Senate panel takes testimony on renewed policies seeking accountability from Michigan polluters
Lawmakers from the state House and Senate called for an update to Michigan's laws on environmental contamination on Wednesday, arguing the current system does not offer enough protections for individuals impacted by pollution.
Testifying before the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, Sens. Jeff Irwin (D-Ann Arbor), Sue Shink (D-Northfield Township), and Stephanie Chang (D-Detroit), as well as Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor), underscored how the state's current regulations have impacted Michigan residents, arguing that they focus too heavily on limiting exposure rather than cleaning up pollution, leaving Michiganders to bear the costs.
Last week, members of the House and Senate announced they would be reintroducing 'polluter pay' legislation in each chamber, with House Democrats introducing H.B. 4636–4640 and Senate Democrats introducing S.B. 385–387 and S.B. 391–393.
'Some people are calling for a restoration of a model that requires strict liability and full residential cleanups on every site. In fact, I proposed legislation like that in the past. But that's not what is being proposed today,' Irwin said. 'What is being proposed today is a modest change that preserves the current risk-based system, but that makes modest changes to improve protections for our water, improve protections for our land and improve protections for our health.'
As a whole, the package aims to implement stricter pollution reporting and cleanup requirements, extend the statute of limitations for citizens bringing claims against polluters and allow residents impacted by pollution to sue companies for the cost of medical monitoring, Irwin explained.
With more than 25,000 polluted sites across the state and 4,603 sites with land or resource controls, Irwin questioned how many aquifers the state is willing to give up to pollution.
He also warned the panel that industry lobbyists would testify against these additional measures, arguing they would harm investment in Michigan business.
'Not only do I think that's not true, but we developed these bills in consultation with industry stakeholders,' Irwin said, noting that the sponsors had held workgroup meetings on the policies introduced during the previous Legislative session. The end result was more modest, but would still provide real benefits to the public, Irwin said.
Andrea Pierce, policy director for the Michigan Environmental Justice Coalition and founder of the Anishinaabek Caucus said these laws are the beginning step in addressing environmental contamination in Michigan, not the end.
Should these bills become law, Michigan would return to the pollution accountability standard it had before the state's polluter pay law was restructured in 1995, Pierce said.
'We need to go back to stronger laws that protect the people and communities of Michigan. Michigan needs a comprehensive legal framework for strengthening accountability and real recourse from those who pollute in our communities,' Pierce said, emphasizing that Michigan's most marginalized communities were also the ones most affected by pollution.
Mike Witkowksi, director of environmental and regulatory policy for the Michigan Manufacturers Association argued shifting the system to require more from businesses would hinder the state's brownfield redevelopment efforts.
'These are not technical fixes or minor clarifications. These are fundamental changes that would undermine one of Michigan's most effective tools for addressing environmental contamination and supporting economic growth,' Witkowksi said, criticizing the additional requirements and arguing the package would increase clean up costs and liabilities for businesses.
During his testimony earlier in the hearing, Irwin predicted industry stakeholders would argue that the legislation would hamper redevelopment by requiring polluted sites to be restored to pristine condition.
'That's not what this bill does,' Irwin said, arguing that pollution already hampers redevelopment efforts.
With the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy lacking both the funding and the personnel to address the thousands of contaminated sites throughout the state, Witkowski said private-sector investors and developers are essential to cleaning up contamination throughout the state. Should these bills take effect, those sites would sit idle and remain polluted, he argued.
Shink countered, noting that she'd served on Washtenaw County's brownfield redevelopment board during her time as a county commissioner.
'I can assure you that it isn't just private funds that's cleaning up these brownfield sites. There's a lot of public funds. That means the taxpayers, after the company has made its profit and maybe taken that profit out of state, the community is paying to clean that up,' Shink said, noting that the state is paying to clean up the former Federal Screw Works site in Washtenaw County.
Alongside testimony from several environmental advocacy groups, the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy also offered its support for the package with Aaron Keatley, the department's chief deputy director, noting that the bills aligned with their priorities for environmental legislation.
Those priorities include transparency, ensuring predictable processes, securing assurances that companies will manage any releases of contaminants until the contamination is cleaned up, ensuring sites are redeveloped and streamlining the department's cleanup criteria so that the standards match the science, Keatley said.
