All Rights Reserved

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) is probably one of the more fiscally stable state agencies, because the majority of money it receives comes from users who pay fees for licenses or permits that allow controlled use of the natural resources. The funds they manage are constitutionally protected from diversion to other uses.

There are areas and activities however, that do not receive adequate funding from use and are therefore considered a revenue drain. Some are being either shut down or eliminated unless a means of financial solvency can be found. Such is the case with a number of state forest campgrounds.

The MDNR recently announced a plan to close down a number of these state forest campgrounds. They have low use numbers and lack revenue to support maintenance and repair.

There are seven counties in the Upper Peninsula that have a total of 21 of these rustic campgrounds within their respective boundaries that are scheduled for closure and are listed as follows:

> Baraga County - the Beaufort Lake campground and the Big Lake campground.

> Chippewa County - the Lime Island campground and Lime Island cabins, Munuscong River campgrounds and Shelldrake dam area.

> Dickinson County - West branch area.

> Luce County - Blind Sucker No. 1 campground, Headquarters lake, High Bridge campground, Holland lake campground, Natalie state forest campground and the Reed and Green Bridge area.

> Mackinac County - Black River campground and Little Brevort lake south.

> Marquette County - North Horseshoe lake and Pike lake area.

> Schoolcraft County - Canoe lake campground, Cusino lake campground, Mead creek campground, South Gemini lake campground.

Senate Bill 0332 (Casperson), as proposed, will require the MDNR to offer to convey certain state forest campgrounds; to prescribe conditions for the conveyances; and to provide for certain powers and duties of certain state departments in regard to the property.

In the bill, the conveyance to a township or a county would have to be for consideration of $1.

What may be negative side to the bill is that if a closed campground were not conveyed to the applicable township or county within the prescribed time period, the MDNR would be required, within 120 days after the bill took effect, to receive sealed bids for the sale of the campground or offer it for sale at a public auction. The Department would have to complete the conveyance to the highest qualified bidder within 150 days after the bills effective date.

My concern here is that if the land is not conveyed to the township or county, it goes up on public auction and there are no provisions for reserve amounts applicable to market value.

It does appear that the land use is specific for township or county conveyance in that it shall be used for public recreation. The bill does not appear specific for a private buyer to do the same.

If a township or county that has taken conveyance of the land and features activity inconsistent with the bill’s requirements, the State could reenter and repossess the property, terminating the grantee’s estate in it. If the grantee disputed the State’s exercise of its rights of reentry and failed to deliver possession of the property promptly to the State, the Attorney General could bring an action on the State’s behalf to quiet title to the property and regain possession of it. It does not appear to be the same case if purchased by a private party via auction.

Also considered in the bill is a requirement for the MDNR to simultaneously convey all surplus, salvage, and scrap property or equipment remaining on the property as of the date of the conveyance.

The non-renewable natural resources rights would remain in reserve to the MDNR as well as all aboriginal antiquities, including mounds, earthworks, forts, burial and village sites, mines and other relics, on, within or under the property, with the power to the State, and all others acting under the authority, to enter the property for any purpose related to exploring, excavating, and taking away aboriginal antiquities.

I like the idea of giving the local townships or counties the opportunity to open a campground and appreciate the potential revenue. They do need to understand that once deeded to them, they would not see any tax revenue from the State and if they can’t make a go of it, the land can be taken back by the MDNR and utilized as originally intended.

I don’t like the idea of forcing the sale of the land without a reserve price table. It will be hard for any private investor to use the land for any other purpose given the natural resource and aboriginal antiquities rider contained in the bill.

It may be another consideration to extend the period of time that the land stay in possession by the MDNR, giving an opportunity for innovation of use or revenue sources that would bring it back into the fold for those who like to get away from the crowd, or to offer a partnership (joint venture) with the township or county to initiate revitalization of a campground.

How it would be funded would have to come through some type of mechanism that won’t place a burden on the restricted accounts of the MDNR.

It’s not perfect and will most likely see several to many amendments. At least as presented in concept, SB 0332 has merit and seeks resolve to an issue, which is what we are all about in Michigan.