New York Water Law
Lake and clouds
      Blog Home      Index of Posts      About the NYS DEC      About the DRBC      About the SRBC

January 11, 2011

MI Supreme Court Rules on Water Law and Standing Issues

Noah Hall has posted a detailed report of the decision in Anglers of the AuSable v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Merit Energy Company, a signficant new decision of the Michigan Supreme Court addressing water law and standing issues on his Great Lakes Law blog.

Prof. Hall characterizes the majority’s decision in the case of as "a huge legal victory for Anglers of the AuSable and other environmental groups on several very important state law issues." He notes, however, that the decision was issued right before a major change in the Court’s balance and composition as a result of the 2010 elections, and that the dissenting justices have now regained a majority on the court.

In addition to issues in interpreting the ability of citizens to sue under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), the Court was faced with several legal issues under Michigan riparian water law. The Court was asked to rule on the appropriate legal test for discharge of polluted water and whether a proposed diversion of contaminated water from the Manistee River watershed into Kolke Creek and the AuSable River watershed was lawful. The Court declined to clarify the relevant legal test, concluding that the discharge, in the circumstances presented, was “manifestly unreasonable”.

The Court declined to address the issue of whether a riparian landowner (in this case the state) may convey riparian rights by easement to a non-riparian (in this case Merit Energy). According to the majority, that issue was not “outcome-determinative”.

On the MEPA issues, the Court expressly overruled the Court’s 2004 decision in Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Department of Environmental Quality (684 NW2d 847) and held that state agencies can be sued under MEPA and held accountable for pollution that will result from issuing permits. Chief Justice Kelly, who dissented in Preserve the Dunes and joined the Anglers of the AuSable majority in overruling that prior decision, wrote a separate concurrence to justify the decision under the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Court in Anglers of the AuSable also overruled the restrictive standing test used in the Court’s 2007 decision in Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America, Inc. (727 NW2d 447), and instead relied on its 2010 decision in Lansing Schools Education Association v Lansing Board of Education to apply MEPA’s express statutory language and allow any citizen to bring suit under the law.

Posted by Rachel Treichler at 01/11/11 02:15 PM

 

 

Copyright 2013, Rachel Treichler

 

   


About NY Water Law

New York Water Law covers legal developments relating to water in New York and in jurisdictions that may be influential in New York. The author, Rachel Treichler, practices law in the Finger Lakes region.
Contact the Author
Law Office of Rachel Treichler

Search NY Water Law

Enter search terms:
Click to read our RSS feed
Enter email address to receive notices of new content delivered by FeedBurner:

Index of Posts

Index of Posts by Month

Water Law Links

Acequias and Adjudication
Aguanomics
American Water Resources
AquaLog
Arizona Waterblogged
Bluedaze Blog
CELP
Circle of Blue
Coyote Gulch
Croton Watershed Coalition
E&E Law Monitor
Elizabeth Royte Notes
ESA Blawg
Great Lakes Law Blog
Great Lakes on the Ground
Green Blawg
International Water Law Blog
Lake Scientist
Lakeside Views
Law of the Land Blog
Legal Planet
Marcellus Effect Blog
NRDC Switchboard
NY Water Resources Institute
Oklahoma Water Law
Ohio Environ. Law Blog
Pace GreenLaw
Rancho Los Malulos
Steven Solomon's Water Blog
SPR Environmental Law Blog
The Reef Tank
Thirsty in Suburbia
NYT Toxic Waters Series
Water Law Blog
Water Sustainability Project
Water Wiki
Watercrunch
Watering the Desert
Watershed Post
WaterWired
WesternWaterBlog

 

[Valid RSS]
















This blog is published for educational purposes only. The matters discussed in the blog are general
in nature and are incomplete descriptions of the law. Nothing in this blog constitutes legal advice or an offer of legal advice.
You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem.