WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 4035

Environmental protection: sewage; violations for sewer overflows; modify. Amends 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.101 - 324.90106) by adding sec. 3115b.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 7 co-sponsors

Large counties must create and implement plans to cut permit-violating sewage discharges by 50% within 2 years, with penalties up to 1,000,000 per month for noncompliance.

bill electronically reproduced 01/28/2025
#environmentalprotection:sewage #stateagencies(existing):environment #greatlakes #andenergy
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4035

Summary — HB 4035 (adds MCL 324.3115b)

Status: Introduced (bill text reproduced 01/28/2025). Sponsor (introduced version): Rep. Douglas Wozniak.

Purpose and intent

HB 4035 adds section 3115b to Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to require large counties that cause permit-violating sewage discharges to develop and implement enforceable plans to substantially reduce those discharges. The measure creates deadlines, departmental rulemaking responsibilities, administrative penalties for noncompliance, and a mechanism for civil enforcement and deposit of penalties into the state water pollution control revolving fund.

Key provisions

  • Applicability: Applies when the person responsible for a permit-violating discharge is a county with population greater than 1,000,000 (i.e., counties of roughly metro size).
  • Discharge reduction plan (DRP): The county must submit a DRP to the Department (department responsible under the Act) within 1 year after the first permit-violation discharge occurs.
  • Rulemaking: The Department must adopt rules (under the Administrative Procedures Act) within 1 year after the bill’s effective date that specify the format, content, and submission requirements for DRPs.
  • Minimum standard: Each DRP must include specific measures to reduce the county’s average volume of discharge over the preceding 5 years by 50%.
  • Department review and resubmission: The Department must approve or deny a submitted DRP within 180 days and provide written reasons if denied. If denied, the county has 180 days to submit a revised plan.
  • Implementation deadline: The county must implement and complete the approved DRP within 2 years of approval. If the county fails to do so, the Department is barred from issuing new permits or reissuing permits under the statute.
  • Administrative fines: After notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, the Department may impose administrative fines up to $1,000,000 per month for each month the violation continues if the county (a) fails to submit a DRP as required or (b) fails to implement and complete an approved DRP.
  • Collection and deposit: If the county fails to pay an assessed fine, the Department must notify the Attorney General, who will sue to recover the fine plus costs and fees. Collected fines are deposited into the state water pollution control revolving fund (referenced statutory fund).

Who is affected

  • Primary: Counties with population >1,000,000 responsible for sewage permit violations (e.g., large metropolitan counties operating sewer systems).
  • Secondary: County residents and ratepayers (potential operational, budgetary, or service changes), wastewater system operators, the state Department that oversees permits, and the Attorney General (for enforcement actions).
  • Public interest: Communities downstream or otherwise impacted by sewage overflows and the state’s water quality programs.

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • County: submit DRP within 1 year of first violating discharge.
  • Department: adopt DRP rules within 1 year of the bill’s effective date; approve/deny plans within 180 days; require resubmission within 180 days of denial.
  • Implementation: county must complete approved DRP within 2 years of approval.
  • Penalty exposure: up to $1,000,000 per month after notice/hearing for failure to submit or implement a plan; AG enforcement for nonpayment.

Potential impacts

  • Public health/environment: aims to reduce repeated sewage overflows and thereby improve water quality and public health.
  • Fiscal/administrative: large counties may face costs to design and implement infrastructure or operational changes to meet a 50% average-volume reduction within the specified timeframes; exposure to high fines if noncompliant.
  • Funding: penalties fund the state water pollution control revolving fund, potentially supporting water infrastructure projects.

Note: This summary is based on the introduced bill language adding MCL 324.3115b. Legislative status (passage, amendments, effective date) should be checked with official legislative records for updates.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.