News Briefs

November 2000    The expected date for the bill to come up to a vote is November 28.

November 2000   Rep. Mike Green continues to manage "his" bill.  As before, amendments are drafted after consultation with Geoff Seidlein, attorney for the Michigan Associaiton of County Drain Commissioners.  This process will result in a substitiute bill (S-2). MDCC does not have any indication it's amendments are being considered.
Whatever is passed by the Senate will likely be adopted by the House.

Summer-Fall 2000   Various groups have requested amendments, including MDCC.  Michigan Association of Counties, Chambers of Commerce, and Waste Haulers are new players at the table.

7/8/2000  The Senate Agriculture Committeee met, took some testimony, then adopted 110 amendments that were not previously published, passed the amended bill out of committee and on to the Senate floor.  AFTER the bill was out of committee, Senator McManus took additional testimony from citizens. MDCC testimony was cut short.  The Senator indicated that there would be an opportunity to introduce changes over the summer.

2/23/2000    The first sub-committee meeting on watershed management led off by comments from Don Stypula, legislative liason for Michigan Municipal League. MML sees the opportunity for cash-strapped cities to obtain uncontested assessments using procedures imbedded in Ch. 22 of the drain code. At the same time, MML recognizes there are problems with "no vote of the people--Headlee concerns" as well as procedural aspects spelled out in the make-up and administration of the watershed authorities the bill establishes. Other groups expressed concerns, and no other person testifying (except Pat Lindermann, Ingham County Drain Commissioner) whole-heartedly endorsed the language as written. Whether or not this will be stand-alone legislation or an amendment of the drain code is not clear. Furthermore, the "lead agency," the department through which others must funnel comments, has been changed (for Ch. 22 only) from Agriculture to Department of Natural Resources. The implication of that are also unclear. It is worth noting that Rep. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor) personally thanked Pat Lindermann, Janis Bobrin (Washtenaw Co. Drain Commissioner), and Steve Shine (Mich. Department of Agriculture) for spending time writing this "wonderful legislation." Rep. Brater teamed up with Rep. Green last fall to get HB4803 passed. Next meeting is March 1 at 4:00 pm, Room 308, New House Office Building, Ottawa Street (not Allegan as previously noted). Apparently Headlee concerns will be addressed at that time. For exact language you can download the text from www.michiganlegislature.org by typing in HB 5359 in the "Search by Bill Number" section.

2/23/2000   A sub-committee of the House Agriculture and Resources Management Committee will meet on Wednesdays at 4 pm in Room 308 of the New House Office Building on Allegan Street to discuss Chapter 22 of the Drain Code which was removed on the House Floor. Rep. Ehardt will chair the meetings on Feb. 23, Mar. 1 and Mar. 15. The reconsideration of this chapter is now labelled a separate bill, HB 5359, but is identical to "Watershed Management" as included in HB 4803.
12/3/99    Other matters occupied the House this week, so the bill didn't come up.  Rep. Green says he has the votes and plans to "run it" next Tuesday, Nov. 8th.  More than 30 organizations have announced their opposition.  The Detroit Free Press ran an editorial today calling for reform.  The Oakland Press has run two articles examining opposition to the proposed bill.  The Farm and Country Journal for December carried a biting analysis by farmer-activist Paul Beach. Readers of this webpage should immediately write a letter to the editor of their local paper, so those that missed the message in the bigger papers will see a local view of the matter.
 

11/30/99  The H-2 version was officially referred to the House floor at 8:06 pm this evening,  "with recommendation" for adoption and second reading.  This "second reading" is supposed to be followed by a "third reading" -AND BOTH COULD HAPPEN IN ONE DAY, PERHAPS TOMORROW DEC. 1st.  Of course, no one actually reads the bill--all 283 pages of it--on the floor.  Actually few legislators will read the bill in any way before voting on it.  They'll listen to who supports and which organizations oppose.  Your phone calls are having an effect.  The issue is dimly up on people's radar screens, but they haven't made up their minds.

