Permit, 4 Lakes Task Force and Boyce Hydro emails show plan to refill Wixom Lake; state role disputed

A separate thread of testimony at the Sept. 16 Michigan Court of Claims hearing focused on who directed the return of Wixom Lake (Edenville) to its normal summer level in spring 2020 and whether state agencies compelled the action. The record presented to the court includes emails, a permit application, consultant reports and a county‑sponsored part 307 petition.

Timeline and materials: Court exhibits and witness testimony show that FERC revoked the license for the Edenville project in September 2018. Internal emails and later filings show repeated communications among Boyce Hydro, the 4 Lakes Task Force and consultants. Plaintiffs introduced emails from October 2018 in which Boyce representative Lee Muller told the 4 Lakes Task Force that the company would pause operations and asked for assistance; the 4 Lakes group’s chair, Dave Kepler, replied that the group should plan "what is needed through winter and how we bring it up in the spring." (Excerpts: Oct. 2018 email chain.)

Permit and planning: In early 2020 the 4 Lakes Task Force and Boyce submitted a permit application to EGLE describing a plan to restore Wixom Lake to normal summer level (examples in the record show references to raising the lake in April 2020). Spicer Group, the engineering consultant engaged by the task force and later by the counties, prepared reports and a repair plan with a multi‑year schedule to increase spillway capacity. The Spicer Group’s written gate‑test memo (Sept. 2019) noted the gates were not safe to operate under emergency conditions and concluded that repairs and improvements were necessary before the dam could meet the state’s half‑PMF requirement.

State role and dispute: At the hearing defense counsel argued that the contemporaneous emails, task‑force agreements and the permit application show Boyce and the 4 Lakes Task Force independently agreed to refill the lake and that EGLE did not coerce the owner. Plaintiffs countered with testimony and depositions arguing the state was deeply involved in planning and negotiations and that EGLE staff participated in a collaborative process with the owner, consultants and 4 Lakes Task Force; plaintiffs asserted that at least some state employees later said they would not have issued the permit had they known the dam failed to meet the half‑PMF standard.

Related filings: The record also includes a May 1, 2020 complaint filed by local parties seeking damages for alleged natural‑resource impacts from the winter drawdown; plaintiffs’ counsel highlighted that the complaint came after the lake was already refilled and argued the timing and state communications show coordinated pressure on the owner.

What the court heard: Counsel for both sides used the chain of emails and the permit application to bolster competing narratives. The court received argument but did not issue an immediate ruling on whether the state compelled the owner to raise the lake; the matter was argued as part of a broader summary‑disposition motion and taken under advisement.

Ending: The factual record on who made operational choices and why — and whether EGLE/DNR’s conduct rose to the level of a government‑caused taking — was a central dispute at the hearing and remains before the court.