Even while Michigan's environmental and conservation community was  doing a victory dance over the Gov. Snyder veto of HB 4326, none of  these organizations have addressed this worse threat to environmental  protection and conservation from SB 275.

Michigan's environmental and conservation community has been completely
blind-sided because no one as of yet has sufficiently articulated or  understood just how bad the damage is from SB 275.    SB 275 is like a  figurative 'IED' planted in Michigan's environmental permitting  functions by the Michigan Legislature.  

What kind of damage?   Both the DEQ/DNR administrative permit issuance
process is damaged and having that process damaged will inevitably
lead to damaged individual products of that process  -- the individual permits
issued to permit applicants.    Because of SB 275, Michigan environmental regulators....

--- will not be able to ensure that all pollution, impairment
and destruction of natural resource is identified and determined during permit reviews;

--- will not be able to ensure that all permits issued actually  comply with environmental resource permitting rules and that the  public's trust in
Michigan natural resources is protected.

What is the nature of this damage?   Gov Rick Snyder and Michigan Republicans
have generated nothing less than an attack on environmental democracy and
public decisionmaking.  

When permits are subject to public notice and comment, and permit  applicants submit information addressing issues raised by the public  after a determination of administrative completeness is made, such  applicant information cannot be the basis of permit denial under SB 275.   If such information is placed outside of the record for purposes of  permit issuance, it is difficult to see how the public could then appeal  any issued permit on the basis that such information was erroneous,   inadequate or insufficient.

SB 275 is also an attack on the ability of Michigan environmental regulators to ensure
that permit issuance decisions reflect decisions controlled and directed  by a professional process in which scientific integrity is paramount.  

SB 275 creates a permit system where applicants' permit application  submittal are effectively divided into two portions -- part 1 is the  portion that was submitted prior to a DEQ/DNR determination of  administratively complete application and part 2 is the material  submitted thereafter.   SB 275 creates an enforceable right of the  applicant to exclude part 2 information from the permit issuance  decision.   This means that all part 2 information submitted as a result  of detailed technical review by DEQ/DNR may be excluded from being the  basis of a permit issuance decision.   The practical effect here is that  the only thing in the permit application process that DNR/DEQ will be  able to enforce is essentially a checklist for administrative  completeness.   Information submitted by the applicant in response to  detailed, technical review by DEQ/DNR staff cannot be part of the final  permit issuance decision.   If the results of the regulator's detailed  technical review cannot make a difference through the permit process,  that is nothing less than an attack on the scientific integrity of the  entire process.

Under SB 275, the mere passage of 30 days time after a  permit application is submitted becomes an intrinsic default DEQ  determination that the permit application is 'administratively complete'  with no recourse at all for DEQ/DNR in the event of error, grossly  deficient applications, etc.   Under SB 275 a determination of  'administrative completeness' trumps everything else as far as permit  applicant submittals is concerned.

Questions, questions, questions.......on and about SB 275.....replies and opinions most welcome

Permit program scope of SB 275......

As near as I can tell the legislators probably thought they were  addressing all of the permits issued by MDEQ and MDNR under the  authority of the Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act  (NREPA).   However, at this writing, I have some question on whether SB  275 applies to all DEQ/DNR environmental/resource permits, or just to a  specific list of environmental permits found at MCL 324.1301(d) as the  definition of permit in the particular part of NREPA:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/...

This is not a list of all permits issued by MDEQ and MDNR, but many  major important permits are listed, such as for floodplains, iron ore  processing water use, solid waste disposal areas, oil and gas wells,  permit, incinerator ash monofills, wetlands, inland
lakes and streams, dam construction, Great Lakes bottomland, fish import  license, deep well disposal, sand dune mining and critical dune area  permits, endangered species.    [SB 275 did not modify the pre-existing  text of MCL 324.1301(d)....I'm curious
if anyone on the list knows what the criteria originally was when NREPA  passed for what permit programs were put in 324.1301(d) and why other  permits were excluded from that particular list.]

However, MCL 324.1301(d) does not list permits for new/modified air  pollution, Title V CAA operating permits, surface water discharge,  groundwater discharge, hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal  facilities.

I'd sure like to hear from some of the lawyers out there on opinions  of whether SB 275 actually affects all NREPA-issued permits or just the  environmental permits listed in MCL 324.1301(d).  

ALEC Involvement??

I'd like to know whether this legislation was originated by the  Koch-brothers-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), or  not.    The main sponsor of SB 275 was Rep. Top Casperson (R-Escanaba)  who has been identified as a member of this organization.

http://uawcap.youritproz.com/...

Conflicting interpretations??

Behold these provisions of SB 275:

"(3) Subject to subsection (4), after an application for a permit is  considered to be administratively complete under this section, the  department shall not request from the applicant any new or additional  information that is not specified in the list required under section  1303(2)(a) unless the request includes a detailed explanation of why the  information is needed. The applicant is not required to provide the  requested information as a condition for approval of the permit."

"(4) After an application for a permit is considered to be  administratively complete under this section, the department may request  the applicant to clarify, amplify, or correct the information required  for the application. The applicant shall provide the requested  information."

Can someone please tell me where the bright line is between, on one  hand, "...any new or additional information.." in subsection 3 and  information to ".....clarify, amplify, or correct the information  required for the application...." in subsection 4.   There isn't enough  here to tell whether the cited application elements of subsection 3 are  part of or exclusive of the information elements of subsection 4.     Is  it just me or are the provisions of subsection 3 and subsection 4  ambiguous and unclear as to how this language would actually play out?  

Subsection 3 seems to prohibit MDEQ/MDNR from enforcing a requirement  to submit such information by preventing the regulators from using the  failure to submit as part of permit denial action.   For the submitted  clarifications, amplifications and corrections submitted by the  Applicant, subsection 4 seems to say the applicant has a duty to provide  these.   However, does the phrase 'subject to section 4' in subsection 3  make subsection 4 to be a modification or an exception to subsection 3.    Notwithstanding the presence of ambiguity, SB 275 seems to confer the  benefit of any doubts to permit applicants and not to MDEQ/MDNR  resource permit-issuing stewards.