'It is unfortunate that I look at you and I say I cannot tell you how many sites right now are managed by responsible parties, because they're not obligated to inform me of their day to day activities to keep that property safe,' Keatley said.
The committee did not take votes on the legislation.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
21 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats bow to nuclear-energy reality — but the left won't give up their delusions
The Biden-era climate-activist class may be the last to accept that there's no clean energy future without nuclear power. At least some politicians — even in the bluest corridors — are conceding. Reliably progressive New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has instructed the state's public power authority to build no less than one gigawatt of advanced nuclear power. Her announcement came just weeks after President Donald Trump issued a series of executive orders to bring back America's nuclear-energy dominance. Site assessments, private-sector partnerships and labor support are already in motion. Hochul and Trump come from opposite political universes, but both understand that nuclear delivers what wind and solar never will. It's the only zero-emission energy source that can power today's energy requirements reliably at scale. Modern life depends on uninterrupted electricity — AI computing, chip manufacturing, electric vehicles and data centers can't run on 'weather permitting' power. Storage for excess energy from wind and solar resources is still too expensive. Sunlight and wind are still too unreliable. Nuclear is the only clean option that runs 24/7. Trump's directives reflect that reality: They speed up permitting timelines, reauthorize shuttered reactors, rebuild domestic uranium supply chains and fast-track next-generation reactors for military bases and AI infrastructure. The goal is 300 gigawatts of new capacity by 2050, ensuring that nuclear power is the center of American competitiveness and security. Hochul, for her part, recognizes that New York can't meet its electrification targets without nuclear, either. The state's phase-out of fossil fuels has created demand spikes the current grid can't handle, made worse by the premature shutdown of plants like Indian Point in Westchester. She may never admit it publicly, but her plan rests entirely on the foundation Trump laid over the past months. His leadership — combined with streamlined Nuclear Regulatory Commission reviews, rebuilt supply chains and rising bipartisan support — cleared the way. But while some Democrats have begun to evolve, the institutional climate-activist left has not. Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra Club and the Nuclear Threat Initiative have cycled millions of dollars through projects meant to thwart nuclear power. They reflexively oppose every new reactor proposal, every licensing reform and every effort to restore fuel production on American soil. UCS has spent years pushing climate litigation to 'hold bad actors accountable' for 'climate change,' recover 'damages' and 'limit future climate harms,' while taking money from far-left donors like the Tides Foundation and the Energy Foundation — which has longstanding links to the Chinese Communist Party. Edwin Lyman, a UCS director and frequent critic of nuclear power, has shockingly urged the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disobey Trump's executive orders. The Sierra Club, once a conservationist group, now donates millions almost exclusively to Democratic campaigns, and supported President Joe Biden's push to ban gas stoves. NTI, co-founded by CNN's Ted Turner and run by former President Barack Obama's energy secretary, is bankrolled by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and Arabella Advisors' dark-money network. These groups are increasingly out of sync with global science, public opinion — and now, even the Democratic officials they once helped elect. They portray themselves as scientific, civic-minded watchdogs, but their only function is to spend millions injecting a radical, unpopular left-wing agenda into American politics, one that benefits America's adversaries more than the environment. The rest of the world is advancing its nuclear energy capabilities: China is developing small, modular reactors to export globally, while Russia is financing nuclear plants across Africa and Eastern Europe. These countries are not paralyzed by activist lawsuits or donor-driven campaigns, so they are free to invest in the most powerful tool available to cut emissions and expand growth. Finally, thanks to an increasing groundswell of support, so is the United States. The future of energy is nuclear, whether the climate lobby likes it or not. America is fortunate to have a president who understands this fact and is willing to lead. The alternative is to let out-of-touch donor-backed litigators and left-wing dark money behemoths dictate US nuclear policy, just as they did in the Biden White House. The country can't afford that kind of nostalgia. Steve Forbes is chairman and editor -n- chief of Forbes Media.
