2005 Senate Bill 852 (Require groundwater withdrawal registration )

Legislation watch

Public Act 35 of 2006

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

Introduced by Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom (R) on October 27, 2005, to require those who withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of groundwater per day to register with the state and disclose the exact location of the well. This information would be exempt from disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The bill would not impose regulations on withdrawals less than two million gallons per day. It would require the Department of Environmental Quality to “encourage” registrants to adopt water conservation practices.
- 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-5) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on December 7, 2005, to remove the 100,000 gallons per day threshold of the bill, and instead require registration by property owners who have the capacity make a large quantity groundwater withdrawal . The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on December 7, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on December 8, 2005, to give the DEQ greater authority to impose a requirement on individual users that they are using groundwater in an "efficient" manner. Individual users would have to certify that they are meeting standards authorized by the department. The amendment failed in the Senate (18 to 18) on December 8, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on December 8, 2005, to require property owners who have the capacity to make large quantity withdrawals to register with the state and disclose the exact location of wells. The bill would require the Departments of Environmental Quality and Agriculture to encourage each sector of water withdrawal users to develop generally accepted water management practices, identify sectors that had developed those practices, and report that information to the legislature. [Vote Details and Comments]
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-3) 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 includes language requiring each "sector" of water users to develop "sound and economically feasible water management practices" within two years. Water withdrawals that fell within these practices would not be considered a violation of the law. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on February 9, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. David Palsrok (R) on February 9, 2006, to not tie bar the bill to Senate Bill 355, which relates to a proposed “clean corporate citizen” program. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on February 9, 2006.
Passed in the House (97 to 7) on February 9, 2006, to require property owners who have the capacity to make large quantity withdrawals to register with the state and disclose the exact location of wells. Each "sector" of water users to develop "sound and economically feasible water management practices" within two years. Water withdrawals that fell within these practices would not be considered a violation of the law. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on February 9, 2006, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which requires each "sector" of water users to develop "sound and economically feasible water management practices" within two years. Water withdrawals that fell within these practices would not be considered a violation of the law. Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on February 9, 2006. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on February 22, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Robertson's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on February 11, 2006]
Rep. Robertson, 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:

While I continue to oppose the diversion of water from the Great Lakes basin and continue to believe that that power should remain in the hands of state governments, I am compelled to vote against SB 850. This legislation creates an entirely new area of government regulation and with it, potentially, vast new power to intervene in the lives of Michigan residents. That this intervention involves something as basic and essential to human life and activity as water usage concerns me greatly. Diversion of water from the Great Lakes is one thing, extending the governments reach into groundwater regulation is another. My no vote on SB 850 and another bill in this package, SB 852, is an expression of my philosophic opposition to the state's involvement in groundwater regulation. I appreciate the attempt to bring objectivity to state action in this area, however, my overriding concern for the private property rights of all Michigan residents- now and in the future-requires that I cast a 'NO' vote on SB 850."

Reply

Line

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."

Reply

Line

3) Sen. Brater's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on December 9, 2005]
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

Mr.President, I would like to add the minority vice chair's point of view about these bills just to balance the perspective. I am very pleased that all of the work over the past months has allowed us to reach this degree of consensus. I did emphasize in committee that I regard this package as well-improved over the point that the bill started out at. There was a lot of give and take, and it is wonderful how much the citizens of Michigan were able to participate in this process because of their deep and passionate beliefs that the Great Lakes and the inland lakes and streams of Michigan need to be protected.

When I say these bills are an important first step, I think we need to be clear that that's what they are. And I'm just cautioning people that they're good bills that for the most part are an improvement over current law. I want to emphasize that we need to continue to work on this issue. We are still lacking a state-based protection from diversions from the Great Lakes, and the bills are not going as far as I'd like them to go in terms of protecting, without discrimination, all the lakes and streams of the state of Michigan.

So I think we've got to keep an eye on these bills as they go through the House. I'm very grateful for the work of all the environmental groups that work so hard to educate the citizens, although the citizens of Michigan certainly have an instinct for doing the right thing when it comes to protecting the Great Lakes and their tributaries and inland lakes and streams.

I also would like to thank again the Governor of the state of Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm, for her leadership in urging us to move forward with this legislation and make sure that we have protections in law for the Great Lakes and inland lakes and streams from excessive withdrawals, which can have the effect of damaging the watershed.

So I thank you for the opportunity to work on these bills. I thank all of my colleagues for all of the attention you've given to the bills over the last two days. I know it's been a long and complicated process. I do also urge your support of the package.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation