Michigan Senate Bill SB0066

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

Water supply: systems; switching from private well to public system; prohibit locals from requiring of adult foster care facilities. Amends 1976 PA 399 (MCL 325.1001 - 325.1023) by adding sec. 15a.

Summary

Senate Bill 66 would amend Michigan’s Safe Drinking Water Act to protect certain adult foster care facilities from being forced by local governments or local water authorities to abandon a compliant private well and connect to a different waterworks system. The bill applies only when the facility’s well has sufficient water volume and the water meets all maximum permissible contaminant levels. The bill defines the covered facilities by reference to the Adult Foster Care Facilities Licensing Act and limits the protection to adult foster care facilities serving 50 or fewer residents. In effect, the measure creates a state-law restriction on local authority over water service decisions for a narrow class of care facilities that rely on private wells and already meet drinking water standards.

Impact

SB 66 would add a new section 15a to the Safe Drinking Water Act, limiting the ability of local units of government and regional authorities to require small adult foster care facilities to connect to a public waterworks system when their existing well water is adequate and compliant. The practical impact is to preserve the use of private wells for qualifying facilities, reduce potential infrastructure or connection costs for those facilities, and constrain local water-system mandates in this specific context. It would affect adult foster care facilities with 50 or fewer residents, as well as local governments and authorities that oversee or regulate water service connections.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears narrowly tailored and likely intended to relieve regulatory burden on small care facilities that already have safe well water. The available context suggests a policy focus on local control versus state preemption, but not enough information is present to identify the overall legislative sentiment with certainty.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely to be whether local governments and water authorities should retain discretion to require connection to a public system for health, planning, or infrastructure reasons, even when a private well meets drinking water standards. Opponents could argue that local authorities need flexibility to manage long-term water safety and service consistency, while supporters would likely emphasize cost savings, operational stability, and the adequacy of compliant well water for small adult foster care homes. The bill’s narrow scope to facilities serving 50 or fewer residents may reduce controversy, but it still creates a state-level limit on local regulatory authority.