• How Michigan gubernatorial candidates say they’d address top environmental issues, data centers and more
• Republican Perry Johnson and Democrat Kimberly Thomas did not respond to Bridge questions
• Candidates were asked to limit their responses to 300 words

---

Bridge readers say Michigan’s environment is one of the most pressing issues facing the state this election year. 

So we asked leading gubernatorial candidates how they’d address Great Lakes threats, data centers, aging dams, energy generation, climate change and conservation. Their answers varied widely. 

Johnson and Thomas did not respond to Bridge Michigan’s questions despite multiple requests, so they are not included in this story. Neither is Mike Duggan, who responded but ended his campaign before publication.

Rebandt is included, though he faces potential ballot disqualification due to petition signatures issues. State canvassers will decide Thursday.

Related:

We summarized candidate answers here, but read on to see what they had to say, in full: 

The question: In 2024, Michigan lawmakers passed tax breaks that prompted a wave of data center proposals in Michigan. That, in turn, has sparked debate about whether the industry’s promised economic benefits are worth its impacts on land, water and the electrical grid. How would you approach the data center industry? Would you change anything about state policies governing the industry? 

Benson (D): I want to be crystal clear: If any data center wants to come to Michigan, they will have to do right by Michiganders. We should always welcome innovation and jobs to our state, but we must do so in a transparent way without allowing companies to harm our environment, abuse our water or drive up energy costs. When it comes to data centers, Michigan must enact clear, strict, enforceable guardrails to ensure they only move forward if they transparently commit to delivering well-paying union jobs without harming residents through higher utility bills or excessive water use. 

Data centers must help power Michigan’s clean energy future with new investment that strengthens the grid, supports affordable energy, and ensures families and small businesses aren’t burdened with rising costs. My plan includes several major elements:

• Public hearings to ensure projects do not go through without residents having the opportunity to share their concerns.  
• Transparency and disclosure reporting to ensure no backdoor deals that exclude communities.  
• Requiring developers to prove prior to construction that the data center will not abuse natural resources – from water to land – and it will not drive up energy costs for Michiganders. 
• Data centers bear the cost of additional energy usage. Not the consumer. 
• Union contracts that ensure the creation of well-paying jobs.

Cox (R): I support two organizing principles for regulating data centers.  First, local control by communities must dictate the location of any data centers. This means if a local community is against a data center, that is the end of the story.  Second, if a local community wants a data center — as 70 Michigan communities have done so far — then the data center company must pay for the new energy generation (“if you want a piece of the pie, you must bake your own pie”) so no homeowner or business loses its access to energy or pays more as a result of the data center.  Finally, any approved data center must use the lowest impact water cooling system to protect our Great Lakes Water Basin and ground aquifers. 

James (R): Michigan should welcome growth, investment and innovation, but we should not hand out blank checks or ignore the real impacts major developments can have on land, water, energy and local communities.

Data centers may create economic opportunity, but they also place significant demands on the electrical grid, water resources and local infrastructure. The question is not whether Michigan should be open for business, we absolutely should be. The question is whether state policy protects taxpayers, ratepayers, landowners, farmers and local communities when these projects are proposed and implemented.

Any state incentive for a data center should be tied to measurable public benefit: real job creation, long-term capital investment, responsibility for infrastructure and transparency about water and energy use. Data centers should be encouraged to use recycled wastewater or non-potable water sources for cooling instead of drawing from drinking water supplies. Michigan’s freshwater resources are one of our greatest advantages and must be managed responsibly.

Private companies must contribute to the roads, water systems, wastewater capacity and grid upgrades they require. Those costs will not be passed on to taxpayers or ratepayers. We should also prioritize brownfields and blighted areas for data center locations instead of green farmland and residential neighborhoods. 

Any public support must come with enforceable benchmarks and full transparency for affected communities. Non-disclosure agreements will not be acceptable. Communities should not be treated as an afterthought when large developments affect their land, water and quality of life, regardless of promised economic benefits.

