House committee hears bill to let drain commissioners assess DNR-managed lands

Representative Aaron Schutte, sponsor of House Bill 4118, told the House Committee on Government Operations that the bill would allow county drain commissioners to apply drain assessments to land managed by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources the same way assessments are applied to private property and other state-managed land such as that under the Department of Transportation.

The bill would remove an existing exemption for DNR-managed land from drain assessments, Schutte said in committee testimony. "This legislation allows county drain commissioners to apply drain assessments to DNR managed property the same way they do to private property or other state properties such as that managed by the Department of Transportation," Representative Schutte said.

Why it matters: Drain maintenance and construction are funded by special assessments on properties within a drainage district. Witnesses representing the Michigan Association of County Drain Commissioners (MACDC) told the committee that when large shares of a drainage district are DNR-managed and exempt from assessments, the remaining private landowners — often farmers and a handful of homeowners — can bear an outsized share of costs.

Cole Hedrick, legal counsel for MACDC, and Joe Bush, Ottawa County water-resources commissioner and past MACDC president, presented several county-level examples to illustrate the issue. They told the committee that the share of DNR land in some drainage districts ranges from single-digit percentages to majorities. For instance, MACDC witnesses said the Severance Drain in Allegan County includes "a little over 3,000 DNR acres in a 5,200-acre district" — roughly 58% of the district. They gave other examples: 259 acres of 848 (about 30.5%) in one district, and a small district where 60 of 80 acres (about 74%) are DNR-managed.

"When drainage work is done on this district, you end up with one property being accessible for that work, even though there's other lands that are contributing into that system," Hedrick said, summarizing how exemptions can concentrate both benefit and cost.

Committee members asked for details about how assessments are calculated and how many drains cross DNR land. MACDC witnesses said there is no statewide inventory of drains on DNR land; assessment methodologies vary by county and typically account for acreage and land use, with higher factors applied to developed or industrial acreage and lower factors for wooded or agricultural land such as much DNR property. "That is going to vary county to county," Hedrick said. "Typically what you see is there's going to be some level of acreage and land use compiled." Bush added that the resulting burden often falls on neighboring farmers and large-parcel landowners.

Committee members also noted that the state already contributes to assessments in some contexts, such as when the Department of Transportation owns frontage in a drainage district or when the DNR owns lake frontage and participates in lake-level assessments under Part 307. Hedrick and Bush distinguished those programs from drainage assessments, saying Part 307 lake-level assessments are handled differently than county drain assessments.

No committee vote on the bill was recorded during the hearing. The committee clerk reported five members present at roll call and the committee approved minutes from Feb. 20 by unanimous consent earlier in the meeting. The Department of Natural Resources submitted a card indicating it did not wish to speak in opposition.

The committee heard questions and clarification requests but made no formal decision at this hearing. Supporters asked the committee to move the bill forward to relieve private landowners of what they called an "unfair burden" when large shares of a drainage district are exempt; committee members asked staff and witnesses for data on inventories, assessment methodologies, and fiscal impacts before proceeding further.