Inverse condemnation; Blue Harvest, Inc v Department of Transp; Hinojosa v Department of Natural Res; Replacement of culverts; A county road commission’s powers & duties; MCL 224.19 & 224.21(2); Claim under Part 17 of the Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA); Scheme for determining legal lake levels; Part 307 of NREPA; Yee v Shiawassee Bd of Comm’rs

The court held that plaintiffs-property owners failed to meet the elements of an inverse condemnation claim and that the gravamen of their NREPA claim was not for environmental damages but rather an effort to establish a legal lake level, which a circuit court lacks authority to be the first to determine. Thus, it reversed the denial of defendant-county road commission’s summary disposition motion and remanded for entry of an order granting it summary disposition. Defendant replaced three culverts diverting water from the lake that had been damaged and partially blocked with new but identical structures. An 18-inch decrease in the lake’s level followed. “Plaintiffs sued defendant for inverse condemnation, alleging a decrease in the value of their properties as a result of the lower water level.” They later added a claim under NREPA Part 17. While they asserted that “defendant’s replacement of the culverts constituted an abuse of its powers for purposes of inverse condemnation, defendant was statutorily responsible for culvert maintenance.” MCL 224.21(2)’s plain language establishes a “mandatory requirement that a constructed culvert shall be maintained in reasonable repair. Accordingly, in light of the statutory authorization and requirement that defendant repair the culverts, defendant did not abuse its powers by engaging in affirmative conduct.” In addition, the court found that “the associated removal of debris to fulfill that statutory duty and replace the culverts was not overt action by defendant directed at plaintiffs’ properties.” It was not the culvert replacement that caused the lower water level, but “rather the necessary removal of inappropriately placed debris . . . .” Defendant acted upon the culverts, not plaintiffs’ properties. They “had no right to the continued placement of debris in the culverts to alter the water level to their desired liking. Moreover, plaintiffs had the ability to petition the county commission to act regarding specific water levels under Part 307 of NREPA.” As to their claim under Part 17, the “Legislature enacted a comprehensive scheme for the establishment and maintenance of legal lake levels.” Under that scheme, proceedings may be initiated “before the county board of commissioners or its delegated authority.” Given that the Legislature placed the authority to determine lake levels with the county board, plaintiffs’ claim under Part 17 was not viable.