The Michigan Supreme Court case of *Thompson v. Enz*, 379 Mich. 700 (1968), established a framework for allocating water rights in Michigan, particularly concerning riparian rights and the impact of increased water usage. The case involved a dispute over the diversion of water from a stream for agricultural irrigation, impacting downstream riparian landowners. The court affirmed the principle that riparian rights are correlative, meaning each riparian owner’s right to use the water is limited by the similar rights of other riparian owners. The central tenet is that the use of water must be reasonable and not materially diminish the quantity or quality of water available to other riparian proprietors. In situations of increased demand, the reasonableness of a particular use is determined by considering factors such as the character of the use, its suitability to the location, the economic and social value of the use, and the extent of the harm caused to other riparian owners. The court emphasized that no riparian owner has an absolute right to use all the water; rather, all must share the resource in a manner that is equitable and sustainable. The doctrine of prior appropriation, common in western states, is not the basis for water rights in Michigan; instead, the riparian doctrine governs, prioritizing reasonable use and the protection of correlative rights.

Michigan’s water law framework, particularly concerning riparian rights and the Great Lakes, is complex. The Michigan Supreme Court case of *Thompson v. Enola* (1971) is foundational in establishing that riparian rights are not absolute and can be limited by the public trust doctrine, especially concerning access to the Great Lakes. This case affirmed that while riparian owners have certain privileges, these do not extend to obstructing public access or use of the Great Lakes for navigation, fishing, and recreation. The public trust doctrine, inherited from English common law and enshrined in Michigan’s Constitution, holds that the state holds the Great Lakes and their beds in trust for the benefit of the people. Therefore, any private use or development that unreasonably infringes upon this public trust is invalid. The question probes the understanding of how riparian rights are balanced against the public’s interest in the Great Lakes, as interpreted by Michigan courts. The correct answer reflects the principle that private riparian rights are subordinate to the public trust doctrine when it comes to the Great Lakes.

The Great Lakes Compact, ratified by Michigan and other Great Lakes states, establishes a framework for managing and protecting the Great Lakes water resources. Article 2, Section 2(c) of the Compact defines “Withdrawal” broadly to encompass the removal of Great Lakes waters from the Great Lakes basin, or the consumption of Great Lakes waters, which includes water used in agricultural processes that is not returned to the Great Lakes basin. Agricultural irrigation in Michigan, particularly for high-demand crops like corn and soybeans, often involves significant water use. If this water is drawn from a Great Lake or its tributary and a substantial portion is lost to evapotranspiration or runoff that does not return to the Great Lakes system, it constitutes a withdrawal under the Compact’s definition. Therefore, large-scale agricultural irrigation projects in Michigan that draw directly from the Great Lakes or their connected waters and result in significant consumptive use, where the water is not returned to the basin, are subject to the Compact’s provisions and require approval. This includes considerations for cumulative impacts and the protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is responsible for administering and enforcing these regulations, ensuring compliance with both state and federal water management principles.

In Michigan, the Great Lakes Compact, adopted into state law by Public Act 217 of 2008, governs the management and protection of the Great Lakes basin. A key principle within the Compact is the prohibition of new withdrawals of Great Lakes water that would originate from the Great Lakes basin and be delivered for use outside the basin, unless such a withdrawal is approved under a regional review process involving all signatory states and provinces. This process requires a demonstration that the withdrawal will not adversely affect the quantity or quality of the Great Lakes waters and that no reasonable alternative supply exists. Furthermore, the Compact mandates that all new or increased withdrawals exceeding a specific volume threshold, typically 2 million gallons per day, must be registered and undergo a review to ensure compliance with the Compact’s objectives, including the protection of ecological health and the prevention of undue harm to existing uses and the environment. The concept of “originating from the Great Lakes basin” is critical, meaning the source of the water is within the defined watershed boundary of the Great Lakes. Any proposal to transfer water out of the basin is subject to stringent scrutiny under the Compact’s principles of conservation, efficiency, and regional cooperation, with a strong presumption against such transfers unless compelling justification and adherence to the review process are demonstrated. The law emphasizes maintaining the integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem and ensuring that any potential impacts are thoroughly assessed and mitigated.

