# House Bill No. 6418



## Jason Adam (Jun 27, 2001)

Waterfowl Hunters and Michigan Sportsman might want to look at House Bill No. 6418. The below link is the petition that is being circulated by Save Our Shoreline. Maybe use the links in their letter to voice your own opinion to the state reps. This is what your up against.

http://www.saveourshoreline.org/housecommitteeb.pdf


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Jason, There is another SOS organization at Muskegon that is several years old. The Muskegon Lake SOS is the opposite of the Saginaw SOS. Muskegon SOS is working to preserve shoreline from development where the Saginaw SOS is just a land rights group.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

House Bill 6418, the bill to privatize tens of thousands of acres of valuable Great Lakes coastal wetlands, is rumored to be set for a committee hearing within seven to 10 days after the election.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Here is way to keep track of HB 6418

House Bill 6418 (2002) 

Sponsor Brian Palmer 

Categories Natural resources, great Lakes 

Natural resources; Great Lakes; beach maintenance activities on Great Lakes riparian lands; allow. Amends secs. 30301, 30305, 32501, 32511 & 32512 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.30301 et seq.). 

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2002-HB-6418&userid=


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

October 31, 2002
Contact: Scott McEwen, 231-347-1181, ext. 114
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council 
Terry Miller, 989-686-6386, Lone Tree Council
Chris Shafer, 517-371-5140, ext. 2805, Cooley Law School
James Clift, Dave Dempsey, 517-487-9539
Michigan Environmental Council

MICHIGAN COASTAL WETLANDS UNDER ATTACK

Conservation, Environmental Groups Urge Michigan Legislature
To Reject Bill Exposing Valuable Habitat to Destruction

Lawmakers should reject a bill that would let private interests destroy thousands of acres of Great Lakes coastal wetlands without state oversight, conservation and environmental groups said today.

House Bill 6418 would let property owners along Michigans coast alter the valuable coastal habitat, which is important for fish and waterfowl as well as native biological diversity, without getting a permit from the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The environmental groups said a coalition of the property owners is pushing for legislative approval of the bill in the lame-duck legislative session that begins in two weeks.

They challenged candidates for state legislative office to declare before the election whether they will support privatizing coastal wetland by voting for H.B. 6418, or will protect coastal habitat by opposing the bill.

The groups opposed to coastal habitat destruction pointed out that a 1994 report by The Nature Conservancy entitled The Conservation of Biological Diversity in the Great Lakes Ecosystem describes Great Lakes coastal marshes and lake plain prairie systems, including those of Saginaw Bay, as globally imperiled natural communities recognized for their tremendous, and in some cases globally significant, biodiversity.

These wetlands are of tremendous ecological important for fish, shorebirds and migratory waterfowl, and have significant economic value for fishing, hunting and nature photography, said Cooley Law School professor Chris Shafer, who formerly managed the DEQs Great Lakes shorelands programs.

Ecologist Dennis Albert said, The cumulative effect of hundreds of coastal landowners grooming their shoreline is the loss of many square miles of wetland habitat of immense wildlife value. The wetlands are also significant for protection of shoreline property. Widespread alteration of coastal wetlands through beach grooming has the potential for impacting not only the local landowner, but also the Great Lakes fishery and the immense waterfowl population that migrates along the Great Lakes flyway.

Terry Miller of the Lone Tree Council, a group leading opposition to the privatization of publicly-owned coastal wetlands, said, A well-organized, well-funded group representing private property interests, and calling itself euphemistically Save Our Shorelines threatens the public's right to clean water, fishing, birding, and wildfowl sports  we can't let that happen.

Supporters of this bill are trying to mislead legislators by saying coastal wetlands provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes bearing West Nile Virus, said Scott McEwen of the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council. But only three of the more than 400 cases of the virus identified this year are from counties along Saginaw Bay. We're all concerned about the virus, but using it as a pretense to justify this bill is inexcusable.

Great Lakes shoreline property owners are privileged to have direct access to these magnificent public waters, said Jim Lively, planner and shoreline protection specialist for the Michigan Land Use Institute. The economic value to Michigan of protecting the natural processes of the Great Lakes is much greater than any short-term personal gain that could be achieved by private property owners who want to alter the natural lakeshore simply to meet their personal preference. We cannot afford to create public policies that attempt to preserve private citizens aesthetic perspective of what the Great Lakes shoreline should look like.

Groups opposing H.B. 6418 include the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council, the Michigan Land Use Institute, the Lone Tree Council, Friends of the Boyne River, the Petoskey Regional Audubon Society, the Michigan Environmental Council, and Clean Water Action. They pointed out that under current law, coastal property owners can apply for permits to intrude on the state-owned bottomlands for routine beach grooming and can then emonstrate whether or not it is justified, following state review and an opportunity for public comment. H.B. 6418 would completely eliminate such public oversight.

John Nelson, the Grand Traverse Baykeeper, said, The interface of land and water is a very dynamic place. The change is day to day, week to week and year to year. The effects of the activity envisioned in H.B. 6418 could have ill-considered and unintended consequences, not only on the natural environment, but also on the adjacent riparian landowners for great distances along the shoreline.


----------

