Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 13, 2005, to require that the Detroit water and sewer system be overseen by a Water Accountability Advisory Board that would provide review and oversight of contracting procedures and administration, rates and rate setting procedures, budget, finances, and operations. The board would have three representatives from Detroit, and one from Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and Genesee counties

The vote was 22 in favor, 14 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 56 at Senate Journal 10)

Click here to view bill details.

What in the world took so long?

Senator Basham, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate BillNo.372 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Basham's statement is as follows: I am rising in opposition of Senate Bill No.372, and the first thing I would like to address for my reasons of opposing Senate Bill No.372 is the comments that my colleague made across the aisle from the 15th Senate District, and that had to do with regional cooperation. If we really wanted to do something worthwhile in the spirit of regional cooperation, maybe we should adopt the Pittsburgh Steelers. That would be something that would further enhance our image. Quite frankly, getting back to this bill, the suburban communities are actually prevented by the state's Constitution from having any say in the ownership or operation of the Detroit Water and Sewer Department. These are the words of Judge Fiekens in a ruling issued January 5, 2006. There is nothing ambiguous about that statement; there are no nuances to be uncovered. In fact, it is pretty clear Detroit and only Detroit has a right to own and operate its water system. What is not clear is why we are considering this bill. The city of Detroit built the water system. Its citizens paidfor its construction through bonds that the city issued. When the suburbs determined the cost of building their own water system, it was cost-prohibitive. They asked that Detroit's water line be extended, which the city did at its own expense. Now legislators from these same suburbs are attempting to power grab, claiming they deserve control of the system. Let's set the record straight. The customers who receive water from the Detroit water board are just that. They are customers. Paying the city of Detroit for providing the suburbs water does not mean that they own the system any more than, I say, again, shopping at Kmart for 20 years means that I own a share of Kmart. Proponents of this bill will tell you it is not a takeover. They don't want to own the system. They simply want to be able to control the rates and contracts of the system. How do you think GM would react if I walked into their board room saying I just bought a new GM vehicle, so even though I don't own this company, I do have the right to decide how much you can charge for your vehicles and what suppliers you can contract with? I'd be laughed out of the room. However, this bill before us is no laughing matter. The suburban communities are not required to retain sewer and water service from Detroit. Any of these communities may build their own system whenever and wherever they want. In fact, in my district, the city of Wyandotte, they've done just that. They have built their own water system. According to Judge Fiekens' own words, the DWSD is fulfilling its mission in complying with the Clean Water Act, even as the department's director has cut his operating budget. The DWSD has also worked with the suburbs to establish better communications on how water rates are established and how our information is provided to the customers of that system. Allegations of improprieties in awarding contracts is being investigated by the special master appointed by Judge Fiekens, who will be issuing a report with his findings and recommendations on this matter in the near future. So this bill is unnecessary. There is no reason that this Legislature should be supporting a takeover of the Detroit water and sewer system. I encourage my colleagues to not support this bill.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: As you know, I represent growing western Oakland County--definitely an area depending on the Detroit water and sewer system. We just saw an incredible two weeks of Detroit celebrating the biggest sporting event in the world, Super Bowl XL--congratulations Detroit. A very favorable and positive image of Detroit has been left in everyone's mind. We applaud the Mayor and those responsible for safe and a very fun-filled time. They showcased Detroit and gave us reason to believe Detroit will make a comeback. In all of this, there was regional cooperation. Another example of regional cooperation is Automation Alley, eight counties whose economic cooperation is benefiting the entire state. This is an opportunity for a friend, a former colleague, a former State Representative--Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to go to the next step to work regionally with all those who have an interest in the Detroit water and sewer system. All of us, whether suburban or city, have a stake in the Detroit water and sewer system, and the seeds of working together have already been planted. Legislatively, we have worked with Detroit for positive results. Just recently, we passed the city utility user tax, which allowed Detroit to keep collecting this tax and use the money for hiring and retaining police officers. You remember that we also supported and passed the NEZ bills--the Neighborhood Enterprise Zone bills--which I shepherded through the Legislature to ensure that some Detroit residents will see needed property tax relief. As a former legislator, Mayor Kilpatrick was one of the most successful at working together to move legislation. He knew the value of finding common ground and he was very good at it. Mayor Kilpatrick's leadership in finding mutual ground, a mutual coming together, expanding cooperative relationships, and working with suburban leaders to support an advisory board and to keep an advisory board is needed today more than ever. Let is keep the spirit of Super Bowl XL alive and fostering solutions that are beneficial to all and make our region truly the dynamic, cooperative partnership--a two-way street--it can be and it should be.

Senator Thomas' statement is as follows: Madam President, the sponsor of this legislation was right when she said that this Legislature for the past 23 years has been deliberating on this divisive issue. I must say that even though we have been deliberating on it for 23 years, it still stinks. It is an awful proposition for this Legislature to engage in. It will do nothing to foster regional cooperation. This bill imposes a structure or authority or board, or whatever you want to call it, upon the Detroit water department that is unwarranted, improper, and unconstitutional. It seems as if the principles of local control--that we run on every year--mean nothing when the issue concerns this property of the city of Detroit. It seems as if the principles of private property mean nothing when the issue concerns the city of Detroit. Just last December, this body considered a ballot proposal regarding eminent domain. Many in the opposite party railed against the exercise of eminent domain as governmental overreaching, both on the Senate floor and to media back home. It made good headlines, and the legislation will probably pass in November. Now recall, colleagues, when eminent domain is used, the person whose property is taken is reimbursed for that loss. Now I listened carefully to the principles that those supporting the eminent domain proposal put forth. They spoke of the sanctity of private property. They spoke of the right to remain secure without threat of governmental interference. Those are very, very strong principles. They mean something to me. They should mean something to us all, and yet today, they simply do not apply to the citizens of Detroit. If it is Detroit, it is always proper to interfere with local government. If it is Detroit, more governmental interference is somehow a good thing. If it is Detroit, the Constitution is no impediment. Please do not say that this board, this authority, whatever you want to call it, is not designed to interfere with the structure and management of the Detroit water department. Please do not tell us that it is only a watchdog. Please do not tell us that this authority will merely do an audit once a year. This authority is there to approve, to consult, and to govern the Detroit water department. That equates to control and that is unconstitutional. As I have said before, this is illegal, period; there is no comma necessary on that. On a January 5, 2006, ruling in U. S. District Court, Judge Fiekens specifically said this is the property of the city of Detroit, but I'll take that a step further. If, by some reason this is constitutional, as some will argue, then it means absolutely nothing because we all know, every last one of us knows this is DOA--dead on adoption. Now if that's true--and I don't believe it to be--this authority will simply issue a lot of meaningless guidelines that can be freely ignored by the city of Detroit water department. The authority will run to the press and it will shout about this guideline and that recommendation; all while surcharging their own suburban residents 100 percent, 200 percent, and as high as the 450 percent that a township in southern Genesee County charges to move water 400 yards from the local water main. That's an important point. Your local governments, not the city of Detroit, are the reason why your water bills are so high, as my colleague from Detroit has previously stated. So how, does this legislation move the southeast region forward? Please explain that question to me. The question answers itself. It does nothing to move us forward; it simply moves us back. Maybe there are those who think that there is always something to gain in putting the city versus the suburbs, particularly at this time of year, like it's a deep well that will never run dry; that will always be filled with the politics associated with fear. As the nation looked on last week during our Super Bowl time, we acted like a true region for the first time that I can recall in my ten years of political life. We banded together, and we knocked the socks off the world. People from around the country came to the city. People who didn't like Detroit left Detroit and felt that we were on the right track, that Detroit was America's true come-back city. They talked about Detroit vibe, a special feeling Detroit feeling, Detroit love, that special feeling that gave us Motown, and the new generation of musicians that made the Motor City. We surprised a lot of people, and now we have a chance to build on that success. In this body, we rarely talk about the concept of opportunity costs--the cost of forgoing something else when you take a certain path. As Judge Fiekens indicated again in January, there is an opportunity to resolve this matter--not through legislation or litigation, but through the negotiations. It is time to resolve this matter through negotiations of the parties themselves. The judge did indicate that under the Kilpatrick administration, there was no longer necessary a need for a receiver. Holding that same argument true, there is no reason necessary for this Legislature to involve itself. Let the affected communities come together and work this out. So why must we take this Legislature and jump into this issue and pass all the opportunity to solve a problem in favor of a new suburban-controlled bureaucracy? Our chance to end 30 years of infighting will pass again. That is the opportunity cost of this bill. That's the hidden price. If you pass this legislation, clearly the rancor continues; clearly the good vibe, that Detroit love, that Detroit spirit disappears, and we will continue to foster animosity and not have solutions. So we have a choice. We can pick this day to move forward today. We can actually try to resolve this locally and build upon opportunity and build upon that Super Bowl experience, or we can regress back to the politics of fear and play this game again and play it again because it simply sells good tickets. That is not what this legislation should be about. I urge my colleagues to not support this legislation, to move us forward and to take an opportunity for real progress in Michigan.

Senator Sanborn's statement is as follows: I rise with a sense of outrage. I rise to throw tea into the harbor. Madam President, this feels to me like taxation without representation. For too long, my constituents in Macomb County have been questioning the Detroit Water and Sewer Department about their rate-setting process. And for too long, we have been getting insufficient answers. It was so bad that the city of Warren even had to sue just to get some answers. I know that if the shoe were on the other foot, my respected colleagues from the city of Detroit would stand with the same outrage. If we owned the infrastructure and we charged what we wanted, and we didn't want to give the answers for our rate-setting, they would be outraged as well. I do not consider it unreasonable that Macomb County would have one voice in an eleven-member panel, just to get the information out as to how they set these rates. I find it interesting and even hypocritical that we talk about regions here, yet they don't want us to know. They don't even want us to have one voice in eleven. My outrage continues as I hear them talking about regional transportation. They want to invite the suburbs in to pay for it. They're even willing to give us vote to accomplish what they want. When they talk about the effort to expand Cobo Hall, they want the suburbs to step in and make it a regional effort. They're even willing to give us a voice, but they own the infrastructure here and they don't want us to have a voice. They want to charge what they want. We paid 13 percent more this year, even after the city of Warren filed this lawsuit, and I know that there are members on this floor who share in my outrage that we not even be allowed to have a voice. Madam President, it feels to me like taxation without representation.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows: I rise in opposition to Senate Bill No.372. I say to those who support this bill that maybe you should get your own water department. I represent a number of cities, and one of those cities--a councilman--said to me that they have done their research and was no longer opposed to Detroit running their own. Now they understand. So I would hope that the other cities would do so also. You know, if Judge Fiekens, has been over this water department since the 1970s, we should take what he has said into consideration--that Detroit is doing a good job. But I would suggest that those in the suburban areas, and I do represent suburban areas, that they would not use those markups that they're using. I just see where there's a city, Montrose, has as much as 336 percent increase in their water bills for their citizens. And it's on the average of 160 percent according to the 2003 DWSD study. Note that the DWSD, in the spirit of compromise, no longer maintains such information, but it might be worthwhile to collect it for more internal information. And just some recent numbers, and that was from January 2003, I see for 1,000 cubic feet of water, Birmingham's markup from the Detroit charges was over 180 percent, Walled Lake was 86 percent, Rochester Hills was 53 percent and Livonia was 51 percent. Now, if we would spend this kind of time dealing with Detroit to help them better have some better insurance rates, because we talk about fairness, but we don't seem to know what fairness is. Well, fairness is treating all people the same all over this state to make sure that we all have some decent rates. So, if my colleagues would take the time to spend on that, than we are on the taking of the Detroit water department, I think that would be better served.

