The state cap on land ownership is inhibiting the Department of Natural Resources, said Brad Garmon of the Michigan Environmental Council. Photo: Flickr.
By Ashley Weigel
Capital News Service
A bill that would uncap the amount of land the state owns and manages is being met with some opposition.
Sponsored by Rep. Wayne Schmidt, R-Traverse City, the bill would raise the 4.626 million acre cap on land and allow the Department of Natural Resources to acquire more. The change would be allowed because the department has a new plan for purchasing and selling land.
The state cannot own more land than it does today, according to Brad Garmon, director of conservation and emerging issues for the Michigan Environmental Council. He said the cap is inhibiting the department’s abilities to do its job.
“We want the DNR to get back to doing what they do best,” said Garmon – managing the state’s land.
According to Steve Sutton, DNR finance and operations manager, with land acquisition paused, the DNR is unable to add recreation areas and public water access.
While there are a few exemptions, such as property donated as a gift and trails, current law requires the department to have its strategic plan approved by the Legislature before the cap will be removed.
Action on the bill has paused, as the DNR and Schmidt meet with the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Association of Counties to work out how local governments will be included in decisions concerning buying and selling land.
The Townships Association wants an approval process that involves local officials before this legislation passes, said Judy Allen, its director of government relations.
She said that in some townships, most of the land is owned by the state, so local governments should have a say in what land is bought and sold by the state.
The Michigan Association of Counties has similar concerns regarding being part of the decision-making process.
Deena Bosworth, its director of government affairs, says the association wants to partner with the state, not just let the state do what it wants. She said the association thinks the DNR should have to seek approval from it before doing anything with the land, including how the land is used and developed.
The bill is in the House Natural Resources Committee.
The Michigan Association of Counties and the Township Associations should be part of the process for public land policy, but I do not agree with them being part of the approval process. The social, economic, and ecological services that public land provides does not solely affect them. It’s for the greater good for the greater number. What some remote, western upper peninsula township declares may not be in the best interest for the whole or their own if they were properly informed. Public lands transcends political boundaries and supports our society in more ways than many people realize. Public lands is our heritage, pride, and national symbol. It is what allows us to escape from concrete metropolitan areas, suburbia, corn fields, and the busy aspect of life. I live in the backwoods and like it that way :)
One big reason the 4.626 million acre cap on land was introduced was to stop the DNR from acquiring valuable waterfront public access competing with developers, realtors, and rich class lake associations. Follow their campaign money to the legislators that support restricting the DNR activities.