# MI last state with free permits for Republican polluters



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Michigan the last Great Lakes state with free permits for water polluters

Lansing  Illinois recently enacted legislation to require water pollution dischargers to pay approximately $20 million annually in pollution discharge fees. That leaves Michigan as the only state on the Great Lakes issuing free permits to discharge toxic chemicals into the largest freshwater body in North America.

Legislation is pending in the House Government Operations Committee (SB 252) where interests representing water polluters are opposing the bill. No hearings are scheduled on the bill. Governor Granholms budget proposal included a $7.2 million water protection program paid entirely by polluters. The Senate version of SB 252 included only $3.5 million in fees (continuing taxpayer subsidies for polluters by including $2.0 million in general fund support in the budget).

A number of Michigan environmental and conservation groups are running advertisements in Macomb and Oakland counties urging residents to contact their lawmakers in support of funding the states water permitting program entirely through fees paid by water dischargers.

This is yet another example of the Michigan legislature lagging behind our neighbors when it comes to protecting the Great Lakes, said James Clift, Policy Director of the Michigan Environmental Council. Michigan needs laws that reflect our commitment to protecting the lakes for the long term. Unfortunately, special interests seem to be dictating public policy to this legislature when it comes to protecting the Great Lakes.

Even a Wall Street Journal editorial supported this type of fee legislation recently when they stated, Those of us who believe in free markets understand that pollution is an externality that isnt factored intro normal transaction costs; even Milton Friedman endorses effluent taxes. (June 27, 2003)

Most people are shocked when they learn that the state of Michigan not only allows the discharge of toxic chemicals into the Great Lakes, but provides to permits for free, said Cyndi Roper, Michigan Director of Clean Water Action. Fees would provide greater incentives to reduce pollution and eliminate the toxic discharges into our lakes and streams.

For more information:
James Clift 517-487-9539 
Anne Woiwode 517-484-2372 
Cyndi Roper 517-490-1394 or 231-861-1934
www.michiganswater.org


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Without a doubt, polluters had a friend in the Governor's mansion when Engler was in charge. I could not believe it recently when he was being consider for some kind of job in the Environmental Protection Agency by the Bush Adm. 

L & O


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

Haven't seen a great deal of leadership out of Granholm on this or any other environmental issue. She has a bully pulpit and should be out in front of the media pushing and supporting these issues. She had a great opportunity to get publicity, media coverage and support to strengthen environmentals laws during her "promote tourism" swing through the state. Since many tourists are drawn to our state because of natural resources we have, advocating protecting them would have been a perfect fit for her run through the state. The media was all over it. This was a great chance to bring local pressure on the legislators who aren't doing enough on these issues. She should have vetoed the beach grooming law. Still waiting to see if she fulfills her campaign promises on the environment. 

Blanchard was the one who started the decay of Michigan environmental laws and our position of leadership throughout the nation. Engler just keep the negative momentum going and took it to a new record low. No leadership out of Granholm yet. It's not just a Republican problem. I'd say its a politician problem. We haven't had a pro environment govenor since Millikan.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

EdB,
I agree that Bill Milliken was a pro-environment governor and a very good governor overall. I disagree about Blanchard. He was consistently given good grades by people that are concerned about our natural resources. Are you thinking of a specific issue where the Blanchard adm. dropped the ball ?

L & O


----------



## EdB (Feb 28, 2002)

Blanchard started a trend that continued with Engler of downsizing the DNR's field staff. I have always felt that the majority of the DNR should be working throughout the state and not in Lansing.


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

"I could not believe it recently when he was being consider for some kind of job in the Environmental Protection Agency by the Bush Adm." Everyday one comes across an oxymoron!!!!!


----------



## SnowSledHead (Jan 24, 2003)

"She had a great opportunity to get publicity, media coverage and support to strengthen environmentals laws during her "promote tourism" swing through the state"

There was an editorial on TV6 last week about how the Gov, Jenni, just went up I-75 for the day on that tour, then high-tailed it back to Lansing, missing the other 4/5 of the U.P. Most around here feel she should just stay down there. We had to beg her to come up after the two dam's flooded the Dead River basin.  
Personally I think they all blow, because they are just in it for themselves and nothing else.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Republican polluters??? Where does the article mention such partisan bias?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

You know very well that for the last 12 years the Republicans supported the polluters, the destruction of the wetlands by developers, corrupt marina permits, and delighted in collecting their campaign payoffs. The only thing changed is that fat ugly corrupt sob is no longer in the governor's office. The environmental corruption is still alive and well with the domination of house and senate by the Republicans to give their polluting buddies free permits. That's why the Democrats and couple of honest Republicans didn't have the votes to have the polluters pay their cost of pollution. The polluters also got their Republican buddy favors to gut the DEQ funding, staff, and pollution enforcement.

I spend everyday connected with the DEQ staff, DNR biologist, politicians, and I even had pizza with my R- Representative last week. He bought the pizza. I usually have coffee with Republicans twice a day and we just except the fact we have different moral standards.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

LOCAL COMMENT: Water polluters should pay tab
BY DIANNE BYRUM	

The state of Michigan has more fresh water than any other place on Earth. Our Great Lakes and waterways are a national treasure and major tourist attraction, bringing thousands of boaters, anglers and beachgoers to Michigan to enjoy the great outdoors.
Unfortunately, our waterways are increasingly under threat by policies that allow polluters to run roughshod over our precious natural resources and put Michigan in the back of the pack when it comes to protecting our waters. This must stop.	

http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/ebyrum11_20030711.htm


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

Tired old party line rhetoric, supported with...generalities and rhetoric. Nameless allegations that must be true because you heard it at the coffee shop? Snore.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Dawg only needs too check the documented voting records of the Republican pollution supporters. Go back to sleep since you don't care.


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

Too bad Hamilton had to bring his partisan slant to a very interesting and serious issue. Rather than pointing the finger, why aren't you out educating the public on this issue (instead of just hiding behind the computer on this board)??

I actually agree that this issue is a travesty and should be changed, and I am one of the "evil" Republicans Hamilton laments. How can that be, because we must all be against the environment according to Mr. Reef  

Please explain to us what Mrs. Granholm's plans and positions are. I heard a lot about the environment when she was buying (oops, campaigning) for votes, but I have yet to see anything of substance introduced. Most likley I won't hear anything of substance now until the next election. Much easier to blame others (the majority) than actually LEAD!!

Dan


----------



## Jackster1 (Aug 17, 2001)

>>Legislation is pending in the House Government Operations Committee (SB 252) where interests representing water polluters are opposing the bill. No hearings are scheduled on the bill. Governor Granholms budget proposal included a $7.2 million water protection program paid entirely by polluters. The Senate version of SB 252 included only $3.5 million in fees (continuing taxpayer subsidies for polluters by including $2.0 million in general fund support in the budget).<<

This statement says a lot. But NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! It must be PARTISAN and we ALL know the Republicans are beyond reproach, act in the best interest of all and NEVER (buy) or campaign for votes!
Give me strength! Sometimes I feel a ceratain party IS loaded with mind-numbed robots and a lot of posts I read bear that out.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

I read the entire post which makes no reference to any political party. The only reference was a pot stirring headline. In response to a couple of inquiries all that was offered was, "You know very well that for the last 12 years the Republicans supported the polluters..."

If you know the vote post it. Instead you fan the flames with rhetoric. Snore.

That green Buick that dumped their ashtray in the intersection this morning had Gore and UAW stickers on the bumper, therefore Democrats are polluters?

It probably comes as no surprise that I am another "evil" Republican. What may be a surprise is that I don't pollute, or support polluters and the topic does interest me. Guess I mistakenly thought some information would be addressed.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

To anyone who is a registered Republican or Democratic, I ask you to consider this question............Why ? Are you ready so lazy that you can't take the time to examine all of the candidates and choose the ones that best represent your views ? Both parties have lots of good people and both parties have their dogs. IMO anyone who punches a straight party ticket just hasn't taken the time to educate themselves about the candidates.
Regarding pollution, on this single issue, anyone who doesn't realize that the Democratic Party at both the State level and the National level has worked harder to protect our natural rescoures for the last 30 years just hasn't been paying attention. 
If you love the outdoors, John Engler was not your friend.

L & O


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

As I am not a registered member of either party I guess I can't say first hand why someone would register. I would consider myself a Republican because that is predominantly the way I vote, not because I donate to the parties general fund. On occasion I have voted straight ticket after educating myself on the candidates.

Regarding pollution I would agree that on-the-whole the Democratic party does have a better voting record regarding environmental issues. I disagree that this makes Republicans ad hoc polluters and I get frustrated with divisive dialogue specifically constructed for that purpose. Considering the amount of time and money I have contributed to improving our environment, (through additive and subtractive means) I take these catch-all mischaracterizations personally.

Personally when I can agree with a candidate on 75% of the issues that's usually a winner. I pick my friends a little wiser.


----------

