Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on October 27, 2005, to require property owners who have the capacity to make large quantity withdrawals to register with the state and disclose the exact location of wells. The bill would require the Departments of Environmental Quality and Agriculture to encourage each sector of water withdrawal users to develop generally accepted water management practices, identify sectors that had developed those practices, and report that information to the legislature

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

(Senate Roll Call 682 at Senate Journal 110)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Birkholz's statement is as follows: Colleagues, as we pass this important package of water protections today, I'd like to first say thank you to all the incredible input that we have received from citizens across the state of Michigan. They are our most effective environmental stewards, and they have been very much a part of this process. The people of this state have taken a significant amount of time and spent a lot of energy to talk to members of the committee, to come to our hearings, and to talk about water protection and help us understand it better. During the public hearings that we have held across this state, it became apparent to all of us that we needed to fashion a package of bills that will both protect our waters and continue to make our waters accessible to those who depend upon them. And I also want to say thank you to all of the committee members who joined us as we went across this state and to several colleagues who, although not members of the committee, joined us and sat through our very long hearings and helped us learn, too. Protecting our waters, protecting their use is a bipartisan package of five bills. These bills represent a collective effort to safeguard our waters. They provide significant new protections for Michigan's lakes, rivers, and streams. The bills' most important features will allow us to safeguard our water-dependent natural resources through the use of a biological-based assessment tool that evaluates water use for its impact. We will then apply a new independent standard to guard against large scale withdrawals from our Great Lakes and provide for a new process that allows water users to voluntarily--please note voluntarily--adjust water use and practices to avoid adverse resource impacts. We also provide the DEQ with new order authority, in the event of an extraordinary, substantial and imminent danger to an adverse impact, to temporarily restrict the permit and the withdrawals of those permit holders. In addition, existing withdrawals will continue to be evaluated under the legal standards in place at this time. Finally, there is an assurance that existing legal protections, including those afforded by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, will continue to apply to all water withdrawals, so that any person in Michigan will be able to bring legal action against a withdrawal that threatens our natural resources. This package of bills represents over 100 hours of public testimony and public workgroups and accurately depicts the sentiments of the vast majority of Michigan citizens who demand wise and sound water protections. Ladies and gentlemen, Michigan's inland waters and the surrounding Great Lakes are too precious to be ignored, thus, these new policies will help those who use our water do so in a way that is both environmentally friendly and economically sound. Many of Michigan's job providers--farmers, manufacturers, and utilities, for example--rely on water in day-to-day operations. This legislation will allow them to remain a vital component of Michigan's economy and Michigan's future. I am proud to be a supporter of this package and look forward to its enactment and implementation.

Senator Brater's statement is as follows: Mr.President, I would like to add the minority vice chair's point of view about these bills just to balance the perspective. I am very pleased that all of the work over the past months has allowed us to reach this degree of consensus. I did emphasize in committee that I regard this package as well-improved over the point that the bill started out at. There was a lot of give and take, and it is wonderful how much the citizens of Michigan were able to participate in this process because of their deep and passionate beliefs that the Great Lakes and the inland lakes and streams of Michigan need to be protected. When I say these bills are an important first step, I think we need to be clear that that's what they are. And I'm just cautioning people that they're good bills that for the most part are an improvement over current law. I want to emphasize that we need to continue to work on this issue. We are still lacking a state-based protection from diversions from the Great Lakes, and the bills are not going as far as I'd like them to go in terms of protecting, without discrimination, all the lakes and streams of the state of Michigan. So I think we've got to keep an eye on these bills as they go through the House. I'm very grateful for the work of all the environmental groups that work so hard to educate the citizens, although the citizens of Michigan certainly have an instinct for doing the right thing when it comes to protecting the Great Lakes and their tributaries and inland lakes and streams. I also would like to thank again the Governor of the state of Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm, for her leadership in urging us to move forward with this legislation and make sure that we have protections in law for the Great Lakes and inland lakes and streams from excessive withdrawals, which can have the effect of damaging the watershed. So I thank you for the opportunity to work on these bills. I thank all of my colleagues for all of the attention you've given to the bills over the last two days. I know it's been a long and complicated process. I do also urge your support of the package.

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."

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."