GOP lawmaker introduces bill to save state wetlands program

A wetland area near Paradise in autumn. (Creative Commons photo by Shades of Gray via Flickr)

Republican State Sen. Patty Birkholz of Saugatuck Township says that she is “cautiously optimistic” that a bill she plans to introduce on Thursday will keep the state’s wetland program running for a few more years.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has called for the elimination of the program as a cost-savings measure, appropriations committees in the legislature have zeroed its budget and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has prepared layoff notices for staff that work in wetland permitting.

In recent months environmental regulation and the DEQ’s wetland permitting program in particular has become a kind of scapegoat for the state’s economic woes with politicians and some industry groups arguing that the state’s wetland protection system hurts business.

Environmental groups have warned that over 900,000 acres of the state’s wetlands serve critical ecological functions yet would have no protection if the state’s program is turned over the federal government which has a more narrow definition of what constitutes a wetland.

The Michigan Homebuilders Association has expressed concern that builders could be hurt if the program is transferred to the federal government because of longer time to process permits.

In an effort to bridge these concerns and identify a strategy to fund and maintain the program — which requires just $2 million to keep operating — Birkholz, who chairs the Senate Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs Committee, brought together Department of Environmental Quality, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Farm Bureau, and the Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council for intensive twice weekly discussions over the last few months.

Birkholz said she believes the end result is legislation that will keep wetland regulation in-state, where it can be done most efficiently.

But some conservationists may balk at the compromises evident in the measure.

Birkholtz said her bill will adopt the federal definition for what constitutes a wetland, as well as federal standards for beach grooming and mowing. It would also revamp the permitting categories so that some actions would no longer require permit review. An advisory group would also be created to review the program and offer feedback to the Legislature.

Brikholz said the program would be funded with money from the Clean Water Fund, which cannot be transferred into the general fund.

Birkholz said that advocates of scrapping the wetlands program have in some cases overestimated the benefits of the anticipated regulatory relief associated with such a move.

“Those that are clamoring to send it back to the federal government should know that the state retains permit obligation over submerged lands,” she said. “Frequently if you need a wetlands permit you also need an inland lakes and streams or floodplain permit. If your land falls in any of those, you will still need a permit.”

Michigan’s wetland program was created by the 1979 Wetlands Protection Act.

In order to end program, lawmakers would have to repeal that law.

Birkholz said that legislation to do this has been introduced in her committee but that she’s not taken it up because repealing the whole act would include eliminating “several water quality rules that are important to a lot of us.”

“We believe there are benefits for resource protection and program efficiency to keep it in Michigan,” said Jennifer McKay, policy specialist at the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, who expressed hope that the Birkholz legislation will provide at least a temporary way to preserve state wetland regulation.

Doug Roberts, director of environmental and energy policy for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said his group favors moves to streamline the permit process and to have the state issue more general permits but he said he has doubts about whether the Birkholz bill would be successful.

“They want to have all of this done by the end of September,” he said, “I think there is a lot of work that has to be done to have success. If we were in March and the bill had been introduced the chances would be a lot better. When you have a proposal that people have not have a chance to look at it is going to be quite challenging.”