Senator Bishop's statement is as follows: I appreciate the previous comments and all of my colleagues who have risen today to join this vigorous debate. I'm not on the committee. I don't have the knowledge that the previous speaker has or the knowledge that the chair of the committee has, who has been the sponsor, but I want you to know that I think that the issue that she has raised is extremely important. I want to thank her for her diligence and hard work in bringing this to our attention. The reason why I have that opinion is because I have many local governments that have raised the issue with me over time in my representation of my district. I will, for example, use Pontiac, a city in my district that was concerned not too long ago this year. They'll see a 9.3 percent water rate reduction, but no one seems to explain how in 2005, the previous year, there was a 19 percent increase, and in the following year, there was a 45 percent increase in their water rate. I know that this is an issue that is easy to lapse into politics and talk about things that we probably shouldn't talk about, given the fact that this is an election year, but I do believe that under the circumstances, this committee chair and sponsor of this bill has taken an issue and made it so that it only addressed our concern--our ongoing concern about accountability in government. It's not a power grab. It's not a taking, as some might suggest. That's a little bit of the salacious discussion that we've had today. In fact, what this is, is it brings back accountability to the system. We're talking about creating a board that oversees the process. I think our citizens, the people we represent, deserve at least that--the opportunity to address those issues. Now, we've heard discussion about local communities raising their rates as well. I don't agree with that. I think most citizens in this state disagree with local communities raising rates on top of the Detroit Water and Sewer Board, but let's face it; locally, we have a mechanism in place. We have a board in place that citizens can go to and get answers. We can get that information. That board is in place and perhaps if that board was in place that we're talking about today, we wouldn't have this issue today. So the locals have taken the heat from their citizens and will continue to take the heat and suffer the scrutiny of the citizens if they chose to raise the rates like they've done in the past. Now, I have a number of resolutions that came to my office from local governments expressing some concerns with regard to a report that was conducted in 2003 by the Oakland County drain commissioner, which concluded that 30Oakland County communities serviced by the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department were overcharged $13 million. That's enough to make your hair stand up and at least draw some concern for the people I represent. Now, I know that that number has been refuted and discussed on many occasions, but once again, if we had a board in place that was able to address issues, to gather information, and report back to the citizens of this state, we wouldn't have an ongoing controversy. This is not about a power grab. This is not about a taking. This is about good government, and I strongly support the good Senator from Livonia. I would encourage your support for Senate Bill No.372.

Senator Switalski's statement is as follows: I sympathize with the sponsors of this legislation. They want to control the Detroit water system, but since theft is still illegal in the state of Michigan, they cannot simply take it. And if they give the authority any power, the bill will be unconstitutional. That is a difficult dilemma. Therefore, they are stuck with the unenviable solution of offering legislation that appears to take control but is actually purely advisory in nature. The legislation might look good to the causal observer, but it actually achieves nothing. Unfortunately, the powerless bureaucracy this bill creates will actually cost money, and the money will be paid by the ratepayers it is supposedly trying to help. Section (3)(7) provides for per diems and expenses for the board, and Section (3)(8) compels the board to hire an executive director and staff. Section (10)(4) compels the DSWD CFO to provide any information regardless of cost to a board that has no power to do anything with the information. Do we need to create an expensive bureaucracy with no power to do anything? I submit that the people of Michigan are not interested in creating more government whose only product is paper shuffling.

