DNR Letterhead

June 12, 2003

1. Bill Number and Sponsor:

House Bill No. 4641

Representative Bradstreet

2. Purpose:

Provision to allow local units of government to rescind a Natural River designation after two years and again every ten years.

3. How Does This Legislation Impact Current Programs in the Department?

Natural Rivers Program - The Bill as proposed would impact only those rivers designated under Part 305 after January 1, 2003 (Pine and Upper Manistee). Therefore, no currently designated rivers or their administration would be affected.

4. Introduced at Agency Request?

No.

5. Agency Support?

No.

6. Arguments Against the Bill:

The Bill would jeopardize the future of river protection in Michigan that is gained through Natural River designation by allowing local units of government authority to rescind a designation after two years and then again every 10 years. No other state-administered resource management or habitat protection statute provides for a local referendum on state authority. This amendment would establish a dangerous precedent of allowing local governments to opt-out of state Natural Resources management. Part 305 currently allows for significant public input and local government involvement during the management plan development process and throughout the administration of the program.

Designation of a river system under the Natural Rivers Program signifies that a river possesses outstanding natural values of state-wide significance worthy of long-term protection and enhancement. The statute provides that designation under Part 305 will be done in the “interest of the people of the state and future generations” and not only for those who own property along designated rivers or within certain local units of government. It further provides that a river shall be permanently managed for the preservation and enhancement of such values, not for a brief period of time to be determined by local units of government. This Bill would create the potential for short-term, inconsistent development standards that would negatively affect the resource.

The proposed amendment also fails to develop criteria upon which local units of government would base their decision to rescind designation. Current resolutions in opposition to designation state that natural resources can best be protected at the local level, yet none have standards that adequately protect river resources and several have no standards at all.

7. Arguments for the Bill:

None.

8. State Revenue/Budgetary Implications:

None.

9. Implications to Local Units of Government:

This Bill would give local units of government the final determination over designation of Natural Rivers.

10. Administrative Rules Implications:

None.

11. Other Pertinent Information:

Alternatives:

Provide that for every new designation by the Natural Resources Commission, that a standing advisory committee be created that would meet annually to discuss Program administration and that every 10 years the advisory committee would review the management plan, administrative rules and administration of the designation for effectiveness. The standing committee would submit its comments and findings to the Commission. This would offer an alternative to rescinding a designation that would serve to review and amend administration of the Program where needed, thereby, providing long-term resource protection while creating a mechanism to adjust for change over time.

12. User Groups/Customers that Support This Legislation (if known):

None known.

K. L. COOL

DIRECTOR

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES