Introduced by Sen. Patricia Birkholz (R) on October 29, 2007, to increase from $5,000 to $10,000 per day the fine for violating the restrictions and permit requirements imposed by the new law subjecting commercial, industrial and municipal water use to extensive government regulation. The bill is part of a legislative package implementing the proposed Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact on Michigan industrial, commercial and municipal ground and surface water users. Essentially, the new compact repeals the veto that each Great Lakes state has on diversions of water to outside the Great Lakes basin, and replaces it with restrictions on water use both inside and outside the basin. Note: Michigan is the only state entirely located inside the Great Lakes basin.
Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on October 29, 2007.
Reported in the Senate on March 4, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on May 15, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details based on extensive testimony and negotiations. This would become the main bill in a revised groundwater regulatory regime. Significantly, the Department of Environmental Quality would only be authorized to enforce provisions or impose fees contained in statutes actually passed by the legislature, rather than being empowered to impose regulations it promulgates independently. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on May 15, 2008.
Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on May 15, 2008, to prohibit a regulated water withdrawal which may reduce certain measures of fish populations in a coldwater stream by 1 percent, rather than 3 percent as proposed by the bill. The amendment failed in the Senate (19 to 19) on May 15, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on May 15, 2008, to base the application of the proposed and current regulations not the magnitude of a particular user's actual use of groundwater, but on its capacity to use groundwater. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on May 15, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schauer (D) on May 15, 2008, to prohibit allowing an increased surface water flow made possible by "restorative measures" unrelated to a particular user's groundwater withdrawal permit as the basis for allowing a permit that would otherwise be prohbited on the basis of flows that would exist without those restorative measures. If the restorative measures are related to the particular user, in that they are part of the particular user's permit agreement, then this restriction would not apply. The amendment failed in the Senate (18 to 19) on May 15, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on May 15, 2008, to prohibit a groundwater withdrawal of more than 200,000 gallons per day if it would reduce the flow of a river or stream by more than 75 percent. The amendment failed in the Senate (17 to 21) on May 15, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on May 15, 2008, to establish that groundwater is a "public trust" in the same fashion as surface water (streams and lakes). This would in effect repeal the riparian water use doctrine of Michigan law, which establishes that a property owner has a property right to the use of groundwater drawn from beneath his or her land, as long as this does not interfere with another person’s use of groundwater. Instead, property owners would not have a have an ownership right, but could use groundwater only if the state grants permission. The amendment failed in the Senate (19 to 18) on May 15, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (24 to 14) on May 15, 2008, to prohibit groundwater withdrawals of more than 2 million gallons per day by industrial or commercial users if these affect various types of surface water resources in ways defined by the bill, as determined by a computer program "assessment tool" using factors such as fish populations and water flow levels. The Department of Environmental Quality would only be authorized to enforce provisions or impose fees contained in statutes actually passed by the legislature, rather than being empowered to impose regulations it promulgates independently. See Senate Bill 212, which places in Michigan statute the proposed Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact . [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on May 15, 2008.
Referred to the House Great Lakes and Environment Committee on May 15, 2008.
Reported in the House on June 24, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the House on June 24, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that divides the provisions of the Senate-passed version of the bill among this bill and House Bill 5067. The latter bill lowers the permit mandate and withdrawal prohibition threshold proposed by the Senate-passed version of this bill to 1 million gallons in some parts of the state and 2 million gallons in others. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 24, 2008.
Passed in the House (108 to 0) on June 24, 2008, to establish a computer program "assessment tool" to estimate using factors such as fish populations and surface-water flow levels whether a particular groundwater withdrawal by an industrial or commercial user would require registration, a permit or would be prohibited. The Department of Environmental Quality would only be authorized to enforce provisions or impose fees contained in statutes actually passed by the legislature, rather than being empowered to impose regulations it promulgates independently. See Senate Bill 212, which places in Michigan statute the proposed Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 25, 2008.
Passed in the Senate (35 to 0) on June 25, 2008, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which divides the provisions of the Senate-passed version among this bill and House Bill 5067. The latter lowers the Senate-passed permit mandate and groudwater withdrawal prohibition threshold to 1 million gallons in some parts of the state and 2 million gallons in others. [Vote Details and Comments]
1) Anonymous Citizen [by Anonymous Citizen on October 25, 2008] This is socialism. No doubt about that. If the state can confiscate our rights to the water under our land, it seems it's just one more step to confiscate the land from under our feet. Reply
2) Very exciting times. Congratualtions one and all [by Anonymous Citizen on July 9, 2008] WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement after the state of Michigan became the latest Great Lakes state to sign the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact is an agreement between the eight lake-bordering states to protect the Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. The Compact must now be approved by Congress.
"The Great Lakes are an international treasure and supply drinking water to almost 30 million people in our country. The Great Lakes Compact is an historic agreement to protect our Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. It is, perhaps, the most significant legal action to protect the Lakes in the last 100 years since the Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. This Compact on managing Great Lakes water is essential for the environmental and economic health of the region.
"All eight Great Lakes states have approved the Compact and now it's time for the Congress and the President to take action. The Compact should be quickly ratified. I will be an original co-sponsor of this legislation with Senator Carl Levin and Senator George Voinovich and will work across the aisle to pass this important bill. I am committed to working to fully implement this Compact to protect America's truly Great Lakes."
3) How do you know? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 25, 2008] It can be aimed at any of us at any time! Two million gallons is far differrent than a home or farm well. So, why did the socialist queen put it in there? She put it in so they can have control over private property. If this amendment had passed, it would amount to a "taking" and I guarantee they'd start using it against you-no other reason to put it in! Read the entire bill-and the amendment I was taking about. Reply