Repealing State-Level Wetlands Protections

House bills 5536 and 5501 negatively affect Michigan’s wetlands and waterways. The consequences of these two bills are significant. Wetlands are crucial for stormwater management, with their water absorption and storage capacity, and naturally protect against flooding. They can control and slow erosion. They naturally treat pollution and improve water quality. Michigan has lost over 50% of its original wetlands to drainage or filling, making the protection of the remaining wetlands even more important. 

HB 5536 changes Michigan’s 45-year wetland definition to align with an unpredictable, less protective federal standard, as defined within the Waters of the United States (WOTUS). In 2023, the United States Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency decision stripped federal protections from millions of miles of streams and tens of millions of acres of wetlands. Additionally, a November 2025 ruling by the Trump Administration further restricted which bodies of water are protected by the Clean Water Act by changing the definition of WOTUS. HB 5536 would result in the removal of protections for nearly one million acres of isolated wetlands, which provide critical flood and storm control with their water absorption and storage capacity. Without these wetlands, increased water flow may impact neighborhoods and place additional demands on storm systems. This increased flow may raise flood risks and require taxpayers to fund additional infrastructure projects to manage stormwater—services that wetlands currently provide.

HB 5501 would change the process for projects affecting wetlands by requiring the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to establish a process that allows developers to fast-track permits for such projects. The overall goal of wetland mitigation is to ensure that there is no net loss of wetlands. This bill would prioritize onsite mitigation over mitigation banking of wetlands. Onsite mitigation has an 80% failure rate in Michigan, compared to the high success of professionally managed banks. This would force EGLE to allow a higher-risk wetland mitigation method that would directly contradict Michigan’s “No Net Loss” goal and conflicts with the Clean Water Act.

Wetlands critically shape the health and persistence of other natural resources in Michigan’s environment, including inland lakes and the Great Lakes, groundwater, fisheries, and wildlife. These bills put essential ecosystems at risk and jeopardize Michigan’s environmental health now and in the future.