text:
Ban fracking proposal may be on Michigan 2020 ballot
Posted on February 25, 2020 by BMF webmaster
Oral Argument in Michigan Court of Appeals on March 3
By LuAnne Kozma
Michigan voters may see a proposal to ban fracking and frack waste on the November 2020 ballot if the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan wins its lawsuit against the State of Michigan in time. The Committee's vetted 270,962 voter signatures — 7% more than the required minimum — submitted before the November 2018 election, currently are held up in the Michigan courts.
I've directed the Committee's campaign since 2012. This is our third petition. Thousands of Michigan voters want this question on the ballot. We are shocked that the State has treated this campaign so unlawfully and so unfairly.
The case hinges on two questions: what determines the actual election date a statutory initiative is to be voted on, and whether a law limiting signature-gathering to 180-days is unconstitutional.
What the ballot language says: The proposal would ban fracking and acidizing in horizontal wells and ban all wastes–solids, liquids and gases–from any horizontal well that was fracked or acidized. It also would change the longstanding policy of the oil and gas state regulators who must "foster the development of the industry along the most favorable conditions" and "maximize" oil and gas production. In its place is language that would require the State to put human health, the environment, water, plants, animals, and climate as its priority over oil and gas development.
To read the actual language, go to the Committee's website, www.letsbanfracking.org and click the Ballot Language tab.
Signatures denied, voters spurned
When we got to the door of the Secretary of State in November 2018 with 47 boxes of signatures, she refused them. Why? Because the signature sheets each bore a caption saying the proposal was to be voted in 2016, the date the Committee originally hoped for when it started collecting in 2015.
But no matter. Mistakes on petition sheets have been allowed in past campaigns. Indeed, the Canvassers had approved the form of the Committee sheets though they contained an obvious different mistake: The sheets made no mention that the Legislature itself could enact the proposal with no citizen vote, as it did in 2018 with the MI Time To Care petition. That petition itself had a mistake.
According to the Michigan Constitution, it is timing of actions of the Canvassers and Legislature — not what the Committee wrote on the sheets — that determines the election date (if there even is an election). Gretchen Whitmer and Dana Nessel, the current governor and attorney general, could see that when they were presented as candidates with the Committee petition in April 2018. They signed anyway.
In turning the Committee away, the Secretary of State cited the law that requires signature submittal 160 days before the election where the proposal is to be voted. But the Committee was in plenty of time before the 2020 election, we answered, and the election date is determined by the Constitution not what is written on the signature sheets.
The State said they'd take the boxes only if a court ordered it. We put them into professional storage. We were furious.
We had sued the State over the 180-day signature-gathering law in 2016 and 2017. The courts dismissed that case because it was not yet "ripe." The 180-day law would only apply to us after we filed signatures, the Courts ruled. But importantly, the Secretary of State explained to three different courts how the Committee could eventually ripen it:
"The [Committee] may continue to circulate their petition without any interference. . . .If and when [the Committee] obtains the additional signatures required … they will be able to file their petition."
What part of that were we not to understand? The court had made specific note that the Committee was getting signatures using the "same petition sheets." The State briefs had been saying in effect the petition sheets were ok, even with the mistaken 2016 election date on the front of every one of them.
The State is now saying that when we "tendered" the 270,962 vetted signatures we didn't "file" them. But the two words mean the same thing, as even our Supreme Court has acknowledged.
It is also saying the campaign actually died on the day the Committee sued in 2016, and the courts' ruling on the ripeness issue was a waste of everyone's time.
The State does not contend that the signature sheets misled or misinformed Whitmer, Nessel, and the other signers.
We started the suit in December 2018. Last summer, the Court of Claims ruled that the 2016 date on the front of the petition sheets, while not required by any law, did matter just because we did put it there. The Court did not notice the Constitution's description as to the election where a proposal is to be voted, if it is voted at all.
What the State wants the courts to go along with is that a simple misstatement about the constitutional process a petition goes through on the front of the petition, actually can supersede the Constitution. If it were that easy to change the Michigan Constitution by simply misstating something on the front of a petition, everyone would be doing it.
The State ignores the Constitution's language about the election where a statutory proposal is to be voted, and even improperly quotes Article 2 Section 9 by leaving out the pertinent part!
The State said to all three Michigan courts in 2016-17 that the way to ripen our challenge to the 180-day law, was to keep collecting and then file our petition. Today it is doing an about-face, saying our petition died on June 1, 2016. Our "estoppel" argument says the State can't do this. It is a matter of basic transparency.
A history of the 180-day signature-gathering law
The rest of the case will have to do with the 180-day signature gathering law and its unconstitutionality. Because the issue has not yet been fully briefed, we don't expect a full decision on the case after March 3.
What we didn't realize when we first started our campaign in 2015, trying to get on the 2016 ballot, was that ballot initiative law in Michigan had not been properly followed by the State of Michigan for 30 years. As most other ballot initiative campaigns had done, we had understood, wrongly, that the limit on signature collecting was strictly limited to 180 days. Actually, the law stated there was a "rebuttable presumption" that signatures older than 180 days were "stale and void." Most campaigns had assumed that was a hard and fast rule.
After those first 180 days, when we had collected about 150,000 of the 252,523 needed, we discovered from the Marijuana campaign that the law was not quite what it seemed. In 1986, the Canvassers had come up with a policy outlining a method to rebut the presumption that "stale and void" signatures were invalid. The State had kept this policy under wraps; it was not spelled out in the how-to guide for ballot campaigns. On top of that, the Canvassers' method for rebutting was an impossible one that no campaign could ever achieve. It required contacting thousands of signers or county clerks individually and having them sign affidavits or certificates (by the clerks) attesting to signers' voter registration status.
How did such a crazy thing come about?
Lee Beckett, from a newspaper story in 1973.
Back in 1970, Ms. Lee Beckett — a "housewife from Grand Rapids, mother of five" as she was usually described in media stories — had a mission: to amend the constitution using ballot initiative, and hold Legislators more accountable for their pay raises and pension raises.
She was opposed to the way Michigan Legislators got these raises in an automatic fashion if they ignored, and did not vote on, a commission's recommendations for the increases. Beckett and her "Legislative Salary Amendment Committee" collected about 153,000 signatures in 1970, 1971 and 1972 to get their proposal on the 1972 ballot, and then continued collecting in 1973 for the 1974, ballot. Leaders of the Conservative party and the Human Rights party, (Zolton Ferency) joined the campaign.
In 1973 legislators became alarmed, and enacted a law to stop the campaign by limiting signature gathering to 90 days, then changing it to 180 days. Ms. Beckett said in the press, "180 days is too short a period in which to collect . . . It's an attempt to limit our constitutional rights." Newspapers at the time called out the Legislature for its blatantly retaliatory act.
Beckett worked to get Attorney General Frank Kelley to issue an opinion on the new law. He did in 1974, but too late to affect her Committee's campaign.
Kelley opined that the 180-day signature gathering law was unconstitutional. Citing a Michigan Supreme Court case, Wolverine Golf Club v Secretary of State, (which is still good law today), he wrote "petitions and the signatures affixed to them are valid for as long as a particular basis (vote cast) remains in effect . . . hence, signatures on petitions are to be considered valid so long as they are gathered during a single four-year term bounded on both sides by a gubernatorial election." Wolverine Golf Club also struck down a law that gave a deadline by which signatures for statutory initiatives would have to be submitted.
After Kelley's opinion, for the twelve years from 1974 to 1986, the people of Michigan exercised their constitutional right to collect signatures for ballot initiatives during the four-year period between governor's elections. Proposals got on the ballot, and some were voted into law.
In 1986, two constitutional amendment petition groups submitted signatures. Each campaign had collected signatures for three and a half years. A fossil fuel company, Consumers Power, didn't like one of them, and sued the State to reinstate the 180-day law and prevent the proposal from appearing on the ballot.
There are differences between two articles of the Michigan constitution, Consumers Power argued, one that governs statutory initiatives creating or amending a statute, (Article 2 Section 9) and one that defined initiatives that amend the constitution (Article 12 Section 2). These provisions gave the Legislature power over the constitutional type, but not power over the statutory type. The State argued Attorney General Kelley's position — that the 180-day restriction was unconstitutional for both types of initiatives, and that the people have four years to collect signatures.
A lower court decided in Consumers Power's favor. The State had to comply, declaring the two ballot proposals ineligible for the November 1986 ballot. With the 180-day limit in effect, to allow for a method of rebutting "old" signatures, the Board of Canvassers came up with the impossible method described above. Meanwhile, the State continued appealing the decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld Consumers Power.
Consumers Power did not apply to statutory initiatives
However, the Consumers Power court decision was solely about the issue whether the 180-day signature gathering law was constitutional as to Article 12 Section 2, initiatives to amend the constitution.
The court made no ruling about Article 2 Section 9, which is the one governing the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan. That means Frank Kelley's opinion still held for statutory initiatives like ours.
For some strange reason the State figured all ballot initiatives for practical purposes had only 180 days to collect signatures. No one was going to be able to rebut hundreds of thousands of signatures with hundreds of thousands of affidavits, assuming you could even find the signers again.
When our Committee together with the Marijuana campaign dug into this history, we appealed to the Board of State Canvassers, making presentations and writing legal memos and letters. When challenged by Committee's attorney Ellis Boal, Director of Elections Christopher Thomas could not name a single court decision that overturned the Wolverine Golf Club decision.
We had them in a bind. They could not defend their decision to treat both types of initiatives in the same manner. Ours is a statutory initiative under Article 2 Section 9, which was not affected by the Consumers Power decision. We had 4 years to collect signatures.
Even if we were to be held to the 180-days but older signatures were rebuttable, we argued then, that there was a better way to prove older signatures "valid." There was no need to contact the 83 county clerks. Since the early 1990s, the Michigan "Qualified Voter File," a statewide database created by all the clerks collectively, has provided the official proof whether someone is or is not a registered voter. I argued in letters to the Canvassers, that the Qualified Voter File contains all the clerk "certificates" as demanded in their wacky 1986 policy.
Hearing this, the Director of Elections proposed a new policy, but the Canvassers refused to go along with it. Legislators had other plans to stop the ban fracking and marijuana campaigns: change the 180-day signature gathering law.
In spring of 2016, a new version of the law was passed by the House and Senate, making the 180-day limit hard and fast. Signatures older than 180 days simply "shall not count," whether they are valid or not. We and the marijuana campaign testified against the bill. Lawyers for the oil and gas industry and Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued for it.
The governor signed it into law that June. It absolutely invalidates perfectly valid signatures by validly-registered voters. It's even more unconstitutional than before.
To read the briefs in the case, go to the Committee's website, www.letsbanfracking.org and click the Lawsuits menu.
Kozma is the campaign director for Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan (a ballot question committee) and president of Ban Michigan Fracking (an educational non-profit, and this website). She is an individual co-plaintiff in the case, Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan v Secretary of State.
Residents pack Gladwin injection well hearing
Posted on June 20, 2018 by BMF webmaster
Now they have to pack the EPA with substantive written comments
Public Comment Deadline is June 22, 2018 (midnight postmark).
How to comment:
Send comments by email to Janette Hansen at EPA, Hansen.janette@epa.gov, or by mail postmarked not later than midnight June 22, 2018 to: Janette Hansen, U.S. EPA, Water Division, UIC Branch (WU-16J), 77 Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604-3590. Put "Grove #13-11 well, draft permit number MI-051-2D-0031 in the subject line.
Over 200 people packed a public hearing and meeting held by the US Environmental Protection Agency in Gladwin on June 19 at Gladwin High School to find out about and give public comment on a proposed injection well for Sage Township. The injection well permit sought by Jordan Development LLC would convert an existing gas well into a disposal well that would service two nearby oil and gas wells by a pipeline, and allow the company to dispose of 20,000 barrels of oil and gas wastes daily, indefinitely.
Attendees were frustrated to learn that a proposed pipeline to carry the toxic waste (repeatedly called "water" by the Jordan Development representative) from the wells to the injection well, while just 3 feet underground, was not a part of the EPA's authority, and could not be part of the EPA decision. Residents continually pointed out how little information was really revealed by the draft permit or the EPA spokespeople. When asked what chemicals were in the benign-sounding "brine," EPA's Janette Hansen replied "It'll be a long list." The "area of review" for an injection well is only 1/4 mile, while residents clearly were concerned about impacts beyond that short distance.
Numerous residents from Gladwin County and neighboring counties got up to the mic to ask questions during the public meeting, and to make statements during the hearing. Teachers, scientists, doctors and other residents were of one mind and against the permitting of the well, citing potential health risks, water contamination, interference with old abandoned wells in the area, and the seepage of the waste in the permeable underground formations that might find its way far from Gladwin county. A long time resident brought in some of his well water and poured some glasses for the EPA staffers to see. His water became salty 22 years ago and he still doesn't drink it. "Think about the children," he said, and warned the staffers to not drink it.
One young woman resident, bald and wearing a breathing mask, after telling her story of being in stage 4 cancer after having breathed the vapors in the area, warned residents of the harmful air toxins that would come from oil and gas waste. She received a standing ovation.
One resident prefaced his comments by saying he was born and raised on the Cedar River and got his masters degree in fisheries and wildlife. As a scientist, he said he was concerned about the well failure rates and pointed out the hundreds of leaks nationwide. Letha Raymond from Clare County voiced her concerns about the health and safety of area residents and the effects of injecting oil and gas wastes in an injection well with so many old oil and gas wells in the area that are not capped. Amy Kruske pointed out that a letter to the editor and residents' requests for a hearing was what alerted residents to the proposed injection well and led to the hearing.
Ellis Boal and LuAnne Kozma, representing Ban Michigan Fracking, attended and gave comments regarding seismicity and well casing failure. Residents are urged to submit public comments concerning the process, geologic siting, well engineering, and operation and monitoring standards. Kozma noted that the EPA was asked the question a year ago at a similar public hearing for an injection well in Barry County: "What is Michigan's well casing failure rate?" and the EPA said it did not know. At this meeting in Gladwin, a resident asked the same thing and the answer was the same: They do not know.
Kozma requested a new public hearing and urged residents to do the same.
Kozma, Boal, and other Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan volunteers were there with information sheets about fracking and frack wastes, and collected over 210 signatures on the statewide ballot initiative petition that night.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED INJECTION WELL: The fact sheet and draft permit are available on the EPA website here.
DEQ cranking out administrative rules in new bid for "primacy" in regulation of injection wells
Posted on March 14, 2018 by BMF webmaster
Weber 4-8, waste injection well in Mayfield Township, Grand Traverse County.
Michigan's Department of Environmental Qualify (DEQ) is proposing new administrative rules which will allow it to be the prime regulator of injection wells in the state.
Send your comments about this to DEQ by 5:00 pm on March 16. Here is a template for requesting a 30-day extension of the comment period.
Background of primacy in Michigan
Even as DEQ staff in 2014 incurred multiple felony charges in the Flint water crises, it was beginning a process of seeking "primacy" from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over regulation of oil-gas injection wells.
These wells, called "class II injection wells," are reverse wells, in which operators pour liquids or gas into the earth — for toxic waste disposal, storage, or enhancement of oil-gas extraction — instead of taking product out and selling it.
The injected wastes include flowback of the fracturing/acidizing slurry used to complete oil-gas wells, as well as salty brines originally below ground which come to the surface during oil-gas extraction. These liquid wastes are sometimes radioactive.
Michigan has about 1300 class II injection wells. DEQ expects this number to increase.
At present, the regulatory matrix in Michigan requires that both DEQ and EPA sign off on new class II permits.
But unlike Michigan, 34 states have primacy for class II wells. Like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York have significant oil-gas reserves, but don't have primacy. Michigan doesn't need it either.
Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Michigan could have sought primacy 35 years ago, when most other oil-gas producing states sought it and got it. But Michigan once had a long-time concern for groundwater protection.
Injection wells are an important issue. As we reported in 2016, they leak, eventually most wells fail, and in 10 to 100 years from now we will find most groundwater in the US is polluted. This is particularly noticeable given the increased number of wells recently which use fracturing completion methods.
2014: Michigan seeks injection primacy
In 2014 DEQ began the process of seeking primacy. In November 2014 DEQ circulated a "briefing report" boasting that:
The State of Michigan is well equipped for Class II … primacy, understanding state specific geography, geology, cultural, climactic [sic], social, and economic issues. … The State of Michigan's record of accomplishment for excellent environmental protection and regulation for Class II injection will continue….
A month later it held a "public hearing," illegally with no advance public notice that a record would be made and public comments accepted. Only two people from the public showed up, one representing BMF. For our part, we noted DEQ had advanced no reason for primacy other than that it wanted the power.
In 2015 again with no public notice, DEQ submitted a draft primacy application to EPA, calling for the two agencies to "maintain" their high level of "cooperation."
In January 2017, as we reported later in the year, EPA ripped the DEQ application. It cited "fundamental" concerns that the program provisions "limit effective protection" of public water supplies, the DEQ's definition of fresh water "is narrower in scope" than the EPA's, and the DEQ application had "inconsistencies and unclear descriptions."
As examples, EPA noted:
the application had no information about confining zones;
the definition of class II wells did not include frack wells which use diesel fuels;
DEQ didn't know the difference between "fracture gradient" and "fracture pressure"; and
certain DEQ rules place a high documentation burden on people who want to petition for a hearing.
But before it could even consider primacy, EPA added, DEQ would have to upgrade its formal administrative rules, a process which involves a for-real public hearing, and can take a year or more.
The same year Kentucky sought primacy and EPA granted it.
The new DEQ bid
Unbowed, DEQ drafted new administrative rules last December. Its 8-member Oil and Gas Advisory Committee — of which 6 members represent industry — helped develop the draft.
Most of the revisions consist of a "comprehensive" update for injection wells. But others would:
increase bonds for casing, plugging, and repairing all types of wells, the last increase having been in 1996,
provide flexibility to extend permit termination dates so as to diminish problems for operators,
streamline requirements for approving minor changes to well locations prior to drilling, and
fix one typographical error.
Importantly, the primacy-related injection well changes "do not go beyond" current federal requirements. Thus there is no requirement that an injection well test and identify waste before it goes down the hole.
The text of the current rules is here. The text of the proposed revision is here. The regulatory impact statement/cost-benefit analysis is here.
DEQ emphasizes:
Injection wells are essential to the future of Michigan oil and gas production for disposal of waste fluids and for recovery projects in existing oil fields. Having a single regulatory structure protective of underground sources of drinking water will have a positive impact on oil and gas development and will reduce the cost of regulatory compliance by elimination of duplicative regulations.
DEQ adds that current EPA injection standards are good enough. Accordingly construction and operation will not change under the proposed rules, nor will performance and design standards. Stated otherwise:
The proposed rule set … will … position Michigan to eliminate dual regulation by obtaining primacy.
In other words the new rules would simply bring state standards up to the level of the federal standards which are already in place. So if the standards will remain the same, will there be any benefit from DEQ primacy? Yes but only for industry.
The public hearing — Industry
DEQ held a public hearing on the revisions in Lansing on February 28. A transcript was produced.
Eight industry leaders attended and spoke, including Bill Myler Jr. and Robert Long, both members of Oil and Gas Advisory Committee which helped write the draft, and James R. Neal, a longtime outspoken advocate of compulsory pooling.
Jordan Exploration's Ben Brower said "we certainly don't like the duplicity and dealing with the EPA has been extremely difficult."
Dave Farner of Dart Oil and Gas claimed that 43 states have primacy.
West Bay Exploration's Tim Baker claimed that under the EPA his company had waited seven years for a particular permit because EPA gave standing to opponents based on "nebulous science issues," but DEQ staff were "better trained."
Though Myler helped write the draft, he and Brower ridiculed it as "overkill."
Overkill? Even so, industry's support was unqualified and adamant, asking for primacy "the sooner the better."
Why? Farner said EPA staff "ask the wrong questions." Brower said "We work with you [DEQ] a lot." Long said, "They [DEQ staff] know us. We know them."
The public hearing — MCWC
Four people appeared representing Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, Jeff Ostahowski, Peggy Case, Wendy Nystrom, and Pamela Gilbert, to speak in opposition. Some of the points they made:
Term-limits should be imposed on injection wells. Otherwise at some point there will be an earthquake.
Much of the injectate will travel underground two miles or more. Yet the DEQ area of review covers only a ¼-mile radius.
A Richter 4.2 earthquake such as Michigan had in 2015 can affect strata up to two miles away.
MCWC once sent DEQ data on 115 old well bores in the area where an injection well was being proposed, but it didn't matter. Waste should be tested and identified before it goes in the ground.
There are no maps for flow or transfer lines from existing contiguous operations.
Injection wells are serviced by secondary contracted LLC companies which are unbonded.
For oil-gas enhancement, only brine should be allowed not fresh water.
The comment period should be extended beyond the current end-date of March 16.
MCWC will be following up with written comments.
BMF critique of the new rules: quakes, faults, site assessment
As seen, when it comes to injection EPA already has a low opinion of DEQ.
This article will elaborate only on the earthquake raised by MCWC:
An EPA regulation currently requires that injection pressure must be such as to assure it will not "initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the confining zone" and will not cause the "movement" of injection or formation fluids into public water supplies.
The DEQ draft requires that there be a geologic confining interval that can "limit" fluid movement above an injection interval, and information demonstrating that well construction "will prevent" fluid movement so as to endanger public water supplies. But it does not specifically require assurance that injection pressure will not "propagate existing fractures."
Nor does it require identification of faults outside the ¼-mile "area of review." By contrast an EPA regulation rejects a fixed radius, where inappropriate based on operational parameters and local geologic information, in favor of evaluation within a formula-determined "zone of endangering influence" which can be wider than ¼-mile.
BMF added further comments on March 16. Excerpts:
The safe drinking water act makes no direct reference to seismic issues. And EPA has shown little interest in the topic since SDWA was enacted.
But it did do one thing. In 2013-14 a national technical workgroup convened a workshop, "Minimizing and managing potential impacts of injection-induced seismicity from class II disposal wells: practical approaches."
The workgroup studied incidents and swarms in North Texas, Central Arkansas, Braxton County West Virginia, and Youngstown Ohio. Additionally an appendix discussed aseismic examples of class II disposal well activity causing long distance pressure influences.
There is no evidence DEQ has given any attention whatever to these issues. Indeed, you emphasized on February 28 that DEQ would impose no requirements beyond those already in effect under SWDA. This is wrong-headed. DEQ should do better.
Academic and public interest in seismicity has grown since SWDA. See for instance "Warning bells about fracking and earthquakes growing louder", … reporting on a recent study of 300 hydraulically fractured wells near Fox Creek Alberta…..
In light of increasing injection and public interest, why would DEQ wall itself off from seismic issues?
True, few faults are known to exist in Michigan. But the same was said of Oklahoma until injection of oil-gas wastewater began in recent years. "New fault line discovered after 5.8 Oklahoma earthquake"….
DEQ should propose a rule related to seismicity, and convene a new public hearing to air the issue.
The new natural gas plant invasion in Michigan would spike demand for fracked gas
There is growing alarm in Michigan by the increased number of proposed natural gas power plants that will burn natural gas (from fracking) in order to make electricity. If any of these are successful in being built, they doom Michigan to being dependent, for decades upon decades, on more fossil fuels and sustained fracking, and untold amounts of frack wastes endangering the health of future generations. Untold amounts of water used for fracking . . . to find natural gas . . . to burn . . . to make electricity. It's not sustainable, and it's not going to save our water or the climate.
New plants are planned for Niles, Marshall, Lansing, Fowlerville, and St. Clair.
In this first article on the impending natural gas plant invasion, here is one action you can take regarding the plant proposed for St. Clair.
According to groups fighting the St. Clair plant, "DTE is trying to increase electricity rates by 133% to pay for a new natural gas power plant, when they could save $340 million dollars by building wind and solar power plants instead. DTE probably isn't taking advantage of these alternative because it has a conflict of interest with a partner company that owns the NEXUS natural gas pipeline. Essentially DTE customers will be forced to pay hundreds of dollars a year extra for electricity so that DTE can make money off of their affliated pipeline under the table. The Michigan Public Utilities Commission (MPSC) is appointed by the governor to protect Michigan's citizens from such unnecessarily rate hikes. Instead the MPSC has said they will approve the plan early this week despite publically recognizing that DTE's plan is flawed and biased towards natural gas"
Call the Michigan Public Services Commission at 517-284-8330 to leave a public comment about Case #U-18419. Talking points: You'd like to have more jobs and cheaper electricity from wind and solar power plants, protect Michigan's water from fracking and frack wastes, and have smaller community-based alternative energy.
If you are a DTE customer and you don't want your electricity prices to increase 133% to fund a natural gas plant when wind and solar plant would be cheaper you should call Michigan Public Services Commission. To publicly commit to calling in and to read the notes from others who have already left public comments, go to the group's call-in sign up sheet here.
EPA blasts DEQ application for injection well primacy, as Michigan taxpayers pump more money to DEQ
Posted on June 4, 2017 by BMF webmaster
Class II injection Well, Wyles Howard, Holmes County, Ohio, with 181,513 barrels of fracking waste having been processed between Q3-2010 and Q1-2015. Photo courtesy of FracTracker.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has rejected a draft application of Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to take control of regulation of the state's oil-gas waste injection wells, Ban Michigan Fracking (BMF) learned recently via an information request to EPA.
The DEQ draft failed to "demonstrate" that its proposal would be "effective … to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources."
According to a polite cover letter of last January, EPA's two "fundamental" concerns were that DEQ would provide less protection than EPA and the wording of DEQ's draft was illogical:
EPA's first concern is that certain Michigan regulatory provisions limit effective protection of USDWs [underground sources of drinking water]. Of particular concern is Michigan's definition of "fresh water." It is narrower in scope than the federal definition of USDWs….
EPA is also concerned about a number of inconsistencies and unclear descriptions in the draft application which prevent a clear understanding of the proposed program and introduce legal or technical ambiguity.
By contrast, for Kentucky this spring EPA approved primacy.
The DEQ drafts
There are about 1300 injection wells for oil and gas operations in Michigan, 900 of which are for waste disposal and the rest for what is called "enhanced recovery."
These are called "class II" wells. Currently both DEQ and EPA have to sign off on any new class II permit, but DEQ is seeking what is called "primacy": it would have sole power over decisionmaking and enforcement of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in regard to class II, with but little EPA oversight.
DEQ's August 2015 draft to EPA was actually a second draft. Previously we reported that in November 2014 DEQ had asserted it was "well equipped" for primacy, and claimed a "record of accomplishment for excellent environmental protection" and "good customer service" to the public. In the same paragraph it misspelled the adjective for "climate": "climactic."
A month later in December it held a secret "public hearing," which is when it gave EPA the first draft.
Our article noted the secret hearing and the 2015 second draft. In 2015 DEQ and EPA were reeling from disclosures they had both dropped the ball in protection of Flint residents from lead in their drinking water.
We outlined the well-known history of failures of all well casings, whether or not they are inspected and regulated rigorously. We also noted DEQ's separate admission of inadequate regulation of gas storage wells. (Michigan has more active storage fields than any other state.) We cited big protests against injection wells in three Michigan townships, to which one more can now be added in Johnstown Township Barry County in April 2017.
BMF filed objections to the first draft on several grounds, highlighting the DEQ definition of "fresh water," and noting that for primacy approval DEQ would first have to change its administrative rules. Changing the rules is a lengthy process involving a draft, a public hearing, and approval by the state regulatory office plus two different legislative committees. Rule changes can take a year or more.
Class II injection well, Baughman W & Lucas C, Morrow County, Ohio, with 103,360 barrels of fracking waste having been processed between Q3-2010 and Q1-2016. Photo courtesy of FracTracker.
Also commenting on the first draft was petroleum geologist and writer Lee Smith. Among other things Smith questioned that state funding was insufficient without increasing the surveillance fees collected from oil and gas producers. He noted that DEQ was proposing to add only one new position to coordinate the injection program rather than four. Four would be comparable to the EPA-approved primacy program in Ohio.
(The wells pictured in this article are in Ohio. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) has its own primacy problems, one being "capture" of the agency by the oil-gas industry and another being an ODNR attack on "eco-left pressure groups." It named the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Counsel as examples.)
EPA's blast
According to the cover letter of the EPA rejection in January, the two agencies had exchanged phone and email correspondence and had a meeting in EPA's Chicago office.
The cover letter was accompanied by two detailed attachments, totaling 77 pages. The attachments mentioned the Michigan attorney general had participated in the conversations about some of the points below. Noting that "public input and hearings have been an area of public interest on Michigan wells during the last 5 years" (the period BMF has existed), the attachments specify several defects and inconsistencies including:
Certain "crucial" technical requirements are legally unenforceable, because they are not spelled out in DEQ's administrative rules or in part 615 (DEQ's oil-gas statute), but only in the draft application. Examples include requirements for chemical analyses of new brine sources "as they are added," minimum cement casing conditions, and existence of surface casing. For EPA approval DEQ should have adopted legal requirements for "protecting USDWs from endangerment by injection operations."
The administrative rules' definition of class II wells does not "does not include wells used for hydraulic fracturing activities where diesel fuels are used," as it should. Hydraulic fracturing "is a form of enhanced recovery."
The rules require no information about the injection intervals' confining zones.
The draft application language on mechanical integrity is "difficult to follow."
Suspension of well operations in case of a violation and threat to the public would be limited to 21 days in the draft application, even though in EPA's experience return to compliance by an operator after a violation can take more than 21 days.
The draft application uses the terms "fracture gradient" and "fracture pressure" interchangeably "although they are different physical parameters."
"[S]ome Michigan rules may strongly limit input or place a high documentation burden on people in order to petition for a hearing."
Fewer staff, increased work, more danger
The EPA letter was last January. According to DEQ manager Adam Wygant in April, "Michigan seeking primacy is still in [the] works, there will likely first be some changes to Part 615 Administrative Rules."
But DEQ has no primacy-related rule changes listed in its regulatory plan for the year ending June 30.
Even if it proposes rule changes for the next year, given Smith's comments about staff and funding, how could DEQ take on the additional workload? According to Midwest Energy News in April, DEQ says a hiring freeze is in effect for the oil-gas program, staffing levels have dropped 18% from a few years ago, and it expects to cut back on well inspection rates.
DEQ has less money because oil-gas production has been down. Most revenue for oil-gas surveillance comes from a percent DEQ gets of operator production. Hal Fitch, director of DEQ's oil-gas operations, admitted an ethics issue, Midwest Energy News reports, at least in regard to incentives:
Some would say if (industry) is paying for it then our agency is beholden to the industry — I'd argue that's not the case — and if we're dependent on a fee for production then we have an incentive to increase production regardless of impacts.
Reduced staff and funding theoretically should mean reduced permitting. Instead, even without primacy DEQ's workload is increasing. Plugged wells like producing wells require oversight. As noted above, eventually they leak. Abandoned operations can be dangerous. The fatal gas explosion in a house in Colorado in April was caused by an abandoned pipeline from a nearby well.
Michigan has 35,000 shut wells, and they don't produce oil, gas, or jobs. The number of shut wells is constantly increasing. The reason for so many wells is the state's statutory policy, on the books since 1939, requiring DEQ to "foster" the industry "favorably" and "maximize" production. In other words the more wells — and eventually the more abandonment — the better.
(The foster-the-industry policy will evaporate when the initiative campaign of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan succeeds.)
Danny Long & Sons SWIW #9 & #12, Stark County, Ohio, with 22,486 barrels of fracking waste having been processed between Q2-2014 and Q1-2016. Photo courtesy of FracTracker.
Reduced inspection rates at the same time as increased workload? Unions used to call this "speed-up." And it is a recipe for disasters like what happened in Colorado. After decades, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Taxpayers subsidizing the oil-gas industry
Midwest Energy News also reported that Michigan lawmakers recently have been "subsidizing oil and gas development." Last year they approved a $4 million infusion into the DEQ oil-gas program from the taxpayer-supported general revenue fund. A similar transfer is expected for this year. This is above and beyond the surveillance fee assessed to the industry.
According to the annual regulatory plan, conformance bond amounts for operators haven't risen in over 20 years, and DEQ is considering an increase.
But a bond increase won't be enough, particularly if DEQ manages to change its administrative rules to EPA's satisfaction to get primacy over oil-gas injection. If bonds now and in the past actually were high enough, lawmakers would not be considering a taxpayer subsidy.
Michigan taxpayers should not subsidize a single dime for climate-changing oil-gas production. Nor should matters be made worse by subsidizing the disposal of oil-gas waste here.
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged DEQ, EPA, injection well, michigan, oil-gas, primacy, subsidy, waste
Michigan Foia law protects secrecy of permits for gas-oil wells disguised as mineral wells
Posted on May 4, 2017 by BMF webmaster
On March 16 the Michigan court of appeals rejected an appeal of a FOIA information case brought by landowner Gary Cooley and Ban Michigan Fracking about a supposed "mineral well" in Crawford County. Though not questioning their standing, the court held plaintiffs had not stated a proper claim of right to information.
D4-11, October 6, 2016. Photo: LuAnne Kozma.
Plaintiffs had sought the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and other information about this well drilled in the state forest a mile from Cooley's property in Beaver Creek Township.
In 2015 Cooley, who opposes gas-oil development in the state forest, refused an offer to lease the gas, oil, and minerals under him. The offer included a signing bonus and a royalty interest.
Typically the requested documents are voluminous, sometimes running to over 100 pages. In particular the EIA has information about water wells, wetlands, surface waters, endangered species, pad facilities, soil erosion, and disposal of fluids and brines at or near the wellhead. These are items of interest to any nearby landowner.
"D4-11″
The applicant for the well was Marathon Oil, which owns nearly 1000 square miles of leases in Michigan under state land. The name of the well is "Beaver Creek D4-11," or just "D4-11." In June 2015 Marathon applied for a permit under "part 625," the state's law for mineral wells.
The only evidence D4-11 would actually be a mineral well and not a gas-oil well was a non-notarized "x" in a box on page 1 of Marathon's application form. (This page is the one document which Marathon had to make public.) According to the instructions for that form, the application was supposed to have described in detail the well's "purpose."
According to the same page 1, D4-11 was to be a non-exploratory vertical mineral "test well," and the drill rig would target the "Amherstburg" formation at 4700 feet. (DEQ provides for the possibility of horizontal wellbores and fracking on a different form for mineral wells.)
DEQ granted the permit on an unknown date.
The drill rig had seen service in oil-gas exploration in North Dakota a thousand miles away before coming to D4-11. The nearly-200-foot-tall rig must have cost Marathon millions to transport and operate. Marathon Oil is in the oil-gas business. In September a worker on the rig told a visitor, me, the company hoped to find gas or oil. A blowout preventer was left in place after the rig departed D4-11, a practice required only by the gas-oil rules, not the mineral well rules.
An official DEQ brochure states there are no minerals anywhere in Crawford County.
These and other facts indicated that D4-11 would be a gas-oil well, not a mineral well. Part 625 does not define "mineral." But in ordinary English minerals are understood to be hard, crystalline, and inorganic, which gas and oil are not. Minerals are extracted by mining but gas and oil are extracted by drilling. And the idea of testing a mineral in a 4700-foot hole is ridiculous.
I published a video and the story of the investigation here.
DEQ rules for gas-oil wells prohibit nuisance noises, but the rules for mineral wells do not.
And unlike for gas-oil wells, FOIA has a confidentiality period lasting 10 years for mineral well data including the permit and EIA. But legally it is the DEQ which has the burden of proof to show the exemption applies.
DEQ answered the FOIA request by denying all information. Relying on the 10-year mineral exemption it refused to say even whether it had actually issued a permit.
Marathon itself was similarly close-mouthed, except by email it did admit there was a permit.
Plaintiffs sued in February 2016. In its responsive motion in May, DEQ finally admitted there was a permit. But it did not provide the date or a copy.
The practice of gas-oil companies which claim mineral well treatment
Later that month I chanced on an article about the work of William Harrison of Western Michigan University, an author of 35 technical papers on Michigan geology. I decided to email him, outlining the theory of the FOIA case, and the evidence showing D4-11 is probably a gas-oil exploratory well not a mineral well. I invited him to view our video of the drill rig, said I would drop the case if D4-11 proved to be a legitimate mineral well, and asked him to respond.
He did, the next day, very helpfully:
Wildcat exploratory wells for oil and gas have often been drilled under the State "Mineral well act" so that a company can gain information about the geologic deposits in that area with out releasing the information to the public and hence their competitors.
I do not have any specific knowledge about the Marathon well you mentioned, but the area in Beaver Creek Township is a well-known oil and gas region with an old very large oil field there called the Beaver Creek Field. The Amherstberg formation is a known oil and gas producing zone in other parts of the state and is very likely the target zone they were evaluating.
The naming of the well "Beaver Creek D4-11″ is also a very common naming style for oil and gas wells. As far as I know other mineral wells that are looking for solid minerals do not use this type of naming convention.
The Amherstberg is not a formation that contains Salt, Potash or any other type of solid minerals that could be produced commercially, so I am reasonably confident that this was an exploratory well for oil and gas that was drilled under the Mineral Well Act
(underlining added)
There was one statement in Harrison's response, a legal point, that I knew to be wrong:
In fact, oil and gas are considered "minerals" under the definition of that type of well.
He was wrong because, unlike at the Department of Natural Resources, at DEQ there is a strict separation between mineral wells regulated under part 625, and gas-oil wells. The latter are regulated under part 615.
As plaintiffs explained to the court later — in addition to highlighting the DEQ brochure which says there were no minerals in Crawford County — gas and oil are not considered "minerals" at the DEQ. Part 625 excludes gas and oil because gas and oil come under part 615. Even if the purpose of a well is only partially to explore for gas or oil, there must be a 615 permit.
Neither the DEQ's court brief nor the court's opinion disputed our contention that gas and oil do not qualify as "minerals."
I responded to Harrison the same day with documents including Marathon's page 1, and noted his error about the DEQ definition of "mineral."
I asked if he would write me a separate letter affirming the opinion just expressed, that the Amherstburg is not a formation that contains solid minerals that could be produced commercially, and therefore he was "reasonably confident" that D4-11 was an exploratory well for oil and gas that was drilled as a mineral well to "maintain confidentiality." I said this would likely suffice to win the case. I gave information about myself, and offered to pay his regular rates.
He responded the same day:
I am not interested in any consulting work for you or your client.
Rather, he said he provides "basic general information" to the public and is "not involved in any of the regulatory decisions."
Translated: His practice is not to testify as an expert witness, not for anyone including the industry. I believe him but was surprised he wouldn't repeat something in court that he had just told me, a stranger, for free.
Later I realized how tied in he is to DEQ and the industry. Last June he joined DEQ's industry-dominated oil and gas advisory committee. The committee, composed of the "stakeholders," is supported by several DEQ staff. Last month the Michigan Oil & Gas News pictured him with his wife as "silver medal sponsors" of the annual petroleum conference of the Michigan Oil & Gas Association (MOGA) and Northern Michigan American Petroleum Institute.
Surely everyone else on the DEQ advisory committee knows what he knows, that exploratory wells for gas and oil have "often" been drilled as mineral wells to get geologic information and then kept secret. Surely the rest of them know what he does not, that oil and gas are not DEQ-defined minerals and the oft-repeated claims of mineral well applicants — that their "purpose" is just to test "minerals" but not explore for gas and oil — are false.
Proceedings of the FOIA suit
Harrison's encouraging emails were not confidential. I would have been free without his permission to quote them and his credentials to the court. But I decided to respect his desire to stay out of it.
The suit made two claims for opening the DEQ files, one of which we dropped when we filed at the court of appeals. (That one had contended that even if D4-11 actually were a mineral well, under a literal reading of the statute, except as to "logs" the confidentiality period applied only "during" the period after the well was "completed," and D4-11 hadn't yet been completed on the date of the FOIA request.)
As to the claim that D4-11 was not actually a mineral well, and therefore mineral well confidentiality should not apply, plaintiffs pointed out that the DEQ website links to the dozens of forms which it uses to question applicants for mineral wells. None of the forms asks the applicant whether the well will actually test a mineral. None of the forms asks the applicant to name the mineral it proposes to test.
Stated otherwise, as plaintiffs' brief did (without citing Harrison's insightful words):
Plaintiffs have no facts to contend that DEQ and Marathon arranged a sweetheart deal to keep this particular well secret. Rather it appears from the 64 DEQ forms that it never asks any operator who is testing minerals known to be present –- as opposed to exploring to see whether they are present –- to demonstrate the point. If so, DEQ invites a train of abuse from industry operators desiring to maintain secrecy by falsely stating their objectives while not under oath.
