Most Recent Comments

1) Sen. Patterson's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on February 11, 2006]
Senator Patterson asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Patterson's statement is as follows:

Senate colleagues, the chair of the Senate natural resources committee spoke previously in eloquent fashion. I guess I should ask if I may speak to my bill as well as to the whole array of bills. With that little detail aside, I am honored to serve on the committee, and we have an interesting cross-section of Senators. I think this was something of a labor of love. I believe in my heart that not only is it a very important package of bills, but the state of Michigan and the peopleowe Senator Birkholz a great debt of gratitude for all that she did, and certainly her staff, one of whom recently said that I was a stimulant to the final product. I am not sure how to take that as a result of yesterday's Health Policy hearing.

The bill that I was honored to sponsor deals with the groundwater conservation advisory council, and I would appreciate support.

Reply

2) Rep. Sheen's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on February 11, 2006]
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

3) 2005 Senate Bill 851 (Require creation of groundwater use assessment tool ) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2005, to require the state groundwater conservation advisory council established by 2003 Public Act 148 to make recommendations on the development of a “water withdrawal assessment tool” to determine whether a large scale water withdrawal would cause an adverse resource impact as defined in Senate Bill 850, which requires permits for withdrawals larger than two million gallons a day. Also, to require it to "develop criteria and indicators to evaluate the sustainability of the State's groundwater use"

The vote was 36 in favor, 0 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 680 at Senate Journal 110)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation