Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative (2018)

Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Fracking
Status Not on the ballot
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Michigan measuresMichigan Proposal 1Michigan Proposal 2Michigan Proposal 3Submit

The Michigan Fracking Ban Initiative was not on the ballot in Michigan as an indirect initiated state statute on November 6, 2018.

The measure would have banned the use of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, in Michigan. The measure would have also prohibited the production, storage, disposal, and processing of horizontal hydraulic fracturing wastes in the state.

Text of measure

Ballot summary

The ballot summary on the circulating petition was:

“

An initiation of legislation to prohibit the use of horizontal hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” and acid completion treatments of horizontal gas and oil wells; to prohibit emission, production, storage, disposal, and processing of frack and acidizing wastes created by gas and oil well operations; to eliminate the state’s policy favoring ultimate recovery of maximum production of oil and gas; to protect water resources, land, air, climate, and public health; and to allow residents to enforce the provisions of this ballot language, by amending Public Act 451 of 1994 entitled “Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act,” by amending section 61528, 61529 and 61530.

”

Support

The campaign in support of the initiative was led by the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan.

The campaign committee was pursing an initiative because the group believed "that only a ban on fracking will protect our health and safety, our precious fresh water, communities, parks, forests, schools, businesses, farms, tourism, wildlife, and environment from the devastating harms of the massive, industrial-scale fracking planned for Michigan and the enormous amount of frack wastes inherently created in the fracking process, including wastes that would come here from other states where fracking takes place."

2016 supporters

Organizations

• Alcona Local Foods Association
• Ban Michigan Fracking
• Barry County Democratic Committee
• Canadians for Action on Climate Change
• Climate SOS Canada
• Coalition to Protect New York
• Community Environmental Legal Defense Council, Inc.
• Council of Canadians
• Crawford County Peaceseekers
• Don't Frack West Michigan
• Energy Justice Network
• Faith Communities Together for Frac Awareness
• FoodNotFracking.org
• FrackbustersNY
• Frack Free Michiana
• Freshwater Accountability Project
• Gray Panthers of Metro Detroit
• Gray Panthers of Washtenaw
• Green Party of Michigan
• Hood Research
• Idle No More
• Kentucky Climate Action
• Manistee Water Guardians
• Marcellus Protest
• Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation
• MOMS Advocating Sustainability
• Moratorium Now! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions and Utility Shutoff
• Natural Awakenings Magazine
• New York Climate Action Group
• North Chickamauga Creek Conservancy
• North Oakland Democratic Club
• Northwest Ohio Alliance to Stop Fracking
• Occupy Wall Street Outreach Working Group
• Occupy Wall Street Environmental Solidarity Working Group
• Peace Action of Michigan
• The Peace Center, Kalamazoo
• Peace of the Action
• Popular Resistance
• Progressive Democrats of the Michigan Democratic Party
• Sierra Club
• Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE)
• Superior Land Preservation Society
• Sustainable Chattanooga
• Traverse Watershed Greens
• Treasure the Karoo Action Group, South Africa
• Voices4Earth
• Williams County Alliance
• Wrong Kind of Green

2016 arguments in favor

LuAnne Kozma, campaign director for the Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan, and Ellis Boal, legal counsel for the committee, argued that state law protects "the gas industry" over "water and human health." They said voters need to ban fracking in order to protect water and human health. The two contended:

“	Michigan set a national record for the country's most water-consuming frack well. The horizontal well in Kalkaska County used over 21 million gallons of water. Other wells in Michigan are using similar, astounding amounts. Encana Corporation, the operator, announced in January [2013] it identified 1,700 well locations in the northern Lower Peninsula. In February, it downgraded the number to 500. Encana puts multiple wells and six or eight horizontal bores in one location. Multiply all these numbers and you get a whole lot of water — at a time of record low lake levels and moderate drought. Last year [2012], Encana spread 40,000 gallons of frack flowback on Michigan roads and in a private campground. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality allowed it but later admitted its mistake. Recipients of the waste spreading weren't notified until this year by a nonprofit organization, Ban Michigan Fracking. In other states, spills like this result in investigations and fines. The DEQ has other credibility problems. It won't apply state injection well rules to frack wells, even though half the injected frack fluid is disposed onsite. Despite these problems, Michigan is planning to promote the new horizontal fracking throughout the state. This amid documented reports around the country of farms and residential water wells becoming contaminated after drilling, frack wells being installed next to homes and schools, horrific air pollution in communities, and illness in people and animals. The one thing the frack industry cannot get around is that it produces a staggering amount of toxic waste... We feel water and human health need protection, not the gas industry. The requirement to maximize production is a linchpin in state decisions to compulsorily pool groups of mineral interest owners, including owners who would rather leave hydrocarbons in the ground. Compulsory pooling would be undercut. The committee's effort is not just a technical attempt to stop horizontal fracking. It takes on the ideology embedded in our law that supports the fossil fuel industry. (quote)	”
—LuAnne Kozma and Ellis Boal

