With the Michigan Legislature’s summer break almost over, and less than 100 days until the election, the focus of legislators on both sides of the aisle will shift to their hometown districts. The outcome of the November polls – where Democrats will strive to maintain their majority in the House and Senate, and Republicans will seek control of the House – will significantly shape the legislative landscape. In September, the legislature will hold several sessions to pass important bills and a possible supplemental budget – all of which will be influenced by the upcoming elections. Following the election is the so-called “lame-duck” session, which is an opportunity to pass legislation less unencumbered by electoral considerations.
As lawmakers gear up for the November lame-duck session, we at FLOW are keeping strategic focus on the following legislative efforts:
Polluter Pay Accountability
“Polluter Pay” is the common-sense idea that companies that contaminate our environment and water should be responsible for cleaning up their messes. Michigan had Polluter Pay laws on the books in the early 1990s, which were subsequently gutted by the business-coddling Republican Engler and Snyder administrations. Today, there are over 24,000 polluted sites in Michigan (11,000 of which are considered “orphan sites” without a responsible paying party), and 66,332 acres have land-use restrictions due to contamination.
A package of bills to bring back polluter accountability has been introduced in both the Senate and the House; however, none of the package bills have been scheduled for a hearing in either chamber. The House has referred House Bills (HBs) 5241-5247 to the Committee on Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation, while the Senate has referred Senate Bills (SBs) 605-611 to the Committee on Energy and Environment. Due to the complexity of this package, concerns have been raised about the likelihood of passage in the fall.
There is widespread support among voters who no longer wish to foot the bill for the contamination created by corporations, but it has faced significant opposition from DOW, automotive, utility, and chemical industries, all of which will be impacted by these bills if they are to pass in the lame-duck session. Despite the questionable future of this package, we remain optimistically hopeful that we can clean up Michigan’s industrial legacy, and to promote lasting water stewardship and land management.
FLOW’s report, “Making Polluters Pay: How to Fix State Law and Policy to Protect Groundwater and Michigan Taxpayers,” offers a comprehensive overview of the background and evolution of “Polluter Pay” laws in Michigan.
Statewide Septic Code
House Bills (HBs) 4479 and 4480, along with Senate Bills (SBs) 299 and 300, have been introduced in both the Senate and House. HBs 4479 and 4480 have been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism, and Outdoor Recreation. SBs 299 and 300 have been referred to the Committee on Energy and Environment. None of the bills have been scheduled for a hearing in either chamber.
The purpose of this legislation is to initiate regular inspections and necessary maintenance for all 1.3 million septic systems in the state of Michigan. Additionally, the proposed legislation would establish an inspection registry, an accreditation process for inspectors, and a technical advisory group to provide guidance on septic system maintenance. Michigan – which lies at the heart of the Great Lakes – is the only state in the country without statewide septic standards.
FLOW has been working with a coalition of groups, including SEMCOG, the Michigan Municipal League, local government organizations, and the environmental community to propose solutions that reconcile conflicting opinions on the bill, create a path for its implementation, and address the urgent threat posed by failing septic systems to our lakes, rivers, and groundwater.
Opposition to these bills comes mainly from local and regional Health Departments, which are concerned about insufficient resources and capacity to conduct inspections; and Realtors, who are worried about a time-of-sale inspection approach. To ensure the passage of these bills during the lame-duck session, it is crucial for every Democratic legislator to vote in favor, given the absence of support from Republican legislators.For more details, check out FLOW’s Policy Brief, “The Case for a Statewide Septic Code in Michigan.”
Stormwater Utilities
Senate Bill 660 was introduced in the fall of 2023 and subsequently referred to the Committee on Local Government. A hearing was held on June 4, 2024, but no vote was taken. This legislation would enable small and mid-sized communities in Michigan to legally establish stormwater utilities and secure a reliable funding source for this crucial infrastructure. The legislation, however, does not mandate any community to establish such stormwater utilities.
A stormwater utility is a mechanism through which localities provide stormwater management infrastructure, funded by fees paid by property owners. Fees are based on the amount of impervious surfaces, such as parking lots and driveways, rather than property taxes. This allows all properties, including tax-exempt properties, to contribute to the fund.
By granting legal authority and allocating funding mechanisms to utilities, communities can effectively enhance their ability to construct more resilient stormwater management systems. FLOW and many other environmental advocates, such as the MI Water Environment Association, Great Lakes Water Authority, and the Michigan Municipal League, supported this legislation during the hearing. Although this bill is less controversial and local governments could choose whether and how to run a stormwater utility, it still has tough opposition from groups such as various Chamber of Commerce and Realtor Associations. For more information, see FLOW’s policy brief, “Revolutionizing Stormwater Management through Stormwater Utilities and Green Infrastructure.”
Other items in the works:
Trichloroethylene (TCE) – A forthcoming bill set to be introduced this fall aims to prohibit the manufacturing, usage, and distribution of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the state of Michigan. This legislation is designed after a federal initiative seeking to outlaw TCE, a hazardous chemical known to cause cancer and have serious non-cancer health effects.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Plastics – Michigan currently has legislation on EPR for products including desktops, laptops, monitors, printers, tablets, and televisions.
EPR is an environmental policy that holds producers responsible for a product’s entire lifecycle, from design to end of life. EPR policies encourage producers to consider environmental factors when designing products and packaging, and to make them more sustainable and recyclable. As of June 2024, five states in the U.S. have adopted EPR legislation, and other states are contemplating joining this movement to address plastics pollution and recycling.
Lawmakers are now considering EPR legislation to assign financial responsibility to producers of product packaging. It is imperative for producers to actively engage and be part of the solution in addressing the plastic crisis. The primary objective will be to encourage manufacturers to adopt standardized packaging for improved recyclability, and to foster comprehensive improvements in the recycling industry.
MI Public Water Trust Fund – FLOW developed this model legislation, the Michigan Public Water Trust Act (PDF), to bring the colliding crises of water extraction, failing infrastructure, and water affordability under a comprehensive legal framework, and to recalibrate Michigan’s priorities on protecting its water and its people. Michigan and the seven other Great Lakes states should pass this model legislation drafted by FLOW in order to:
- Affirm public ownership over water,
- Protect sensitive water resources,
- Prohibit the sale of water, except for the sale of bottled water authorized by a royalty licensing system, and
- Recoup for public purposes royalties derived from these bottled water sales.
This model law places royalties into a public water, health and justice trust fund to serve people and communities for specific dedicated public purposes, such as replacing lead service lines or creating water affordability plans for disadvantaged people or cities and rural communities.
