Opinion ID: 848681
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Plaintiffs have standing under MCL 324.1701(1)

Text: The circuit court concluded that plaintiffs lack standing to sue under MEPA in light of Lee. To reach this conclusion, that court reviewed affidavits of members of plaintiff organizations and made the following comments from the bench: They were concerned about this, they were concerned about that, they were concerned that there might not be as many birds around Goose Lake as there used to be. And I'm not going to take the time to go through the affidavits one by one, but I think that anybody who reads them will see how often the words or the phrases I am concerned without any stated basis in those affidavits for the reason for being concerned. I am concerned that there will be an impact, I am concerned that there has been a diminishment of the fishery in Goose Lake, and I'm concerned that the mining activities will further diminish the fishery. That's not enough. Plaintiffs appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reviewed the plain language of MEPA and, citing Ray, correctly held that plaintiffs have standing. The Court of Appeals stated that it declined defendants' invitation to read an additional requirement of compliance with non-statutory standing prerequisites, i.e. judge-made standing tests. Unpublished memorandum opinion, 2002 WL 1308236, issued June 11, 2002 (Docket No. 232706). In a footnote, the Court of Appeals aptly commented that it found no indication in Lee that this Court intended to overrule Ray and noted that the statute at issue in Lee could be distinguished because it did not contain a provision expressly authorizing any person to maintain an action for violations or omissions of the act. Slip op at 2. I agree with the Court of Appeals that plaintiffs have standing under MEPA. Consistent with the people's mandate in art. 4, § 52, the Legislature has determined that actual or threatened pollution, impairment, or destruction of natural resources is an injury that any person may seek to enjoin in circuit court. MCL 324.1701(1). In this case, plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant's proposed mining will harm natural resources. This is sufficient under MEPA to allow the plaintiffs their day in court. Once in the door, plaintiffs must next establish their prima facie case as required by MCL 324.1703(1). [30]