WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5536

Natural resources: wetlands; definition of wetland; update. Amends secs. 30301, 30307 & 30308 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.30301 et seq.).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 16 co-sponsors

The bill narrows and clarifies the definition of wetlands for local regulation, including removing the 5-acre size threshold for local oversight.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE
#naturalresources:wetlands #stateagencies(existing):environment #greatlakes #andenergy
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5536

Summary of HB 5536 (2025-2026) – Michigan

Jurisdiction: Michigan | Topic: Natural resources – wetlands; definition of wetland; update

Date introduced: February 19, 2026
Sponsor(s): Rep. David Martin (primary), with multiple co-sponsors

Committee: Natural Resources and Tourism

1) Purpose and Intent

HB 5536 seeks to modify how the term “wetland” is defined within the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) for two contexts:
- The definition used by local units of government when regulating wetlands under sections 30307 and 30308.
- The broader definition used elsewhere in Part 303 of the act.

The bill aims to clarify and potentially narrow the scope of wetlands that local units of government can regulate, by altering the size and connectivity criteria that currently determine whether a water feature qualifies as a wetland for regulatory purposes.

2) Key Provisions and Changes

A. Definitions (Section 30301)

  • Reaffirms existing terms such as Department, Director, exceptional wetland, hydric soil, and related concepts.
  • Introduces and clarifies terms used in wetlands regulation (e.g., “landscape level wetland assessment,” “rare and imperiled wetland,” “wetland functions and services,” etc.).
  • Specifies “wetland” in two contexts:
    • Context A (for local regulation under 30307/30308): A revised or separate definition may apply, affecting which features can be regulated by local units.
    • Context B (elsewhere in Part 303): Retains a more expansive set of criteria for what constitutes a wetland.

B. Wetland Regulatory Scope for Local Units (Sections 30307 and 30308)

  • Under current law, a wetland is regulated if it meets several criteria, including size (more than 5 acres) and other factors (e.g., proximity to waters of the United States, presence of rare species, etc.).
  • The bill proposes removing the statutory requirement that a wetland be more than 5 acres in size for local regulation. This expands or changes the threshold that would allow local units to regulate smaller wetlands.
  • For smaller wetlands (size threshold adjustments), the bill would adjust applicability and procedures for local oversight, hearings, and permit decisions.
  • Maintains a framework for permit decisions:
    • Local units may regulate wetlands via ordinances, with processes for permit application, review timelines, hearings, and potential department involvement.
    • If a local unit does not act within specified timelines, permits may be deemed approved, with documented reasons for denial still required.
    • Department involvement and coordination continue, including forwarding applications and notifying local units of permits issued.

C. Statewide Inventory and Public Involvement (Section 30308)

  • Prior to enacting a local ordinance under 30307(4), a local unit must complete and publicly share an inventory of wetlands within its jurisdiction, with public comment opportunities.
  • Maps and inventories must be publicly accessible; notices must be sent to property owners about inventory status and potential wetland designation, though inventories do not themselves create enforceable presumptions.
  • Local units with existing wetland ordinances (as of Dec 18, 1992) have a deadline (June 18, 1994) to complete inventories or otherwise cease enforcement.

D. Local vs. State Review Process

  • If a local unit adopts a wetland ordinance, the application process must streamline decision-making to prevent multiple local hearings or duplicative processes, with limited opportunities for appeals to additional local bodies.
  • Where no local ordinance exists, state and local coordination continues with potential local review and recommendation timelines.

3) Who/What Is Affected

  • Local units of government (counties, municipalities) that regulate wetlands under NREPA.
  • Property owners and applicants seeking wetland permits or determinations.
  • The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE, formerly MiDNR) for coordination, permit issuance, and notification.
  • Wetlands meeting revised criteria (particularly smaller wetlands currently regulated based on size thresholds) could see different regulatory treatment.

4) Procedural and Timeline Aspects

  • Hearing timing: If a permit is requested, the department may hold a hearing within 60 days of receipt, particularly in the locality where the wetland is located.
  • Local/regional review: Local units must act on permit applications within 90 days of receipt; failure to act can result in deemed approval, with required written explanation for denials.
  • Inventory requirements: Local units must prepare and publish wetland inventories before adopting new ordinances; notify owners about inventory status and potential designations.
  • Coordination: Departments must notify local units when permits are issued and must forward applications to appropriate local bodies when applicable.

5) Fiscal Considerations

  • A fiscal impact analysis is being prepared; current documents indicate an in-progress assessment of potential costs or savings associated with changes to definitions, inventories, and local regulatory processes.

This summary presents the substantive aspects of HB 5536 as introduced. If you’d like, I can provide a comparison to the current statutory language or track potential amendments and fiscal notes as the bill progresses.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.