Michigan-Sportsman.com banner

41 - 60 of 187 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,492 Posts
But you are asking for a head in the noose before it plays out. Some might say there was an attempt of something similar to that last week in a different city.
Well, I'm willing to allow the courts to decide. The "patriots" who stormed the Capital rejected the courts decision as well as the decisions of their fellow Americans. So again, I'm asking for heads in nooses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,601 Posts
Well, I'm willing to allow the courts to decide. The "patriots" who stormed the Capital rejected the courts decision as well as the decisions of their fellow Americans. So again, I'm asking for heads in nooses.
There were no patriots storming the capital. What we don't know is they intended to put heads in nooses or just disrupt the proceedings. Luckily things didn't get far enough to get an answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,345 Posts
No, she didn't.

She sued them for doing it WITHOUT PERMITS in 2018 and 2019.

They had the option to fix the dams and keep water levels high.
They had the option to get permits to lower the water level, and lower the water level.
They had the option to lower the water level without permits, and face another lawsuit.

...but they were NOT stopped from drawing down the lake.





It is not her responsibility to request permits for draw down. It is not her responsibility to repair the dams.

Her responsibility is to enforce state law.
Believe what you want, except the facts always seem to get in your way. She did indeed state they could not lower the water level. Had a permit been applied for, she certainly could have helped to expedite it. No it isn't her responsibility to get the permit, but she could have helped. She chose to take the liberal path and not allow the draw down to save a mussel. That's just fact. Of course they had the option to fix the dam and keep water levels high, but they didn't for whatever reason but knowing that, why would any reasonable person not allow them to draw down?

This is perfect example of you parsing words, and frankly it's getting sickening. Of course they could have drawn down waters without a permit but don't let that stand in your way of winning a debate. We are talking legal remedies not some half baked effort to win a debate at all costs. Besides, if this company was financially insolvent, where would they get the money to do any of the options you expressed above, where would they secure funds to pay a fine? Just saying.,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,284 Posts
It was a decision made by the EM appointed by the Governor.
The rest of your argument falls apart after this.


It's the right tree alright.


I think we can agree that The City of Flints financial and infrastructural problems were staggering. They needed help but what they received did harm. Sue McCormick had her own challenges and could not (or chose not) to help Flint. The EM made his decision and that as they say was that. The Governor acted against the will of the voters. He placed EM's who were not qualified to handle the complicated issues they were tasked with.

The leader gets either the accolades or the noose.
Alright , If I'm so wrong I'll defend my argument still , and get out.

2014. Flint , (Not the governor) wanted off Detroit's water treatment system and have thier own.
Followed by a ten month $171,000 engineering project before any treatment began.
From that point forward as far as I know, and until corrosion inhibiters become the topic all was well.
Those tasked with said inhibitors is (again) where I'd start. Some one or some more were involved in the failure to treat water properly. There is the fault.

Once an emergency manager is involved , I have no interest in the governor beyond his insuring the E.P.A. and whatever regulatory entity is plugged into remediation.
Snyder made the wrong choice of an E.M.?
Have you ever made a wrong decision about someone's character? And been rightfully charged for it?

Whatever.
Guess I better call my lawyer to sue the governor. I got salt damage on my truck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
963 Posts
Alright , If I'm so wrong I'll defend my argument still , and get out.

2014. Flint , (Not the governor) wanted off Detroit's water treatment system and have thier own.
Followed by a ten month $171,000 engineering project before any treatment began.
From that point forward as far as I know, and until corrosion inhibiters become the topic all was well.
Those tasked with said inhibitors is (again) where I'd start. Some one or some more were involved in the failure to treat water properly. There is the fault.

Once an emergency manager is involved , I have no interest in the governor beyond his insuring the E.P.A. and whatever regulatory entity is plugged into remediation.
Snyder made the wrong choice of an E.M.?
Have you ever made a wrong decision about someone's character? And been rightfully charged for it?

Whatever.
Guess I better call my lawyer to sue the governor. I got salt damage on my truck.
There are sacred cows in Flint that are not to be gored under any circumstances.
Much easier to blame the cows that aren't sacred.....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,492 Posts
2014. Flint , (Not the governor) wanted off Detroit's water treatment system and have their own.
We already discussed this.

Followed by a ten month $171,000 engineering project before any treatment began.
From that point forward as far as I know, and until corrosion inhibiters become the topic all was well.
There are a great number of news articles that contradict this belief.

