INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find ja
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
“sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
“photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of “photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

University M icrofilm s International
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, M ichigan 48106 USA
St. John's Road, Tyler’s Green
High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 8HR

WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS

By

Edward John Hood

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1976

ABSTRACT
WATERSHED ORGANIZATIONS IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
AN ANALYSIS OF SELECTED MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS
By
Edward John Hood

Utilizing a case study approach, eight Michigan watershed councils
were evaluated to determine the degree to which they could have an
effective impact on planning for water quality management.
Evaluation of their effectiveness included analysis of their
activities and functions within the constraints imposed by existing
state enabling legislation.

This study was designed to reveal

problems and develop recommendations for improvement of watershed
council effectiveness in watershed water quality management.

Methods

chosen to measure the extent and type of impact the selected watershed
councils could make on water quality management planning included first
the development of a weighted index of effectiveness.

Models

established from this index were tested against organization operations,
as revealed through their records and activities.

This, in turn, was

compared against results of questionnaires and interviews of key
individuals, representatives, and government officials associated
with the individual councils.

Edward John Hood

Results from this procedure produced the following conditions
and conclusions:
1.

Effective watershed water quality management planning from a
watershed council perspective is largely limited to advisory,
planning and information-education functions.

2.

Watershed councils studied varied in their fulfillment of
these functions largely as a result of differences in:
(a)

enabling legislative provisions

(b)

character of the watershed (rural or urban)

(c)

level and type of membership involvement

(d)

leadership continuity

(e)

executive committee direction and perception

(f)

approach taken:

problem-service approach vs. issue

approach
(g)

willingness to seek out financial aid and physical
support from other groups and organizations

(h)

level of communication with constituents, the state
government and other watershed councils

3.

Most effective watershed councils appear to be those
possessing a combination of factors including (but not
limited to):
(a)

active involved membership

(b)

strong executive committee direction

(c)

performance along a problem-service approach, with an
emphasis on providing local services

Edward John Hood

(d)

solid, frequent communication and information dissemi­
nation to member units

(e)

willingness to coordinate their activities, cooperate,
and otherwise align themselves with similar purpose
organizations and agencies

(f)

full utilization of authority and involvement in
activities and functions made possible by the enabling
legislation

Problems associated with watershed councils were related largely
to statutory weaknesses and deficiencies (i.e., funding, authority,
number, and involvement of membership), as well as structural and
operational difficulties concerning internal organization, orientation
and approach.

Problems were found not to be uniformly experienced,

but rather varied in type and degree with each council, depending on
the council’s utilization and direction of those resources and
authorities at its disposal.
Key recommendations:
(a)

Encourage, enlist representative support and partici­
pation to promote active assistance and sharing in council
responsibilities

(b)

Maintain the existing legislative framework to avoid
the political unattractiveness of attempting a movement
for amendment; emphasize more complete application of
current statutory responsibilities and opportunities

Edward John Hood

(c)

Explore benefits, economies and the feasibility of
establishing a coordinated watershed council effort
on a multi-watershed basis

(d)

Solicit the Department of Natural Resources to provide
councils with additional functions and responsibilities
encourage councils to augment state efforts and activi­
ties providing a basis for state reimbursement to
watershed councils.

Interaction of state agencies

with local councils is a critical factor.
(e)

Review and apply useful approaches taken by similar
organizations in other states

(f)

Establish regular contacts with local governmental
units by council representatives speaking in support
of council efforts

(g)

Facilitate accountability of council representatives
by insuring that information on council activity is
transmitted to represented units of government

(h)

Identify where other government units, agencies, or
organizations are currently not playing a role in
some aspect of water quality management; examine
the possibility of watershed councils providing this
service

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This author is indebted to many individuals and organizations for
their assistance, cooperation and interest in this research effort.
Without their help, this research could not have been accomplished.
A major debt of gratitude and thanks is due the executive
secretaries, chairmen, and other leaders associated with Michigan's
watershed councils.

Their willingness to cooperate and to be of

assistance was evident in the long hours they devoted to answering
questions, providing valuable insights, and in their generosity in
making available files and publications.
Special thanks is extended to Dr. Eckhart Dersch of the Department
of Resource Development for his guidance and helpful suggestions in the
preparation and writing of this dissertation.
Finally, singled out for her contribution is my wife whose
assistance, encouragement and patience helped make this dissertation
possible.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
TITLE PAGE......................................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................. . ............................
TABLE OF C O N T E N T S ..............
LIST OF TABLES..................................................
LIST OF F I G U R E S ................................................
I.

II.

i
ii
iii
v
vii

INTRODUCTION ..............................................

1

Nature and Scope of the P r o b l e m .....................
Research Objectives .................................
Methods and Procedures...............................
Councils Formed Under Act 200 .......................
Councils Formed Under Act 253 .......................
Application and N e e d ...............................

1
7
8
9
11
13

A. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS
ESTABLISHED UNDER ACT 200, P. A. OF 1957.. .............

14

Introduction....................................... . .
Review of the Enabling Act...........................
Provis i o n s ......................................
Limitations......................................
Review and Analysis of Individual Council Activity. .
Ausable River Watershed Study Council..........
Boardman River Watershed Advisory Council. . . .
Elk River Watershed Council.....................
Jordan River Watershed Council .................
.............
Kearsley Creek Watershed Council
Overall Conclusions and Recommendations .............
B. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS
ESTABLISHED UNDERACT 253, P.A. OF 1964(AS AMENDED).

.

Introduction.
........................................
Review of the Enabling Act.
.........................
P r o v i s i o n s ........................................
Limitations.................................
Review of Individual Council Activity
.............
Clinton River Watershed Council...................
Grand River Watershed Council.....................
Huron River Watershed Council.....................

iii

14
16
16
18
20
20
39
51
68
87
103

107
107
Ill
Ill
115
125
126
136
150

Analysis of Watershed Councils Established Under Act
253, P.A. of 1964 (As Amended)..................
. . 163
Introduction to theAnalysis of Surveys............ 163
Survey of ExecutiveSecretaries.................... 164
Survey of Representatives to the Watershed
C o u n c i l s .......................................... 166
Selection of Respondents and Review of Return
Patterns
.................................. 166
Analysis of theReturns.............................175
General Review................................ 175
Review and Analysis of Responses to
Questions 1 and 10............................179
Survey of Government Units: Review and Analysis
of R e s p o n s e s ...................................... 186
Summary............................................ 193
III. THE CASE FOR A COOPERATIVE APPROACH BY MICHIGAN WATERSHED
COUNCILS: THE MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OF WATERSHED
ORGANIZATIONS.............. ............................... 194
IV.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................. 202

APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:

Questionnaires and Surveys. . . . ...........
229
Watershed Councils and Enabling Legislation .
241
Lists of Government Units Represented on
Watershed Councils.............................. 253
256
Questionnaire Responses .....................

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ................... ....

iv

27Q

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

Rankings of Variables .....................

Table 2.

Response and Return R a t e s .............................. 168

Table. 3.

Comparison of Response and Return R a t e s ................ 169

Table 4.

Variation in Response With Respect to Member Units.

Table 5.

Response

Table 6.

Response Characteristics: Water Quality Management
R o l e s ...................................................176

Table 7.

Response Characteristics: Council Effectiveness.

Table 8.

Response Characteristics: Council Service.......... 180

Table 9.

Response Characteristics: Council Involvement.

Table 10.

Table 11.

Table 12.

. . . . .

.

Characteristics: Issues and Roles .........

. .

. . .

165

171
176

178

182

Comparison of Responses: Member Units and
Representatives on the Huron Council ...............

188

Comparison of Responses: Member Units and
Representatives on the Grand River Council .........

189

Current Participating Membership: Clinton River
Watershed Council.......................

207

Table 13.

Current Participating Membership: Grand River
Watershed Council...................................... 208

Table 14.

Current Participating Membership: Huron River
Watershed Council...................................... 209

Table 15.

Potential Representation and Revenue: Clinton River
Watershed Council...................................... 212

Table 16.

Potential Representation and Revenue: Grand River
Watershed Council...................................... 213

Table 17.

Potential Representation and Revenue: Huron River
Watershed Council...................................... 217

v

Table 18.

Comparison of Actual and Potential Representation and
Revenue................................................ 219

Table 19.

Overall Response Characteristics of Watershed Council
Representatives........................................ 256

Table 20.

Grand River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Service............................ 264

Table 21.

Huron River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Service............................ 265

Table 22.

Clinton River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Service............................ 266

Table 23.

Huron River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Involvement........................ 267

Table 24.

Grand River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Involvement........................ 268

Table 25.

Clinton River Watershed Council Representatives1
Responses: Council Involvement........................ 269

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.

Watershed Councils Established Under Act 200 . . . .

Figure 2.

Ausable River Watershed.......................

Figure 3.

Boardman River Watershed ............... .

Figure 4.

Elk River Watershed...........................

52

Figure 5.

Jordan River W a t e r s h e d ......................

69

Figure 6.

Jordan River Natural Rivers Zone ..................

80

Figure 7.

Kearsley Creek Watershed ...........................

88

Figure 8.

Watershed Councils Established Under Act 253 . . . .

Figure 9.

Clinton River Watershed........................ 127

Figure 10.

Grand River Watershed .............................

Figure 11.

Huron River Watershed

Figure 12.

Clinton River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire. . .

172

Grand River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire. . .

173

Huron River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire. . .

174

Figure 15.

Information Checklist for an Interview Survey . . .

229

Figure 16.

Weighted Value of Watershed Council Activities.

234

Figure 17.

Watershed Council Member Unit Survey................. 236

Figure 18.

Questionnaire Administered Council Representatives.

238

Figure 19.

Michigan Watershed Councils and Related
Organizations ......................................

241

State of Michigan, Act 200, Public Acts of 1957 . .

243

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 20.

15

22
40

109

137

.............................. 151

vii

. .

Figure 21.

State of Michigan, Act 253, Public Acts of 1966
(as amended)............

245

Figure 22.

Member Units: Clinton River Watershed Council.

. . 253

Figure 23.

Member Units: Grand River Watershed Council. .

. . 254

Figure 24.

Member Units: Huron River Watershed Council. .

. . 255

viii

INTRODUCTION

Nature and Scope of the Problem
The Michigan Water Resources Commission counts amoung its various
responsibilities the task of establishing water quality standards and
seeking their enforcement.

It readily becomes apparent, upon

understanding the many variables involved in water quality management,
that insuring the quality of a resource is not necessarily guaranteed
simply by providing for standards and enforcement.

There is also the

need for establishing a basis for the planning and management of water
quality for an area.
Several state agencies are concerned with area water problems, but
water is often only a part of their broad public responsibility.

At

the local level, it was recognized that there was a serious organiza­
tional deficiency; there was a need for structuring institutions that
could integrate the concern of local governments with the river resource
that they share.
The State approached this need by encouraging local government
participation in water quality management planning.

It provided for

the formation of watershed councils, river management districts, and
related organizations.

A framework was established allowing local

units of government to organize for coordination of their efforts to
study mutual problems through Act 200 of 1957, the Intermunicipality

1

2
Committee Act."*"

Then, enactment of the Local River Management Act,

Public Act 253 of 1964 (as amended) provided additional scope.

2

This

act was designed to better reflect management from a watershed
perspective and outlined a number of specific activities, functions,
and responsibilities available to watershed councils formed thereunder.
Though the bases differ, the intent of both acts has been to provide
organizational alternatives to local units of government interested in
cooperatively studying area problems and in planning and carrying out
a coordinated water management program in the area or watershed they
share.
This study is designed to evaluate the impact of watershed council
activities and functions on effective water quality management in a
watershed; to measure (qualitatively) the ability of watershed
organizations, organized under either Public Act 200 or 253, to make
sound inputs into basin water quality management plans within con­
straints imposed by existing state legislation.
A few conditioning remarks are necessary prior to the identifica­
tion of the watershed councils included in this study.

Water quality

management as a water management issue was chosen as one of the key
areas in which watershed councils are equipped to make contributions.
The perspective taken has been to view water quality management on a

^"State of Michigan, Intermunicipality Committee Act, Act 200, P.A.
of 1957.

2

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of
1964, (as amended).

3
broad basis bringing in an assortment of other water management issues.
This list of other issues includes the following:
(1)

Soil erosion and sedimentation control

(2)

Flood control

(3)

Stream monitoring

(4)

Stream flow levels

(5)

Citizen education

(6)

Information availability

(7)

Waste water disposal

(8)

Water quality standards

(9)

Construction and development

(10)

Recreational use

Each of these has been viewed here as having either a direct or indirect
relationship and bearing on water quality management.

Hence, an

evaluation of watershed council effectiveness in water quality manage­
ment necessarily includes an examination of several issues peripheral
to the basic issue.

Within the limits of identified statutory limi­

tations, it can be expected that the significance and extent of council
impact will vary depending on the issue involved and normal variance
between watershed councils.

The magnitude of water quality management

contribution will be minimal in some cases, but a useful function is
served by identifying the areas in which councils either perform
effectively or are equipped to perform effectively.

The nature of

limitations and weaknesses associated with watershed council performance
will be determined by examining individual council activities and
approaches to problems.

4
Water quality management may be viewed as one indicator of a water­
shed council's ability to make effective contributions to better water­
shed management.

This view may result in the impression that a water­

shed council is not making sufficient strides in the direction of water
quality management per se.

The council may, however, be operating very

effectively in other areas, such as citizen education.
To avoid misunderstanding, water quality management is examined
here in its broader sense.

This is done for the primary purpose of

identifying which water quality management issues have been or can be
most effectively dealt with by watershed councils.
Watershed councils selected for this study included all councils
formed under both P.A. 200 and 253.

The watershed councils and the Act

under which they were formed are listed below:
(1)

Ausable River Watershed Study Council

Act 200

(2)

Boardman River Advisory Council

Act 200

(3)

Clinton River Watershed Council

Act 253

(4)

Elk River Watershed Council

Act 200

(5)

Grand River Watershed Council

Act 253

(6)

Huron River Watershed Council

Act 253

(7)

Jordan River Watershed Council

Act 200

(8)

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council

Act 200

on an initial review of the provisions and intent of the
enabling legislation, the following basic objectives were established
for evaluation in this study:
(1)

What functions and activities (variables) constitute
effective watershed council water quality management

(2)

The relative importance of each of these variables
among each of the study councils

5
(3)

Organization effectiveness:
a)

Information on the council's operation and structure

b)

Examination of the functional capacity of each
watershed council— analysis of council activity
and determination of their ability to perform

c)

Identification of statutory, operational and/or
organizational weaknesses

d)

A foundation for institutional improvement

In terms of identifying the functional capability and success of
each watershed council in dealing with local problems and in making an
impact on water quality management, watershed councils established under
Act 253 provided a more specific basis upon which an evaluation could
be made.

The enabling legislation lists a number of activities, func­

tions, and features (variables) made possible to councils organizing
under it.

A summarized list of these variables includes the following

numbered items.

The list is not arranged in any ordef of significance.

(1)

Funds (availability, source, operating budget, etc.)

(2)

Membership (number, actual and potential; turnover,
involvement, leadership, etc.)

(3)

Conduct studies of the water resources in the watershed

(4)

Contract our studies

(5)

Prepare reports

(6)

Request the Water Resources Commission to perform streamflow level studies

(7)

Creation of river management districts

(8)

Advise local, state, federal units of government as to
council views of watershed problems and needs

6
(9)

Coordinate, cooperate with other units of government in:
a)

handling mutual problems

b)

providing for water quality sampling

(10) Public information and education services and programs
As a result of utilizing these variables as a focal point for
structuring questionnaires and for evaluating descriptive material, a
basis was established for comparing the type and extent of activity of
each of the three councils organized under Act 253.
The watershed councils established under Act 200 had to be dealt
with somewhat differently.

A number of activities, functions, and fea­

tures common to watershed councils established under Act 253 are per­
formed by councils formed under Act 200.

However, the enabling legisla­

tion does not specifically provide for them; and, as a result, the
functional capability of councils organized under Act 200 was looked
at largely from the standpoint of examining available records, reports,
and activities.
(1)

The intent was to determine, among other things:
The kinds of activities in which the watershed councils
are involved

(2)

How these activities relate to water quality management
problems in the watersheds

(3)

The kind of impact the councils have been making/could
be making on water quality management through their
activities

(4)

The concerns and priorities of each of the councils

(5)

How well the concerns, priorities, and activities
reflect watershed needs and the ability of the councils
to make effective contributions

7
Watershed councils established under both enabling frameworks have
existed for a sufficient period of time to produce identifiable
indicators of performance.

