# SB 252 Polluters Corruption 101



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Email response:

To elaborate a bit on what xxxx wrote, having the Legislature issue administrative rules goes beyond meddling. It is probably unconstitutional. Do the Republicans remember that there are three branches of government? The legislature legislates laws, the administration administrates laws, and the judiciary sorts out all of the messes created by the other two. 

Now the Republicans want to legislate administrative rules. They already have the authority to veto rules, due to bad judgment by a previous governor who chose to not veto the bill that created the Joint Legislative Rules Committee. This enrolled bill goes much farther; actually having the legislature assume the ability to write administrative rules. 

The central problem with this is, of course, that political influence often corrupts the interpretation of law and that the bill would allow the legislature to further encroach into another branch of government. I guarantee you that the Republicans would be opposing this if the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate.

The current administrative rule process includes listening to all parties, including special interests, and then applying the law according to the actual language of statute. Let's keep the processes separate so that the branches remain at least reasonably intact.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

WOW! HR I have fallen out of my chair. Waite im getting back up. There now im back.

Im impressed with your last post! You bring up some good points.
I even have to admitt I agree on a few of them.  

I do have a response, just not going to get to it tonight. Thanks!


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

> The central problem with this is, of course, that political influence often corrupts the interpretation of law and that the bill would allow the legislature to further encroach into another branch of government.





> Harrington knew he could not get pass the public opposition, so instead of meeting with the planned Monday schedule with City Montague, Harrington had a secret meeting with Jon Rooks of the marina on previous Friday night and they approved the marina in secret.


Sounds like an oxy moron to me.

That last quote goes right to the heart of what I am trying to point out. Two people actually made the final decision on the marina. WOW! There is something extremely dangerous in that. 

The first quote involves elected legislators. We have some recourse on them. I see it as the better of the two evils. I agree that there is corruption in politics HR I just think it is both parties. Therefore my thinking tends to lean me towards keeping power in the legislator hands.


> The current administrative rule process includes listening to all parties, including special interests, and then applying the law according to the actual language of statute. Let's keep the processes separate so that the branches remain at least reasonably intact.


Has there been a change in the administrative structure of the DEQ since Granholm took office? If not I dont see anything to stop another Harrington episode. 


> Republicans would be opposing this if the Democrats were in control of the House and the Senate.


Two wrongs dont make a right.

In summary I think we both want the same thing. I just dont think we get it because the democrats are in control versus the republicans. Or vise a versa. Thanks!


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Note from capital update of 2/21/04

Permits to pollute -- train wreck waiting to happen 

SB 252 -- After four and half months conferees finally met and jammed a bad bill out of the conference committee on Tuesday. The bill, working off the House version, transferred about $75,000 (out of a total of $3 million) in the proposed fees onto municipal sources (a $40,000 increase to the Detroit Water Utility). The provision which makes the bill unacceptable to the department (and have resulted in Governor Granholm saying she will veto the bill), requires that the MDEQ receive prior legislative authority before writing any new administrative rules. The Democrats on the committee did not sign the conference report (Brater and Tobocman). The Senate passed it 21-17 (along party lines except that Sen. Sanborn voted against the conference report), that House approved it 55-46 (with five Republicans voting against it -- Brandenburg, Gaffney, LaSata, Hune and Stewart). It has not yet been sent to the Governor. 

The bottom line: We elected Jennifer Granholm as Governor -- to run the executive branch and implement the law that are on the books in Michigan. What Senator Sikkema and Speaker Johnson are trying to do is allow special interests to block regulation (or updated regulation) of their facilities -- the loser will be the waters of Michigan.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Got this response Friday:

Thank you for your letter in support of my statement that I will veto SB 252. As you know, the bill has passed the House and Senate with language in it that would take away the Departments ability to implement rules governing water protection in Michigan. If the bill is presented to me in this form I will and veto the legislation. The Departments ability to protect Michigans land and water cannot be compromised, period.



Our lakes and waters are our childrens playgrounds. They are our tourist attractions, our economic development tools and critical cogs in our manufacturing machine. Waves licking at sandy shores are the soundtrack of our summers. Gently bobbing lures are the harbingers of our springs.



We cannot talk about the lakes without talking about the beautiful beaches that cover over 3,228 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline. Every year over 23 million people visit our beaches. 



However, all too often people reach the beach only to be told that it is closed for the day or weekend due to pollution. One beach on Lake St. Clair was closed 37 times last year and 36 times in 2002 because of e.coli bacteria in the water. In a state that depends on tourism for our livelihood, we must be able to guarantee our visitors that the beaches they visit are clean, safe, and free from pollution and contaminants.



In order to address the problem of pollution in our lakes and streams, we must adequately fund programs such as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). In last years budget, I proposed a series of fees that would take the burden off the taxpayers and replace it with a fee for service. The bill the legislature passed raises adequate fees, but contains this poison pill on rules that would make it almost impossible for DEQ to protect Michigans water for drinking, swimming and fishing. I will not stand for a weakening of the ability of the state to protect Michigans water. 



Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me personally. As I strive for excellence in government, citizen input and interaction is vitally important to my administration. I hope you will stay connected as we continue to move Michigan forward, together.&#8194;&#8194;&#8194;&#8194;



Sincerely,

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

State pollution inspections could halt 

Republican legislators want to write the rules that Michigan uses to enforce water-pollution laws, saying the state agency that has been doing it is trampling on property owner rights.

But Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration says that's a power grab, and Granholm is pledging to veto any bill that might usurp the power of state environmental regulators. 

Caught in the middle is the Department of Environmental Quality and businesses and others trying to get permits to start projects.

"A power grab," Granholm called the Republican move. The DEQ makes the rules, she said, or the bill gets vetoed. 

http://www.freep.com/news/mich/wperm12_20040312.htm


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

See they reached a deal.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/politics/0403/26/d06d-103862.htm


----------