Those tasked with said inhibitors is (again) where I'd start. Some one or some more were involved in the failure to treat water properly. There is the fault.
So, in your opinion. When a battle is lost the fault lies with the privates and NCO's not the General?

Once an emergency manager is involved , I have no interest in the governor beyond his insuring the E.P.A. and whatever regulatory entity is plugged into remediation.
Snyder made the wrong choice of an E.M.?
Have you ever made a wrong decision about someone's character? And been rightfully charged for it?
Relevance?

I love you Brother. But I'm off to the gym.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
You can rest assured that if Snyder's situation goes to trial, "what aboutism" such as your argument will not be part of the court proceedings.

If "what aboutism" ever becomes admissible in court, you may wish to become an expert witness.
What a dumb comment.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
yeah they did. they used the endangered species act to set a minumim lake level that had to be maintained between x dates. there was never an mandate of lake level before that.
Legal lake level for the four lakes were set in April 2019 under Part 307 of Public Act 451 of 1994. Those lake levels were set by the Circuit Court, at the request of the Four Lakes Task Force and based on a study paid for by the Four Lakes Task Force (Four Lakes Lake Level Study).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,284 Posts
Well, I'm willing to allow the courts to decide. The "patriots" who stormed the Capital rejected the courts decision as well as the decisions of their fellow Americans. So again, I'm asking for heads in nooses.
Stormed? Umm. O.k..
Not too sure about the patriot title either. No patriot I know would have passed a Federal threshold to demonstrate or engage in any other form of protest without consent to enter.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
It was Flint officials wanting thier own water treatment facility. Correct?
Incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect.

1) Flint officials didn't want their own water treatment facility. Flint officials wanted to move from the Detroit Water System (not Flint's) to the Karegnondi Water system (also not Flint's - but another regional water system).

2) It didn't matter what Flint officials wanted. They had no power. The decision to move IN THE FUTURE to Karegnondi WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED was made by the Emergency Mananger in Flint.

3) The Detroit EM got mad that Flint was going to leave the Detroit Water System in 4-5 years, so jacked up Flint's water rates to punish them.

4) The EM in Flint decided the jacked up rates were too high, but Karegnondi wasn't ready yet - so to save money he moved Flint onto Flint River Water

5) The EM and other higher ups decided NOT to properly treat said Flint water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,284 Posts
Incorrect. Completely and utterly incorrect.

1) Flint officials didn't want their own water treatment facility. Flint officials wanted to move from the Detroit Water System (not Flint's) to the Karegnondi Water system (also not Flint's - but another regional water system).

2) It didn't matter what Flint officials wanted. They had no power. The decision to move IN THE FUTURE to Karegnondi WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED was made by the Emergency Mananger in Flint.

3) The Detroit EM got mad that Flint was going to leave the Detroit Water System in 4-5 years, so jacked up Flint's water rates to punish them.

4) The EM in Flint decided the jacked up rates were too high, but Karegnondi wasn't ready yet - so to save money he moved Flint onto Flint River Water

5) The EM and other higher ups decided NOT to properly treat said Flint water.
My bad.
I was under the impression the E.M. was not involved until there were treatment problems following Flint being off Detroit's system..
The E.M. being involved before the switch/change is a big change in my erroneous timeline.
My apologies.

Thanks all. for your patient persistence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nostromo

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
Believe what you want, except the facts always seem to get in your way. She did indeed state they could not lower the water level.
No - she stated that lowering lake levels would be a violation of the law.


Had a permit been applied for, she certainly could have helped to expedite it.
A permit was applied for - one to raise the lake to it's legal level as set by the courts. It is a "shall issue" situation, where EGLE (not the AG) is not allowed to not issue the permit.

Of course they had the option to fix the dam and keep water levels high, but they didn't for whatever reason
Not for "whatever reason". For money. The end.

but knowing that, why would any reasonable person not allow them to draw down?
Because the law doesn't allow EGLE to violate court set lake levels.