Analysis of these watershed councils

focused on examining the organization’s operation.'

This was done to

make possible the identification of the nature and source of weaknesses
and problems watershed councils were experiencing in their efforts
to effectively make inputs in basin water quality management plans.
The analysis was also designed to identify those water quality related
issues on which watershed councils made (or could make) the most
significant impact.

Research Objectives
The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the ability
of watershed organizations to make sound inputs in basin water quality
management plans within constraints imposed by existing legislation.
Included in this evaluation are:
(1)

An examination of the functional operation of each of
the eight watershed councils in an effort to determine
how each ranks in terms of effectiveness

(2)

Determination of the nature and source of operational,
structural, or statutory problems that contribute to
variations in effectiveness

As the first comprehensive analysis of Michigan’s watershed
councils, considerable attention was devoted to identifying the type
and extent of each council's activity.

The activities were then

related to the water quality issues discussed earlier.

Objectives

were examined in the evaluation of council effectiveness in contributing

8
to better water quality management planning.

Secondary to the deter­

mination of council effectiveness was the establishment of a foundation
for organizational improvement which was developed in the conclusion
and recommendation sections of this report.
research directed at organizational behavior.

Both points involved
This behavior was

assessed in terms of comparisons between established criteria and
information derived from field examination of each of the eight
watershed councils.

Methods and Procedures
The difference in enabling legislation and in the extent and
availability of descriptive materials made it necessary to follow
separate approaches in the analysis of the watershed councils formed
under Act 200 and those formed under Act 253.

The hypotheses formed

were relevant to the approach taken for each type of watershed council.
The second and third hypotheses are specific extensions of the first.
(1)

Selected watershed council activities, functions, and
characteristics (hereafter referred to as variables)
have an impact on watershed water quality management

(2)

Capacity to perform effectively can be expressed as some
function of selected variables

(3)

Evaluation of these variables will help in identifying
elements of watershed organization, structure, and
operation that may be further improved

The following methods and procedures were chosen for each type of
watershed council (with councils established under Act 253 receiving

9
more extensive and detailed treatment due to the nature and activity
of these organizations and to the more ready availability of informa­
tion on them).

Councils Formed Under Act 200
The methods and procedures chosen to evaluate watershed councils
formed under Act 200 were designed to consider the nature of the organ­
ization and limitations in the Act.

Unlike t’>ose councils formed under

Act 253, watershed councils organized under Act 200 do not maintain a
paid staff.

They have an all volunteer force made up of representa­

tives from government units, organizations and the like.

Act 200 coun­

cils meet on a less frequent basis and generate less information.

Gen­

erally, their approach is more low key and tied to a few basic issues.
In light of the nature of the organization and its volunteer
membership, it was not possible to follow with Act 200 councils the
same approach chosen to evaluate councils formed under Act 253.

It was

necessary, rather, to select at least one spokesman from each of the
councils and to have him provide the history and background on the
council and its activities.

In most cases, the spokesmen were the

chairmen and vice-chairmen of the councils (past chairmen were also
interviewed when possible, as was the case with the Ausable River
Watershed Study Council, the Boardman River Advisory Council, and the
Kearsley Creek Preservation Council).

The other Act 200 councils are

the Elk River Watershed Council and the Jordan River Watershed Council.
A survey of representatives and government officials on watershed
councils established under Act 200 was considered both impractical and

10
of little value in evaluating how effective the councils have been in
terms of impacting water quality management.
(1)

Some basic problems are:

Voting membership on the councils is not tied to pay­
ment of dues

(2)

Actual participating membership was found to be
inconsistent with the listing provided in the council
bylaws

(3)

Types of members possible varied between councils

(4)

Insufficient record keeping made it difficult to
determine just what units and organizations currently
belong

(5)

Infrequent meetings and less-than-adequate attendance

Due to these problems, a standard could not be formulated upon
which a survey could be structured.

Also the difficulty (in expense

and time) in locating currently active, participating members, made it
impossible to conduct a survey of representatives on Act 200 watershed
councils.

The approach chosen was to examine the activities Act 200

watershed councils chose to involve themselves in and to compare these
against the total set of problems existing in the watershed. A standard
information checklist (see Appendix A, page 229) was prepared for the
purpose of gathering, through interviews of council spokesmen, as much
background information and reactions to council activity as possible.
In addition, all available records of council activity were reviewed.
The methods and procedures consisted largely of reviewing and
analyzing descriptive information that was provided or made available
through minutes, newsletters, annual reports, bylaws, special project
reports, etc.

Detailed comments were obtained in interviews of council

11

spokesmen.

The ability of each watershed council formed under Act 200

to contribute to more effective water quality management planning was
evaluated on the basis of their involvement in the water quality issues
discussed in the problem statement section of this report.

Councils Formed Under Act 253
The approach chosen to evaluate how effectively each of the three
watershed councils formed under Act 253 contributed to better water
quality mangement planning was to combine, relate, and compare a series
of surveys with a review of individual council activity.

Three surveys

were conducted; one of the executve secretaries of each of the three
councils, one of the representatives to each of the councils, and one
of the units of government that financially support the councils.

The

survey of the executive secretaries asked each of them to examine a list
of ten variables made possible by the enabling legislation (see Appen­
dix A, page 234)•

The executive secretaries were also asked to rank

the ten variables in descending order of importance according to the
degree of effectiveness they believed (based on their opinion, admin­
istrative judgment, and experience) each had on affecting water quality
management in their watershed.

The results of this survey served as

a reference model for field testing in evaluation and identification of
the particular problems of each council.

They also served as a

reference point to which the comments made by representatives and units
could be compared for differences and similarities in opinion regarding
council performance and operation.
The separate surveys of council representatives and member units
of government involved soliciting comments and reactions of a census of

12
representatives and government officials which included those sitting on
city and village councils, county and township boards (see Appendix A,
page 236).

Questions were developed to identify:

1) water management

issues and problems, 2) where watershed councils have and have not
made inputs and why, 3) the nature and source of operational,
organizational, and statutory problems, and 4) key needs required for
more effective contributions.

The separate surveys of representatives

and units of government were analyzed individually and then compared
through percentage-frequency calculations and contingency analysis.
Identifying the nature and frequency of similarities and differences
of opinion existing between the groups surveyed was of primary
importance.

The intent was to provide a basis for determining the

nature and source of operational, statutory, and organizational
problems of the councils and also to identify how and on what issues
the watershed councils made (or could make) the best contribution to
water quality management planning.
An extensive review of available literature on the councils and
their respective watersheds aided in the evaluation of the effectiveness
of watershed councils.
examined.

Records of council activity and operation were

These records included minutes of meetings, bylaws, news­

letters, position statements, annual reports, special project reports,
etc.

From a number of other sources related information on both the

councils and the watersheds was collected, reviewed, and analyzed.
The information obtained served a dual function.

It was used to

provide a history and background on council activities and programs.
It was also used as a means of evaluating and determining the reason­
ableness and consistency of reactions and comments derived from the

13
surveys.

The relative impact and degree to which each of these water­

shed councils could be said to have made an effective contribution to
water quality management planning was based largely on review of
council activities, functions, and programs, as well as supporting
material and results of interviews and surveys.

Application and Need
The information and results obtained in the surveys and review
of literature provided a basis for identifying problems.

It also aided

in specifying recommendations derived from differences and similarities
between watershed councils in facilitating improvements in water
quality management.
The importance of developing improvements begins with a recogni­
tion that local and regional assistance is needed to supplement the
State's effort to preserve and protect the quality of the water.

Water­

shed councils provide a framework from which the concerns and efforts
of communities can be coordinated to develop programs on a regional
basis.

If the councils are to effectively serve the local and regional

interest of the government units that it represents, then problems asso­
ciated with its operation must be recognized and corrected.
This report has been designed to reveal these problems and to
develop recommendations that would serve to improve watershed council
effectiveness.

More effective operation of these Michigan watershed

councils might result in greater authority being vested in local and
regional government, as well as in providing a model for regional
coordination of local water quality management programs.

REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS
ESTABLISHED UNDER ACT 200 P.A. OF 1957

Introduction
Five Michigan watershed councils established under Public Act 200
of 1957 were selected for study.

3

Analysis of their operation and

activity was expected to provide an additional basis upon which water­
shed councils established under other enabling legislation could be
evaluated.

The different legislative frameworks provide varying

degrees of authority to watershed councils.

It was presumed that a

comparative analysis would better yield the information necessary to
assess the degree of impact each type has made on watershed water qual­
ity management planning.
The five councils chosen for study are:

1) the Ausable River

Watershed Council, 2) the Boardman River Advisory Council, 3) the Elk
River Watershed Council, 4) the Jordan River Watershed Council, and
5) the Kearsley Creek Preservation Council.

These represent the total

number of councils operating under Act 200 (see Appendix B, page 241).
Figure 1 identifies their location and relative size.

With the excep­

tion of the Kearsley Creek Preservation Council, all are located in the
northern lower peninsula.

Reasons for this predominant application of

Act 200 in rural up-state areas center largely on certain statutory

^State of Michigan.
of 1957.

Intermunicipality Committee Act, Act 200, P.A.

14

15

Figure 1.

Watershed Councils Established Under Act 200
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Ausable River Watershed
Boardman River Watershed
Elk River Watershed
Jordan River Watershed
Kearsley Creek Watershed

16
membership limitations imposed by Act 253.^

These are described

later in more detail.
Analysis and review of councils formed under Act 200 is achieved
by examining and evaluating their background and history, their activ­
ities and programs, and how they accomplish or implement their pro­
grams.

Much of this information is derived from interviews with each

council spokesman.

This summary is based largely on review of their

activities, functions, programs, other supporting materials and inter­
views.

A summary evaluation will be offered on the impact and con­

tribution each watershed council made on water quality management
planning in their respective watersheds.
Prior to the discussion of the individual councils, an examina­
tion of enabling legislation will be made focusing on provisions,
authority, and limitations cited.

Review of the Enabling Act
Provisions.

Prior to passage of Public Act 253, units of govern­

ment interested in cooperatively working toward identification and
solution of watershed problems turned to the Intermunicipality Com­
mittee Act of 1957, Public Act 200, for an organizational framework
(see Appendix B, page 243).
(a)

Basically, Public Act 200 provides:

For the creation of a committee by two or more incorporated
political units in the state for the purpose of studying
area problems

(b)

For the employment of personnel to coordinate and conduct
studies relating to mutual problems

^State of Michigan.
1964 (as amended).

Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of

17
(c)

For the handling of expenses of the committee by allocation
of local governmentfunds, by receiving gifts

and grants

from the federal and state governments and also from private
individuals, foundations, or agencies
Generally, the objective of these committees has been to identify
and study problems of mutual concern to member government units such
as water management and related land resource use issues.

Such issues

have included (but have not been limited to) sewers and sewage disposal,
water, drains, solid waste disposal, recreation, parks, etc.
The Committee has no formal authority or power, but rather only the
power to study problems, prepare reports, and recommend solutions.

The

Committee finances its operation partly through gifts and grants from
the "federal government, state

government and local governments, and

also from private individuals,

foundations or agencies, if the grants

are made for furtherance of the objectives for which the committee is
established."^

As mentioned previously, member units may allocate

funds to the Committee though this is not a prerequisite to either
joining or continuing membership on a committee.
For the most part, the act provides a basis upon which units of
government interested in studying problems can obtain some organiza­
tional legitimacy and at the same time recommend solutions.

The

extent to which this effort has produced an impact is largely related
to the provisions of the Act, some of which have proved to be
limitations.

^State of Michigan.
P.A. of 1957, § 2.

Intermunicipality Committee Act, Act 200,

18
Limitations.

At a meeting of watershed councils and related

organizations held in 1970, respective advantages and disadvantages
of water quality group organization under Act 200 and Act 253 were
discussed.*’

It was generally agreed that Public Act 200 offered up­

state rural areas with low population an opportunity to organize
outside of the more restrictive statutory requirements for membership
outlined in Act 253.^

Review of these requirements show that member­

ship is only open to local government units using the river for water
supply or waste disposal, to counties and townships having a minimum
of 15% of their areas in the watershed and to other units that would
demonstrate some relationship to the river or otherwise justify and
g

show cause why they should be members.

Most of the groups that

organized under Act 200 did so because of the undesirable restrictions
in Act 253.

In rural areas, these would overload or otherwise create

disproportionate representation in favor of more populated units.
Act 200 does not place any special conditions on membership.

In fact,

most of the watershed councils have invited various interested groups
and organizations in the watershed to be represented on the council.
They cite this as a further advantage of Act 200 in that it provides
for a more varied membership background.

Special interests of partic­

ular government units, therefore, are not so apt to overshadow interest
in overall watershed planning and management.

g
Conference of Organized River Watershed Councils.
the meeting held September 24, 1970.
7

Proceedings of

State of Michigan. Local Rover Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of
1964 (as amended), § 4a-c.
8Ibid.

Missing from Act 200, however, are provisions that would facili­
tate development of various action programs or that would assure
performance of functions.

Units organized under Act 200 also share

a shortcoming present with councils organized under Act 253.

The

effectiveness of both is largely related to the willingness of the
voluntary government units to actively participate and to provide
funds.

Participation is subject to the level of interest within the

watershed to achieve better water quality management.

If the units

perceive the need and look upon the watershed council as a vehicle
for providing a service to them and/or to the watershed in water
quality management planning, then they will support the council.

This

lack of provisions in either act for compulsory membership, partici­
pation and funding represents a major limitation in both acts.

As a

consequence, the level of activity and scope of the watershed council
and impact it makes is conditioned on these factors.

As the Conference

noted, "...the group formed will only be as effective as is commensu­
rate with the interest in water quality, non-bias available time for
participation, and non-political motivation of the appointed repre-

g
sentation."

9

Conference of Organized River Watershed Councils.
of the meeting, September 24, 1970, p. 1.

Proceedings

20
Review and Analysis of Individual Council Activity

Ausable River Watershed Study Council
The Ausable River Watershed Study Council is typical of the
watershed councils formed under the Inter-municipality Committee Act
(Act 200).

Most of its activity, confined largely to specific issues

and problems, has been the product of the efforts of the council’s
executive board and volunteer committees.

There is no paid staff and

as a result of this limited participation and funding support, the
materials available for review of council activity are, for the most
part, restricted to minutes of meetings, annual reports, and policy
statements.

The Ausable River Watershed Study Council and other

watershed councils established under Act 200 do not have the ability
to provide for a standard, consistently defined and participating
membership.

Consequently, the analysis and examination offered here

is attenuated by the relative paucity of information and inactivity of
the councils.
Evaluation of the Ausable River Watershed Study Council’s impact
on water quality management planning is based on a comparison and
review of materials and comments collected.

It is primarily intended

to serve as an indicator of council effectiveness.

Variability

between councils in number and type of members participating, infre­
quency of meetings, and limited study resources, made a survey of
councils established under Act 200 less amenable to generally accepted
sampling techniques.^

•^William Cochran.
Sons, Inc., 1963).

Sampling Techniques, (New York:

0

John Wiley &

21
Description of the Watershed and General Water Quality.

The Ausa­

ble River Watershed is located in the north central part of Michigan's
Lower Peninsula (see Figure 2, page 22).

The focal point of the

watershed, the Ausable River, drains approximately 1800 square miles
of land before emptying into Lake H u r o n . ^

Long famous for its

beauty and recreation, the Ausable River has a well-developed system
of tributaries, the character of which have contributed to the preser­
vation and enhancement of the natural values of the main stream.

The

river has its beginning high in the northwest c o m e r of Crawford
County and moves eastward through the city of Grayling on the Oscoda
on Lake Huron.

The river is joined at Grayling by the East Branch

extending from northern Crawford County.

The South Branch, extending

from Lake St. Helen through Roscommon, joins the Main Stream in
western Crawford County along with the North Branch which has its
headwaters in Otsego County.

12

Despite the heavy recreation use it receives, the river continues
to maintain a high degree of quality.

The limitation on disturbance

of the river bed and banks as well as the restriction on amounts of
sewage contaminants that are allowed to enter the stream has been
partly responsible for this.

In 1972, the City of Grayling switched

to tertiary treatment of their municipal wastes which had a significant effect on reducing contaminant loading of the river.

13

In a

11

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water F-esources
Conditions and Uses in the Ausable River Basin, (Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1966), p. 1-1.

13

Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.

22

|

.* • > • • F alla

foT S E C O CO.

;-v-«j"WD*°1
-' o
° v ^ r ,TM

IM OT.MORINCV CO. ~
!

| ALPENA CO*

O a t la r l

eUNTON

OGEMAW

—

Figure 2.

j

Ausable River Watershed

j||P
wW/h

Area served by the Ausable River
Watershed Council

"j

U-; j

\

23
survey of 400 individual septic tank systems in Grayling Township, it
was shown that no significant contamination of the river was occurring
as a result of the operation of these systems.

14

However, as an

earlier report also stated, "Extensive development is expected to occur
along the Ausable River.

This will add to the present problem of

numberous private systems now in operation.

As these systems fail, they

may add to the flowing stream by direct discharge or seepage of the
materials associated with domestic waste products.^

(The actual

extent to which the banks of the Ausable are developed will hinge on
the outcome of the possibility that the river will be named part of
the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Program.)

16

There are a number of other concerns in addition to this potential
threat to Ausable's water quality from septic tank discharge.

The most

critical concern appears to be the heavy recreation demand and use
being made on the river and its adjoining land resources.

To preserve

and protect against deteriorating water quality from heavy use, a
number of water management activities involving measures to control
streamflow, water withdrawal, alteration of the natural streambank,
and sewage discharge have been developed .^

■^D. Brege, "Extent of Contamination of a Cold Water Stream by
Private Domestic Waste Disposal Systems." (unpublished Masters thesis,
Michigan State University, 1969), p. 4.
^ S t a t e of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water Resource
Conditions and Uses in the Ausable River Basin, (Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1966), p. 4-35.
16

Interview with W. Bosserman, County Extension Agent, Roscommon,
Michigan, February 22, 1974.
"^Hendrikson, G., M i c h i g a n ^ Ausable River (Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Geological Survey, 1966), p. 68.

24
A key to this largely state and local effort to keep the water in
the Ausable of excellent quality for recreational use has been and
will continue to rest heavily with public support and cooperation.

It

was this same public concern for preservation and protection of the
river that provided the impetus for the formation of the Ausable
River Watershed Study Council.
Development of the Ausable River Watershed Study Council.

The

Ausable River Watershed Study Council was organized in 1967 in
response to a stimulus from the Grayling Chamber of Commerce and the
Cooperative Extension Service to provide a mechanism through which
communities and groups could collectively channel their efforts
toward improving conditions on the Ausable.

Earlier, the Ausable

River System Property Owners Association had begun a movement to
stimulate awareness of the deteriorating recreational value of the
river system.

The Council focused on some of the concerns of this

association and identified a number of specific problem areas.

Among

the original problems cited by the Council were behavioral and natural
resource problems associated with municipal effluent, bank disturbance
and inadequate zoning protection.
In light of the problems identified, the Council established
the following objectives:
(1)

Study the relationships of the river and the relationship
to the requirements of the present, and probable future
users, including property owners, municipalities and other
governmental units, agricultural and industrial users,
fishermen, hunters, canoeists and other recreational users

25
(2)

Develop programs and policies designed to prevent
future deterioration and where possible, to restore the
original qualities of the river

(3)

To serve as an advisory group to recommend actions to
be taken on policies and programs so adopted to
appropriate government units

(4)

To serve as a study group to assimilate and coordinate
all actions concerning the Ausable River-*-®

The Council opened its membership to any local government unit within
the watershed to help accomplish these objectives.

The case with the

Ausable River Watershed Council, as with some of the other watershed
councils established under Act 200, is that the actual area served
is usually less than the entire watershed (see Figure 2, page 22 ).
The Council primarily serves Roscommon and Crawford Counties.

Down­

river from Crawford County, landownership is largely in the hands
of Consumers Power Company (which is represented on the council as
a special interest organization).

According to the Council, the area

beyond Roscommon and Crawford Counties represents a different set of
problems.

As yet, there has not been much citizen interest from that

area in the activities of the Council.

19

Also, unlike the Boardman

River Advisory Council which recognizes the need for direct, private
citizen and riparian involvement, the Ausable River Watershed Study

18

Ausable River Watershed Study Council, Organization Bylaws
(Grayling, Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Study Council, 1967),
p. 1.
-^Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.

26
Council did not extend membership to individuals.

Instead, its

membership extends to selected groups and organizations that have
some immediate interest in the river.
The activities the Ausable River Watershed Study Council has
become involved in reflect their concern for improving conditions
on the river.

Through sponsoring and assisting in efforts designed

to bring about improvement, the Council has attempted to strike some
kind of balance between conservation of the river’s water quality
and maintenance of it as a recreational area.

The more prominent

activities and concerns that the Council has been involved in are
listed below:
(1)

Protective greenbelt zoning

(2)

Municipal effluent from Grayling and Roscommon

(3)

Land use study of the river

(4)

Directional signing

(5)

River Rules Ordinance and attempts by the Canoe
Liveries Association to secure a greater degree of
control over the many canoeists who use the river

Description of the Activities of the Ausable River Watershed
Study Council.

The following descriptions of activities, concerns,

and issues the Ausable River Watershed Study Council has been involved
in are, in part, based on comments derived from interviews.

The

following summaries are intended to provide some perspective on the
concerns and direction of the Council and also to provide a basis
upon which the overall impact of these activities on better water
quality management planning can be evaluated.

27
1.

Protective Greenbelt Zoning
A tour of the Ausable River Watershed quickly shows that

recreation plays an important role in the economic well-being of the
area.

In the Grayling area alone cabins, cottages, and year-round

homes are numerous on the Ausable and its branches.

The situation

this has created is reflected in the following statement made by
the Water Resources Commission:
"Waterfront lots command premium prices and some
water access lots have been established to meet the
demands of the off-water cottage buyer.
Significant
portions of river frontage are in private ownership
and will no doubt provide a base for substantial
increased development of river frontage for recrea­
tional facilities by private interests."20
The Ausable River Watershed Study Council took a dim view of
this prediction and launched an initiative to create a river-front
zoning program that would allow for the continued use of the river
and its resources while protecting it against over-development and
deterioration.
Support for the initiative came from several sources; among
them the Grayling Regional Planning Commission, the Grayling Regional
Chamber of Commerce, and Grayling Township.^

The township was con­

cerned about its zoning ordinance and the ability of it to promote
preservation of the river's resources.

The Council was asked to pre­

pare a greenbelt zoning ordinance that would bring about a degree of

^ S t a t e of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water Resources
Conditions and Uses in the Ausable River Basin. (Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1966), p. 3-2.

21

State of Michigan, Chamber of Commerce. "Green Strip Zoning— It
Is Working Along the Ausable River." Natural Resources Special Report.
(Lansing, Michigan: Chamber of Commerce, October 31, 1969), p. 1.

28
protection not provided at the time.

The ordinance prepared by the

Council’s Land Use Committee emphasized lot characteristics and
focused on the 30 miles of stream in Grayling Township.
It was designed to regulate riverfront land use and to protect
the water quality by:
(1)

Limiting the density of development; regulating the
width and size of waterfront lots

(2)

a)

Minimum lotwidth— 150 feet

b)

Minimum lot

size— 45,000 square feet

Preventing stream bank erosion; requiring a strip of
native vegetation to be left at the waterfront.

The

strip must be 25 feet wide.
(3)

Preventing nutrient pollution:
a)

The disposal field must be at least 100 feet from
the river or lake.

The sealed septic tank must

be at least 50 feet from the lake or stream
b)

Disposal field tile must

be at least 3 1/2 feet

above the high water table
c)

Subsoil drainage systems must be at least 40 feet
from a septic tank or disposal field

(4)

Preserving aesthetics:
a)

Requires a minimum setback of the dwelling of 50
feet from the river, or 30 feet when on a high
bank

b)

Requires a 25-foot native vegetation strip on both
banks

29
(5)

Discouraging filling in floodplains for building:
a)

Requires filling with previous material four
feet above high ground water table, before
building^2

Following the adoption of the ordinance by Grayling Township,
the Council could take credit for drafting Michigan's first Green
Strip Zoning Ordinance.

As a result of Grayling Township's success

with the ordinance, other units of government, including Crawford
and Roscommon Counties and Higgins Township, incorporated it into
their zoning legislation.2-^
The ordinance stands as a tribute to the Council's ability to
make positive impacts on improving water quality management in the
Ausable River Watershed.

The success experienced with the ordinance

prompted the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to incorporate
O/
some of its principles into its Natural Rivers Protection Program.
In addition, other river basins including the Boardman, have devel­
oped similar ordinances modeled after the Ausable program.
2.

Municipal Effluent from Grayling and Roscommon
Concern developed over the ability of the cities to adequately

handle their municipal waste as development and use of the river in
and around these areas continued to grow.

Following the water quality

22

Ausable River Watershed Study Council. Greenbelt Zoning
Ordinance. (Grayling, Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Study
Council, 1969).
23

Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.
24Ibid.

30
study in 1966,

25

pressure was brought to bear on Grayling and Roscom­

mon by the Water Resources Commission to develop more satisfactory
systems.

The Ausable River Watershed Council's interest and assistance

to these communities in exploring treatment options and in designing
and planning an alternative disposal system was instrumental in
encouraging both communities to plan tertiary treatment (lagoon)
systems.

Largely as a result of the influence the Council was able

to exercise over Roscommon and Grayling, the amount of sewage
effluent entering the Ausable through direct discharge has signifi­
cantly been reduced.^
3.

Land Use Study of the River
The Council applied for and received a grant of $2500 from the

Water Resources Commission to conduct a survey of the land adjacent
to the Ausable and its tributaries in 1968.

The objective of the

study was to begin making an inventory of current land use, stream
bank conditions, and uses being made of the river.

27

Points along the

river showing evidence of erosion, pollution, and poor drainage were
of special interest.

Information compiled by the study produced a

booklet, approximately 50% of which identified effluence, litter,
erosion, and zoning problems.

The remaining 50% was devoted to

25

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water Resource
Conditions and Uses in the Ausable River Basin. (Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1966), p. 4-35.
26

State of Michigan, Chamber of Commerce.
"Green Strip Zoning—
It is Working Along the Ausable River." Natural Resources Special
Report. (Lansing, Michigan: Chamber of Commerce. October 31, 1969),
p. 2.
27

The Roscommon-Herald News.
"Watershed Council Studies Program
for Famous Stream," July 4, 1968, p. 5.

31
providing information to property owners on the problems that
existed, solutions, and resource people to tap for help.

28

Suggested approaches for correction of some of the problems
identified included: 1) building protective log and stone revetments
to stop stream bank erosion, 2) planning stream bank vegetative cover,
and 3) providing suitable access to the river.

29

The study repre­

sents a successful attempt by the Council to gather basic information
on the Ausable's conditions and uses.

The suggestions supplied

planners and land owners with proposals for improving present
conditions and for helping better insure orderly development and
preservation of the river.

4.

Directional Signing
In addition to promoting preservation of the river, the Council

has been concerned with protection of the Ausable River's resources.
To help eliminate trespassing, the Council recommended to Crawford
County and the City of Grayling, a plan for signing the river.

The

Council felt the erection of signs pointing to the location of
various facilities along the river would help eliminate some of the
trespassing and damage to private property.

With the financial

assistance of Crawford County and the City of Grayling, 57 signs
were made and erected on the North and South Branches and on the
Main Stream by the Department of Natural Resources in 1973.

30

No

28

W. Bosserman and L. A. Higgins. Ausable River Watershed Study
Council Report. (Grayling, Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Study
Countil, 1968), p. 6-10.
29Ibid., p. 11-19.
30

Interview with H. Goodhue, Chairman, Ausable River Watershed
Study Council, Grayling, Michigan, April 23, 1974.

32
comprehensive effort has since been made to determine just what impact
the signs have had on limiting trespassing or improving water quality.

5.

River Ordinance and the Behavioral Problem
The Council became involved on this issue through the support it

gave local initiative.

This initiative originated with the Canoe

Liveries Association and several units of government including Gray­
ling and Crawford Counties.

Increasing problems with canoeists

prompted the Council to take part in an attempt to get the Department
of Natural Resources to enact more specific legislation that would
help local authorities in controlling behavior of individuals using
the river.

31

The Department of Natural Resources suggested limita­

tion of use on the river as opposed to making stricter rules.

A

rift developed between local citizenry and the Department over exactly
what was needed, who was going to promulgate rules, and who was going
to enforce them.

Due to this controversy, each side produced an

alternative plan.
The local effort took the form of the Crawford County Recreational
Water Ordinance.

32

This proposed to:

"...provide for the management of all navigable inland
lakes, streams, and rivers; to provide for licensing of
recreational facilities; to regulate the users of the
navigable water resources; to provide planning for the
harmonious and complementary uses of all navigable waters

31

J. Bassett, B. Driver, and R. Schreyer. User Study; Character­
istics and Attitudes, Michigan's Ausable River. (Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, 1972), p. 74-76.
32

State of Michigan, Crawford County. Recreational Water Ordi­
nance. (Grayling, Michigan: Crawford County Board of Commissioners,
1973).

33
in the County; to create advisory committees; and to
prescribe the powers and duties of certain administrative
agencies, their relationship with other local governments
in planning and regulating the users of navigable waters
in the County of Crawford, State of Michigan."33
Its emphasis was on regulating the licensing of canoe liveries and
controlling behavior of individuals using the river.

The Department

of Natural Resources, due to heavy use of the Ausable, Pine, Pere
Marquette, and Manistee Rivers proposed a set of river rules to
regulate and restrict use at peak periods (weekends, holidays) of
128 miles of sensitive stretches along these four streams.

34

The Department's river use rules were designed "to safeguard
environmental values of the four northern Michigan streams and to
bring about more orderly enjoyment of the heavily-used rivers by all
types of creationists."

35

The rules called for a "permit system that

would regulate the number of watercraft that could be launched on
problem sections of the four streams on Saturdays, Sundays, and
holidays during the peak summer season."

36

Concurrent with these efforts, a bill was introduced in the
legislature by Representative Ralph Ostling.

33

The bill proposes to

Ibid., p. 1.

34

Grand River Watershed Council. Address Presented at the Annual
Meeting by Hilary Snell, Chairman, Michigan Natural Resources Commis­
sion, Lansing, Michigan, May 1974.
35

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources.
"DNR Seeks
State Court of Appeals Review on River Rules Decision." News Bulletin.
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, April 18, 1974),
p. 2.

34
limit the number of canoe liveries and the number of canoes they are
allowed to have for rent along the Michigan rivers.

37

The current situation (May, 1974) with regard to these three
alternatives at regulating use and behavior on Michigan streams appears
to be as follows.

The Crawford County Ordinance on River Rules sub­

mitted to the Governor for approval in January 1973, was reviewed by
the Attorney General’s office, but no formal action has yet been
taken on it.

38

The Recreation Canoe Liveries Association took the Department of
Natural Resources to court in response to the river rules that the
Department proposed.

The canoe people charged that Act 17 of 1921, the

Department of Natural Resources' basic organization act, does not give
the Department authority to implement the proposed river rules.

39

The

decision handed down by the Lake County Circuit Court was in favor of
the Canoe Liveries Association.

The Department has since appealed,

contending that the Act of 1921 charges them with the responsibility
to protect and conserve the state's natural resources.

When reached,

the decision will most likely be appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
A bill introduced by Representative Ostling for regulation of
canoe liveries and watercraft is on its third reading in the House

37

State of Michigan, House of Representatives. A Bill to License
and Regulate Canoe Liveries and Watercraft, HB 4848, 1974.
38
Ausable River Watershed Study Council.
Meeting, January 15, 1974.
39

Minutes of a Regular

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources. "DNR Seeks
State Court of Appeals Review of River Rules Decision." News Bulletin.
(Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, April 18, 1974),
pp. 1-2).

35
Appropriation Committee.

It is in its original form after two substi­

tutions failed, and is expected to come up for vote again this f a l l . ^
It appears that it will be some time yet before a decision will
be reached as to which of the three alternative approaches discussed
here will be adopted.

The Council is continuing to play a role by

distributing information to its members on the current status of each
proposal in an effort to keep the local citizenry informed.
In addition to these activities, the Ausable River Watershed
Study Council, through independent efforts of some of its members, has
made available additional resource information on the area.

One such

project is a comprehensive analysis being done under the direction of
the Northeast Regional Planning Commission on the Ausable River
Watershed with the objective of developing a plan for the recreational
use, preservation, and management of the watershed.

The five-part

study is nearing completion and will include recommendations for solv­
ing river user conflicts and protecting the natural environment.

Evaluation and General Recommendations
One of the overriding concerns of the Ausable River Watershed
Study Council has been seeing that the public and local citizenry are
represented when decisions are made.

