Introduced by Sen. Bruce Patterson (R) on October 27, 2005, to require the state groundwater conservation advisory council established by 2003 Public Act 148 to make recommendations on the development of a “water withdrawal assessment tool” to determine whether a large scale water withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact as defined in Senate Bill 850, which requires permits for withdrawals larger than two million gallons a day.
Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on October 27, 2005.
Reported in the Senate on December 7, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on December 7, 2005, to revise the membership of the council, adding representatives of additional interests including agriculture, municipal water systems, a hydrologist, and a statewide conservation organization. Also, to require that the council "develop criteria and indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the State's groundwater use." The substitute also moves the council from the DEQ to the Department of Natural Resources. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on December 7, 2005.
Passed 36 to 0 in the Senate on December 8, 2005, to require the state groundwater conservation advisory council established by 2003 Public Act 148 to make recommendations on the development of a “water withdrawal assessment tool” to determine whether a large scale water withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact as defined in Senate Bill 850, which requires permits for withdrawals larger than two million gallons a day. Also, to require it to "develop criteria and indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the State's groundwater use". Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on December 8, 2005.
Referred to the House Natural Resources, Great Lakes, Land Use, and Environment Committee on December 8, 2005.
Reported in the House on February 9, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on February 9, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on February 9, 2006.
Amendment offered by Rep. David Palsrok (R) on February 9, 2006, not tie bar the bill to Senate Bill 355, which relates to a proposed “clean corporate citizen” program. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on February 9, 2006.
Passed 103 to 1 in the House on February 9, 2006, to require the state groundwater conservation advisory council established by 2003 Public Act 148 to make recommendations on the development of a “water withdrawal assessment tool” to determine whether a large scale water withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact as defined in Senate Bill 850, which requires permits for withdrawals larger than two million gallons a day. Also, to require it to "develop criteria and indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the State's groundwater use". Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on February 9, 2006, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on February 9, 2006. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on February 22, 2006.
1) Sen. Patterson's "journal statement" by Admin003 on February 11, 2006 Senator Patterson asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Patterson's statement is as follows:
Senate colleagues, the chair of the Senate natural resources committee spoke previously in eloquent fashion. I guess I should ask if I may speak to my bill as well as to the whole array of bills. With that little detail aside, I am honored to serve on the committee, and we have an interesting cross-section of Senators. I think this was something of a labor of love. I believe in my heart that not only is it a very important package of bills, but the state of Michigan and the peopleowe Senator Birkholz a great debt of gratitude for all that she did, and certainly her staff, one of whom recently said that I was a stimulant to the final product. I am not sure how to take that as a result of yesterday's Health Policy hearing.
The bill that I was honored to sponsor deals with the groundwater conservation advisory council, and I would appreciate support.
2) Rep. Sheen's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on February 11, 2006 Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No Vote Explanation on Water Bills
This is not about clean water or protecting the Great Lakes. It is about regulating water withdrawal from residents and businesses. This is not a time to make any more regulations to make it any more difficult or expensive to do business, create jobs, or for families to live in Michigan. This legislation may be carefully crafted to protect current businesses and residents, but it opens the door to future regulation, higher costs of doing business, and further erosion of private property rights. I can not support more job killing regulations, increased costs, and further erosion of private property rights."
3) 2005 Senate Bill 851 (Require creation of groundwater use assessment tool ) by admin on January 1, 2001 Introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2005, to require the state groundwater conservation advisory council established by 2003 Public Act 148 to make recommendations on the development of a “water withdrawal assessment tool” to determine whether a large scale water withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact as defined in Senate Bill 850, which requires permits for withdrawals larger than two million gallons a day. Also, to require it to "develop criteria and indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the State's groundwater use"
The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 not voting