The DEQ brief responded:
In other words, even if Mr. Cooley's allegations of deception on the part of Marathon were factually meritorious … this alleged "deception" would not be illegal.
In reply plaintiffs stated:
to qualify as a mineral well the operator's intent at the start can only be to explore for or test minerals. In this case the operator's stated intent was not to explore for a mineral, but to test one…. But … the Marathon safety man's expression of hope that the company would find gas or oil at D4-11 means in the most literal commonsense sense that the company was "exploring" for gas or oil.
The court ruled on March 16. The unpublished opinion recited none of the facts indicating that D4-11 was actually a gas-oil well except it did acknowledge the claim that Marathon hoped D4-11 would find oil. The court also acknowledged that a plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations have to be accepted as true at this stage, and DEQ had the burden to prove that any exemption for mineral wells under part 625 applied.
At oral argument plaintiffs had noted Marathon's hope that D4-11 would find oil was not a fact critical to the case, and based on all the other facts, the case would be just as valid had the rig worker not made that admission.
The complaint and exhibits had shown that D4-11 would be a test well not an exploratory well, no minerals exist in Crawford County to even be tested, DEQ excludes gas and oil from its definition of "minerals," DEQ relied solely on Marathon's checkbox and did no independent investigation of minerals at D4-11, and the Amherstburg is a formation where Michigan oil prospectors have frequently looked. These facts showed "a good circumstantial case," the brief said.
But even if these facts were all true, the court held, the exemptions of part 625 still applied. The case ended.
The decision amounts to a ruling that even if DEQ rightly should have processed D4-11 as a gas-oil well under part 615, the fact that it did process it as a mineral well under part 625 controls, and the exemptions to FOIA apply.
What should a landowner do?
Anyone can sit in on the quarterly meetings of the mentioned DEQ advisory committee, and minutes of past meetings are available on request.
Just one of its eight members is from an environmental organization, and that one (Michigan United Conservation Club) has long accommodated the gas-oil industry. Its director recently left there to become director of MOGA.
Since joining the committee Harrison has not brought to its attention the frequent industry practice of filing for a mineral well in cases where his expert opinion is that the operator's purpose is really to explore for oil.
Landowner Cooley's court complaint only sought information. It did not seek to invalidate the permit. So in the future suppose some landowner notices an ugly new several-acre gash in the forest nearby and a big noisy drill rig going up. Suppose too the rig gives every indication it is exploring for gas or oil, but DEQ claims it is really a mineral well.
Is there a remedy? Yes.
One tack would be to just assert that a permit was issued and then sue to invalidate it. A Michigan statute allows such a suit in the court of claims. The gas-oil applicant would have to be named as a co-defendant. The statute has no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before suing, and indeed how could a landowner try to exhaust given that all information was refused? The statute of limitations is a very short 21 days, but would not be a problem if DEQ refused the permit date.
Circumstantial evidence can prove any case. Expert testimony such as what Harrison refused for D4-11 would likely be necessary, because unlike in a FOIA case the plaintiff would have the burden of proof. The burden would be satisfied simply by showing the "purpose" of the well, at least in part, is more likely than not to explore for gas or oil.
DEQ could hardly defend in light its practice of not investigating the real purpose of a mineral well. The defense, if any, could come only from the gas-oil applicant. But in the face of the plaintiff's evidence, it would have to provide facts including the name of the supposed mineral. It would lose if it merely answered "it is a mineral well because we say so."
Litigation isn't the only way. Instead the landowner could find someone knowledgeable in the academic world, and then publicize the well. Surely experts are there who would be willing to shame a practice which sacrifices landowners and the environment to profit-driven competitive gas-oil interests. Surely someone would be willing to speak up.
Posted in Uncategorized	| Tagged Amherstburg, court of appeals, D4-11, Ensign 161, Marathon Oil, michigan, mineral well, secrecy, William B. Harrison
Barry County injection well EPA hearing is April 19
Posted on April 17, 2017 by BMF webmaster
A nearby, producing well also owned by Arbor Operating, Swanson 5-7, in Johnstown Township in Barry County. Photo by Jackie Schmitz.
Residents in Barry County are preparing for a public hearing held by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a proposed underground injection well in Johnstown Township. A Traverse City-based company, Arbor Operating, seeks to operate a class 2 well, Swanson 4-7 SWD, which would take toxic wastes from oil and gas wells for permanent disposal. The permit application is requesting for a dry oil well on Manning Road to be converted to an injection well. The company now brings its wastes from three oil/gas wells to Calhoun County for disposal.
Diagram of an underground injection well for oil and gas industry wastes. EPA illustration, in the public domain.
Anyone concerned about injection wells in Michigan are welcome to attend and provide comments to the EPA. The hearing is preceded by a public informational meeting. Both take place at the Hastings Public Library.
If you cannot attend, please send written comments.
Location: Hastings Public Library, 227 E. State Street, Hastings, MI (upstairs)
Date: Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Time: Public Meeting 6:00 to 7:30 pm, followed by Public HEARING 7:30 to 9:00 pm
Come early to register to speak and be prepared to give a 3-minute comment.
April 21 Deadline for written comments: The written public comment period ends Friday, April 21 (midnight postmark). Send new comments to: Jeffrey Wawczak, U.S. EPA Region 5 (WU-16J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60604-3950. Comments can be submitted by email: wawczak.jeffrey@epa.gov
See the EPA Public Notice here.
"A Proposed Injection Well for Barry County," Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation,
"EPA plans to allow fracking-waste well in Johnstown Township; opens public hearing before approval," Hastings Reminder, March 25, 2017
"State, EPA say proposed brine disposal well in Barry County is safe" MLive, April 13, 2017.
Join our #MichiganFrackTour
Posted on July 15, 2016 by BMF webmaster
Join Ban Michigan Fracking and Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan on a tour of northern Michigan frack industry sites on Friday, July 22.
Sign up on www.letsbanfracking.org
Michiganders: Getting a ban on fracking on the ballot needs YOU
To get a ban on fracking and frack wastes on the November 2016 ballot, the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan needs more people to help collect signatures.
If you haven't been involved, now is the time. It's urgent. We've got a state to protect!
The deadline for collecting all the signatures is end of May 2016.
VOLUNTEER TODAY at WWW.LETSBANFRACKING.ORG
This is grassroots democracy
Over 150,000 people signed the petition last year. We were at as many festivals, farmers markets, concerts, and street corners as we could last spring, summer and fall. Nearly 800 people were involved. We were everywhere! We met enthusiastic supporters from every county in the state.
At our press conference in November 2015 with our 150,000 signatures.We are a true grassroots campaign.
We are a true grassroots campaign. Last year, 100 volunteers collected over 92,000 signatures. Another 659 volunteers collected nearly 43,000 signatures. Paid circulators collected an additional 16,000.
Using our 150,000 signatures collected in 2015
The signatures collected last year have been verified using the Qualified Voter File. We plan to use all of the valid signatures in the submittal. While there is a Legislative effort to stop us through Senate Bill 776, (currently in the House Elections Committee), if passed, it will only force us into court.
But without enough signatures to submit, we can't continue the fight. We're not at the 252,523 valid signature mark yet.
During the long winter, many people dropped out, for various reasons: ill health, family obligations, moving out of state, etc. The bottom line is, we need NEW people to step up and participate.
Collecting signatures is easy
It's not hard collecting signatures. Standing outside talking to people, asking them to sign, can take as little as one hour to collect 25 signatures. Outside a busy coffee shop in a northern Michigan city last Saturday, it was cold but sunny, and I was able to collect signatures from 30 people in just 1 and a half hours. It's that easy. And we hear spring is on its way!
We need volunteers to collect more than just a few signatures, because it's difficult for the team of organizers to take the time to train thousands of people who do only a handful–we're volunteers too, and time is very limited to get this done.
So please. If you want to see this proposal on the ballot . . . Step up. Sign up. Collect signatures.
There's no magic bullet, no magical group of people that will swoop in and do it for us.
When you sign up, we'll teach you how to fill out the sheets property, give you official petitions and a clipboard, mentor you, and get you started.
We've come this far. Let's get all the signatures we need. Don't assume that others will do it for you.
And Spring events are upon us! Collect signatures at flower sales, craft fairs, sport events, races and runs, food fests, concerts, busy sidewalks, Arbor Day, Earth Day, Mothers Day . . . and more.
This campaign needs you.
Join us and sign up today at www.LetsBanFracking.org
If you cannot physically volunteer to collect signatures, please DONATE to the campaign to hire some individuals and teams to help out the volunteer effort.
Let's Ban Fracking and protect Michigan from the many harms of fracking. See the campaign brochure here.
LuAnne Kozma is the campaign director of the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, and also the president of the non-profit group, Ban Michigan Fracking.


At Belle Meade Animal Hospital, we take pride in providing high quality veterinary care for small animals in Nashville and the surrounding areas. Our veterinarians are committed to client education, excellent customer service, and the very best medical care for your pet. From tailored vaccinations to critical care, our staff is dedicated to providing warm, compassionate care for your dog or cat. We invite you to learn more about our veterinary services, and we look forward to meeting your and your cherished pet!


text:
HUMAN RIGHTS / DISPLACED BY THE DAM
A new home, but in a nala!
Shakuntala Pawra knew that her home would be submerged by the backwaters of the Narmada dam, so she accepted the government's offer of resettlement. Except, she is drowning there too. Neeta Deshpande reports.
05 February 2010 -
After she moved to the resettlement site of the Sardar Sarovar Project at Jawdawadi - 18 kilometres from Shahada town in Nandurbar district in north-western Maharashtra - Shakuntala Pawra's worst fears of submergence proved true in an entirely unexpected way. Shakuntala had relocated home and hearth before the monsoon of 2006, to escape the backwaters of the Sardar Sarovar dam that submerged her field in the Adivasi village of Sawriyadigar in the Satpuda mountains. If she had stayed on in her own village, Shakuntala's home was expected to be drowned by these backwaters which join the Udai river skirting Sawriyadigar.
So when the Maharashtra Government offered her family agricultural land and a house plot in compensation at the Jawdawadi resettlement site 85 kilometres away, Shakuntala moved, hoping that though she would have to brave a whole new way of living away from the forest and the river, at least, she would not be drowned out. Little did she know.
To begin the process of relocation, Shakuntala's sons Lalsingh and Baburao temporarily moved to Jawdawadi in 2005 to begin farming the ten acres of land that the Government had allotted to the family. In those initial days, the brothers lived in a cramped tin shed housing many others who had relocated like them. They couldn't accommodate themselves in the shed, and they couldn't sleep outside because of the rains. Since there were no sheds for animals, they had to be tied out in the open, suffering the downpour.
Soon the bullocks had to be taken back to Sawriyadigar, and not being able to find a tractor to plough their fields and sow on time, the brothers were faced with a failed crop. Having no grain, they had to purchase it for their daily meals, an expensive proposition that made their life even more difficult.
After an entire year of such hardship, the family was finally allotted a house plot. Shakuntala and her husband Sundya packed up their belongings, including wood for their new house, and boarded the vehicle the Government had arranged for their move. To transport their livestock, they had to make another trip to Sawriyadigar and take the animals to Jawdawadi by foot, a trip which took two nights and three days. Shakuntala's sons Baydas and Baburao and daughter Ushabai, did not satisfy the Maharashtra Government's criterion of being 18 years of age on 1st January 1987, and hence, were not allotted land at Jawdawadi. Leaving them along with their grandmother - Shakuntala's mother Sablibai - in Sawriyadigar with the hope that they would be declared as eligible for land in the future, the rest of the family left for Jawdawadi.
Speaking of three of her adult children who are not considered eligible for land allotment according to the Government's resettlement policy, Shakuntala asks, "How can the cut off date still be 1987 when her family's resettlement was facilitated as late as 2006?"
Five months after their move, the Pasli stream skirting Shakuntala's new home in Jawdawadi overflowed in the monsoon of 2006, and water entered her house of wood and bamboo. The house plot had been allotted in a nala, because of which the rainwater reached up to their waist. Water from the adjoining farm at a higher height also flowed into the house. Clothes, utensils, blankets and wooden logs brought from their old house in Sawriyadigar were swept away. Shakuntala and her family fled to Wadi, a neighbouring village. Grain rotted, left behind in the rising waters. Hens died. For two days and nights, the family stayed at Wadi, somehow cooking khichadi for the children. After the water receded, they returned home, to the stark realisation that despite making a move which redefined their very existence, the waters they wished to escape had finally caught up with them.
But their problems were far from over. In addition to their house which was flooded three times in 2006 and once in 2007, the farmland allotted to Sundya was also not spared. Two years after two acres of Sundya's land in Sawriyadigar was submerged, the family was shown another piece of land for their resettlement in Jawdawadi. When the Government officials came to measure and allot the land, Sundya and his eldest son Lalsingh - who has studied up to the tenth standard - were out of town. Shakuntala and her other son Kadusingh were offered the plot, and though the land was good, more than one acre was in a three to six feet deep nala. Shakuntala told the official that she didn't want such land, that she should be shown another plot of land. But the official informed her that this particular plot of land had a borewell, which she might have to forego if she were to choose land elsewhere. Take it or leave it, he said.
According to the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Award and Maharashtra Government policy, irrigation facilities upon resettlement are to be provided by the state. Shakuntala thus has a right to irrigation on a plot of land of her choice. However, she was forced to accept the plot of land that was shown to her, more than an acre of which would be unusable. When it rained, she lost her maize crop to the water. In her first year at Jawdawadi, her land yielded only six quintals of jowar, not enough for the family to get by.
To add to this, her new life is mired in a variety of insurmountable difficulties. Water for drinking, bathing and washing clothes is not always available. A pipeline had been put in place, but the pipes floated away with the rainwater in the nala which runs through the site. Taps had been installed, but they were swept away during the rains too. Electricity has not been provided, nor have bathrooms and toilets. There is no road to go to her field, nor any sanitation facilities. In Sawriyadigar, Shakuntala could go to the hills for her morning rituals, and to the river to bathe and wash clothes. Here in Jawdawadi, she has no privacy, and must bathe inside her house without the availability of a bathroom.
At times, her sons must labour on other people's farms or construct houses in villages and towns in the area, for a meagre thirty rupees a day. Visiting Sawriyadigar to see the rest of her family and continue her job as an assistant to the village nurse - Shakuntala must spend Rs. 155 per trip, which she can ill afford with her monthly salary of Rs. 600. All in all, she is faced with tremendous difficulties which she can in no way remedy, her only recourse being to complain to the Government officials who routinely ignore her.
Shakuntala Pawra in her field
Feeding her family has become a major source of Shakuntala's anxiety at Jawdawadi. In her original village in the Satpudas, she collected her cooking fuel from the forest. Now cleaved from the jungle, Shakuntala must make do with wood transported all the way from Sawriyadigar to Jawdawadi, or plant stalks from her field. What will she do when she can no longer continue with this arrangement? She has no answer.
In Sawriyadigar, her children's diet included fish from the river and milk from her cows. But after moving to Jawdawadi, she was forced to take her livestock back to Sawriyadigar for lack of facilities in her new home. There was no place to graze the animals, no water for them to drink, and not enough space to store their feed and tie them. As a result, the children have to go without milk and fish, an important source of nutrition. When food runs out, Shakuntala must travel to the market, costing her twenty rupees a trip. For a while, when she ran out of money she managed by selling her livestock. But she was soon forced to take a loan of Rs.9500 for her agricultural expenses which have now increased, something she has never done in her years in Sawriyadigar.
Another cause for great anxiety is her children's future. According to the Maharashtra Government's policy, major sons and unmarried major daughters are to be treated as separate families, the criterion for eligibility being that they are 18 years of age on 1st January, 1987. Such major sons and major unmarried daughters are entitled to five acres of land. Two of Shakuntala's sons - Lalsingh and Ramdas - satisfy this criterion, yet, they have been provided only 2.5 acres each. Moreover, Shakuntala's sons Baydas and Baburao, and daughter Ushabai, though over 18 years of age as of today, do not satisfy the criterion for land allotment. Isn't it absurd, she asks, that her adult sons and daughters do not qualify for land? How can the cut off date still be 1987 when her family's resettlement was facilitated as late as 2006? How does the Government expect her children to live?
More immediately, Shakuntala must worry about the annual monsoon, and a question she has grappled with for more than twenty years, since she first heard of the Sardar Sarovar dam. When the water rises, where will she go? Despite leaving her land, her house, her jungle and river behind, the answer to that question is still, nowhere in sight.
Neeta Deshpande
Neeta Deshpande is a freelance writer based in Bangalore. This article is part of a series on uprootment and survival in the Narmada valley.
Turning a full circle
For Pakistani Hindus in India, hopes start to sour
CAG report on Odisha: Will legislators take note please?
Three villages that show why land acquisition needs a rethink
Inclusive design of new EPR regime is possible
The way forward for Mumbai Metro's new lines
Thirty-four years of irregularities and failures

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Further to Pacific Predictions for 2012-2015 (see here, here, here and here), here are my thoughts on what 2016 will hold for my part of the world.
There are a number of countries that will hold general elections this year and it all gets off to a very early start with a snap general election in Vanuatu on January 22. This follows a prolonged period of extreme (even by Vanuatu standards) political uncertainty, culminating in the dissolution of Parliament by the President late last year. These elections will be different from previous elections for a number of reasons. One is their timing; January is not a usual time of year for elections in Vanuatu and there are concerns that this may lead to a lower than usual voter turnout. Another is that a significant number of key players (including leaders of parties and previous ministers) are ineligible to stand by virtue of them having been convicted and sentenced for bribery during 2014, and subsequently barred from standing for office for a period of 10 years. The electoral office will declare the official number of candidates on January 5 with the expectation that it will be in excess of 300 (to contest 52 parliamentary seats). Whether the 2016 elections prove to be a 'critical juncture' for politics and governance in Vanuatu remains to be seen.
The people of Nauru will also go to the polls this year, with elections scheduled for August. However, there have been some indications that the current government, led by Baron Waqa, will seek to go to the polls earlier than that. The nature of politics in Nauru is highly personal and there are no political parties. There are a number of structural issues that are of concern in Nauru in the lead up to general elections, including the continuing suspension of five members of the current opposition, and apparent interference in the rule of law and due process by members of the Executive. In addition, ongoing media restrictions (both domestic and international) are likely to contribute to concerns [in French] as to whether elections in that country can be considered free and fair.
Elections will also be held in Samoa on March 4. Much has been made in some quarters of the great strides taken in Samoa to introduce temporary special measures (TSM) that will apply for the first time during these elections, which will ensure that women make up 10 per cent of the new Parliament. This is certainly significant. However, it is important to put this within the wider context; in Samoa only people who hold a matai title are eligible to stand for election to the parliament, regardless of their gender. So there remains some way to go before universal suffrage is achieved within the country.
Renewed Pacific diplomacy (on which, see the new collected volume The New Pacific Diplomacy) has been a feature of recent times and we can expect there to be more of it in 2016 and beyond.
Further to the big global agreements of 2015 – the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change – this year will see the beginning of the huge tasks associated with the implementation of these agreements. The countries of our region certainly punched above their diplomatic weight during 2014 and this renewed vigour will be required to ensure that the Pacific plays its part in operationalising some very lofty goals. We can expect to see continuing assertiveness on the part of the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) group at the UN, with Fiji seeking to lead in that arena.
Closer to home, there will be continuing accommodation of the changing regional architecture. The Pacific Islands Development Forum has a new Secretary-General and expects to be granted observer status at the UN during the coming year, further establishing its credentials. As we saw in 2015, the space it provided for the small island states to caucus ahead of the Pacific Islands Forum meeting presaged a level of engagement and assertiveness on the part of leaders that has long been missing. There are likely to be further tensions around the membership of the Pacific Islands Forum, although it remains unlikely that Fiji will be able to garner much support for its contention that Australia and New Zealand should leave. That is not to say that our metropolitan neighbours can rest easy in terms of their relationships with individual Pacific island countries or the region more generally. One of the most striking aspects of the 2015 meeting of Forum leaders was that the issues that generated the most discussion (and proved the most contentious) were those where Pacific countries were seeking political cohesion rather than finance or technical assistance.
The torturous process that is PACER plus is scheduled for conclusion in 2016. Whilst Australia has, in recent times, devoted a great deal of energy to speedy conclusions of bilateral free trade agreements, the same degree of enthusiasm does not appear to be present in relation to concluding trading arrangements with our region. By the same token, there is little to indicate that PACER Plus rates highly on the priority list of many of the Pacific island countries, leaving its proposed conclusion somewhat in doubt.
Tess Newton Cain is a Visiting Fellow to the Development Policy Centre and is a citizen of Vanuatu, where she is currently based.
Thanks Tess and happy new year. Recent press from Fiji and PNG certainly suggests a bleak outlook for PACER Plus.
Some of us above the Equator almost always hardly pay attention to the Pacific politics in the South Pacific region, thus I couldn't be sure whether it has to do with our closer ties with the United States or just that our media rarely cover or promote politics below the Equator. At any rate, I'd like to complement your views as expressed above and in addition question the issue of Fiji being once considered as a militant country due the coup few years back. Has it being relieved yet of the political rhetoric labeling which to me is part chaotic since Fiji has been served as a very contributive country in the Pacific. Also, Fiji is offering solution to the sinking Kiribati and perhaps other low lying Pacific countries.
Yes, our FSM country and state of Pohnpei have just wrapped their election last year and hopefully we should be ready to launch our new administrations with strategic development goals which may addressed the three major areas in agriculture, tourism and fisheries, plus of course our anticipated termination of financial assistance in our Compact of Free Association with the USA in 2023. We once had the case of impeachment in Pohnpei, but fortunately the official in effect has resigned and thus giving our current and soon to become new administration all the political and economic leverages to push forth. Again, thank you for sharing your views above.
Thanks for your feedback and contribution. Fiji plays a very significant role within the region and managed to maintain a degree of influence even when considered a 'pariah' state by some, including by establishing the PIDF and taking on a larger role within the Melanesian Spearhead Group. Since the elections in 2014 global powers have sought to re-establish ties with Suva including military ties. However, in the 8 years of military rule, new friendships have been established and so the landscape has changed quite a bit.
Translating global rhetoric into local realities, however, demands an almost equally huge investment, long, long over-due, in participatory mechanisms, starting with informing citizens.
From the perspective of PFF, the Pacific Freedom Forum, that requires member governments to recognise the centrality of news media, especially in the delivery of our most fundamental human right, freedoms of expression, and, more especially these days with the open data revolution, access to information.
We outline those centralities in our 2015 end of year review, and look ahead for 2016 here.
Completely separate from my role as PFF editor, is my own project as founder of JA2025, the Journalism Agenda 2025.
JA2025 envisions an adaptation of #globalgoals under SDGs towards the 4th Estate. This would see 0.7% of all aid targets firewalled off into independent trusts for a global 4th Estate, over the next decade. Concurrently, JA2025 will campaign for that same formula to be applied throughout the public sector by NGOs, and, eventually, the private sector, as well.
Still in the blue-sky-pie stage, or pre-alpha-draft-exploratory-concept-phase to use the jargon, JA2025 is already been followed globally by leading United Nations development experts.
Those interested can get an overview of JA2025 at our participatory forum here.
Meantime, one comment on the above, relating to there being "some way to go before universal suffrage is achieved" within Samoa.
As something of a ground breaker for the English-speaking parts of the Pacific (French territories already well ahead on this path), Samoa is treading carefully, wisely in my view. Such is the power of corruption, even the best intentioned initiatives, such as gender equality, can be subverted to interests other than those of the public general. Outside of this aspect, the matai system is an ancient form of democracy that needs to be seen as an enabler rather an obstacle to equality.
Primarily, by serving as an almost impregnable barrier that has acted as an efficient block to exploitation by foreign sources, and their hand-picked lackeys, including some well-known rugby players, among others. In the matai, and other traditional leadership systems across the region, we have a form of chaos-theory guardianship that slows things down.
Having seen what has happened at home in my adoptive Cook Islands, where traditional leadership is extremely weak, and tourism wipe out indigenous language use in little over a generation, I think other countries are wise to go slow, for development to be socially and environmentally sustainable, as well as economically sustained.
Sorry for these long wordy sentences, just some off-the-cuff comments in response to another excellent overview from Tess, via DevPolicy.
Super valuable for us all.