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Edwin Feulner, ‘Heritage Foundation's George Washington,' dies at 83
Weyrich went on to found several other conservative groups. Dr. Feulner ran Heritage from 1977 to 2013, and he became interim head again for a brief period in 2017. Two years ago, during a 50th anniversary celebration at Mount Vernon, the organization's current president, Kevin Roberts, called Dr. Feulner 'the Heritage Foundation's George Washington.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As Dr. Feulner described it, the foundational principles of Heritage included 'free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional values and a strong national defense,' The New York Times reported in 2018. Advertisement The group was in the news during the last presidential election, when Kamala Harris and other Democrats argued that a Heritage document called Project 2025 would become a shadow agenda for Donald Trump's second term. Trump strenuously sought to dissociate himself from the nearly 900-page list of policies, which included doctrinaire right-wing positions on such politically delicate subjects as abortion. Advertisement What rarely came up during the public debate is how Project 2025 belonged to a long tradition of striking success that Heritage has enjoyed in shaping Republican presidential administrations. The document was the latest iteration of the Mandate for Leadership, a wish list for new presidents that Heritage has habitually issued around election cycles since Ronald Reagan took power in 1981. Dr. Feulner explained how the tradition got started in Project 2025's afterword, which he wrote, titled 'Onward!' In the fall of 1979, senior officials of the Nixon and Ford administrations, William E. Simon and Jack Eckerd, told Dr. Feulner that, upon assuming office, they had received no practical guidance on how to institute conservative policies on issues such as free markets, government size, and national security. They added that their briefings came from liberal predecessors or career civil servants who favored the status quo. Dr. Feulner and others at Heritage were early supporters of Reagan's. Long before Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election, Heritage decided to spend $250,000 to put together a guidebook for a Reagan presidency. The result, weighing in at 1,093 pages, was distributed by Reagan at his first Cabinet meeting, Ed Meese, later Reagan's attorney general, told the Times in 2018. Dr. Feulner described the document to The Washington Post in 1983 as 'the nuts and bolts of how you make the kind of changes that philosophers and academics have been talking about.' Heritage soon reported that about 60 percent of its suggestions had been acted on by the new administration in its first year in power. The foundation was generally a booster of Republicans, but it also saw its mandate as condemning Republicans when they failed to live up to principle. Advertisement In 1987, after Reagan signed an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union and praised reforms undertaken by Mikhail Gorbachev, Dr. Feulner told the Times that conservatives felt 'Ronald Reagan walked away from them in the end.' He was harsher still on George H.W. Bush, whose tax increases constituted a cardinal sin. Meese discovered what inducements were possible by staying loyal to the cause. After Reagan's second term, Meese joined Heritage as a fellow making an annual salary of $400,000. Soon after George W. Bush assumed office, Dr. Feulner dispensed the ultimate praise. 'More Reaganite than the Reagan administration,' he told the Times. He added that he and Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, spoke a couple times a week. A new measure of the power of the Heritage Foundation came in 2013, when Jim DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, resigned in order to succeed Dr. Feulner. 'There's no question in my mind that I have more influence now on public policy than I did as an individual senator,' he told National Public Radio in 2013. DeMint was associated with the Tea Party, which Heritage had helped to finance and organize. During the 2016 presidential campaign, as other members of the Republican establishment turned against Trump, DeMint pursued a collaborative relationship with the campaign. When Trump won, Dr. Feulner became head of domestic policy for the incoming president's transition team. Heritage was ready with a database of thousands of loyal conservatives to appoint to political offices. 'By betting long odds on Trump, he succeeded,' Daniel Drezner, then a columnist at The Washington Post, wrote of DeMint. 'Heritage has easily been the most influential think tank in the Trump era.' Advertisement In 2017, during a White House dinner for grassroots leaders of the conservative movement, Dr. Feulner was the only think tank official invited — and he sat next to Trump. 