When local residents raised red flags over a controversial $41 million drain project in Eaton County, they probably didn’t expect to be met by a county commissioner with ties to the firms connected to the endeavor.
But that’s exactly what happened.
Despite having no formal role in the drain assessment process, records show that Richard Wagner, the Eaton County Drain Commissioner (and father of Casey Wagner), has inserted himself directly into the controversy, meeting with concerned residents and offering defenses for the Bank Intercounty Drain.
The problem? Wagner has received substantial campaign support from the very firms profiting from the project.
…And he oversees nearly a 1 million dollar budget.
No Oversight, But Plenty of Influence
According to reporting from FOX 47 News, Wagner met with residents who are being hit with large special assessments related to the Bank Intercounty Drain project, one of the largest public infrastructure assessments Eaton County has ever seen.
What’s important here is that in Michigan, projects like these are governed by a Board of Determination, not by explicitly by county commissioners. Consider this response from Wagner:
Why are these drain projects necessary now?
Aging infrastructure, flooding concerns, or environmental needs often drive drain projects. Many of the systems in our county were built decades ago and are no longer functioning properly, leading to property damage, road closures, or water quality issues. Through the petition process, projects are reviewed and determined necessary by the Board of Determination, made up of members of the public.
Neighbors have said they are struggling to afford the bills/assessments.
We understand the financial burden assessments can place on residents. The county has secured grant funding for major projects in the recent past and will continue to do so for future projects, but there is no guarantees with state and federal funding for these types of infrastructure projects.
What is your response to calls for more transparency and public input before assessments are issued?
We are required to send official notifications to every address in the drainage district. The Drain Code has a strict process. When a petition is filed, the Drain Commissioner appoints a Board of Determination made up of three property owners who own property in the county but not in any municipalities in the drainage district. The Board holds a public hearing and determines whether the drain or maintenance and improvement of the drain are necessary and whether the municipalities in the drainage district are liable for an assessment at large.
If the Board of Determination determines necessity, a property owner has 10 days to challenge the determination in circuit court. If the necessity is not challenged, there is no other remedy under the Drain Code to stop a project if the proper procedures have been followed.
Do you believe there needs to be a change in the Drain Code?
I am often frustrated at the process laid out in the Drain Code. But reforms that preserve the code’s ability to protect communities would require debate, discussions, and support from the local and state levels. Still, we are legally required to work under the parameters of the Drain Code as it exists today.
So out of that what can you take away?
Wagner himself appoints the Board of Determinants, and once he selects them and they find a project necessary, there’s no turning back unless they challenge it in Circuit Court.
Follow the Paper Trail: Campaign Cash from Spicer and Friends
According to campaign finance records and local disclosures, Wagner’s campaign received contributions from Spicer Group, Inc., the engineering firm connected to the Bank Intercounty Drain project. Spicer is prominently featured in project documents, including the drainage district map and planning materials.
Read more on Spicer Group’s campaign donations to Eaton County Drain Commissioner, Richard Wagner.
Spicer is not the only name in this cozy financial circle. Legal firms connected to the project and other related infrastructure deals have also contributed to Wagner’s political war chest, either directly or through associated PACs.
This raises a very serious question: Is Wagner actually advocating for the residents of Eaton County, or for the firms lining their pockets with taxpayer-backed project dollars?
As a side note, Clark Hill PLC is making a stop at the Barry County Board of Commissioners to talk Drain Law 101.
Residents Bear the Cost
While Wagner is busy taking meetings and defending the drain plan, residents are being hit with assessment bills as high as $14,000. Many are retirees or middle-income homeowners who now face unexpected liens on their homes for a project they didn’t approve and can’t afford.
These assessments are legally enforceable, and in some cases, could lead to tax foreclosures if residents are unable to pay.
That’s the real-life impact of government decisions made with financial conflicts lurking beneath the surface. And with such a significant conflict of interest involved, it makes it all the more concerning.
The Core Issue (Plain English)
If Richard Wagner:
- has discretionary authority over drain projects, vendors, engineering firms, legal counsel, and timelines,
- receives campaign contributions from people or firms that do business with the drain office, and
- those same firms later receive millions of dollars in drain-related work,
the result is a textbook appearance-of-impropriety conflict, even if Michigan law does not prohibit it outright.
Ethics standards are not limited to preventing bribery. They exist to ensure the public can reasonably trust that government decisions are being made independently and in the public interest.
Why Recent Drain Law Changes Worsen The Optics
Although large-scale projects like the Bank Intercounty Drain still require a formal petition, recent amendments to Michigan’s Drain Code have expanded administrative discretion and increased the volume of public funds flowing through drain offices.
