Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on July 25, 2007, to redefine in a more restrictive manner the “index flow” on which determinations are made regarding whether commercial or industrial groundwater withdrawals are affecting streams or rivers. (For example, a flow change that reduced fish density in a coldwater river by 1 percent would be prohibited; a Senate-passed bill makes this 3 percent.) This would make it easier to impose more restrictions and regulations based on a claim that withdrawals are affecting water flow levels in streams. Also, to no longer consider bottled water operations as being in the same class of 'consumptive uses' as agricultural products, which would have the effect of subjecting them to much more restrictive permitting requirements, regulations, and restrictions

The vote was 57 in favor, 50 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 424 at House Journal 49)

Click here to view bill details.

Thank you.

Hurry up and pass it.

Yes let's stop all use of water. Start with morons that think we are running out of it. After 45 years here, I'm moving out. I can't take it anymore.

Sounds responsible and thoughtful. And if you don't like it, don't let the door hit your *%& of the way out of the state.

Conservation sounds good.

Conservation sounds good.

garbage in our beautiful lake Michigan.

ford, gm, and chrysler dumping into our lakes. and all the steel mills that supply them dumping into our lakes. and firestone tire dumping into our lakes. and all the rest of the auto industries dumping into our lakes for over a hundred years. NOW you wish to do something about it?????

How much water is 1 million gallons and does it matter to Lake Michigan? Lake Michigan alone has 1,180 cubic MILES of water. If you were to plug all the streams and rivers flowing into Lake Michigan and try to drain it at 1 million gallons per day, it would take over 3.5 million years to empty! Or, if one thousand new companies set up shop in Michigan, and each one used one million gallons a day, it would take over 3,500 years to empty the lake. But that does not account for the fact that the water is continually replaced every year from snow and rainfall. How much does the water bottling plant in Evart, MI affect surface and ground water? The Ice Mountain plant bottles 161 million gallons of water per year. Compare that to total water usage in Michigan by all manufacturers, farms, golf courses, power plants and municipal water suppliers. They use a total of almost 4 trillion gallons of water per year. Ice Mountain's portion of that usage amounts to 7 one-thousandths of one percent. And yet, a package of bills has been introduced to choke off new investment by companies like Ice Mountain. Michigan is already one of the most regulated states in the country. Commerce and industry move quickly. It is unrealistic to think that a company is going to put their plans on hold for six months (at best) while they wait for the DEQ to make a decision about whether they can build and grow. Let's face it; this legislative package is aimed squarely at Ice Mountain. They and others would like to expand into Michigan, where we have so much water underground, that we need sump pumps in almost every basement. (And, by the way, we IMPORT more bottled water than we export.) If we pass this these bills, we will only further cripple this state's ability to ever recover from the worst economic slump in at least twenty years. The bottom line is, Michigan will lose opportunities while other states gain. This is something we can no longer afford to do. from inform4

....not the water in the Great Lakes that this legislation is aimed at sir. Michigan streams are unique in that they get almost all of their water from groundwater that seeps (like a spring) into the stream. Prevent the flow into the rivers - rivers dry up - even though you have lots of rain and lots of water in the Big Lakes. Why do you want to make it easy for bottlers like Ice Mountain to remove the groundwater? Jobs? Consider this: one of the biggest economic drivers in this state is recreation and fishing. Under the Senate Bill, a bottler that is withdrawing water from near a river would be allowed to reduce the flow of the water in the river significantly and the number of fish in that river by 3 percent. Doesn't sound like alot? That could devastate the fishing in a given stretch of river. Further, the low water levels would force people to get out and drag their canoes over sandbars. Think about the small local establishments that rely on people coming back to the rivers year after year to fish, canoe and camp - forget about some out of state conglomerate.

Reps. Hildenbrand, Meekhof and Knollenberg, 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: We must protect the environment and that’s why I voted for the Great Lakes Water Compact, but we need to protect our economy as well. The House Democrats’ plan to monitor water withdrawals goes well beyond what is required by the Great Lakes Water Compact. It imposes unnecessary regulation on Michigan businesses and farmers, which will harm our economy. I do believe we do need a system to monitor environmental impact of water withdrawals, but these bills are overly restrictive. Unlike the plan I supported, these stringent requirements will shut off large portions of the state from future economic uses and will drive more businesses out of state. For example, agriculture is one of our state’s top industries, but this plan makes it harder to get a permit and will make costs go up for farmers. Furthermore, these bills take control over how our water is used away from elected lawmakers and hands it over to the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Quality. I offered an alternate plan that would protect our environment and water resources while still promoting economic growth, but this plan was voted down. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time.”

