Public Act 177 of 2003

      Comments on this legislation    Post new comment    Text and Analysis    Add to Watch List 
  Previous   Next 

• Introduced by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on January 29, 2003, to require the Department of Environmental Quality (or in cases of agricultural wells the Department of Agriculture) to investigate and seek to resolve cases in which the owner of a “small quantity” well, such as the well for a residence, alleges that a nearby “large quantity” well, such as for a commercial or agricultural producer, has diminished his or her well’s normal supply. If the department determines that a large quantity well has caused such a groundwater conflict, this would trigger hearings and other administrative procedures. The department would have the authority to order a temporary reduction of the amount of water removed by the large quantity well, fines of up to $1,000 a day, reimbursement to the state of up to $75,000 in administrative costs, and compensation for neighboring small quantity well owners, including potentially the provision of a new water supply. The state would be required to establish a state “hotline” to accept complaints regarding possible groundwater conflicts. See also House Bill 4097, which establishes a state water use protection fund to pay for the provisions of this bill.
  • Referred to the House Land Use and Environment Committee on January 29, 2003.
    • Reported in the House on February 20, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on February 26, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one since superceded by one with additional technical revisions. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Substitute offered by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on February 26, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one recommended by the committee which reported it. The substitute incorporates technical changes resulting from committee testimony and deliberation. These changes do not affect the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on February 26, 2003, to exempt certain high capacity water wells used by public water systems, if their recharge area is protected by a wellhead protection program approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on February 26, 2003, to refine the definition of high capacity well to include multiple water wells associated with a particular high capacity user. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on February 26, 2003, to require the determination that would trigger administrative action under the bill to be "scientifically-based," not just "reasonable". The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Judy Emmons (R) on February 26, 2003. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Ward (R) on February 26, 2003, to exempt the high capacity well of a local unit of government from the provisions of the bill if the local unit agrees to make the aggrieved property owner whole by connecting the owner to the local unit's public water supply system, or by paying to drill the owner a new well. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 26, 2003.
• Passed 69 to 39 in the House on February 27, 2003, to require the Department of Environmental Quality (or in cases of agricultural wells the Department of Agriculture) to investigate and seek to resolve cases in which the owner of a “small quantity” well, such as the well for a residence, alleges that a nearby “large quantity” well, such as for a commercial or agricultural producer, has diminished his or her well’s normal supply. If the department determines that a large quantity well has caused such a groundwater conflict, this would trigger hearings and other administrative procedures. The department would have the authority to order a temporary reduction of the amount of water removed by the large quantity well, fines of up to $1,000 a day, reimbursement to the state of up to $75,000 in administrative costs, and compensation for neighboring small quantity well owners, including potentially the provision of a new water supply. Somewhat different procedures would apply to conflicts involving high capacity wells used in agricuture or by local governments. The state would be required to establish a state “hotline” to accept complaints regarding possible groundwater conflicts. See also House Bill 4097, which establishes a state water use protection fund to pay for the provisions of this bill.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on March 4, 2003.
  • Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on March 4, 2003.
    • Reported in the Senate on May 20, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 5, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which clarifies the criteria for requiring the state to take action to address a well user's complaint, gives the state more flexibility in the time allowed for contacting the well user and performing an inspection, and establishes a new revolving fund in which increased high capacity well fees and revenue from other sources would be placed, and which would be used to pay for state actions on well water conflicts. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 5, 2003.
  • Substitute offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on June 10, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which imposes higher fees on well owners, and increases the power of the Department of Environmental Quality to regulate well water use. The substitute failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on June 10, 2003.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Passed 24 to 14 in the Senate on June 10, 2003, to require the Department of Environmental Quality (or in cases of agricultural wells the Department of Agriculture) to investigate and seek to resolve cases in which the owner of a “small quantity” well, such as the well for a residence, alleges that a nearby “large quantity” well, such as for a commercial or agricultural producer, has diminished his or her well’s normal supply. If the department determines that a large quantity well has caused such a groundwater conflict, this would trigger hearings and other administrative procedures. The department would have the authority to order a temporary reduction of the amount of water removed by the large quantity well, fines of up to $1,000 a day, reimbursement to the state of up to $75,000 in administrative costs, and compensation for neighboring small quantity well owners, including potentially the provision of a new water supply. Somewhat different procedures would apply to conflicts involving high capacity wells used in agricuture or by local governments. The state would be required to establish a state “hotline” to accept complaints regarding possible groundwater conflicts. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 289, which increases fees on large well users, and requires the Department of Natural Resources to develop a statewide groundwater inventory map.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on July 16, 2003.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Julie Dennis (D) on July 16, 2003, to increase the authority of the authority of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to declare a "groundwater dispute" that would authorize DEQ regulatory actions. The amendment failed 36 to 69 in the House on July 16, 2003.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Carl Williams (D) on July 16, 2003, to increase the power of the Department of Environmental Quality to impose remediation actions on high capacity well owners involved in a well water conflict. The amendment failed 47 to 61 in the House on July 16, 2003.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Farrah (D) on July 16, 2003, to require a small capacity well owner filing a complaint against a large capacity well owner to submit a copy of the small quantity well record and any other information relative to pump setting or water intake, if available, and allow the Department of Environmental Quality to delay an on-site evaluation until after receipt of a well drilling contractor's written assessment, if requested. The amendment failed 46 to 62 in the House on July 16, 2003.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
  • Amendment offered by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on July 17, 2003, to break a tie-bar to Senate Bill 289, meaning that this bill would go into effect even if that bill is not signed into law. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on July 17, 2003.
• Passed 94 to 8 in the House on July 17, 2003, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, with amendments.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on August 13, 2003.
• Passed 38 to 0 in the Senate on August 13, 2003, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Senate passage comes only after an agreement was reached with the Granholm administration regarding how the programs proposed by the bill will be paid for.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on August 28, 2003.