Opinion: Fox meet henhouse ‒ what happens if industry runs Michigan DEQ

Feb. 2019: Michigan Republicans kill Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s environmental overhaul plan
Feb. 2019: Few love MDEQ. But are oversight panels worth Whitmer-GOP showdown?

May 2018: Michigan House approves bills letting industry vote on environmental rules

On Valentine’s Day, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Michigan Farm Bureau wrote a love letter to two bills currently in the state legislature that would create two oversight boards for the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Chris Kolb is president and CEO of the Michigan Environmental Council and is a former member of the Michigan House of Representatives.

In reality, it was a love letter to themselves. These bills, SB 652 and 653, don’t fix problems, they create them. In short, they put the fox in charge of the hen house, as industry would have final say on any administrative rule or permit that comes out of the DEQ.

Related: Michigan’s DEQ needs reform. Oversight boards are a common sense solution.
Related: Senator wants to defang the ‘radical’ Michigan DEQ. He just may do so

Despite claims by bill proponents that the rulemaking process doesn’t work well and is cloaked in secrecy, the opposite is what happens in reality.  Stakeholders are brought to the table and sometimes work for years refining a draft rule that is then required to go through a lengthy public comment period.

Michigan Environmental Council has sat on many workgroups over the years, and has been joined by Michigan businesses, industry and agricultural proponents who have worked together to create a final product.

Senate Bill 652 seeks to change how rules are adopted by giving an industry-controlled board the authority to kill a rule package at the end of those years of hard work. Current law gives that authority to the department director who is directly accountable to the elected Governor, instead of an unelected panel of special interests.

Senate Bill 653 is no better in giving a similar panel final decision-making authority on permits that can change anything in a permit that a permit applicant, and only an applicant, wishes. There is no corresponding provision for a member of the general public that thinks a permit is too lax; the bill gives a permit applicant the sole discretion to apply. Instead of a system to protect public health, it sets up a system to protect those companies asking permission to pollute Michigan’s environment.

Additionally, this board creates the open question of what happens when the board makes a change to a permit condition that the DEQ director believes is contrary to state or federal law? As a constitutional officer, the DEQ director must uphold state and federal law and could not allow the department to enforce a permit that is contrary to it. It seems the state would have to sue itself to challenge the permit (that it has just issued) creating more uncertainty and wasteful government spending.

As icing on their cake, the industry representatives can only be removed “for cause,” as opposed to the department director who can be dismissed at any time by the governor. And these industry representatives do not even have to be Michigan residents. Instead, the proponents of the bills are okay with someone from Canada representing Enbridge having a vote on how Michigan should clean up oil spills, or someone from Nebraska casting a deciding vote on whether an iconic dune area should be subject to mining.

Those special interests have no personal stake in the Great Lakes and don’t recognize their importance to our economy, our communities and our families.  

We agree with Mr. Studley and Mr. Bednarski that the DEQ is not perfect; chronic underfunding has made fulfilling its mission a challenge. Following the Flint water crisis, with PFAS contamination threatening aquifers and Lake Erie choking in algae, we need to think about how DEQ performs its mission to protect our environment.  

SB 652 and 653 do nothing to address what happens when the health of Michiganders is put at risk. Ultimately, SB 652 and SB 653 will hinder the DEQ in protecting the people and environment of our great state and should be voted down by our elected leaders.

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. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission.

If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, please contact Ron FrenchClick here for details and submission guidelines.

Facts matter. Trust matters. Journalism matters.

If you learned something from the story you're reading please consider supporting our work. Your donation allows us to keep our Michigan-focused reporting and analysis free and accessible to all. All donations are voluntary, but for as little as $1 you can become a member of Bridge Club and support freedom of the press in Michigan during a crucial election year.

Pay with VISA Pay with MasterCard Pay with American Express Donate now

Comment Form

Add new comment

Dear Reader: We value your thoughts and criticism on the articles, but insist on civility. Criticizing comments or ideas is welcome, but Bridge won’t tolerate comments that are false or defamatory or that demean, personally attack, spread hate or harmful stereotypes. Violating these standards could result in a ban.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.


Thu, 02/22/2018 - 10:57am

It is discouraging that , despite the data to prove the value of regulations which protect our health and our environment, our tendency toward the politics of greed and short sightedness have led to this sort of ill advised policy. It is a trend that we have seen played out in the most despicable way at the federal level. Hopefully we will wake up before we spoil our beautiful environment beyond repair.

Fri, 02/23/2018 - 9:23am

Thank you for speaking out about this, Chris. This type of regulation would obviously be detrimental to our environment. We cannot allow this to happen to our beautiful state!

Elaine Baker
Tue, 04/17/2018 - 10:42am

I can not understand how this gigantic conflict of interest can be legal. Can an illegal bill be passed in the MI House and Senate? MDEQ has already suffered huge staff and budget cuts, and the slashing of protections. Think about the aging corroding Enbridge Pipeline under the straits! And many Michigan residents are left with rivers polluted with untreated waste / manure run off from unregulated industrial livestock factories which run all the way into the great lakes to produce algae blooms. When does this greed stop?

Don S
Mon, 05/07/2018 - 3:22pm

So now that we've read this econazi opinion/propaganda, is it possible to get a factual interpretation of these bills.

Unfortunately, this publication is just another purveyor of leftist doctrine, masquerading as bi-partisan.

I'm completely opposed to crony capitalism BTW. But I'm not accepting leftist propaganda as a factual analysis because it's published in a bi-partisan media outlet.

Marilyn Painter
Wed, 04/03/2019 - 2:25pm

What is wrong with these people the legislature?! Don't they love this state the way the rest of us do? Industry should absolutely NOT have oversight of the DEQ!!