Rep. Schuitmaker, 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: We must protect the environment and that’s why I voted for the Great Lakes Water Compact, but we need to protect our economy as well. The House plan to monitor water withdrawals goes well beyond what is required by the Great Lakes Water Compact. It imposes unnecessary regulation on Michigan businesses and farmers, which will harm our economy. I do believe we do need a system to monitor environmental impact of water withdrawals, but these bills are overly restrictive. Unlike the plan I supported, these stringent requirements will shut off large portions of the state from future economic uses and will drive more businesses out of state. For example, agriculture is one of our state’s top industries, but this plan makes it harder to get a permit and will make costs go up for farmers. Furthermore, these bills take control over how our water is used away from elected lawmakers and hands it over to the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Quality. I offered an alternate plan that would protect our environment and water resources while still promoting economic growth, but this plan was voted down. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time.”

Rep. Palsrok, 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: We must protect the environment and that’s why I voted for the Great Lakes Water Compact and was instrumental in passing the water withdrawal legislation during the 93rd legislative session, but we need to protect our economy as well. The House Democrats’ plan to monitor water withdrawals goes well beyond what is required by the Great Lakes Water Compact. It imposes unnecessary regulation on Michigan businesses and farmers, which will harm our economy. I do believe we do need a system to monitor environmental impact of water withdrawals, but these bills are overly restrictive. Unlike the plan I supported, these stringent requirements will shut off large portions of the state from future economic uses and will drive more businesses out of state. For example, agriculture is one of our state’s top industries, but this plan makes it harder to get a permit and will make costs go up for farmers. Furthermore, these bills take control over how our water is used away from elected lawmakers and hands it over to the bureaucrats at the Department of Environmental Quality. I supported an alternate plan that would protect our environment and water resources while still promoting economic growth, but this plan was gaveled down without a vote. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time. However, I anxiously await for opportunity to vote on the senate versions of this legislation which do offer a balance between protecting our resources and allowing for its responsible use.”

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: The Great Lakes Compact and the package of bills connected to it would put in jeopardy Michigan’s sovereign industries that utilize this resource, and the individual citizen’s ability to tap this great resource as seen fit. I believe if we don not sign the compact, that in a court of law, any attempt by the federal government to divert water from the Great Lakes Basins would ultimately be overridden by the tenth amendment and individual state’s rights. In addition to the sovereignty concerns, the Michigan Manufactures Association testified that this legislation would create far reaching regulation, raising the cost of doing business. This would further exasperate our economy and cost jobs in the food and beverage, agricultural and other manufacturing industries. It would also create regulatory uncertainty, increased bureaucracy, and would encourage more litigation. They also testified that the reduction flow index is not supported by the current science; in fact, it would abandon years of scientific study and millions of dollars of research funded by state money. I voted for HB 4343 as the lesser of two evils, though I would have preferred to do nothing. Which of the following is the greatest danger: 1) The Federal government usurping control over the Great Lakes and subjecting us to the Army Corp of Engineers, who have screwed up state after state with their federal water projects? 2) Create another layer of bureaucracy, subjecting our state and job providers to the whims of seven other states and two Canadian provinces. I consider the Federal government more dangerous than subjecting ourselves to seven states and two provinces. If the compact is signed, then the Federal government will sign it as well. However, if the Federal government doesn’t sign the bill, it negates the whole compact. That being said, I cannot support any of the bills connected with the Great Lakes Compact (HBs 5065-5073 and SBs 858-860, 721, 723, 725-729). Currently, Michigan has the authority to decide how much water is utilized, removed, or diverted in the Great Lakes Basin. It can decide how much water each of its citizen’s, municipalities, and industries such as farmers, manufactures, and other job providers use in their course of business. Every other state around us is limited in what they can and cannot do according to the percentage of that state’s or province’s territory that borders the Great Lakes Basin. Michigan is considered a 99% border basin, with the next closest state bordering at only 40%. Why would we want to relinquish our right and ability to utilize one of Michigan’s greatest resources at a time in which the auto industry is faltering and Michigan’s economy is in the basement?”