w—v'w—VHI'V—v‘ ——————‘

 

 

 

ARTIFICIAL PONDS IN MICHIGAN f 57

Thesis for the Degree of MS. _ .
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ,
RALPH EDWARD CHRISTENSEN

19,71 *

I”..o.‘.r._;..-- .4, u-..-~V..I.--.~.-~w-IOA

' ? LIBRARY

fatty-'-

Michigan State
University

 

 

I “”13

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT
’ ARTIFICIAL PONDS IN MICHIGAN
BY
Ralph Edward Christensen

One of the outlets for our increasing amount of
leisure time is a growing recreational pressure on
accessible surface waters. Extensive pond building in
Michigan appears to be a response to this pressure and
need. Dr. C. R. Humphrys, Michigan State University, made
a survey and inventory of these ponds in 1961. Since that
time, pond construction in Michigan increased 400 per cent,
to over 15,000 ponds.

This thesis attempts to outline the extent of this
building boom and its distribution. The bulk of the con-
struction is seen as a response to the ASCS cost-sharing
program, which made irrigation and stock-watering ponds
eligible for aid in 1954 and expanded to include wildlife
ponds in 1962. Extensive use is made of available ASCS,
SCS, and SCD reports to show both total numbers of ponds
aided by them and their distribution around the state.

Soil Conservation District Directors were con-
tacted and provided information on recent construction

within their areas, together with names of pond owners.

Ralph Edward Christensen

Pond owners were contacted through use of a questionnaire.
Their responses provided some basic information on inten-
sity of use, kinds of uses, and information relating to
management problems.

The responses indicated that these small water
areas (averaging one acre each) were capable of sustaining
intense recreational pressure. It appears that they are
readily accepted as a substitute for larger public areas,
and that they are capable of supporting many different
water-based recreational uses.

Additional research shows an absence of state or
local regulations which would act to slow the construction
buildup. A review of Michigan case law indicates that
little added liability would accrue to a pond owner.

The areas treated in this thesis indicate that
artificial ponds are successfully filling a recreational
need and that substantially few problems of regulation or
liability exist at the present time which would inhibit

the present rate of construction.

ARTIFICIAL PONDS IN MICHIGAN

BY

Ralph Edward Christensen

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1971

/’i:,

= I I 70
air-v 'L/‘j‘. I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A grateful thanks to many people who helped con-
tribute their resources and suggestions to portions of
this work. I would especially like to thank Dr. Eckhart
Dersch, Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University; Joel Young, ASCS, for his help regarding the
Agricultural Conservation Program; Dr. Leighton Leighty,
Michigan State University, for his comments on the chapter
on liability; and Dr. C. R. Humphrys, for getting me

started and helping the project along.

ii

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. POND CONSTRUCTION . . . . .

The Wildlife Pond . . .

Present Numbers and Distribution

Returns from Directors. . .

II. THE POND QUESTIONNAIRE . . .
III. SIZE AND COST . . . . . .
IV. GROUP USE AND INTENSITY OF USE.
V. USE OF OTHER RECREATIONAL AREAS
VI. USES OF PONDS . . . . . .
VII. MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS . . . .
VIII. ARTIFICIAL PONDS AND LIABILITY.
IX. RULES AND REGULATIONS. . . .
X. AESTHETICS . . . . . . .
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. ACP Annual Pond Construction in

1954-1969. . . . . . . .

iii

Michigan,

Page

16
21
24
29
31
35
37
50
53
56

61

64

Appendix Page

B.

1961 Base Pond Totals . . . . . . . . 66

Cover Letter and Questionnaire to Soil
Conservation District Directors. . . . . 68

Cover Letter and Questionnaire to Pond
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Artificial Pond Dredged from Low Swampy

Area, Water Supplied by Several Springs . . 2
2. Rough Working Estimate of Pond Numbers . . . 12
3. Distribution of Questionnaires to Pondowners . 20
4. Distribution of Intensity of Use . . . . . 27
5. Uses of Ponds (Photographs). . . . . . . 32
6. Uses of Ponds (Graph). . . . . . . . . 33
7. Population and Pond Density. . . . . . . 38
8. The Difference in Acess . . . . . . . . 39

INTRODUCTION

The dedicated fisherman may sometimes be heard to
justify his business with the tongue-in-cheek observation
that surely the Good Lord meant for us all to devote more
time to fishing than to other pursuits, since He gave us
so much more water than land.

We may not choose, at least at this point in time,
to accept this observation in its entirety, but I believe
we can safely accept the fact that, increasingly in our
world, leisure is becoming a central fact of human life--
and one of the outlets for this leisure time is a growing
recreational pressure on accessible surface waters. The
ORRRC Report No. 26, "PrOSpective Demand for Outdoor
Recreation" (1962), predicts that water-dependent recre—
ational activities in the United States will increase
220 to 270 per cent by the year 2000. The increase will
occur because of population growth, a shorter work week,
rising incomes, lower retirement ages, and an increase in
the mobility of the population.

Michigan is experiencing and certainly will con—
tinue to experience these demands and pressures on her

water resource. The state is currently in the midst of

 

Figure l.--Artificial pond dredged from low
swampy area, water supplied by several springs.

a ten-year, $150 million program for land acquisition and
development--this in spite of the fact that Michigan is
much more amply endowed with water resources than most
states. In addition to thousands of square miles of Lakes
Superior, Michigan, Huron, and Erie within her borders,
Michigan also has almost 800,000 acres of inland lakes,l
nearly one-tenth acre for each of her citizens. The
problem, of course, is that the distribution of water and
people do not coincide. Much of the Great Lakes water
area is a long distance from the population centers.
Southeastern Michigan, with over one-half of the state's
population, has only one-fifteenth of the inland lake area
within its boundaries2 and only 1.7 per cent of the public
recreational land in the state.3 This distribution problem
creates problems of access and conflicts between competing
user groups. To combat these problems, the state attempts
to provide needed access and develop intensive recre-
ational use areas.

A distinctly different response to recreational
need, however, may be seen when we examine Michigan's

artificial ponds. Relatively little has been written

 

l"Michigan Water and Related Resource Data,
Michigan Water Resources Commission, November, 1969.
Hereafter cited as "Michigan Water."

2"Michigan Water."

3"The Water Resources of Southeastern Michigan,"
IMichigan Water Resources Commission, February, 1968.

regarding their distribution and use within the state.
It has been ten years since Dr. C. R. Humphrys catalogued
the then existing ponds within the state and indicated
that these small artificial bodies of water "represent an
area or volume of water that is used more intensively and
completely than most of the natural surface waters of the
state."4 In a rather meticulous fashion, he created a
dot map of the state pinpointing the location of 3,793
ponds (under ten acres each) which he found to exist up
to 1962. He made some general observations regarding use,
water supply, and construction trends obtained from a
sample questionnaire to pond owners. He concluded that
Michigan had recently passed through a cycle of intense
construction activity with respect to ponds and, that
barring a renewed cost-sharing program by the ASCS, the
rate of construction would likely be low for a few years.
Well, what has happened? During the period 1961-
1971 construction of artificial ponds increased nearly
400 per cent. Some of the reasons for this rather
spectacular spurt are readily evident, others may be
guessed at. This thesis will attempt to outline the
extent of the buildup. Where did it happen and why? How

intensively can these waters be used? Are there problems

 

4C. R. Humphrys, "Michigan's Artificial Ponds,"
Agricultural Experiment Station (East Lansing: Michigan
State University, November, 1961), p. 3. Hereafter cited
as "Michigan Ponds."

of management, liability, and/or laws and regulations
which might act against a continued buildup? These are

questions which this thesis will attempt to answer.

CHAPTER I

POND CONSTRUCTION

Several different types of definitions might be
applicable to ponds but for purposes of this study we will
be dealing with artificially created bodies of water of
ten acres or less. Reclaimed gravel pits and borrow pits
will not be included.

We will also not deal to any extent with the
mechanics of construction--ponds may be dug, blasted, or
created by placing levees and dams--technical help on
design and construction of ponds is available from several
agencies, most notably the Soil Conservation Service. A
pond can be constructed in just a few days and this single
factor probably accounts for much of the increasing popu—
larity of ponds as recreation centers.

Prior to 1954, any pond constructed in Michigan
was completed primarily under private initiative. Several
agencies offered varying amounts of technical assistance
to aid landowners but no financial assistance was avail-
able. Dr. Humphrys' study indicates that in all the years

preceding 1954, 550-650 ponds were built. No doubt a

number of these ponds were created for recreational pur-
poses but most were created to provide water for irri-
gation, stock, and fire protection.

In 1954, several ponds were cost-shared by the
United States Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) in Michigan. Briefly, the ASCS works
through Soil Conservation Districts (SCD) which are
organized to adopt programs for the discontinuance of
land use practices contributing to soil wastage and soil
erosion, and the adoption and carrying out of soil con-
serving land use practices. Members of the SCDs, called
cooperators, are encouraged to develop basic farm plans
and install needed practices--they are eligible to join
if they own five acres or more. They are governed by a
board of directors elected by landowners in the community.
The ASCS provides financial assistance for performing
certain on-land conservation practices through its Agri-
cultural Conservation Program. A landowner cooperates
by requesting cost-sharing (usually 50%) on practices he
expects to carry out on his farm. He is notified by his
local ASC committee as to the extent approved. After the
practice is completed he reports to the committee office
and receives a payment to match his share of the cost of
the practice.

