| OCR Text |
Show 398 MICHIGAN safety, or welfare, or which, may injure commercial, agricultural, domestic, recreational, aquatic, wildlife, or other uses which are being or may be made of such waters, or impair the value or utiliza- tion of riparian lands. The Commission may require that every industrial or commercial entity discharging wastes into the waters of the State employ per- sonnel qualified to operate the facilities, and require reports to be filed annually by those discharging wastes into the waters of the State. The commission may request a person to comply with its stand- ards or the provisions of the act, and if the individual does not consent to the commission's request, he can request a formal hearing before the commission, and any order which is subsequently issued by the commission is subject to judicial review. Persons increasing their present discharge of wastes into waters are required to obtain permission from the commission. Provision is also made for surveillance by the Commission of discharges of wastes. By way of additional enforcement, criminal penalties are provided where there has been a violation of the act,20 and the Michigan Su- preme Court has ruled that the State, under its police power, has the right to regulate the contamination of the waters of the State.21 Re- cent legislation, which is effective April 15,1973, implements a permit system for waste discharges as well as other pollution control measures.22 Difficulty in financing treatment systems for waste is not a valid defense by a city discharging untreated sewage into a river, when it presents a menace to the health of the citizens of the State; and it is no defense that others are contributing to the polluted condition; and the court will not consider balancing the equities of the parties where the public health is involved.23 The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the primary jurisdiction for disputes over pollution caused by a city's improperly treated wastes is with the Water Resources Commission, and that persons should pursue their administrative remedy before a court entertains jurisdiction in equity to abate the nuisance; however, the court said that the act did not abolish com- mon law remedies against polluters.24 Other sections of the act deal with sewage disposal and water supply systems. Local governmental agencies are authorized to accept Federal grants; and a State water pollution control fund is created, and money therefrom can be made available to local entities for the construction of sewage and water supply systems. The act establishes criteria to determine the eligibility of projects to receive funds. The obvious purpose of these provisions is to encourage and assist local agencies in the abatement of pollution, and the commission is author- ized to encourage and assist in the organization of local sewage dis- posal and water supply districts.26 20 Mich. C.L.A. sees. 323.1 to 323.13. at.A. Darling Co. v. Water Resources Commission, 341 Mich. 654, 67 N.W. 2d 890 (1955). 22 Act 293, P.A. 1972. 28 People ex rel. Stream Control Commission v. City of Port Huron, 305 Mich. 153, 9 N.W. 2d 41 (1943), injunction granted 323 Mich. 541, 36 N.W. 2d 138 (1949) ; Bipperger v. City of Grand Rapids, 338 Mich. 682, 62 N.W. 2d 585 (1954). & White Lake Improvement Association v. City of Whitehall, 22 Mich. Ann. 262, 177 N.W. 2d 473 (1970). 25 Mich. C.L.A. sees. 323-101 to 323.203. |
