Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 48909 ____________________________________________________________________________________________
C hief Justice

Opinion

Maura D. Cor rigan

Justices

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Clifford W. Taylor Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FILED JULY 17, 2001


WALLACE A HUGGETT and HUGGETT
SOD FARM, d/b/a MICHIGAN
CRANBERRY COMPANY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
CAVANAGH, J.
This case requires us to decide whether plaintiffs'
proposed activities to build and operate a commercial
No. 113463


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


requirements under the farming activities exemption provided
by MCL 324.30305(2)(e). We conclude that the farming


activities exemption is not so broad that it encompasses


plaintiffs' proposal. not fall within to the

Also, the proposed cranberry farm does
production wetland and harvesting draining
MCL


exemption

the

permit

requirements,

324.30305(2)(j), or the existing farming exemption to the
requirements, MCL 324.30305(3), that we ordered the parties to
address. Therefore, plaintiffs must obtain a wetland permit
Accordingly, we


to proceed with the proposed cranberry farm. affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
The facts of this case surround

plaintiffs

Wallace


Huggett and Huggett Sod Farm's proposal to build a commercial
cranberry farm on land in Cheboygan County. Plaintiff Huggett
acquired the 325-acre parcel, all but forty-seven acres of
which is wetland, after a mortgage on the property was
Before


assigned to him and he foreclosed the mortgage.

plaintiff acquired the parcel, which abuts Lake 16, the parcel
had been the site of a peat farm. After acquiring title,


plaintiffs proposed to build a 200-acre commercial cranberry
farm on the land. To create beds in which cranberries could


grow, the proposed farm entailed placing fill material in
wetland areas, excavating and removing soil from wetland
areas, building dikes and culverts; digging irrigation


ditches; and constructing a reservoir and pumping station,
roads, and an airstrip.
In 1990, plaintiff Huggett contacted defendant Department
of Natural Resources to determine whether he needed a wetland
permit to proceed with the proposed cranberry farm. Defendant
2


advised him that he did, and plaintiffs applied for a permit
later that year. However, defendant denied the application.


Plaintiffs then requested a contested case hearing under the
Administrative Procedures Act, MCL 24.201 et seq., see MCL
324.30319(2) (allowing requests for hearings under the


Administrative Procedures Act), and although the case was
docketed for a hearing, no such hearing occurred after over a
year. Plaintiffs thus filed this action seeking a declaration
that their proposed cranberry farm is not subject to the
wetland permit requirements because it is a farming activity
exempted from the requirements by MCL 324.30305(2)(e). administrative litigation.
After several hearings, and after addressing matters no
longer pertinent to this case, the trial court granted
proceedings have been abeyed for All
this


plaintiffs the declaration they sought. final judgment and order held that

The trial court's
proposed


plaintiffs'

cranberry farm is a farming activity exempt from the wetland
permit requirements. That order stated that the farming


activities exemption "includes all activities necessary to
commence and to continue farming in a commercially viable
manner and to bring land into agricultural production."
Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed on the
exemption issue, reasoning that "the farming exemption was
intended to apply to land in established use for agriculture,
and was not intended to refer to new farming


activities . . . ."

232 Mich App 188, 195; 590 NW2d 747
3


(1998).

Because plaintiffs wanted to establish a new farm


rather than continue an existing farm, the Court of Appeals
concluded that plaintiffs must obtain a wetland permit.


Plaintiffs appealed that conclusion, and this Court granted
leave, limited to whether the Court of Appeals correctly
interpreted the farming activities exemption. Also, we


ordered the parties to address the applicability of MCL
324.30305(2)(j) and (3), which concern draining wetland that
is contiguous to a lake or stream and farming that has been in
existence since 1980, respectively. now affirm.
II
Part 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection Act governs activities in wetlands.1 324.30301 et seq. See MCL
463 Mich 910 (2000). We


Most importantly, MCL 324.30304 prohibits


certain acts in wetlands:
Except as otherwise provided by this part or
by a permit obtained from the department [of
Natural Resources] under [other sections of NREPA
part 303], 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.


Formerly, the Wetland Protection Act, MCL 281.701 et
seq., governed activities in wetlands. The act was repealed
by 1995 PA 59, but its provisions were recodified as part 303
of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.
See MCL 324.30301 et seq. (1994 PA 451). Because the
recodified provisions are the same as those provided by the
original act, which was in effect when this case was filed, we
will simply refer to the current provisions.
4


1

(c) Construct, operate, or maintain any use or
development in a wetland.
(d) Drain surface water from a wetland.
However, part 303 also provides that certain activities are
not subject to

Download WALLACE A HUGGETT V DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.pdf

Michigan Law