These changes include:
- higher maintenance spending caps without petitions,
- faster movement of funds,
- increased reliance on outside consultants, and
- long-term bonded projects extending decades into the future.
The practical effect is that more public money now moves through fewer decision points, with less procedural friction.
When a single elected official both oversees that financial flow and accepts campaign support from individuals or firms that benefit from it, the ethical risk increases rather than diminishes.
Why This Remains An Ethics Issue Without Proof of Wrongdoing
An ethics concern does not require proof of:
- quid pro quo arrangements,
- explicit favoritism, or
- illegal coordination.
The relevant question is narrower and more fundamental:
Would a reasonable member of the public question whether campaign donors receive preferential access, influence, or continuity of work?
In this context, that question is difficult to answer in the negative. Government ethics frameworks consistently flag three conditions that heighten conflict risk:
Concentrated discretion
Drain commissioners exercise unusually centralized authority compared to other county officials.
Repeat-player dynamics
The same engineering firms, law firms, and consultants frequently appear across projects.
Political fundraising overlap
Campaign contributions originate from individuals tied to firms that materially benefit from decisions made by the office.
Together, these conditions create precisely the type of scenario ethics rules are meant to guard against.
Update, 1/27/26
Additional overlap: land-use decision-making authority
The conflict concerns are amplified by the fact that the same official also serves on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) Selection Committee.
PDR programs determine which parcels of land are preserved, restricted, or prioritized for conservation using public funds. Those decisions directly shape land use, development patterns, property values, and long-term infrastructure needs, including drainage and stormwater management.
When a single official participates in both:
- decisions about land preservation and development eligibility, and
- decisions about drainage infrastructure, assessments, and long-term bonded improvements tied to land use,
the overlap raises additional ethical questions about role concentration and influence.
This is not unusual in rural or semi-rural counties, but it does increase the importance of clear guardrails. Drainage projects and development-rights decisions are often interconnected. Preservation choices can affect runoff patterns, future infrastructure demand, and which properties bear long-term assessment costs.
The concern is not that participation on multiple committees is inherently improper. It is that layered authority over land use, infrastructure planning, and public contracting — combined with political fundraising from interested parties — compounds the appearance-of-impropriety risk.
Ethics best practices typically caution against allowing the same individual to exercise overlapping influence across systems that financially and structurally reinforce one another, particularly when public funds and private beneficiaries intersect.
This additional role deepens the structural question at the heart of the issue: whether Michigan’s local governance framework adequately separates land-use decision-making, infrastructure control, and political fundraising in a way that protects public trust.
Why Legality is Not the End of the Analysis
Michigan’s campaign finance system allows campaign contributions from individuals associated with government contractors. That permissiveness, however, does not resolve the ethical question.
Ethics standards require more than legal compliance. They emphasize:
- avoidance of conflicts,
- disclosure paired with recusal where appropriate, and
- structural safeguards that limit undue influence.
Legality addresses what is allowed.
Ethics addresses what is appropriate.
Public confidence erodes when those standards diverge. Think Barry County’s Jail Board and the conflicts there. There is an adage that if you “build it, prosecutors will fill it” for a reason.
The Structural Reality of Drain Governance
Drain commissioners occupy a hybrid role that blends legislative, executive, and quasi-judicial authority. They:
- initiate infrastructure projects,
- oversee assessments,
- approve contracts, and
- influence long-term public debt obligations.
When that role intersects with political fundraising from entities that benefit from those decisions, the system becomes vulnerable to capture, dependency, and diminished accountability.
No allegation of corruption is required for that vulnerability to exist. Structural incentives alone are sufficient.
Why This Distinction Matters
This analysis is not a claim of personal misconduct. It is an examination of bad institutional design (and I suspect unchecked lobbying).
The concern is not whether an individual acted improperly. It is whether the current framework provides adequate protection against conflicts that undermine public trust.
That question remains unresolved — and worthy of scrutiny.
This Isn’t Just About a Drain — It’s About Trust and Integrity
Wagner may not be the “official voice” behind this project, but he has significantly loud influence and his ties to the firms involved are undeniable. Literally in black and white; can’t argue with it.
Elected officials must recuse themselves from involvement in projects where they have financial connections to contractors, consultants, or law firms involved.
If they don’t, they’re not just eroding public trust, they’re actively helping drain it.
Clutch Justice Will Be Watching
We’re currently reviewing:
- Wagner’s full campaign finance disclosures
- Connections between Spicer Group, Eaton County Drain Commission, and affiliated legal firms
- FOIA requests related to meeting notes and contracts tied to this drain project
Subscribe to get access
Read more of this content when you subscribe today.
