservation District. At this writing, CEIC is still consulting with experts regarding some details of the evaluation and plan and will be submitting further comments, as well as encouraging community members to consider submitting comments by the June 6 deadline.

These are encouraging developments, but local residents – and local bullfrogs – should expect nothing less than full transparency and a commitment to robust cleanup from the agency charged with “safeguard(ing) the state’s natural resources, including air, water, and land, from pollution, impairment, and destruction.” Michigan Constitution of 1963, Art. IV, Sec. 52.

A win for water: Fremont Regional Digester shut down

Published on May 1st, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Fremont, Michigan is a rural community in west Michigan’s Newaygo County, about an hour north of Grand Rapids. Since 2012 it has been home to a huge anaerobic digester, owned since 2017 by the Delaware-incorporated company Generate Upcycle, part of multi-billion dollar “clean energy” investment firm Generate Capital.

Anaerobic digesters use bacteria to decompose organic waste (such as commercial food waste and factory farm sewage) and generate biogas. The byproduct of this process is a concentrated sludge called “digestate.” The digestate – often full of heavy metals and biological hazards – is held in massive cesspits, then sprayed on fields (“field application”) as fertilizer.

In addition to creating noxious, intolerable odors, the digestate makes its way through field drains and runoff and into lakes, streams, groundwater – and residential water wells.

Following years of maneuvering by Generate Upcycle and repeated extensions of its outdated, inadequate “Agricultural Use” authorization, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) finally moved to require a more stringent Groundwater Discharge Permit for the facility. Despite the proposed permit’s notable weaknesses, Generate Upcycle chafed at the stricter pollutant limits. EGLE is required by law to protect drinking water sources – including groundwater – by regulating pollutants.

In November 2024, at the request of FLOW and a coalition of Fremont residents and allies, EGLE held a public hearing on the proposed groundwater discharge permit. Community members spoke very movingly about their experiences living near the digester:

“EGLE must allow zero wiggle room for this industry to turn rural Michigan into their dumpster.”
– Kathy Morrison, Fremont resident

Citing the expense and challenge of complying with the stronger environmental standards proposed by EGLE, Generate Upcycle closed the doors of the Fremont digester and is now in the final stages of decommissioning it.

A recent email from EGLE read: “On March 10, 2025, Generate Fremont Digester, LLC requested to withdraw their Groundwater Discharge Permit Application. The draft permit that was placed on public notice will not be issued. Any authorization to discharge from this facility would require a new application describing the expected discharge and issuance of an appropriate permit.”

FLOW is heartened that the community of Fremont and its waters are no longer threatened by the digester’s odors and toxic byproducts (though the impacts of its past operations are likely to linger), and we are inspired by the many community members who bravely made their voices heard. In its comments to EGLE (pdf), the FLOW Coalition made specific recommendations regarding field application locations and conditions; response to citizen odor complaints and odor compliance; pre-treatment of digestate to remove chemicals of emerging concern (CECs), microplastics, PFAS/PFOAS, pathogens, and heavy metals; compliance and enforcement; and more.

Propped up by “green energy” incentives and fed by the waste of factory farms, anaerobic digesters are a burgeoning industry. We call on agencies and lawmakers to figure out how to manage this technology in a way that protects us all.

 

Michigan public beach advisories increased in 2024

Published on December 11th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

Michigan public beach advisories were up during the 2024 season compared to 2023, with the difference likely due to the timing and intensity of storms that washed polluted runoff into rivers and lakes.

A total of 127 advisories and closures were reported for 106 beaches in thirty-eight counties, by twenty-eight local health departments in 2023. In 2024, 289 advisories and closures were reported for 167 beaches in forty-eight counties by thirty-three local health departments.

“Just my initial observation for 2024 was that beaches were significantly impacted by rain and storms,” said Dr. Shannon Briggs, coordinator of beach monitoring for the state Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). “The dates of the closures are clustered for the beaches. It seemed the storms arrived early in the week and that is when most monitoring occurs.

