NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Act 451 of 1994
324.30319 Rules; hearing; award of costs; judicial review; proceedings to protect wetland owner's rights.
Sec. 30319.
(1) The department shall promulgate and enforce rules to implement this part.
(2) If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the person may request a formal hearing on the matter involved. The hearing shall be conducted by the department pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
(3) The award of costs in a contested case under this part and the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, is subject to chapter 8 of the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.321 to 24.328. However, regardless of whether the department's position was substantially justifiable, reasonable expert professional witness fees, as determined by the presiding officer, shall be awarded to a landowner that prevails on the issue of whether the landowner's property is wetland.
(4) A determination, action, or inaction by the department following the hearing is subject to judicial review as provided in the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
(5) This section does not limit the right of a wetland owner to institute proceedings in any circuit of the circuit court of the state against any person if necessary to protect the wetland owner's rights.
History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 631, Eff. Mar. 29, 2019
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
PopularName Notes:
NREPA
PopularName Notes:
Wetland Protection Act
AdminRule Notes:
R 281.921 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.
Notes of Decisions
Huggett v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 629 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. 2001).
· cites it 2× “921; see also MCL 324.30319(1) (directing the dnr to promulgate rules to enforce part 303).”
Maxwell v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “Nevertheless, petitioners argue that because they have been aggrieved by the DEQ’s refusal to process *571 their ATF permit application, the OAH had jurisdiction under MCL 324.30319(2), which provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the…”
Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Degle (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 42× “] -3- Subsection (2) of MCL 324.30319, which is a section of Part 303, similarly provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the person may request a formal hearing on the matter involved.”
Maxwell v. DEQ, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “Nevertheless, petitioners argue that because they have been aggrieved by the DEQ's refusal to process their ATF permit application, the OAH had jurisdiction under MCL 324.30319(2), which provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the person…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30319(1) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.30319(2) — 5 cases
Maxwell v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Nevertheless, petitioners argue that because they have been aggrieved by the DEQ’s refusal to process *571 their ATF permit application, the OAH had jurisdiction under MCL 324.30319(2), which provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the…”
Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Degle (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“] -3- Subsection (2) of MCL 324.30319, which is a section of Part 303, similarly provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the person may request a formal hearing on the matter involved.”
Maxwell v. DEQ, 692 N.W.2d 68 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“Nevertheless, petitioners argue that because they have been aggrieved by the DEQ's refusal to process their ATF permit application, the OAH had jurisdiction under MCL 324.30319(2), which provides: If a person is aggrieved by any action or inaction of the department, the person…”
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.