The Soil Conservation Service gives technical

assistance to SCDs and through them to landowners and

operators. It gives technical help to farmers who are
applying for permanent conservation measures with cost-
sharing aid from the ASCS and certifies to the technical
accuracy of the measures. The SCS is the primary source
of technical assistance for pond construction in Michigan.
After cost-sharing several ponds in 1954 and about
twenty in 1955, the program, probably spurred on by the
Michigan dry years of 1954 and 1955, exploded to share in

5 In order

the creation of 2,400 new ponds through 1961.
to qualify for cost—sharing these new ponds were primarily
intended to be used for irrigation and livestock water.
After tremendous construction years in 1957, 1958,
and 1959, the pace began to slow. It is probable that
many of the people who needed ponds had already con-
structed them. The availability of federal cost-sharing
funds for ponds versus other needs within the SCDs no
doubt also contributed to the slowdown. It is difficult

to assess the growth of entirely private construction

during this period also.

The Wildlife Pond

 

1962 began the era of the wildlife pond. It is
probable that changes in administration personnel and the
influence of wildlife people prompted this significant

addition to the ASCS cost-sharing program. Shallow water

 

5Figures obtained from ACP annual reports for
Michigan. A breakdown by years 1954-1969 is given in
Appendix A.

areas and deeper ponds were now qualified under cost-
sharing procedures as wildlife ponds. Under the impetus
of this new program, over ILQQQ ponds were constructed
during the next two years alone, with 939 wildlife ponds
constructed during the single year 1966. It became evi-
dent that people wanted these ponds but had been reluctant
to undertake the entire project by themselves.

During this same period, construction of cost-
shared irrigation and livestock water ponds generally
continued to decrease--from 320 ponds in 1961 to 127 in
1969. Again, it is probable that the gap between those
who actually had a need for this type of pond, and those
who already had constructed one, was being narrowed. Some
of those who constructed wildlife ponds may also have
intended them to serve as sources of irrigation and stock

water.

Present Numbers and Distribution

 

Two major problems were identified while attempt-
ing to compile accurate figures of total ponds on-land at
present. The largest of these lies in estimating private
construction-—construction not subsidized by cost-sharing
or aided by SCS technical help. No records of any type
are available to aid in solving this problem. Dr.
Humphrys' pond study in 1961 probably found most of these
ponds through extensive help by field personnel but the

total number of ponds involved was only about one-fourth

10

the size of the present total. The idea that field per-
sonnel could be used to "count ponds" was discarded in
this case because of the questionable value of the data
which could be obtained versus the amount of labor which
would have to be utilized to obtain it. (Assuming also,
of course, that field personnel in various offices could
be prevailed upon to undertake the project.)

The other problem lies in projecting county pond
totals from ASCS and SCS records. Local offices do 22E
keep records of these practices for more than three years,
if that. Records can be obtained from yearbooks giving
annual state totals but further breakdowns are difficult
to obtain. The method and types of data recorded varies
from year to year, i.e., some years the number of ponds
created is recorded, other years only the acreage created
is recorded, and in some cases only the acreage served
is given. Another complicating factor is the fact that
the federal agencies involved in these programs deal with
fiscal years rather than calendar years thus making yearly
totals difficult to compile.

After a lengthy examination of the sources of
data available a decision was reached to forego any hope
of a precise breakdown of pond numbers by county. Instead,
several sources were used to project a rough working esti-
mate of ponds by county in order to continue the study.

Dr. Humphrys' 1961 study and 1962 additions were

used as a base (Appendix B). ASCS records were utilized

11

to obtain state totals (Appendix A) for all years back
through 1954. Current ASCS records provided a breakdown
by county for years 1966-1969. Figures were obtained
showing on-land practice totals by county by SCS to FY

1969.6

In addition, copies of SCD annual reports, pub-
lished in local newspapers and listing yearly accomplish-
ments of the district, were used to obtain yearly totals
of ponds created from 1964 through the present.

Although inaccuracies remained, county totals were
projected for the state using the data described. The
resulting working map is included (Figure 2). Of course,
these results did not include privately constructed and
financed ponds created since 1961. Also additional ponds
created during part of 1969 and 1970 were not included
because statistics were not yet available.

In order to obtain a fairly accurate count for
1969 and 1970 a cover letter and accompanying form signed
by Dr. Eckhart Dersch, Michigan State University, Cooper-
ative Extension Service, was sent to all eighty-four of
Michigan's SCD directors (Appendix C).

The directors were asked to list the number of
ponds constructed within their district during 1969 and

1970 with assistance from SCDs, SCS, and/or ASCS, and to

include separate figures for ponds they knew to be

 

6 . .
These and other figures were combined on master
sheets to summarize various estimates.

12

/. ,2" -I

   
    
   
  
    
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
 

‘ ovum
@300
I. T — L,
r’ Inna r.
I I.
’ | :u mm o '__ - -. we! :
L--- 'In;‘----' 3”. ' ' |
1 I :At‘!. r - J . Icmncuf
' "n- - 33’ moo L I .. ’
‘67, :ucumso?‘ '35:... .. 1., “n" : lacuna "L _>f- _ 1 b
8‘70 '-r: Afly’r{& ' t“ (a >
I" '1 I.
J I I 0 00 0%
I
A50 , 0 mm
«mm ‘ "I" :cunov
' ’54) | Ignace
1&0' ,
Q cum onL...: : A35
Lu- . 1 -C Ffi£.:o:7;n 33;“:
0Q“. ° A/ITIII ' :
: 7JI 4p . ‘d/()
,3.» mamggm‘ 3.7.3.: 11:5,:

Inner ' ,M: '
4m I/zm I M I ”5' M5: 75
nu ma; 5.3.x, 30323.7. ;.;.:." .15.; '

. 362‘ 'X57‘k; ’11:" 4’0 '/7/’ Him

E's-“Ital: PunurcuL-u 'ILAII'ITnuac

III/(I I //fl I //,9. /(I I /np if

  
    
 
  

but) ......

52M I/XO :«5- .--___1

I
-ifiTI/é) Ins-Vc-ALLI- T..:fl;numu ”(£6 .1
. 70:1-“1'F-V/f ' éf . //€r -'-- - pinnaLé _o. _

0711;. V70 : refill;- Raga-{smug : 1% g kg?) 13:13::
| L .- - -- - 1
//:-6: - - /M {125’ .../..g./). .. .. {Juno :“mc

uuuu 'g‘layTI‘VO' :quu?‘ M A } lrg/U

J% 2230 //z* 77.; I/ia ‘ " '.

- -l-
............ T _._ __ __ q, _ 1. _.
mun :WMJ cum .ucmn V. 'nouum. an:

n l /
nnuu'I éa)'{/E$_:E:{J_D jZffi infl5. Jff.
r6000 flf.mtlfl.u..¢u-TIILLW‘:£“"“ .3...“

505’ MM ://0 IJZ’ I.“ ”60 V0“

 

 

Figure 2.--Rough working estimate of pond numbers.

13

constructed without any assistance. In this manner we
planned to gain a rough index of private construction.

In addition, we assumed that the directors would
be in a position to know whether or not there were any
county or township regulations in their districts affect-
ing pond construction. They were asked to provide offices
which could be contacted for further information regarding
these regulations.

Finally, with the intention of creating and basing
a questionnaire study on their replies, the directors were
asked to furnish names and addresses of twenty pond owners
from their area who had constructed ponds during the years

1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968.

Returns from Directors

 

Of eighty-four letters sent, seventy-five replies
were received. The replies indicated that 815 ponds were
constructed in 1969 with either SCD, SCS, and/or ASCS
assistance and an additional 137 ponds of private con-
struction. The private "no help" ponds represent 14.4
per cent of the total for the year but this figure is
inaccurately low. An additional nine questionnaires
did not venture an opinion on construction of these ponds,
making eighteen in all. It is also probable that "no
help" ponds may more easily be overlooked in any type of
counting procedure. It appears that 20 per cent private

construction may be a realistic approximation for 1969.

14

Totals for 1970 are lower--an undetermined number
of ponds undoubtedly had not yet begun or completed con—
struction at the time the questionnaire was sent--hence
they may not have been included in district totals. A
total of 575 ponds were reported from seventy-four dis-
tricts, with eighty—three "no help" ponds--only 12.6 per
cent of the total. However, ten additional questionnaires
did not report on these ponds, so again it seems likely
that the volume of "no help" construction may be some
15-20 per cent.

Dr. Humphrys, working with a slightly different
situation, obtained results which show a possibly higher
than 20 per cent rate of "no help" construction.7 Those
results appear to be the result of a large number of ponds
built prior to 1955. Although SCS technical assistance
was available, the large ASCS cost-sharing program was not
initiated in Michigan until 1954.

Using the working estimate of ponds previously
obtained, plus totals for 1969 and 1970 modified by re-
turns from the SCD directors, the total number of arti-
ficial ponds in Michigan approximates 13,000 through 1970.
This figure neglects, except for those included in
Humphrys' 1961 study, most of the "no help" ponds. By
including a 15-20 per cent figure for these ponds, based

on some 9,000 constructed with help since 1961, we arrive

 

7"Michigan Ponds," Figure 7, p. 14.

15

at a total of 14,400-15,100 ponds in Michigan through 1970.
Since the 13,000 figure can be verified, the 14,400 figure

must be regarded as conservative.

CHAPTER II

THE POND QUESTIONNAIRE

Early research into the subject of artificial ponds
indicated several areas (covered in later chapters) in
which it would be helpful to tabulate responses from the
pond owners themselves. Travel distances and time involved
ruled out personal contacts and left some type of question-
naire as the only real alternative. The problem became
one of obtaining a valid list of pond owners from some-
where from which a number of questionnaire candidates
could be drawn.

The approach settled upon--that of asking for the
information from district directors--while having several
disadvantages, appeared the best alternative. The
directors were asked for twenty owners from each district,
and insofar as possible, to list those owners who had
constructed ponds during the years 1965, 1966, 1967, and
1968.

A potentially serious shortcoming of this pro-
cedure lay in obtaining a relatively unbiased listing

from districts containing very large numbers of ponds.

l6

17

It would probably be difficult to recall just who built
when in these areas. We expected those who had problems
with listing owners to contact SCS or ACP field personnel
for help. It is apparent that many did, in fact, use this
method of obtaining the requested information. It may
also have been possible for some listings to be biased in
favor of "successful" ponds. In some ways, however, this
would not likely be a major problem since prior studies
indicated that well over 90 per cent of the ponds con-
structed are successful anyway.

The directors, through their contacts with field
personnel, were one of the few available sources of the
information needed. It was felt that response from them
would be nearly complete and relatively prompt. Keeping
the list of owners requested to only twenty was done to
help encourage a prompt reply. The request for ponds
constructed primarily during four years was made for
several reasons. Initially, it was intended to provide
a list of ponds which had been in use long enough for
their owners to be able to evaluate them. Another reason
was that a fairly recent group of ponds was desired to
attempt comparisons with the 1961 Humphrys' study. The
year restriction was intended to partially offset a bias
in listing owners. Many districts probably did not build
many more than twenty ponds during the years requested

so their ability to select would necessarily be limited.

l8

A total of 1,441 usable names and addresses were obtained
from the returns.

One of the primary objectives of a questionnaire
was to attempt to discover the intensity of use on the
ponds. This problem was felt to be the controlling one'
regarding a sample size. It appeared that the only
attempt at use intensity to date was a survey and paper
by Carl Stamm.8 No type of variance data was available
other than from his study which indicates that 800 visitor
days was approximately the top level of use. Assuming
most measures of use would fall somewhere between 0-l,000,
then sample size would be determined by the size of the
variation desired, i.e., coming within 20 would require a
sample of 225, within 50 only 36. After taking into
account the problem of certifying a valid sample to
begin with, that of respondents interpreting the question
on a questionnaire, and the fact that very few people
would be likely to have any type of records of their own
use, the idea of producing a representative use figure
to cover all ponds was tabled. A sample was created,
however, to investigate this problem for informational
purposes.

A sample was created by taking the list of twenty

owners from each district, using twenty as a maximum from

 

8Carl R. Stamm, "Pond Construction and Use in
Genesee County," Student Waters Publications, Michigan
State University, 1970. Hereafter cited as "Use in
Genesee County."

19

districts with the greatest number of ponds, and prorating
down to two for districts with very low numbers of ponds
on-land. Because this had to be accomplished before final
county approximations were completed, the number of
questionnaires sent to a county may have been slightly
off the average which was one to thirty ponds.

Before the lists were returned by the directors
then, a sample had been determined of approximately 450.
Because nine lists were never received and several others
arrived too late to be included in the project, the
actual number of questionnaires mailed was reduced to 378.
At the time of this writing a total of 280 or slightly
more than 74 per cent have been returned. Figure 3 shows
distribution of the questionnaire. A copy of the question-

naire and cover letter may be found in Appendix D.

20

   

 
 

I
I I‘ll“
IJ 4.2:l I

   
   
 

 

 

 

 

     
  
   
  
   
  
 
  
 
 
  
    
 
  

"a ::/<::' :‘ .nnw:

l
cnuu onxL ._ .1

:“WM 3 ALcouA

No questionnaire
((2" 4/3

returned from district

:OOIIAI l 10'”

I7K7: /@

 

Received too late to
send questionnaire

to pondowners IYQW.7(¢n4(3

unno 'ntcom ql'flltu'nuoun
Sent: 378 (numbers ’W:7(5 :3C7:2(T:4:

in counties)

_7@ ___L_ I -—~.

Inc-mun 7"".3" IAomAu
Received: 280 (numbers ‘jC-Zif ' 7.1:; '1' éa‘n I: d ' 6 C: _I_ -.-h,.;.}
in circles) ‘ ‘ ‘6 r---+-"‘1‘""ul. rat-4:13:
o'ruu‘ (‘4‘ mm .cun‘rou""""‘ ; /:9 :ax ( 5
(”(5:71 43' 4Q :Mf [(7% Fizz;
ill-(a; _ , run, ”T (Avon ' IIIDMI "
/A (II/ v/U/‘7Cs’a 565)" 6(‘1'
"""""""""" T L""F"- nu:
ma wan cum “‘"W' IAOOWII‘I.
~.%L BEES 7a,: 6Q’I A( “(7
"hum 0—5) E ______ _'_ _-..

cAu I5 "- mum IIAICI -?"LI-'°u: noun .uono:

4’66 ;“Q§"{: (41:61,

   

Figure 3.——Distribution of questionnaires to
pondowners.

CHAPTER III

SIZE AND COST

Twenty-four of the 280 returns failed to note the
year their pond was constructed. The remainder followed
fairly closely the pattern requested of the district
directors. The years 1965-1968 accounted for 159 or 62
per cent of the returns and the remaining 1960-1970 years
brought the total to 92 per cent. This particular distri-
bution was desired to check possible changes in use, size,
etc., against data secured in Humphrys' 1961 study.

Humphrys determined the size of 3,362 ponds to
average 0.82 acres each.9 In January 1962 he averaged
3,424 to increase the average to 0.85 acres.10 Also after
checking ACP records he found the average unit cost of

896 ponds to be $406.11

 

9"Michigan Ponds," p. 5.

10C. R. Humphrys, "Water Bulletin No. 12--Pre

Inventory of Michigan's Artificial Surface Water," Michigan
State University, 1962, p. 9. Hereafter cited as
"Bulletin No. 12."

11"Michigan Ponds," p. 6.

21

22

Stamm,12 dealing primarily with ponds constructed
in Genesee County from 1962-1967, had a sample with a
distribution as shown below and indicated that the aver-
age cost would be around $1,300 per unit, with substanti-

ally higher costs at the present time.

 

 

Pond Size Number of Ponds
0.25 or less 2
0.25 to 0.49 45
0.50 to 1.0 45
1.0 to 5.0 6
over 5.0 2

In this study, although 128 of the ponds reporting
were .5 acre or less, the results show 260 ponds reporting
275.49 acres for a per pond average of 1.06 acres. Taking
into account the addition of thousands of shallow water
pond acres in new wildlife ponds, the present per pond
average in Michigan has probably risen from Humphrys'

0.85 figure to approximately one acre each.

Only 243 reported both an acreage figure and an
estimated cost. These ponds reported 235.03 acres at an
average cost of $1,900 per pond. There is no doubt that
construction costs are still rising but it appears that
the cost of an acre of private water remains a bargain
when compared to the rising cost of vanishing footage on

natural lakes and streams.

 

12"Use in Genesee County," pp. L8, L9.

23

If the investment figures are relevant, small
wonder that 233 or over 85 per cent felt that their pond
raised the value of their property. Some returns made a
point of stressing that their taxes were raised because
of it. About 14 per cent felt that their property value
had not increased. In spite of the costs, an overwhelm-
ing 99 per cent felt that their pond was a worthwhile
investment. It is possible that the survey is biased
14

in favor of successful ponds but both Humphrysl3 and Stamm

indicate about 95 per cent success is normally attained.

 

l3"Michigan Ponds," p. 15.

14"Use in Genesee County," p. Lll.

CHAPTER IV

GROUP USE AND INTENSITY OF USE

From a total of 269 respondents to the question
of whether or not various groups had used their ponds,
102 or 38 per cent replied yes. Groups included Boy and
Girl Scouts, mentally retarded, various kinds of school
classes, church groups, family reunions, 4-H, and various
conservation organizations. Other uses included a pond
used for coon—dog trials and another which was used for
baptismal services. Even though the ponds average only
about one acre of water each, it is evident that they can
provide the atmosphere and recreational setting desired
for group use.

In Stamm's survey only 19 per cent reported group
use as compared to 38 per cent in this survey. It is
probable that the true average is somewhere between the
two. The question on the present survey was phrased to
read "have any groups EXEE used, etc." No doubt group
use was noted even though it may not have occurred in the

preceding year.

24

25

The question pertaining to intensity of use
recorded many different variations of answers. It became
rather obvious that either the question as stated was
difficult to interpret, or many respondents felt that it
was too troublesome to bother with. Forty-four respon-
dents did not answer the question and forty-seven more
answers were unusable, primarily because they supplied
no numerical data or their ponds had only recently been
completed. Intensity of use, of course, is a rather
relative determination. Pond owners were asked to tabu-
late the number of visitor-days their pond was used during
the preceding year by their families, friends and neigh-
bors, groups, and paid guests. These four categories were
listed on the questionnaire primarily to insure that one
or more of them were not left out of their tabulations.

In his Genesee County study, Stamm obtained the
following results:15

Number of Visits Number Ponds (100)

(Family, Friends, Neigh-
bors, and Guests)

 

 

0-49 3 3%
50-199 38 38%
200-399 34 34%
400-799 23 23%
800+ 2 2%

If the present survey used the same breakdown,

the results would be:

 

15"Use in Genesee County," p. L9.

