Michigan Senate Bill SB0393

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/10/25
• Refer: 6/10/25

Caption

Environmental protection: groundwater contamination; limitation period for filing actions; revise. Amends sec. 20140 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.20140).

Summary

Senate Bill 393 would amend section 20140 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act to revise the statute of limitations for certain environmental enforcement and cost-recovery actions. The bill sets time limits for actions to recover response activity costs and natural resource damages, generally tying the filing deadline to the start of physical on-site construction for a selected or approved remedial action, with different rules for subsequent cost-recovery actions, civil fines, and claims involving hazardous substances that were not regulated by July 1, 1994. The bill also clarifies the treatment of claims for natural resource damages and response costs that accrued or were incurred before July 1, 1991. It states that those claims are subject to a July 1, 1994 filing deadline, and it adds a curative provision declaring that this subsection reflects the Legislature’s original intent and applies retroactively. In effect, the bill is aimed at confirming and refining when the state may bring environmental cleanup and damages claims, especially in older contamination cases.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would amend Michigan’s environmental cleanup law by changing and clarifying the limitation periods for lawsuits under Part 201 of the NREPA, including claims for response activity costs, natural resource damages, and civil fines. It would affect the state, potentially responsible parties, and others involved in contaminated site cleanup by defining when claims must be filed and by preserving a retroactive deadline for certain pre-1991 claims. The bill is especially relevant to groundwater contamination and hazardous substance remediation disputes.

Sentiment

The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears technical and clarifying rather than expansive, suggesting a legislative intent to resolve timing questions in environmental enforcement rather than to create a new regulatory program. The overall tone of the bill is neutral and administrative.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the retroactive, curative treatment of subsection (3), which could affect whether older response-cost claims are timely and therefore whether certain environmental claims remain available. Parties that may favor the bill include state environmental regulators and entities seeking certainty about filing deadlines; parties that may object could include potentially responsible parties facing revived or clarified liability for older contamination. Another possible issue is the special rule for hazardous substances not regulated before July 1, 1994, which creates a distinct limitations framework for those cases.