Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on October 29, 2007, to prohibit groundwater withdrawals of more than 2 million gallons per day by industrial or commercial users if these affect various types of surface water resources in ways defined by the bill, as determined by a computer program "assessment tool" using factors such as fish populations and water flow levels. The Department of Environmental Quality would only be authorized to enforce provisions or impose fees contained in statutes actually passed by the legislature, rather than being empowered to impose regulations it promulgates independently. See Senate Bill 212, which places in Michigan statute the proposed Great Lakes—St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact

The vote was 24 in favor, 14 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 323 at Senate Journal 48)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Brater’s statement, in which Senator Jacobs concurred, is as follows: Mr. President and colleagues, this today is a major historic opportunity of our generation to protect the waters of the Great Lakes, their tributaries, inland lakes and streams, and the water that flows forth mysteriously and wonderfully underground and is also linked to the Great Lakes watershed. Michigan is the only state completely within the Great Lakes Basin. We have the most interest of any state in the Union in making sure that the laws are strongly protective of the Great Lakes and their tributaries. We are home to cold water streams that are unique habitat for trout and other sport fishing. These streams draw fishermen and women, girls and boys from near and far. It is urgent that we move forward with the Great Lakes Compact so that as a region the states and provinces that border the Great Lakes can work together to maintain control of these waters, preventing large scale diversions, and siphoning off the water to thirsty states and countries, standing in the way of those who would turn into a commodity that which is essential to all life on Earth. We took this important step yesterday in broad agreement, and I want to recognize the good work of the good chair of the natural resources committee, the Democratic vice chair, and all of the members of that committee, as well as those who are toiling on the other side of the Rotunda to work with us on this issue. We do have a great deal of agreement on this package, but there are some crucial unresolved differences. First and foremost, the substitute that we adopted today—that was adopted today—under some objection delays for a year imple-mentation of the limitations imposed by this bill. Now, what that means is that people are going to run around and say, “Uh oh, they are going to regulating; let’s put in our pumps; let’s put in our wells; let’s start sucking up this water as quickly as possible and get grandfathered in so that we can’t be regulated, and the Legislature can’t protect the waters of the Great Lakes as they think they are going do.” This is unacceptable; that must be changed. There are other problems with the bills that have been listed by my colleagues’ lack of adequate protection for fish populations, which are the canary and mind of our ecosystem. Being fair to users of the waters to make sure that those who would come after do not interfere with those who are already using the waters, that is a huge protection for farmers against suburban infringement on farmland to make sure that agriculture can continue to flourish in this state. We need to make those protections stronger for our farmers. Another crucial issues is the public trust making clear that the laws that govern the waters of the state of Michigan makes clear that those waters belong to all of us and that no one can use them in a way that impairs our right to use them. Now, this legislation regulates and requires permits for those who would take as much as 2 million gallons a day of water out of our ground water and surface water. That regulates very few people in the state of Michigan. I am told by the department that would be a matter of regulating currently five to six people or users a year. Next year it would be even fewer, after that first spurt of registration. We cannot wait; we cannot dally; we cannot tarry when it comes to protecting our Great Lakes. We should do this today. We should adopt legislation in this chamber that is a model for the other chamber. Those of us who have been working together for many, many years know very well what it takes to make this statute strong. We should be doing it here in this chamber. Why don’t we act today to safeguard our waters for today and tomorrow for our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren? What are we waiting for? Colleagues, I urge a “no” vote on this piece of legislation. Even though I know it has been worked on very hard, it needs a little more work and we can come together on it.

Senator Prusi’s statement, in which Senator Cherry concurred, is as follows: I would like to add my thanks and my gratitude to the chair and the ranking member and the hardworking staff who have put so many hours and so much sweat and toil into this package of bills. I think it is going to be a landmark piece of legislation when we finally get it into shape. I was prepared to support Senate Bill No. 860 until the substitute that is before us was introduced. And without a tremendous amount of debate or justification, things were inserted into the bill that make it unpalatable from my perspective, such as the prohibition of instituting fees or promulgating rules as well as expanding the definition of a single-family dwelling to four-unit condominiums. I look forward to the day when the parties that have worked so hard on this piece of legislation, both inside chamber as well as the outside interest groups, can come together and put together a package of bills or piece of legislation that takes into account everybody’s needs and makes those compromises that are necessary. But at this point, I don’t feel that I can offer my support to this bill, even though I would dearly love to see something move. I would dearly love to see us get this issue behind us in a satisfactory manner. I don’t think we are quite there yet, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in opposing Senate Bill No. 860.

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows: I want to thank all the Senators and the interest groups who have been involved in working on this bill. I think they have toiled for many long and hard hours, days, weeks, and months, and I guess it is even years now. There has been a lot of movement and a lot of narrowing of differences, but there is still a gap, and we seem at this late hour with that gap we have a battle between irresistible force and an unmovable object. I want to thank, in particular, Senator Birkholz and Senator Basham, who have worked tirelessly to try to bring these two sides together. They have got them very close, but they are still slightly apart. But I think now is the time to act. We want the best bill possible, but we can’t permit the best to be the enemy of the good. We are far better off with a bill rather than no bill. Personally, I am embarrassed that we call ourselves the Great Lakes State, yet we are practically the last state to sign the compact. We approved the compact yesterday, but without Senate Bill No. 860, there is no mechanism for regulation and enforcement. Are we content with a vague endorsement of the concept without any enforcement? I think not. I supported the proposed amendments. They would have made the bill better, but I repeat: A bill is better than no bill. So I support Senate Bill No. 860 because this is a process that will lead to a conference, and hopefully, a compromise. I hope the message I send with my vote is that I want a compromise, and both sides should move to bridge that gap.

Senator Basham’s statement is as follows: I would have liked to have been able to support Senate Bill No 860. I would commend the staffs on both sides of the aisle, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, for their hard work in trying to help Senator Birkholz, myself, and others come to a compromise on some very, very difficult issues. Unfortunately, when those amendments failed today, it put me in an awkward position of not being able to support my good colleague from across the aisle on this legislation. We passed a Great Lakes Compact yesterday, and it was good first step. But it didn’t go far enough, and actually it could and should go further in protecting Michigan’s resources, our great resource, our water. We also need to protect our water for the businesses and the farms that are economically dependent on the responsible consumption or our natural resources. Today’s proposal would have reached a compromise to do just that had those amendments passed. So it is disappointing that we have done a—we get probably a D- rating when we should have an A or an A+ rating when it comes to this water withdrawal legislation. Again, this is a work in progress and people have worked very hard on it. I was hopeful that we would be able to resolve it without it going to conference committee. It looks like that is the direction it is going to go. Anyway, I would ask that my remarks be printed in the Journal and that members not support this Senate Bill No. 860 substitute.

Senator Birkholz’s statement is as follows: Members, today we are moving forward with landmark legislation. It’s legislation that will provide for the implementation of a method of evaluating the impact of proposed large quantity water withdrawals with the key component being a science-based, self-user, automated tool on the computer. This is truly landmark and, never done in any other state in or out of the Basin; never done internationally. We have a groundwater advisory council, which is part of the process, members of the regulated community, members of the public, and the scientific community. This tool has been peer reviewed by a national group of scientist. All of them were amazed, surprised, and said, “You folks in Michigan are doing great work. You need to continue this.” This legislation today will help place Michigan as the No. 1 leader in the Basin as well as in the nation on decision-making for large scale water withdrawals. No decision-making exists like this today. Most importantly, today this decision-making is common sense, science-based decision-making developed by a broad coalition of user groups and the public. I want to thank my Senator colleagues from the 34th, the 7th, the 8th, 38th, and the 18th Districts and my colleague chair on the natural resources committee in the House who has worked tirelessly on this and, of course, the incredible staff work. We have spent almost three years, thousands of hours doing this, but we have moved ahead and said Michigan will be No. 1 in using science-based decision-making to decide how our water is used and protected at the same time. Thank you all for your good help.

Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater on May 15, 2008, to establish that groundwater is a "public trust" This idea is kinda nutso.

This is absolute socialist BS if I've ever seen it!! This can effectively prohibit private wells and severely limit your ability to water your garden, lawn, etc even though this state does NOT have a water shortage. This can force you to connect to some kind of city water system even where one is not available, thus preventing you from occupancy of a home in the country-read between the lines!! This is a property rights issue! It is inperative that these idiots in Lansing be told in no uncertain terms to get the hell out of our lives and leave our property alone!

Well, it has been in the past, and should continue to be in the future. When will people realize that "water is WATER" and you cannot suck it out of the ground without eventually impacting the stuff on the SURFACE.

I am very sorry to see that something as important as protection of Michigan's resources has fallen into such party line voting. As commendable as it is to try to pass SOME regulations on water withdrawal, this legislation does not go far enough to prevent over-exploitation of our resources. We are "spending our Principal" in the fight to recover Michigan's economy....

The loss comes when a corporate water bottler moves in next door and withdraws so much water that you no longer have water in your well. Much less the aquifer that lies under your land and the land of your neighbors. To water your garden? This legislation isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at the corporations that withdraw millions of gallons a day. So be careful what you are giving away by opposing these protections. Unless you want the water you would use to water your roses to go and quench someone's thirst in California.

It can be aimed at any of us at any time! Two million gallons is far differrent than a home or farm well. So, why did the socialist queen put it in there? She put it in so they can have control over private property. If this amendment had passed, it would amount to a "taking" and I guarantee they'd start using it against you-no other reason to put it in! Read the entire bill-and the amendment I was taking about.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement after the state of Michigan became the latest Great Lakes state to sign the Great Lakes Compact. The Compact is an agreement between the eight lake-bordering states to protect the Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. The Compact must now be approved by Congress. "The Great Lakes are an international treasure and supply drinking water to almost 30 million people in our country. The Great Lakes Compact is an historic agreement to protect our Great Lakes from water diversions and exports. It is, perhaps, the most significant legal action to protect the Lakes in the last 100 years since the Boundary Waters Treaty between the U.S. and Canada. This Compact on managing Great Lakes water is essential for the environmental and economic health of the region. "All eight Great Lakes states have approved the Compact and now it's time for the Congress and the President to take action. The Compact should be quickly ratified. I will be an original co-sponsor of this legislation with Senator Carl Levin and Senator George Voinovich and will work across the aisle to pass this important bill. I am committed to working to fully implement this Compact to protect America's truly Great Lakes."

This is socialism. No doubt about that. If the state can confiscate our rights to the water under our land, it seems it's just one more step to confiscate the land from under our feet.