26

Visits Number Ponds (189)
(Family, Friends, Neigh-
bors, and_Guests)

 

0-49 32 17%
50-199 64 34%
200-399 45 23.5%

400-799 32 17%
800+ 16 8.5%

A more precise breakdown yields the results shown
in Figure 4. Using Stamm's distribution we find a larger
percentage in the 0-49 category and also a large number
in the 0-99 category in Figure 4. Many ponds in this
particular category probably belong in a higher ranking--
in some cases they indicated use by groups or neighbors
but did not include numerical estimates.

There appears to be no correlation between the
potential for intense use and the size of the pond as long
as 0.25 acre is used as a lower limit. In fact, three
ponds smaller than 0.5 acre each topped the 800+ mark in
visitor-days reported.

Sixteen ponds reported use in excess of 800
visitor-days, with twelve of them well over the 1,000 mark.
Some of these were subjected to primarily private use but
others reported varying numbers of paid guests. Of par-
ticular note were two ponds constructed for commercial
recreation. One of 3.5 acres had approximately 7,000 paid
guests, while a 7.8 acre enterprise reported 16,000 paid

guests in addition to other family use.

27

Number 60-
of
Ponds 55_

56

 

50-
45‘
40-
35-

34

 

28

3o—
25-

204

 

 

14

154

 

10

 

10-

6*
5

 

5— m
0 Fl
Visitor O
Day-Use

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0- 99

m
m
1‘
O
O
l‘

100-199
200-299
300-399
400-499
500-599
600-699
800+

*Includes four stock water and irrigation ponds,
and two only recently completed (of 189 ponds responding).

Figure 4.--Distribution of intensity of use.

28

In addition to the two commercial recreation
ponds, forty-four others (17%) reported additional income
as a result of their pond. Most of these (24) gained
added income from irrigation and (11) from fee fishing.

In light of the intensive use to which these ponds
may be subjected and the growing statewide pressure for
accessible recreational areas, it is likely that pond
construction for income purposes will certainly increase
--perhaps dramatically.

The entire response to the question on intensity
of use has raised far more questions than it can safely
answer. Respondents were asked to consider all uses in
the same light and list a total use figure. It is apparent
that this approach neglects other areas--what factors in-
fluence intensity of use? Certainly the type of owner,
pond design, location, etc.--and what about our units of
expression; how can we reasonably compare the returns from
passively enjoying the natural pond setting versus the
returns and effects on the pond environment from an active

use such as swimming?

CHAPTER V

USE OF OTHER RECREATIONAL AREAS

Before the survey was started it was thought
likely that if the ponds were, in fact, subjected to
intense recreational pressure, the need of the pond
owners for other recreational areas should decrease.
Accordingly, a question was included in the survey ask-
ing, first, whether or not the pond owner or his family
had used parks and other recreational areas prior to con-
structing his pond. And secondly, if they now used these
areas about the same as before, more, or less than before.

To the first question, 195, or nearly 73 per cent
of those responding to the question replied that they had
used other public areas to some degree. And of those who
had used these areas, 126, or nearly 65 per cent replied
that they now used these areas to a lesser degree or not
at all. Only two responded that they had since utilized

public recreational areas to a greater degree.

29

30

No Answer No Yes--Used Other Areas

 

 

12 73 195

Presently Use These Areas:
More Same Less

2 67 126--64.6%

No questions were asked regarding the use of
public recreational areas by friends and neighbors since
it no doubt would have been difficult for the owner to
obtain this type of information. In view of the heavy
visitor-day use reported from many ponds by friends and
neighbors, however (in many cases it exceeds family use),
there is ample reason to suspect that the dependence and
use of other public recreational areas by these people is

also reduced by construction of a nearby pond.

CHAPTER VI

USES OF PONDS

A question was included on uses of ponds to
attempt to determine whether or not any significant shift
had occurred between Humphrys' 1961 data and that taken
essentially from the mid and later 19603. Because of the
addition of wildlife ponds to the ASCS cost-sharing pro-
gram and the increased interest in recreational ponds evi-
dent during the late 19603, a shift was expected to develop
towards more purely recreational pursuits.

For purposes of comparison a graph of the question-
naire results overlays a graph of the 1961 study (Figure 6).
As it turned out, the number of returns from the two
studies was almost identical--the results were not.

The returns provide evidence that the expected
shift into primarily recreational uses has, in fact,
occurred. The use of all of the traditional recreational
forms--fishing, swimming, picnicking, and boating--in-
creased by substantial margins over 1961 data. Improving
wildlife habitat and the scenic value or aesthetic value

registered impressive gains also and were the second and

31

 

 

Figure 5.--Uses of Ponds. [Upper pond an example
of small family pond used primarily for swimming. Lower,
new pond will fill to a maximum depth of 11 feet, occupy
one-third acre, be used for swimming, fishing, land im-
provement.]

33

1961

 

9’15; 1970
L—

 

 

 

 

mcflmmmooum a mcflammzm

mcHxGHHo—m

 

u .40

 

 

 

 

£6

 

 

 

 

”Suzy/A

 

 

Ww/Xéwo

 

 

 

 

 

/, [mcaumom

 

 

/ /X/XX/w7vfi z

 

 

 

 

 

//AVUHAV/ mcwxoficowm.

 

 

 

, ///////%ww%/. /

 

 

 

 

 

[A7704 msam> oaumnummfi

 

 

//////M//

 

 

 

 

 

 

///////

 

 

/é¢//Mfi_

 

 

_ r.L

—

 

p
0 0 0 0
1.. 9 7 5
2 l l . 1

250 -
23o .

mafififiw3m
umuflnmm mMHHUWHz m>oudeH

mcflnmflm
.___L_P.p_-br
0000000
3197531
11

mcwuuommu mucom mo umnfisz

14

10 ll 12 13

9

8

Uses

[1961 (footnote 16)
"ice fishing" added

1970--277 returns,

Figure 6.--Uses of ponds.

--278 returns;

category.]

 

"Michigan Ponds," p. 13.

16

34

fourth most frequently mentioned uses. All of the eco-
nomically related uses--irrigation, fire protection, stock
water, spray enui drinking water--decreased in relative
importance.

The present survey also included a separate cate-
gory for ice fishing which 40 per cent of those respond-
ing also checked. In the Other category twelve also noted
that their ponds were used for ice skating. These re-
sponses indicate that ponds have benefits which could be
utilized year-round.

Only seventeen owners indicated that their ponds
were single-purpose--primari1y irrigation. This again
reflects a move towards more intensive use. Humphrys'
data showed forty-six such ponds. His data on 278 returns
showed a total of 1,038 uses checked. Discounting the
question of ice fishing, the present survey on 277 returns
showed 1,166 uses checked--a trend toward recognizing more

of the benefits of pond ownership.

 

 

 

O
1961 Resultsl7 1970 Results
Question-
naires 278 277
Uses 1,038 1,166
17

"Michigan Ponds," p. 13.

CHAPTER VII

MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

Increased cost-sharing programs, availability of
technical help, ease of construction, and an accelerating
interest in recreational pursuits have contributed to pro-
ducing a boom in pond construction during the past decade.
It is difficult, given present conditions, to predict a
slowdown in this area--if anything, indications are that
landowners will continue to build at an accelerated pace.
A series of disadvantages which may act to affect this
pace to some degree may be lumped under the heading of
management problems.

There presently is no absence of written material
on various aspects of pond management--which probably
should give the casual observer a hint regarding the ease
of managing ponds. In spite of this many owners find it
difficult to obtain the results they seek.

For informational purposes owners were asked to
note whether they had experienced problems with weeds,
algae, fish diseases, poaching, or others. Over 85 per

cent (188) of those responding to this question indicated

35

36

that they had experienced one or more of these problems.
Algae and weeds headed the list. Poaching was included
as a management problem but will be covered under another
chapter.

Winter-kill of fish is a problem with some of the
87 per cent of owners who indicated that they had stocked
fish in their ponds. Slightly over 16 per cent (38) of
those responding to a question on winter-kill indicated
that they had experienced it to some degree. Winter-kill
can occur through stocking ponds of insufficient depth
to support fish year-round. It could happen on those
shallow-water wildlife ponds which had been stocked with

18 indicates that fertilization can result in

fish. Ball
algal and weed growths which promote severe winter-kill
conditions. Humphrys indicated finding 15 per cent winter-
kill in his 1961 study.

Although management problems of various types and
degrees of seriousness exist on most ponds, it is apparent
that their prevalence has not slowed the rate of con-
struction. It is evident, however, that in this area
alone, there is a world of room for more technical aid

and education by assisting agencies to would-be pond

owners 0

 

18Robert C. Ball, "Fertilization of Lakes--Good
or Bad?," Michigan Conservation (September, 1948), 7-14.

 

CHAPTER VIII

ARTIFICIAL PONDS AND LIABILITY

During the last decade, pond construction by pri—
vate landowners has increased the number of artificial
ponds in Michigan approximately 400 per cent to about
15,000. The bulk of this increase has occurred in the
southern half of the lower peninsula along with the in-
crease in Michigan's pOpulation. We need not wonder at
this point about the reasons for this growth--the fact
remains, ponds and people have together experienced a
tremendous growth in southern Michigan.

An unsupervised two-year-old boy pushed his

favorite toy into a private pond and drowned
trying to retrieve it.19

Accidents of a similar nature accounted for

10 per cent of Michigan's 261 non-boating water
fatalities in 1969.

