Pier Diving bill is alive again

[calvillo]

The MUPC legislative committee has learned that the draft bill set for hearing next week WILL include an exemption for certified scuba divers and instructors and students. This is a substitute bill that will differ from the one passed by the senate. In the event the house does pass its substitute, it will still be necessary for members of both the house and senate to "reconcile" the differences in their bills.
This change is the result of communication between the MUPC, legislature and MDNR staff. It is also the result of the voices of divers being expressed.
Divers should continue to contact their representatives to express their support for an exemption. You may also want to broaden your communication to include your own state senator because this subject will likely be revisited by the senate before final passage.
As a sidenote, the MDNR opposes this bill in any form and will testify against it. They cite, among other reasons, the lack of state control over federal assets (USCG and Corps of Engineers) and the lack of any money for the MDNR to enforce it at state parks. It appears that, even if passed, park rangers will not be given instructions to write tickets. Local units of government, however, could still write tickets until challenged.
MDNR staff predicts the bill will pass in some form only because some legislators want to pass "something". To be cynical, they know it is unenforcible and perhaps even illegal. However, in the they think people will just "feel good". Welcome to OZ.

 

[parrothead600]

I recieved a few automated responses from the emails that I sent out. I also recieved the following email, from Joel Sheltrown's office, this morning.

Thank you fro your e-mail. Testimony was taken last week on Senate Bill 629. No one attend to testify against the bill as it passed the Senate. There is testimony again tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. in Room 521 of the House Office Building. If scuba divers wish to be exempted, I would strongly recommend that scuba divers either attend to testify or write all the members of the committee (not just me) expressing the reasons they do not support the bill. You will find the committee members at: house.mi.gov - Committee Info

I have drafted a substitute version of the bill, called the "Sheltrown H-1 Substitute" which would provide for a state-wide exemption for certified scuba divers and students under the instruction of a certified instructor. Another substitute may be proposed which would allow local governments to provide for an exemption for scuba divers but not have a state-wide exemption. You may wish to address this issue in your letter to the committee members.

Sincerely,

Joel Sheltrown
State Representative
103rd House District

 

[calvillo]

The MUPC has run down some information on a third proposed bill on pier diving. H-1, the "Sheltrown" substitute is the one agreeable to the MUPC because it provides a blanket, statewide exclusion of scuba diving from regulation. Surfboarding has a similar exemption.

Rep. Sheltrown is chair of the committee and a democrat (the democrats control the house). This legislation was first sponsored by a republican senator from west Michigan. The republicans on the house committee apparently do not like H-1 and may (likely) propose their own substitute bill. In particular I believe rep Jelenik (sp?) may not like HB-1 and will propose H-2. This could be wrong. We are seeking to confirm it.

H-2 should not be acceptable to divers because it leaves it up to each separate local government to decide to ban scuba from public piers and breakwaters or not. At least that appears to be the case (in the absence of the actual text).

I have a copy of H-1 I will send to anyone who pm's me. I am trying to get H-2 but it is entirely possible no one will see it before the house hearing. It is common for legislators to unveil these just before or at the hearing. As of this afternoon, the MDNR does not have a copy.

 

[calvillo]

Another update:

According to Sen. Jelenik's office, there is no actual H-2. Instead, his office has asked that Rep. Sheltrown's H-1 bill be revised so that a local unit of government has the option of regulating access by scuba divers. Since there is no actual language to review, it is impossible to determine how it actually could affect diving. It is likely this will be discussed at the hearing tomorrow.

Alterations along these lines may be offered at tomorrow's hearing but they may be oral or written by a committee member.

It appears the concerns of the MDNR have been resolved so that it will support H-1. Application to state property, parks and the like, are no longer covered by the bill. The way it is now rewritten, a local government (county, township, city, etc.) can regulate activities only at public piers, jetties and breakwaters (not state or federal). Actual regulation is not mandatory and there is no blanket state regulation.

The absence of a statewide prohibition guts the bill of its most serious impact on any use of piers, jetties or breakwaters.

Regulation of buoys and navigation devices has also been deleted.

The MUPC opposes any regulation interfering with scuba diving. It continues to support H-1 as now proposed because it excludes scuba and should have no impact on it.

It is presently impossible to reach a conclusion about Sen. Jelenik's suggestions without seeing them. Opening the door to regulation by local units of diving may be undesireble depending on the actual wording. However, a local unit of government probably already has authority to regulate the use of its own facilities just as it posts hours and the like at its boat ramps and parks. It is the prospect of blanket statewide regulation that has been and remains the big problem.

 

[Tortuga Viejo]

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "District 103" <Dist103@house.mi.gov>

Dear Don:​

Thank you for your e-mail. Testimony was taken last week on Senate Bill 629. No one attend to testify against the bill as it passed the Senate. There is testimony again tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. in Room 521 of the House Office Building. If scuba divers wish to be exempted, I would strongly recommend that scuba divers either attend to testify or write all the members of the committee (not just me) expressing the reasons they do not support the bill. You will find the committee members at: http://house.michigan.gov/committeeinfo.asp?lstcommittees=tourism,+outdoor+recreation+and+natural+resources&submit=Go​

I have drafted a substitute version of the bill, called the "Sheltrown H-1 Substitute" which would provide for a state-wide exemption for certified scuba divers and students under the instruction of a certified instructor. Another substitute may be proposed which would allow local governments to provide for an exemption for scuba divers but not have a state-wide exemption. You may wish to address this issue in your letter to the committee members.​

Sincerely,​

Joel Sheltrown​

State Representative​

103rd House District​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Thank You for your timely response and I did contact all the other members of the committee to express the concerns of all Scuba Divers. The Michigan U/W Water Divers club would like to know the specific reasons you support this legislation and why this legistation will make a difference. ​

Thanks Again, ​

-----------------------------------------------------------------​

Don,​

I don't have strong feelings either way on the bill. I lean toward not supporting the bill but am willing to give communities in south-west Michigan local control to enact ordinances if they feel it will help address their problems. But I don't want to see an impact on tourism or user groups like scuba divers and surfers. That's why I support the local control option with state-wide exceptions for scuba divers and surfers.​

-Joel Sheltrown​

 

[Diverdoris]

It looks as if there is a new and improved bill in the works....but that doesn't mean you should stop expressing yourself...keep up the good work!!
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billanalysis/House/pdf/2007-HLA-0629-8.pdf


Peggy S. Kurpinski
Owner, Adventures In Diving, Inc.
President, Southwest Michigan Underwater Preserve
Members State of Michigan Underwater Salvage & Preserve Committee
Member of Michigan Underwater Preserve Council
960 Butternut Drive, Suite 100
Holland, MI 49424
(p) 616-994-DIVE (3483)
(f) 616-994-9993
(c) 616-886-3483
Adventures in Diving
Welcome to the Southwest Michigan Underwater Preserve

 

[calvillo]

I have the text of the substitute bill (H-1) if anyone wants to see the actual text of the new "Sheltrown" proposal. No one has asked to see it so I am not certain that recent comments are directed at the currently suggested language that is most likely to pass.

To be clear, the proposed H-1 bill is not a statewide ban on scuba diving from breakwaters, piers and jetties. As proposed by Rep. Shetrown, the bill is merely "enabling" legislation. This means that a local community can, if it wants, adopt an ordinance specific only to that community. His bill expressly prohibits the regulation of scuba diving by any community.

There may actually be a third bill or at least further changes. Those are originating in the office of Sen. Jelenik. He sponsored the Senate Bill. If the state-wide ban is removed he still wants it left as an option for a local community. This is less desireable because divers will have to state their case locally to city or other councils in their communities.

As it now stands, either proposal removes the passage of a state-wide ban on scuba diving from these structures.

I have previously posted that it remains likely that some type of law on this subject will pass. It is more for symbolism than anything else. Now that the MDNR has removed its opposition (because there is no state-wide regulation of anything as proposed), it is even more likely that something will pass in some very watered down form. But you should see the substitute bill to understand this.

In the meantime, it is appropriate to also contact Sen. Jelenik since it is his office that appears to be in the lead on this (in addition to all the house members). He may may be less aware of the concern of divers.

 

[Diverdoris]

Can you post a link to the new improved bill, that would be wonderful?
thanks

 

[calvillo]

Hi Peggy. There is not, as far as I know, a copy published on a state website. The copy I have is a hard copy I got from someone in the excutive branch.

I'll send a copy directly to you. I would post a link if I had one. The only link I know of is the bill anaysis link you posted but that is not the full text. I think that when you see it you will see that Rep Sheltrown is trying to protect the interests of divers and other water activity users. The possible changes to his proposal by others are a problem.

I'll send the copy to you by email right now.

 

[Thunder Bay Minnow]

A SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL 629 (PROPOSED H-1)​

The bill would amend Part 801 (Marine Safety) of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act to:​

•​

Allow the legislative body of a political subdivision to adopt an ordinance
banning jumping, diving, or swimming from a publicly-owned pier, jetty, or
breakwater located in the Great Lakes or their connecting waters.​

•​

Specify that this type of local ordinance would not apply to:​

o​

Any person undertaking a rescue.​

o​

Authorized public safety personnel conducting training.​

o​

A scuba diver possessing proof of certification from a nationallyrecognized
agency.​

o​

A person being trained as a scuba diver under the supervision of a scuba
instructor possessing proof of certification as a scuba instructor from a
nationally-recognized agency.​

o​

A person launching a surfboard, boogie board, or body board to surf so
long as the device is attached to the person with a leash or cord and the
device is not inflatable.​

•​

Require that a violation of a local ordinance under this section designate a
violation as a municipal civil infraction subject to a civil fine of not more than
$500.​

•​

Specify that Part 801 would apply to "water-based activities" in addition to
vessels and associated equipment used on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the
State of Michigan.​

MCL 324.80155a