793 N.W.2d 596
Mich.2010Background
- Merit Energy proposed discharging 1.15 million gallons/day of air-stripped, treated but contaminated groundwater from the Manistee River watershed into Koike Creek, which feeds the AuSable River watershed.
- DEQ approved a general discharge permit and granted Merit a state easement to construct a pipeline from the air-stripping site to the Koike Creek discharge point.
- Koike Creek is the headwaters of the AuSable River; plaintiffs—riparian owners and users—sued under surface-water, riparian, and MEPA theories, seeking an injunction.
- The circuit court found Merit’s discharge plan manifestly unreasonable and violated MEPA, granting injunctive relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed portions and remanded on MEPA liability against the DEQ.
- The Supreme Court held Merit’s discharge plan is not an allowable use of water, and the DEQ can be sued in MEPA for permitting decisions; it overruled Preserve the Dunes and discussed Nestlé standing.
- The decision remands for reinstatement of the trial court’s MEPA ruling against the DEQ while affirming in part the lower courts’ rulings on reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Merit’s Koike Creek discharge an allowable water use? | Anglers argues the plan is unreasonable use harming AuSable watershed. | Merit contends discharge follows permitted process and is a permissible use. | Not an allowable use; manifestly unreasonable. |
| Can the DEQ be sued under MEPA for its permitting decisions? | MEPA permits private action to challenge environmental harm arising from permitting. | DEQ argues permit decisions lie outside MEPA liability. | DEQ can be sustained as a MEPA defendant for its permitting decisions. |
| Was Preserve the Dunes correctly decided and to what extent does Nestlé affect standing? | Preserve the Dunes insulated DEQ permitting from MEPA; Nestlé limits standing. | Preserve the Dunes and Nestlé should control MEPA claims. | Preserve the Dunes overruled; Nestlé standing limited but MEPA provides broader standing. |
| Should Nestlé's reasonable-use balancing test apply here? | Nestlé factors govern reasonableness and local water needs. | Nestlé should not control this off-watershed context. | Reasonableness test governs; lead opinion adopts manifest unreasonableness in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nestlé Waters North America Inc v Mich, 479 Mich 280; 737 NW2d 447 (2007) (Mich Sup Ct 2007) (rejected strict standing; debated reasonable-use balancing tests)
- Preserve the Dunes, Inc v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 471 Mich 508; 684 NW2d 847 (2004) (Mich Sup Ct 2004) (held permit decisions insulated from MEPA challenge)
- Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestlé Waters North America Inc, 269 Mich App 25; 709 NW2d 174 (2005) (Mich Ct App 2005) (established Nestlé reasonable-use balancing framework)
- Ray v Mason Co Drain Comm’r, 393 Mich 294; 224 NW2d 883 (1975) (Mich Sup Ct 1975) (MEPA context on environmental harm and conduct)
- Dumont v Kellogg, 29 Mich 420 (1874) (Mich Sup Ct 1874) (early balancing of riparian rights on reasonableness)
- Wyoming Twp v Grand Rapids, 175 Mich 503; 141 NW 890 (1913) (Mich Sup Ct 1913) (riparian use allowed if reasonable and non-nuisance)
- Eyde v Michigan, 393 Mich 453; 225 NW2d 1 (1975) (Mich Sup Ct 1975) (conduct-based MEPA considerations)
- West Mich Environmental Action Council v Natural Resources Comm, 405 Mich 741; 275 NW2d 538 (1979) (Mich Sup Ct 1979) (MEPA and environmental enforcement precedents)