'In some respects, Trump the nonpolitician has an incredible advantage, even over Ronald Reagan,' Dr. Feulner told the Times in 2018. Reagan 'knew there were certain things government couldn't do,' he added. Trump, on the other hand, has had a different mentality: 'Hell, why can't we do that? Let's try it.' Edwin John Feulner Jr. was born in Chicago on Aug. 12, 1941. His father was a self-made success in real estate, getting a college degree in night school and later helping to develop downtown Chicago. His mother, Helen (Franzen) Feulner, doted on Eddie, the eldest son, as her favorite, his three younger sisters later told Lee Edwards, author of 'Leading the Way: The Story of Ed Feulner and the Heritage Foundation,' a biography. He grew up saying grace before meals and serving as an altar boy at a local Catholic church. In 1963, he earned a bachelor's degree in English and business from Regis University, a Jesuit institution in Denver. While there, he experienced an ideological awakening while reading Russell Kirk's book 'The Conservative Mind' and Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's 'Liberty or Equality.' In his spare time in Washington, he studied by correspondence for a doctorate in political science from the University of Edinburgh. He earned the degree in 1981. As a young man, he was an aide to two Republican members of the House of Representatives: Melvin Laird, from Wisconsin, and Philip Crane, from Illinois. Advertisement The Heritage Foundation was launched by a $260,000 donation from beer baron Joseph Coors. His seed money for Heritage was 'arguably the most consequential that's ever been spent in the world of public policy,' John J. Miller wrote in a remembrance for The Wall Street Journal in 2003. Richard Mellon Scaife, a banking and oil scion, became another major early donor. But wary of charges that Heritage was a tool of a few rich men, Dr. Feulner built a substantial membership list with the help of Richard Viguerie, a conservative marketer. By 1984, The Washington Post described Heritage's annual budget of over $10 million as 'the biggest of any think tank in Washington, left or right.' In 2023, its revenue was $101 million. The Times reported that Dr. Feulner's 2010 salary was $1,098,612. In 2005, The Washington Post found that Heritage swerved from criticizing the government of Malaysia to praising it around the time that a Hong Kong consulting firm cofounded by Dr. Feulner and advised by his wife, Linda, began representing Malaysian companies. In a statement, the Heritage Foundation denied that its reports were influenced by Feulner family business interests or any other external factor. Dr. Feulner's survivors include his wife; his children, Edwin III and Emily V. Lown; and several grandchildren. Flush with power in 1984, Dr. Feulner told the Times about the value of political irrelevance. 'The years in the wilderness gave us the time to work out challenges to the prevailing orthodoxy,' he said. He saw 'intellectual ferment' happening on the left — new ideas, new institutional energy. 'Now we are in the mainstream,' he cautioned, 'and we will suffer for that like the liberals before us.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Japan's shaky government loses upper house control
Japan's ruling coalition has lost control of the upper house in an election, further weakening Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's grip on power even as he vowed to remain party leader, citing a looming tariff deadline with the United States. While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba's administration will fall, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more powerful lower house in October. Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito returned 47 seats, short of the 50 seats it needed to ensure a majority in the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats were up for grabs. That comes on top of its worst showing in 15 years in October's lower house election, a vote that has left Ishiba's administration vulnerable to no-confidence motions and calls from within his own party for leadership change. Speaking late on Sunday evening after exit polls closed, Ishiba told NHK he "solemnly" accepted the "harsh result". "We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States ... we must never ruin these negotiations. It is only natural to devote our complete dedication and energy to realising our national interests," he later told TV Tokyo. Asked whether he intended to stay on as premier, he said, "that's right". Japan, the world's fourth-largest economy, faces a deadline of August 1 to strike a trade deal with the United States or face punishing tariffs in its largest export market. The main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party finished second with 22 seats. Meanwhile, the far-right Sanseito party announced its arrival in mainstream politics, adding 14 seats to one elected previously. Launched on YouTube a few years ago, the populist party found wider appeal with its "Japanese First" campaign and warnings about a "silent invasion" of foreigners. Opposition parties advocating for tax cuts and welfare spending struck a chord with voters, as rising consumer prices - particularly a jump in the cost of rice - have sowed frustration at the government's response. The LDP has been urging fiscal restraint, with one eye on a very jittery government bond market, as investors worry about Japan's ability to refinance the world's largest debt pile. Any concessions the LDP must now strike with opposition parties to pass policy will only further elevate those nerves, analysts say. "The ruling party will have to compromise in order to gain the co-operation of the opposition, and the budget will continue to expand," said Yu Uchiyama, a politics professor at the University of Tokyo. "Overseas investors' evaluation of the Japan economy will also be quite harsh."
