Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30304 (2026)

Prohibited activities.

✓ 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

324.30304 Prohibited activities.

Sec. 30304.

Except as otherwise provided in this part or by a permit issued by the department under this part and pursuant to part 13, a person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a wetland.

(b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.

(d) Drain surface water from a wetland.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 325, Imd. Eff. Sept. 10, 2004 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 631, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019

PopularName Notes:

Act 451

PopularName Notes:

NREPA

PopularName Notes:

Wetland Protection Act

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Matthews v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 792 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matthews v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 792 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “MCL 324.30304. Burt Twp v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 459 Mich 659, 669-670 ; 593 NW2d 534 (1999).”

Huggett v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 629 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 3× “This case requires us to decide whether plaintiffs’ proposed activities to build and operate a commercial cranberry farm in a wetland is exempt from the statutory wetland permit requirements, MCL 324.30304, because it is a farming activity that is not subject to the permit…”

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “MCL 324.30304. Hence, the trial court erred when it determined that a violation of the WPA was capable of supporting a prima facie violation of MEPA.”

City of Romulus v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 678 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “” MCL 324.30304. *68 Where, as here, a Part 303 permit to lawfully fill a wetland has issued, the plain language of Rule 603(l)(f) is not violated by the issuance of a Part 111 permit.”

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Morley, 885 N.W.2d 892 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “We further note that even if it had, an order allowing some farming would have been contrary to the clear lan *319 guage of MCL 324.30304, which prohibits a person from maintaining a use in a wetland without a permit issued by the DEQ.”

Huggett v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 590 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “30304 prohibits placing fill material in a wetland, dredging or removing soil from a wetland, draining surface water from a wetland, and constructing, operating, or maintaining any use in a wetland without a permit; however, M.C.L. § 324.30305; MSA 13A.30305 exempts certain uses…”

Blaser v. East Bay Twp., 617 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “” MCL 324.30304(c); MSA 13A.30304(c). Clearly, undeveloped *254 land does not benefit from a sanitary sewer system.”

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Gary Sancrant (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “-1- MCL 324.30304. Plaintiff theorized that he installed the road solely because of the neighbor issues,2 although Gary claimed that he also needed the new road because the easement road was being repeatedly flooded by beavers.”

Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy v. Robert L Brotherton (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “-1- MCL 324.30304 by his activities on the pole barn site, and affirm the trial court’s ruling following the bench trial with respect to the logging road.”

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Hernan F Gomez (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “a person shall not do any of the following: (a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a wetland. (b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.”

People of Michigan v. Alan N Taylor (Mich. 2014). · cites it 9× “Additionally, Taylor argued on appeal in the Court of Appeals that violations of MCL 324.30304 require proof of mens rea and are not strict-liability offenses.”

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Gary Sancrant (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “I need not repeat most of the majority’s discussion of the facts or the relevant law, because my disagreement pertains only to how the majority treats the word “permit” in the context of MCL 324.30304. As the majority observes, the word is not defined in the statute.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30304(2)(d) — 1 case

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Hernan F Gomez (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “a person shall not do any of the following: (a) Deposit or permit the placing of fill material in a wetland. (b) Dredge, remove, or permit the removal of soil or minerals from a wetland.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30304(a) — 5 cases

Matthews v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 792 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “MCL 324.30304. Burt Twp v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 459 Mich 659, 669-670 ; 593 NW2d 534 (1999).”

Dep't of Env't Quality v. Gary Sancrant (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “-1- MCL 324.30304. Plaintiff theorized that he installed the road solely because of the neighbor issues,2 although Gary claimed that he also needed the new road because the easement road was being repeatedly flooded by beavers.”

Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy v. Robert L Brotherton (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “-1- MCL 324.30304 by his activities on the pole barn site, and affirm the trial court’s ruling following the bench trial with respect to the logging road.”

People of Michigan v. Alan N Taylor (Mich. 2014). “Additionally, Taylor argued on appeal in the Court of Appeals that violations of MCL 324.30304 require proof of mens rea and are not strict-liability offenses.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30304(c) — 2 cases

Blaser v. East Bay Twp., 617 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “” MCL 324.30304(c); MSA 13A.30304(c). Clearly, undeveloped *254 land does not benefit from a sanitary sewer system.”

James Nairne v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

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.