Besides, if this company was financially insolvent, where would they get the money to do any of the options you expressed above, where would they secure funds to pay a fine? Just saying.,
That is irrelevant. If they cannot maintain their infrastructure to required levels, then that is their fault and they are subject to the negligence that implies. Find the money, borrow the money, sell the dams, get the Four Lakes Task Force to capitulate and do away with the legally mandated lake levels THEY put in place... it doesn't matter - it's 100% Boyce responsibility.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
My bad.
I was under the impression the E.M. was not involved until there were treatment problems following Flint being off Detroit's system..
The E.M. being involved before the switch/change is a big change in my erroneous timeline.
My apologies.

Thanks all. for your patient persistence.
Multiple EMs also - this involves skullduggery by both Detroit and multiple Flint EMs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,895 Posts
The backstory here includes the controversial history of Emergency Managers in Michigan.

In 2010, Snyder, along with the Republican controlled legislature, instituted the Emergency Manager law.

In November 2012, the people of the State of Michigan via a ballot proposal eliminated the Emergency Manager law.

Two months later, the governor and the Republican legislature acting against the will of the people passed an Emergency Manager law and tied it to a funding bill in order to protect it from referendum.

A decision that he may well now be regretting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,027 Posts
Legal lake level for the four lakes were set in April 2019 under Part 307 of Public Act 451 of 1994. Those lake levels were set by the Circuit Court, at the request of the Four Lakes Task Force and based on a study paid for by the Four Lakes Task Force (Four Lakes Lake Level Study).
We will see how it plays out and what judges decide. Nessel Is named in at least three ongoing lawsuits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,233 Posts
No, she didn't.

The AG sued them to punish them for lowering the lake level IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WITHOUT GETTING NECESSARY PERMITS.

"This lawsuit seeks to vindicate the rights o fthe public to enjoy and benefit from Michigan's natural resources, including the freshwater mussels that live in the Wixom Lake ecosystem in Gladwin and Midland Counties. Without authorization, Defendants dramatically lowered the level of Wixom Lake for an extended period in both 2018 and 2019 (Drawdowns), causing the death of thousands if not millions of freshwater mussels-many of which are federally endangered. The Drawdowns also unreasonably dewatered wetlands that depend on Wixom Lake and otherwise damaged Michigan's natural resources. This suit seeks monetary relief and civil fines to compensate the public for the damage caused to the public's natural resources, and equitable and prospective relief to restore the natural resource damage and to ensure that it does not happen again."

It did not force them to do anything in 2020.

They could have gotten appropriate permits and lowered lake levels. They could have lowered lake levels, and potentially gotten fined again. They could have fixed their dams and not worried about lake levels.

... but they were absolutely NOT forced to fill Wixom lake by the state.
The attorney generals lawsuit against bryce hydro resulted in a notice from the court to take action within 30 days and raise the water or petition the court as to why they couldn't. They took option 1 and asked for the states approval to raise the water which was granted.

You can try to spin this any way you want Nessel forced bryces hand to raise that water before they should have. Everyone knew the dam needed upgrading and was a risk. Bryce and the state knew it for 12 yrs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,601 Posts
Ah... we're jumping right in with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Not at all. The first amendment enshrines the right to peacefully assemble. It does not identify for which causes peaceful assembly is allowed and which it is not; it is universal. When a subset of that peaceful assembly stops being peaceful, that is where their rights end and they become criminals if they cross that line. We saw a lot of that last year with many protests having a subset of participants step over that line that divides a constitutionally protected freedom from criminal activity, and we saw it again in D.C. last week.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
Not at all. The first amendment enshrines the right to peacefully assemble. It does not identify for which causes peaceful assembly is allowed and which it is not; it is universal. When a subset of that peaceful assembly stops being peaceful, that is where their rights end and they become criminals if they cross that line. We saw a lot of that last year with many protests having a subset of participants step over that line that divides a constitutionally protected freedom from criminal activity, and we saw it again in D.C. last week.
Patriots can also be criminals. Being a criminal does not prevent one from being a patriot.

See Sam Adams for a good example.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
28,194 Posts
The attorney generals lawsuit against bryce hydro resulted in a notice from the court to take action within 30 days and raise the water or petition the court as to why they couldn't. They took option 1 and asked for the states approval to raise the water which was granted.

You can try to spin this any way you want Nessel forced bryces hand to raise that water before they should have. Everyone knew the dam needed upgrading and was a risk. Bryce and the state knew it for 12 yrs.
That sounds to me like THE COURT forced Boyce to raise water levels... and the state had no choice or discretion in approval. They were legally not allowed to say no.
 
41 - 60 of 187 Posts
Top