So far we've circulated the following fliers with graphics to help make up their minds:
 

  1. "Just in time for Thanksgiving--a turkey of a bill" explaining that citizens get no appeal or knowledge of the scope of a project in time to have meaningful input.
  2. "Anatomy of a Tax turkey"--Taxes are now called special assessments
  3. "Written by Drain Commissioners--For Drain Commissioners"--a partial list of the wording that has been changed so that court cases in which citizens have had some rights will now be changed so they are unwinnable in court.
  4. "12 ways the revision is WORSE than current law" (there are more than 12 reasons, but their attention span is short).
Is the rush to pass this bill NOW because "supermajority" tax issues will be on the Nov. ballot?
The professional lobbyists hired by  the drain commissioners' association are saying "this bill is better than what we have."
What a weak recommendation! But since eveyone knows it is a long and complicated bill (no one remembers one this long), some legislators are willing to believe (without reading it of course) that it may be an improvement.

THEY NEED TO HEAR FROM CITIZENS WHO KNOW THE PROBLEMS THEY ARE HAVING NOW WILL NOT BE IMPROVED UNDER THIS SO-CALLED REVISION. We'll be up there all day Wednesday and Thursday urging them to "kill the turkey."  KEEP UP THE PHONE CALLS AND FAXES.
 
 
 

11/24/99  Memo from Perricone's office says drain code WILL be taken up by the House after Thanksgiving. (A news item in MIRS, a capitol news service, had said it might be postponed.) CALL IN YOUR OPPOSITION NOW!  FAX NOW!  Time is too short for writing.

11/24/99 An H-2 version available from Rep. Mike Green's office  517-373-0476.  There is confusion about which amendments passes in committee. MDCC distributes "Anatomy of a Tax Turkey: HB 4803 H-2" and "Just in Time for Thanksgiving: a Turkey of a Bill" to all representatives and major new outlets. Taxpayers United issues a press release calling the contested takeover of the Detroit Water Authority a diversion from the real issue of the major tax increase in the proposed drain code.
 

11/18/99  Michigan Environmental Council issued a press release today "Local Government, Environmental and Taxpayer Organizations Object to Drain Code Bill."  Julie Stoneman  is the contact person at 517-487-9539.  Michigan Townships Association, the County Road Association of Michigan, Taxpayers United, Michigan Drain Code Coalition, League of Women Voters of Michigan, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Clean Water Action, Michigan Land Use Institute, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council and Lone Tree Council are mentioned as some of those organizations opposing HB 4803 H-1.
 
 

 11/10/99  The House Ag Committee referred the revised bill to the house floor by a vote of 15-0-2 abstentions.  Reps. LaForge and Bogardus, both of whom were on the same committee last year, "passed."  The other 5 Democrats, new to the discussion, voted it out as did all the 10 Republicans.  The on and off again discussions about Chapter 3--the process by which some drain projects are initiated--ended up with a "new" process being advanced by Farm Bureau, in which a citizen Board of Determination determines if there is a need for some project, no need, or the initial petition describes something "practical," but which needs more study.  This last category is similar to what happens in Intercounty Drain petitions in current code.  Two or three additional hearings may be held, but it is the drain commissioner alone who decides if the project moves forward or is rejected.  In other types of improvement projects in the state of Michigan,  a larger number of petitioners introduces the project up- front, or an opposition petition may be introduced later.  In both cases, projects that seem too expensive, too destructive of private property, or too environmentally damaging may be held up and a consideration of alternatives initiated.  Regretfully, that is not what HB 4803 H-2 offers.  Furthermore, appeal remains severly limited.  Chapters 18, 20,  and 21 were introduced by the Department of Agriculture but not discussed at all by the committee.  They represent avenues for drain work that short-cut citizen input.  And the expanded Watershed Management chapter (Chapter 22) was described in a cursory fashion with a flow-chart.  There was no discussion of the implications of handling watersheds statewide under the drain code processes.

