Introduced by Rep. John Moolenaar (R) on April 14, 2005, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from labeling a property as a toxic waste "facility" in the absence of actual testing because it believes there may be dioxin contamination. If the property is a person's residential homestead, the DEQ would be prohibited from entering the property for testing without the owner’s permission. Also, to require the department to determine what types of cleanup are needed for dioxin contamination in an area on the basis of independent studies that measure how much dioxin is actually absorbed by animals (and people) from contaminated soil. Note: The DEQ has proposed soil testing at thousands of properties and homes in the Midland, Saginaw and Titabawasee River area for the presence of dioxin, using a 90 parts per trillion standard that is reportedly 10 times more stringent than certain federal environmental standards. Also, the University of Michigan is conducting a study in the area that measures actual blood samples from a random sample of residents.
Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on April 14, 2005.
Reported in the House on June 21, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on June 28, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one containing technical changes, and one substantive change. This version expands the scope of the bill so that it is not limited to dioxin, but also applies to properties that may have been contaminated with other substances or minerals. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 28, 2005.
Passed 77 to 29 in the House on June 29, 2005, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from labeling a property as a toxic waste "facility" in the absence of actual testing. If the property is a person's residential homestead, the DEQ would be prohibited from entering the property for testing without the owner’s permission. Also, to require the DEQ to determine what types of cleanup are needed on the basis of independent, peer reviewed risk assessment studies. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 30, 2005.
Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 30, 2005.
Reported in the Senate on November 8, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on December 7, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that adds a provision establishing that if a property owner who may be liable for the contamination disagrees with a designation of contamination they may contest it by a timely testing of the property. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 7, 2005.
Passed 20 to 16 in the Senate on December 7, 2005, to prohibit the Department of Environmental Quality from labeling a property as a toxic waste "facility" in the absence of actual testing on the property. If the property is a person's residential homestead, the DEQ would be prohibited from entering the property for testing without the owner’s permission. Also, to require the DEQ to determine what types of cleanup are needed on the basis of independent, peer reviewed risk assessment studies. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on December 7, 2005, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. Passed 70 to 32 in the House on December 7, 2005. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 27, 2005.
1) Where does protecting the PEOPLE fit in? by Anonymous Citizen on April 24, 2006 ? Reply
2) Blood testing would get to the heart of dioxin problem, now wouldn't it. by Anonymous Citizen on April 24, 2006 The health of residents near a dry cleaning place that poured its solvent into the water table said it all. Dying of cancer. Wish more people knew about that! We need manufacturing, but...at what cost! There must be a better way! Reply
3) Sen. Schauer's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on December 8, 2005 Senator Schauer, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No.4617 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no."
The motion prevailed.
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:
I rise to strongly oppose this bill before us. It's unfortunate that it is being run all the way and there are such extreme differences of opinion as to whether this bill would actually accomplish the goal of protecting our environment and protecting property values. In fact, the sad irony to this is this bill would do quite the opposite of what proponents suggested it would do. This bill would make it much more difficult to assure the environmental remediation and environmental protection for property owners that the bill states that it would. It would also be detrimental to economic development efforts that are obviously critical to all of our communities. So I would strongly urge my colleagues oppose this bill.