2005 Senate Bill 850 (Require groundwater use permits ) (Senate Roll Call 61)
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on February 9, 2006, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill, which also prohibits water "diversions" from the Great Lakes basin, but "comsumptive" uses in which water is incorporated into a product or food item would be exempt from this. Water packaged in a container less than 5.7 gallons would be considered consumptive. [History, Amendments & Comments]
The vote was 37 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 not voting
(Senate Roll Call 61 at Senate Journal 12)
[Comment on this vote | View others' comments]
|
|
|
Support
Oppose
Not Voting
Undecided
The following legislators supported 2005 Senate Bill 850 (Require groundwater use permits ):
The following legislators opposed 2005 Senate Bill 850 (Require groundwater use permits ):
The following legislators did not vote on 2005 Senate Bill 850 (Require groundwater use permits ):
Most Recent Comments
1) rsIhKuRnxOy [by Anonymous Citizen on March 20, 2008]jiwbqE Cool, bro!
Reply
Rep. Robertson, 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:
While I continue to oppose the diversion of water from the Great Lakes basin and continue to believe that that power should remain in the hands of state governments, I am compelled to vote against SB 850. This legislation creates an entirely new area of government regulation and with it, potentially, vast new power to intervene in the lives of Michigan residents. That this intervention involves something as basic and essential to human life and activity as water usage concerns me greatly. Diversion of water from the Great Lakes is one thing, extending the governments reach into groundwater regulation is another. My no vote on SB 850 and another bill in this package, SB 852, is an expression of my philosophic opposition to the state's involvement in groundwater regulation. I appreciate the attempt to bring objectivity to state action in this area, however, my overriding concern for the private property rights of all Michigan residents-now and in the future-requires that I cast a 'NO' vote on SB 850."
Reply
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:
No Vote Explanation on Water Bills
This is not about clean water or protecting the Great Lakes. It is about regulating water withdrawal from residents and businesses. This is not a time to make any more regulations to make it any more difficult or expensive to do business, create jobs, or for families to live in Michigan. This legislation may be carefully crafted to protect current businesses and residents, but it opens the door to future regulation, higher costs of doing business, and further erosion of private property rights. I can not support more job killing regulations, increased costs, and further erosion of private property rights."
Reply
View Full Conversation
