Yesterday I blogged about need for the Supreme Court, in deciding a pair of cases from Michigan, to preserve the federal government’s ability to protect the environment, and the remarkable success such federal legislation has had in bringing the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction.

But as the Court deliberates the issues raised in yesterday’s oral arguments, we in Michigan need to ensure that whatever the Court ultimately decides, we have a strong state framework to protect our air, land and water, and preserve the many plant and animal species that call our state home. Without such state action, Michigan could find itself unprotected if the federal environmental laws are struck down.

Even if the Court ultimately upholds the constitutional basis of the federal environmental laws, however, Michigan still has a significant role to play in ensuring that our state’s laws accurately reflect the environmental priorities of the people of our Great Lakes State. In the 1960s, for example, Michigan didn’t wait for federal action to rescue Lake Erie from dangerously high levels of phosphorus. And in the 1970s, Michigan became the first state to adopt a state environmental protection act, enacted a sand dune protection law and passed the toughest state wetland law in the country. This applies today as well. There is no reason, for example, to settle for George W. Bush’s mercury targets, especially when states such as Illinois are already doing more.

During yesterday’s arguments, Justice David Souter seemed troubled that narrowing the scope of allowable federal action to protect the environment would result in “an end-run around the regulation.”? Justice Souter commented, “all you have to do is dump the pollutant upstream far away from the watershed, and you get away scot-free.”? This is not the world I – or any of us – want to live in, and only by taking pro-active state action now can we ensure that Michigan’s environment is adequately protected – now and into the future.