- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 118 of 2009
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Michael Lahti (D) on February 24, 2009, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 Department of Natural Resources budget. This would appropriate $307.4 million in gross spending, compared to $289.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $16.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $10.6 million. Another $232.2 million comes from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $219.1 million in the previous budget. $54.7 million is from federal revenue.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2009.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Michael Lahti (D) on June 18, 2009, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that combines the Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources into a new "Department of Conservation". The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Sarah Roberts (D) on June 18, 2009, to add a $100 "placeholder" for more spending on water quality monitoring programs. A "placeholder" permits further negotiations to take place on a spending item. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Jim Stamas (R) on June 18, 2009, to consider any DEQ permit application that has been pending with the department for two years or more shall be considered "administratively complete" effective January 1, 2010, which triggers certain statutory deadlines for the department to approve or deny the permit within a limited period of time. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Rogers (R) on June 18, 2009, require the DNR and DEQ to post on a website all their expenditures during the fiscal year, and the purpose of each. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Bill Rogers (R) on June 18, 2009, to prohibit the DEQ using operational memoranda or other similar documents that are in draft form to impose regulations on individuals or businesses conducting environmental cleanup projects, with certain specified exceptions. Also, to require the DEQ and DNR to submit a plan for replacement of failing or obsolete computer and database systems, including a schedule and cost estimate. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on June 18, 2009.
- Passed 78 to 30 in the House on June 18, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 budget for a proposed "Department of Conservation," which would combine the Department of Natural Resources and the Departmment of Environmental Quality. The DNR portion would appropriate $287.9 million in gross spending, compared to $289.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $9.5 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $10.6 million. Another $214.5 million comes from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $219.1 million in the previous budget. $54.7 million is from federal revenue. The DEQ portion would appropriate $338.6 million in gross spending, compared to $363.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $28.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $44.4 million, and $171.5 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $170.0 million in the previous budget. $130.2 million is from federal revenue.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
- Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on June 23, 2009, to suspend the rules so as to allow immediate consideration of the bill by the "committee of the whole". The motion passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 24, 2009, 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 June 24, 2009.
- Passed 20 to 16 in the Senate on June 24, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 budget for a proposed "Department of Conservation," which would combine the Department of Natural Resources and the Departmment of Environmental Quality. The bill authorizes $623.9 million in gross spending, compared to $654.8 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled for both departments in 2008. Of this, $36.4 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $64.0 million for the two separate departments. Another $385.9 million comes from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $390.6 million in the previous budget for the two departments. $184.3 million is from federal revenue.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on June 24, 2009.
- Failed 0 to 109 in the House on June 25, 2009, to concur with a Senate-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 September 17, 2009.
- Passed 68 to 40 in the House on September 29, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 budget for a proposed "Department of Conservation," which would combine the Department of Natural Resources and the Departmment of Environmental Quality. The DNR portion would appropriate $315.2 million in gross spending, compared to $289.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. $72.8 million is from federal revenue. The DEQ portion would appropriate $388.9 million in gross spending, compared to $363.9 million the previous year. Of this, $180.2 million is from federal revenue.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 30, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 budget for a proposed "Department of Conservation," which would combine the Department of Natural Resources and the Departmment of Environmental Quality. The DNR portion would appropriate $315.2 million in gross spending, compared to $289.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. $72.8 million is from federal revenue. The DEQ portion would appropriate $388.9 million in gross spending, compared to $363.9 million the previous year. Of this, $180.2 million is from federal revenue. Passed 21 to 16 in the Senate on September 30, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 14, 2009.
- Received in the House on October 15, 2009.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on October 15, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4446 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Natural Resources budget ) by Admin003 on June 25, 2009
Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4446 and moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the bill be printed as her reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Brater’s statement is as follows:
I rise again, regretfully, to oppose this budget. First of all, it is vastly underfunded. This budget, just to remind the members, puts together the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Natural Resources in one department. I don’t oppose that idea of putting the two departments together. I don’t think it should be done in a budget bill because in order to really save money by blending these two departments, we really have to spend some time looking at merging programs.
For example, fisheries in DNR and water quality in DEQ could be put together for some real savings and for some good public policy outcomes. If you just blend these two departments without doing any of that analysis of what programs to put together, you will come up with about $2 million in administrative costs. There is a lot more savings that could potentially be realized if we just took some time to do this correctly.
In addition, I have a strong concern about the underfunding of both of these departments. We are constitutionally mandated to have programs in place that protect the natural resources of this state. We are the only state in the United States that is completely surrounded by the Great Lakes. We have four of the Great Lakes surrounding our state. We have one of the most sensitive ecosystems in the nation, and yet, we are slashing the meager General Fund funding that these departments have.
I am told by the Department of Natural Resources, for example, that the next emerald ash borer is already here, but they just don’t have the personnel to go and identify it. We have unfunded remediation programs going on. We are issuing permits without having money to fund monitoring and compliance. There are many, many deficiencies in this budget that we are adopting today. I think it is incumbent upon this Legislature to identify the means to fund these operations properly.
Reply
Introduced in the House on February 24, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 budget for a proposed "Department of Conservation," which would combine the Department of Natural Resources and the Departmment of Environmental Quality. The DNR portion would appropriate $287.9 million in gross spending, compared to $289.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $9.5 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $10.6 million. Another $214.5 million comes from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $219.1 million in the previous budget. $54.7 million is from federal revenue. The DEQ portion would appropriate $338.6 million in gross spending, compared to $363.9 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $28.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $44.4 million, and $171.5 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $170.0 million in the previous budget. $130.2 million is from federal revenue
The vote was 78 in favor, 30 opposed and 2 not voting
(House Roll Call 322 at House Journal 0)
Click here to view bill details.
Reply
View Full Conversation
