Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 18, 2003, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-2004 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is House Bill 4418.) This appropriates $333.6 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $390.7 million, which was the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002, excluding any supplemental appropriations, line-item vetoes, or later cuts. Of this, $51.4 million will come from the General Fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2002-2003 amount enrolled in 2002 of $69.4 million. The House version does not recognize revenue from new pollution discharge fees proposed by the governor. To make up the difference it includes cuts to general fund appropriations for departmental administration of 30 percent and 15 percent for other programs, compared to the executive budget. The House also adds funding for programs that monitor septic tanks, swimming pools and campgrounds. The administration proposed eliminating these due to inadequate funding. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964

The vote was 60 in favor, 48 opposed and 1 not voting

(House Roll Call 145 at House Journal 39)

Click here to view bill details.

Reps. Accavitti, Bieda, Minore, Anderson, Byrum, Brown, Hopgood, Law, Jamnick, Kolb, Condino, Waters, Adamini, Farrah, Murphy and Whitmer having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the proposed DEQ budget (HB 4393) because, simply put, it irresponsibly places Michigan's environment and public health at risk. The budget unnecessarily makes steep cuts to all environmental protection program areas and administration. The Governor's proposed budget is a responsible solution to our fiscal crisis that also protect core environmental protections for our air, water, and land. They address our budget predicament by reducing general fund spending by 20%. In exchange, to protect core environmental programs, user fees for key surface water, storm water, and groundwater programs, as well as for solid waste regulation, are used to offset the general fund cuts. Unfortunately, Republicans have rejected this approach. Instead, they propose additional general fund cuts without identifying any additional revenue. The result: staff layoffs and resource cuts that will cripple environmental and public health protections; significant loss of federal revenue; and taxpayers still paying for programs that are more appropriately funded by those creating the pollution that necessitates these programs. Taxpayers, the environment, and public health all lose under the bill."

Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

I wish to record some comments on the DEQ budget, House Bill No. 4393, on which this body acted today. The bill contains less in fees than the Governor requested and is over the Governor's recommended budget. In order to protect programs which guard our air and water, we will need to be careful not to add more responsibilities to the department at a time when we are funding the department at 50 percent of the level it received two years ago.

I supported this budget because this chamber is trying to keep the process moving, and it is sending a message to the House that there is a clear difference in this bill as it leaves the Senate. I appreciated the work of the subcommittee chair and the members of the committee on this budget.

Rep. Meisner, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted against this bill due to grave concerns I have about the Department of Environmental Quality's ability to fund essential programming designed to protect our lakes, rivers and streams under this bill. We need new direction and leadership to protect air, land and water. That leadership is not reflected in this legislation. What's more, we had a very reasonable proposal to fund DEQ core functions with regard to the discharge of harmful waste and pollution into our waterways. This proposal would have shifted the burden for this program from the taxpayer, where it is currently, to the folks doing the polluting. This proposal was ignored, which means that taxpayers will continue to subsidize polluters. This I can not support."

Rep. Condino, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the conference report to HB4393 because the Governor properly proposed restoring the ground water discharge program which oversees discharge of pollutants into the ground and groundwater. The funding in the report is not sufficient in my opinion, to properly restore this important protection to our environment."

Rep. Law, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the proposed DEQ budget (HB 4393) because, simply put, it irresponsibly places Michigan's environment and public health at risk. The budget unnecessarily makes steep cuts to all environmental protection program areas and administration. The Governor's proposed budget is a responsible solution to our fiscal crisis that also protect core environmental protections for our air, water, and land. They address our budget predicament by reducing general fund spending by 20%. In exchange, to protect core environmental programs, user fees for key surface water, storm water, and groundwater programs, as well as for solid waste regulation, are used to offset the general fund cuts. Unfortunately, Republicans have rejected this approach. Instead, they propose additional general fund cuts without identifying any additional revenue. The result: staff layoffs and resource cuts that will cripple environmental and public health protections; significant loss of federal revenue; and taxpayers still paying for programs that are more appropriately funded by those creating the pollution that necessitates these programs. Taxpayers, the environment, and public health all lose under the bill."

Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

I do appreciate the work that the Senate has done on this bill, and I know it's been a very difficult environment to work in this year--no pun intended. The environment of the state of Michigan couldn't be more important, and the fact that we are the steward of four of the five Great Lakes, we have to keep an eye on the discharges that are being put into the Great Lakes. A major component of this budget is the MPDES program and other water quality programs that, for the first time, the Governor has asked us that those who are creating this pollution that goes into our water pay the full cost of the service that the department is providing.

Unfortunately, the bill that we have before us at this point, even though the Senate did make more of an effort than the House to reach the levels that are needed to fully enforce and monitor those discharges, it is still not sufficient money. Right now it's under $5 million for MPDES, which is no more than the current year that we're spending, and that program only allows that permits to be issued and are not to be monitored or enforced.

So there are some serious problems with this budget. I know that some of the fees are going to be dealt with separately in separate bills, but I certainly have some reservations about this budget and the level of commitment that we are able to show this year to protecting the environment in our great state. I think we have a lot more work to do before we can really pat ourselves on the back for it. I'm committed to work with people on both sides of the aisle to improve this situation, and I know that all of my colleagues are committed to clean air and clean water in this state. So I look forward to working with you to find some even better solutions to this problem.