Michigan’s water law framework is primarily based on the riparian doctrine, which grants rights to landowners whose property abuts a surface water body. However, this doctrine is modified by statutory provisions and administrative regulations aimed at managing water resources for the public good. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), formerly the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), plays a significant role in overseeing water use and quality. A key aspect of Michigan’s approach, particularly concerning groundwater and its connection to surface water, involves the concept of reasonable use and the protection of public trust resources. While riparian rights are generally associated with surface water, the interaction between groundwater and surface water bodies is increasingly important. The Michigan Water Resources Commission Act (Part 307 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCLA 324.30701 et seq.) grants the Commission authority to control and regulate the use of surface waters. Furthermore, the state has specific regulations for withdrawing large quantities of water, particularly from the Great Lakes, under the Great Lakes Compact and related state legislation. The question probes the understanding of how these rights and regulations interact when a proposed activity could impact both groundwater and surface water, specifically in the context of Michigan’s established legal principles. The concept of a permit being required for significant withdrawals, especially those that could affect Great Lakes waters or have a substantial impact on other water users or the environment, is central. The absence of a specific statutory permit requirement for all groundwater withdrawals, as long as they do not unreasonably interfere with riparian rights or public trust uses, contrasts with the more regulated approach for surface water diversions and large-scale withdrawals, particularly those impacting the Great Lakes. The scenario highlights the potential for a significant groundwater withdrawal to impact a downstream surface water body, invoking the principles of riparian rights and the state’s regulatory oversight for substantial water uses.

The question revolves around the application of the Public Trust Doctrine in Michigan, specifically concerning the allocation of Great Lakes water for out-of-state diversion. Michigan’s approach to Great Lakes water management is heavily influenced by the Great Lakes Compact, to which it is a party. The Compact establishes a framework for managing Great Lakes water resources, including strict limitations on withdrawals and diversions, particularly for communities outside the basin. Article 4, Section 4.11 of the Great Lakes Compact, titled “Diversions,” generally prohibits diversions of Great Lakes water, except under specific, limited circumstances that require a high threshold of justification and are subject to stringent review and approval processes. These circumstances typically involve proposals that cause no significant adverse impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem and provide a substantial, demonstrable benefit to the source region. Furthermore, the Compact emphasizes the principle of conservation and efficient use. When considering an out-of-state diversion, Michigan, as a signatory state, must adhere to these compact provisions. The doctrine of prior appropriation, which is not the dominant water law system in Michigan (Michigan follows a riparian rights system, modified by public trust principles), is not the primary legal framework for this scenario. Similarly, the concept of groundwater recharge, while relevant to water management, is not the deciding factor for an interstate diversion under the Compact. The Public Trust Doctrine itself, which asserts that the state holds sovereign title to the Great Lakes for the benefit of its citizens, underpins Michigan’s authority to manage these waters, but the specific prohibitions and requirements for diversions are detailed within the Great Lakes Compact. Therefore, the most critical legal barrier to an out-of-state diversion of Great Lakes water in Michigan, absent compelling and exceptionally rare circumstances, is the prohibition and strict regulation of such diversions as outlined in the Great Lakes Compact.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. This part establishes the state’s ownership and management authority over these lands, including the beds and bottoms of all lakes, rivers, and streams. The primary objective is to protect and preserve these resources for public use and benefit. When a riparian owner in Michigan seeks to construct a dock that extends beyond the ordinary low-water mark, they are encroaching upon state-owned submerged lands. Consequently, a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), formerly the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), is generally required. This permit process ensures that such private use of public submerged lands is consistent with the public trust doctrine and does not unreasonably interfere with public navigation, fishing, or other recreational uses. The permit often involves demonstrating that the structure will not impair navigation or harm the environment. Without this permit, the dock’s construction constitutes an unlawful encroachment on state lands.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. This part requires permits for any use or occupation of these lands. A riparian owner in Michigan possesses rights to the Great Lakes shoreline, including access to the water and the use of the lakebed adjacent to their property. However, these riparian rights are subject to public trust principles and state regulation. The state of Michigan, through the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), manages the Great Lakes bottomlands for the benefit of the public. Therefore, any structure extending into the Great Lakes, such as a dock or a boathouse, requires a permit from EGLE under Part 301 of NREPA, even if it is for the exclusive use of the riparian owner. The concept of “navigational servitude” is also relevant, as the federal government and the state have authority to protect navigation, which can influence the scope of riparian rights. However, the primary statutory authority for permitting structures on submerged lands in Michigan is NREPA Part 301. The question asks about the requirement for a permit for a private dock extending into Lake Michigan. This clearly falls under the purview of submerged lands regulation.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. This part establishes a framework for managing and protecting these vital resources. A critical aspect of this management involves the issuance of permits for activities that may affect submerged lands. The Act mandates that any person intending to engage in an activity that will fill, dredge, or otherwise alter Great Lakes bottomlands must obtain a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The primary purpose of this permitting process is to ensure that such alterations are consistent with the public trust doctrine and do not unduly harm the ecological integrity or navigability of the Great Lakes. The Act also outlines criteria for permit review, including considerations for environmental impact, public interest, and consistency with other state and federal laws. Failure to obtain a required permit can result in enforcement actions, including fines and orders to cease activities.

Michigan’s Water Use Reporting Act, Public Act 230 of 1929, as amended, establishes a framework for tracking water withdrawals. This act requires persons making large water withdrawals to report their usage to the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The threshold for reporting is generally a daily average withdrawal of 100,000 gallons or more, or a peak withdrawal rate of 800 gallons per minute or more, over a 30-day period. This reporting requirement is crucial for the state’s ability to manage its water resources effectively, understand usage patterns, and identify potential conflicts or impacts on water bodies. The act aims to provide data for informed decision-making regarding water allocation and conservation. It is important to note that this reporting is distinct from the permitting process for certain high-volume withdrawals, which may involve additional regulatory oversight under different statutes. The reporting itself is a data collection mechanism designed to inform broader water management strategies and ensure compliance with the state’s water stewardship principles.

Michigan’s Water Use Reporting Act, specifically MCL 324.32701 et seq., mandates reporting for significant water withdrawals. A “significant withdrawal” is defined as an amount exceeding 100,000 gallons per day averaged over any 30-day period. This reporting requirement is crucial for the state’s ability to manage its water resources effectively, monitor usage patterns, and ensure compliance with water quality standards and allocation priorities. The Act aims to provide a comprehensive inventory of water use across various sectors, including agriculture, industry, and municipal supply. Failure to report can result in penalties. The calculation to determine if a withdrawal is significant involves averaging the total water withdrawn over a 30-day period. For instance, if a facility withdraws 3,000,000 gallons in a 30-day period, the average daily withdrawal is \( \frac{3,000,000 \text{ gallons}}{30 \text{ days}} = 100,000 \text{ gallons/day} \). This exact threshold means that any withdrawal averaging precisely 100,000 gallons per day or more over 30 days triggers the reporting requirement under Michigan law. The purpose is to capture substantial users who could impact water availability or quality. This framework is distinct from riparian rights, which govern the use of surface water based on ownership of adjacent land, and focuses on the volume of withdrawal itself as the trigger for state oversight.

The Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool (WWAT) is a key component of the state’s water management framework, designed to evaluate the potential impact of large water withdrawals on local water resources. Under Michigan law, specifically the Part 327 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), large water withdrawals, generally defined as exceeding 100,000 gallons per day averaged over a 30-day period, require registration and assessment. The WWAT utilizes a hydrological model to predict the impact of a proposed withdrawal on surface water bodies, considering factors like stream flow, water levels, and the presence of designated protected waters. The assessment aims to determine if a withdrawal will cause an “appreciable harm” to the waters of the state. Appreciable harm is defined as a lowering of the water level or a reduction of the flow of a surface water body that is significant and detrimental. The tool incorporates data on existing withdrawals, water use patterns, and the ecological characteristics of the receiving water bodies. If the WWAT predicts that a withdrawal will cause appreciable harm, the proposed withdrawal may be denied or conditioned to mitigate the adverse impacts. This process is crucial for balancing economic development with the protection of Michigan’s vital water resources, including its extensive Great Lakes shoreline and inland lakes and streams. The assessment is a dynamic process, and the tool is periodically updated with new data and improved modeling techniques. The underlying principle is to ensure that water withdrawals are sustainable and do not negatively impact the ecological integrity or the reasonable use by other users.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. When a riparian owner seeks to construct a dock extending into the Great Lakes, they are seeking to use these submerged lands. The Act requires a permit for such uses. The primary authority for issuing permits for structures on Great Lakes bottomlands is the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), formerly the Department of Environmental Quality. EGLE reviews applications to ensure that the proposed use is consistent with public trust principles, does not unreasonably interfere with navigation or other public uses, and is environmentally sound. While other state agencies might be consulted or have related jurisdiction (e.g., Department of Natural Resources for certain recreational aspects), EGLE is the direct permitting authority for structures on Great Lakes bottomlands under Part 301 of NREPA. The Michigan Public Service Commission is primarily involved in utility regulation, and the Water Resources Commission, while a significant body in water management, does not directly issue permits for individual dock construction on Great Lakes bottomlands in the same way EGLE does under Part 301. The Michigan Department of Transportation’s purview is generally limited to transportation infrastructure, not private riparian structures on submerged lands. Therefore, an application for a dock permit on Great Lakes bottomlands would be directed to EGLE.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs the use and protection of inland lakes and streams. Under this act, any person proposing to undertake an activity that will impact a lake or stream, such as dredging, filling, or constructing a structure, must obtain a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The permit process involves an application that details the proposed project and its potential environmental effects. EGLE then reviews the application to determine if the project is consistent with the goals of NREPA, which include protecting the public’s interest in the resource, preventing pollution, and maintaining the natural character of the waterway. A key consideration in this review is whether the proposed activity will unreasonably impair the public’s lawful use of the water body. This includes recreational uses like boating, fishing, and swimming, as well as the aesthetic enjoyment of the resource. If EGLE finds that the project would unreasonably impair these public uses, it can deny the permit. The concept of “unreasonable impairment” is central to the balancing act EGLE performs when evaluating permit applications, weighing the applicant’s proposed use against the broader public interest in the waterway.

The Michigan Water Resources Commission, established under the provisions of the Michigan Water Resources Act (Act 245 of 1929, as amended), is the primary state agency responsible for managing and protecting the quality of Michigan’s surface waters. This commission, comprising heads of various state departments, has the authority to adopt rules and regulations, issue permits for discharges into state waters, and set standards for water quality. Specifically, Section 323.10 of the Michigan Compiled Laws outlines the commission’s powers and duties, including the promulgation of rules to prevent, control, and abate pollution. The commission’s role is crucial in implementing the Clean Water Act within Michigan, ensuring that industrial and municipal wastewater discharges meet established effluent limitations and water quality standards. This regulatory framework is designed to safeguard public health, protect aquatic ecosystems, and preserve the recreational and economic value of Michigan’s abundant water resources. The commission’s actions are guided by principles of sound water management and the state’s commitment to maintaining the quality of its waters for present and future generations. The commission’s authority extends to establishing water quality standards for all state waters, which are critical for determining the permissible levels of various pollutants and for issuing permits for any activity that may impact water quality.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301 concerning Inland Lakes and Streams, governs activities that may affect the public trust in these water bodies. Dredging and filling activities are considered material alterations. Under Part 301, a permit is generally required for any activity that involves dredging or filling in an inland lake or stream, or that will or may become detrimental to the public trust in such waters. This includes actions that alter the course, current, or cross-section of a lake or stream. The Act aims to protect the public’s right to use and enjoy these waters for navigation, fishing, hunting, swimming, and other recreational purposes. Therefore, a landowner undertaking extensive landscaping that involves significant alteration of the stream bed and bank, including the removal of soil and placement of new material, would likely require a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to ensure compliance with the Act’s provisions protecting the public trust and the ecological integrity of the waterway. The absence of a permit for such substantial work constitutes a violation of Part 301.

Michigan’s riparian rights doctrine, as codified and interpreted through case law, generally grants landowners adjacent to a watercourse the right to reasonable use of that water. This doctrine is distinct from prior appropriation systems found in western states. The “reasonable use” standard under riparianism requires that the use does not unreasonably interfere with the use of the water by other riparian owners. Factors considered in determining reasonableness include the character of the use, its extent, its suitability to the location, the nature of the watercourse, and the effect on downstream users. In Michigan, the Great Lakes are considered public waters, and their use is governed by different principles, primarily related to public trust doctrine and state authority over navigable waters. The question focuses on the application of riparian rights to a specific scenario involving groundwater, which in Michigan is often considered part of the surface water system or subject to common law principles that can be influenced by riparian concepts, particularly when extraction impacts surface water flows or other riparian uses. The scenario describes a commercial enterprise extracting groundwater for industrial purposes. This extraction, if it significantly diminishes the flow or level of a surface watercourse utilized by other riparian landowners, could be deemed an unreasonable use. The Michigan Supreme Court, in cases like *Thompson v. Enz*, has clarified that while riparian owners have a right to use water, this right is not absolute and is limited by the correlative rights of other riparian owners. The extraction of groundwater, if it has a direct and substantial impact on surface water, falls under this scrutiny. Therefore, the core legal issue is whether the groundwater extraction constitutes an unreasonable interference with the riparian rights of downstream landowners who rely on the surface watercourse.

Michigan’s Water Use Reporting Act, Public Act 237 of 2008, mandates that any person withdrawing more than 100,000 gallons of water per day from any source within the state must report their water withdrawals to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (now the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy). This reporting requirement applies regardless of whether the withdrawal is for agricultural, industrial, municipal, or other beneficial uses. The purpose of this act is to establish a comprehensive statewide inventory of water withdrawals to better manage and protect Michigan’s water resources, particularly in light of increasing demands and potential scarcity. The threshold of 100,000 gallons per day is a key determinant for triggering the reporting obligation. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements can result in penalties. This act complements other Michigan water law principles, such as the public trust doctrine and riparian rights, by providing essential data for informed decision-making and resource management. The act aims to ensure sustainable water use and protect the ecological integrity of Michigan’s waters.

Michigan’s water law framework is largely based on the riparian rights doctrine, modified by statutory provisions and the public trust doctrine. Under common law riparianism, landowners whose property abuts a watercourse have rights to use that water. These rights are correlative, meaning each riparian owner’s use must not unreasonably interfere with the use of other riparian owners. Michigan law further refines this by establishing a permit system for certain water uses, particularly for significant withdrawals, under the authority of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The concept of “reasonable use” is central, and it is evaluated based on various factors, including the type of use, its extent, its suitability to the character of the source, its economic and social value, and its impact on other users and the environment. The Public Trust Doctrine, as interpreted in Michigan, holds that the state holds its Great Lakes and inland waters in trust for the benefit of the public, which includes rights of navigation, fishing, and recreation. This doctrine can impose limitations on private uses, even by riparian owners, if those uses substantially impair public access or enjoyment. Therefore, when assessing a proposed water use, one must consider not only the riparian status of the user but also the statutory permit requirements and the overarching principles of the public trust. The question asks about a scenario involving a new industrial facility proposing a significant water withdrawal from an inland lake in Michigan. The facility is located adjacent to the lake. The core legal question is what primary legal considerations would govern the approval of this withdrawal, given its potential impact on the lake’s ecosystem and other users. The existence of riparian rights for the facility owner is a starting point, but Michigan’s statutory framework for water withdrawal permits, administered by EGLE, is the primary mechanism for regulating such large-scale uses. This permit process involves evaluating the proposed use against criteria that include the impact on the water source, other users, and the environment, directly reflecting the principles of reasonable use and the public trust. The statutory permit requirement is the most direct and comprehensive legal avenue for addressing the proposed withdrawal.

Michigan’s water law is primarily based on the riparian rights doctrine, which means that landowners whose property abuts a watercourse have certain rights to use the water. However, the state also has a regulatory framework that balances these private rights with the public interest in water conservation and management. The Inland Lakes and Streams Act (Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, MCL 324.20101 et seq.) is a key piece of legislation that governs activities affecting inland lakes and streams. This act requires permits for certain activities, such as dredging, filling, or constructing structures in or along these water bodies. The purpose is to protect the public trust in these waters, which includes navigation, fishing, and swimming. When evaluating a proposed project, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) considers the potential impact on the water body’s ecology, the public’s use and enjoyment of the water, and whether the project is necessary and reasonable. The concept of “materially altering” the course, current, or cross-section of an inland lake or stream is central to determining permit requirements. This includes actions that would change the natural flow, depth, or width of the watercourse. Therefore, a project that involves significant excavation and redirection of a stream’s flow would likely require a permit under this act, even if the landowner has riparian rights, because it impacts the public’s interest in the water body’s natural state and function.

The question probes the understanding of riparian rights in Michigan, specifically how they are affected by public access to inland lakes. Michigan adheres to the riparian doctrine, which grants landowners bordering a water body certain rights, including reasonable use of the water. However, these rights are not absolute and are subject to public trust principles and statutory regulations. The Michigan Supreme Court has consistently held that riparian rights do not extend to controlling or prohibiting reasonable public use of the water body itself, even if that use incidentally impacts the riparian owner’s enjoyment. This includes activities like boating, swimming, and fishing. The concept of “navigability” is key here; if an inland lake is navigable, it is generally subject to the public trust. Therefore, a riparian owner in Michigan cannot legally prevent the general public from boating on their privately owned lake if that lake is deemed navigable, as the public’s right to use navigable waters supersedes the riparian owner’s exclusive control. This principle is rooted in the understanding that riparian rights pertain to the use of the water itself, not the exclusion of others from the water body when public rights are involved.

The Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool (MI-WWAT) is a crucial instrument for evaluating the potential impact of water withdrawals on the state’s aquatic ecosystems. It operates by comparing the proposed withdrawal volume against the ecological flow requirements of a specific stream segment. The tool utilizes a threshold of 25% of the average daily flow (ADF) as a benchmark for significant impact. If a proposed withdrawal, when aggregated with other existing and potential withdrawals within the same drainage basin, is projected to reduce the stream’s ADF by 25% or more, it is considered to have a potential adverse impact. This assessment is critical for determining whether a withdrawal permit can be granted or if mitigation measures are required. The tool’s methodology is designed to protect the ecological integrity of Michigan’s surface waters, ensuring that withdrawals do not lead to detrimental effects on aquatic life and stream health. The 25% threshold is a conservative measure intended to provide a buffer against unforeseen environmental changes and cumulative impacts from multiple withdrawals. Therefore, any withdrawal that, in conjunction with other existing and potential withdrawals, is projected to cause a reduction of 25% or more of the ADF for a given stream segment would trigger a need for further review or denial under Michigan’s water withdrawal regulations.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in *Fernberg v. City of Ann Arbor* (1996) is a landmark case that significantly shaped the understanding of riparian rights in Michigan, particularly concerning the public’s access to navigable waters. The case centered on a dispute over a dock extending from private property into the Huron River. The core issue was whether the riparian owner’s right to exclusive use of the riverbed extended to prevent public access for recreational boating. The court affirmed that while riparian owners possess certain rights, including the right to wharf out and use the water adjacent to their land, these rights are not absolute and are subject to public rights in navigable waters. Specifically, the court clarified that the public has a right to use navigable waters for recreation, which includes boating, fishing, and swimming, and that riparian rights do not grant an exclusive dominion that would unreasonably interfere with these public uses. The ruling reinforced the principle that navigable waters are a public trust, and private riparian rights must be balanced against the broader public interest in accessing and utilizing these waters. Therefore, a riparian owner in Michigan cannot, by virtue of their riparian status alone, prohibit the public from boating on a navigable river adjacent to their property.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in *Hulbert v. Michigan Department of Natural Resources* established a precedent regarding the public trust doctrine and its application to submerged lands. This case, while not directly about water withdrawal permits, underscored the state’s role as a trustee of its natural resources, including the Great Lakes and their connecting waters, for the benefit of the public. The court affirmed that the state has a duty to protect these resources from impairment or alienation. In the context of water law, this principle informs how the state manages water resources, particularly concerning large-scale withdrawals or uses that could impact the public’s access and enjoyment of these waters. The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 327, addresses water withdrawal assessments and permits, requiring consideration of environmental impacts and the public interest. While NREPA outlines the administrative framework for water use, the underlying public trust doctrine, as interpreted by the courts, provides a foundational legal principle that guides regulatory decisions and ensures that the state acts as a responsible steward of its water resources for current and future generations. Therefore, a proposed large-scale industrial water withdrawal, even if meeting specific NREPA criteria, could still face scrutiny or be denied if it demonstrably impairs the public trust by significantly diminishing water levels, harming aquatic ecosystems, or impeding public access to navigable waters. The core of the state’s authority stems from its sovereign ownership and its duty as a trustee, which is a continuous obligation.

The Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), MCL 691.1201 et seq., provides a broad avenue for citizens to seek judicial relief against pollution or impairment of the state’s natural resources. A key aspect of MEPA litigation is the requirement for plaintiffs to demonstrate that an agency action or failure to act has or will result in the pollution, impairment, or destruction of the state’s natural resources. This is a substantive standard, meaning the court will review the merits of the environmental claim. The Act also allows for the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs if the plaintiff substantially prevails, which is a significant incentive for citizen participation in environmental protection. When evaluating a MEPA claim, courts consider the extent of the alleged harm, the availability of feasible and prudent alternatives, and the social and economic value of the activity causing the potential harm. The focus is on preventing irreversible damage and promoting the state’s policy of conserving and protecting its natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations. The Act does not require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted negligently or with intent to harm; rather, the focus is on the impact of the action on the environment.

