Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 13, 2008, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Department of Environmental Quality budget. This would appropriate $368.7 million in gross spending, compared to $370.8 million, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $44.8 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $31.7 million, and $173.9 million is from other state sources including debt, fees, royalties, etc., compared to $182.2 million in the previous budget

The vote was 30 in favor, 8 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 365 at Senate Journal 53)

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.?1097 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 supported this bill in full Appropriations to keep the process moving, and I do think that it has been a pleasure working with good chair of the subcommittee, the Senator from the 22nd District, and also my friend the Senator from the 33rd District. Even though we sometimes disagree, we do it amiably. I do want to call my colleagues’ attention to some work that still needs to be done on this bill as it moves over to the other chamber. Maybe some of this can be tended to. As I said earlier, the state of Michigan isn’t the only state entirely within the Great Lakes Basin. So when we talk about the Department of Environmental Quality in Michigan, we are talking about a huge responsibility that has actually worldwide implications. When you think about having 20?percent of the world’s fresh water surrounding our state and the responsibility and obligation that we have not only to our generation, but future generations to protect this ecosystem, it is a huge, huge and sacred responsibility entrusted to us in this Legislature. Unfortunately, this department has been chronically underfunded for many years. One example is the issue of fees that have not been raised, in some cases, for decades. Last year, there was a proposal to create $17 million worth of increases in these fees. That idea was rejected, and in this budget, there is $14 million of the general fund to replace those fee increases. Well, that is not enough money for the department to do its job. When you hear complaints about people saying they get more complaints from this department than any other, well, maybe we should look in the mirror. When you look at a department where people are operating with bare bones at their desks, it’s long hours trying to enforce these complex regulations and statutes without sufficient resources because we are not funding them properly. What happens is that we give them enough money to issue permits which are basically permits to allow businesses to discharge toxins into our lakes, streams, and rivers—using them as sewers usually—and we are giving the permits to discharge those toxins. What we are doing is saying that within certain guidelines you may discharge your toxins into our lakes and streams. What we really should be doing is looking for ways to reduce those toxins, but we are issuing permits. Then what happens? We give the department enough money to issue the permits but not enough money to do any monitoring enforcement to see if those permits are being complied with. So we are not giving this department enough money to do its job. This bill, as it currently stands, has language that eviscerated the wetland protection that we are entrusted to implement by the federal government. It has one percent of its general fund money encumbered to deal with one issue on one lake and raising separation of power issues. So, although I voted for this bill in full Appropriations to move the process forward, I did want to call my colleagues’ attention to some of the problems I see in this budget, and I do feel that it still needs a good deal of work.

Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows: In reference to the previous speaker’s umbrage, at looking at one lake in my district and asking that the water level be restored to 1975, I think it is important that people understand a little bit of history on this. At one time, the lake level was up very high. That was because some beavers came in and built a dam and the lake level went way up. Now what its interesting about this lake is that now the DNR owns about two-thirds to three-quarters of the shoreline of this lake. The rest of it is undeveloped or farmland or the back of people’s 40-acres, 20-acre parcels. It has one access that the DNR is supposed to maintain. Several years ago, the DNR put a boat ramp into this. Now this is a no-wake lake. People can go out there and row their boats. I think they can go sailing. They can go fishing. They can go canoeing. You take your boat with your trailer out there and you are able to use the boat ramp to put your boat into the lake water and then go out fishing. Unfortunately, after the beavers built their dam, the people who owned the lake—I assume it’s the DNR—said, oh, the lake level went up way too high. Therefore, they tore the dam down. Subsequent to that, the county drain commissioner cleaned out one of the drains, then the lake drained way down, probably about 18 inches to two feet below where it should have been. Right now, if you go out there to the lake—and it’s only about a 15-minute drive from Lansing—the cement boat pad is completely out of the water. So if you want to use your boat trailer to run it down to the lake, you are going to be backing up your boat trailer right into the muck, and it makes it very difficult for the people of the state of Michigan who have used their license fees for fishing, hunting, or whatever, in order to maintain the lake levels and maintain the lakes in this state, it is very difficult for them to use this lake. Now, where is the problem with this? Frankly, the DNR should have been putting in an application to the DEQ, which I always think is interesting. If the DNR owns most of the lake, why do they need to apply to the DEQ to have the lake level go up, but apparently, they have to do so. But they have never put in the application that I know of. Finally the local people got upset enough, and the soil conservation district said, “Well, we will put the application in.” They were able to get—I believe it was Ducks Unlimited that said they wanted to see the lake level rise for the habitat for the water fowl and also for the fish. It’s going to be good for the animals, folks. It’s going to be good for the people. But, lo and behold, things just kind of sit there. I finally called a meeting in my office asking the local people, the drain commissioner, the soil conservation district people, the DNR, and DEQ people to come in. They came in to my office and they have plans all made out on how to put up a little dam, which costs $20,000.00-$30,000.00, that would be paid for, by the way, by Ducks Unlimited. I always think it is interesting when you have to spend that much money for what a beaver could do for nothing. But, hey, the beaver was taken out even though it was natural. The beaver was taken out years ago because he raised the lake to an unnatural level, but when the drain commissioner drained the lake, all of a sudden you have get DEQ approval to raise the lake level back up. The interesting thing was in my office I believe it was the soil conservation district that said they were putting in an application to raise the lake level back up to the DEQ. The DNR took umbrage at that, saying that it would have been nice if they had let them know, as the DNR, that they were going to do that and work with us. Well, I kind of say, duh. If you are supposed to be responsible for the lake, why did the local people have to go and do a permit anyway? The DNR should have been doing it to start with. So that was nine or ten months ago. The permit goes to the DEQ. The DEQ was in my office basically saying what I took to mean was, “Well, get us the permit over here and we’ll work on it. A permit gets over there and they find out that, oh, they didn’t do everything quite exactly right that they wanted to have done, and therefore, the permit expired. So does the DEQ have a permit in front of it currently? No.?But has it had a permit in front of it months ago? Yeah, up until about a month ago they did, but they couldn’t do it. Now, I would suggest that the DNR and the DEQ get its act together and before another year passes that the lake level go back up, halfway up the boat ramp, where the water ought to be so that people can use it again and have easy access to it. I put an amendment on to the bill that basically references the Constitution. This is very important for this body to understand because some people want to say the the DEQ has charge of protecting the lakes and the waters and the air and the soil of this state. Well, if you take a look at Article IV, Section 52 of the State Constitution, which I was sworn to uphold—and every other member of this body has sworn to uphold—this is what it says: “The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people.” That’s the first sentence. The second sentence starts out this way: “The legislature …” I read that correctly. It did not say the Department of Environmental Quality. It did not say the Department of Natural Resources. It says, “The legislature …” Should I spell that out for you? L-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-u-r-e. Folks, that’s us and that’s the folks across the Rotunda. “The legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction.” I would suggest that if you allow the water level of Muskrat Lake to continue to go down until it is simply a mud hole, that is impairing the natural resources of the state of Michigan, if not destroying it. Therefore, we are fully within our rights, but our obligation as a State Legislature is to take care of the natural resources of this state. By saying, oh, let somebody else do it, that we are not doing our duty as a State Legislature under the State Constitution that we are sworn to uphold.

Senator Garcia’s statement is as follows: This comment is more for the department than for my colleagues who are about to vote on this bill. But I asked the department to do some soul searching. You know, they do a number of good things. They enforce the laws, but unfortunately, the department has some issues in enforcing the statutes this body has passed. The problem is not with the statutes that we have passed or necessarily with a lack of money. Most of the other departments are struggling with the lack of money as well. The problem is with how they carry out the enforcement of some of their duties. Again, I go back to the point where many businesses and many of my colleagues have expressed dissatisfaction and displeasure with the way the department is carrying out some of their duties. I’ve attempted to be fair, balanced, and objective in working with the department, and I pledge to continue to do so. But they need to do some soul searching. They need to take a look, again, at how they operate, and work with me to help me and to help the Legislature enforce the statutes that are on the books so that we can work together on cleaning up this environment.

Oh! the State is broke. Taxes must be raised. Wasn't that the cry of the Democratic party a few months ago? Where did all this missing money come from?

Reps. Meekhof and Agema, 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: While I support many programs in this budget, as a whole it has severe problems that need correcting. I cannot ignore the lack of reforms or new structural deficits this bill creates. The proposed FY 2008-2009 budget is dependent on the Democrats’ $1.4 billion tax hike as well as several one-time funding gimmicks, yet the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency said we still cannot afford this level of spending. I refuse to support spending we cannot afford, especially since doing so will set the stage for another tax hike. This DEQ budget fails to make any significant cuts that reflect the state’s expected budget shortfall. Furthermore, this bill was not given a proper hearing in committee. Instead, it was rushed directly to the floor where we were forced to vote on it without adequate time for review or an opportunity to offer input. I refuse to vote in favor of a bill that has been rammed through the Legislature and not given the proper amount of attention voters expect from their elected officials. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”