2003 House Bill 4393 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 House Bill 4393

Public Act 171 of 2003

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

Introduced by Rep. Marc Shulman (R) on March 18, 2003, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for a Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This budget contains no appropriations, but these may be added later to make changes to current or future appropriations.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 18, 2003.
- Reported in the House on May 8, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 14, 2003, to replace the executive proposal for this budget, contained in House Bill 4416 , with a budget that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the House and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items. See House-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on May 14, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Rich Brown (D) on May 14, 2003, to add $10,000 to the environmental health line item. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on May 14, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Rich Brown (D) on May 14, 2003, to increase appropriations on those line items for which state expenditures will garner greater federal matching funds. The amendment failed in the House (47 to 61) on May 14, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Rep. Paul Gieleghem (D) on May 14, 2003, to transfer the funding source for various environmental regulation activities from general fund dollars to new fees which have been proposed by the governor. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on May 14, 2003.
Passed in the House (60 to 48) on May 14, 2003, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4418.) This appropriates $333.6 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $390.7 million, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $51.4 million will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002 of $69.4 million. The House version does not recognize revenue from new pollution discharge fees proposed by the governor. To make up the difference it includes cuts to general fund appropriations for departmental administration of 30 percent and 15 percent for other programs, compared to the executive budget. The House also adds funding for programs that monitor septic tanks, swimming pools and campgrounds. The administration proposed eliminating these due to inadequate funding. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on May 20, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 20, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on June 12, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 19, 2003, to replace the House version of this budget with a Senate version which expresses policy differences between the bodies on certain spending items. The substitute was then revised in the Committee of the Whole with a number of non-roll call amendments. Among other things these added appropriations funded by some of the revenue from new pollution discharge fees proposed by the governor, required at least $426,500 of this be used for compliance enforcement, added a requirement for the department to report to the legislature data on the amount and type of solid waste being imported into the state, and added money for Lake St. Clair pollution monitoring. See Senate-passed version for more details. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 19, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on June 19, 2003, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4418.) This appropriates $332.7 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $390.7 million, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $56.1 million will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002 of $69.4 million. The Senate version does recognize some – but not all - revenue from new pollution discharge fees proposed by the governor. As a result it does not include the cuts to departmental administration made by the House. The Senate concurred with House in adding funding for programs that monitor septic tanks, swimming pools and campgrounds. The administration proposed eliminating these due to inadequate funding. The Senate also added a requirement for the department to report to the legislature on the amount and type of solid waste being imported into the state. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 19, 2003.
Failed in the House (0 to 105) on June 24, 2003, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 25, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on July 16, 2003, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4418.) This appropriates $332.2 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $390.7 million, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $56.1 million will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002 of $69.4 million. The conference report includes some – but not all – of the revenue from new pollution and wastewater discharge fees proposed by the governor, because the legislature did not raise the fees by the full amount requested by the governor. It also adds funding for programs that monitor septic tanks, swimming pools and campgrounds. The administration proposed eliminating these due to inadequate funding. Gross funding in the conference report is $2.3 million above the amount originally recommended by the governor, and General Fund spending is $3.1 million higher. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 26, 2003.
Passed in the House (105 to 3) on July 16, 2003, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4418.) This appropriates $332.2 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $390.7 million, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $56.1 million will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002 of $69.4 million. The conference report includes some – but not all – of the revenue from new pollution and wastewater discharge fees proposed by the governor, because the legislature did not raise the fees by the full amount requested by the governor. It also adds funding for programs that monitor septic tanks, swimming pools and campgrounds. The administration proposed eliminating these due to inadequate funding. Gross funding in the conference report is $2.3 million above the amount originally recommended by the governor, and General Fund spending is $3.1 million higher. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on August 13, 2003.
Received in the House on September 23, 2003.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on September 23, 2003.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Brater's journal statement [by Admin003 on July 31, 2003]
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

I do appreciate the work that the Senate has done on this bill, and I know it's been a very difficult environment to work in this year--no pun intended. The environment of the state of Michigan couldn't be more important, and the fact that we are the steward of four of the five Great Lakes, we have to keep an eye on the discharges that are being put into the Great Lakes. A major component of this budget is the MPDES program and other water quality programs that, for the first time, the Governor has asked us that those who are creating this pollution that goes into our water pay the full cost of the service that the department is providing.

Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us at this point, even though the Senate did make more of an effort than the House to reach the levels that are needed to fully enforce and monitor those discharges, it is still not sufficient money. Right now it's under $5 million for MPDES, which is no more than the current year that we're spending, and that program only allows that permits to be issued and are not to be monitored or enforced.

So there are some serious problems with this budget. I know that some of the fees are going to be dealt with separately in separate bills, but I certainly have some reservations about this budget and the level of commitment that we are able to show this year to protecting the environment in our great state. I think we have a lot more work to do before we can really pat ourselves on the back for it. I'm committed to work with people on both sides of the aisle to improve this situation, and I know that all of my colleagues are committed to clean air and clean water in this state. So I look forward to working with you to find some even better solutions to this problem.
Reply

Line

2) Rep. Law's "no vote explantion" [by Admin003 on July 22, 2003]
Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the proposed DEQ budget (HB 4393) because, simply put, it irresponsibly places Michigan's environment and public health at risk. The budget unnecessarily makes steep cuts to all environmental protection program areas and administration. The Governor's proposed budget is a responsible solution to our fiscal crisis that also protect core environmental protections for our air, water, and land. They address our budget predicament by reducing general fund spending by 20%. In exchange, to protect core environmental programs, user fees for key surface water, storm water, and groundwater programs, as well as for solid waste regulation, are used to offset the general fund cuts. Unfortunately, Republicans have rejected this approach. Instead, they propose additional general fund cuts without identifying any additional revenue. The result: staff layoffs and resource cuts that will cripple environmental and public health protections; significant loss of federal revenue; and taxpayers still paying for programs that are more appropriately funded by those creating the pollution that necessitates these programs. Taxpayers, the environment, and public health all lose under the bill."
Reply

Line

3) Rep. Condino's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on July 22, 2003]
Rep. Condino, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the conference report to HB4393 because the Governor properly proposed restoring the ground water discharge program which oversees discharge of pollutants into the ground and groundwater. The funding in the report is not sufficient in my opinion, to properly restore this important protection to our environment."
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation