Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 280 / Act 40 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 280.468 (2026)

Plans, specifications, and estimate of cost; approval, adoption, and filing; route of drain; apportionment of costs; designation of area to be served; assumption of additional cost; altering and supplementing proceedings.

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Aug. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE DRAIN CODE OF 1956


Act 40 of 1956


280.468 Plans, specifications, and estimate of cost; approval, adoption, and filing; route of drain; apportionment of costs; designation of area to be served; assumption of additional cost; altering and supplementing proceedings.

Sec. 468.

    The drainage board shall secure from a competent engineer, plans, specifications, a route and course, and an estimate of cost of the proposed drain, which when approved and adopted by the board shall be filed with the chairperson of the board. In approving the plans and specifications, the drainage board is not limited to the route of the drain described in the petition or the final order of determination. Changes in the approved route and course of the drain must be approved by resolution of the drainage board. The drainage board shall tentatively establish the percentage of the cost of the drain or of the several sections or parts of the drain to be paid by each public corporation. In making the apportionments, the drainage board shall consider the benefits to accrue to each public corporation and the extent to which each public corporation contributes to the conditions that make the drain necessary. Apportionments against this state shall be based upon benefits and contributions as related solely to the drainage of state highways. Apportionments against the county shall be based upon benefits and contributions as related solely to the drainage of its county roads. Before a tentative apportionment is made, the drainage board shall designate the area to be served by the drain project, which may include all of the area in a public corporation to be assessed, and may divide the drain into sections or parts for purposes of apportionment or construction. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the county may assume any additional cost of the drain if 2/3 of the members elect of the county board of commissioners vote in favor thereof. The apportionment under this section applies only to the proposed drain. The apportionments for any extensions or other work subsequently performed under section 482 shall be reestablished by the board. If chapter 25 is employed in the apportionment of costs, the proceedings under this section shall be altered and supplemented as provided in chapter 25.

History: 1956, Act 40, Imd. Eff. Mar. 28, 1956 ;-- Am. 1957, Act 37, Imd. Eff. May 14, 1957 ;-- Am. 1961, Act 45, Imd. Eff. May 20, 1961 ;-- Am. 1963, Act 215, Imd. Eff. May 17, 1963 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Feb. 10, 1976 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 644, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

PopularName Notes:

Act 40
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1959–2019 · leading case: Eyde v. Lansing Twp., 363 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eyde v. Lansing Twp., 363 N.W.2d 277 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “[13] MCL 280.468; MSA 11.1468. See also Attorney General v Zantman Intracounty Drainage Board, 17 Mich App 110 ; 169 NW2d 132 (1969).”
Ashley Ann Arbor, LLC v. Pittsfield Charter Twp., 829 N.W.2d 299 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “467 and MCL 280.468, the drainage board reached a tentative decision to create the drainage district, estimated the associated costs of the project, and determined the cost percentage to be borne by the township.”
Eyde v. Lansing Twp., 311 N.W.2d 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “The court held that personal notice was not required. "Plaintiffs further contend that the notice provisions of sections 467 and 469 violate both the state and the federal constitutions.”
Twp. of Southfield v. Drainage Bd. for Twelve Towns Relief Dr., 97 N.W.2d 821 (Mich. 1959). “Section 468, chapter 20 of the drain code (CLS 1956, § 280.468 [Stat Ann Spec 1956 Drain Code Supp § 11.”
In re Petition of MacOmb Cty. Drain Com'r, 120 N.W.2d 789 (Mich. 1963). “1468]), viz: "The drainage board shall then proceed to tentatively establish the percentage of the cost of such drain which is to be borne by each public corporation.”
Attorney Gen. ex rel. State High. Comm'n v. Zantman Intracounty Drainage Bd., 169 N.W.2d 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “All of the acts of the board were accomplished in conformity with the enabling statute, specifically, MCLA § 280.468 (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 11.1468).”
Blakely Drain Improvements Drainage Dist. v. City of Woodhaven, 112 Mich. App. 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). “MCL 280.468; MSA 11.1468 states in part: *688 "The drainage board shall secure from a competent engineer, plans, specifications, and an estimate of cost of the proposed drain, which, when approved and adopted by the board, shall be filed with the chairman thereof.”
People ex rel. State High. Comm'r v. Macomb Cnty. Drain Comm'r, 369 Mich. 641 (1963). “” First: Pointing to technically engineered details of each project, the attorney general lays stress upon the following italicized portion of section 468 (CLS 1956, § 280.468, as amended by PA 1961, No 45 [Stat Ann 1961 Cum Supp § 11.”
Kickham Hanley PLLC v. Oakland Cnty. Michigan, No. 341076 (Mich. Ct. App. May 2, 2019). “See MCL 280.468; MCL 280.469; MCL 280.478. Drainage boards are statutorily required to determine, after notice and a hearing, the apportionment of the costs and confirm their determinations by issuance of a final order of apportionment.”
City of Madison Heights v. Twelve Towns Relief Drains Drainage Bd., 106 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1960). “That court sustained plaintiff’s contention that the formula employed by the board was invalid, particularly because, as the court found, it did not comply with statutory requirements (PA 1956, No 40, § 468 [CLS 1956, § 280.468, as amended by PA 1957, No 37, Stat Ann 1960 Rev §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.