Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on May 27, 2008 
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:

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

2) "no vote explanation"  by Admin003 on May 27, 2008 
Rep. Meekhof, 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, 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 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

3) 2007 House Bill 5066 (Impose groundwater use restrictions and permitting mandates )  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the House on July 25, 2007, to give the Department of Environmental Quality the authority to impose water conservation procedures on commercial or industrial facilities that have the capacity to withdraw 100,000 gallons of groundwater per day. Also, to require the department to notify certain local authorities regarding certain large groundwater withdrawals, and authorize these to form "water resources assessment and education committees" in order to assess area water use trends and "educate" large water users

The vote was 58 in favor, 49 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 426 at House Journal 49)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation