House committee adopts substitute and refers soft erosion-control bill after debate over local permitting

The Michigan House committee took up House Bill 4385 (H-2 substitute), a bill that would require property owners installing certain soft erosion-control structures to notify local units of government in the same manner they must notify the Department of Natural Resources and to ensure that the structures comply with applicable local ordinances.

Representative Saint Germain moved to adopt the H-2 substitute. The clerk recorded the roll call on that motion and reported that the motion to adopt the substitute carried with 15 yeas and 1 nay. Representative Altman later offered an amendment intended to clarify when a local unit of government subject to a county zoning ordinance is in compliance; Representative Weiss asked whether the amendment would allow local governments to impose limitations stricter than state law.

The committee voted on Altman’s amendment; the clerk recorded 2 yeas, 9 nays and 5 passes and announced the motion did not prevail. After further procedural steps, committee members voted on referring House Bill 4385 as substituted to the Committee on Rules. The clerk announced 10 yeas, 2 nays and 4 pass; the committee chair then stated the bill "is referred as substituted to the committee on rules." (The transcript records the clerk's tally and the committee's subsequent referral statement.)

What the bill does

According to the H-2 substitute read into the record, the bill would: - Require property owners who install soft erosion-control structures to provide notice to their local unit of government in a manner consistent with current notice requirements to the DNR; - Make local permitting and compliance an explicit part of the state notice framework; - Allow local ordinances to require permitting, but the committee record included clarifying discussion that local governments must already have an ordinance in place to assert additional requirements tied to the substitute’s effective date language.

Key questions raised

Members asked about the substitute’s retroactivity language tied to an ordinance effective date of Jan. 1, 2025, and whether local governments could impose limits stricter than the state’s framework. Committee staff said the substitute was intended to accommodate existing county zoning ordinances adopted within the specified timeframe and to permit a municipality to adopt a consistent local ordinance afterward.

Votes and motions recorded (at committee)

- Motion to adopt H-2 substitute (mover: Representative Saint Germain): recorded result — 15 yeas, 1 nay; outcome: adopted. - Motion to adopt Altman amendment (mover: Representative Altman): recorded result — 2 yeas, 9 nays, 5 passes; outcome: failed. - Motion to refer House Bill 4385 as substituted to Committee on Rules (mover: Representative Holy): recorded tally announced by clerk — 10 yeas, 2 nays, 4 passes; the committee chair then stated the bill "is referred as substituted to the committee on rules." The transcript includes both the roll-call tally and the chair’s referral statement.

Next steps

The bill was called referred as the H-2 substitute to the Committee on Rules for further consideration. Committee members discussed additional questions and said they planned to circulate follow-up materials to members who were not able to ask questions before the meeting’s time limit.