LANSING, MI -- New legislation pending in the Michigan Senate that would slash the number of protected wetlands could result in Michigan losing its delegated authority to approve or deny wetland development permits, say state regulators.

The Senate Natural Resources Committee heard testimony Wednesday on SB 1211, a lame duck proposal by outgoing Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, who sparred with opponents from his chair seat during the Nov. 28 hearing. The hourlong hearing did not result in a vote, but the bill could be adopted by the committee as soon as next week and proceed to the full floor.

If signed into law as written, the bill would amend a 1994 law by increasing the minimum size for a regulated wetland from five to 10 acres and changing wetland definitions to require a direct physical connection to either the Great Lakes or an inland lake or stream.

State regulators estimate that 70,000 wetlands encompassing roughly half a million acres of Michigan land would be affected by changes proposed in the legislation.

Opponents say that would overhaul wetland regulation and jeopardize the state's delegated authority to administer the federal Clean Water Act, a unique program developed in 1984 that lets Michigan make permitting decisions on behalf of the federal government.

A top Michigan Department of Environmental Quality official affirmed the possibility of the state losing its delegated authority as result of the proposed bill during the hearing, although the DEQ says it's not taking any formal position on the legislation.

Supporters, Casperson in particular, say the legislation is meant to bolster personal property rights against government regulation. He introduced the bill on Nov. 27.

Wetlands regulation has long been a bone of contention between Casperson and the DEQ, whom the senator has accused in the past of a having "radical left wing" agenda and the propensity to "preserve every little frog pond." Casperson championed legislation this year that established a governor-appointed panel with the power to veto proposed DEQ rules and overturn permitting decisions.

Casperson, who comes from a log trucking background, flashed anger while talking about an "82-year-old couple scared to death they are going to lose everything they own over less than an acre next to their property," he said, alleging the unnamed couple was to be fined $6,000 until lawmakers helped get the DEQ to drop that to $2,000.

"This is for the average citizen who is getting mowed over, who has three acres that does nothing and isn't contiguous to anything," Casperson said.

Aaron Keatly, who became chief deputy director at DEQ this year, testified that Casperson's bill could impact wetlands defined as "waters of the united states."

The Environmental Protection Agency must oversee Michigan's delegated authority, and, "if we cannot implement the program consistent with federal law, that constrains the federal government's ability to allow us to operate as an independent state," he said.

Nationally, Keatly said "we're still debating what is water," in an apparent nod to the legal quagmire that persists around an Obama-era federal rule, called the WOTUS Rule, that defines what wetlands and waterways fall under jurisdiction of the federal government.

"I believe the definitions as drafted probably go beyond what my understanding of the intent of the bill would be," Keatly said.

Casperson challenged representatives of the Michigan Environmental Council and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, who testified that, should the bill pass, both organizations would respond by lobbying to remove wetland regulations from the state's hands altogether and return sole permitting authority back to the federal government.

"If Michigan legislators choose to show they no longer care about Michigan wetlands, and no longer want to protect them, then Michigan shouldn't be regulating them," said Jennifer McKay, policy director of Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council in Petoskey.

The groups argued that Michigan's Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Program, known simply as the Michigan Wetland Program, is already out of compliance with EPA standards and has been for years and the bill would further weaken ecosystem protections.

Casperson countered that during a recent Chicago meeting with EPA Region 5 Administrator Cathy Stepp, a Trump Administration appointee, state compliance issues weren't even mentioned.

"We spent probably an hour together -- these issues came up," Casperson said. "I didn't get one inkling of 'get your act together Michigan because you're out of compliance.' It was kind of the opposite. She was looking forward to working with us, and was concerned about making sure we stayed within the guidelines of the rules and the laws. And that's what should govern us. It shouldn't be emotions and feelings and everything else."

"We've had people talking to people in Washington with the EPA," Casperson continued. "Again, I've heard nothing about Michigan out of compliance -- who in EPA is telling you that?" he asked McKay.

In response, McKay said that "we have verified letters to the DEQ that we are out of compliance." The letters are from Region 5 and came after the most recent changes to the wetlands program in 2013.

"We can certainly get you copies of those letters," she said. "It lists very specific parameters upon which Michigan's program is out of compliance and what needs to be changed."

The legislation drew support from the timber industry, DTE Energy, individual developers and business groups like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Farm Bureau, Home Builders Association of Michigan and National Federation of Independent Business.

But not every business voice in the room liked the bill.

Steven Niswander of the consulting firm Niswander Environmental said the proposal jeopardizes wetland banking in Michigan and has already caused his firm, which he called the "largest wetland mitigation banker in Michigan" to pull-the-plug on two projects due to the uncertainty around wetland permits at DEQ.

Wetland mitigation, or wetlands banking, is the practice of creating new wetlands to replace those destroyed by development.

Reverting back to federal authority, where permit review can take six months to a year as opposed to several weeks to a month, is bad for his clients, Niswander said.

"Having the ability to work at the state level to get controversial and tough projects through is critical," he said.

In Michigan, developers can have direct communication with regulators "and actually have some political influence on some controversial projects. When you're working with the Army Corps and EPA, there is no ability to influence permits," Niswander said.