Very simply, if you want to build a data center in Michigan with any public support or use of public resources, you will have to prove it will not harm ratepayers or our environment and you will have to prove it in public.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): Michigan needs to be open for business, not for sale. That’s why I oppose taxpayer-funded data center projects and will make sure any development meets strict conditions, including no government subsidies, no increase in electricity costs for families, local approval in industrial zones, full water protection and lower property taxes for the surrounding community. Let’s keep them in industrial areas instead of eating up more of our farmland.

Rebandt (R): I have publicly stated many times we will institute a one year moratorium on the construction of data centers in Michigan until the following protections are put in place:

1. Non Disclosure Agreements are outlawed.
2. Stronger transparency laws guaranteeing the permitting process is transparent and all agreements among interested parties are public. NO redactions. 
3. The cooling mechanisms, usually water,  and discharged water is all self contained within the data center and does not involve local government systems. 
4. Any expansion of a center after the original permits are approved shall go through a complete and rigorous permitting process. 
5. Strong protections shall be in place ensuring any electrical upgrades needed to operate a center is paid for by the developer. 
6. An electrical power agreement between a center and DTE or Consumers shall protect local businesses and home owners from paying for electricity used by the center. 
7. Is the data being processed surveillance against citizens without their permission or knowledge?
8. How can data centers operate on windmills or solar panels?  If they can’t, why is there a push for data centers from the people who claim Green Energy is the future and want Michigan carbon neutral by 2040?  What’s the point in building them if they are inoperable after their carbon neutral deadline?  The only reason to build them is the millions of dollars that those pushing them will receive. 

The recently approved Saline center violated all of these needed fixes.

Swanson (D): It is never good government to exclude local voices and it’s critical that Michigan ratepayers be held harmless by large corporations, especially multi-billion-dollar conglomerates. Michigan is an attractive location for companies to locate and while the advancement of bringing good paying jobs to our area should be a priority, this should not come at the expense of our residents. Electric and water bills are high enough and power reliability is already in question. Corporations should pay for investment of infrastructure necessary to sustain their operations, working with local and state agencies in the process. We also need to engage labor organizations and ensure corporations pay fair wages and implement safe workplace practices in their activities.

I support a built-in escrow account funded by prospective corporations to protect against a project being abandoned after community planning and resources have been committed and spent. We must also implement legislation requiring signed legal commitments of promise and limitations on tax credits/incentives for needs-based reasons only.

---

The question: In the span of five years, Michigan has endured repeated failure crises at aging, undersized and often privately-owned dams whose owners failed to address longstanding safety concerns. These events have endangered the public and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. What steps, if any, would you take to reduce the risks posed by dangerous dams? And what is your position on Consumers Energy’s proposal to sell its 13 dams to a private company? 

Benson (D): Michigan’s repeated dam failures put families at risk and devastate local economies. They are a reflection of a broken system rooted in aging infrastructure, unaccountable bad actors and a reactive rather than proactive approach to maintenance, leaving taxpayers to cover cleanup costs. As governor, I’ll prioritize public safety by strengthening dam inspections, improving oversight and enforcement and ensuring owners are held accountable for long-term maintenance and repairs before disasters happen. And because preventive maintenance is cheaper than disaster recovery, we’ll also create a dedicated dam safety and resilience fund to enable us to proactively prevent costly failures before they harm our communities. 

Any proposal involving the ownership or operation of dams, including Consumers Energy’s proposal to sell its dams to a private company, must include strong safeguards, full transparency and enforceable accountability standards to ensure public safety and environmental protections are always prioritized. We also need regulations to protect the land around dams and rigorous safeguards so taxpayers don’t end up with all the liability if the private owners go under or the dams fail.

Cox (R): My position is that the issues with dams has been a failure of the local, state and federal government to enforce assessed violations and current law. See Bridge’s own reporting.  

The key issue is a failure of state government to enforce the law: this does not excuse the failures of FERC, but state and local governments have greater incentive to enforce the law and act on violations. As Governor, my Administration will not make excuses. 

James (R): Michigan’s recent dam failures are a failure of accountability. When aging infrastructure is ignored, owners defer maintenance and the government reacts only after disaster strikes, taxpayers and communities pay the price.

As Governor, I will require a comprehensive review of high-risk dams across the state, especially those that are aging, privately owned, undersized, or already known to have safety concerns. Dam owners must be held responsible for maintenance and safety. They should not be allowed to ignore problems for years and then leave families, farmers, businesses and taxpayers vulnerable to the consequences.

Dam policy should be based on engineering, public safety, local input and peer-reviewed science, not political ideology. Some dams may need removal. Some may need repair. Some serve important functions including recreation, flood control, water level regulation, drainage and aquifer recharge. A one-size-fits-all approach will be detrimental to our water systems. 

Flood mitigation must also be addressed through broader infrastructure investment. In Congress, I secured $40 million in federal funding for flood mitigation projects, including the Chapaton pump station in St. Clair Shores.

Reinforcing our dams is especially important for agriculture and rural communities. Michigan Farm Bureau policy recognizes that dams located on drains and waterways play a role in aquifer recharge and should not be removed without considering the consequences on water tables and agricultural water availability. It also opposes allowing existing dam owners to avoid maintaining them. I agree with both principles: protect public safety and protect responsible water management.

Regarding Consumers Energy’s proposal to sell its 13 dams to a private company, I will not rubber-stamp the deal. Any buyer must prove it has the financial capacity, technical expertise and long-term maintenance plan to operate those dams safely. Michigan communities deserve enforceable guarantees, not vague promises.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): Dams are another glaring example of Michigan’s failing infrastructure. Aging dams threaten communities and cost taxpayers millions, yet the Whitmer administration’s environmental bureaucracy has made repairs nearly impossible to permit. On top of that, federal FERC rules under Obama and Biden prioritized fish passage over energy production and basic safety fixes, driving up costs and delaying critical work. Michigan had a $9 billion surplus that should have fixed high-risk dams, roads and bridges, but Democrats wasted it on corporate welfare and pet projects. While the Cheboygan dam teetered on failure, Lansing tried raiding the Rainy Day Fund for more nonsense including a $25 million Capitol park. As governor, I will slash the red tape, speed up real dam safety permits, fight federal overreach and prioritize fixing what matters instead of handouts. No more neglect — Michigan needs leadership that actually protects lives and property.

Rebandt (R): The problem with many failed dams is not the private owners, rather it has been the State of Michigan. In one of the most recent dam failures, the owner requested permission to lower the level of the lake to conduct on site reviews and do needed maintenance.  

The request was denied because the lower lake level would threaten mussels living in the lake. So now we are left with a dry lake, no mussels and thousands of flooded homes.

Swanson (D): Privatization of our infrastructure has repeatedly placed the lives, livelihoods, homes and property of Michiganders in jeopardy. I am firmly against Consumers Energy continuing the trend of moving our dams under the purview of corporations. For profit companies rarely place public interest at the forefront and are more likely to delay long term maintenance and repairs in an effort to increase profits for shareholders and investors. Michigan communities have seen the effects of these shortsighted policies all too often and how profit can be prioritized over safety and security.

I have committed to not taking PAC money from Consumers and DTE so that my administration will not be beholden to monopolies and instead stand firm with the best interests of our residents. Local control matters in maintaining public safety and I will fight any effort that eliminates this critical safeguard.

Michigan must prioritize funding to ensure public dams are safely maintained and repaired in an efficient and expedited manner. Proper control and maintenance must be achieved to eliminate scenarios like the 2020 Edenville Dam failure that cost hundreds of millions of dollars in remediation and lost revenue.

---

The question: Michigan in 2023 passed a suite of legislation aiming to hasten the state’s energy transition, most notably a requirement for regulated utilities to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040 and a law that allows the state to approve large wind and solar arrays over local objections. How is the system working and would you push to change anything about it? 

Benson (D): I’m really proud of the work that led to Michigan leading many other states in setting clear standards and goals that make our state ahead of the curve in advancing towards a more affordable, reliable and clean energy future. This is the right direction for Michigan. It positions our state to lead in clean energy manufacturing and innovation while reducing pollution, protecting our water and health and driving down energy bills.

The Clean Energy and Jobs Act starts at the local level and incentivizes municipal leaders and property owners to reach consensus. It also streamlines the permitting process to prevent local bureaucrats from overriding individual property rights.

As governor, I’ll make sure local leaders have a seat at the table when it comes to projects in their own communities and that we work together with labor, policy experts and business to do this right. If done right, this law puts Michigan in a position to lead the nation: expanding clean energy, strengthening grid reliability and lowering costs for families at the same time. My job as governor will be to make sure those promises are fully delivered in practice, not just on paper.

Cox (R): The Clean Energy and Jobs Act of 2023 is not working.  (Hence, its apt nickname of “The Green New Energy Scam”).  Michigan now has the highest utility rates in the Midwest – 18 to 20% higher than surrounding states.  Those rates not only burden Michigan’s homeowners and renters every time they turn on a light or adjust the thermostat, those rates drives jobs south to Indiana, Ohio and Kentucky as manufacturers and other heavy energy users cannot afford to stay in Michigan.

Further, the damage is not done.  Between 2026 and 2030, DTE and Consumers will spend an additional $26 to $28 billion to comply with the Clean Energy and Jobs Act of 2023.  This essentially means that the Whitmer Administration has deputized the utilities to collect an additional $2,800 per person (or over $10,000 per family of four) in energy bills to meet this progressive policy.  This is simply a “jobs act” that punishes our residents and drives jobs south of Michigan.  

And I will push to repeal it.

James (R): As governor, my first priority will be repealing the Whitmer “green energy” mandates. Our state’s current energy policy has been designed to benefit the powerful political elite while eroding public confidence, increasing burdens on ratepayers and undermining reliability. 

Whitmer’s destructive mandates have driven up the cost of living and doing business in Michigan. She has chosen communism over common sense. Even New York’s Democrat governor is now renouncing her support for these mandates in her state, but Whitmer stays on the path to ruin for Michigan.

Michigan needs an energy policy that is affordable, reliable and grounded in common sense. My record in Congress reflects my approach. I led the fight against the Biden administration’s tailpipe emissions rule. I supported overturning the Advanced Clean Trucks rule because Michigan should not be forced into unrealistic mandates that raise costs, weaken supply chains and limit consumer and business choice. I also opposed policies that damage Michigan’s trucking, manufacturing and agricultural supply chains.

As Governor, I will pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy. That includes natural gas, nuclear, hydro, renewables where they make economic sense, biofuels and emerging technologies. I support expansion of refining capacity for biofuel production and sustainable aviation fuel because Michigan corn, soy and forestry products can create new markets for farmers while strengthening American energy independence.

I will restore meaningful local control over large-scale wind and solar siting by repealing PA 233 of 2023. Productive farmland is finite. Once it is covered by industrial solar or locked into long-term energy leases, it can be taken out of food production for a generation.

I will also replace each of the current members of the Michigan Public Service Commission, who have demonstrated they are far more interested in pursuing an extremist ideological agenda and rubber-stamping rate increases for big utility monopolies than protecting ratepayers.

My goal as Governor is to make Michigan the state with the most affordable and reliable energy and to make our state an energy exporter.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): In 2023, Democrats forced their partisan Green New Scam on Michigan, and it’s been a disaster. This law effectively bans natural gas by 2040 — an unworkable and unaffordable scheme that’s driving up costs, threatening reliability and industrializing hundreds of thousands of acres of prime farmland and forests with massive industrial solar arrays. This will drive up costs another $2,800 per household, while we already have the highest electric rates in the Midwest.  Bulldozing trees for solar panels in the name of “environmental protection” is peak insanity. Michigan families and businesses need affordable, reliable energy, not higher bills and blackout risks. As governor, I will repeal the Green New Scam on day one, protect natural gas, spark a nuclear renaissance with Small Modular Reactors for clean, reliable baseload power, finish the Line 5 tunnel, restore local control and bring common sense back to our energy grid.

Rebandt (R): I believe the ” Green Energy” laws passed in 2023 are the most harmful laws passed by the Michigan legislature in modern history. I strongly oppose such ill thought-out policy. 

I will fight vigorously to repeal the mandates and restore local control. I strongly support H.B 4027 and H.B. 4028.

I have also publicly shared my multi point plan that provides a comprehensive approach to regulating the M.P.S.C.

