Michigan is home to nearly 5.5 million acres of wetlands. They store floodwater that protects homes and neighborhoods, filter pollutants before they reach the Great Lakes, recharge groundwater supplies, and support the fisheries, wildlife, and outdoor economy that define this state. Now, a package of Republican-backed bills moving through the Michigan Legislature would gut the state protections that have kept those wetlands safe for decades.

The Michigan House passed HBs 5536 and 5501 on June 4, 2026 — both on near-party-line votes. The bills now head to the Michigan Senate, which is the last line of defense.

HB 5536 would narrow Michigan's definition of a "wetland" to match the weakened federal standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 Sackett decision — a ruling that stripped protection from wetlands without a direct surface connection to federally regulated waters. Michigan chose not to follow that rollback. These bills would force us to. That means isolated wetlands, seasonal wetlands, and wetlands connected to groundwater rather than streams — all of which store floodwater and filter pollution — could lose state protection entirely.

The timing could not be worse. Historic spring flooding hit northern Michigan in April 2026, just as legislative hearings on these bills were beginning. Wetlands are the natural infrastructure that absorbs those flood surges. As extreme weather increases, weakening the legal framework that protects them shifts costs from developers onto homeowners, communities, and taxpayers.

There's another serious risk. Michigan is one of only a few states with its own federally delegated wetlands permitting program — meaning the state, not the federal government, has direct authority over wetland decisions. State environmental officials have warned that these bills could jeopardize that delegation entirely. If Michigan loses it, developers and landowners would face a far more cumbersome dual process involving both state and federal agencies.

Michigan's program has been stable and predictable precisely because it doesn't move with federal political winds. "The federal government's definition of wetlands has swung back and forth, depending on the political affiliation of the federal administration, for nearly two decades," wrote Dylan Gebhard, EGLE's legislative liaison. Tying Michigan law to that instability would mean wetland protections are up for revision with every presidential administration — not a feature, a flaw.

We are asking the Michigan Senate to reject HBs 5536 and 5501, and to oppose the broader package of rollback bills that would limit EGLE's authority, speed permits at the expense of environmental review, and create preferential pathways for industrial development.