We must wonder, I think, whether the construction

of a pond also creates something which is not of benefit

 

19Excerpt from water accident in 1969. Printed in
"Water Accidents in Michigan--1969," Michigan Department of
State Police.

37

.huwmcuv anon can nowuuasmomcl.h ousmwh

onma .hucnoo an noduznwuuufia finch

          

.hucnoo
nomv

+oon E
2358 m
872: Ed
a 87° N

38

 

.n .m .ioom uumfi 53:32.
32 £358 an 33:09 633.33

          

AwHwE
.Um uwnv

+2; E
sonnofl m
87% El:
on -3 Q
S no D

 

39

MMWWN

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8.--The difference in access. [Upper:
pond is fenced, posted, relatively inaccessible. Lower:
newly constructed, not fenced or posted, and lying
immediately adjacent to a county truck highway.]

40

to the owner-—namely, does creation of a pond in a heavily
or semi-populated area also subject the owner to the possi-
bility of liability? More specifically, is a pond a
special type of hazard, especially as regards children?
Must a pond be fenced and guarded? and how much protection
is enough?

To attempt to Speak to these questions, a review
of Michigan case law relating to this problem seems

appropriate.

[In the survey question regarding management
problems, slightly over 30 per cent (67) of those
responding indicated that oachin was a problem
--some said their most serious problem.]

[In a separate question regarding tres ass,
37.8 per cent (102) of those responding indicated
that they had experienced trespass to their ponds,
at least sixty knew that children were involved.]

Rule of 339 Restatement of Torts says:

A possessor of land is subject to liability for
bodily harm to young children trespassing thereon
caused by a structure or other artificial condition
which he maintains upon the land if (a) the place
where the condition is maintained is one upon which
the possessor knows or should know that such children
are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one
of which the possessor knows or should know and which
he realizes or should realize as involving an un-
reasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to
such children, and (c) the children because of their
youth do not discover the condition or realize the
risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming
within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the
utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition
is slight as compared to the risk to young children
involved therein.

This is essentially a restatement of principles of case

law relating to the doctrine of "attractive nuisance."

41

The attractive nuisance doctrine is based on the
theory that one who maintains upon his premises a con-
dition, instrumentality, machine, or other agency which
is dangerous to children of tender years by reason of
their inability to appreciate the peril therein, and which
reasonably might be expected to attract children of tender
years to the premises, is under a duty to exercise reason-
able care to protect them against the dangers of the
attraction (8ALR 2d 1262).

In many jurisdictions, ponds have been held to
create this "attraction" and landowners have been held
responsible for drownings occurring therein. Courts
generally deny application of this doctrine where the
child was of normal intelligence and over eight years old,
although decisions wherein the child is from seven to
fourteen vary with his maturity.

Recovery for the drowning of a child has most
often been sought under the attractive nuisance doctrine,
since the child is in most instances a trespasser on the
premises and some such theory is necessary to make the
landowner liable at all. (Generally speaking, a land—
owner is not liable for accidents occurring to trespassers
through ordinary negligence--he would be exempt from lia-
bility unless he purposefully caused the accident. Chil—
dren are sometimes exempted from this trespassing category
because they are thought to be too immature to grasp some

potentially dangerous situations.) Florida and South

42

Carolina are among the states which uphold liability on
this theory when ponds are involved.
Many states, which recognize the attractive nuisance

doctrine under other circumstances, however, will not allow

 

it to be applied to permit recovery for the drowning of a
child. Wisconsin is among these states. In Emond v.
Kimberly-Clark Company (1914), 159 Wis. 83, the opinion
said in part,

The world cannot be made danger-proof--especially
to children. To require all natural or artificial
streams or ponds so located as to endanger the safety
of children to be fenced or guarded would in the
ordinary settled community practically include all
streams and ponds--be they in public parks or upon
private soil--for children are self-constituted
licensees if not trespassers everywhere. And to
construct a boy-proof fence at a reasonable cost
would tax the inventive genius of an Edison.

[In the present pond survey, owners were asked if
their ponds were fenced and/or posted. They re-
sponded: 27.7 per cent (74) fenced and 44.9 per cent
(120) posted.]

[When correlated with the ponds (102) known to
have been trespassed upon, we find that twenty-nine
(28.4%) are fenced and 71.6 per cent (73) were posted.
This significant deviation in posted ponds trespassed
upon versus posted ponds in general presents an inter-
esting question--are signs an added attraction or are
they prompted because of prior trespassing?]

 

In these states and others the doctrine is generally denied
applicability unless some other hidden inherent danger was
also present.

In Powers v. Harlow (1884), 53 Mich, 507, Justice

Cooley stated:

43

Children, wherever they go, must be expected to
act upon childish instincts and impulses; and others
who are chargeable with a duty of care and caution
towards them must calculate upon this and take pre-
cautions accordingly. If they leave exposed to the
observation of children anything which would be
tempting to them, and which they in their immature
judgment might naturally suppose they were at liberty
to handle or play with, they should expect that
liberty to be taken.

 

Michigan might thus be said to recognize the attractive
nuisance doctrine but when its application is an issue
Michigan courts have been conservative in its use. Re—
covery for the drowning of a trespassing child is rather
consistently refused by Michigan courts.

Many reasons are given for refusal to apply the
doctrine--they include the primary duty of parents in the
matter, the absence of any unusual features about the
hazard, and the improbability of a fatal accident occur-
ring. Other jurisdictions may recognize the absence of
any hidden peril, and the lack of any invitation express
or implied.

The artificial character of the hazard (pond) may
be an important factor in imposing liability in some juris-
dictions, but the weight of authority is to the effect
that such artificiality has no bearing on liability or
nonliability. In Harper v. Topeka (1914), 92 Kan 11, it
was held that since the pond described in the petition was
a reproduction of a natural pond, it could not constitute
an attractive nuisance. And in Von Almen v. Louisville

(1918), 180 Ky. 441, it was said that an ordinary

44

artificial pond is not an attractive nuisance, although
attractive to children, and even though they may be
expected to wade or fall into it, just as they will into
natural ponds, rivers, and lakes in spite of admonitions
and barriers.

Pools and ponds on private prOperty which are
maintained for legitimate purposes, are not held to
constitute attractive nuisances, since the condition is
not in itself dangerous, but only made so because of use
by trespassing children. (In Peninsular Trust Co. v.
Grand Rapids (1902), 131 Mich. 571, a child crawled
through a hole in a fence and drowned in a city water
reservoir. And in Graves v. Dachille (1950), 328 Mich.
69, a six and one-half-year-old boy drowned in a tem-
porary pond created to collect drainage water.)

Hargreaves v. Deacon (1872), 25 Mich. 1, ex-
pressed a disinclination on the part of the courts to
shift the duty of caring for such children from their
parents to the owners of such hazards:

There is some danger in dealing with these
questions, of confounding legal obligations, with
those sentiments which are independent of the law,
and rest merely on grounds of feeling, or moral
considerations. We feel, usually, more indignation
at wrongs done to children than at wrongs done to
others. But the law has not usually given them
civil remedies on any such basis. Nor does it
usually, if ever, impose any duties on strangers
towards them resting entirely on the fact that they
are children. Those who have any special dealings
with them, as parents, teachers, and employers,

incur obligations appropriate to their relations,
and differing from those incurred towards others

45

in proportion to the necessity of care and protection,
and the risk of injury. But those who have no such
relations with them are not liable for negligence in
carrying on their own business, beyond what would be
their liability to others as well as children, who
are equally free from blame.

Ordinarily, the location, accessability, or nonaccessa-
bility of the hazard has been given little relevance in
states not applying the doctrine to ordinary water hazards.
The Hargreaves case also implied, however, that the in-
accessability of the accident location negatived liability.
In Charlevoix v. Gogebic & M. River R. Co. (1892),
91 Mich. 59, the improbability of a fatal accident occur-
ring was cited in denying recovery. And Barnhart v.
Chicago, M. & St. P.R. Co. (1916), 89 Wash. 304, stated:

That a pond of water is attractive to boys for the
purposes of play, swimming, and fishing, no one will
deny. But its being an attractive agency is not
sufficient to subject the owner to liability. It must
be an agency such as is likely to, or will probably
result in, injury to those attracted to it. That
many boys every year lose their lives by drowning is
a matter of common knowledge. But the number of
deaths in comparison to the total number of boys
that visit ponds, lakes, or streams for purposes of
play, swimming, and fishing, is comparatively small.
It would be extending the doctrine too far to hold
that a pond of water is an attractive nuisance.

In Ryan v. Towar (1901), 128 Mich. 463, the courts,
in again holding that children were trespassers and the
defendant not liable for injuries suffered by them, said:

Does the new rule go still further, and make it
necessary for a man to fence his gravel-pit or quarry?
And, if so, will an ordinary fence do, in view of the
known propensity and ability of boys to climb fences?
Can a man nowadays safely own a small lake or fish—
pond? . . . The term "attractive nuisance," as applied,
is a new one on the books, and the plausible application

46

of the well-known principle that one must so occupy
his own as not to do harm to the rights of others
should not be construed to so restrict the use of
private lands as to make it necessary to guard and
protect trespassers.

Why should the duty of incessant watchfulness
and care of one's own property extend to children,
upon whose parents both nature and the law impose
the duty of care and watchfulness?

A more recent case is Heider v. Michigan Sugar Co.

(1965), 375 Mich. 490. Plaintiff's twelve and one-half—
and eight-year-old sons drowned while trespassing on
defendant company's 27.1 acre pond in the center of a
ZOO-acre tract of land in mid-afternoon in subzero weather
where a waste pipe prevented freezing in one part of the
pond. In this case, "reasonable forseeability" was not
established--that the owner knew, or had reason to know,
that infant children would be trapping, playing, or tres-
passing upon the property. This is a necessary prerequi-
site to imposition of liability for injuries or death to
trespassing children.

Michigan Public Act No. 201 of 1953 was also
introduced as absolutely barring recovery in this case.
The boys had come upon the land to trap, and P.A. No. 201
provides:

No cause of action shall arise for injuries to
any person who is on the lands of another without
paying to such other a valuable consideration for
the purpose of fishing, hunting, or trapping, with
or without permission, against the owner, tenant,
or lessee of said premises unless the injuries were

caused by the gross negligence or willful and
wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant, or lessee.

47

Upon its appearing that the relationship of
defendant to the drowned child was such that a duty of
care was owing on former's part to the latter, however,
liability may be affirmed. In Peklenk v. Isle Royale
Copper C. (1912), 170 Mich. 299, later 187 Mich. 644,
defendant mining corporation left a partially concealed
and overgrown pit uncovered and unguarded about 200 feet
from a highway and one-quarter mile from houses it rented.
A son of one of the tenants drowned there. The court
held that the question of negligence was one for the jury
and later affirmed judgment for the plaintiff against the
company. And again in Parsons v. Powder C. (1917), 198
Mich. 409, the court held that the question of negligence
was a proper one for the jury where a seven-year-old boy
drowned while skating on a navigable river over ice made

unsafe by a discharge of warm water by the company.

The fact that children are sometimes drowned in
water in which they are tempted to play does not impose
upon the landowner the duty to see that his pond is
fenced or drained away; that the children who are drowned
while playing in the water are, after all, but a small
percentage of those who are tempted to play in it; that
accidents of this kind while always possible, are not so
likely to happen that there should be a duty to guard

against them (8ALR 2d 1261).

48

This is the line of defense, generally, against
applying the attractive nuisance doctrine. The Heider
case tempered this with "reasonable forseeability." In
the Peklenk case, and in the Parsons case, liability was
predicated on the theory that conditions were such that
it was the landowner's duty to anticipate the presence of
children. And the Peninsular v. Grand Rapids case held
that no recovery was possible if reasonable precautions
had been taken. 6

The problem of liability can affect over 15,000
landowners in different ways. Generalizations are dan—
gerous, especially in law, but a few generalizations seem
in order here.

It seems apparent that little liability exists for
the average pondowner under the attractive nuisance doc-
trine in Michigan. There should be even less if the pond
lies well away from public thoroughfares. There is some
doubt regarding liability where the pond is easily accessi-
ble to trespassers god the owner takes go precautions to
prevent unauthorized access. It seems well settled that
if the landowner takes ordinary, reasonable precautions
to prevent access, his "duty of anticipation" will have
been fulfilled.

Of course, if there is, however, some actual
express or implied invitation from the owner to others to

boat, swim, play, etc., then he must insure that all

49

possible precautions and due care are taken to avoid any

unsafe conditions.

CHAPTER IX

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Stamm, in his report on Genesee County ponds,
indicated that new laws regulating flood plains, stream
water use, and alterations to water courses might restrict
construction in some areas. He also mentioned the fact
that several Genesee County townships required building
permits before allowing construction.

If the trend towards restrictions statewide and
at various local levels woo prevalent, it would be an
important factor to consider toward the future of pond
construction. Accordingly, the district directors were
asked, in the initial mailing, to provide addresses of
those county and township offices involved with particular
local restrictions. It was believed that the directors
might be in a good position locally to supply this type
of information.

Most replied that go such regulations (with the
exception of state laws) were at present in effect within

their districts. Ten gave various answers and possible

50

51

contacts for more information. Most of these were then
contacted with a follow-up letter.

Genesee County townships by and large require a
building permit of some sort. Benzie County has a law
which allows county commissioners to require a permit to
install dams over two feet high. Adrian Township, Lena-
wee County, could affect construction by requiring a
conditional use permit after a hearing to protect the
neighborhood. Bedford Township, Monroe County, was found
to have an ordinance covering quarry operations, but not
directly relating to ponds. Lake County was contacted
and indicated no county or township regulations. Presque
Isle had regulations affecting only impoundments; and
Wexford County indicated that nothing in their zoning
ordinance covered ponds except where they were created

by damming streams.

The results of this survey indicate that substanti-
ally few regulations exist at the county or township level
at the present time which by themselves might inhibit

future pond construction.

Pond construction on or near existing navigable
waterways and bodies of water is affected somewhat by
oEoEo regulations. State law requires permits under
Sec. 1. of Act 184, Public Acts of 1963, for constructing

dams on any stream or river impounding more than five (5)

52

acres. Under Sec. 18., Act. 291, Public Acts of 1965,
permits are also required to construct a pond connecting
to, or located within 500 feet of the ordinary high water

mark of an existing navigable stream, lake, or other body

 

of navigable water.

The Water Resources Commission approved about
fifteen dams during 1970 and only about sixty the last
five years. Many impoundments can escape regulation
merely by creating impoundments upon non-navigable feeder
streams or of less than five acres in size. As a result
of this situation, the state senate began hearings in
April of 1970 on a bill which would amend the present
Lakes and Streams Act, to require permits for ooy impound—
ment over five acres.

Taken together, state and local regulations at
present appear to have negligible effect upon pond con-
struction. (It must be noted here that the bulk of pond
construction occurs by digging. Certain areas, i.e.,
parts of the Upper Peninsula, which rely more heavily on
impoundments to create ponds SEE subject to more controls
which make construction more time consuming and more
expensive. Recent amendments and a pending revision of
the Inland Lakes and Streams Act will undoubtedly inhibit

this type of construction in the future.)

CHAPTER X

AESTHETICS

Aldo Leopold, in an essay entitled "Conservation
Esthetic," lamented:

The disquieting thing in the modern picture is
the trophy-hunter who never grows up, in whom the
capacity for isolation, perception, and husbandry
is undeveloped, or perhaps lost. He is the motorized
ant who swarms the continents before learning to see
his own back yard, who consumes but never creates
outdoor satisfactions.

And Paul Errington, in his Of Men and Marshes reflected

 

upon: . . . the incongruities of wasting what we have
at home and then expecting to go somewhere else for the
enjoyment of hunting, fishing, and outdoor beauty."

There are, of course, values which cannot be placed
on a sliding-scale of visitor-days, and returns which have
other than economic value. The tourist dreams--and the
farmer has been building part of his dream in the back-
yard or his north forty. We cannot deny certain unmeasur-
able satisfactions in other recreational pursuits, in
natural lakes, and public parks—-but what joy there must
be to a man to watch a swallow celebrate sundown over gig

pond by chasing mosquitos, to see his boy entranced by a

53

54

silvery swirl of bubbles trailed after a muskrat under
ice?

John Steinbeck, in his book America and Americans
writes,

Unless some valuable direction can be devised

and trained for in America, leisure may well be
our new disease, dangerous and incurable.

And year after year, thousands of families,
having accumulated a nest egg through hard,
monotonous, boring work, go back to the country
and try with puzzled failure to re-create a self-
sufficient island against the creeping, groping,
assembly-line conformity which troubles and
fascinates them at the same time.

We have the things and we have not had time to
develop a way of thinking about them. . . . We have
found no generally fulfilling method for employing
our leisure.

Is the pond boom a move both toward finding a
"fulfilling method for employing our leisure" and a recog-
nition of aesthetic values? Admittedly we may have to
adopt a wait-and-see attitude. The survey recently com-
pleted indicated that 55 per cent of the respondents
recognized aesthetic values connected with their pond
compared to only 40 per cent in 1961. It would be
encouraging to believe that our society has progressed
far enough up the material ladder to allow some of us to
dream of aesthetics.

It is perhaps only in our ability to appreciate
and need the intangible beauty of an early morning mist
over a pond or the raucous rattle of a kingfisher that we

can demonstrate a higher calling than other animal groups.

Thoreau, in Walden, said,

55

There were times when I could not afford to
sacrifice the bloom of the present moment to any
work, whether of the head or hands. . . . I grew in
those seasons like corn in the night, and they were
far better than any work of the hands would have
been. They were not time subtracted from my life,
but so much over and above my usual allowance.

Errington in Of Men and Marshes, also felt,

 

Wilderness and related values may not offset
all of the worries and frustrations to which
civilized man is subject, but they help. I would
say that cherishing them can be among the experi-
ences redeeming human life from futilities and
conceits. The receptive person can thus better
see himself, his life, and his problems within a
framework of universal order, of permanent physical
realities, of evolutionary trends, and of the great
phenomena of Life.

Leopold believed that the race is benefited by any
incentive to get out into the open--the pond boom provides
that benefit and also helps attack the problem of shrink-
ing recreational opportunities. Peace and a place to go

--together, and in one's own backyard.

CHAPTER XI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Artificial pond construction at present is a
dynamic, rapidly growing enterprise. While Michigan
agencies attempt to plan, develop, and provide recre-
ational opportunities for its citizens, thousands of
these same citizens have decided to provide their own.

It is apparent that for many reasons a large segment of
our mobile population has decided that they can maximize
their benefits by staying at home. They have decided to
provide their own private swimming, fishing, and
congestion-free areas. The rate of construction and use
of these areas attests to the popularity of this approach.

The questionnaire survey was an attempt to gather
information in an area in which virtually none exists.
Several obvious results command more attention--Why was
the response to the questionnaire so high? Initial
response (upon which most Of the other data results are
based) was over 74 per cent but returns continue to
trickle in--at the time of this writing total response

is approximately 80 per cent. Although attempts were

56

57

made to encourage a high return, (return envelope, one-
page questionnaire) it is likely that other factors were
involved. It is evident that many respondents wanted to
explain the benefits (and some of the problems) they felt
they received from being a pond owner. Comments included
"best investment I ever made," to several such as "we
live on it all year." Obviously there are some very
worthwhile benefits involved. It is also difficult to
imagine any other field of investment within which 95-99
per cent of the investors remain satisfied.

Although the percentage of purely privately con-
structed ponds may be slowly increasing, it is evident
that construction of a large majority of ponds is still
influenced by amounts of cost-sharing help available to
landowners, both in local districts and statewide. The
mid 19505 and 19605 building spurts are ample proof of
the effect of the cost-sharing incentive plan. Keeping
this factor in mind, and then taking into account the
response from the pond owners regarding lessened depen-
dence on previously used public recreational areas, we
may see the germ of an interesting idea begin to form-—
goo construction of small ponds on a more massive state-
wide scale be contemplated as a viable alternative by the
state to developing high-intensity use areas in parks?
Could this be a useful concept toward diffusing recre—

ational pressures? Certainly this small study does not

58

provide enough data to carry the thought very far but
several factors are worth noting in its favor:

1. Very small ponds (under one acre) are

capable of sustaining relatively intense
use.

2. Construction is simple, fast, probably over

95 per cent successful.

3. Users appear to derive satisfactory recre-

ational returns--benefits.

The areas developed for the pressures of the south-
eastern Michigan population can never be eliminated but
something is missing from a concept which strives only to
provide better ways of packing more people into the same
area--perhaps ponds could help share the load.

It appears likely, after receiving the use figures
from several ponds built for commercial recreation, that
the private sector might find it advantageous to convert
or build more ponds to satisfy this demand. This might
be an entirely new field to explore.

Dr. Humphrys was quite prophetic in 1961 regarding
the influence of a renewed cost-sharing program by ASCS.
The program resulted in a tremendous outpouring of private
and matching public funds. The creation and success of
those ponds has undoubtedly influenced the growing number
of ponds built without this extra help. Many people have

discovered that they do not have to spend all year

59

waiting for a vacation--they can build part of it in their
backyard. They can introduce their families to a world
of life without a park sticker for admission, and they
can reserve a tiny bit of country for (times)
At times, one of man's greater needs is freedom
from himself . . . in needing, on occasion, freedom
from man to escape being psychologically overwhelmed

by Man as a mass phenomenon (Errington, Of Men and
Marshes).

 

The artificial pond is a natural recreation center.
Ponds may become more and more popular as a means of
obtaining needed recreation while avoiding the recreational

crush.

Might different approaches to securing data have
worked as well or better than the ones chosen? I have

listed some of the problems concerned with intensity of

 

goo following Chapter IV. The short questionnaire approach
to this question evidently confused many people. A per-
sonal interview would undoubtedly be far superior for this
purpose but the added problems of time and cost would have

to be considered. Perhaps a questionnaire explaining and

 

dealing entirely with this single question could obtain
better results.

Further studies would also have to reconsider
methods of obtaining names and addresses of pond owners
for sampling purposes. I believe the system I used was

fairly workable in this instance but soon the sheer bulk

60

of pond numbers will no doubt make the validity of a
sample size more critical. Perhaps SCS and/or ASCS field
personnel may again be the best primary source of infor-

mation in the future.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Errington, Paul. Of Men and Marshes. New York:
Macmillan, 1957.

 

LeOpold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1949.

 

Steinbeck, John. America and Americans. New York:
Viking Press, 1966.

 

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. New York: The New
American Library, 1960.

Reports and Pamphlets

 

Ball, Robert C. "Fertilization of Lakes--Good or Bad?"
Michigan Conservation (September, 1948), 7-14.

 

Humphrys, C. R. "Michigan's Artificial Ponds." Agri-
cultural Experiment Station. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, November, 1961.

"Water Bulletin No. 12--Pre Inventory of
Michigan's Artificial Surface Water." East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1962.

"Michigan Water and Related Resource Data." Michigan
Water Resources Commission, November, 1969.

"The Upper Flint River Watershed." Vol. 3. Student
Water Publications. Michigan State University,
1970.

"The Water Resources of Southeastern Michigan." Michigan
Water Resources Commission, February, 1968.

"Water Accidents in Michigan--l969." Prepared by the
Michigan Department of State Police.

61

62
GENERAL REFERENCES
Books

Amos, William H. The Life of the Pond. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

 

Bennett, George W. Management of Artificial Lakes and
Ponds. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation,

1962.

 

Coker, Robert E. Streams, Lakes, Ponds. Chapel Hill,
N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1954.

 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Outdoors--U.S.A. Year-
book of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967.

 

. Water. Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1955.

Welch, Paul S. Limnology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952.

 

Reports and Pamphlets

 

Chubb, Michael, and Crapo, Douglas. Recreation Area
Day-Use Investigation Techniques. Part I: A
Study of Survey Methodology. East Lansing:
Michigan Department of Parks and Recreation,
January, 1969.

 

 

 

"Fenton Mill Pond." Student Water Publications. Michigan
State University, 1970.

Humphrys, C. R. "Beach Design for Ponds." East Lansing:
Department of Resource Development, Michigan
State University, 1963.

"Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study." Technical
Report No. 6. Lansing: Michigan Department of
Conservation, June, 1966.

"Policy and Recommendations for Artificial Ponds in
Michigan." Water Bulletin No. 11. East Lansing:
Department of Resource Development, Michigan
State University.

"Ponds for Work and Fun." Cooperative Extension Service.
East Lansing: Michigan State University,
January, 1961.

63

"Stretching Water for Irrigation." Cooperative Extension

Service. East Lansing: Michigan State University,
January, 1962.

"The Water Resources of the Lower Lake Michigan Drainage

Basin." Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Com—
mission, August, 1968.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Farm Pond Safety."

Job Sheet No. 309. Washington, D.C.: Soil Con-
servation Service, May, 1960.

. "Farm Ponds." Picture Story No. 155, July,
1963.

. "How to Build a Farm Pond." Leaflet No. 259,
September, 1949.

. "Make Your Pond Safe." PA 396, October, 1961.
. "Rural Recreation--New Opportunities on Private

Land." June, 1963.

"Water Resource Development--Cost for Irrigation." Agri-
cultural Experiment Station. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, February, 1962.

"Wisconsin Farm Fish Ponds." Cooperative Extension Pro-
grams. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1970.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

ACP ANNUAL POND CONSTRUCTION IN

MICHIGAN, 1954-1969

1954

1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960

1961

1962

1963
1964
1965
1966
1967

G-2

APPENDIX A

ACP ANNUAL POND CONSTRUCTION
MICHIGAN, 1954-1969
First ponds cost-shared Irrigation
C-l4 3 new
C-14 21
C-14 146
C-l4 490
C-l4 296
C-l4 200
C-l4 158
C-l4 172
Wildlife ponds added
(acres) (no.)
139 G-3 I409 c—14 131
180 G-3 524 C-l4 195
313 G-3 493 C-l4 264
101 G-3 490 C—l4 235
(no.)
165 G-3 765 C-14 96
185 G-3 632 Combined

64

IN

Stock

240

263

145

116

148

85

98

148

83

86

212

65

1968 G-2 87 G-3 563 B—7 137

1969 G-2 129 G-3 327 B-7 127

(Figures compiled from Federal Annual ACP reports.)

 

 

APPENDIX B

1961 BASE POND TOTALS

APPENDIX B

1961 BASE POND TOTALS

 

 

1961 1962 ' 1961 1962

1. Alcona 39 39 37. Isabella 36 36
2. Alger 6 6 38. Jackson 65 65
3. Allegan 118 118 39. Kalamazoo 62 62
4. Alpena l9 19 40. Kalkaska 20 20
5. Antrim 35 35 41. Kent 77 81
6. Arenac 20 20 42. Keweenaw 6 6
7. Baraga 46 46 43. Lake 12 12
8. Barry 62 64 44. Lapeer 175 178
9. Bay 4 6 45. Leelanau 59 59
10. Benzie 15 16 46. Lenawee 32 32
ll. Berrien 371 371 47. Livingston 91 89
12. Branch 3 3 48. Luce 3 3
13. Calhoun 4O 40 49. Mackinac 9 9
14. Cass 59 59 50. Macomb 73 75
15. Charlevoix l9 19 51. Manistee 128 128
16. Cheboygan 30 30 52. Marquette 10 10
17. Chippewa 15 15 53. Mason 79 79
18. Clare 22 22 54. Mecosta 54 54
19. Clinton l7 17 55. Menominee l6 16
20. Crawford l9 19 56. Midland 3 3
21. Delta 8 8 57. Missaukee 0 0
22. Dickinson 27 27 58. Monroe 12 36
23. Eaton 65 65 59. Montcalm 39 39
24. Emmett 18 18 60. Montmorency 8 8
25. Genesee 45 46 61. Muskegon 25 25
26. Gladwin 27 27 62. Newaygo 59 59
27. Gogebic 4 4 63. Oakland 162 170
28. Grand Traverse 44 44 64. Oceana 79 79
29. Gratiot 18 18 65. Ogemaw 51 51
30. Hillsdale 27 29 66. Ontonagon 36 36
31. Houghton 116 116 67. Osceola 65 65
32. Huron 7 7 68. Oscoda 21 21
33. Ingham 53 53 69. Otsego 36 36
34. Ionia 7 7 70. Ottawa 56 56
35. 10500 20 22 71. Presque Isle 41 41
36. Iron 6 12 72. Roscommon 2 2

66

 

1961 1962

73. Saginaw 19 20
74. Sanilac 24 27
75. Schoolcraft 8 8
76. Shiawassee 38 38
77. St. Clair 44 47
78. St. Joseph 56 56
79. Tuscola l4 14
80. Van Buren 233 233
81. Washtenaw 115 115
82. Wayne 51 51
83. Wexford 38 38
Totals 3,793 3,861

Note: 1961 statistics from "Michigan Ponds, pp. 4 and 5.

1962 statistics from "Bulletin No. 12," p. 9.

APPENDIX C

COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE TO
SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT

DIRECTORS

COOPERATIVE E XTENSION SERVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN 48823
Department of

 

Resource Development

A .8. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING , .
ND U Natural Resources Bulldmg

August 1, 1970

Dear Sir:

During the past ten years, the number of artificial ponds in ivlichigan has increased
approximately 400%. This increase varies from county to county but little else is
known about such related factors as the value and intensity of use of these small
bodies of water.

The Department of Resource DeveIOpment at Michigan State University is attempting
to inventory certain of these facts relative to artificial ponds. We believe this study
may provide valuable information for all who will be concerned with constructing
these ponds.

Your assistance in helping us pursue certain areas of this study is needed and will
be greatly appreciated. A form for your answers to several questions and a stamped
return enveIOpe haire been provided .

At the end of the form we ask for the names and addresses of 20 pond owners from
your- counties. We intend to contact most of these owners with a questionnaire or
a short, personal interview. The results of these interviews will be utilized in
statistical form only - we will got publish, or make available to other individuals
or agencies, these names and addresses.

Thank you for your assistance .
Very truly yours,
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE

flJZJ

Eckhart Dersch
Extension Specialist in
Soil and Water Conservation

 

68

.0!

69

ARTIFICIAL PONDS (under l0 acres)

 

(Total Acreage
lf Available)

County (ies) Number Acreage

 

. Ponds constructed T969 with assistance

from SCD, SCS and/or ASCS

Ponds constructed l970 with assistance V
from SCD, SCS and/or ASCS

Ponds constructed 1969 without assistance;
if you know of any

lllllll

Ponds constructed 1970 without assistance;
if you know of any

 

 

. Are you aware of any county or township regulations in your district governing pond construction?

(zoning, permits, etc.?) yes no

 

If es, can you list the county or township offices which we can contact for further information?

. We would like the names and addresses of 20 owners from around your district selected from among

those who built their ponds during the year-:1 965, I966, 1967 and 1968. Include names of those
who built prior to 1965 if needed.

NAME AND ADDRESS Note: Original questionnaire listed 20 spaces

 

l.

‘OCDVQUl-hswto

(ION—'0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

COVER LETTER AND QUESTIONNAIRE

TO POND OWNERS

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East lensing, Michigan 48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT . NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

August 27, I970

Dear Sir:
Re: ARTIFICIAL POND SURVEY

During the past ten years, the number of artificial ponds in Michigan has increased
approximately 400% to over l5,000 ponds. This increase varies from county to county
but little else is known about such related factors as the value and intensity of use of
these small bodies of water.

The Department of Resource DeveIOpment at Michigan State University is attempting
to inventory certain of these facts relative to artificial ponds. We believe this study
may provide valuable information for individuals and agencies concerned with
constructing these ponds in the future .

We have selected a number of individuals from among those who have constructed ponds
in Michigan. You are one of persons picked from those who have built ponds in
county. Your assistance in helping us deveIOp certain areas of
this study is needed and will be greatly appreciated.

 

We hope you will take the time to list your answers to the questions on the form
provided and return it to us in the stamped return enveIOpe.

Thank you for your assistance .
Very truly yours,

.; , r, (Its-rw
Ralph (Twistensen 6,
Graduate Student _
Department of Resource Development

RC :ph

70

71
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - EAST LANSING

POND OWNER QUESTIONNAIRE

County Year Constructed _# Size of Pond acres

 

A. Primary purpose pond was intended for?

 

 

B:— What do you use the pond for? (Check as many items as necessary)

1 . Irrigation 6. Picnicking II . Aesthetic (Improve

2 . Stock water 7. Swimming Scenic value of land)

3 . Spray water 8 . Drinking water 12 . Washing or processing
4. Boating 9. Fire protection )3. Improve wildlife habitat
5. Fishing IO. Ice fishing I4. Other

 

 

C. Have any groups (youth, church, fraternal, etc.) ever used your pond?
YES NO If yes, what type?

 

 

 

 

D. Intensity of Use :- the number of visitor-days your pond is used during the year. A visitor-day is
one visit (swimming, picnicking, fishing, etc.) made to the pond during the day for any length
of time ., A total for the year is arrived at by adding up all the people who have used the pond
during each day and then adding up all those daily totals.

List your best estimate including all uses for an entire year.

 

Family GrOUps
Friends 8: Neighbors Paid Guests

 

 

 

m I
0

Did you and your family use other public recreational areas, county or state parks, etc. , before
you built your pond? YES NO

- Do you now use any of these public recreational areas: (check one)
More Frequently? Less Frequently? About the Same?

 

__—-_ w— ——_ ——-— fl

F.— Approximate cost of pond?

 

A‘
w—— —V——_ ——

G . Was your pond a worthwhile investment? *YES NO

 

 

H. Any additional family income resulting from pond? YES NO (Amount not requested.)

 

 

 

 

If y_e_s_, was it from —* u — fee fishing
irrigation

commercial recreation

other

 

 

I. Didfipond raise the value of your—property? YES NO

 

 

 

 

J . Mona ment Problems (Check any which apply) none poaching
s pond stocked with fish? YES NO pond weeds algae
Ever had winter kill? YES __ “we ""‘" fish diseases “"" other? """"
K. Have you ever had any problems with uncontrolled access (trespassing) connected with your pond?
YES __ NO __ (by children?) 'YES NO ______
Do you eXpect this problem in the future? YES NO

Is vnur nnnrl remnant-Iv ‘DI‘IEDA? VFR ‘ NO Qinne “hr." VFQ kin

t'.' .":I, I - . ' ‘vf'gwfiw'w II "V \' ’1 l ._ _ I -
‘ ' an». .A- -rrza-Ix;.':r:,.ar.:rt mo. f 3"

.r'w’. 'dr '.. r « A)..." Vs: GNU" 7‘ o" .
. -— . .- - ...-'. on. w‘- ' '

 

- ,-
‘.
.h 7., ..
’er a- .
‘ ,4. .~ o ‘ -’
,— ., .‘ - -e. .. -

 

    
  
     
  

*“wv.' - - ‘34., . , - A W .
.5.

‘ -4 V‘ .‘l .' ' - " A ' '
-.._‘§AM”§" ,5 ..;.~*-' 511 ‘ 'H. '. ‘ -,.; ~ . ‘\ - . , 1'. . -1 A t
._ . g. \_ . .0; ‘ Fr‘ “ .. I ~ I, , 7‘ ‘ .‘T '_'f .V‘ ‘ (I; . 1 r . ‘. .‘ , x ~. "a”:

:40“; .,..|_ .. .I .7.‘ A r.‘ -, -'. .- JH H

unit} - ' ‘ v L-
‘2.
a“-..,. n.-- .-_ »., -a .-....... . ,. v ,. .....a-e-u
skin: str' uh .z. m. . mu r , . 1.-., . g
. . ' I‘
- . . x"; . .
’1-(4‘ , r ,r, - — -v , 3 -x m“
--...-.-.
..s—..--4—r.... tn- - M»- -.
.7 J
\J I'

.. . .- ‘44‘1 2. .»_~.‘ -‘.'~ J .3...
. _._ ._—.-- ‘_ fi..-7,-y,._.-___..fi.. Va. 4 -»-——.-
.’§-Ie‘-:s-: “'- ' -
New"er - - - " ‘ ‘
‘ .
:‘A S I" 1' r'l . ' rr'r ' ' l
. :3
rr ' ; " '.“ fl“
..- .I ~
J' ' ' ~
. Iv-
'u - .‘J .
up. ~ .-
L.
'. r‘.
e... ..
- ._.. . - -- —. ...._r . -- . ‘~.-
"4’ A ‘n 1.1»; :3 Miss a.

 

. , U ,
out»: Hr,“ r‘}. luv 1 a." v rev.
.
a , \ ‘1'. ;_. r
:59:- ‘f . . ... ' --fl .
5'; r l.." I»: '7 ‘4 ' ' \ " .v
. .- .

-’ "I! list 1’0) 9'; £54}: I", an»: K‘Alia ' ~ on: lair» _.r‘~.- were. v first.
I: ‘l ,3.” ")Y "earths-r ,-.‘~ I..- w.
'- _ fit #93... {Na-s»? wit sci , {-124 ' V .
fins)?- ehaz'kaiz' ”77M "2‘! sink: 3%

 

   

"'rrininrrriarrirggmrrrr

3669