Swanson (D): Efforts to achieve clean energy goals are critical to fostering an environment that reduces the costs and control Consumers, DTE and oil companies exert over our daily lives and monthly budgets. I will continue to look for ways to reduce our environmental footprint while ensuring any changes also are mindful of reduced costs to consumers.

That being said, we must look at ways to return regulatory authority back to local zoning boards across our state on these critical issues. I look forward to working with our local partners, residents, environmental experts and union organizations to ensure a solution that works for everyone involved.

---

The question: Leading scientists warn that humanity’s reliance on fossil fuel energy is dangerously warming the globe. In Michigan, effects range from shorter winters and more intense periods of storm and drought to worsening wildfire smoke, disappearing boreal forests and shrinking fish. What, if anything, would you do to mitigate the causes of climate change or help Michigan weather its impacts? 

Benson (D): From farmers contending with increasingly unpredictable growing seasons to coastal homeowners dealing with shoreline flooding and erosion, Michiganders are grappling with a changing climate in real time. We’re seeing our Michigan ‘way of life’ be whittled away when snowmobilers can only operate in a short set of months, anglers don’t know if they can eat the fish they catch and families can’t enjoy our beaches. Finding solutions is both an imperative and an economic opportunity, which is why I believe Michigan should lead the nation in clean energy manufacturing, innovation and climate resilience. 

As governor, I’ll commit to growing clean energy jobs that will protect our water, modernize our infrastructure, expand public transit and reduce pollution. I’ll also take steps to unleash Michigan-made energy and make sure the benefits of the clean energy transition are available to everyone. 

These investments will also lower energy costs across the board for Michiganders and prepare our workforce to compete in the economy of the future. Together we can keep the lights on, lower bills,and create well-paying union jobs while protecting our environment.

Cox (R): Leading scientists is a false premise. That is similar to the restating the false predictions of Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” which include, among other things, the “Snows of Kilimanjaro” would be gone by 2016 (they are not), the intensity of hurricanes would increase (they have not), polar bears would drown as the Arctic cap melted (it has not) and the falsehoods go on and on.

James (R): Michigan should take changing weather patterns seriously. Farmers already see the effects of intense storms, drought, flooding, shifting growing seasons and unpredictable conditions. But the answer is not to punish the people who feed us, employ our communities and steward our land.

My approach to climate policy will be based on resilience, innovation and peer-reviewed science. We should focus on what actually works, not what makes politicians feel good.

Michigan needs stronger infrastructure. That means better stormwater systems, drainage, roads, bridges, water infrastructure, forest management and emergency preparedness. Over half of Michigan’s farmland depends on drainage to produce food, feed and fiber. Maintaining those systems is not just an agricultural issue. It is a climate resilience issue. In Congress, I secured $40 million for flood mitigation, sewer and stormwater projects in southeast Michigan.

We should reduce emissions through innovation rather than mandates. Michigan can lead in advanced manufacturing, nuclear energy, biofuels, sustainable aviation fuel, precision agriculture, water recycling and cleaner industrial technology. These are practical solutions that create jobs rather than driving them out of state.

We should also strengthen voluntary, incentive-based conservation programs. MAEAP and GAAMPs work because they treat farmers as partners, not suspects. Farmers live on the land, drink the water and want to pass their farms to the next generation. No one has a stronger incentive to protect soil and water. 

Michigan also needs to improve our wildfire-fighting capability. That begins with a prevention strategy for Michigan forests and must include a partnership with Canada to address theirs.

Such a partnership can reduce costs and protect Michigan summers from wildfire smoke. I reject the false choice between environmental protection and economic strength. Michigan can prepare for climate impacts, protect natural resources and remain affordable and competitive. But we have to follow science, not emotion and results, not ideology.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): As a sportsman and someone who grew up on a family farm, I value clean air, clean water and clean land. That’s why I support practical conservation that works for Michigan families. EPA data shows major emissions drops since 1980: fine particulate matter, mercury and other key pollutants have plummeted while our economy grew, including the six common pollutants the agency tracks are down 80% — proof American innovation and natural gas development deliver real results. The Green New Scam Democrats forced on us — effectively banning natural gas by 2040 — is unworkable and unaffordable. It drives up costs, threatens blackouts and industrializes our farmland and forests with wind and solar. As governor, I will repeal the Green New Scam, protect reliable natural gas and launch a nuclear renaissance for true clean baseload power. We’ll harden infrastructure against storms, support farmers and forests and keep our Great Lakes strong. Michigan needs leadership that delivers clean, affordable energy without punishing families. We must put common sense over mandates.