It is probably true that few, if any, of the committee members knew what they were voting on.  They knew that the administration wanted the bill out and they were going to deliver.  So what will Michigan get?--

        --A new layer of government: The Watershed
        --A tax shift to citizens who will have little say in the matter and certainly no "voice" as is expected in a democracy.
        --A new job definition for drain commissioners who are not now elected with watershed expertise.
        --A diminished role for MDEQ and MDNR in natural resources management.
        --A further erosion of the idea that those who cause pollution, pay to clean up the pollution.
        --A bill that will speed up sprawl, tax farmers off their lands, and spread costs of large urban projects over multiple counties.

MDCC opposes this bill.  We recommend you call your legislator now!
 
 

10/21/99  Four weeks of Ag Committee meetings have passed.  Close to 50 amendments have been voted on, some minor, but many substantive.  For example, at the last meeting Michigan Department of Transportation asked for and received approval for inclusion of a quantifiable definition of "benefits" that would determine their assessments with respect to road work.  However, the separate definition of "benefit" that will govern individual parcels has run into controversy.  Will landowners be assessed despite "negative benefits," a term that Rep. Sheltrown thinks may be an oxymoron?  The same legislator introduced an amendment that passed which will tax all state lands for the first time, despite the DNR spokesperson's statement that nothing is budgeted for drain assessments, often on lands that are meant to be kept undrained for their wildlife value.  This kind of clouded thinking continues to dominate discussions and votes.

In testimony, the drain commissioners opposed determining "actual" benefits; opposed making it mandatory that when land increases or decreases the need for drainage, that parcel should pay accordingly; and opposed a Day of Review for all drainage assessments.  The opposition to these common sense amendments appears to lie fundamentally with the MACDC's wish that nothing should diminish the 100% discretion of the 1-person taxing power of the drain commissioner.  In ordinary property taxes, a Day of Review is mandatory and citizens may continue an appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal if they feel the assessment is in error.  DRAINAGE LAW LACKS THIS FUNDAMENTAL CITIZEN RIGHT!  And, unbelievably, the committee dominated by Republicans--the party of tax fairness--weakened one amendment, voted a second down and postponed a third.

So, what is likely to happen to the vote on CHAPTER 3--the chapter dealing with public input and public right to appeal?  You decide.
Michigan Drain Code Coalition recommends you call or FAX a committee member now.  Click here for phone numbers:
Write Your Legislator.
 
 

10/4/99  Disappointingly the questions mentioned in 10/3/99's entry below didn't actually come up for discussion, only obliquely so.  Next Tuesday at 8:00 Chapter 2 and general introduction to Chapter 3.  Your phone calls may have influenced the chair's decision to ask for discussion on Chapter 3 outside committee and the suggestion that a substitute to the presently offered process for establishing new drains be drafted.

Today, committee members voted without much knowledge on a variety of amendments, some of which were on the table at the last minute and not in the hands of eveyone present.  Summary to follow.  Chapters 1 and 2 contain the basis for the out-of-control taxes related to drain work, said Taxpayers United president Bill McMaster after the meeting.  Wait til he sees how the public is locked out of the process in Chapter 3!
 
 

10/3/99  Next committee meeting will start at 8:30 on Tuesday the 5th in a larger room--Room 351 Capitol Building.  Hopefully the acoustics will be better there.  Chapters 1, 2, and 3 are up for discussion.  There is much that was not touched in Chapter 1 last time:  a definition of benefit--how are assessments arrived at?, definition of a drain--how is it that streams get turned into drains?, definitions of maintenance and improvement--can a citizen petition for maintenance and be sure that the project won't turn into a million dollar "improvement"?  definitions of easements--how can drain commissioners presume easements are in place when they aren't on file?

All these questions should be important to anyone who has contributed to preserving land in Michigan.
 

9/28/99  The first meeting of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Committee met at 9am.  Chairman, Rep. Mike Green, laid down the ground rules.  He will proceed to introduce chapter by chapter, ask committee members for questions or comments, request Dep't of Ag representative Mike Gregg to give an overview and then entertain amendments.  If, during discussion among committee members of an amendment, there is someone in the audience who can clarify a particular point, the chair will recognize that person for that specific purpose.