Opposition

2016 Opponents

Officials

• Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R-66), chair of the House Subcommittee on Natural Gas

Organizations

• Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Arguments

Rep. Aric Nesbitt (R-66), chair of the House Subcommittee on Natural Gas, deemed fracking safe and concluded "it has the potential to greatly improve our state's ability to produce energy." He said there is no contradiction between protecting the environment and fracking. Nesbitt elaborated:

“	As chair of the House Subcommittee on Natural Gas, I conducted hearings that discovered that over $6 billion of economic activity and nearly 23,000 jobs are contributed to Michigan’s economy each year by the natural gas industry. Because of natural gas, nearly $10 billion in investments will be needed in the Great Lakes region. As the demand for natural gas grows, so does the number of jobs... Unfortunately, some have failed to acknowledge the facts surrounding the process of fracking. Instead, there have been attempts to promote falsehoods in order to advance certain agenda. Most, if not all, of these claims have been proven to be factually inaccurate. One example is the claim that hydraulic well stimulation contaminates drinking water. A study issued by the Environmental Protection Agency declared, after 200 peer-reviewed publications, additional research and public comment, they had failed to find one case of underground drinking water contamination from the process. In Michigan, this process has been used for over 50 years to safely extract oil and gas from over 12,000 wells. During that time, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has not found a single case where hydraulic well stimulation resulted in adverse effects on the environment. Many view Michigan as a leader when it comes to environmental regulations of the fracturing process, while maintaining and protecting our state's natural beauty and resources. The development of natural gas and the promotion of clean energy policies do not have to be mutually exclusive. In fact, recently, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported greenhouse gas emissions have dropped to a 20-year low in this country. That is extraordinary, because the U.S. economy is 60 percent larger than it was in 1992, and our energy consumption has grown by 14 percent. The EIA attributes this drop mainly to a greater use of natural gas. Energy independence should be pursued and studied through honest discussion. The establishment of cleaner, more reliable fuel sources can be a reality, but we must take realistic approaches based on facts to achieve it. We cannot allow ideologues to pollute productive discussions that can lead to more jobs, lower energy prices and greater stability to our children and grandchildren.	”
—Rep. Aric Nesbitt

Background

Fracking

See also: Fracking

Fracking is the process of injecting fluid—mostly water and sand but with additional chemicals—into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release hydrocarbons, including natural gas, inside. The use of hydraulic fracturing in combination with horizontal drilling has led to a boom in natural gas production by making access to the oil and gas in shale formations commercially viable.

Fracking in Michigan

See also: Fracking in Michigan

Map of high volume hydraulic fractured wells

According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, oil and gas companies have practiced hydraulic fracturing in the state since 1952. According to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Office of Oil, Gas and Minerals, oil production has increased since 2005. In 2013, 7,780,000 barrels of oil were produced in the state. Production of natural gas, however, has fallen between 2000 and 2012. In 2000, 243 billion cubic feet of natural gas was produced in Michigan. By 2012, this number fell to 127.2 billion cubic feet.

The map to the left shows active permits and applications for high volume hydraulic fracturing in Michigan from 2008 to May 28, 2015. In total, the map represents 59 wells.

A study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC), a research consulting firm, for the American Petroleum Institute attributed 182,040 jobs, or 3.6 percent of state employment in Michigan in 2011, to jobs created directly, indirectly, or induced, from the oil and natural gas industry. The industry directly employed 53,044 people, or one percent of state total employment. Direct, indirect and induced labor income, according to this study, was $8.81 billion, totaling 3.5 percent of Michigan's labor income in 2011. Direct labor income from the mining sector was $2.39 billion, or 1 percent of the state's total.

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), formed by executive order in 1995, oversees oil and gas extraction in the state.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan

2012

The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan originally sought to get an initiated constitutional amendment approved for the November 6, 2012, ballot, but failed to collect enough signatures. The group needed to collect 322,609 valid signatures.

2014

The committee tried to get an indirect initiative placed on the November 4, 2014, general election ballot. The Michigan Board of State Canvassers approved the committee's petition for circulation on February 15, 2013. Between April and October 2013, proponents reported collecting about 70,000 signatures. Supporters of the initiative needed to gather 258,088 valid signatures and submit them by May 28, 2014. While supporters could have kept collecting signatures past October, they decided to cease circulating the petition. They did so because signatures older than 180 days become "stale and void," according to Michigan law. The Committee explained, "With 70,000 signatures gathered April through October, we could continue gathering signatures and drop off the signatures gathered in the earlier months, extend the six-month window, or begin fresh in December and go all the way to May, dropping all 70,000 signatures already collected and asking people to sign again. And get enough new people in the process."

2016

The Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan aimed for the November 8, 2016, ballot. The Michigan Secretary of State's office approved the petition for circulation on April 9, 2015. A total of 252,523 valid signatures collected in a 180-day window are required to get the initiative placed on the ballot. The group initially chose the 180-day period between May 22, 2015, through November 18, 2015, but the group fell short of the signature requirements by the deadline at about 150,000. The committee chose June 1, 2016, as their new 180-day deadline. On June 1, 2016, the group announced that it had not gathered enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the 2016 ballot, and that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 180-day allotment for signature gathering had been filed with the Michigan Court of Claims. Proponents decided to continue gathering signatures for the 2018 ballot.

Senate Bill 776

See also: Ballot Law Update: Changes to Michigan's initiative process could decide the fate of pot and anti-fracking initiatives

As two groups of initiative proponents worked to urge the state's board of canvassers to make it easier to prove signatures were valid, a bill was working its way through the Michigan Legislature and was ultimately approved on May 18, 2016, that was designed to eliminate the process for proving validity entirely. Under the previous law, initiative petitioners were allowed four years to collect signatures, but any signatures that were more than 180 days old were assumed invalid unless petitioners went through a process to prove validity. Michigan Senate Bill 776 was designed to require that all signatures be collected within a 180-day window. Supporters of the marijuana measure started collecting signatures in June 2015, which meant they already surpassed the 180-day window, and the previous law gave them the burden of proof for the validity of many of the collected signatures. Jeff Hank, chairman of the supporting group MI Legalize, claimed that any new laws passed in 2016 cannot be applied retroactively to existing petition campaigns, arguing that MI Legalize could use the state's current signature validation process for signatures older than 180 days, even after the state legislature enacted SB 776. The bill was written to take immediate effect.

The bill passed in the Michigan Senate in March 2016 with a 26-10 vote and passed the Michigan House of Representatives on May 18, 2016, with a 57-52 vote, needing only the signature of Gov. Rick Snyder (R) to become law. The bill was designed to eliminate the ability to challenge or rehabilitate signatures deemed to have been collected outside the 180-day window. This made it nearly impossible for the Michigan Marijuana Legalization and Regulation Initiative and the Fracking Ban Initiative to make it on the ballot in November. Jeff Hank indicated that MI Legalize would challenge the new law as unconstitutional, saying, "We're very confident there's some really good case law and precedent on not changing the rules in the middle of a campaign." MI Legalize also urged Governor Rick Snyder (R) to veto the bill. On June 7, 2016, Governor Snyder signed the bill into law.

Some, including Hank, theorized that the oil and gas industry was largely behind lobbying for SB 776 as a tool to keep the proposed anti-fracking initiative off of the ballot.

State Board of Canvassers rule

Before SB 776 was approved, removing the procedure for validating signatures that are older than 180 days, initiative proponents urged the State Board of Canvassers to alter the procedure for signature verification to allow the use of the state's electronic Qualified Voter File. The board met to decide on the proposed change to ease the signature verification process, but after a member of the board left the meeting the board did not have a quorum and was not able to vote on the issue. Initiative proponents filed an ethics complaint against Norm Shinkle, who was the board member that left and prevented a vote on the procedural change.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Oil and Gas Association, and the American Petroleum Institute registered to oppose the proposed change before the Michigan Board of Canvassers.

2018

In order to qualify the measure for the 2018 ballot, supporters needed to submit 315,654 valid signatures within a certain 180-day time frame.

If the initiative petition received enough valid signatures, then the state legislature would have had 40 days to adopt or reject the proposal. If the legislature rejected or ignored the initiative, then the measure would have been placed on the next general election ballot.

Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan v. Secretary of State

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the petition used to collect signatures for a ballot initiative need to contain the date of the election at which the initiative will be submitted to voters?
Court: Michigan Court of Claims appealed to Michigan Court of Appeals
Ruling: Ruled in favor of plaintiffs; the initiative petition was "facially compliant with all statutory requirements" and that the secretary of state had to accept signatures from the committee.
Plaintiff(s): Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan and LuAnne Kozma	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Director of Elections Sally Williams, and Board of State Canvassers
Plaintiff argument: The secretary of state has no authority to reject an initiative due to the election date reference on the petition.	Defendant argument: The election at which the proponent intends the initiative to appear for needs to be specified on the petition.

  Source: Michigan Court of Claims and Michigan Court of Appeals

See also

Suggest a link

• 2018 ballot measures
• Michigan 2018 ballot measures
• Laws governing the initiative process in Michigan
• Fracking on the ballot

External links

Basic information

• Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Information on Hydraulic Fracturing in Michigan

Support

• Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan
• Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan Facebook
• Committee to Ban Fracking in Michigan Twitter