Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wetlands reform bill draws opposition from environmental groups, mitigation‑banking firms
Summary
Sponsoring lawmakers told the Rules Committee the wetlands package would streamline permitting by aligning some definitions with federal standards and allowing off‑site mitigation; environmental groups and mitigation‑banking firms warned it could remove protections for as much as 1,000,000 acres, increase flood risk and destabilize private mitigation investment.
Representative Alexander presented a package of bills intended to streamline wetland permitting and mitigation, saying the measures provide "clear, flexible pathways for meeting mitigation requirements" including prioritizing mitigation bank credits, allowing phased mitigation schedules and temporary mitigation credits, and permitting off‑site mitigation and relocation where appropriate. He said the substitute incorporates provisions to reduce rigid, one‑size‑fits‑all mandates and to focus financial assurance requirements on higher‑risk projects.
Environmental groups disagreed. Emily Smith of the Michigan Environmental Council told the committee that HB 55‑36 would tie Michigan law directly to the federal "waters of the United States" standard and "import decades of legal uncertainty," potentially removing protections for nearly 1,000,000 acres of Michigan wetlands. Smith said Michigan's longstanding, science‑based wetland protections have provided predictability and that shifting to the federal standard would undermine hydrological science and flood mitigation. "Nearly 1,000,000 acres of wetlands in Michigan lack a surface connection, but are hydrologically linked," she said, arguing the bill would remove protections for those areas.
Jennifer McKay of Nicewater (Niswander) Environmental, which operates mitigation banks, told the committee the bills as written would introduce regulatory and economic instability into a system based on long‑term private investment, noting incomplete fiscal analyses, implementation burdens and risks to mitigation‑bank credit markets. She urged additional stakeholder collaboration and said workable alternatives exist to improve efficiency without destabilizing long‑term restoration investments.
Sponsors and opponents also debated the administrative impacts of tying Michigan law to shifting federal definitions and cited court decisions (including the Sackett case) and recent flooding events as context.
No final committee vote on passage was recorded during this hearing; environmental groups asked the committee to withhold floor consideration pending further stakeholder work.