Thus, to have a particular subject discussed, an amendment must be offered by someone on the committee first.  The chair hopes this procedure will speed along consideration of the whole bill, and he indicated that moving quickly is a priority, though he won't rush through.

Chapter 1 (definitions) was introduced. Mike Gregg said that it was simply dry reading, but committee members Larry Julian, Rose Bogardus and Liz Brater had pertinent questions and amendments which engendered immediate discussion.  Four amendments passed by unanimous or near unanimous votes.  The impression this observer got was that committee members didn't really understand (and perhaps hadn't read) even the first chapter, so that oral arguments swayed the day.

Amendment #1  p.8, line 1.  A wrong bill was cited.  It should have cited the Soil and Sedimentation Act.  Passed 17-0.

Amendment #2 p.6, line 27. Introduced by Larry Julian.  Change maintenance definition from "do not increase the designed capacity of the drain" to "do not increase the established and previously constructed capacity of the drain."  (MDCC supports).   Discussion followed and Julian withdrew the amendment for rewriting.  The issue is new work on old drains; MACDC wants the ability to reslope banks and alter capacity for modern-day needs under Maintenance procedures which are not petitioned for, nor which have any review for costs and impacts before the work is begun.  Maintenance is limited to $5000 per mile, but the total number of miles in the whole system may be added up and multiplied by $5000 and that total amount applied to spot "maintenance."  Thus it is of importance what is considered "maintenance" and what is considered "improvement."  (It will also be important, if one or both procedures are subject to "Best Management Practices.")

Amendment #3 p. 10, line 3 Remove commas so that the phrase "avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts" refers to land in conservation easments not just easements held for conservation purposes.  (MDCC supports the concept)  Introduced by Liz Brater.  Passed 16-0.

Amendment #4 p. 9, line 22.  Brater introduced a blanket statement here at the beginning of the bill so that it is clear that the whole act is subject to NREPA and so that there won't be the impression that  a) the Drain Code is seeking to amend NREPA and  b) there won't be specific sections subject to NREPA while other sections are left in doubt.  This was DEQ's negotiated position with Dept. of Ag.    MDA is the lead agency on this bill, so the other departments have to speak through that agency.  Of course MDA agreed with the amendment, so it passed !6-1. (Sheltrown opposes any permit language.)

Amendment #5 p. 10, line 8. Brater asked to add "and detention" to the phrase "Make on-site retention of storm water a priority."  (MDCC prefers instead the MEC amendments which was NOT offered by Brater:  "Consider alternatives, such as on-site retention, as a first priority before drainage.")  Passed 16-0.

Isn't this committee process crazy?  You don't know what will be brought up and you don't have any any ability to comment on it as it is being considered!  The only thing citizens can do is call committee members to altert them of how important reform is and to tell them our stories.
Call 248-634-3513 for a list of best legislators to contact or use the Write Your Legislator section at the bottom of the main web page.
 
 

9/23/99  Chapters 1 and 2 of a substitute bill called HB 4803 H-1 were handed out today to the 17 members  of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Committee.  Chairman, Rep. Mike Green, said any amendments on those two chapters were due in his office by Monday the 27th.  It looks like a rush is on to get this passed.  The substitute is not yet available from the committee clerk, but the first chapter  on "Definitions" contains substantial language that needs to be changed and the second chapter on the duties of the drain commissioner or his/her deputies also contains provisions that are problematic.  We'll try to post  "policy wonk " information this weekend.
 

8/27/99  Drain code issues were discussed at Michigan Wetlands Action Coalition Summer Conference at the Ralph McMullan Conference Center at Higgins Lake State Park near Gaylord. Ms. Patty Cantrell of the Land Use Institute, Benzonia, Michigan, urged environmentalists to reform the drain  code and seek substantial reform in the new version that will come out of the House Agriculture Committee."There's no doubt about it," said Peggy Johnson, longtime environmental advocate attending the conference, "drains are major destroyers of wetlands."
 