“Beaches are typically monitored Mondays and Tuesdays. Followup samples are collected on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Most labs don’t take samples on Friday because they have to wait until Saturday for the culture-based results. However, there are some labs that use qPCR methods and can test beaches on Fridays.”

Beach advisories and closures are issued based on an unhealthy level of Escherichia coli (E. coli). In contrast to former testing methods, which took at least 24 hours to yield results, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) can yield measurements or estimates of E. coli within several hours. Thanks to the quicker turnaround time, officials can post warnings or close beaches the same day.

When bacteria such as E. coli are present, other dangerous bacteria and viruses that are more expensive to measure may also be present. High levels of E. coli signal that microorganisms of concern to human health, such as Salmonella and norovirus, may also be in the water.

Statewide, 530 beaches in sixty-seven counties were monitored by thirty-seven local health departments in 2023. In 2024, 521 beaches in sixty-seven counties were monitored by thirty-seven local health departments.

The monitoring of beaches in Michigan is voluntary and is conducted by the local health departments. State law requires that a local health officer or an authorized representative of a local health department that conducts tests at bathing beaches is required to notify the department and other entities of the test results within 36 hours of conducting a test or evaluation. Owners of public bathing beaches must post a sign that states whether the bathing beach has been tested, and if so, the location of the test results.

Monitoring results for Michigan’s public beaches – roughly 600 Great Lakes and 600 inland beaches, are on EGLE’s Beachguard website.

FLOW’s “lame duck” session priorities for water

Published on November 20th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

What is the “lame duck” session in Lansing?

Lame duck is a legislative session that begins after a November election but before new members take the oath of office in January. ‘Lame duck’ refers to the fact that many legislators voting in November and December are retiring or were defeated and are considered lame ducks. Both Congress and the Michigan Legislature often hold lame-duck sessions to resolve thorny issues where lame ducks are free to vote without consequences to their re-election.

This year’s lame-duck dates are tentatively planned for November 6 – December 19 for the Senate and November 7 – December 19 for the House. During this unique time, we have the power to urge the Michigan legislature to make the right decision and protect our precious environment. We encourage you to reach out to your legislators to represent our collective voice on the following Great Lakes priorities:

Statewide Septic Code

Michigan has spent over two decades attempting to implement a statewide septic code. We can finally accomplish this with HB 4479–4480 and SB 299–300. More than 1.3 million homes and businesses in Michigan use septic systems to treat household sewage and wastewater. If not maintained, failing septic systems can contaminate drinking and groundwater and release bacteria, viruses, and household chemicals into lakes and rivers. Proper septic system maintenance protects public health and the environment. Only 11 of Michigan’s 83 counties require inspections. And Michigan is the only state in the nation without a statewide code. FLOW has been working with a diverse coalition of stakeholders for almost 2 years to ensure environmental considerations are included in each draft of the bills, an incredibly vital part of establishing a sustainable statewide septic code. Tell your legislators that you SUPPORT a statewide septic code for Michigan!

Polluter Accountability

EGLE estimates there are 26,000 contamination sites in Michigan, about 13,000 where no potentially responsible party (PRP) can be identified. Michigan’s current contamination cleanup laws fail to hold many potentially responsible parties accountable, forcing the public taxpayers to pay for cleanup or leaving sites contaminated, with an estimated price tag of up to 13 billion dollars. This is not an abstract concern. Sites where contamination is left in place have resulted in evacuations of nearby residences, offices, and a daycare center to protect public health. Many sites with institutional controls may become hazards in the future.

Polluter Pay legislation, SB 605-611 and HB 5241-5247 restores the common-sense principle that polluters should pay to clean up their contamination by ensuring that both past and present owners and operators are defined as legally responsible parties. Equally important, it will deter future pollution by clarifying that the state will have the legal tools necessary to enforce the law and strengthen the cleanup criteria based on the best available scientific data. In sum, the legislation places the responsibility and allocates the risk of future releases on those who control the use of hazardous materials. SUPPORT for this legislation is critical to the health and well-being of our communities.

