I encountered Michigan’s HB 5366 when I was researching a post on hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). This bill is a moratorium on new fracking permits for high volume fracking until several issues are resolved around water, the public’s right to know, setbacks, and related issues. The individual issues that need to be solved are broken out into separate bills (HB 5367, HB 5368, HB 5369, HB 5370, HB 5371, HB 5372 and HB 5373). I’ve never seen this approach before, of breaking issues out separately into other bills, and I am besotted with the idea.
I was thrilled to get the chance to interview the bill’s sponsor, Representative Sarah Roberts, about the bill, and to talk to her about both the structure and content of the bill. As excited as I already was with the idea, she pointed out an advantage for this approach that hadn’t even occurred to me – expanding the number of bills and sponsors expands opportunities for media coverage, education, and engagement. I guess that’s why she’s the one making things happen and I’m just writing about it.
Here is our discussion, lightly edited for clarity:
This bill, HB 5366, is so interesting to me, because you broke out all of the issues you think need to be solved, and left them to get addressed in other bills. Where did you get this idea?
“We wanted to engage other people in the work. It could have been just one big mammoth bill, but we decided to set the parameters within the moratorium bill, and then break out each bill more specifically. We did that for a number of reasons. One, it was a little more manageable from a legislative perspective. Two, we could bring other legislators who care very passionately about the issues into the fold, and have other advocates involved in not only the legislation, but also we worked really hard over several years to share this in the press and do education. I thought it was really important to have more than one voice talking about this important issue.”
So part of the reason was that different people are most passionate about aspects of this issue?
“I think that’s true. Last legislative session we did the same bills minus the moratorium. For example Representative Jeff Irwin was very passionate about the chemical disclosure. I was very passionate about the public hearing process, because with all other types of issues related to water or the environment, there’s a public hearing process before a permit is granted through the Department of Environmental Quality. I felt fracking shouldn’t be treated any differently.
When we regrouped at the beginning of this session I felt really passionately about creating the moratorium. So collectively we decided that we had this great package of bills so, why don’t we tie them into the moratorium. Because you need a mechanism to lift a moratorium, otherwise it’s a ban; so we just decided to tie it all together.”
How did your colleagues receive the idea of keeping the different topics in separate bills?
“They were very supportive. As I mentioned, the bills were written last session minus the moratorium. The other bill sponsors were in agreement that fracking is very much different now than when the rules for fracking were originally drafted in Michigan. For example, since 2008 they’ve already used about 160 million gallons of Michigan’s fresh water to frack wells. So all of the other sponsors felt we should have strong laws, things that are actually in statute, in place before we grant any new permits in Michigan. So we all felt the moratorium was important while we work out all of the related issues.”
Have you found any disadvantages to breaking the bills apart like this?
“No”
What has been the reaction from the public about the moratorium?
“There have been a couple thoughts on this package of bills. Generally we have had a lot of support for what we are trying to do. Relatively recent polling has shown that over 50% of the people in Michigan believe that we should have strong safeguards in place when it comes to fracking. There is a group of people here in Michigan, just like in other states, who believe it should be banned outright, and they don’t believe our legislation goes far enough. But I think doing the moratorium, getting safeguards in place, making sure that it is safe, is a reasonable way to address fracking.”
What are the prospects for the slate of bills?
“Well, to be honest with you, with the current chair of Energy, not very good. We continue to be hopeful, and we hope the public will continue to put pressure on him. But chairs of committees have a lot of power, and they get to decide what comes up for vote and what does not.”
To me, breaking the bills into the separate topics maximizes the chance of success of getting each issue dealt with in a rational way. That keeps emotional arguments about one topic from torpedoing progress you’ve made on other topics. Is that part of your thinking? Maybe you’ll be able to get some bills passed this session, and then get other pieces passed later?
“That’s always an option. We all feel very strongly that we want the safeguards passed. But if they pass all the individual bills and don’t pass the moratorium, that’s fine.”
Have you thought about using this structure for other big hairy topics? Would you encourage other legislators to take this approach?
“If it’s the right topic, I would absolutely encourage others. I did something similar on reforms for charter schools last session. It gets back to community organizing. When you look at issues and you look at desired outcomes, you have to think about how to build power. Using fracking as our example, if I just did the moratorium bill and everything was in that one bill, then I’m the single advocate. I represent 90,000 people. But if I engage other people, they are able to take it back to their districts, and the 90,000 people that they represent. So we took the opportunity to get state-wide coverage, because the different sponsors are from across the state. We could broaden the education part through the media, and through our social media networks, to reach more people to educate them about this issue and hopefully engage them in the work.”
I’m not a politician, so wider education and engagement would never have occurred to me. But that makes a lot of sense, and is a really appealing idea. Is there anything else I should know before we go?
“Michigan is the Great Lakes State, home to the world’s largest concentration of fresh water. Companies fracking here in Michigan pay for a permit for land, but they don’t have to pay for the privilege of polluting our water. Some of the fracking operations have used 20 million gallons of fresh water; they add a chemical cocktail to the water, using any combination of over 700 chemicals, so the water is so polluted after they use it that they have to take it out of our watershed and put it in a deep injection well somewhere. It doesn’t make sense. If they aren’t even going to contribute to the long term sustainability of our freshwater resource, then we should have strong safeguards in place making sure that we know what kind of chemicals are being used in case there is contamination of an aquifer or a public water source. The public has a right to have an opinion.”
And that’s where we wrapped up. I would like to echo Rep Robert’s encouragement to find ways to maximize how much we engage and educate the public when we are tackle complex and contentious topics. Although she’s in for a multiple year battle on this particular topic, to me she has found a reasonable, democratic, and hopefully productive, way to move forward.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 is a user friendly free service that provides legislation research in all 50 states and federally. BillTrack50 also offers legislation and regulation tracking across the nation with tools to help organization stay on top of changes (bill sheets and alerts) and share legislation they are tracking with key stakeholders (legislator scorecards, widgets and stakeholder pages). If you are interested in learning more about how BillTrack50 saves organizations time and money, sign up for a demo and try it out BillTrack50 Pro for a month, for free.