7/28/99  There's trouble in Clinton County again.  Drain work near Fowler hit a sewer and the sewage lagoon was reportedly emptied into Peet Creek. In a couple of days, reporters should have the full story out.  A fish kill resulted but enquiries to the Drain Office avoided mention of it.  A short time ago, Genesee County had a similar problem and before that the small town of Fenton had a malfunction and gallons of sewage was sent into Lake Ponemah.  Numerous other "mishaps" have occurred since spring of this year.  The result is a lot of angry citizens who don't get full information--if any information--about gross contamination if drains are involved.  Furthermore, DEQ which would fine a private enterprise for a major spill, refuses to act if a drain is involved because--Why? Because the drain code says pollution in drains is the sole province of the drain commissioner.  There is no one to say that appropriate back-up systems should be in place.  No one to compensate for damages.  No one to mandate inspection and regular maintenance.  TIME TO REFORM THE DRAIN CODE!
 

7/16/99   A hearing on the new drain code bill, HB 4803, was held on July 8 at 2pm on the fourth floor of the Capitol in Room 426.  The purpose of the summer meeting of the  Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Committee was to take testimony and get reactions to the bill.  The committee meeting was open to the public.The major lobbying groups (Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners, Department of Ag, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Association of Counties, etc) spoke and offered written comments.  There was hardly any time for people who attended to speak out on their drain problems and the meeting ended at 5:00 with the citizens in attendance being asked to submit written comments.  There will be a process of rewriting that will occur over the summer, Chairman Rep. Mike Green said. Michigan Drain Code Coalition has asked to be part of any summer efforts to rewrite the bill, which so far hasn't taken the direction of true reform.  We don't expect that our request will be honored.  Watch for a summary of testimony offered which echoed our concern about lack of citizen input and raised numerous other thorny issues.  In general, there were few supporters for HB 4803.
 
 

6/29/99  The Michigan Supreme Court has refused to revisit the Kiesel decision described on 6/5/99 below.  That means that a small portion of the controversy is settled (for now) in favor of obtaining permits for new work on a natural stream.  However, HB 4803 contains language in the definition of "improvement" that seeks to win the right to work without securing a permit an an "extension," the point the MACDC was unable to win in court.  It is clear that it is MACDC policy to fight any oversight of any kind over the work of the drain commissioner who has the sole authority over the scope of a project, according to HB 4803 language.
 
 

6/24/99  The Detroit radio station WJR  featured an interview with Lon Ullmann, the citizen-activist trying to save the wetlands in the middle of Troy, Michigan, on Thursday June 24.  The developer is able to circumvent DNR permitting by the loophole that allows maintenance and improvement of an existing drain (which happens to be over 50 years old).  His scheme is to drain the wetland, enclose the drain and build houses.  Lon and his neighbors have experienced first-hand the absorptive power of that wetland.  While other parts of Troy were underwater last August in a heavy rainstorm, his neighborhood stayed flood-free.  The wetland is also home to a heron rookery.  A Detroit News article was followed by an on-line poll in which 86% of the people favored turning the site into parkland.
 
 

6/17/99
Rep. Mike Green, chair of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, introduced a new drain code bill today.  It is HB 4803 which  can be read on the internet site www.michiganlegislature.org  by going to the bill number and then clicking on the text version.  .  We hope that the problems of the existing code have been corrected in this new version.  Reportedly there will be two hearings on the bill over the summer.  Stay tuned for an analysis.  Incidentally, the same bill has been introduced in the Senate as SB 0666, by Senators Bullard, Gougeon and  McManus.  Reportedly, most of the work will be done in the House, however.
 
 

6/6/99
The importance of good drainage to farming is acknowledged by all.  However, expensive drain projects--especially drain projects that primarily benefit new housing or business development--are not in the interest of much of the farming community.  If you missed your opportunity to express your opinion on June 29 during the Ag Expo at Michigan State University,  when Sen. George McManus held a hearing on what factors will keep Michigan farmers in business well into the next century, The Michigan Senate Agriculture Preservation Task Force will take written testimony. Call Sen. McManus's office at 517-373-1725 for more information.
 
