Natural River Designation

[Whit1]

Those of you who love to ply the quiet attitude of a secluded trout stream in search of the majestic trout may want to perk your eyes and ears at the upcoming meetings pointing towards creating the Upper Manistee and Pine rivers as Natural Rivers. This is a long overdue designation that will offer protection for these vulnerable streams from the inroads of wanton development.

The meeting schedule has not been finalized, but they will be held in late April and early May. There is opposition to this much needed designation and your presence and support is needed. I will be talking with Mark Tonello, DNR fisheries biologist in the Cadillac office next week concerning this situation with the intent of writing an article for publication in March or April.

Below you will find a site that Mark recommended as a starting point to learn about the Natural Rivers of Michigan. The DNR also has information on their site.

http://www.mlui.org/LandWater/lw.asp...3&key=2&sub=18

[Hamilton Reef]

The major opposition to the Natural Rivers protection is the Republican Party. Republican House Speaker Rick Johnson and other bought off politicians are only working for the developers and those land pollutors against protecting the rivers of Michigan. The Engler corruption machine is still in operation.

[Swamp Monster]

Yea, HR, I'm sure the whole Republican party is against this...no liberal propaganda here. I'd like to to know where you got the information that everyone in the Republican party is against this? Surely your telling the truth right? Or do you want to change your post to SOME members of the Republican party are opposed to this measure? That I would accept. Are all the bought off Democrats for it to or are there a few of those against it as well?

HR, here's a little info from that article Whit posted.......
"Critics also noted that the speaker’s position is at odds with the recommendations of a Republican-led state Senate Task Force on the Great Lakes, which called on Michigan to renew its commitment to protecting natural rivers. ... [More]"

Personnaly this Republican is all for it,(along with he Republican led senate mind you). Development is crushing our resources and it needs to be seriously slowed or stopped in many areas.

[Whit1]

There are many in both paties who support this law. However, Rep. Johnson (Republican) represents a district that covers much of the Pine River area. His position as Majority Leader brings with it a lot of power to influence representatives of his party. Most of this wielding of power is under the table, out of sight of the media, etc. I would suggest that pressure be put on members of both parties, but right now, the Republican Party specifically, to derail any behind closed doors wheeling and dealing on this issue. You can bet your last $$ that Rick Johnson has been, and will continue to be heard in his district's forums, be they up front, or behind the scenes.

Up here in Northern Michigan it is difficult to pressure most Republican office holders, as they are nearly automatically elected, no matter what their stance on these issues is. It is in the swing districts downstate where pressure needs to be applied and the voices of those who support this law, and the designation of these rivers as Natural Rivers, must be used.

[captdenny]

What happens to the land owners who have several acers along those designated rivers? Does the state our do you and I pay for lost revenues from sales of such property. I do not want to see development along those rivers, but what if you owned that land and decided to sell and could not get the stated value from that sale. Should the same apply to lake property and what about all the development west of Detroit, is it the states right to restrict land owners from making a sale? These issues are simple for you and I to make judgement on, if we don't own that land.

[Hamilton Reef]

captdenny, There is no lost property value with the Natural Rivers (NR) protection which is only a few feet buffer along the river. In fact it is the protection of the act that enhances the value of the river corridor for everyone. I know this first hand just by looking at my tax assessments I received on my NR property. The NR designation is opposed by the land rights developers, but is widely supported by anyone that cares about the river. It only takes an ugly destruction by one developer or total idiot in a stretch of river to also destroy the value for all the other landowners and the public property through that section of river.

[Whit1]

Good points HR.

I'd like to add that much of the regulations under the NR Act are locally developed and implemented. Yes, there are some guidelines, but the crux of the responsibility is on the local units of government to develop and implement a river protection plan.

[Whit1]

In doing more research into this "lost land value" aspect, I am finding that contrary to this belief, the monetary value of the waterfront land is enhanced.

[captdenny]

As stated earlier, I do not want development along those rivers. But as a land owner (not on those rivers), I hate it when others try to impose their will on my investment. If those who own the land wish to provide a natural river, than so be it. If it is the state or you and I who wish to do so, then we should buy the land in question and impose our will. We currently have on the books, codes to protect rivers and streams from unnecessary disruption. I believe in protecting our land for future use. I also believe that we need to look at all the issues and weigh them carefully before we make laws that place restrictions on our way of life.

[Whit1]

The unfortunate thing with rivers, as with all land and waterways is that this is not a perfect world. There are actually unknowing, unwise, and uncaring land owners out there who believe that their land is their land and damn to all others. Rivers have a particular physical characteristic that opens the possibility for detrimental effects on people other than the immediate landowner. Water flows downhill.

We need to look at the big picture. The Natural Rivers designation protects the good managers of their property from the poor managers who are upstream.

Yes, this does impose some restrictions by a governmental agency on others, but upstream property holders do the same thing to their fellow land owners downstream when they implement careless and harmful land/water management practices.

What happens to the downstream property owners "investment" when an upstream landowner, using the long worn out philosophy of, "Who do you think you are? You can't do that to me;' and the ultimate and destructive, 'I'll show you."

What happens is all parties, both purporting to want to protect their "investment", have detrimental consequences applied to their property.

[captdenny]

Whit 1 my question to you is, are you a land owner along one of those rivers? If so then I tip my hat to you for willingness to give up you ownership to the state of said land. Governments encroachment of just a few feet (how much is a few, is it two feet or is it 100 feet) can hand cuff property owners. case in point is the Federal encroachment of the Sleeping Bear Dunes just up the road from you. The feds are in the process of creating a zone of land that will be off limits to all. I too feel that we need to protect against those who blantly disrupt the watershed. I feel we have in place several laws which can do this. Those laws need to be enforced.

[Whit1]

Capt,
I am not a river bank land owner. I hope that you don't feel this disqualifies me from being interested in these matters. As an owner of property along a stream I would think that you'd set aside the angst over governmental interference, in order to protect what you have from possible unscrupulous individuals upstream of you.

Concerning the federal government's.......actually only an agency of the government......attempt to get ultra restrictive with the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore property, that has been given a huge setback by knowledgable and concerned sportsmen and women who took a stance at various meetings in Benzie County the past several months.

Your comments about laws that already exist that take care of possible problems is not true. It is a rare zoning ordinance that has the necessary teeth to prevent the degrading of a river system. Local prosecutors are famous for not upholding these purely local ordinances in court. Yes, there are anti pollution laws, many of which have been eroded by various governments both here in Michigan and in Washington DC during the past several years. Again, ocal zoning ordinances don't cover much of what we are speaking of, if they exist at all.

The beauty of the Natural Rivers Act is that it puts the focus for developing the restrictions at the local level. The state is merely the nudge that gets the ball rolling and a source of expertise. Yes, the final approval is with Lansing, but well written proposals, at least back when they were being acted upon, rarely get turned down wholesale.

In each proposal there is recourse for a land owner to seek redress of an issue via an appeal to a Board of Review made up, for the most part of local citizenry.

You may come to realize the use of the word "local" in my comments. That is the root of the whole Natural Rivers Act and its implementation to an individual stream.

Keep in mind, the rivers' waters flow. They pass not only your property, and I assume that you are a caring landowner, but also the property downstream and evenutally into Lake Michigan.

[Linda G.]

Natural Rivers is a state law that is managed locally, unless challenged, like the trout farm issue on the Jordan last year. NR has nothing to do and is nothing like what they're trying to do, or tried, in Sleeping Bear...and even so, they didn't have much luck, did they? And they won't, if the people don't want it, and speak up and say so...

I've got my column on this issue in next week's MON...I talked to a LOT of people who own property on the two branches of the Manistee intended for designation...99.9% of them are in favor of designation, loudly...the rest simply don't understand what it's about, and I'm afraid a lot of them are opening their mouths before they become informed on the issue. Like Missaukee County, which voted against support of NR designation last fall...they'd "rather take care of it themselves"...ok, that calls for zoning...and Missaukee County doesn't have any, and from what I'm told, doesn't have the necessary forces in place to create any...that's pretty mis-informed, and pretty sad for a county government, which should understand their own laws...

or as one property owner told me who has lived on the Jordan River, a NR for many years, the first in the state in 1972, his problem is more like his property has become almost TOO valuable because it is designated both a blue water stream and a NR...without designation, you won't have any value to worry about at all if the river is destroyed...no one will want it.

Personally, I was in favor of splitting the designation, and going first for the upper part of the Manistee from the headwaters in Antrim County to Cty. Rd 612-then going for the rest. That initial stretch of the Manistee is mostly public land...and much easier to protect. That should have been offered up first for designation-at least some of it would already have protection...

I'm a republican, too, and I'm firmly in favor of this designation. I did NOT vote for Jennifer Granholm...