The Overlooked Environmental Legal Tool Your Township May Already Have

Guest Opinion

By Lauren Teichner | June 20, 2026

Concerned about a proposed data center, shoreline development, tree clearing, or loss of rural character in your community? Here is something many Michigan residents—and even local officials—do not realize: your municipality may already have an overlooked legal tool that can help local officials respond to environmental concerns before projects proceed.

It is called the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), and while many people think of it primarily as a law used in lawsuits, it can also serve as a framework in local land use decision-making when projects raise legitimate concerns about impacts to natural resources.

Local officials and residents often assume that addressing environmental concerns in zoning proceedings is simply “EGLE’s job.” To be clear, much environmental regulation in Michigan falls within the purview of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). The agency oversees permitting and regulations involving wetlands, water quality, air emissions, and more. State expertise matters, and state law often preempts local regulation.

But that is not the end of the story. Local governments often have authority—and, I would argue, good reason—to thoughtfully consider environmental impacts through the lens of MEPA. Michigan law does not require municipalities to conduct a formal MEPA analysis as part of every zoning decision, but it can function as a useful supplementary framework when potential harms are raised.

An important question too often missing from zoning conversations is: “Could this project significantly affect natural resources, and are there reasonable ways to reduce those impacts?” In appropriate cases, bringing MEPA into the picture can help local governments explore risks and consider whether project redesign or conditions (such as vegetative buffers, tree preservation, or dark sky protections) could make projects more compatible with local values, more legally defensible, and more likely to earn public trust.

Environmental lawyers like me love the fact that Michigan’s Constitution declares conservation of natural resources to be of “paramount public concern” and directs the legislature to protect them. In response, Michigan enacted MEPA in 1970, which asks administrative bodies to seriously consider whether proposed conduct has or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of air, water, or other natural resources—or the public trust in those resources—and, if so, whether feasible and prudent alternatives are available before granting approval.

Michigan courts have long affirmed that local governments have a legitimate interest in protecting the environmental features and natural resources that define their communities, so long as they do so in a way that does not conflict with EGLE’s authority or other state law.

Importantly, these priorities are not invented out of thin air. They are often reflected in community Master Plans, documents developed through years of public meetings, surveys, and resident input about what people value in the places they call home. In northern Michigan, those values often include clean water, healthy forests, dark skies, open space, farmland, and rural character.

Local zoning ordinances, grounded in those Master Plans, routinely state that their purpose is to promote public health, safety, and welfare, including the natural environment and thoughtful land use. Local concerns can include cumulative impacts, community character, site-specific consequences, and long-term stewardship of natural resources—all considerations germane for planning commissioners as they deliberate on land use standards.

Bringing MEPA into the discussion does not mean local governments are stepping into EGLE’s shoes or reflexively saying “no” to development. Nor does it mean every zoning matter suddenly becomes an environmental case. It simply means thoughtfully exercising existing authority in service of the community values residents have identified.

Some may worry that bringing MEPA into local decision-making risks slowing urgently needed development or infrastructure. At a time when Michigan needs more housing, clean energy, transmission, and emerging technologies, that concern deserves to be taken seriously.

But thoughtful environmental review and progress are not mutually exclusive. Projects are often stronger when environmental concerns are addressed early before any conflicts arise or litigation is filed. Likewise, communities that proactively update ordinances to reflect local environmental values are often better positioned to welcome new infrastructure while maintaining public trust and protecting their natural features.

When local decision-makers face difficult land use questions, they bring practical wisdom, local knowledge, and a genuine commitment to protecting the places their communities care about while accommodating change. Their work deserves strong legal tools.

MEPA is not a mandate to stop development or a silver bullet for every conflict. But it is often an overlooked tool for asking key questions before important decisions are made: What could be harmed? What alternatives exist? How can impacts be reduced?

EGLE’s role in state permitting is essential, but environmental stewardship does not begin and end in Lansing. Local governments have a role to play too, and MEPA already exists as a complementary framework that can help guide when environmental concerns arise. The challenge now is simply to use it in those cases by asking better questions before natural resources are altered in ways that cannot easily be undone.

Lauren Teichner is the principal attorney at Teichner Law, an environmental and land use law firm based in Traverse City.