Michigan’s DEQ needs reform. Oversight boards are a common sense solution.

Richard K. Studley is president & CEO of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Carl Bednarski is President of the Michigan Farm Bureau.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Michigan Farm Bureau represent thousands of businesses and their families across the state. And like many other citizens who call our pleasant peninsula home, we believe in government transparency and accountability — especially when it comes to being stewards of our state’s natural resources.

That is why our respective memberships are supporting Senate Bills 652-654 and urging the Michigan House and Senate to act promptly to approve the bills. The legislation is designed to increase transparency and accountability at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for all stakeholders. The current processes are broken and do not, in any meaningful way, include stakeholders. Employers are, without question, a critical stakeholder, but so is the public and many other interests that are represented in these bills.

Related: Senator wants to defang the ‘radical’ Michigan DEQ. He just may do so.

The simplest bill in the package, SB 654, re-establishes the environmental science review board. The body is designed to provide the governor with a science advisory team to help with emerging environmental issues that affect public health and the environment.

This body provides the governor an opportunity to gather a second science-based opinion to the DEQ to ensure Michigan is doing everything necessary to protect our citizens from environmental threats. This runs directly counter to opponent’s accusations that the proposal is an attempt by the business community to control DEQ decisions. We are, in fact, doing just the opposite by empowering the governor to convene an independent science team to advise him.

SB 652 establishes an 11-member stakeholder committee with the power to review all proposed environmental rules and amend them if necessary. This ensures that residents and critical stakeholders are represented in the rulemaking process and that they have the ability to get questions answered by the DEQ, which current law does not require in a meaningful way.

The accusation made by opposing groups that industry gets to write the rules and control the process is simply not true. The committee is simply one step in the decision-making tree in the rulemaking process.

Just as it is today, the governor is the only one that can initiate a rule and approve it. It’s important to note that the governor appoints these individuals, so it is unlikely the committee will represent interests counter to the governor’s. If the committee fails to implement a rule the governor wants, they still have multiple options to resolve the issue. First, they can issue an emergency rule. Second, they can ask the Legislature to pass a law to address the issue. And finally, the governor can use his constitutional reorganization authority to eliminate the committee and stop a rule.

Recognizing the governor has ways around the committee serves as a huge motivator for committee members to find an agreeable conclusion.

This committee is designed with the intent to eliminate the extremes of both parties by focusing on the stakeholders that are truly affected by environmental rulemaking and empowering them to find a consensus solution, which includes more than just business interests.

Groups in opposition to the legislation are fearful because it reduces their influence by requiring a public discussion by well-educated individuals who can easily refute any baseless political rhetoric. The public will have a stronger voice under this new law because they will have a right to ask questions and get them answered in a far more transparent and open process then we have today.

SB 653 creates a permit appeal board with members selected by the DEQ director. The body has the power to make final permit decisions in the event a permit applicant chooses to appeal a decision made by the director. The purpose of the appeal board is simple: if the agency makes a bad decision, applicants have the ability to have scientists selected by the director to hear their case and make a decision. This does not preclude intervention in court by any party if they do not like the decision.

SBs 652-654 are good-faith attempts at reforming DEQ processes that have been broken for some time. This legislation injects more science and transparency into DEQ decision making. It empowers all stakeholders to have a voice in the rulemaking process and provide individuals and small business the ability to appeal permit decisions without bankrupting themselves. Most importantly, the legislation provides future governors with the ability to have a second science-based opinion on emerging issues concerning public health and the environment.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan.

Comment Form

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Comments

James Wright
Wed, 02/14/2018 - 10:23am

I wonder what private interests said about the dangers of earthquakes in Oklahoma, or the risk of cancer from cigarettes? G.M. and Ford were more than forthcoming when their products cost lives and their research knew it. There is inherent conflict between public good and private interest, and private interest almost always wins out (see exploratory drilling in the Porcupine Mountains). The staff of the DEQ needs to be enlarged and its regulatory power increased. Elected government is the trustee of citizens and future citizens. There is nothing common sense about increasing the influence of private interest. The fact Senator Casperson's legislation is before the House is all the evidence one needs of its power.

mary therese lemanek
Wed, 02/14/2018 - 11:58am

everyone needs a place at the table.

Tony Infante
Wed, 02/14/2018 - 11:58am

The claims made here by Mr. Studley and Mr. Bednarski that both MDEQ and the "environmental rule making" process in Michigan are compromised by groups that use "baseless political rhetoric" are far more baseless and less scientific then either could ever prove. Because they lack either the courage or facts to name those they accuse it might seem they are referring to public interest groups like Michigan Environmental Council, FLOW, National Wildlife Federation and many others -and these groups frequently bring robust and qualified information based on highly credentialed scientists from many disciplines into the rule making arena. It's worth noting that neither Mr. Studley or Mr. Bednarski are scientists.

Additionally each man has an established and documented bias for corporations with awful track records for misleading Michigan citizens about vital environmental rule making processes. Mr. Studley has advocated on behalf of the Canadian Corporation, Enbridge that has obstructed the public's right to critical scientific facts surrounding the continued operation of Line 5 that threatens both Michigan's tourism economy and the Great Lakes. Mr. Bednarski has played a similar role of advocacy on behalf of Nestle -a company that in 2016 made a multi-million dollar investment aimed to double the amount of water they turn into hundreds of millions of dollars after paying the state of Michigan the whopping fee of $200 per year. Nestle made that investment without a permit or a public hearing -let alone any scientific fact finding.

John Q. Public
Wed, 02/14/2018 - 6:56pm

"This body provides the governor an opportunity to gather a second science-based opinion to the DEQ to ensure Michigan is doing everything necessary to protect our citizens from environmental threats. This runs directly counter to opponent’s accusations that the proposal is an attempt by the business community to control DEQ decisions. We are, in fact, doing just the opposite by empowering the governor to convene an independent science team to advise him."

Precious. Absolutely precious. After your members make all their campaign contributions, they'll stand by, idly and ideologically neutral, lest they put undue influence on the governor to appoint "scientists" committed to representing their interests in monetizing whatever ideas they have, the rest of us be damned.

While it was nice of the CFM to provide them a venue to make their case, I think they should send this article to the Detroit News. Based on their comments, Bridge readers seem generally way too intelligent to fall for this...malarkey.

Anonymous
Fri, 02/16/2018 - 8:29pm

This michmash of smoke and mirrors is typical of big business trying to dictate how they are held accountable to the public and how they influence through Lansing's lawmakers to get their way.

Michigan's citizenry needs less business in politics because predictably business's first priority isn't protection of the states residents rights or health.

Lastly, citizen concern in this case as in many brought forward by the current state congress led by Republicans (the nerd's minions) evidence the residents need to be scared. Republicans who show no concern for the health of the state and it's residents have had too much power for much too long a period.

You see whats happening in Washington where there currently is an imbalance of power now causing loss of American citizen rights because there is no give and take across the isle.

If the current state and national crisis's doesn't alarm you enough to get out and vote for a responsible elected official who will represent your best interests at heart and not big business - then you deserve what you will get - more of the same selfish anti-family health and loss of rights.