Environmental enforcement to get hit again in new state cuts

A wetland near the Ogemaw County village of Prescott. (Creative Commons photo by hz536n via Flickr)

Although some areas of the 2010 state budget remain under negotiation, both chambers of the Legislature have approved a 39 percent cut in general fund support for the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, a move that will scale back environmental enforcement in the Great Lake State.

“The impact is going to be fewer resources to do compliance inspections and less following up on complaints in a number of programs,” said DEQ spokesman Bob McCann. “And there is no money for cleanup at thousands of sites known to be imminent and substantial dangers.”

Squeezed by funding cuts, the DEQ’s wetland program has already cut back on on-site reviews of permit requests, moving to “desk based” review for proposed projects. As part of her budget proposal, Gov. Jennifer Granholm proposed eliminating the state wetland program and giving responsibility for administering wetland permits back to the federal government. After lengthy and intensive negotiations, this highly controversial proposal was defeated during budget negotiations and the state retains authority for wetland permitting, but the program’s standards have been lowered to match minimum federal requirements.

Although the wetland program got the most attention during the budget fight, the across-the-board cut to the agency puts all types of natural resources at risk, environmental groups say.

“Air permit reviews are already inadequate,“ said James Clift, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. “Right now DEQ is only doing a full compliance inspection on about a third of facilities before they give a license to pollute. Cuts will make this even worse.”

MEC wants the state to do more to find funds for environmental programs.

A full review of the state’s tax breaks might turn up some programs where Michigan could recover revenue, Clift said.

One example: Michigan offers sales and property tax credits for those who install pollution control equipment that is required under federal law, Clift said, ending this tax credit program could generate $200 million.

Changing the state’s income tax structure is another possible approach, he said. Thirty-seven states have a graduated income tax so that people who earn more money pay more taxes.

“You could mimic middle-of-the-road Kansas, and it would create significant new revenue that could be used to support these programs.”

“If the Legislature does not have the will to address it,” he said, “we think it should go before the people.”

To the extent that the state budget is a reflection of the state’s values, what this budget says is that Michigan is no longer valuing clean air, clean water, the Great Lakes and public health said Noah Hall, executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.

If the cuts go so deep that the federal government decides that Michigan is unwilling or unable to ensure compliance with environmental laws, the US. Environmental Protection Agency could consider revoking that state’s authority to administer environmental programs, Hall said. It’s also possible that environmental groups — which just fought to maintain state control over wetland permitting — could decide that Michigan’s natural resources are safer under federal control and petition EPA to take over the state’s environmental programs.

“The federal government obviously has more resources that the state of Michigan and is maybe less sensitive to political pressure,“ Hall said. “The downside is they don’t know the state and might be less concerned with unique natural resources.”

In what Hall calls “the cruelest irony” of Michigan’s environmental budget, by cutting state funds for environmental programs Michigan may miss out on new federal environmental money — $450 million is expected to come with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

“If the state doesn’t have resources to establish programs to use federal funds or provide matching funds, Michigan is going to watch those funds go elsewhere,” Hall said. “The federal government doesn’t want to give money if the state hasn’t shown it will value the program.”

Michigan may be become a test case of what happens when budgetary crisis guts a state’s ability to protect the environment and public health, Hall predicts. “I have a feeling national groups will get involved, and permitting will become less certain and more expensive.”

CORRECTION: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that the adoption of federal wetland standards would result in 900,000 acres of Michigan wetlands losing state protection. This story has been changed to reflect that DEQ has informed Michigan Messenger that the state does not anticipate a change in jurisdiction as a result of the new legislation.