Part 31 – Environmental Agency Rulemaking Authority

Two decades ago, the legislature made amendments to Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) that have created ongoing and increasingly severe legal jeopardy for the state, with a growing likelihood of litigation and administrative actions as Michigan falls out of compliance with a variety of legal obligations due to regulatory neglect. If unremedied, this situation will continue to cause unlawful pollution of water and natural resources and become more costly, with consequences including the potential loss of authority to implement federal environmental regulatory programs. Failure to update water quality regulations in line with federal standards could result in Michigan losing its delegated authority to manage its Clean Water Act discharge permitting program, similar to the situation that occurred in Wisconsin. We urge you to ask your legislators to SUPPORT HB 5205 to safeguard Michigan’s waters and avoid legal complications.

Data Centers

Data centers have significant impacts on our environment and public health – including water use, energy use, land use, and noise – especially if backup diesel generators are employed. Data centers, without necessary environmental safeguards, are an imminent threat to climate progress and freshwater resources. Our commitment to renewable energy and abundant water resources makes our state attractive to these companies, but we must prioritize protecting our water, air, and ratepayers while encouraging economic development. We can do both with well-crafted legislation.

However, HB 4906 and SB 237, data center use and tax bills, fail to incorporate any meaningful environmental protections. Michigan has the leverage now to maximize the benefit statement for local governments and residents, and that leverage is lost after tax incentives become law. The impact of these policies will resonate for decades, so we must get the policy correct now to ensure that we are meeting our clean energy and clean water goals. Ask your legislator to OPPOSE HB 4906 and SB 237 as written.

Stormwater Utilities

Over the past few decades, Michigan has faced an increase in unpredictable storm events. Unfortunately, our existing stormwater infrastructure is not built to handle the frequency and intensity of these storms, creating problems with water runoff and flooding.

This, in turn, has led to problems such as water pollution, algal blooms, beach closures, threats to public health, and increased infrastructure costs to taxpayers. Polluted runoff also contaminates the environment and endangers aquatic life. Stormwater utilities can be a part of the solution, by enabling communities to fund modern, green stormwater infrastructure and protect the environment and public health.

FLOW is working to develop a legislative solution to enable small and mid-sized communities in Michigan to legally establish stormwater utilities and secure a reliable source of funding for this crucial infrastructure. Stormwater utilities are an essential tool for managing and mitigating the negative impacts of stormwater runoff, including flood damage, erosion, and pollution.

Michigan taxpayers left holding the bag for contamination caused by now-defunct businesses

Published on October 17th, 2024 by - Blog Posts

If there was ever any doubt that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, a recent estimate of the cost to Michigan taxpayers of cleaning up environmental contamination should have dispelled it.

According to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), there are some 13,000 so-called orphan sites across the state of Michigan. These are sites where no party responsible for the contamination can be identified. That is typically because the contamination happened so long ago it is unclear who caused the pollution and/or the potentially responsible parties are bankrupt.

In its new video highlighting EGLE’s efforts to address these orphan sites, the agency estimates that the cost to taxpayers of doing so could be as high as $13 billion.

FLOW and the MSU Institute for Water Research recently issued a report analyzing the costs of not cleaning up many contaminated sites. So why doesn’t the state have an up-to-date strategy for preventing contamination in the first place? Until it does, the public cost of cleanup is likely to grow beyond $13 billion as pollution taints more groundwater.

Other states have made more effort. Some have groundwater coordinating councils that bring together the state agencies that deal with groundwater. (In Michigan, four principal departments have some level of groundwater responsibility.) That helps assure a holistic view from state governments in groundwater policy and management. Michigan does not have such a council.

Some states, like Iowa, have groundwater protection acts that make education about and prevention of groundwater pollution a priority. Michigan has no such law.

And some states, like Minnesota, have groundwater monitoring programs that serve as an early warning system and design and enable the development of strategies for best management practices to prevent contamination. Michigan has no such program.

Since 2018, FLOW has been calling for a comprehensive state groundwater strategy. We will step up those efforts in the months ahead. We can do no less for a resource that provides drinking water for 45% of Michigan residents.