Senator Clark-Coleman's statement is as follows: Proponents of this legislation can use any term they choose to describe it--authority, oversight, review--but in the end, this bill is about taking control of the water and sewerage department from the city of Detroit. The suburban communities that link into the Detroit system are customers of the water system. They are not its owners. This bill is attempting to make the suburbs the owners of the system by giving authority over rate changes, budgeting, finance, and contracts. Now, if that ain't takeover, I don't know what it is. Putting aside the fact that the Governor vetoed a nearly identical bill and ignoring the question of whether it is constitutional, there is just no need for this divisive legislation. Judge John Fiekens, who has presided over the water system since the '70s, issued an opinion on January 5th commending the work of the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in complying with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and in administering rate increases. The judge wrote, and I quote, "Detroit Water and Sewerage Department's water and sewage rates are among the lowest in the nation, despite the cost of many required improvements." Proponents of this bill want the suburbs to have oversight over the rate that Detroit charges communities for water. What they should be asking for is an accounting from the suburban communities for the rates they charge their citizens which often includes a substantial markup. These figures are no longer calculated because they do nothing to foster the--and I've heard this word many times--cooperation that is occurring between Detroit and its suburbs. Now one example of cooperation is the Southeast Michigan Consortium for Water Quality Judge Fiekens initiated in 2001 when he invited 40 civic and governmental leaders to address water quality problems. As noted in Judge Fieken's opinion, these leaders "worked toward resolving disputes and made recommendations for measures that help achieve long-term compliance with" the Clean Water Act, and that the consortium has made progress on key issues. We talk about cooperation. Another example is the customer outreach program from the technical advisory committee of the suburban wholesale water customers. That technical advisory committee invites all users of the Detroit water system to forums and workshops meant to improve the communication between the Detroit water board and its suburban customers. In a letter to state legislators dated June 2004, the technical advisory committee wrote that, "The customers, communities, and Detroit Water and Sewerage Department are extremely impressed with the results of the program after only one year, and it is our intention to continue with this proactive partnering program on an ongoing basis." That same technical advisory committee continues to function to this date, yet despite all the facts and figures I have just noted, we are still considering legislation to wrest control and authority of the water system from the city of Detroit. Let me conclude with the words of Judge Fiekens; those that he used to conclude his opinion: "This dilemma"--meaning the dispute between the suburbs and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department"--will not be resolved by legislation or litigation. It demands"--and I've heard many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say-- "cooperation." We have tried takeovers in the past. Might I remind you of the infamous takeover of the Detroit school board? It's just one more example that takeovers don't work. In the spirit of cooperation, let's, all of us, come together in regional cooperation. Let's come together and vote down this disruptive bill and permit the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to continue its good work.

You guys in lansing kill me. Why would the residents of detroit allow this to happen. We paid for the water and sewage upgrades and the system belongs to the residents. I would never come to your community and try and control any of your resources. You folks must really be looking for a fight.

Working with suburban leaders to support an advisory board and to keep an advisory board is needed today more than ever. There is nothing wrong working your leaders but we really don't need an advise just equal acess.

The residents of Detroit will get an increase just like you kids. Stop trying to make this into something it is not. You folks in Lansing should work on some laws that might help instead of this continuous assault upon the residents. Lansing has been trying to take the water from Detroit since Coleman A. Young became mayor. After the "Zoo" incident it’s quit evident that neither side has made much progress. Your lack of thoughtfull laws to solve real problems that plague the Detroit residents, and have for years. You are able to assist us with: Profiling, it is real, and should be against the law; Redlining, while it is true that we can buy insurance but at 10X the amount some of our suburban neighbors enjoy. The insurance agency hires a Negro to a top position and she is powerless to stop what should be "unlawful" rates paid out by the residents in the city that just happens to be the "poorest" city in America and overwhelmingly Black so now your credit matters in determining rates. I can remember when car insurance rates where determined by "congestion" but that was when Detroit had a million people. What about my driving record, shouldn’t that matter most? I have not metioned Predator lending, Steering in the real estate industry, and many other problems that you need to be advocating against. Make laws that protect all people and try and fight the mean-spirited laws that are coming out of Lansing. Your behavior is one of "Us" against "You" as you retaliate the vote on the recent water rate increase. This type of hostile outburst in the form of your bill 372 shows just how angry some of you are about Detroit having control over the water and this is driven by a Racist attitude. This bill was written long before the council vote. A. B. Patterson just says what too many of you really think. Go home and hug your kids, and teach them well.

Rep. Accavitti, 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 372 (S-1) on final passage for the following reason. This bill would allow the five largest communities in Wayne County to have a representative on the water authority board. In committee, I wanted the bill to be amended to allow a representative from the five largest communities in Macomb County. Since the residents in Macomb County use the services of the DSWD, and this bill would not allow the citizens of Eastpointe and Roseville to be represented on this authority, I can not support this bill."

