Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Is a Michigan municipality strictly liable for illegal discharges into public waters by private parties?

Many areas in the vicinity of Michigan lakes are heavily developed, with under-sized lots and former cottages now serving as year-round homes.  Also, because many of our lakes are in rural areas, there is no public sewer infrastructure.  Based on a new decision from the Michigan Supreme Court, more property owners may soon be faced with public sewer projects.

On May 17, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court released its decision in Department of Environmental Quality v. Worth Township.  In Worth, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") filed suit against Worth Township (the "Township") under Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act ("NREPA"), which provides for water resources protection.  In Worth, surveys of water quality conducted by the DEQ in 2003, 2006 and 2008 revealed that surface waters were contaminated with both fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria.  The source of the contamination was old, undersized and failing septic systems on private properties near the shore of Lake Huron.  Oversaturated drain fields caused raw sewage to be directed into ditches and streams leading into Lake Huron.

There is no municipal sewage system in Worth Township.  Based on the initial testing done by the DEQ, in 2004 the DEQ and the Township entered into an agreement wherein the Township agreed to construct a municipal sewage system by 2008.  The Township did not construct such a system, citing lack of funds.  The DEQ filed suit, seeking  to force the Township to take measures to prevent the discharge of raw sewage.

The trial court found in favor of the DEQ, ordering the Township to take corrective measures and to pay fines and attorney fees.  The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a municipality cannot be required to prevent the discharge of raw sewage from private properties.  The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that under Part 31 of NREPA, a municipality can be held liable for, and is required to prevent, a discharge that originates within its borders, even when the discharge is by a private party.

Justice Robert Young dissented, observing that the decision imposes strict liability on a municipality for every harmful discharge that occurs within its borders – an observation that is difficult to ignore.

Property owners on or adjacent to public waters in areas not served by a public sewer system should take note of Worth.

© 2013 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Partner

A partner in Varnum's trial group, Eric represents individuals, associations and business clients in lawsuits involving contract disputes, quiet title actions and other civil disputes. He has extensive experience in real estate matters, including construction law, riparian rights, boundary disputes, zoning and land use issues. Eric's practice also includes disputes involving closely-held businesses including...

269/553-3506

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.