WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 5502

Natural resources: wetlands; regulation of wetlands; modify. Amend sec. 30305 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.30305).

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Matt Bierlein and 4 co-sponsors

HB 5502 broadens when wetlands are regulated by requiring EGLE to prove a wetland was created incidentally, narrowing exemptions and shifting burden of proof.

REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AGRICULTURE
#naturalresources:wetlands
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 5502

Summary of HB 5502 (2025-2026) – Michigan Wetlands Regulation

Brand: House Bill 5502, introduced February 5, 2026, by Rep. Cavitt (with Reps. Schuette, Kelly, Bierlein, and Wozniak) | Committee: Natural Resources and Tourism

Note: HB 5501 is a companion bill dealing with expedited wetland mitigation rules; HB 5502 focuses on modifying exemptions and burden of proof related to wetlands regulation. This summary covers HB 5502 as introduced.

1) Objective and intent

  • The bill seeks to modify exemptions from regulation under Part 303 (Wetlands) of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) and to shift the burden of proof to EGLE (Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy) regarding whether a wetland was created incidentally and thus subject to regulation.
  • In effect, it narrows, clarifies, or redefines when activities in wetlands are exempt from regulation and who bears the burden of proving wetland creation or incidentality.

2) Key provisions and changes

  • Section 30305 (Exemptions from regulation) – main change:
    • The bill adds a provision stating that an area becomes subject to regulation under Part 303 if a wetland was created through human activity not specifically intended to create a wetland. In other words, it broadens the set of activities that could trigger regulation by clarifying the test for incidental creation.
    • Crucially, the department (EGLE) would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that a wetland was created in a manner other than the exemption described in subsection (4) and is therefore subject to regulation under Part 303.
  • Subsection (4) (incidental wetlands exemptions) remains in place but the bill’s language clarifies that any human activity not specifically intended to create wetlands could qualify for exemption only if it falls within the enumerated exemptions, and that EGLE must prove otherwise if a wetland is claimed to be regulated.
  • Other statutory definitions and terms:
    • The bill preserves existing definitions of “utility line,” “agricultural drain,” and related concepts as they appear in the NREPA, ensuring consistency with current legal vocabulary.

3) Potential effects and who is affected

  • Regulatory scope:
    • The change could potentially expand regulatory oversight if EGLE successfully demonstrates that a wetland was created incidentally by activities not intended to create wetlands. Practically, this could subject certain sites previously exempted to Part 303 regulation.
  • Burden of proof:
    • A shift toward EGLE bearing the burden of proving incidental creation could affect how disputes over wetland status are litigated or administratively adjudicated.
  • Stakeholders:
    • Property owners, developers, and operators conducting activities near wetlands.
    • Environmental regulators (EGLE) and environmental groups interested in wetland protection.
  • Administrative/process considerations:
    • The bill does not alter the basic exemptions list itself but changes the interpretive framework and burden of proof, which could influence permitting decisions and enforcement actions.

4) Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date: The bill’s introduction in February 2026 establishes initial legislative steps; the exact effective date would depend on the bill’s passage and the enactment process.
  • Related companion measure: HB 5501 addresses expedited permitting for Compensatory Wetland Mitigation and on-site/internal wetland reconfiguration; HB 5502 complements by clarifying exemptions and burden of proof.
  • Fiscal impact: A fiscal analysis is in progress; the fiscal effects would hinge on how often wetlands are deemed regulated under the new standard.

5) Context and cites

  • Statutory framework: Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Part 303 (Wetlands).
  • Related provisions referenced in the bill include section 30311d (regarding wetland mitigation rules) and the general regulatory framework for wetlands in Michigan.

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with current law and highlight hypothetical scenarios illustrating how the burden of proof shift might play out in practice.

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

Sign in to ask a question.