# Beach grooming folly



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Beach grooming folly must come to an end

http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jun/19edit.htm

As if we needed further proof of the unconscionable blunder that is Michigan's beach grooming law, the photo said it all.
On the front page of the June 11 Record-Eagle was a picture of a piece of heavy machinery about 50 feet out into East Bay, churning up sand. 
And the state Department of Environmental Quality couldn't seem to decide if it was legal to let earth-moving equipment tear up the lake bottom - which is public property - or not.
So much for the state's commitment to protect the Great Lakes. So much for the naive belief that state lawmakers should serve the interests of all their constituents, not just those who yell the loudest and contribute to re-election campaigns.
Two years ago, under fierce lobbying by a handful of beachfront property owners - and at a time of unusually low water levels - state lawmakers passed the so-called beach grooming law. 
The law allowed property owners to remove vegetation which had grown up on the beach as the waters receded so they could still have a "beach."
It was obvious to anyone who took an objective look at the law that it ignored a few facts of life simply to placate a handful of people: The bottomlands of Lake Michigan (that includes Grand Traverse Bay) belong to the people of the state of Michigan; lake levels rise and fall, and not at the whim or behest of lawmakers or property owners. And sooner or later, they would rise again.
So what happens when the water rises again (as it is doing right now) to levels seen in the late 1980s? Will lawmakers let people build dams and moats to keep the water out or bring in tons of fill, just so they preserve their beach?
The premise of the law, that property owners should be allowed to reshape lake bottomlands to meet their short-term needs, is absurd. 
And it's time for state lawmakers to do something about it.
Don't expect much, however, from state Sen. Jason Allen, R-Traverse City. Despite the fact that Allen's 37th Senate District encompasses hundred of miles of Lake Michigan, Lake Huron and Lake Superior beachfront, he said he hasn't taken a thorough look at the law. 
"Tourism versus protecting the environment continues to be very precarious," he said.
So much for that.
In fairness, hotel owner George Sarris had state and federal permits to move sand on his beach, and a drawing to show where the work could be done.
The problem was that the water levels of East Bay rose past the area to which the permit applied by the time the work began. 
So when the heavy equipment arrived, the place where he was permitted to work was underwater - not clearing the beach of unwanted vegetation (which some people call wetlands or a coastal marsh).
Further, a DEQ employee in Cadillac sided with Sarris. A DEQ official in Lansing disagreed.
The point is that the law is not only ludicrous on its face, its also confusing, open to subjective interpretations and almost impossible to enforce. 
It must be repealed.
People who buy beachfront, whether to put up a motel or a summer cottage, simply have to play the hand that nature deals them - high water, low water, just enough water. No guarantees. 
Despite what our pliant Legislature is willing to endorse with enough persuasion.

Beach work stirring up controversy (Picture)
http://www.record-eagle.com/2005/jun/11beach.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Cherry Tree Inn found in violation 
Official: 'It was a pretty gross violation of the site' 

TRAVERSE CITY  The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality determined a hotel on East Grand Traverse Bay violated state law for using a bulldozer to reshape its beach.

The DEQ has ordered Omni Hospitality, owner of the Cherry Tree Inn, to cease all activity and to restore or mitigate alleged damage to the shoreline wetlands.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/dec/12cherry.htm


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

I have long thought that in these cases the contractor should bear some liability. 

Some years ago a neighbor had a garage built. It was practally on the ROW. Owner had to move it but I still think the builder has to have some liability these things. They have to meet code. If it is built in the wrong place it dont meet code. If you fill a river/lake it dont meet code.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Officials sift new beach-combing incident 
Did Cherry Tree Inn violate state order?

12/22/06 By Vanessa McCray [email protected]

TRAVERSE CITY  Officials are trying to sort out whether the Cherry Tree Inn legally used motorized equipment to groom the beach behind the East Grand Traverse Bay resort this week, following a recent state-ordered halt to unauthorized activity at the site.

Grand Traverse County drain commissioner Kevin McElyea inspected the site Wednesday after a local resident reported that equipment had been used that day to do beach work. 

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality this month ordered Ohio-based inn owner Omni Hospitality to "cease and desist all unauthorized activity after state regulators accused the resort of violating state law in late November.

The DEQ determined the hotel dredged material and acted without a valid permit when it did beach work on Thanksgiving weekend. The inn had a permit to groom and grade about 200 feet of shoreline, but that permit expired in 2005.

A portion of the shoreline that was to remain undisturbed also was dredged and filled and vegetation removed, the DEQ stated.

McElyea said he did not observe equipment operating on the beach Wednesday, but said it appeared "mechanized grooming or "beach raking had taken place in the top inch or so of soil.

A sunset provision in state law allows such raking to continue even after a permit expires if the property was "legally granted a permit, McElyea said. But, he said, this week's activity appears to have extended into unauthorized areas.

McElyea observed a 10-foot swath of beach where raking "shouldn't have happened. 

"It is unacceptable. They should be in lock-down with regard to these lines and know where the limits are. They are clearly marked, he said.

DEQ spokesman Robert McCann said hotel officials did not ask or inform the state about work it planned to perform this week. 

The state was "surprised to hear that this happened, McCann said. 

The DEQ took a "preliminary look at Wednesday's work and it was "clear that there had been some equipment operating there. McCann said the state will investigate if the activity is permitted and how it relates to the DEQ's "cease and desist order.

"Does that follow the spirit of what we are asking them to do? Maybe, maybe not, McCann said.

This week's action is "a little disappointing, even if found to be permissible, because the DEQ is trying to resolve the previous violation, McCann said.

Mike Fullerton of Acme said he was driving by the hotel Wednesday when he spotted the beach work. He said he stopped and took photographs.

"He's out there with a machine, dragging a bunch of sand, Fullerton said. "The whole thing looks like a soccer field now.

Omni president Joseph Moffa and the inn's attorney Joseph Quandt did not return multiple calls for comment Thursday. Moffa previously told the Record-Eagle that grooming is allowed on part of the beach and the western end is to return to marsh grass.

McElyea said the county wants to pursue criminal prosecution against the inn related to various incidents. County prosecutor Alan Schneider said his office has been "in contact with the DEQ, but no decision has been made about prosecution. 

The DEQ referred the case to the state attorney general's office but also has not made a decision about filing legal action, said McCann. 

John Nelson, bay keeper for the Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay, said prosecution should be pursued.

"These people have been scofflaws, he said. "They've pushed the limit.

Nelson also thinks the DEQ's order to "cease and desist should prohibit the raking activity that occurred this week. He said the inn is a violator, and work should not continue until the situation is "resolved.

See related stories:

Cherry Tree Inn found in violation - December 12, 2006 
DEQ to probe alleged beach grooming - November 28, 2006 
See related editorial:

Only tough enforcement can protect the bayshore - December 19, 2006


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Hotel is sorry, but balks on repairs
East Bay beach was bulldozed last November

TRAVERSE CITY  The owners of the Cherry Tree Inn and Suites offered state and federal regulators "sincere apologies for bulldozing Grand Traverse Bay wetlands.

But apologies aside, hotel owner Omni Hospitality of Medina, Ohio, wants regulators to let stand 95 percent of their bulldozer's work.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/mar/11inn.htm

Video Beach Grooming at Cherry Tree Inn http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/mar/11cherrytree.htm

See related stories:

Hotel is sorry, but balks on repairs - March 11, 2007 
Officials sift new beach-combing incident - December 22, 2006 
Cherry Tree Inn found in violation - December 12, 2006 
DEQ to probe alleged beach grooming at Cherry Tree Inn - November 28, 2006

See related editorials:

Grooming violations demand enforcement - December 3, 2006 
Only tough enforcement can protect the bayshore - December 19, 2006


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

http://www.record-eagle.com/poll/2007.htm

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Should the Cherry Tree Inn be criminally prosecuted for illegally grooming its beach?

Response Votes Percent
Yes 483 58.83%
No 289 35.20%
Not sure 28 3.41%
Don't care 21 2.56%


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

State lawmakers should dump DEQ's five-year permit plan

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/may/06edit.htm

05/06/07 TCRE Editorial

Giving people who have proven they can't be trusted a five-year window to further abuse Michigan's beachfront wetlands areas makes no sense; Michigan lawmakers should reject proposed new regulations that would do just that.

While they're at it, in fact, they should strengthen existing penalties for illegal beach grooming and urge Attorney General Mike Cox and local prosecutors to take the whole issue a lot more seriously than they have to date. 

So far, violators have been faced with a lot of talk and little action, so little that it hasn't stopped them from doing what they wanted to do in the first place, regulations aside.

Back in November  over the Thanksgiving weekend  the new owners of the Cherry Tree Inn on East Bay sent a bulldozer into the water to eradicate plants that have grown there since East Bay water levels began dropping in the mid-1990s.

The penalty for that incident obviously didn't mean a thing. About 120 days later they did it again. In March, the inn sent two pieces of heavy equipment out onto the beach. 

The inn didn't have a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in November and didn't have one in March. But all the Corps wants to do now is, true to form, talk. 

"If they're willing to work with us and repair and mitigate the damage, that's what we are looking for more than anything else, said Army Corps of Engineers spokeswoman Lynn Duerod. Why that is "what we are looking for more than anything else and why the Corps believes for a moment that "they're willing to work with us is an absolute mystery.

For its part the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality rejected the Inn's request to allow it to keep 90 percent of the work it had done and referred the case to its criminal division and the Attorney General's office for possible criminal prosecution.

That's good. We've seen what happens when the penalty does not reflect the crime  multiple offenses.

All that, however, makes it all the more puzzling  downright unbelievable, in fact  that the DEQ should now propose a system of five-year general permits for beach maintenance. 

While five-year permits may be more efficient for both the DEQ and beachfront owners, they are also an invitation for past and future violators to spin or dispute enforcement efforts. An issue in the Cherry Tree Inn case was where grooming was allowed and where it wasn't; every year and every rise and fall in bayfront water levels would only blur the lines further. A five-year permit is a license to obfuscate.

The DEQ and the Legislature have been right to recognize the need of beachfront owners to gain access to the water at this time of low water levels. In dozens of cases, the only way to do that is to chop a path through new vegetation from the waterline of the moment to deeper water. 

It is a balancing of the rights of property owners and the public; a complete ban on such activity is no balance at all. And for every violator over the past decade or so, there are likely a dozen who take their role as steward seriously. For them, a five-year permit would surely be a relief.

But the fact remains that there are enough violators in Grand Traverse and Saginaw bays, and enough widespread resistance to any regulation, that a five-year permit is tantamount to permission to plow; and plow they will.

Sooner or later the Great Lakes will  hopefully, anyway  return to levels more amenable to beaches and beachfronts.

Until then, however, the wetlands that have appeared along the lakes are key to controlling pollution and protecting wildlife, and must be protected.

We can't give people who have proven their contempt for those goals a free hand.

The issue:
Five-year beach grooming permits 

Our view:
They're an invitation to violate 

See related story:
State offers new regulations on Great Lakes beach grooming - April 27, 2007


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Cherry Tree Inn - $35,000 fine is blasted as 'absurd' by green groups

TRAVERSE CITY  Area environmental groups call a $35,000 fine against the Cherry Tree Inn and Suites for sending a bulldozer into Lake Michigan a "slap on the wrist.

"The fine is an absurd amount; it should be in six figures, easy, for the destruction they did to those wetlands, said John Nelson, baykeeper for the Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/may/19cherry.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

State must make punishment fit the beach-grooming crime

06/01/07 Editorial

At the first sight of the pristine, sugar sand beach in front of the Cherry Tree Inn, East Bay beach owners could be excused for thinking the same thing: "It was worth every dime.

That's probably what the folks from Omni Hospitality of Medina, Ohio, who own the Inn, are thinking, too. Stack that big expanse of beach against the $35,000 fine for building it and it's a no-brainer: Gosh, that really hurt. Honest.

In May the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality fined the inn for sending a bulldozer up to 122 feet into the bay over Thanksgiving to dredge up and move large quantities of bottomlands.

The results, particularly in comparison with the rest of East Bay, are eye-popping. A wide, beautiful beach all the way to the water's edge with nary a reed in sight. It's a throwback to the days when local promoters dubbed East Bay the "Miracle Mile and touted its pure white "sugar sand beach.

But this is 2007 and Great Lakes water levels are near all-time lows; what was once sugar-sand beach is, in some areas, wetlands.

The Cherry Tree Inn, however, has shown that if you have the chutzpah, the money and malleable enforcement, you can turn back time.

Local environmentalists were right on the money when they criticized the fine as "absurd. 

And Omni itself was apparently never worried about consequences. A month after the first dredging the inn sent a machine to groom what it had dug up the first time. The paltry fine was, if anything, a vindication.

The settlement also called for Omni to replant some beachfront and remove invasive vegetation from a nearby road end used as a park. But as Grand Traverse Baykeeper John Nelson put it, the road-end work "should take them about 20 minutes. 

There is a continuing disconnect here that won't be closed until Michigan residents put enough heat on lawmakers to offset the influence of the group Save Our Shorelines and its allies.

SOS has lobbied hard to allow beachfront owners to eliminate wetlands that have grown up as the Great Lakes have receded.

The fact that eliminating wetlands runs directly contrary to the wishes of the great majority of Michigan residents and the health of the lakes has, so far, mattered little. Now, taxpayers and voters must let Lansing and the DEQ know that enough is enough. 

The legal issues are clear: The state has jurisdiction in the Great Lakes below the traditional water line and can prevent the removal of emerging wetlands. 

State residents expect the law to be enforced, starting now, with vigor. No more slaps on the wrist. No more bulldozers in the bay. No more "sugar sand unless Mother Nature makes some more.

The issue:
Cherry Tree Inn fine 

Our view:
That's no deterrent 

See related story:
$35,000 fine is blasted as 'absurd' by green groups - May 19, 2007

Send a letter to the editor


----------



## Beave (Aug 26, 2002)

This is no different than the fact that they refuse to enforce laws against building seawalls on inland lakes. The lake I grew up on used to have some great near-shore fishing. In the last 15 years over 50% of the houses have built short seawalls. It totally changes the wave action and the bottom of the lake. 

At first when someone new built one some of the neighbors who'd been there a long time would call and report them. When the DNR/DEQ refused to do anything about it those neighbors started to get jealous. Why should they have to swim on a mucky bottom with lilly pads? So they build them too. Now people throw wheelbarrows full of sand off their docks. One neighbor waited until March and had about 6 yards worth of sand dumped directly on the ice in front of their house. Hey, they own it right?


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Note the photos.

Cherry Tree restoration under scrutiny
Green groups taking a wait-and-see approach

The recently erected silt fencing runs along the eastern and western boarders of the property, and surrounds the inn's sandy 150-foot beach, volleyball court and numerous lounge chairs. The area replanted on the western portion of the property is in an irregular, hour-glass shape.

"We're very glad they did the planting, but we're not quite sure yet if it is adequate enough to be called restoration, said Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council board member Gregory Reisig. "We are wondering about the width on the western side of the property. It's not uniform. For me, I had hoped that they had done some plantings in the water as well.

John Nelson, baykeeper for the Watershed Center Grand Traverse Bay, closely followed the restoration work and said he was on site when the silt fences and plants went in. Like Reisig, he believes the agreement should require the inn to plant vegetation in the water.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/jun/02cherry.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Planned settlement is not a done deal
Parks commission nixes Cherry Tree Inn proposal 

TRAVERSE CITY  A little-known elected board in East Bay Township might uproot a proposed settlement between the state and the Cherry Tree Inn over its illegal bulldozing work in Lake Michigan.

http://www.record-eagle.com/2007/aug/21cherrytree.htm


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Cherry Tree Inn owner facing charges

TRAVERSE CITY -- An owner of a local hotel faces criminal charges for sending a bulldozer into Grand Traverse bay to reshape his beach.

Authorities charged Joseph Moffa, 42, president of Ohio-based Omni Hospitality and vice president of Pride One Cherry Tree LLC, with two criminal misdemeanors for violation of state wetlands and submerged bottomlands law. Both offenses are punishable by up to one year in jail.

http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_151095554.html


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Here's a prime example of how the game is played. 

The Clinton administration with the stroke of the pen cut access to a large part of the federal forest system from the timber industry, but to reverse those new rules they want the Bush administration to spend millions of dollars on an assortment of studies to undo what was done with a stroke of a pen.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/fo...highlight=rush

By the way, if you need any help with how this works in the money department. Here's how it works. Those studies will be paid for by the taxpayers, the legal battle will be paid for by the taxpayers. The reduction in forest access will lead to much higher timber products , which means you pay more when you go to buy lumber or anything else produced by the timber industry. 
You might also ask BEFORE the Clinton administration put these written barriers into action. Did the Clinton administration do a study on the damage to the local economies and the economics of reduced access to the forest for timber products. Was there a study done on the benefits of new roads for the improved access to the people who own the land....recreational enthusiast citizens.

The answer to that above paragraph is a big fat ... NO... Just a giant take away by a leftists liberal administration with there greatest weapon , A PEN.

The environmental wacko groups , in most cases, they're tax exempt , it's as if they get a free ride to run your life.



By the way if " All " the fish spawning and waterfowl habit was destroyed by developers , there wouldn't be the success stories from fine groups like Ducks Unlimited ( who might take exception to the All comments ) who also might be advertisers at this site. 
I also think there wouldn't be egg taking activities by the State of Michigan fisheries division if developers had destroyed " ALL " the fish habitat.

Radical environmentalists would just as soon see people put in jail for raking their area in front of their beach homes so they could use that as some sort of publicity stunt to get more money from the gullible. Just like a handful of humane societies, who will try to get an elderly widower arrested for having too many cats and dog's , so the can call the local TV station to make the elderly lady looked like a mass murderer ( they would call the station BEFORE the Humane Society arrives on the scene ) , so they can shake cash out of the gullible also. A publicity stunt, at the expense of senior citizens to rake in more cash.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Also remember that this thread had stories with heavy machinery moving tons of organic material. But your fine bureaucrats will harass mom & pa property owner who were out there with a rake and a weed whacker as if they're committing an environmental Holocaust for removing vegetation on their own land . What have the bureaucrats done to the Ma & pa's of this state , threaten them with property seizure and arrest.

Absolutely Bizarre.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

One of the things you need to ask was why was the thread started with the words ' Beach Grooming " , then theres bulldozers in multiple stories. The use of bulldozers is more like beach reconstruction.

While the little guy Mom & Pop with hand tools and a lawn mower is " Beach Grooming "


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

USST164, The first title of the first article posted was the lead for the thread. If you don't like the tiltle used by the TCRE go to their site and ask them your questions. You can also write your letter to TCRE editor.
We understand your antienvironmental hatred for DEQ/DNR, everything that isn't as far right as you, and your pattern to follow and sabotage every thread you post on. However, this thread is for those that are interested in following a interesting timeline of a cases in court that don't need your unnecessary bs. The beach destruction was illegal, period. That's the law in Michigan. You don't like it move to Idaho, round up their land rights militia and destroy their wetlands.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Hamilton Reef said:


> USST164, The first title of the first article posted was the lead for the thread. If you don't like the tiltle used by the TCRE go to their site and ask them your questions. You can also write your letter to TCRE editor.
> We understand your antienvironmental hatred for DEQ/DNR, everything that isn't as far right as you, and your pattern to follow and sabotage every thread you post on. However, this thread is for those that are interested in following a interesting timeline of a cases in court that don't need your unnecessary bs. The beach destruction was illegal, period. That's the law in Michigan. You don't like it move to Idaho, round up their land rights militia and destroy their wetlands.


" Hatred " , those are your words. Now hatred would a perfect description of someone who out of the BLUE just goes into a tirade on Rush Limbaugh , John Engler or Republicans in general. Gee I wonder who that could be describing.

In case someone hasn't told you the DNR is involved with Fish and game management. The DEQ is involved with environmental laws. That splitting up of those two departments would be the fine work of art by " your close personal friend " John Engler.

If this board had sound effects , a loud and proud cheering would commence at the end of the above paragraph.

Your word sabotage is absolutely ridiculous and false. I post links that support my observations , others give you " Feelings " and " Dreams ", or opinions with nothing to back it up.

I back up injustices that I see and when the little guy gets trampled by the system because they're just trying to enjoy the ever decreasing access to the outdoors , I'll speak up , most are afraid. Well it seems some individuals don't like it when the average guy is giving up the role of being a doormat... thats too bad.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

"your close personal friend " John Engler."
USST164 knows that is a lie.


----------



## USST164 (May 6, 2008)

Interesting train of though that individuals who insist on sticking up for their constitutional rights of property are considered in your view "Land rights militia " . bent on destroying wetlands . Talk about BS . 

That destroying wetlands is pretty funny , it reminds me the federal court case before the Supreme Court. You remember the landowner who want to put a shopping center on some land he had. But back in the early 1900s the federal government put ditches all around Saginaw River basin area. Now 90 years later the EPA says that's a navigable river. The Supreme Court sent it back for review because they don't believe it , and the nearest navigable was miles away. It's a word game , and the general public are the victims.

Can you give us other anti constitutional rights buzzwords that your environmental buddies told you to use.

I hear new ones all the time. The latest one is " Oil is the puss of the earth ". Do these nut-jobs sit around and think this trash up. ???


----------