Michigan’s water law system is primarily based on the riparian rights doctrine, which grants landowners adjacent to a watercourse the right to reasonable use of that water. This doctrine is codified and interpreted through various statutes and court decisions. Key legislation includes the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) and provisions within the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA). MEPA, in particular, allows for legal action to protect the state’s natural resources, including water, from pollution or impairment. When a proposed project, such as the construction of a new industrial facility that would draw significant water from a surface stream, is evaluated, the primary consideration under Michigan law is whether that use is reasonable and does not unreasonably impair the rights of other riparian owners or the public trust doctrine. The public trust doctrine, an important overlay on riparian rights, asserts that the state holds its waters in trust for the benefit of the public, which includes navigation, fishing, and recreation. Therefore, any use that substantially diminishes water quantity or quality, impacting these public uses, could be challenged. The analysis would involve assessing the volume of water to be withdrawn, the impact on downstream flow and ecosystems, and the potential for pollution. A permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) would likely be required for such a withdrawal, and the permitting process itself involves a review against these legal standards of reasonableness and public trust considerations. The concept of “reasonable use” is fact-specific and considers factors like the purpose of the use, its suitability to the location, the economic and social value of the use, the harm caused to others, and the practicability of avoiding harm.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs the use and protection of inland lakes and streams. This part establishes a framework for regulating activities that may impact these water bodies. A key aspect of this regulation is the requirement for permits for certain activities, such as dredging, filling, or constructing structures within or along the Great Lakes, inland lakes, and streams. The Act aims to prevent pollution, protect aquatic life, and preserve the natural character of these resources. Determinations regarding permit requirements and conditions are made by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE), often in consultation with local units of government and other stakeholders. The concept of “public trust doctrine” is also fundamental, underscoring the state’s responsibility to manage these waters for the benefit of all citizens. The permitting process often involves assessing the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions, including effects on water quality, habitat, navigation, and recreational use. Enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure compliance with permit conditions and to address violations.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. This part establishes a framework for the management and protection of these vital resources. Under Part 301, the state retains ownership of the Great Lakes bottomlands. Any use of these submerged lands that interferes with the public’s trust rights, such as navigation, fishing, and recreation, requires a permit from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). This permit process involves a review to ensure the proposed use is consistent with the public trust doctrine and does not unduly harm the environment or public access. The doctrine of public trust is a fundamental principle in Michigan water law, asserting that the state holds certain natural resources, including the Great Lakes and their beds, in trust for the benefit of present and future generations. Therefore, any private use or development impacting these areas must demonstrate a lack of adverse impact on these public uses. Private ownership of riparian land does not extend to the submerged lands of the Great Lakes; rather, riparian rights are limited to the ordinary high-water mark.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), specifically Part 301, governs Great Lakes submerged lands. This part establishes that the state of Michigan holds title to all Great Lakes bottomlands in trust for the benefit of the public. This trust doctrine is a fundamental principle in public trust law, asserting that certain natural resources are preserved for the use and enjoyment of the general public. Private ownership of submerged lands is generally prohibited, except where it can be demonstrated that such use is consistent with the public trust and does not substantially impair public rights. This includes rights to navigation, fishing, and recreation. Any conveyance or lease of submerged lands by the state must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it serves a public purpose and does not alienate these essential public rights. The question probes the understanding of the state’s role as a trustee and the limitations on private appropriation of these vital submerged resources under Michigan law.

Michigan’s water law framework, particularly concerning Great Lakes water diversion, is governed by a complex interplay of state statutes, interstate compacts, and federal law. The Great Lakes Compact (officially the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact) is a pivotal agreement among the eight Great Lakes states and two Canadian provinces. Michigan is a signatory to this compact. Article 3 of the Compact establishes a regional body, the Great Lakes Water Resources Compact Council, to oversee its implementation. Key provisions include prohibitions on new diversions of Great Lakes water outside the basin, except under specific, limited circumstances, and stringent requirements for any intra-basin transfers or new consumptive uses. A “new diversion” is defined as a diversion that commences after the Compact’s effective date. Michigan’s own implementing legislation, such as the Great Lakes Water Resources Management Act (MCL 324.8301 et seq.), further refines these prohibitions and requirements, emphasizing water conservation and the protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Any proposal for a significant new withdrawal or diversion from the Great Lakes basin would necessitate a rigorous review process, including demonstration of water conservation measures, a finding of no unreasonable risk to the Great Lakes, and compliance with all provisions of the Compact and Michigan law. The concept of “reasonable use” is also relevant, though the Compact’s stringent controls on Great Lakes water are the primary governing principle for large-scale diversions. The question tests understanding of the legal instruments that govern Great Lakes water management in Michigan, specifically the role of the Great Lakes Compact and Michigan’s statutory framework in regulating diversions and large withdrawals.