Rep. Cushingberry, 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: Why must we continue to pass legislation which we know will never go into effect because it is unconstitutional and none of the political hedge words can change that reality? Over the past thirty years I have watched suburban people whipped into a frenzy, press releases fly, and anxiety from already depressed Detroiter's stirred to anger over something that cannot happen. European Americans learned from Natives that the flowing water near Belle Island was the best place to fetch water. Early Europeans who started a system set up a dock for all to come at the foot of what is now Hart Plaza which allowed all comers to take water from this first system without charge. Residents of the City however paid a tax of one dollar per household annually to provide for the development of a, wharf, dock, and pump at the foot of Randolph Street after two fires and the failure of a system of public wells for fresh water. (Territorial Governor Lewis Cass and the Legislative Council August 5, 1824). No one ever checked whether those who used the system were from the City proper. A new tower was later established to supplement the dock, wharf, and pumps which served until 1850. The rate was raised to ten dollars annually. Finally, dissatisfaction with the contractor's lack of progress, the Detroit City Council purchased the system, floated a bond after voter approval and began to establish a system to provide river water throughout the region. As the City grew, the Council decided to create a Board of water commissioners and successfully petitioned the legislature which resulted in P.A. 90 of 1853. By 1903 suburban customers were added to the system. Engineers of the day had neglected sewerage treatment believing the adage; 'that running water purified itself.' By the mid twentieth century we learned of the true extent of the pollution problem. The City's Board continued to provide for a nominal charge the extension of water and sewerage treatment to further suburbs and exurbs. Eventually, Congress adopted the Clean Water Act and all the region was found in violation after trial by the Honorable John Fiekens, former Chief and now Senior Federal Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. A Order continues today which is overseen by the Court. In 1975 the first regional group was formed to advise the Court on the reform of the system which has been expanded over the past several decades to include all suburban communities who participate. The Detroit Board operates under receivership of sorts so the reality is the control and input is already being handled by Federal Court Order which has already issued a ruling that the bill before us would meet the same fate as a previous takeover Act of the Legislature in 1871 (which was designed to 'regionalize' the system) - it is unconstitutional under the Michigan Constitution and will not be allowed to go into effect. With this in mind, is there another reason we keep pontificating instead of cooperating?"

It's about time the state has reconized the burden the City of Detroit is putting on the people of the outlining communities by raising water prices because they cannot control their own internal collection problems. They have let it get out of control. As a Senor Citizen on a fixed income I find it deplorable that the suburbs are the one's always bailing out the City of Detroit. There are citizens in these communities who are experiencing hard times like everyone else. I have heard the governor is going to veto this bill. If this is true I would hope that we do not give up the fight to fix this horrendous situation. Please keep in mind we (all citizens) have been hit with huge heating, electric and gas increases. We don't need to add increased water rates. Thank you, Fred Aufterhaar

Yeah, right on. Lets keep those Detroit books closed to the suburbs regarding rate hikes and whats being done with all the unfair water rate increases. Those suburb people should have faith in Detroit Water Board and just assume they will pay more. All the Democrats voted against the bill which is typical and all the republicans voted for it. Unfortunately, Granholm owes the "Text Message Mayor of Detroit" for voting her in for a horrible 2nd Term, so Queen Jenny vetoed it ...Twice! Last one out og Michigan turn the lights off.

Good note about the criminal rate hikes. As you can see, Queen Jennifer is still in power and she supports Detroit and their 'Text King Mayor'. She couldn't care less about the suburbs since we voted against her. She won and the people in the suburbs are being punished. She vetoes the bill TWICE! Lets see what she has done...highest unemployments, highest foreclosures, highest taxes, higher driver licenses and registration to pay, highest crime rate in the whole country...plus a billion dollare state deficit. Hmmm, but she gave state workers pay increases and allowed unlimited welfare to almost everyone who wanted it. Yep, thanks to Queen Jenny, we will pay even higher water rates this summer!