LANSING - Michigan's abundant water resources are a major part of its economy, so large-scale water withdrawals are often a topic for debate and legislation.

"We don't realize how much water is the foundation for our quality of life here in Michigan," said Frank Ruswick, special assistant to the director of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). "It's a resource we're very blessed to have."

Ruswick was the lead DEQ negotiator for recently passed bills intended to prevent negative environmental impacts due to large-scale water withdrawals.

In part, the legislation requires permits for the largest withdrawals and prohibits new or increased withdrawals that will harm fish populations.

Ruswick said rivers and streams are more vulnerable than inland lakes or the Great Lakes, because withdrawals that would have little impact on large lakes could drastically change smaller bodies of water.

If the water level or temperature of a river changes too much, fish die, and a change in fish population is an indicator of other harmful environmental effects, he said.

He added that it's more important to regulate water withdrawals based on environmental impacts than to restrict who is allowed to take water.

Withdrawals by water bottling companies have ignited controversy in the past. In 2001, residents near the Ice Mountain Spring Water plant in Mecosta County sued the bottler's parent company, Nestle Waters North America, claiming the plant's withdrawals dropped water levels in nearby lakes and streams.

Ultimately, the plant was allowed to continue pumping water, and the new legislation will not change that, Ruswick said.

Deb Muchmore, publicist for Ice Mountain, said the Mecosta County plant monitors water levels in surrounding lakes and rivers and reports the information to nearby communities and to the DEQ, which verifies the data.

"We have a lot of water available to us," Muchmore said. "It's what makes Michigan economically competitive."

Dan Vogler of the Harrietta Hills Trout Farm, about 20 miles northwest of Cadillac, said he's happy with the new legislation because it safeguards water resources but isn't too restrictive on the agricultural sector. 

"I have probably one of the most water sensitive operations and I can live with it," he said.

Vogler said that water resources "are only resources if they're usable," so they should always be available to farmers and businesses, within reason.

"Water has been an important part of Michigan economy forever," he said. "We conserve it, protect it and use it but we don't abuse it."

James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council, said more formal rules about water withdrawal may actually attract more manufacturers and utility companies that depend on large amounts of water.

"If they get this permit, they'll then know with some greater certainty that they'll be able to use this water into the future," he said.

The Legislature will review the bill package in 18 months to determine if it needs to be changed, Clift said.

Ruswick said a Web-based tool in development would help companies and government agencies determine the impact of water withdrawals on fish populations, depending on the amount withdrawn and the area the water is taken from. That would allow for more scientific decisions about when and where water can be taken safely.