Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 3, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Environmental Quality budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1039.) This appropriates $326.2 million in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $332.2 million, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $36.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $56.1 million. The Senate version authorizes approximately the same amount of gross spending as the governor recommended. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964

The vote was 31 in favor, 7 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 172 at Senate Journal 33)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Brater, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 1066 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 am offering this amendment because of a concern I have that this bill includes a $1.2 million appropriation which would supplant General Fund money by using air emissions fees under the Title V program of the federal Clean Air Act. The Federal Clean Air Act explicitly prohibits the use of Title V fees for anything other than the direct and indirect costs related to the Title V permit program. As we all know, there is great need for this program and for it to be adequately funded. There are plenty of respiratory illnesses in this state and other effects of air pollution on our environment. We need to make sure that that program is properly funded, not to mention that we would be running afoul of federal law if we did this. So I am asking you to adopt this amendment so that we can remain in compliance with federal law under the Clean Air Act.

Reps. Accavitti, Dennis and Hopgood, 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: I voted no on SB 1066, the FY '05 Department of Environmental Quality Budget, because it jeopardizes public health and environmental quality. The budget cuts the general fund contribution to the budget by 43% compared to the current year budget and requires an additional 8% reduction in the department's workforce. These irresponsible actions will force the elimination or severe limitation of several key environmental protection programs, leading to a variety of repercussions including, but not limited to: the potential withdrawal of federal transportation funds due to the department's inability to comply with certain Clean Air Act requirements; elimination of state oversight of the discharge of toxic air pollutants such as mercury; reduced oversight and enforcement related to oil and gas development; elimination of Great Lakes shoreland, critical sand dune protection, and dam safety programs; a dramatic reduction in water pollution permit compliance inspections; elimination of programs to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials; elimination of the department's recycling and composting coordinator and county solid waste planning oversight and assistance programs; and significant delays in environmental cleanup activities. Simply put, I cannot vote for a budget that will place our citizens and natural resources at risk."

Rep. Bieda, 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: I voted 'No' on Senate Bill 1066, the FY 2005 Department of Environmental Quality Budget, because it jeopardizes public health and environmental quality. The budget cuts the general fund contribution to the budget by 43 percent compared to the current year budget and requires and additional eight percent reduction in the department's workforce. I believe that these irresponsible actions will force the elimination or severe limitation of several key environmental protection programs, leading to a variety of repercussions including, but not limited to; the potential withdrawal of federal transportation funds due to the department's inability to comply with certain Clean Air Act requirements; elimination of state oversight of the discharge of toxic air pollutants such as mercury; reduced oversight and enforcement related to oil and gas development; elimination of Great Lakes shore land, critical sand dune protection, and dam safety programs; a dramatic reduction in water pollution permit compliance inspections; elimination of programs to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials; elimination of the department's recycling and composting coordinator and county solid waste planning oversight and assistance programs; and significant delays in environmental cleanup activities. Because this budget will place our citizens and natural resources at risk, I could not support it. Thus I voted no on SB 1066."