Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 324 / Act 451 of 1994
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701 (2026)

Actions for declaratory and equitable relief for environmental protection; parties; standards; judicial action.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT


Act 451 of 1994


324.1701 Actions for declaratory and equitable relief for environmental protection; parties; standards; judicial action.

Sec. 1701.

    (1)  The attorney general or any person may maintain an action in the circuit court having jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against any person for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

    (2) In granting relief provided by subsection (1), if there is a standard for pollution or for an antipollution device or procedure, fixed by rule or otherwise, by the state or an instrumentality, agency, or political subdivision of the state, the court may:

    (a) Determine the validity, applicability, and reasonableness of the standard.

    (b) If a court finds a standard to be deficient, direct the adoption of a standard approved and specified by the court.

History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995

PopularName Notes:

Act 451

PopularName Notes:

NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 737 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 737 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 30× “However, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they use the Osprey Lake Impoundment (Osprey Lake) and Wetlands 112, 115, and 301, and that, as a result, their recreational, aesthetic, or other interests have been impaired.”
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 684 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 28× “, appeal a Court of Appeals decision holding that the DEQ improperly granted a sand dune mining permit to TechniSand, contrary to the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq.1 The only issue properly before us is whether MEPA authorizes a collateral…”
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 28× “Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should be permitted to entertain arguments and render a decision concerning these natural resources relative to the claim under the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq. I am otherwise in agreement with Judge…”
Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 4× “The majority based this argument on the premise that the Legislature would be taking away the power to enforce laws, an essential component of the “executive power,” and giving that power to the judicial branch.”
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 14× “facts and procedural history Plaintiff, an ad hoc group of local citizens organized for the purpose of this lawsuit, filed this lawsuit in July 1998, under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (mepa), MCL 324.1701 et seq., challenging an amended permit issued by the deq in…”
Federated Ins. v. Oakland Cnty. Road Comm'n, 715 N.W.2d 846 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “" The applicable court rule thus provides no foundation for the majority's holding in this case. [18] In Nat'l Wildlife, the same majority of four overruled 30 years of precedent when it held that the Legislature may not confer standing on "any person" under the Michigan…”
Anglers of the Ausable, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 488 Mich. 69 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 16× “We also determine in this case whether the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (which is now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment) can be sustained as a defendant in an action brought under the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL…”
Genesco, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Env't Quality, 645 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “, of the nrepa and part 17, MCL 324.1701 et seq., of the nrepa to these facts.”
Nemeth v. Abonmarche Dev., Inc, 576 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 324.1701 et seq.; M.S.A. § 13A.1701 et seq.”
Moulton v. United States Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2009). “§ 7604 , or they may sue for declaratory and equitable relief to enforce the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701 . The district court did not abuse its discretion in approving this release.”
Michigan Educ. Ass'n v. Superintendent of Pub. Instruction, 724 N.W.2d 478 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “In Michigan Citizens, the issue presented was whether the plaintiffs had standing to bring suit under MCL 324.1701(1) when they could not otherwise demonstrate that they suffered a particularized injury and could not otherwise establish constitutional standing under the test…”
Fields v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 874 N.W.2d 715 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “[a]t the time the complaint is filed”); Mich Citizens for Water Conservation v Nestle Waters North America Inc, 479 Mich 280 ; 737 NW2d 447 (2007) (holding that the provision in MCL 324.1701 establishing the right of “any person [to bring suit] for the protection of the air,…”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701(1) — 21 cases
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 737 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 2007). “However, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they use the Osprey Lake Impoundment (Osprey Lake) and Wetlands 112, 115, and 301, and that, as a result, their recreational, aesthetic, or other interests have been impaired.”
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should be permitted to entertain arguments and render a decision concerning these natural resources relative to the claim under the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq. I am otherwise in agreement with Judge…”
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 684 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2004). “, appeal a Court of Appeals decision holding that the DEQ improperly granted a sand dune mining permit to TechniSand, contrary to the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq.1 The only issue properly before us is whether MEPA authorizes a collateral…”
Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010). “The majority based this argument on the premise that the Legislature would be taking away the power to enforce laws, an essential component of the “executive power,” and giving that power to the judicial branch.”
Anglers of the Ausable, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 488 Mich. 69 (Mich. 2010). “We also determine in this case whether the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) (which is now the Department of Natural Resources and Environment) can be sustained as a defendant in an action brought under the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701(2) — 7 cases
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 684 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2004). “, appeal a Court of Appeals decision holding that the DEQ improperly granted a sand dune mining permit to TechniSand, contrary to the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq.1 The only issue properly before us is whether MEPA authorizes a collateral…”
Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should be permitted to entertain arguments and render a decision concerning these natural resources relative to the claim under the Michigan environmental protection act (MEPA), MCL 324.1701 et seq. I am otherwise in agreement with Judge…”
Genesco, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Env't Quality, 645 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “, of the nrepa and part 17, MCL 324.1701 et seq., of the nrepa to these facts.”
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “facts and procedural history Plaintiff, an ad hoc group of local citizens organized for the purpose of this lawsuit, filed this lawsuit in July 1998, under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (mepa), MCL 324.1701 et seq., challenging an amended permit issued by the deq in…”
Anglers of AuSable, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 770 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701(2)(a) — 1 case
Preserve the Dunes, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 690 N.W.2d 487 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701(2)(b) — 1 case
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “facts and procedural history Plaintiff, an ad hoc group of local citizens organized for the purpose of this lawsuit, filed this lawsuit in July 1998, under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (mepa), MCL 324.1701 et seq., challenging an amended permit issued by the deq in…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1701(l) — 1 case
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., 684 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 2004).
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.