Protection

Protection Legislative Priorities:

Renewable energy is a key issue in Michigan this year, with many organizations and agencies interested in the implementation of a Renewable Energy Standard (often called Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS) in Michigan. A RPS would require that a certain percentage of Michigan’s energy needs be met by renewable energy sources. That percentage would then gradually increase over time. Successful Michigan energy legislation should also support energy effi - ciency which experts say provides the cheapest means to meet new energy demand and is a promising source of new jobs.

Action: Develop and pass sensible Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency legislation.

Status: Three different bills with thee different standards have been introduced in both Michigan’s House and Senate. S. 213/ H.B. 4562 would require that 10% of Michigan’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. S. 219/ H.B. 4319 would require that 7% of Michigan’s energy come from renewable sources by 2015. S. 385/ H.B. 4539 would require that 20% of Michigan’s energy come from renewable sources by 2020. MUCC supports a 10% by 2015 goal as a realistic approach for Michigan.

Statewide Septic Code

Septic tank fields that are improperly sited, operated or maintained can cause public health problems and have ground water and surface water impacts. These impacts include being unable to properly remove excess nutrients like phosphorus, a nutrient that can accelerate the growth of algae and other plants that impair the suitability of water for municipal, recreational and fi shery use. Currently, Michigan’s septic tank fi elds are sited and regulated based on criteria formulated at the county-level. There is no state-wide consistency in terms of types of soils the fi elds can be located in, size of the fi elds, distance the fi elds must be from surface waters and their acceptable depth to groundwater. There is also no statewide consistency on operation and maintenance standards for these facilities. Michigan is currently the only state in the Midwest that does not have a statewide sanitary code.

Action: Pass a state-wide septic code standard to provide much-needed consistency on design and location of septic tank fi elds. Also critical to this effort is creation of a set of standards that could be applied state-wide detailing proper operation and maintenance of septic field systems and legislation requiring inspections of septic field systems when a building is being sold.

Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact

The proposed Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact would protect the Great Lakes from harm by implementing a strong and effective water management plan, including strong protections against water diversions out of the basin. Most importantly, the Compact would allow the Great Lakes states to maintain control over Great Lakes water in the face of growing demand for fresh water from across the nation and the world. After years of deliberation and negotiation, and extensive public comment periods, the Great Lakes Governors endorsed the final draft on December 13, 2005 in Milwaukee, WI. However, in order for the Compact to become binding, each state legislature must pass the document and have it signed as law.

Status: Three bills have been introduced in the state legislature by three different sponsors (S. 212, H.B. 4336, H.B. 4343) that would ratify the Compact in Michigan.

Action: Pass the legislation ratifying the Compact.

Protection Policy Priorities:

MUCC, following the discovery of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in 2002, has closely monitored the management of Michigan’s captive cervid producers (considered a potential pathway for CWD into Michigan). MUCC was an active participant in the Captive Cervid Work-Group which developed recommendations for the management and oversight of the captive cervid industry necessary to address the problems described in the MDNR Captive Cervid Audit (3/10/2005). The recommendations made by the work-group were developed into legislation sponsored by Representative Tom Casperson (R, Escanaba) and eventually were ratified into law and became part of Public Act 561 (2006). PA 561 (2006) clarified most of the shortcomings of the existing Act governing the regulation of captive cervids in Michigan and also raised the licensing fees to offset departmental expenses incurred in the management and oversight of the industry. However, the new fees do not cover the entire cost of management of the program and General Fund dollars will have to be appropriated in order to fund the program within the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources. MUCC has made it clear that the licensing fees must cover the complete and real cost of managing the industry in Michigan and it is unacceptable to rely on General Fund revenues to support captive cervids in Michigan (especially knowing that MDNR General Fund appropriations have fallen to a mere 9% in 2006) MUCC will continue to monitor the progress of the implementation of the new act and will report back to the board on issues or concerns as they present themselves.

Back to MUCC's Policy Main Page