 

6/5/99
The Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners (MACDC) has filed with the Michigan Supreme Court a request that the Kiesel decision be revisited.  The Kiesel decision overturned a decision in Huron county that said, in essence, that drain commissioners did not need to apply for a permit from the DNR or DEQ when extending a drain along a natural stream.  The Kiesel decision, regarding work in Midland County, said permits are necessary and the Supreme Court let that decision stand.  But now the drain commissioners are claiming that this will lead to chaos, with any old citizen or environmental group trying to protect natural streams and preventing needed drain work from being done.  The Attorney General's office has responded saying that Kiesel correctly interprets NREPA, Michigan's Natural Resources Environmental Protection Act.  THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT THAT HAS LED TO CURRENT DRAIN CODE REVISION.  The drain commissioners' association, backed up by the Michigan Department of Agriculture, is seeking to settle the issue in court.

Michigan Drain Code Coalition has never sought to stop all drain work.  If  fact, working last session with Rep. Karen Willard, we proposed to increase drain maintenance. Regular, low-cost drain maintenance should help avoid expensive cleanouts.  However, expansions of drains and literal enlargements of drains need to be scrutinized to see if they are cost-effective, environmentally sound and good public policy.  Without permits from DEQ or DNR, there is no one to look over the shoulders of drain commissioners as they "improve" drainage systems at public expense.  The Kiesel  case may not apply to all drains, but it is a good start in the right direction.  The Supreme Court should refuse to hear the case and let this small amount of environmental protection stand.
 
 

5/5/99
Channel 4 in Detroit did a two-part series on the Franklin Drain problems.  Too much water cascades into an open "drain" eroding the banks closer and closer to houses.  The solution proposed by the drain commission is to enclose the drain and send the water further downstream.  WDIV pointed out in its editorial that this doesn't make a lot of sense; communities downstream will be flooded. Since the water is polluted, as shown by the high e-coli counts, it's more than nonsensical, it's irresponsible.  They recommended the common sense solution that Michigan Drain Code Coalition endorses:  add less water upstream by retaining water on the land and allowing it to percolate into the ground, and preventing water pollution upstream.  As long as the Drain Code favors engineering solutions rather than watershed solutions, similar problems will continue to grow in urban and suburban areas. Rural areas will not be exempt from "bigger and better" drainage schemes either.
 

5/2/99
SB 397 was introduced two months ago (3/2/99) and referred to the Senate Committee on Farming, Agribusiness and Food Systems, chaired by Sen. McManus, who incidentally is the sponsor along with 9 other senators.  The bill can be accessed at the legislature's web page <www.michiganlegislature.org> by selecting the search for a senate bill and entering the bill number.  The relevant passages are "the following uses are allowed in a wetland without a permit...ACTIVITIES REASONABLY NECESSARY TO COMMENCE AND CONTINUE FARMING OR TO BRING LAND INTO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION...."
New or substituted language is always written in capital letters so you can see what is different.  This bill is significant because it feeds into the agriculture vs the environment propaganda, when in fact, DNR permits, if applied for,  are likely to be issued for cranberry farming, which was the original reason this bill came to be written.  The Michigan Drain Code Coalition has many supporters in the farming community that would like to see reasonable assessment of drainage work before it is done.  The current drain code asks for no cost analysis, no benefit analysis, no environmental analysis, and no public benefit analysis on any drain issue, even the relatively simple ones such as "should a wetland be drained, dredged and refilled to create a cranberry farm?".  No action has been taken on the bill in committee to date.

4/30/99
U.S. EPA is curently conducting a  review of the wetlands program operated by the MDEQ.  You can express your opinion of how the Drain Code impacts wetlands by writing to : Ms. Susan Elston, Region V EPA, 77 West Jackson, Chicago IL 60604.  Since drain maintenance and improvement does not currently require MDEQ permitting, it's vital that citizens express their concern with this lack of environmental oversight that leads to draining wetlands.
 

Back to MDCC Homepage