2008 Senate Bill 1097: Appropriations: 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget

Legislation watch

Public Act 247 of 2008

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

Introduced by Sen. Valde Garcia (R) on February 13, 2008, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 13, 2008.
  - Reported in the Senate on May 27, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on May 28, 2008, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 28, 2008.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on May 28, 2008, to strip out a provision prohibiting the DEQ from regulating wetlands use in counties with fewer than 100,000 people until a detailed state wetland inventory required by statute as a condition for such regulation provides more detailed information than the current version, which has been criticized as not meeting the legislative intent. The amendment failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on May 28, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 30 to 8 in the Senate on May 28, 2008, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This would appropriate $368.7 million in gross spending, compared to $370.8 million, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $44.8 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $31.7 million, and $173.9 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $182.2 million in the previous budget.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on June 3, 2008.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Doug Bennett (D) on June 3, 2008, to replace the Senate-passed version of this budget with one that expresses the preferences of the House majority on various spending items and funding sources. For more see the House-passed version, and for detail see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 3, 2008.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Moore (R) on June 3, 2008, to require the DEQ to create a small business environmental ombudsman office. The amendment failed 51 to 56 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Proos, IV (R) on June 3, 2008, to prohibit any DEQ license, permit or other fee increases during the FY 2008-2009 budget year. The amendment passed 103 to 4 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Proos, IV (R) on June 3, 2008, to establish that the Department of Agriculture will administer the "Michigan agriculture environmental assurance program" regulations on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), rather than the DEQ. The amendment passed 105 to 2 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Proos, IV (R) on June 3, 2008, to impose a 5 percent across-the-board cut in the amount proposed for the DEQ operations budget, with the department to figure out what specifically to reduce below the previously proposed spending level. The amendment failed 50 to 57 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Proos, IV (R) on June 3, 2008, to require the DEQ to post a user-friendly website showing all its expenditures and the purpose of each. The amendment passed 91 to 16 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. John Proos, IV (R) on June 3, 2008, to require the DEQ to develop a staff savings initiative program that would reward employees who suggest cost savings by giving them 10 percent of the amount saved. The amendment passed 100 to 7 in the House on June 3, 2008.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 58 to 49 in the House on June 3, 2008, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This would appropriate $368.4 million in gross spending, compared to $370.8 million, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $45.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $31.7 million, and $173.3 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $182.2 million in the previous budget.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on June 3, 2008, to give the bill immediate effect. The motion failed 58 to 49 in the House on June 3, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 5, 2008.
Failed 0 to 35 in the Senate on June 5, 2008, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on June 10, 2008.
Passed 66 to 41 in the House on June 27, 2008, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This would appropriate $363.9 million in gross spending, compared to $370.8 million, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $44.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $31.7 million, and $170.0 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $182.2 million in the previous budget. The budget funds a DEQ ombudsman to be employed by the legislative council to respond to complaints of regulatory abuse by the agency. For budget details see House Fiscal Agency analysis.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on June 27, 2008.
Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on June 27, 2008, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This would appropriate $363.9 million in gross spending, compared to $370.8 million, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $44.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $31.7 million, and $170.0 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $182.2 million in the previous budget. For budget details see House Fiscal Agency analysis.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 17, 2008.
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 17, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on June 9, 2008
Reps. Meekhof and Agema, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

While I support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms or new structural deficits this bill creates.

The proposed FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the Democrats’ $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks, yet the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency said we still cannot afford this level of spending. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike.

This DEQ budget fails to make any significant cuts that reflect the state’s expected budget shortfall.

Furthermore, this bill was not given a proper hearing in committee. Instead, it was rushed directly to the floor where we were forced to vote on it without adequate time for review or an opportunity to offer input. I refuse to vote in favor of a bill that has been rammed through the Legislature and not given the proper amount of attention voters expect from their elected officials.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Reply

Line

2) Let's spend more by Anonymous Citizen on June 6, 2008
Oh! the State is broke. Taxes must be raised. Wasn't that the cry of the Democratic party a few months ago? Where did all this missing money come from?
Reply

Line

3) "journal statement" by Admin003 on May 29, 2008
Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows:

This comment is more for the department than for my colleagues who are about to vote on this bill. But I asked the department to do some soul searching. You know, they do a number of good things. They enforce the laws, but unfortunately, the department has some issues in enforcing the statutes this body has passed. The problem is not with the statutes that we have passed or necessarily with a lack of money. Most of the other departments are struggling with the lack of money as well. The problem is with how they carry out the enforcement of some of their duties.

Again, I go back to the point where many businesses and many of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction and displeasure with the way the department is carrying out some of their duties. I’ve attempted to be fair, balanced, and objective in working with the department, and I pledge to continue to do so. But they need to do some soul searching. They need to take a look, again, at how they operate, and work with me to help me and to help the Legislature enforce the statutes that are on the books so that we can work together on cleaning up this environment.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation