Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 House Bill 5065: Impose groundwater use restrictions and permitting mandates
Public Act 183 of 2008
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Gary McDowell (D) on July 25, 2007, to no longer consider bottled water operations as being in the same class of 'consumptive uses' as agricultural products, which would have the effect of subjecting them to much more restrictive permitting requirements, regulations, and restrictions. Also, to redefine in a more restrictive manner the “index flow” on which determinations are made regarding whether commercial or industrial groundwater withdrawals are affecting streams or rivers. This would make it easier to impose more restrictions and regulations based on a claim that withdrawals are affecting water flow levels in streams. The bill is part of a legislative package consisting of House Bills 5065 to 5073 that would restrict and subject to extensive regulation the use of groundwater by industrial and commercial businesses.
- Referred to the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee on July 25, 2007.
- Reported in the House on March 5, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 21, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details based on extensive testimony and negotiations. The main substance of the introduced bill as previously described is not changed. This version was subsequently superseded by another substitute with more changes. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2008.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Judy Emmons (R) on May 21, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that inserts the provision of Senate Bill 860, the Senate-passed version of this proposed regulation, which establishes less rigorous water use restrictions on groundwater withdrawals and water bottlers. Although adopted on a voice vote, the substitute was immediately superseded by another containing the more restrictive provisions preferred by the House majority. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2008.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Rebekah Warren (D) on May 21, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that establishes many specific details of a restrictive groundwater withdrawal regulatory regime; see House-passed version, and for details see House Fiscal Agency Analysis. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2008.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Martin Griffin (D) on May 21, 2008, to remove the tie-bar to other bills in the House groundwater withdrawal regulation package, meaning those bills do not have to become law before this one can. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2008.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Gary McDowell (D) on May 21, 2008, to exempt residential wells serving not more than four single-family residences on not more than three acres from the regulatory regime proposed by the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 21, 2008.
- Referred to the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee on July 25, 2007.
- Passed 57 to 50 in the House on May 21, 2008, to redefine in a more restrictive manner the “index flow” on which determinations are made regarding whether commercial or industrial groundwater withdrawals are affecting streams or rivers. (For example, a flow change that reduced fish density in a coldwater river by 1 percent would be prohibited; a Senate-passed bill makes this 3 percent.) This would make it easier to impose more restrictions and regulations based on a claim that withdrawals are affecting water flow levels in streams. Also, to no longer consider bottled water operations as being in the same class of 'consumptive uses' as agricultural products, which would have the effect of subjecting them to much more restrictive permitting requirements, regulations, and restrictions.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on May 21, 2008, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed 57 to 50 in the House on May 21, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on May 27, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on May 27, 2008.
- Reported in the Senate on June 25, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 25, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that incorporates it into the Senate-passed package of groundwater withdrawal regulations. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 25, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on May 27, 2008.
- Passed 35 to 0 in the Senate on June 25, 2008, to create a rebuttable presumption that a proposed groundwater withdrawal would not cause a prohibited "adverse resource impact," if that is the determination of the computer program "assessment tool" described in Senate Bill 860.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on June 25, 2008.
- Passed 106 to 0 in the House on June 26, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill, which incorporates it into the Senate's package of groundwater withdrawal regulations.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 9, 2008.
Most Recent Comments
1) "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on May 27, 2008Rep. 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:
The Great Lakes Compact and the package of bills connected to it would put in jeopardy Michigan’s sovereign industries that utilize this resource, and the individual citizen’s ability to tap this great resource as seen fit. I believe if we don not sign the compact, that in a court of law, any attempt by the federal government to divert water from the Great Lakes Basins would ultimately be overridden by the tenth amendment and individual state’s rights. In addition to the sovereignty concerns, the Michigan Manufactures Association testified that this legislation would create far reaching regulation, raising the cost of doing business. This would further exasperate our economy and cost jobs in the food and beverage, agricultural and other manufacturing industries. It would also create regulatory uncertainty, increased bureaucracy, and would encourage more litigation. They also testified that the reduction flow index is not supported by the current science; in fact, it would abandon years of scientific study and millions of dollars of research funded by state money.
I voted for HB 4343 as the lesser of two evils, though I would have preferred to do nothing. Which of the following is the greatest danger:
1) The Federal government usurping control over the Great Lakes and subjecting us to the Army Corp of Engineers, who have screwed up state after state with their federal water projects?
2) Create another layer of bureaucracy, subjecting our state and job providers to the whims of seven other states and two Canadian provinces.
I consider the Federal government more dangerous than subjecting ourselves to seven states and two provinces. If the compact is signed, then the Federal government will sign it as well. However, if the Federal government doesn’t sign the bill, it negates the whole compact.
That being said, I cannot support any of the bills connected with the Great Lakes Compact (HBs 5065-5073 and SBs 858-860, 721, 723, 725-729). Currently, Michigan has the authority to decide how much water is utilized, removed, or diverted in the Great Lakes Basin. It can decide how much water each of its citizen’s, municipalities, and industries such as farmers, manufactures, and other job providers use in their course of business. Every other state around us is limited in what they can and cannot do according to the percentage of that state’s or province’s territory that borders the Great Lakes Basin. Michigan is considered a 99% border basin, with the next closest state bordering at only 40%. Why would we want to relinquish our right and ability to utilize one of Michigan’s greatest resources at a time in which the auto industry is faltering and Michigan’s economy is in the basement?”
Reply
Rep. Palsrok, 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:
We must protect the environment and that’s why I voted for the Great Lakes Water Compact and was instrumental in passing the water withdrawal legislation during the 93rd legislative session, but we need to protect our economy as well.
The House Democrats’ plan to monitor water withdrawals goes well beyond what is required by the Great Lakes Water Compact. It imposes unnecessary regulation on Michigan businesses and farmers, which will harm our economy.
I do believe we do need a system to monitor environmental impact of water withdrawals, but these bills are overly restrictive. Unlike the plan I supported, these stringent requirements will shut off large portions of the state from future economic uses and will drive more businesses out of state. For example, agriculture is one of our state’s top industries, but this plan makes it harder to get a permit and will make costs go up for farmers.
Furthermore, these bills take control over how our water is used away from elected lawmakers and hands it over to the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Quality.
I supported an alternate plan that would protect our environment and water resources while still promoting economic growth, but this plan was gaveled down without a vote. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time. However, I anxiously await for opportunity to vote on the senate versions of this legislation which do offer a balance between protecting our resources and allowing for its responsible use.”
Reply
Rep. Schuitmaker, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
We must protect the environment and that’s why I voted for the Great Lakes Water Compact, but we need to protect our economy as well.
The House plan to monitor water withdrawals goes well beyond what is required by the Great Lakes Water Compact. It imposes unnecessary regulation on Michigan businesses and farmers, which will harm our economy.
I do believe we do need a system to monitor environmental impact of water withdrawals, but these bills are overly restrictive. Unlike the plan I supported, these stringent requirements will shut off large portions of the state from future economic uses and will drive more businesses out of state. For example, agriculture is one of our state’s top industries, but this plan makes it harder to get a permit and will make costs go up for farmers.
Furthermore, these bills take control over how our water is used away from elected lawmakers and hands it over to the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Quality.
I offered an alternate plan that would protect our environment and water resources while still promoting economic growth, but this plan was voted down. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time.”
Reply
View Full Conversation
