Michigan Family Still Fighting the State After 3 Years Over a Small Pond

State says rules were broken, family says it’s their land and they did nothing wrong

LANSING, Mich. — A Mid-Michigan family at the center of a long-running dispute with state environmental regulators urged lawmakers Tuesday to pass legislation they say would protect property owners from what they described as government overreach.

This is a story I first brought you in December of 2024.

Testifying before the House Natural Resources and Tourism Committee, Zachary Wenzlick of Freeland detailed his family’s three-year legal battle with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, known as EGLE, over a pond on private property.

The hearing focused on House Bill 5707, introduced by state Rep. Matthew Bierlein, which would create a permit exemption for small, noncommercial residential ponds under one acre.

Bierlein told lawmakers the bill is aimed at reducing regulatory burdens on property owners while maintaining environmental protections.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my independent journalism. Click the button below.

“This legislation is a straightforward, common sense reform,” Bierlein said, adding that current law can expose homeowners to “costly enforcement actions” and “legal uncertainty” even for small projects.

Wenzlick described the dispute as an example of what can happen when state rules are unclear and aggressively enforced. He said the pond, located on land previously used for sand and topsoil mining, has been transformed into a thriving ecosystem supporting birds, fish and other wildlife.

Despite that, he testified that EGLE labeled the pond a detriment to the state’s natural resources, a claim he called “nothing short of absurd.”

Wenzlick also challenged the agency’s interpretation of wetland regulations, arguing the area had previously been designated as non-regulated and that the pond remains under one acre, below thresholds typically requiring permits.

He said the family has spent tens of thousands of dollars fighting the case and has faced threats of steep fines and legal action.

“All in all, not even counting the cost of digging the pond… this is probably in the realm of $40,000 to $50,000 over a three-year timeframe,” Wenzlick testified.

Lawmakers on the committee appeared sympathetic, with some questioning EGLE’s handling of the case and the broader regulatory framework.

One lawmaker described the situation as “appalling,” while another raised concerns about potential retaliation against residents who challenge the agency.

Bierlein said the bill is intended to restore balance between environmental oversight and private property rights.

“It balances environmental stewardship with private property rights,” he said.

EGLE officials, however, opposed the legislation, arguing it conflicts with federal regulations under the Clean Water Act and could undermine Michigan’s authority to manage its own wetlands program.

Agency representatives said existing rules already allow pond construction under certain conditions and include expedited permitting processes for small projects.

“Ponds can be constructed in Michigan… if they meet applicable criteria,” one official told the committee, adding that permits can be obtained quickly in many cases.

Officials also said the Wenzlick case is currently in litigation and declined to discuss specific details, though they noted efforts were made to reach a voluntary resolution.

According to testimony, the agency had proposed a restoration plan that would have allowed a smaller pond to remain while addressing wetland impacts, but the family declined.

The bill would not have applied to the Wenzlick property as currently written because the wetland impacts exceeded one acre, EGLE officials said.

Still, Wenzlick urged lawmakers to act, warning that other families could face similar situations.

“If a private landowner cannot do something as simple as dig a hole on their private property, do we even have such a thing as private property in this state?” he said.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.