House passes law restricting state regulations

The Michigan House of Representatives on Thursday passed HB 4326, which amends a section of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 to prohibit the state of Michigan from adopting any environmental or workplace safety regulation that is stricter than required by federal law.

The legislation states:

Except for an emergency rule promulgated under Section 48, if the federal government has mandated Michigan to promulgate rules, an agency cannot promulgate or adopt a rule more stringent than the applicable federally mandated standard unless specifically authorized by Michigan statute.

Except for an emergency rule promulgated under Section 48, if the federal government has not mandated Michigan to promulgate rules, an agency cannot promulgate or adopt a rule more stringent than the applicable federally mandated standard unless specifically authorized by Michigan statute.

Mark Schauer, National Co-chair of the BlueGreen Alliance, was amongst a handful of organization leaders and Michigan workers who contested the bill’s passage on Tuesday outside of the capitol.

“House Bill 4326 and Senate Bill 272 are the most recent attacks that weaken our state. These proposals restrict state agencies like the Department of Environmental Quality and MIOSHA from adopting rules more stringent than applicable federal standards,” said Schauer during the press conference.

During his turn at the podium Schauer continually stressed what he believed to be Michigan’s two greatest assets — its people and its natural resources.

“These two bills fly in the face of our tradition here in Michigan of protecting those assets and giving the governor and the executive branch the ability to act quickly to safeguard them,” he said.

Schauer cited an example of what he believed to be an important action taken by former Michigan Governor William Milliken, who restricted phosphorus dumping from the Great Lakes and helped save Lake Erie in 1976. He said that if this bill becomes a law, no governor today would have such authority.

Cyndi Roper, Michigan Director of Clean Water Action, talked about the legislation in an interview with the Michigan Messenger.

Roper said that the entities that will benefit the most from this legislation will be corporations that will use the lack of “roadblocks” to pursue economic profits in Michigan without the well being of the state or its workers in mind.

“We believe if the governor wants to move quickly in putting protections in place, we shouldn’t have to deliberate throughout the legislative body. The governor is accountable to voters in the same way the legislature is but the governor can move more swiftly in taking measures,” said Roper. “The legislature can then exercise oversight, they can still come back and change what the governor has done if they feel it’s necessary. But at least we can move forward quickly if we need to do so.”

Jeff Farrington (R-Utica) is the bill’s sponsor and he continually criticized Schauer’s commitment and motivation behind his opposition to the new law during an interview with Messenger on Thursday.

“Basically, the way I look at it is he is an ex-congressman trying to keep his name relevant.” He later said, “His accusations are so off base, I don’t know if he didn’t read it, he’s so inaccurate it’s preposterous.”

Schauer served as a Michigan Representative from 1996 to 2002 and then as a Senator until 2008.

Farrington said the bill has nothing to do with protecting the environment or Michigan’s water. Adding that Schauer and the opposition were wrong about what the bill would do. “What it has to do with is the responsibility to vote on such issues being with the legislature instead of an official in the bureaucracy of the governor’s office.”

But Roper argues that if the legislation passed, the only people with the power to protect Michigan’s water would be the legislature or Washington. Both Roper and Schauer agreed that the idea of a “one size fits all” mentality in regards to protecting the environment was a dangerous notion. As one example, Roper noted that Michigan has much more stringent wetlands protections than surrounding states or the federal government, but that is because of the crucial role that wetlands play in maintaining the Great Lakes, the world’s largest freshwater ecosystem.

“Some of us would like us to limit our standards to Washington’s lowest common denominator,” Schauer said. “Keep in mind that weakened protections and weakened enforcement protect a status quo that will cause us here in Michigan to continue to fall behind.”