NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Act 451 of 1994
324.3109 Discharge into state waters; prohibitions; exception; violation; penalties; abatement; "on-site wastewater treatment system" defined.
Sec. 3109.
(1) A person shall not directly or indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to any of the following:
(a) To the public health, safety, or welfare.
(b) To domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of such waters.
(c) To the value or utility of riparian lands.
(d) To livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to their growth or propagation.
(e) To the value of fish and game.
(2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge originated unless the discharge is permitted by an order or rule of the department. If the discharge is not the subject of a valid permit issued by the department, a municipality responsible for the discharge may be subject to the remedies provided in section 3115. If the discharge is the subject of a valid permit issued by the department pursuant to section 3112, and is in violation of that permit, a municipality responsible for the discharge is subject to the penalties prescribed in section 3115.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a municipality is not responsible or subject to the remedies or penalties provided in section 3115 under either of the following circumstances:
(a) The discharge is an unauthorized discharge from a sewerage system as defined in section 4101 that is permitted under this part and owned by a party other than the municipality, unless the municipality has accepted responsibility in writing for the sewerage system and, with respect to the civil fine and penalty under section 3115, the municipality has been notified in writing by the department of its responsibility for the sewerage system.
(b) The discharge is from 3 or fewer on-site wastewater treatment systems.
(4) Unless authorized by a permit, order, or rule of the department, the discharge into the waters of this state of any medical waste, as defined in part 138 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.13801 to 333.13832, is prima facie evidence of a violation of this part and subjects the responsible person to the penalties prescribed in section 3115.
(5) Unless a discharge is authorized by a permit, order, or rule of the department, the discharge into the waters of this state from an oceangoing vessel of any ballast water is prima facie evidence of a violation of this part and subjects the responsible person to the penalties prescribed in section 3115.
(6) A violation of this section is prima facie evidence of the existence of a public nuisance and in addition to the remedies provided for in this part may be abated according to law in an action brought by the attorney general in a court of competent jurisdiction.
(7) As used in this section, "on-site wastewater treatment system" means a system of components, other than a sewerage system as defined in section 4101, used to collect and treat sanitary sewage or domestic equivalent wastewater from 1 or more dwellings, buildings, or structures and discharge the resulting effluent to a soil dispersal system on property owned by or under the control of the same individual or entity that owns or controls the dwellings, buildings, or structures.
History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 32, Eff. Jan. 1, 2007 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 241, Imd. Eff. Nov. 22, 2005 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 536, Imd. Eff. Jan 15, 2015
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
PopularName Notes:
NREPA
AdminRule Notes:
R 323.1001 et seq. of the Michigan Administrative Code.
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 277× “STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 808 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 38× “MCL 324.3109 provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge…”
Lake Isabella Dev., Inc v. Vill. of Lake Isabella, 675 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 12× “" [7] The circuit court held that Rule 33 does not comply with the legislative intent underlying the DEQ's enabling statute for the following reasons: The statute [MCL 324.3109(2)] is intended to regulate the discharge of both private and public sewage systems.”
South MacOmb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins., 572 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “§ 324.3109; M.S.A. § 13A.3109. Any discharge made without the necessary permit is prima facie evidence of the existence of a public nuisance, and, in addition to remedies provided in the act, the Attorney General may bring a court action for abatement of the nuisance.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Waterous Co, 760 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “(3) The requirements of this rule shall not apply when the department has not determined that a person is liable or when the notice process would unreasonably delay the response.”
Majchrzak v. Cnty. of Wayne, 838 F. Supp. 2d 586 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See Michigan Compiled Laws § 324.3109. Wayne County operates MRPS and sets billing rates for customer communities.”
City of Brighton v. Twp. of Hamburg, 677 N.W.2d 349 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“Further, MCL 324.3109 provides: (1) A person shall not directly or indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to any of the following: (a) To the public health, safety, or welfare.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 829 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “We reversed the lower court’s order, holding that MCL 324.3109(2) did not impose a responsibility on defendant for failing septic systems owned by individuals.”
Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy (Mich. 2024).
· cites it 2× “3113(2) provides, “If a permit is granted, the department shall condition the permit upon such restrictions that the department considers necessary to adequately guard against unlawful uses of the waters of the state as are set forth in [MCL 324.3109].” 9 In sum, EPA and EGLE…”
Dept of Env't Great Lakes & Energy v. Brookside Crossing LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“One aspect of the alleged Part 31 violations involved the discharge of sediment-laden water into wetlands, see MCL 324.3109, and for this reason the 1 EGLE was formerly known as the Department of Environmental Quality.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(1) — 2 cases
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 808 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 324.3109 provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(1)(a) — 1 case
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(2) — 5 cases
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Lake Isabella Dev., Inc v. Vill. of Lake Isabella, 675 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“" [7] The circuit court held that Rule 33 does not comply with the legislative intent underlying the DEQ's enabling statute for the following reasons: The statute [MCL 324.3109(2)] is intended to regulate the discharge of both private and public sewage systems.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 808 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 324.3109 provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge…”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 829 N.W.2d 31 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“We reversed the lower court’s order, holding that MCL 324.3109(2) did not impose a responsibility on defendant for failing septic systems owned by individuals.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(3) — 2 cases
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 808 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 324.3109 provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(4) — 2 cases
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
South MacOmb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins., 572 N.W.2d 686 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“§ 324.3109; M.S.A. § 13A.3109. Any discharge made without the necessary permit is prima facie evidence of the existence of a public nuisance, and, in addition to remedies provided in the act, the Attorney General may bring a court action for abatement of the nuisance.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(5) — 1 case
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(6) — 1 case
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 808 N.W.2d 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“MCL 324.3109 provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) The discharge of any raw sewage of human origin, directly or indirectly, into any of the waters of the state shall be considered prima facie evidence of a violation of this part by the municipality in which the discharge…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.3109(l)(a) — 1 case
Dep't of Env't Quality v. Worth Twp., 814 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. 2012).
“STANDARD OF REVIEW This case involves the interpretation of a statute, which is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo.”
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.