Rebandt (R): I believe climate change is one of the biggest hoaxes pushed on the American people in our life time. The budget that I have proposed ends all E.V. subsidies. It also terminates the roles that E.G.L.E. and L.E.O. have been directed to play in the Green Energy initiative. 

If and when a true market exists for electric cars and their production is profitable, the Big 3 will fill that market with great automobiles.

Swanson (D): Climate change deserves a multi-pronged approach by a coalition of government, private sector and environmental organizations. Carbon neutrality and reduction of greenhouse gases are key metrics that deserve to be achieved within our economic framework. One key component that is often overlooked is how replacement of public infrastructure can be done in a manner to reduce our environmental footprint and create energy positive opportunities. From implementing renewable energy generation at our wastewater plants to energy efficiency upgrades to our city, township and village halls, opportunities to make meaningful change and improvement are tangible and achievable.

---

The question: Gone are the days when industry openly dumped toxic waste into the Great Lakes. But challenges remain, from invasive mussels that have tanked fish populations to algae blooms fueled by farm runoff and the unsettled debate about the Line 5 pipeline. What do you see as the biggest threats to the Great Lakes and how would you seek to address them? 

Benson (D): The future of Michigan’s economy and our quality of life are inseparable from the future of our Great Lakes. From anglers in Monroe watching Lake Erie turn green with worsening algae blooms, to parents on Lake Michigan beaches concerned about E. coli contamination, to Northern Michiganders anxious about the threat of an oil spill beneath the Straits of Mackinac, these threats impact all of us.

In addition to the impact of climate change, some of the biggest threats to our Great Lakes link back to unaccountable bad actors and outdated infrastructure. Whether it’s the possibility of an oil spill due to the aging Line 5, toxic runoff, sewage overflows and contamination, unchecked sulfide mining, invasive species, or chemicals that threaten our health and our children’s future, state government must create enforceable guardrails including expanded safety reviews, inspection requirements and enforceable contingency planning of any company whose work impacts the Great Lakes. 

Upgrading this aging infrastructure while collaborating with our neighboring states is critical. I’ll hold polluters accountable, modernize our pipes and water infrastructure and take action to stop the toxic runoff and contamination that threatens our health, tourism economy and natural resources. I’ll build on the partnerships embedded in the Great Lakes Compact to work with neighboring states and Canada.

Cox (R): As Attorney General, I worked closely with the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) to make the EPA regulate ballast water discharges which were the leading cause of invasive species in the Great Lakes.  We were successful in federal court and EPA regulation led to significant decreases in the proliferation of invasive species.

In the same way, I led the initial fight to stop the migration of Asian Carp into the Great Lakes by leading all Great Lakes States and Canadian provinces to sue Illinois to build a gate preventing the migration of Asian Carp into Lake Michigan (and all other Great Lakes).  This led to the eventual appropriation by the Trump Administration and Congress this past year to build the gate. 

The biggest threats to the Great Lakes to the Great Lakes are diversion – which I fought during the Annex 2001 process – and efforts to undermine common sense conservation efforts.  One such example is the opposition to the Line 5 Pipeline modernization efforts which undermines protection of the Straits as a sacrifice on the altar of progressives’ attempts to stop the use of fossil fuels. 

James (R): I don’t just talk about protecting the Great Lakes, I’ve already delivered on protecting them for the communities that depend on them. In Congress, I secured $22.4 million for a new Soo Lock in Sault Ste. Marie, $2 million for the Macomb Combined Sewer Overflow Elimination Project, $4 million for the Clinton Township Pilot Sanitary Sewer Lead Program, $1.75 million for Sewer Separation of the St. Clair Shores Martin Drain and $500,000 for the Clinton River Disposal Facility. That’s real money for real infrastructure, and it’s what separates talk from results. 

The Great Lakes are central to Michigan’s identity, economy, agriculture and way of life. The biggest threats are invasive species, harmful algal blooms, aging water infrastructure and mismanaged energy policy. On invasive species, I’ll work aggressively with federal agencies, neighboring states, anglers and local communities to stop the spread before it starts. On algal blooms, farmers shouldn’t be scapegoated. Municipal stormwater, wastewater and urban runoff are equal contributors. I’ll support unbiased studies before imposing new regulations and strengthen incentive-based programs like MAEAP. 

On infrastructure, Flint showed us what government failure costs. The water main breaks across Oakland and Macomb Counties are a warning we cannot ignore. Local governments must own their responsibility and the state should offer low-interest loans to expedite critical upgrades.

On Line 5, I led the letter to the Army Corps of Engineers supporting the Great Lakes Tunnel as a safer path forward. As Governor, I will end the Whitmer-Nessel litigation and stop using energy providers as political targets.

I am firmly opposed to Great Lakes water diversion and oil drilling in the Lakes. Full stop. I also remain opposed to diversion of Great Lakes water to other regions of the country and opposed to oil drilling in the Great Lakes.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): As a sports fisherman and proud member of the South Haven Steelheaders, I’ve seen firsthand how zebra and quagga mussels have wrecked fish populations. That’s why I’m proud of the work we’ve done with President Trump to fund new barriers against invasive species and critical Soo Locks upgrades. These are real wins that protect our $7 billion fishery and the jobs that depend on it. Years of neglect have left our infrastructure failing. Metro Detroit and other communities still discharge raw sewage into our lakes during heavy rains, contaminating water and making fish unsafe to eat. As governor, I’ll cut the corporate welfare and pet projects and instead invest in modern sewers, stormwater fixes and treatment plants that actually work. No more excuses — just results. The Great Lakes are Michigan’s crown jewel. We have a duty to protect them with strong barriers against invaders, upgraded infrastructure and common-sense leadership that puts clean water and strong fishing first.

Rebandt (R): A major challenge is the commercial operators.  As they drive their ATV applicators over small lawns, they also fertilize sidewalks, driveways and streets. Most of this excess fertilizer ends up in streams and ponds as it makes its way to the Great Lakes.

A second issue is, the one-gallon sprayer, bought at the local hardware store, it typically cannot be calibrated. The end result is the mixture, used by home owners, is often times way too strong. Additionally, the home owner applies weed killer and fertilizer more often than what is recommended.

I strongly support the construction of Line 5. It is the safest and best solution to protecting the environment. The Line 5 issue is a federal issue. The treaty allowing its original construction is a treaty signed by both Canada and the United States.

Swanson (D): The Great Lakes continue to be under threat from multiple causes, many due to negative impacts from corporations or other bad actors. As Governor I will work to ensure regulations related to invasive species are enforced and expanded as needed. Our state will also be a leader in PFAS and related chemical testing, prevention and remediation to ensure source water used at our faucets remains the highest quality water possible. This includes ensuring contaminated runoff does not impact our water supply.

The Great Lakes are a tremendous natural resource for our state and region, one that is eyed by corporations and states across our nation. I will ensure the protections afforded under the Great Lakes Compact are upheld and the diversion of this precious resource outside the Great Lakes basin and our region’s watershed are prohibited.

The Flint Water Crisis and the Lockhart Chemical spill into the Flint River were two of many environmental issues I have tackled as Genesee County Sheriff and have strengthened my resolve to ensure these bad actors are treated similarly to any other individual that commits a crime impacting the same magnitude of our public. Our laws need to be reinforced and new tougher penalties put in place when dealing with environmental crimes. Too often the punishment amounts to penalties that pale in comparison to the profit gained by the illicit actions, while the community and taxpayers are left paying to clean up the environmental disaster and suffer the ramifications. We need real penalties that not only punish environmental criminals but deter others from following in their footsteps

---

The question: The Michigan Department of Natural Resources uses fees from park visitors, hunters and anglers to manage wildlife conservation and recreation, but stagnant revenue and inflation are straining budgets, sparking fears of hatchery closures, campground shutdowns and other cuts. Would you support any fee increases? If so, explain. If not, how do you think the state should pay for managing public lands and wildlife? 

Benson (D): As the CEO of one of our state’s largest agencies, I have seen firsthand how to cut waste, fraud and abuse while modernizing operations to save money and enable us to do more with less.  That’s exactly how I was able to transform our Department of State into the most efficient department of motor vehicles in the country – from eliminating long wait times at our branch offices to installing self-service stations in grocery stores and moving more services online. In doing so we’ve been able to save Michiganders time, save them money and make their lives easier.

For DNR specifically, we’ll develop a strategic plan in my first 100 days that will modernize the department’s structure and revenue sources to ensure resources are being used as efficiently as possible. We’ll prioritize driving down costs for Michiganders while developing innovative ways to identify new sources of revenue to ensure we are investing in our parks.

Cox (R): State government engages in pricing that destroys its “consumer base” of hunters and fishermen. If anything, the DNR should reduce license fees to drive increased fishing and hunting, which would not only drive better wildlife management by, among other things, culling the 2 million deer herd which is too large to sustain in a healthy manner, but also increase tourism dollars.  Simply put, the Whitmer Administration and the DNR continually price recreation out of the market, which hurts the State’s bottom line and undermines good conservation processes. 

James (R): Stewardship of Michigan’s natural resources will be a top priority for my administration. As an avid sportsman, I firmly believe that Michigan’s public lands, parks, forests, fisheries and wildlife are part of what makes this state exceptional. They support tourism, outdoor recreation, local economies and quality of life across the state. But like every area of government, these resources must be managed responsibly and transparently.

I will not support automatic fee increases without first requiring a serious review of how current dollars are being spent. The government should not ask hunters, anglers, campers and outdoor families to pay more until it can show that existing revenue is being used efficiently.

I will explore other funding options, including federal conservation dollars, public-private partnerships for management of DNR assets and services, sportsmen’s organizations, volunteer groups, local partnerships and where appropriate, revenue from responsible forest management. I will also increase funding for Pure Michigan with the goal of bringing more tourism revenue from out of state to support our parks and recreation assets.

I want more families to have access to recreation in Michigan and to maximize our state’s economic benefits from tourism. That starts with enforcing the law on keeping schools out of session between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Natural resource decisions should include people who actually know and use the land: hunters, anglers, farmers, foresters, conservation districts, local governments and outdoor recreation businesses. As Governor, I will rely on advice and expertise from these constituencies on issues like water use, land use, regulatory reform, trade and natural resources.

The goal should be simple: protect Michigan’s resources, keep them accessible and manage them with accountability. Conservation should be based on stewardship, science and local knowledge, not bureaucracy for its own sake.

Johnson (R): Did not respond.

Nesbitt (R): Pricing people out of the sport while we face massive deer overpopulation isn’t conservation — it’s bad policy. We don’t need higher fees. We need to eliminate the waste, fraud and bureaucratic bloat in Lansing. Allow deer baiting and constrain the DNR from trampling our private property rights.  By auditing DNR spending, cutting non-essential programs and redirecting every dollar to core priorities like hatcheries, wildlife management and campgrounds, we can protect our natural resources without squeezing Michigan families and outdoorsmen. Michigan’s hunters and anglers already fund conservation. They deserve results, not more taxes. As governor, I’ll make sure they get both.

Rebandt (R): I do not support a tax increase nor fee increases for the DNR The department’s budget has been increasing faster than inflation for a decade. 

The DNR has been doing a very poor job of handling simple issues such as deer over population or the destruction of the commercial fishing industry.  The department needs to spend less time worrying about residential bird feeders and more time solving the lack of a thriving fishing environment in the Saginaw Bay. 

Under my administration, a locally driven approach to many of these issues will be led by Conservation Districts and will better serve our residents.

Swanson (D): Grocery prices have skyrocketed, gas prices in Michigan are above $5.00 a gallon and the cost to heat our homes is crushing household budgets. As Governor I will not add to our affordability crisis by making it more expensive for families to go camping, visit our public parks, or obtain a hunting license. I will look for ways to increase efficiency and find alternative funding mechanisms to ensure the DNR has adequate funding to operate and maintain our public resources.

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com