House Oversight Committee Chair Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay Twp.) asks representatives from the Auditor General’s Office about efforts to collect unpaid water withdrawal report fees during a March 11 committee meeting. | Screenshot
In its efforts to piece through the findings of Auditor General reports from recent years, members of the House Oversight Committee on Tuesday looked into a May 2024 report evaluating the state’s water withdrawal monitoring program.
Among the reports findings were data discrepancies between tools used to measure the impacts of water withdrawals on the environment, data security concerns, failure to track withdrawal assessments and water use and a lack of policies and procedures for responding to public complaints.
Nanci Bashore, the audit manager who oversees Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation and IT audits explained to the committee that the purpose of the water withdrawal program is to register large water withdrawals and determine whether they will harm natural resources, such as depleting streams or harming fish populations.
The program, which is housed within the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, or EGLE, Water Resources Division, uses an assessment tool to detect potential harm from a withdrawal. If the tool does not detect any harm, the entity that made the request can immediately begin withdrawing water. This can include agricultural uses, such as irrigation or for livestock, and non-agricultural uses including public water supplies, thermo-electric energy production, producing bottled water, and removing water for mining.
If the assessment tool does detect harm, the entity asking to withdraw water can change its request or request a site specific review, where an assessment unit conducts a manual review using a separate set of tools.
However the report found large differences in the calculations between the assessment tool and the calculations from the tools used by the assessment unit, with differences ranging from 2.4 million gallons less to 4.7 million more gallons a year, Senior Audit Supervisor Jessica Armstrong told the committee, with the assessment unit unable to explain the reasons for the discrepancy.
The tools used by the assessment unit were also stored on an unsecured, shared network drive, allowing all staff to potentially make changes to the tools’ coding. The Water Use Assessment Unit also does not maintain a log of changes to the tools, raising additional concerns in the audit.
Auditors also raised concerns about the assessments unit’s ability to monitor withdrawal assessments and ensure users complied with the law on water withdrawals.
Nonagricultural registrants are required to submit an annual report on their water use, the source of the water supply, the uses for the water withdrawn and the amount of consumptive water withdrawn, Bashore said. They must also pay an annual $200 water use reporting fee.
Agricultural users must annually report their water use, the type and acreage of crop irrigated, the source of the water supply, and the uses of the water withdrawn if it’s not used for irrigation, Bashore said.
According to the auditor general’s findings, the Assessment unit did not take enforcement action against registrants who did not submit water use reports and their associated fees, with 241 registrants owing a total of $78,600 in fees. According to the auditor general’s report, 27% of those registrants had two or more unpaid invoices.
When asked how the unit attempts to collect these unpaid fees, Armstrong said they send an invoice to water withdrawal users once a year as a collection effort.
“As we threaten taxpayers to be put in jail for not paying their taxes, we’re not doing anything to collect money that’s due the state from a direct user. It seems like horribly bad management,” House Oversight Committee Chair Jay DeBoyer (R-Clay Twp.) said.
The unit also did not monitor the totals in water use reports submitted by users to ensure they do not go over their limit, with Armstrong explaining that their database did not capture information that would allow them to compare how much water an entity registered with how much they withdrew.
Armstrong further noted the assessment unit did not have any policies or procedures for responding to complaints from the public.
“The Assessment Unit received five complaints from January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 related to low water levels in nearby streams, ponds and lakes. The assessment unit did not sufficiently document its review and respond to the complainant for three of four closed complaints,” Armstrong said.
The Water Use Assessment Unit had also written off a total of $47,600 in unpaid water use reporting fees from 93 registrants, the majority of which were golf and country clubs, Armstrong said.
When asked if EGLE had a process for determining whether an entity would have their fees waived or not, Armstrong said she didn’t believe there was a process from what they saw.
In the report, the unit said limited staffing had impacted their ability to fully document, track and monitor the water withdrawal assessment process.
Additionally the unit failed to communicate and correct policy violations, Armstrong said.
“The assessment unit did not notify property owners of violations for 12 of 60 compliance reviews. The assessment unit did not timely communicate violations to property owners within 30 days for five of 48 compliance reviews with violations. These violations were issued 11 to 280 days late,” Armstrong said.
Additionally, the Water Use Assessment Unit did not require responses for five of 29 violations related to unregistered wells, nor did they require the owner to provide a pumping schedule for the wells, instead using an average pumping schedule to register withdrawals from the wells.
Armstrong also noted the assessment unit did not issue second violation notices for 10 of 16 compliance reviews where the property owner failed to comply with the initial notice.
While the departments have 90 days to come up with a corrective action plan after a report is issued, Bashore told the committee Tuesday that EGLE had yet to provide them with a plan, despite agreeing with all of the report’s findings.
The auditor general typically performs followup audits 12 to 18 months later, depending on the corrective action plan, Bashore said.
EGLE did not immediately respond to a request for comment, when asked about the status of its corrective action plan, and the reason behind the delay.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.