The Council was formed out of

the belief that an organization was needed to cooperatively study the
river's problems and to assist in the preservation and protection of
the Ausable.

It appears the Council has been effective and has made

an impact on better water quality management for the Ausable, primar­
ily through the influence function it has been able to exercise.

This

Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.

36
function has been most evident in the Council's efforts to provide
for greenbelt zoning, restricting sewage disposal, and providing
advice and assistance to local government units, organizations, and
individuals on methods for improving stream conditions.
The Ausable River Watershed Council is now suffering from
dwindling interest for lack of a new issue.

Water quality, except

for the impact of canoeists, is no longer considered a problem in
the area served by the Council.
new focus.

41

The Council needs to establish a

It is suggested that the recommendations offered in the

comprehensive Ausable River Project serve as a focus for -the Council
in redefining its role, functions, and the future activities it
becomes involved in.

42

With new activities, interest could be

revitalized.
In addition to getting involved in new activities, the Council
needs to expand its influence (its biggest asset) to help improve
its visibility and credibility.

Existing Council members need to

make the effort to get more units and organizations involved.

Indi­

vidual Council members could serve as a local arm of the Council
spreading the word about what the Council does and the value in
belonging to it.

They could also have the responsibility of contact­

ing and meeting with downriver units and interest groups in an effort
to identify their problems and attempt to encourage their membership.

41

Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.
42

Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission.
Ausable River Project. (Rogers City, Michigan: Northeast Regional
Planning and Development Commission, 1974).

37
The Council should also consider opening membership to individual
citizens to gain more support for their activities and to obtain a
broader base of representation of interests in the watershed.
The existing organizational framework provided under Act 200
appears adequate.

The Council does not necessarily need to

reorganize under Act 253 to secure more management functions.

In

light of the impact the Council has been able to make in the past
under Act 200, more efficient application of the enabling Act's
provisions and utilization of existing resources (human and physical)
would appear to be more the appropriate approach for the Council to
take.
The question of funds has not been critical in the past and there
is no real need to emphasize this in a membership drive; involvement
is the key.

It will be necessary for the Council to establish (or

revitalize) its committee organizations.

This will help allocate

responsibilities and insure that every member has a meaningful role
and responsibility to play.
Committees could assist the Council in building a stronger
background for communication and coordination.

The Ausable River

Watershed Study Council should explore the possibility of establishing
one of the following with other watershed councils organized under
similar enabling legislation:
(1)

Liaisons on each of the other councils in the region (Jordan,
Elk, Boardman)

(2)

A multi-watershed council approach operating under one
regional council

38
They may also wish to take note of the approach being followed by
the White, Pere Marquette, and Muskegon River Watershed Councils.

An

individual has been selected by these Councils to monitor the activi­
ties of each in an attempt to bring about a degree of coordination
and compatibility in their separate activities and functions.
A continued function of the Council is to maintain and improve
existing relationships with agencies and organizations like the North­
east Michigan Regional Development and Planning Commission.

The

Council should attempt to identify and align itself with interest
groups not currently involved with the Council.
The Council should also strive to improve the lines of communi­
cation and coordination it currently has with state agencies and with
the county planning commissions.

If communication has been less than

adequate in the past, the Council should consider taking the initia­
tive to reopen and strengthen, through frequent contact, these lines
of communication.
In general, the Ausable River Watershed Study Council needs to
reexamine its purpose and the roles it has played in light of the
current situation on the river.

As its position is redefined, more

efficient use of the resources at its disposal will help improve on
its ability to once again exercise the degree of influence and impact
it was able to make in its first few years of operation.

39
Boardman River Advisory Council
Description of the Watershed.

The Boardman River Watershed (see

Figure 3) covers some 347 square miles in Kalkaska and Grand Traverse
Counties.

43

The Boardman River, the focal point of this developing

watershed, has its headwaters in Kalkaska County where the river flows
westerly to Traverse City.

The main stem of the river covers some

30 miles from its beginning through heavily wooded state forest areas.
The natural character of the stream, however, is contributing to the
continued growth and development of the recreation potential in and
around the Traverse City area.

As sites become scarce in this area,

it is expected that development will begin to move along the river's
tributaries and on into more remote stretches.
The soil is relatively stable and stream quality remains high due
to the density of vegetation that lines most of the river's banks.
Most of the soil in the watershed is either sandy (higher areas),
which contributes to high infiltration, or largely muck as is
characteristic of some of the low lying areas contiguous to the stream.
It is in these muck areas that concern over restricting development
is highest.

Outside of some problems with the Village of Kalkaska's

sewage effluent

AA

and with Traverse City in raising the water level

of the river, there are currently no serious problems with water

43

•
✓
Student Water Publications. Michigan s Boardman River. (East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Student Water Publi­
cations), p. 25.
44

State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management. Water Quality of
Selected Lakes and Streams in the Grand Traverse Bay Region. (Lansing,
Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1970), pp. 10-11.

40

BJNC
HAM

L

z

L

m
z-

%ilaLKASKA CO.
RAPID

G*L0
0f*iJNG9

Trave
Oft

LAK

WEXI S C A L E

MISSAHKRF.cn:

K> M I L B S ^ A ^
S K H 1 C E
Figure 3.

Boardman River Watershed

41
quality on the Boardman.

45

What has been recognized, however, are

potential threats to the water quality.

Among those issues and

concerns identified are oil and gas drilling, pipelines and construc­
tion practices, highway location, development along the stream,
location of sanitary landfills and others.

46

It has been along

some of these lines that the Boardman River Advisory Council has
focused its attention and directed its efforts.
History and Development of the Boardman River Advisory Council.
Largely in response to a calling from the League of Women Voters in
Grand Traverse County and the general awareness that the quality of
the watershed was beginning to decline as a result of rapid develop­
ment in and around the Grand Traverse Bay area, the Boardman River
Advisory Council was organized May 27, 1969.

The Council adopted a

watershed-wide perspective and selected as its purposes the following
(1)

Study land and water uses of the Boardman River drainage
basin, assess the changes that are taking place and formu­
late recommendations for review and action thereon by the
member governing bodies

(2)

Develop policies and programs designed to prevent further
deterioration of the quality of the water, land and related
resources of the Boardman River drainage basin

(3)

Serve as a study group to assimilate and coordinate

all

actions concerning the Boardman River drainage basin

^""interview with George Sarns, Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, Traverse City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
46

Johnson, Johnson and Roy. Boardman River Study.
Michigan: Johnson, Johnson and Roy, 1973), pp. 19-24.

(Ann Arbor,

42
(4)

Serve as an advisory group to the governing bodies con­
cerned with the Boardman River drainage basin and to promote
cooperation between them

(5)

Serve as a source for educational materials and programs,
and action programs pertaining to the Boardman River
drainage b a s i n ^

Membership on the Council is open to local government units in Kal­
kaska and Grand Traverse Counties and also to various organizations,
among them the Grand Traverse Soil Conservation District, Kalkaska
Soil Conservation District, League of Women Voters of Grand Traverse
County, Grand Traverse J.C.’s, and the Elk River Drainage Basin
48
Council.

Member units and organizations are solicited for funding

support, but contributions are not required for continued membership
and voting eligibility.

The need for operating funds has not been

critical with the Boardman River Advisory Council, as their involve­
ment and activity has been directed more at calling for preventive
measures and maintenance rather than with implementing corrective
or improvement measures.
The activities of the Boardman River Advisory Council have
covered a range of issues and concerns.

Beginning with encouraging

greenbelt zoning, the Council has also been involved in a physical
survey of the river.

This physical survey includes watching and

Boardman River Advisory Council. Organization Bylaws. (South
Boardman, Michigan, Boardman River Advisory Council, 1969), pp. 1-2.
48

Boardman River Advisory Council. First Annual Report. (South
Boardman, Michigan, Boardman River Advisory Council, 1971), p. 2.

43
reacting to oil and gas exploration, drilling and construction;
natural rivers planning; the Atlantic Salmon proposal; cautioning
against unrestricted use of ATV's; establishment of a natural
educatien reserve; and sponsoring information meetings.
Description of the Activities of the Boardman River Advisory
Council.

The following descriptions of activities the Boardman

River Advisory Council has been involved in are in part based on
comments derived from interviews.

49

The summaries that follow are

meant to provide some perspective on concerns and direction of the
council and also to provide a basis upon which the overall impact
of these activities on better water quality management planning can
be evaluated.
1.

Encouraging Green Belt Zoning
The first major project of the Boardman River Advisory Council

concerned the promotion of greenbelt zoning in Kalkaska and Grand
Traverse Counties.

It was generally felt within the Council and the

counties involved that a greenbelt ordinance would provide a stop-gap
measure against unsound development and construction practices until
more comprehensive zoning could be initiated.
The ordinance prepared was patterned after one developed by the
Ausable River Watershed Study Council in 1968."^

It was viewed by

valley residents as too restrictive because of its provisions allowing

49

Interview with Gordon Hayward, Past Chairman, Boardman River
Advisory Council, East Lansing, Michigan, February 5, 1974.
Interview
with George S a m s , Chairman Boardman River Advisory Council, Traverse
City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
“^Ausable River Watershed Study Council. Greenbelt Zoning
Ordinance.
(Roscommon, Michigan, Ausable River Watershed Study
Council, 1968).

44
clearance of only 25' of river frontage, restrictions against altering
land within 50' of the river, and the requirement that the house had
to be the furthermost dwelling from the r i v e r T h e

extent of oppo­

sition that developed over the ordinance resulted in an unsuccessful
bid for adoption.

As a result of the greenbelt proposal, a movement

developed within the townships along the river to adopt zoning that
would include protection of the riverbank and the water quality.

The

Council did, in effect, accomplish its purpose by stimulating an
awareness of the importance of zoning among the townships along the
river.
2.

Survey of the River
The Boardman River Advisory Council sponsored a foot survey of

the river to help identify problem areas.

Volunteers involved

included individuals and groups from service clubs, schools, and youth
groups.

An inventory of areas showing signs of deterioration and

other current and potential hazards to water quality were recorded.
The results of this survey were intended to help agencies, units of
government, and individuals recognize problems within the watershed
and otherwise stimulate interest in the correction of these problems.
3.

Watching Over and Reacting to Oil and Gas Exploration, Drilling,
and Construction
The major contribution made by the Council to water quality

management has probably been in working with the Public Service Com­
mission and the Department of Natural Resources in overseeing the

"^Ibid.
(A copy of the ordinance prepared by the Boardman
River Advisory Council was not available for review, so reference is
being drawn to the ordinance from which the Boardman ordinance was
developed.)

45
oil and gas development in the watershed.

The Council, in addition

to several information-education meetings held on the subject, has
developed a position paper on oil and gas development within the
Boardman River Watershed.

52

This policy has been incorporated into

the overall state policy on oil and gas development.

It has also

been largely accepted and adhered to by oil and gas companies working
• ^
xn
the area. 53
In their efforts to continue to help develop useful policy for
the protection of the watershed, the Council also prepared a statement
on gas pipeline duplication:
"Due to the aesthetic and environmental impact of the
construction and presence of gas gathering systems in
areas of high quality surface waters and great natural
beauty, the Boardman River Advisory Council opposes any
unnecessary duplication of facilities by Michigan
Consolidated Gas Company and Consumers Power Company.
The Grand Traverse County and Kalkaska County area of
the Boardman River Watershed is such an area of high
quality rivers and lakes, as well as exceptional
natural beauty. The wasteful destruction of this
land and water by pipelines and associated equipment
should not be permitted.
The Boardman River Advisory Council therefore urges
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Consumers Power
Company, and the Michigan Public Service Commission
to develop a "Least Destructive" gas gathering sys­
tem by pipeline sharing wherever possible in this
region."54

52

Boardman River Advisory Council. Policy on Oil and Gas
Development Within the Boardman River Watershed. (S. Boardman,
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1971).
53

Interview with George Sarns, Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, Traverse City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
54

Boardman River Advisory Council. Policy Statement on Gas
Pipeline Duplication (S. Boardman, Michigan:
Boardman River Advisory
Council, 1971).

46
Copies were sent to all units of government and to affected parties.
The Council felt the responses and results to the statement were
^ 55
good.
In June 1972, the Council became concerned about siltation
resulting from a Michigan Consolidated Gas Company pipeline crossing
on Failing Creek, a tributary of the Boardman River.

They were

concerned not only because they thought a violation had occurred,
but because of possible adverse effects on spawning beds downstream.^
On discussion of the matter with the Department of Natural Resources,
in light of their Stream Crossing Guidelines, it was determined that
the Gas Company had failed to take the necessary precautions.

57

No

action was taken against the Company, but the incident stands as an
example of the "watchdog function of the Council in recognizing
problems and bringing them to the attention of agencies and units
of government."
4.

58

Natural Rivers Planning
The Council has come out strongly in favor of the Natural Rivers

Program because of the protection it would provide the river.

The

Council and the Traverse Bay Regional Planning Commission have taken

■^Boardman River Advisory Council.
Second Annual Report. (S.
Boardman, Michigan:
Boardman River Advisory Council, 1972), p. 3.
■^Boardman River Advisory Council. Third Annual Report (S.
Boardman, Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1973), p. 3.

Interview with Gordon Hayward. Past Chairman, Boardman River
Advisory Council, East Lansing, Michigan, February 5, 1974.

47
an active role in the planning and implementation phases of the
Natural Rivers Act.

Largely due to the activities of these two groups

the number of resolutions necessary to begin work on a management plan
have been obtained.

A task force made up of local, regional, and

state planning people is currently working on the development of a
management plan.

To date, the plan recommends that the whole Boardman

River be included under the program.

It also suggests that the upper

reaches be designated as wild scenic, and the downriver area as
country scenic.

59

The state will review the plan once it is com­

pleted, designate how the river will be classified under the program,
and give the affected units of government a year to prepare natural
rivers zoning.

The Council will continue to provide assistance and

advice to the units of government it serves that will be affected by
the program.
5.

Atlantic Salmon Proposal
The Department of Natural Resources developed a program proposal

for bringing Atlantic Salmon into the Boardman River.

The Council

held several public meetings and panel discussions on the issue.
They were suspicious of the implications of such a program.

They

cited no real objection to the salmon plant itself, but rather to the
problem of controlling people if the program was instituted.

60

The

Department of Natural Resources has shelved the proposal at this time
on the basis of local reaction, and so that they can study further
the feasibility of such a program.

59

Interview with George Sarns, Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, Traverse City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
^ B o a r d m a n River Advisory Council. Fourth Annual Report. (S.
Boardman, Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1974), p. 1.

48
6.

Cautioning Against the Unrestricted Use of ATV's
The Council is concerned about the growing use of off-the-road

vehicles and the damage that results from their unrestricted use.
They have submitted a resolution to the Grand Traverse County Boardof Commissioners requesting that the Board support the Council's
recommendations.^

The Council's recommendations emphasize protection

of sensitive areas and private property.

It was their feeling, "that

ATV's should be limited to the use of existing trail roads, county
roads and highways, or designated trails or private lands with the
written permission of the land owner."
7.

62

Establishment of a Natural Education Reserve
Several resolutions were sponsored by the Council encouraging

Grand Traverse County to formally establish and develop the Sabin
Dam Recreation Area and a Natural Education Reserve Center.

The

area was a gift of land from Consumer's Power when they abandoned
their dams located South of Traverse City.

63

The Council wants to

see the land preserved for a park and natural-education area.

When

the county decides to act on the property, the Rotary and the Council
will be disposed to release the money they voted to establish a
natural information center within the area.

64

61Ibid.
62

Interview with George Sams.
Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, Traverse City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
63„ . .
Ibid.
64T,. ,
Ibid.

49
8.

Sponsoring Information Meetings
In addition to information-education meetings and panel discus­

sions sponsored on the issues and topics previously discussed, the
Council has held special public meetings to discuss topics relating
to water and related land use, solid waste disposal, water quality,
the Boardman Study and others.
The Council has also worked with the Health Department to require
holding tanks for all new developments in the valley.

They have,

in addition, through designated representatives, worked on the prep­
aration of the Boardman River Study, a comprehensive analysis of the
physical, economic, and social aspects associated with the Boardman
River Watershed.

65

Evaluation and Recommendations
The following general conclusions are drawn on the contribution
and impact the Boardman River Advisory Council has made in the area
of water quality management planning:
(1)

Consistent with the resources available to the Council, the
contribution and impact made has been positive.

(2)

Contribution has been primarily in the area of giving
advice and assistance and otherwise providing information
or applying pressure

(3)

Most significant impact has been felt with the Council's
input in greenbelt zoning, oil and gas exploration policy,
and in the Natural Rivers Program

65
Johnson, Johnson and Roy. Boardman River Study (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Johnson, Johnson and Roy, 1973.)

(4)

Impact and contribution was most effective from 1969-1972.
In the subsequent years, except for the Natural Rivers
Program, there has been a decline in visible Council
activity and initiative

What the Council needs, outside of a new problem, is to gather together
its membership and redefine its purposes and objectives in light of
current problems and issues.

Specific suggestions include improvement

of visibility and credibility; development by the Council’s executive
board a few short range action programs and establishment of a
membership drive to improve participation; alignment of the Council
with related organizations both within and outside the watershed;
continuation and expansion of contacts such as those with the Elk
River Watershed Council; and exploration of grants from foundations
and other organizations on an on-going basis by a special committee.
Additional funds might improve the Council's effectiveness by allow­
ing it to engage in independent study of the watershed.

Funds might

also allow development of specific programs and projects such as a
stream monitoring network for the Boardman.
The problems and needs laid out in the Boardman River Study give
the Council sufficient reason to take a hard look at what they are
doing and where they are going.
service to the area.

The Council has provided a useful

It can continue to do so through its efforts

at examining issues, problems, and concerns in promoting action.

51
Elk River Watershed Council
Description of the Watershed and General Water Quality.

The

territory of the Elk River Watershed covers some 500 square miles in
Charlevoix, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska and Antrim Counties (see Figure
4).

The Elk River, extending from Elk Lake to Elk Rapids on Grand

Traverse Bay, is a small feature of the watershed.

At one time, the

Elk River stretched north-eastward to the Bellaire area.

The Elk

River lost most of its identity as a river as a result of the construc­
tion of dams along its length during the lumbering era.

Created in

the wake of these dams were a series of lakes which have come to be
known as the "Chain-of-Lakes."
in the lower chain.

These consist primarily of those lakes

These lakes are:

Elk, Skegemog, Torch, Clam and

Bellaire.
The lakes have become the most outstanding and valuable resource
in the watershed.

The watershed is considered a prime recreation area

as a result of their attraction.

Recreation continues to represent

the largest and most extensive water use.

Due to the increased demand

and use being made of the lakes, water quality has become a focus of
growing concern.
In a study of the lakes' water quality, the following general
statements were made:
(1)

The lakes are in good condition generally, with respect to
water quality.

Eutrophic conditions are confined largely

to the lakes in the Upper Chain
(2)

There are indications of added nutrients and a resultant
change in productivity in certain areas of the lakes.

The

indicators are (a) algal growths along the margins of lakes;

• AY |

Nowweeo

tUU:

rsu
tapidi

Cl

\ KALKASKA CO.

KA
CAST

S C ALE

10
Figure A.

Elk River Watershed

to

53
(b) chemical tests; (c) aquatic insects found in the bottom
muds and; (d) bacterial samples
(3)

The added use of the water by people and the increase in
population around the lakes will increase the possibility
of added nutrients to the l a k e s ^

It appears, upon more specific examination, that the most serious
threats to the water quality of the lakes involves development and
clearing along the shoreline, resulting nutrient enrichment from
runoff, and septic tank drainage and industrial effluent.
Improvements on some local zoning regulations have helped in
controlling the first of these two threats, with introduction of
greenbelts and requirements for sealed septic systems.

Agricultural

practices are not considered a serious threat to water quality.

Some

feedlot drainage does occur; but for the most part, surface runoff
and sedimentation resulting from farming is considered to have only
a minimal impact on water quality.

67

Over-development of unsuitable

land (areas like that around the Skegemog Swamp which are character­
ized by high water tables and poorly drained soils) is considered
a serious potential erosion and drainage threat to the continued
high water quality of the lower lakes.

68

fifl

L. Curry,
Summary Report of Projects Conducted on the Chain-ofLakes, (Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, 1971),
pp. 11-12.
67

D. Benjamin; R. Brinker; C. Dalebout; W. Gill; D. Hann, A Base
Line Study of the Upper Chain-of-Lakes with Reference to Several Sta­
tions in the Lower Chain, (Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan
University, 1970), p. 7.

68

Interview with E. Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council,
Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

54
The third of these threats to the water quality of the Chain-ofLakes concerns industrial effluent.

Most of the communities in the

area still rely on independent septic tanks.

As a result, the oppor­

tunity for industrial tie-ins with municipal waste treatment facilities
has been minimal.

The problem is currently not too serious, due to the

fact that few industries are tied to the Chain-of-Lakes.

The last

available recorded count shows the following industries operating in
the Elk River Basin:

69

Columbia Fruit Division, Michigan Fruit Canners, Inc.
Type: food
Location: Ellsworth
Receiving water:
Intermediate Lake
Problems: Bean deposits causing BOD and coliforms
Elk Rapids Packing Company
Type: food
Locations: Elk Rapids
Receiving water: Elk Lake
Problems: Solids, sugars producing black fungus along
shoreline
Faas Foods, Inc..
Type: food
Location: Central Lake
Receiving water: Intermediate Lake
Problems: Chrome plating wastes one or two times a year,
along with copper and cyanide wastes
Central Lake Industries
Type: metal
Location: Central Lake
Receiving water: Intermediate Lake
Problems: Solids
Of the five industries, the Elk Rapids Packing Company is the
only one located in the lower chain.

They currently provide for

some screening and odor treatment of their cherry packing wastes.

69

Student Water Publications, The Elk River Watershed, (E. Lans­
ing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Student Water Publications,

1970), p. 2.

55
The plant employs no other form of waste treatment.^

It appears,

however, that the impact of introducing wastes and nutrients has its
greatest adverse effects on the shallower, less temperature-stable
lakes in the upper chain:

Intermediate, Central, Hanley, Benway,

Wilson, Ellsworth, St. Clair, Six Mile, Scotts and Beal L a k e s . ^
Reductions in the water quality of these lakes will have an effect on
maintaining the high water quality currently characteristic of the
lower Chain-of-Lakes.

Concern over this and over increasing develop­

ment and use of the water resources in the lakes of the lower chain,
has prompted the formation of several lake associations and a water­
shed council.

Among their efforts have been promoting the protection

and preservation of the water and land resources in the basin.
Development of the Elk River Watershed Council.

The Elk River

Watershed Council, originally named the Elk River Drainage Basin
Council, was organized in April 1969.

The Council was established

to serve municipalities and organizations in Antrim, Charlevoix,
Grand Traverse and Kalkaska Counties.

The original stimulus for the

formation of the Council came as a result of concern from within
this area over increasing development and water use pressures that
were felt to pose a potential threat to the protection and preser­
vation of the water quality of the lakes in the watershed.

Interview with Thomas Kampinen. Michigan Bureau of Water
Management, Water Quality Control Section, Lansing, Michigan, May 1,
1974.
^ D . Benjamin; R. Brinker; C. Dalebout; W. Gill and D. Hann. A
Base Line Study of the Upper Chain-O-Lakes with Reference to Several
Stations in the Lower Chain. (Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central
Michigan University, 1970).

56
The perspective of the Council is the entire watershed.

The

primary focus, however, has been the Chain-of-Lakes, especially those
within the lower chain.

In pursuit of this, the Council has identi­

fied the following as its purposes:
(1)

Study land and water uses of the Elk River Watershed, assess
the changes that are taking place and formulate recommen­
dations for review and action thereon by the member
governing bodies

(2)

Develop policies and programs designed to prevent further
deterioration of the quality of the water, land related
resources of the Elk River Watershed

(3)

Serve as a study group to assimilate and coordinate all
actions concerning the Elk River Watershed

(4)

Serve as an advisory group to the governing bodies con­
cerned with the Elk River Watershed and to promote cooperation between them

72

In an effort to accomplish these objectives, the Council has
opened its membership to representatives from local units of govern­
ment and organizations within the four-county area it serves.

Vol­

untary membership has produced something less than the total number
of units eligible for membership on the Elk River Watershed Council.
This has been a characteristic of all councils established under
Act 200.

72

Realization by local government units of the need to get

Elk River Watershed Council, Organization Bylaws, (Williamsburg,
Michigan, Elk River Watershed Council, 1973), p. 1.

57
their representatives to attend meetings regularly is one of the
big problems the Council has had to contend with.

73

The following organizations have been invited to participate
on the Council:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)

Antrim County Farm Bureau
Antrim Soil Conservation District
Bellaire Sportsman's Club
Charlevoix Soil Conservation District
Elk Rapids Sportsman's Club
Elk-Skegemog Lakes Association
Grand Traverse Soil Conservation District
Kalkaska Soil Conservation District
Mancelona Liar's Club
Three Lakes Association
Upper Intermediate Chain-O-Lakes Association
Upper Torch Lake Association^

Among these, the lake associations have been most act i v e . ^

The

lake associations have helped bring an element of strength to the
Council through the support and activity of their membership.

Develop­

ing out of this alignment has been a steady line of communication
and cooperation that has, in part, contributed to the early recog­
nition of problems in the watershed.
The members participating on the Council do not all support the
Council financially.

Like the other watershed councils established

under Act 200, financial support has not been a prerequisite to
membership or voting privileges.

One exception to the voting privilege

does exist with the Elk River Watershed Council.

That exception is,

73

Interview with E. Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council,
Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.
74

Elk River Watershed Council, Organization Bylaws, (Williamsburg,
Michigan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1973), p. 2.
^Interview with Chet Worthington, Vice Chairman, Elk River Water­
shed Council, Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

58
"Interested individuals and representatives of the State and Federal
agencies cooperating with the Elk River Watershed Council shall be
eligible to participate as non-voting members of the Council and
serve on committees."

76

The activities the Elk River Watershed Council has become
involved in reflect a concern to first provide an informationeducation service to local government units and individuals, and
second to assist them in promoting resource protection.

Among the

more prominent activities and concerns the Council has been involved
in are:
(1)

Working with local government units and organizations to
provide for better zoning controls and waste disposal
systems

(2)

Working with the Three Lakes Association on:
a)

getting the Grass River area established as a
conservancy district

b)

supporting water quality studies on the Chain-of-Lakes

(3)

Establishment of legal lake levels

(4)

Oil and gas exploration, drilling, and construction

(5)

Protection of the Skegemog Swamp

(6)

Request by the Elk Rapids Packing Company to continue
discharging wastes into Elk Lake

(7)

Information-education services

76
Elk River Watershed Council. Organization Bylaws, (Williams­
burg, Michigan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1973), pp. 2-3.

59
Description of the Activities and Concerns of the Elk River
Watershed Council.
(1) Improvement of Zoning Controls and Waste Disposal Systems
The Elk River Watershed Council had its beginnings rooted in
concern over the need it recognized to provide for controls on develop­
ment and use of the resources in the area.

The Council served as

somewhat of a protagonist, in that the concerns and problems it
recognized were not generally shared by a majority of local govern­
ment units and individuals.

Units of government were concerned about

tax revenues that would be lost as a result of restricting development,
and individuals resented being told how to develop or use their land.
In spite of the opposition it received to its recommendations, the
Council began encouraging the development or improvement of zoning
controls among townships in the lower watershed area.
Partially as a result of the pressure it was able to apply, the
Council was successful in encouraging a number of townships to adopt
or otherwise provide for improvements in existing ordinances.

Among

those townships adopting ordinances were all the townships in Grand
Traverse County, Clearwater township in Kalkaska County, and Custer
township in Antrim County.^

Provisions for greenbelting and

secondary development were built into some of these ordinances, such
as the ordinance passed by Whitewater Township in Grand Traverse
County.

Antrim County and Whitewater Township, on the suggestion of

the Council, reviewed and incorporated in their ordinances aspects
from the model greenbelt ordinance drafted by the Ausable River

^Interview with C. Worthington, Vice Chairman, Elk River Water­
shed Council, Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

Watershed Study Council.

78

The Elk River Watershed Council was also

instrumental in recommending improvement of Whitewater Township’s
ordinances by suggesting control over secondary development (where
one lot would give access to the lake for a number of subdivided lots
79
behind it).

The idea was to discourage unscrupulous subdividing of

off-shore property by providing limits on the density of development
that was to be allowed.

80

In addition, the Council has been working with Kalkaska, Grand
Traverse, Antrim and Charlevoix Counties in an effort to encourage
them to draft and improve county-wide zoning and land use legislation.
Utilizing soils information provided by the local soil conservation
districts, the Council and the Elk-Skegemog Lakes Association have
encouraged the local health departments to review their sanitary
codes and require sealed septic systems in areas characterized by
high water tables or poorly drained soils.
(2)

81

Work by the Council with the Three Lakes Association
(a)

Establishment of the Grass River Conservancy

The Grass River, which connects Clam Lake with Lake Bellaire,
was established as a wildlife-wilderness preserve largely as a result
of the efforts and activities of the Elk River Watershed Council and
the Three Lakes Association.

Performing the necessary legwork of

contacting property owners and securing pledges, the two groups

78T, . ,
Ibid.
79T, . .
Ibid.
80

Interview with E. Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council,
Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

61
assisted the Soil Conservation Service in the designation of the area
as a Conservancy District.

The Council was also successful in

securing a grant of $30,000 from the Kresge Foundation for establish­
ing the preserve.
(b)

Supporting Water Quality Studies on the Chain-of-Lakes

The Elk River Watershed Council and the Three Lakes Association
were among the sponsors of several water quality studies performed on
the Chain-of-Lakes.

82

The objectives of these studies were to deter­

mine the quality of the lakes within the chain and to identify and
locate types and sources of pollution.

-A variety of approaches

designed to deal with the specific problems identified within the
studies were developed by local units of government, organizations,
and individuals using the information obtained in these studies.
(3)

Establishment of Legal Lake Levels

The Council has long been concerned about the conditions of the
dams on the Chain-of-Lakes and their ability to insure stable lake
levels.

Working with the Antrim County Board of Commissioners, the

Council was able to secure the purchase of three abandoned dams (at
Charlevoix, Bellaire and Elk Rapids) owned by Consumers Power Company.

83

The dams were originally used to raise and lower the water

82

D. Benjamin; R. Brinker; C. Dalebout; W. Gill; D. Haan. A Base
Line Study of the Upper Chain-of-Lakes with Reference to Several Sta­
tions in the Lower Chain. (Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan
University, 1970).
L. Curry, Summary Report of Projects Conducted on the Chain-of
Lakes. (Mt. Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, 1971).
83

Interview with C. Worthington, Vice-Chairman, Elk River Water­
shed Council, Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

62
for power production.

They were phased out by Consumers and have

since fallen into disrepair.

Antrim County has remodeled the dams

in order that lake levels could be raised and legally stabilized.
As a result of a Circuit Court decision handed down in October
1973, legal water
(4)

84
levels have been set.

Concern with Oil and Gas Exploration, Drilling and
Construction

The Elk River Watershed Council, in February 1972, drafted a
statement on oil and gas development in which they outlined their
position.

85

Within the statement, the Council identified three

categories of land use. where oil and gas development may or may not
take

place, based on the ability of various land conditions tosup­

port

this type of activity.

The Council also recommended theprep­

aration, evaluation, and utilization of an environmental impact
statement for all new oil and gas development.
The Council’s concern is the proper regulation and location of
oil and gas drilling pipeline construction.

As it did following the

Williamsburg incident, the Council continues to work with local and

84

Elk River Watershed Council, Minutes of a Regular Meeting,
November 1973.
85

Elk River Watershed Council, Statement on Gas and Oil Policy,
Williamsburg, Michigan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1972).

state agencies and units of government, individuals, companies, and
interest groups toward the proper regulation and development of
watershed oil and gas resources.
(5)

86

Protection of the Skegemog Swamp

The Skegemog Swamp is a wildlife habitat of some 1200 acres
along the Southern edge of Lake Skegemog in Clearwater Township.
The Council has been working with local and state agencies including
the Soil Conservation Service and Kalkaska County Board of Commis­
sioners, local township boards, and individual landowners in an
effort to put this area into a conservancy district.

The approach

has been similar to that followed with the designation of the Grass
River area; but due to the size and landownership pattern associated
with the Skegemog Swamp area, the necessary commitments from private
landowners have not yet all been gained.

The Council is continuing

its efforts at encouraging pledges of private and state land for the
purpose of creating this conservancy and preventing further develop­
ment, thereby providing for the preservation and protection of the
residence area of wildlife living in the swamp.

87

86

Year Old Gas Dispute Bubbles On, Detroit Free Press, April 21,
1974, p. 1;
State of Michigan, Office of the Attorney General, "Record
Recovery for State from Williamsburg Natural Gas Eruptions." Environ­
mental Newsletter, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of the Attorney
General, Environmental Protection and Natural Resources Division,
May 15, 1974), pp. 1-2;
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, "Well
Drilling Safeguards to be Discussed at Meeting," News Bulletin,
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, May 30, 1974),
p. 2.
87

Interview with E. Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council,
Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

64
(6)

Concern Over the Continued Discharge of Wastes into Elk
Lake By the Elk Rapids Packing Company

The Elk Rapids Packing Company, early in 1974, filed an appli­
cation with the Michigan Water Resources Commission for authorization
to continue discharging cherry packing wastes into Elk Lake.

88

The

Elk River Watershed Council and the Elk-Skegemog Lake Association
petitioned the Water Resources Commission to deny the authorization
on the basis of the sludge and odor the wastes were creating.

The

Commission’s decision was to authorize continuation of discharge under
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

The

packing plant was given public notice April 27, 1974, that it would
be allowed to continue discharging with current screening of cherry
packing wastes until May 1, 1975.

89

The packing plant, after that

date, has to provide for an alternate waste disposal system.

The

company has since chosen the method of land disposal as preferable to
the cost requirements associated with sharing the expense of a municipal treatment plant with the City of Elk Rapids.
(7)

90

Information and Education Services

In an effort to educate citizens, local governments, organi­
zations and the like on the need for resource protection, the Council

Interview with T. Kamppinen, Michigan Bureau of Water Manage­
ment, Water Quality Control Section, May 1, 1974.
89

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission, Authorization
for the Elk Rapids Packing Company to Discharge Under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, (Lansing, Michigan: Water
Resources Commission, April, 1974).
90

Interview with T. Kamppinen, Michigan Bureau of Water Manage­
ment, Water Quality Control Section, May 1, 1974.

65
has taken a number of steps to encourage an awareness of problems and
to suggest methods for controlling and correcting them.

Among the

steps taken have been:
(1)

Sponsoring an environmental poster contest in the local
schools to draw attention to ecology and conservation

(2)

Publication of several information brochures outlining some
common problems with suggestions for controlling land
alterations, developing a greenbelt strip to reduce runoff
and prevent erosion, controlling wakes from boats, and
others

(3)

Informing local government units and individuals of soil
erosion occurring along cleared lakefront, on improperly
protected ski slopes and along state and county highways
in the watershed

Evaluation and General Recommendations.

The Elk River Watershed

Council enjoys a particularly favorable position among the other water­
shed councils established under Act 200, in that it commands an element of strength and visibility missing among the other Councils.

91

This is due in large part to the relationship the council has with
the four lake associations in the watershed.

They are the Elk-

Skegemog Lakes Association, Three Lakes Association, Torch Lake
Association, and Upper Intermediate Chain-of-Lakes Association.

The

most involved and active members on the Elk River Watershed Council

91

State of Michigan, Intermunicipality Committee Act, Act 200,
Public Act of 1957.

66
are those from the lake associations.

92

These lake associations bring

to the Council not only a steady line of information, but the ability
and power to exert influence brought about by the joining of its
efforts with those of the Council.

The two groups are closely

aligned in terms of their goals and objectives.

The Watershed Coun­

cil has been able, with the help of the lake associations, to make
significant contributions to the protection and improvement of the
water quality conditions in the area.

Changes in attitudes toward

zoning and land use controls as well as changes in the scope of
these, preservation of environmentally-sensitive areas such as the
Grass River, and assistance provided by the Council in helping
establish legal lake levels have been most important in terms of
the impact the watershed council has made on water quality manage­
ment.

The Council has also played an information-education function

by identifying problems and by informing individuals, agencies and
units affected of measures they can follow to control or correct
water quality management problems.
The Elk River Watershed Council provides a needed service to the
watershed, and can continue to do so by further strengthening its
relationships with special interest groups within the watershed.

The

Council also needs to build on its relationships with other watershed
councils and with state and regional agencies.

Based on the activi­

ties and concerns the Council has involved itself in, they should have
more than enough resources at their disposal to actively seek out

92

Interview with E. Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council,
Williamsburg, Michigan, April 22, 1974.

67
information from other groups on how to deal with similar problems
and where to obtain further assistance.

They might also attempt

to seek out a broader base of representation by members and actively
work on obtaining more grants similar to the one secured from the
Kresge Foundation for the Grass River Area.

Special projects, such as

the valuable relationship built up with the lake associations, will
go a long way toward helping the Council gain additional respect and
visibility in the watershed.
The Elk River Watershed Council will continue to make an impact
on water quality management by keeping informed and by having current
knowledge of where to go and what to do in problem situations.

It

is important for the Council to realize that they have a valuable
resource in an interested, concerned and involved membership.

They

should take advantage of this resource and mobilize it into an
information and data gathering unit.

The service the Council now

provides could conceivably then be improved and expanded, resulting
in an even more important role for the Council in future preservation
and protection of the water and related land resources in the
watershed.

68
Jordan River Watershed Council
Description of the Watershed and General Water Quality.

The

Jordan River watershed is characteristically similar to the Elk
and Boardman watersheds, in that they share the same general area
in the northwest portion of Michigan's lower peninsula (see
Figure 5).

The Jordan River Watershed is the smallest of the

three, occupying some 160 square miles of largely undeveloped
private land in parts of Antrim and Charlevoix Counties.

The remain­

der, approxmiately 25% of the land in the watershed, is state-owned
as the Jordan River State Forest and public access sites.

93

The Jordan River has its beginnings in Warner Township, Antrim
County, and flows approximately 34 miles north to Charlevoix County
where it discharges into the end of Lake Charlevoix at East Jordan.
The river has two major tributaries— the Green River and Deer Creek.
The river is bounded largely by wilderness and undeveloped privatelyowned land.

As a result of this lack of disturbance, the river

enjoys a reputation for high water quality and excellent trout
fishing.

94

The quality of the river and surrounding resources has

served to attract an increasing number of recreationists.

The

problem created is primarily one of protection against overuse.
There is also the problem of controlling and regulating development

93

J . Shauver. A Preliminary Survey of the Jordan River Water­
shed, (East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968),

p. 1.
94

J. Morgan. Biological Survey of the Jordan River, (East Jor­
dan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969), pp. 12-13.

WEST
TRAVERSE

TRAVERSE

H arbor
Spring!
P e to a k e

CHARLEVOIX

CHARLEVOIX

BEAR

rievoix

CREEK
Ha

y e s

NOWWOOD
v a n o elin

ne City

Ellawa

Bojrai
ILBON

o
BOYNE
VALLEY

TORCH
LAKE

LAKE

C entral
ELK
RARI

Figure S.

Jordan River Watershed

70
that may occur as a result of the privately-owned, undeveloped land
being converted into residential use.
Most of the water quality problems in the watershed revolve
around these two basic issues.

There are threats to the water quality

from riverbank alteration and clearance brought on by overuse and
development.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

The

More specifically, this includes concern over:

Maintenance of riverbank stability
Controlling silt and sedimentation
Controlling surface runoff and erosion
Protecting fish habitats, stream temperature, and
oxygen stability
Minimizing nutrient enrichment of the river from improperly
located and operating septic tank systems
single, most important step taken to help control and cor­

rect these problems has been with zoning; the most recent manifes­
tation of this being the protection that will soon be provided the
Jordan and its tributaries under the Michigan Natural Rivers Program.
Development of the Jordan River Watershed Council.

The Jordan

River Watershed Council was organized out of recognition by various
people in the watershed of both actual and potential threats to the
maintenance of the quality of the Jordan River.

Established on

January 15, 1968, the Council represents the culmination of efforts
that began as early as 1961 to develop an organization to oversee
the management of the Jordan watershed.

Most of this effort was

confined to a series of four public awareness meetings held in 1967.
The meetings included programs, presentations, discussions, and
workshops.

They were promoted by the Antrim and Charlevoix County

Extension Services with the objective of getting the local people
involved in identifying problems, recommending courses of action,
and agreeing on an approach to deal with these problems.

Growing out

71
of the meetings was a new awareness and interest in establishing a
more formal effort to study and help manage the resources in the
watershed.
Due to various management alternatives discussed during the
meetings, the "Save the Jordan" Steering Committee was formed to (1)
examine possible enabling legislation for

the establishment of a

formal watershed council, and (2) involve

the eleven localgovern-

ments in the formal organization.

95

Act 200 was chosen as the

organizational framework for the proposed watershed council on the
recommendation of the Steering Committee.
With its formal organization in 1968, the Jordan River Watershed
Council established the following purposes:
(1)

To study land and water uses of

the Jordan River watershed,

assess the changes that are taking place and formulate
recommendations for review and action thereon by the
member governing bodies
(2)

To develop policies and programs designed to prevent
deterioration of the quality of the Jordan River watershed

(3)

To serve as a study group to assimilate and coordinate
all actions concerning the Jordan River watershed

(4)

To serve as an advisory group to the governmental units
concerned with the Jordan River watershed and to promote
cooperation between these u n i t s ^

95

A. Judson and C. R. Humphrys.
"Save the Jordan— The Jordan
River Watershed Program, (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, Student Water Publications, 1971), p. 10.
^ J o r d a n River Watershed Council. Organization Bylaws, (East Jor­
dan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968), p. 1.

Membership is open primarily to townships and counties in the
watershed and includes the Village of Mancelona and the City of East
Jordan.

As has been the case with other councils established under

Act 200, selected organizations have been invited to participate,
among them the Antrim and Charlevoix County Soil Conservation
Districts.

97

Despite the fact that each of the government units passed a
resolution supporting the establishment of a council, active participation and attendance at meetings has not been all that good.

98

Most of the program and financial support for the Council has come
from the counties in the watershed.
Four program areas relative to the direction and emphasis the
Council would take were established to deal with the issues facing
both the Watershed Council and the watershed.

Selected program areas

included financing, highway development, land development and
control, and the Department of Natural Resources plans for the
watershed.

99

The establishment of committees to deal with problems

and issues identified by the Council as being part of these program
areas was the next step.

Committees were appointed on land use,

public relations, water use, roads and highways, and finance.

97

Ibid., p. 2.

98

Interview with E. Rebman, Charlevoix County Extension Agent,
Boyne City, Michigan, April 23, 1974.
99
* Ibid.
A. Judson and C. R. Humphrys.
"Save the Jordan"— The Jordan
River Watershed Program. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University Student Water Publications, 1971), p. 10.

73
The activities and concerns the Council has involved itself in follow
this general pattern with most of the emphasis falling on concern
for providing controls to protect the river and surrounding land.
The more prominent activities and concerns the Council has
involved itself in are:
(1)

Operation of the federal fish hatchery and proposed plans
by the Department of Natural Resources to build a new
state hatchery on the Jordan

(2)

Preparation of reports on the Jordan River

(3)

Development of a greenbelt zoning ordinance

(4)

Support and assistance to the Department of Natural Resources
and local units of government in their efforts to bring the
Jordan River under the Natural Rivers Protection Program

Description of the Activities and Concerns of the Jordan River
Watershed Council.
(1)

Concern over the Operation of the Federal Fish Hatchery
and the Proposed Plans by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources to Build a New State Hatchery on the
Jordan River

The Jordan River National Fish Hatchery near Alba became an early
focus of attention by the Council as a result of the untreated
effluent being discharged from the hatchery into the Jordan and two
of its feeder streams.

A survey was performed on the Jordan which

included an analysis of the effects of the hatchery on nutrient levels
present in the Jordan downstream from the hatchery.

The study

determined:
"The water that is returned to the Jordan River
does not enter a settling or other nutrient removal
system. The total nutrients discharged into the river
each year is about 100 tons. The comparison of

74
nutrients present above, below, and in the hatchery
are still apparent 0.3-0.5 miles downstream. The
nutrients are those that generally aid plant growth.
Upon examination, a clear conclusion is that these
added nutrients stimulate marked increase algal and
aquatic plant growth, which is not desirable in a
stream such as the Jordan River which is an excel­
lent trout stream because of its cold temperature
and nearly complete lack of nutrients."101
Based on these conclusions, the Watershed Council met with the
hatchery officials to discuss their findings, the operation of the
hatchery, and its effect on the Jordan River.

The officials initially

took the position that the enrichment that entered the stream was
actually beneficial.

102

They did agree, however, that if an impartial

study could be performed to show pollution was occurring as a result
of the effluent, the hatchery would take steps to eliminate it.
A request was filed by the Council with the U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, for a follow-up study of the
water quality in the Jordan River.

103

The Federal Water Pollution

Control Administration (now the Federal Water Quality Administration)
performed the water quality studies below the Jordan River National
Fish Hatchery.

It determined that the hatchery was contributing

significant amounts of fish-fecal material and unconsumed fish food
into the Jordan.

The agency recommended the development of a settling

basin to handle waste effluent from the hatchery.

J . Shauver. A Preliminary Survey of the Jordan River Water­
shed, (East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968),
pp. 18-19.

102

A. Judson and C. R. Humphrys.
"Save the Jordan"— The Jordan
River Watershed Program. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, Student Water Publications, p. 16.
103

Jordan River Watershed Council, Second Annual Report, (East
Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969), p. 3.

75
The Council was instrumental in informing the public of the fact
that the federal fish hatchery was polluting the Jordan River.
Largely as a result of the pressure and influence the Council was
able to exercise, the hatchery now has a settling basin designed
to settle out 90% of the solid organic material from the effluent.

104

The proposal by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to
build a coho salmon hatchery near Chestonia was strongly opposed by
the Jordan River Watershed Council.

The proposal to build the new

hatchery was offered in 1968 at the same time problems with the
federal-fish hatchery were surfacing.

The Council's opposition, as

well as the opposition registered by a majority of local government
units, groups, and individuals in the watershed, centered on the
contention that the hatchery would pollute the Jordan with fish
waste and would necessitate controls on the river during the coho
spawning run.

105

A series of public meetings were called by the Council in an
effort to draw further attention to the adverse effects associated
with placing another hatchery on the Jordan River.

The Department

of Natural Resources, because of the extent of opposition and in an
attempt to remove some of the suspicion surrounding the proposal,
indicated the hatchery would not be built until it could be guaranteed

^ ^ J . Morgan, Biological Survey of the Jordan River, (East Jordan,
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969), p. 13.
Jordan River Watershed Council, Resolution Opposing Creation
of a State Fish Hatchery on the Jordan River, (East Jordan, Michigan:
Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968).

76
there would be no pollution.

106

This did not, however, allay the

fears of those groups and individuals who were concerned about the
impact of the coho on the ability of the Jordan to continue supporting
its trout population.^*7
The original plans to construct the hatchery in 1970 were post­
poned until such time as the Department of Natural Resources could
verify for itself the effect of the federal fish hatchery on the
river, and what effect a second hatchery might have on the water
quality and the river environment.

Formal action on the proposal has

been delayed pending the outcome of this study.
a decision will be reached in the mid 1970's.
(2)

It is expected that

108

Preparation of Reports on the Jordan River

Arrangements were made with two graduate students to perform
surveys on the Jordan River.

The first of these studies was made

possible through a grant of $2500 from the Michigan Water Resources
Commission.

109

The money was used to make a study of the watershed

concerning present and future land use, ownership, assessed valuation,
and general soils information.

110

The more important general find­

ings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study were:

106

E. Rebman.
"Save the Jordan"— The Jordan River Watershed
Council, (Boyne City, Michigan:
Charlevoix County Extension Service,
1971), p. 20.
107Ibid., p. 47.
108

Interview with E. Rebman, Charlevoix County Extension Agent,
Boyne City, Michigan, April 23, 1974.
109

E. Rebman.
Save the Jordan, (Boyne City, Michigan:
voix County Extension Service, 1968).

110

Charle­

J . Shauver. A Preliminary Survey of the Jordan River Water­
shed, (East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968).

77
(1)

Pollution of the river was occurring as a result of
(a)

Silt and sedimentation from
1) highway construction
2) river bank disturbance brought on by heavy
use and development
3) farming practices

(b)
(2)

Waste effluent from the federal fish hatchery

The Jordan River needs development controls to protect its
high water quality and natural beauty

(3)

A watershed improvement ordinance would best provide regu­
lation of use and development of the river and land related
resources

111

The Jordan River Watershed Council used the study as a basis for
focusing in on specific problems and concerns such as the position
it took on the federal fish hatchery and later the proposed state
hatchery.
The second of these two studies was performed in 1969 as a result
of appropriations made by the Charlevoix and Antrim County Board of
Supervisors.

The focus of this second study was on examining the

flora and fauna of the Jordan River.

The objective was to assess

the biological activity in the river and to provide the foundation
for a continuing program of research concerning the water quality
of the river.

112

The river survey consisted of taking bottom samples

^■^Ibid., pp. 42-46.

112

J. Morgan. Biological Survey of the Jordan River, (East
Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969), p. 5.

78
and of classifying plant and algal growth.

The general findings

and recommendations of the study were:
(1)

Water quality of the river was generally good except at a
few stations where nutrient levels were high as a result
of beaver activity and effluent from the federal fish
hatchery

(2)

The proposed fish hatchery should not be built because of
the added possibility of raising nutrient levels

(3)

A greenbelt zoning ordinance is needed to regulate and
control residential and commercial development occurring
along the river bank

(3)

113

Development of a Greenbelt Zoning Ordinance

As a result of recommendations offered by the two studies per­
formed for the Jordan River Watershed Council, greenbelt protection
for the river gained additional support.

The Council’s land use

committee was given the task of preparing a greenbelt zoning ordi­
nance in response to this support.

Sample ordinances from Wisconsin

were reviewed, as well as the Ausable River Greenbelt Ordinance.

The

Council met with interested townships and groups to discuss the
proposal and to solicit recommendations on what they thought should
be covered within the scope of such an ordinance.
The greenbelt ordinance prepared by the Council provided for a
greenbelt strip 400 feet either side of the river as well as specific

113Ibid., pp. 12-13.

79
regulations concerning minimum lot and building size, septic tank
location, and restrictions on riverfront clearance.
As a result of the drafting of this ordinance, the Extension Serv­
ice and County Planning Commissions in Antrim and Charlevoix Counties
have helped several townships in the watershed prepare or add a
greenbelt clause to their zoning ordinance.
(4)

The Jordan River and the Natural Rivers Program

The Michigan Natural Rivers Act of 1970 provided the Natural
Resources Commission with the authority to designate sections of a
stream a natural river.

116

The Jordan River, because of its natural

beauty and wild and scenic character, was among the first rivers
recommended for inclusion in the Natural Rivers Program.

The program

recommended, "...that the Jordan River and its tributaries from Rogers
Bridge in Charlevoix County upstream to their source in Antrim County
be designated and managed as a Wild-Scenic River."

117

(See figure 6).

A planning committee, made up of the Jordan River Watershed
Council and the Department of Natural Resources, was then established
for the purpose of developing a long-range management plan for the

"*""^Jordan River Watershed Council, Proposed Greenbelt Zoning
Ordinance, (East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council,
1969).
115

Interview with E. Rebman, Charlevoix County Extension Agent,
Boyne City, Michigan, April 23, 1974.
■^■^State of Michigan.
of 1970.

Natural River Act of 1970, Act 231, P.A.

^ ^ S t a t e of Michigan. Department of Natural Resources. Summary
of Tentative Proposals for State Administration of a Natural River
Plan for the Jordan River, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning
Services, 1973), p. 1.

H a rb o r
S p r in g *

:Cm«*RI£voix/e5:

irlevoix
.H a

v k s

E lta w o j

turnon

in

C a n t r a l La

«m
MS

\
j KEAft.

o ° ©
n«t
t
|B * l l « i r *

Jordan River Natural River3 Zone

BOVNC
V A U IY

81
river.

The management plan considers the most distinctive feature of

the Program "...the provision for protecting rivers and their tribu­
taries through zoning the use of land adjacent to the streams except
within the units of an incorporated municipality."

118

The Natural Resources Commission accepted the management plan
in October 1972, following several public hearings.

119

In so doing,

the Jordan River became the first river in Michigan designated a
Natural Wild-Scenic River (a stream with wild or forested borders,
shorelands and/or backlands, in close proximity to man-made develop­
ment).120
The Watershed Council's next task was to aid implementation of
the natural river district controls as specified in the management
plan.

Under the Natural Rivers Act (Act 231, P.A. of 1970), local

governments are encouraged to establish zoning controls on their
own.

If local units do not establish zoning controls within one year

of the formal approval of the management plan, then the zoning
responsibility reverts to the State.
The Council was unable to encourage local units of government
to develop zoning controls that would fulfill the requirements of the
management plan.

Public hearings held on the management plan

118

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources. Michi­
gan's Natural Rivers Program, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning
Services, 1974), p. 2.
119

Public Hearings on the Proposed Management Plan for the Jor­
dan River, May 25, and September 15, 1972, Bellaire, Michigan.

120

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources. Manage­
ment Plan for the Jordan River, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of
Planning Services, 1972), p. 1.

produced considerable apprehension among citizens affected by
the program.

121

Citizen apprehension focused on requirements in

the program that would limit the use of private property.
In the absence of local zoning, the state drafted administrative
procedures for the Jordan River.

These tentative rules were presented

to the public at hearings held January 7, 1974.

122

Ideas and con­

cerns expressed by the public at these hearings were incorporated
into the revised version of the zoning rules.

123

.The Council played a key role in helping bring the Jordan under
the Natural Rivers Program.

As a result of its participation in

developing the management plan and its coordination of local efforts,
the Council has helped contribute to the continued preservation and
protection of the river’s resources.

The Department of Natural

Resources will be responsible for administration of the following
uses and limitations within the 400 foot Natural River District
upon final approval by the Legislative Services Bureau and the
Attorney General.
(1)

New buildings shall be set back at least 200 feet or out
of sight of the river on the mainstream, with a 100 foot
minimum setback on tributaries

121

Public Hearings on the Proposed Management Plan for the Jordan
River, Bellaire, Michigan, May 25, and September 15, 1972.

122

Public Hearing on the Tentative Rules for Jordan River Natural
River Zoning, Charlevoix and Bellaire, Michigan: January 7, 1974.
123

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Jordan
River Natural River Zoning Proposed Rules (Lansing, Michigan: Office
of Planning Services, 1974).

83
(2)

No additional subdivisions or unplatted land sales shall
be permitted unless lots have a minimum of 150 feet of
frontage on the river and are of sufficient size to permit
200 foot setback of buildings

(3)

Landfills or buildings shall be prohibited in the floodplain
or on uplands where the ground water level is within six
feet of the surface

(4)

To protect the natural character and water quality of the
river and its tributaries, no new damming, dredging, fil­
ling, or channelization will be permitted

(5)

New development, exploration or production of oil, gas,
salt brine, sand and gravel, or other minerals will not
be permitted within 300 feet of the river on private land
or within 1/4 mile on state land

(6)

Cutting of trees and other vegetation will be restricted
within 100 feet of the river and 25 feet of the tributaries,
except as approved by the area forester

X2 A

The Jordan River Watershed Council has also been involved in
promoting the banning of motorboats on the Jordan, promoting with
the Department of Natural Resources restrictions on camping along the
riverbank, and opposing the merging of the US 31 and US 131 right-ofway through the Jordan Valley.
Evaluation and General Recommendations.

The Jordan River Water­

shed Council's primary focus has been on the protection of the water

124

State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Jordan
River Natural Zoning Proposed Rules, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of
Planning Services, 1974).

84
quality of the Jordan River.

As a result, especially during the

first few years of operation, they have been able to make some
significant contributions to the protection and preservation of the
quality of the Jordan River and its adjoining resources.
has not seriously been threatened by pollution.

The Jordan

However, significant

local reductions in pollutants that are entering the stream have been
made, as in the case of the federal fish hatchery.

The Council was

largely responsible for bringing this to the attention of federal
authorities and encouraging them to make the necessary adjustments in
their waste disposal methods to restrict organic enrichment of the
Jordan.

Equally significant has been the contributions the Council

has made to greenbelt zoning and most recently to the Natural Rivers
Program for the Jordan.

The impact on water quality management has

been more widespread and represents even greater significance in
this case.

Greenbelting and natural rivers zoning represent the

current front line defense against the two most important threats to
the continued quality of the Jordan River— sedimentation and
residential development.

As a result of the role the Council has

played in helping bring greenbelting and natural rivers protection to
the Jordan, these threats to the river have been locally minimized.
The future role of the Council should continue to focus on
these concerns, attempting to encourage portions of the watershed not
adequately zoned to consider greenbelting.

The Council might also

make an effort to rekindle the interest in their activities that has
waned somewhat in the past few years.

They are currently suffering

from poor attendance at meetings and less than adequate participation

85
and cooperation by the government units and their representatives
in Council activities.

125

The Council has kept a low profile the last few years except
for the Natural Rivers Program.

This is evident in the extent to

which it has been involved in issues and activities.

The Council

needs to take a hard look at the role it can play in the implementa­
tion and administration of the Natural Rivers Program and in helping
downriver units with the problems they have concerning the river.
The Council could conceivably provide assistance to units of govern­
ment and private landowners experiencing problems with natural rivers
zoning.

They could serve as a liaison to the Department of Natural

Resources in helping bring these local problems to the attention of
the Department who is responsible for administrating the program.
In addition to this function, the Council needs most to boost
cooperation and communication with its member units.

It would seem

appropriate for the Council to redefine its purposes and goals in
light of the current slowdown in activity in an effort to build a
new awareness and interest in the Council.

They might find it

valuable to utilize some of the funds it has on hand to support one
or two short range projects designed to provide an informationeducation service to the units and/or citizens within the watershed.
A landowner's guide to protecting the water quality of the Jordan
might be one possibility.

Units of government periodically need to

be reminded of the benefits of financial or representative support

125

Interview with E. Rebman, Charlevoix County Extension Agent,
Boyne City, Michigan, April 23, 1974.

86
given to the Council.

For instance, providing units with a resource

guide outlining where local units of government can turn, for help on
specific problems might be of interest.

Certainly, a periodic news­

letter and an occasional visit by representatives from the Council
would help stimulate interest and possibly renewed activity on the
Council.

The information-education function of the Council should

be reviewed with the idea to expand the service the Council currently
provides its supporters.

Realization of the importance of the Coun­

cil in the continued preservation and protection of the watershed
will then be more broadly recognized.

87
Kearsley Creek Preservation Council
Introduction.

The Kearsley Creek Preservation Council occupies

a unique position among the rest of those Michigan watershed councils
established under Public Act 200 of 1957.

In addition to being the

most recently organized (February 1972), the Kearsley Council provides
an interesting variation in its interpretation and application of Act
200 as well as in its formation and scope.

Its purpose has followed

a very specific course, that of preservation of riparian property
owners' interests.
This section deals with an examination of the history and back­
ground of this Council, taking a look at its activities and its
objectives.

Due to its recent formation, specific concerns, inter­

mittent activity, and its less-than-watershed wide perspective, it
will be difficult to offer an evaluation of how effective an impact
this group has had on planning for better water quality management.
Suggestions will be made as to how the Council might either widen its
perspective to provide a service to the entire watershed or otherwise
improve on the goals it has currently established for protecting the
creek area.
Physical Description of the Creek and the Watershed.

Review of

Figure 7, shows the Kearsley Creek Watershed to be small in compari­
son to other watersheds, draining an area of 113 square miles in
Oakland and Genessee Counties.

X26

X26

The Kearsley Creek, approximately

Bureau of Water Management, Water Quality Study, Flint River
Tributaries, (Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1970),
p. 8.

—

F O R E S T ^ MAR Arw:-.;..- * *TMON
FORD

VIENNA

Colui

I] M o u a t Morris

MOUNT
MORRIS GENESEE I RICH
FIELD

FLINT

B URTO

Swartz Creek

Goodrich

lane

haolet

MUNDV
GRAND
BLANC
fenton

. OAKLAND

Lindeol

o
P

"
Figure 7.

•-* -

CO.

SCALE

p i
a ___

Fenton i ~

JO
M

O
M

.

M '

Kearsley Creek Watershed

T -l M

1

25 miles long, flows northwest from its beginnings in Lake Louise in
Brandon Township, Oakland County, to its outlet in the Flint River
just west of the Kearsley Reservoir.
The creek is a relatively shallow, meandering stream' with a
slow but steady flow over its 250-foot drop on its way north to
Flint.

127

The stream is relatively narrow, ranging between ten and

twenty feet in width.

128

Several dams have been built on the creek,

the largest creating the Kearsley Reservoir.

The others provide

impoundments near Goodrich and Atlas.
At the headwaters of the Kearsley Creek, the predominant form
of land use is agricultural, while the area north of the Black Creek
juncture is characteristically more residential.

Largely as a result

of this phenomenon, the water quality of the upper Kearsley Creek
is generally good, contributing to the recreational qualities and
rising property values of the immediate stream area.
The Bureau of Water Management collected and reviewed water
quality data from Kearsley Creek.

Their analysis reveals that though

the stream is turbid in color for much of its length, steady stream
flow and a diverse, well-balanced stream biota indicate that the
stream, at least from Lake Louise to Davison (which makes up approxi­
mately 18 of the stream's 25 miles) is basically clean and suitable
for a variety of recreational and agricultural purposes.

129

From

127

Student Water Publications, Kearsley Creek, Genesee County,
Michigan, (East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water Publications, 1971),
p. 1.
128x, . ,
Ibid., p. 23.
129

Bureau of Water Management, Water Quality Study, Flint River
Tributaries, (Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1970),
pp. 2-3.

90
Davison to the stream's mouth in the Flint River, the flow is slower
contributing to greater deposits of organic materials and more
developed bottom growth.

Also characteristic of this more highly

developed area are problems associated with industrial waste dis­
charge, as well as situations where the Creek receives discharges
of raw or semi-treated domestic sewage, dry weather discharges from
storm sewers, and erosion from highway construction occurring in
and near the Flint area."*"^
Backdrop to the Formation of the Kearsley Creek Preservation
Council.

The Kearsley Creek Preservation Council, as it is known

today, had its early beginnings rooted in a regional park proposal
offered by the Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission in
1972.

The stimulus for this proposal was a recreation and open space

study on the Kearsley Creek Watershed.

131

The study was performed

in 1971 by Michigan State University under the financial support of
the Cooperative Extension Service, the Genesee County Board of
Commissioners, and the Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission.
Based largely on statements derived from this study and a similar
one conducted on the Upper Flint River Watershed, it appears that
there was no immediate need for additional park space.

132

There

130Ibid.
tu .a
131

Student Water Publications, Kearsley Creek Watershed-Recreation and Open Space Study, (East Lansing, Michigan: Student Water
Publications, 1971).
132

Student Water Publications, Upper Flint River Watershed
Recreation and Open Space Study, (East Lansing, Michigan:
Student
Water Publications, 1971).

91
was, however, a need felt to assess the resource base and take steps
to insure its future protection.

133

The objectives of the study were to identify and pinpoint the
high value open space and recreation areas of the Genesee County
portion of the Kearsley Creek Watershed (some 82 miles) and to
describe the potential recreation uses of each site.

134

A plan for preserving and developing the Kearsley Creek flood
plain was recommended.

The scheme identified seven areas that were

felt to have attractive recreational and educational potential.
These areas consisted of:
(1)

The Kearsley Creek Reservoir

(2)

A conservation-education area, the For Mar Nature Preserve
and Arboretum

(3)

A River Recreation Zone (from Atlas to Davison)

(4)

A historic district centered on the 19th century mill at
Atlas

(5)

A wildlife habitat zone above Atlas

(6)

Two urban river bank areas near Davison and Goodrich.

(7)

A scenic drive'*'3'*

The river recreation zone was the most extensive of these areas.
It was this greenbelt zone that was to become the focus of attention

133

Student Water Publications, Kearsley Creek Watershed, Recrea­
tion and Open Space Study, (East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water
Publications, 1971), p. 11.
Ibid., p. 1.
135Ibid., p. 13.

92
as the proposal for developing it into a multi-purpose recreation
area began to take shape.

(This area also served to identify the

primary focus of the Kearsley Council following its reorganization
in December 1972.)

Both studies went on to recommend a call for

action for bringing these areas into public recreational use.

136

A quote from the Upper Flint River Watershed, Recreation and Open
Study is representative of this calling:
"...Many private landowners have recognized the
value of lands associated with the water environ­
ment and have posted them for no trespassing and no
public use. While no one associated with this study
would dispute the right of private ownership to
restrict the use of their lands, such posting is
indicative of the need for continual acquisition
and development of public lands for use by those
individuals who cannot afford their own private
piece of the countryside.
Lands suggested for inclusion within this study
would provide much of the land required for open
space and recreational activities by residents
of the region over the next twenty-five to thirty
year period. Many of the areas can be acquired
at a reasonable cost today because there is lit­
tle development associated with them, particularly
in the northeastern part of the watershed.
The
cost of these lands increases every day and
action must be taken in the near future if signifi­
cant sections of the area are to be preserved."137
In response to this quote and recommendations offered in the
studies, the Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission, early

136

Student Water Publications, Kearsley Creek Watershed, Recrea­
tion and Open Space Study, (East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water
Publications, 1971).
Student Water Publications, Upper Flint River Watershed Recrea­
tion and Open Space Study, (East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water
Publications, 1971).
137

Ibid., p. 31.

93
in 1972, drafted a proposal for the development of three regional
parks:

Flushing-Montrose Park, Swartz Creek Park and Grand Blanc-

Goodrich Park.

The development plans not only generally followed

the areas recommended in the study, but they also expanded on the
above quote in suggesting a $35 million dollar bond issue, $20
million of which was ear-marked for land acquisition.

138

The major

objective of the new park areas was to "...obtain sufficient recrea­
tion areas in various parts of the county to serve the anticipated
needs of the residents for the time period of 1972 through 1990.
Emphasis was placed on the need to acquire the park land now prior
to other development."

139

It was about the time this proposal surfaced that the Kearsley
Creek Preservation Council was formed.

The Intermunicipality Act

was chosen for the purpose of providing interested municipalities
in the watershed with an organizational framework for preserving and
protecting the Kearsley Creek.

140

This provided them with the

foundation for "...studying area governmental problems of mutual
interest and concern, recommending action to the participant munici­
palities, and accepting gifts and grants in furtherance of the
objectives of the committee.
The Kearsley Creek Preservation Council, as it was originally
called, adopted the following objectives for the watershed area:

138x, . ,
0/
Ibid., p. 34.
i39T,
Ibid., p. 36.
140Act 200, Public Act of 1957.
141Ibid., p. 1.

_.._

.

94
(1)

Study land and water uses of the Kearsley Creek Watershed,
assess the changes that are taking place and formulate
recommendations for review, and action thereon by the
member governing bodies

(2)

Develop policies and programs designed to prevent further
deterioration of the quality of the water, land and
related resources of the Kearsley Creek Watershed

(3)

Serve as a study group to assimilate and coordinate all
actions concerning the Kearsley Creek Watershed

(4)

Serve as an advisory group to the governing bodies concerned
with the Kearsley Creek Watershed and to promote cooperation
between them

(5)

Serve as a source for educational materials and programs
and action programs pertaining to the Kearsley Creek
u jl42
Watershed
it

Membership on the Council was open to the following governmental
units:

Atlas Township, Davison Township, Groveland Township, City

of Davison, Village of Goodrich, Hadley Township, Burton Township,
Genesee Township, and Ortonville.

143

In addition, the following

organizations or agencies (and even individuals) could be members:
(1)

Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission

(2)

Genesee County Metropolitan Planning Commission

(3)

Genesee Intermediate School District

(4)

Genesee County Health Department

142

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council, Organization Bylaws, 1971,

p. 1.
143tIbxd.,
u -j
p. o2.

95
(5)

Flint Journal

(6)

Genesee County Board of Commissioners

(7)

Soil Conservation Service

(8)

Genesee County Road Commission

(9)

Genesee County Drain Commission

(10) Genesee County Cooperative Extension Service
(11) Atlas Valley Country Club
(12) Williams Gun Club
(13) Flint Group of the Sierra Club
(14) Davison Country Club
(15) Industrial Mutual Association
(16) Genesee Sportsman's Club
(17) Flint Environmental Action Team
...and any other governmental units or organizations or
individuals may be accepted as council members by the
144
Council.
On review of the attendance records kept by the Council, it is not
evident that the membership was well represented at the meetings
that were to follow.
At their organizational meeting, February 1, 1972, the Council
reiterated their purposes with a discussion of how they could pro­
tect the Kearsley from sewage pollution and deterioration of its
beauty and natural character.

A concensus at the meeting expressed

a desire for the Council to do everything possible within its power

144

Ibid.

96
to "...support our Boards and agencies in protecting the Kearsley,
study changing water and land use, to develop programs and policies
to prevent further deterioration of the watershed, and to advise
government units on watershed problems and possible solutions.
Suggested activities and concerns took the form of having
the Council:
(1)

Serve as a protective organization around the Kearsley Creek
to stop dumping and trespassing

(2)

Form committees to watch pollution problems

(3)

Work with Goodrich on their sanitary sewer problems

(4)

Discourage removal of trees along the Kearsley, participate
in a tree planting program

(5)

Develop policies that would further prevent deterioration

(6)

Help individual landowners with problems concerning the
Creek

(7)

Advise communities on the need for zoning and otherwise
assist them with developing zoning ordinances

146

At its next meeting in June 1972, the Council focused on the
Goodrich sewage treatment problem.

In general, they expressed concern

over the upstream effect of sewage discharge on downstream use.

The

Council agreed there was a need to study present and future pollution
problems on the Kearsley, though no plan of action was developed,
outside of asking the Genesee County Planning Commission and the Drain

145

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council.
February 1, 1972.

Minutes of Meeting held

97
Commissioner for their future plans involving the Kearsley
Creek.
The Council moved their attention to the impending bond
issue vote to decide the fate of the regional park proposal.

The

Council held a series of informational meetings prior to the vote
to discuss the implications of the plan and the probable effect
this would have on the watershed.

A sense of urgency developed

among some of the Council’s members, primarily those riparians
living in the area of the proposed Grand Blanc-Goodrich Park.

The

Grand Blanc-Goodrich Park proposal was to provide the stimulus for
the formation of a citizen’s reaction group known as CCAT (Citizens
Concerned About Taxes), a splinter element of the Kearsley Creek
Preservation Council.

This group was made up largely of riparian

landowners who would be displaced if the proposal was approved. CCAT
and general citizen opposition to the proposal centered on the issue
of the role of private landowners, in preservation of natural areas.
It also centered on the increased millage, the uncertainty about
"preservation," whether or not future drainage needs were more
important, and the expected increased burden on surrounding taxpayers.

147

CCAT’s position was supported by the Davison Township

Supervisor and 1,000 Davison area residents in a letter to the
Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission:
"...To remove this land from our area places a
burden on the ability to pay for (sewer and water)
systems. To remove all road frontage would not
only remove from our tax roll the highest value
part of the land, but could seriously jeopardize
the ability of Davison Township to pay bond payments

Letter from Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission,
February 14, 1974.

98
on the systems they've already installed. We also
question the ability of our peopoe to pay another
mill and a half for the construction and mainte­
nance of parks when they are facing at this point
a possible increase in millage on a public
utility system that has to remove the burden that
you are putting upon it. I have in my possession
petitions presented to the Davison Township Board
on July 10, at their regular Township Board meet­
ing containing over 1,000 signatures of Davison
area residents which are saying basically the
same things I am."-^®
The Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission did not
dispute that conflicts would arise between the park plans and local
development plans.

They did, however, indicate that they believed

removal of the private property for the park would be gradual and
that the effect on the area tax base would not be critical, based on
the expected tax money from developers who would build businesses
on the edges of the park.

149

The park proposal was eventually presented to the people of
Genesee County in the primary election held in August 1972.

Their

reaction to the plan was negative and according to the Parks and
Recreation Commission, "...seemed to be based on opposition to any
additional taxes, loss of tax base to the various townships, and
definitive proposals for development."

150

As a consequence of this

bond issue defeat, the Parks and Recreation Commission rescinded all
action for the establishment of new park areas.

Letter to Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission, July
13, 1972.
149

The Flint Journal, June 2, 1972.

^“^Letter from the Genesee County Parks and Recreation Commission,
February 14, 1974.

99
A movement generated largely within Davison and Atlas Townships
for changing the perspective of the Kearsley Creek Preservation
Council emerged from this defeat.

They wanted the Council to take on

a more limited area of concern— primarily that of Davison and Atlas
Townships.

It is suspected that the change in council perspective

was brought on largely by a desire among the riparians living in
these townships to obtain organizational legitimacy and a rallying
point against any future threats on both private landownership and
privately-conducted natural preservation.

The Davison-Atlas Inter­

municipality Committee for the Preservation of the Kearsley Creek
Basin was established by resolution of the Davison and Atlas Town­
ship Boards on December 18, 1 9 7 2 . The current Council dates its
formation from this point and has maintained Kearsley Creek Preserva­
tion Council as its name, despite its more limited perspective as
outlined in part three of the Amended Bylaws:
"The area of land covered by the duties and respon­
sibilities of this committee shall be the Kearsley
Creek Basin located within the Townships of Atlas
and Davison, Genesee County, Michigan, and the
headwaters thereof."152
Membership on the Council is now formally restricted to appointees
from the two townships.

In a statement by the Council, however, "The

membership at large of the Kearsley Creek Preservation Council is
visualized to be all of the riparian property owners along the

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council (Amended Bylaws, December,
1972) .
152

Ibid., pp. 1-2.

100
Kearsley Creek watercourse."

153

Two other changes were made in the

bylaws to reflect additional purposes:
(1)

To aggressively and creatively study and recommend action
to the respective governing bodies and to take such action
as will effectively fulfill the purposes of preserving the
Kearsley Creek Basin recognizing the rights of private
ownership therein, as well as the interest of the public
in general

(2)

To receive grants from any public source or private source
to aid in the accomplishments of the purpose of the
committee.

To accept and receive voluntary grants of title

from interested land owners in the name of respective town­
ships for the purpose of preserving and improving the
Kearsley Creek Basin.

154

Based largely on the Council's short life span, it is difficult
to assess at this point, just how well the Council has made an attempt
to pursue its expressed purposes.
Activities of the Kearsley Creek Preservation Council.

The

activities of the Council since December 1972, reflect an effort by the
group to provide some kind of service to the riparian owners along the
watercourse.

They have maintained a relatively low profile, cautiously

attempting to develop an information base from which they could propose

153

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council (statement presented at
the annual meeting of the Michigan Association of Watershed Organi­
zations, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, March 28, 1974), p. 1.
Kearsley Creek Preservation Council (Amended Bylaws, December
1972), p. 2.

101
future activity.

The Council has attempted to build awareness

among riparian owners by providing them with information they feel
would be of interest.

In addition, the Council is currently in the

process of developing an inventory of riparians along the Creek.
This will be used as a point of contact for introducing Council
ideals and for introducing plans for protection of the Creek.

The

Council's scheme for protection does not include acquisition, but
rather is built on the cooperative efforts of riparians.

Once

developed, the plan envisages obtaining pledges from property owners
to maintain natural areas or to otherwise provide greenbelt easements
that will insure protection without acquisition.
Roles and Recommendations.

Based on an evaluation of the Coun­

cil's activities and short life span, it is apparent that outside of
whatever information role the group has played with riparians, it
hasn't yet made any measurable impact on water quality management
planning.

The extent that this may change in the future hinges on

the approach taken by the Council.
It is conceivable that the Kearsley Creek Preservation Council
could, through the activities and programs outlined by the original
council, make an impact on local water quality management planning
focusing on the Atlas-Davison Township area.

The Council, with

its current focus, might also explore whether its interests might be
served better under the auspices of some other organizational frame­
work better aligned to its purposes, i.e., the Michigan Riparian
Association located in Kalamazoo.

155

Interview with Robert Williams, Chairman of the Kearsley Creek
Preservation Council, November 29, 1973.

102
As it currently stands, the Council represents the interests of
a particular segment of the watershed, namely the Davison and Atlas
area.

It is suggested that if the Council is not committed to resum­

ing a watershed-wide perspective, then it might consider adopting
the name change brought on by the Bylaw Amendments— the Atlas
Division, Kearsley Creek Preservation Committee.
If a watershed perspective is desired (which in terms of overall
water quality management planning would be more beneficial), then it
is suggested that the Council readopt its original bylaws and purposes
outlined in 1971.

After a test period of operation, with active

participation among its members, the Council could decide on a
specific course of action, including (but not limited to) the
original purposes outlined.
There is, regardless of which approach is taken, merit in the
initiative to develop a communication and information link with other
watershed councils and organizations.

An example of the potential

value of communication with other Councils is the outcome of a
special project currently being performed by the Huron River Watershed Council.

156

The focus of that study is selected creeks in the

Huron River watershed with the objective of developing a scheme
and handbook for protecting them.

156

Huron River Watershed Council, Creeksheds Project, (Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Huron River Watershed Council, 1974).

103
Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

The ability of watershed councils established under Act 200
to make an impact on water quality management was examined through
an analysis of their activities and functions.

Keeping in mind

that the enabling act limits groups organized under it primarily
to a study function, it was generally determined that watershed
councils established under Act 200 have, in varying degrees, been
able to impact water quality management.

This impact has, in gen­

eral, been the result of the following:
(1)

Advice and assistance councils have provided local units
of government, groups and individuals

(2)

Information and education services

(3)

Influence and pressure tactics

(4)

Alignment with related groups, such as lake associations
and the Soil Conservation Service

The Ausable and the Jordan River Watershed Councils have been
the most successful in areas #1 and #2 (see above).

The contribu­

tions and impact they have made have come largely in the form of
greenbelt zoning and natural rivers protection.

The Elk River

Watershed Council has been most successful in areas #3 and #4.

This

is evident in the establishment of legal lake levels for the Chain-ofLakes and the designation of the Green River Conservancy.
This rating of the effectiveness of the watershed councils is
relative to a number of considerations.

Most of the watershed council

activity considered, with the exception of natural rivers zoning, is

104
a result of the evaluation of the first few years of operation.

The

fact that the councils named were all formed prior to the summer of
1969, would suggest that the impact the councils have made in the
last two years has not been as significant as that of their first
few years of operation.

This was evident in both the recent lack

of available information and with respect to much poorer participa­
tion and representation by members on the councils.
The Boardman River Watershed Advisory Council, established after
the Ausable, Jordan, and Elk Watershed Councils, counts its partici­
pation and role in greenbelting and natural rivers zoning and in
guiding oil and gas policy among its most significant contributions.
The Boardman Council, however, has appeared to have suffered the
most from a recent lag in activity.

The Annual Report for 1973 shows

only one meeting was held during the year.
The Kearsley Creek Preservation Council, formed in February 1972,
is still trying to establish itself primarily as a spokesman for
riparians and has not as yet produced any real formal activity upon
which it could be evaluated.
Less than adequate participation by members in council activity
was the problem most frequently cited by the councils.

Despite this

fact, none of the councils has attempted to establish a program for
improving interest and involvement in council activity.
represents a voluntary effort.

The council

This, and the fact that direction has

come mostly from the hands of a small group within the council,
compounds the problem.

157

Boardman River Advisory Council, Annual Report (South Boardman
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1973).

105
The majority of councils did not feel that lack of funds or more
specific authority restrained their ability to make an effective
contribution to water quality management.

The concensus was that

Act 200 was adequate for the study, education, and advisory roles
they wish to play.

Conversations held with watershed council spokes­

men revealed that limited budgets and voluntary membership, in their
opinion, restricted output in certain activity areas.

The general

feeling was that bringing attention to problems, working with units
and organizations on their correction, as well as communicating oi“
distributing whatever information they found to be of value are their
most beneficial forms of action.

On the basis of the scope of activ­

ity that is possible under Act 200, it would not appear necessary or
politically attractive at this time to consider a change in the Act
since the resource base within the councils remains not fully utilized.
Out of this review of problems and examination of council activ­
ity, the following suggestions and recommendations are offered for
consideration.

These represent general highlights of more specific

recommendations offered at the conclusion of discussion of each
watershed council.

Watershed councils established under Act 200

should consider the following:
A.

More efficient utilization of resources at the council's
disposal
(1)

Improving member interest and participation
establish a system of committees to better distribute
and share responsibilities for dealing with various
issues before the council, such as soliciting new
members

106
identify short term programs and projects that have as
their goal providing a service
consider involvement of more interest groups and
provide for individual membership in the council
(2)

Use of council funds to support a regular newsletter

(3)

Actively work on securing grants from federal, state,
regional, and local agencies and foundations to
support special projects

B.

Improving communication and coordination with state,
regional, and local agencies and units of government
(1)

Solicit Department of Natural Resources participation
in programs operating in the watershed, e.g., assist
in administration of natural rivers zoning

(2)

Take the initiative to set up frequent lines of
communication with other watershed councils; with
state, regional, and local agencies and units of
government

(3)

Explore with other watershed councils the possibility
of establishing a coordinated approach to watershed
management on a multi-watershed basis

C.

Periodically there should be internal review of watershed
council policy, activity, goals, and objectives in light
of current issues, problems and needs within the watershed

In addition to the recommendations mentioned, it would be
useful for the councils to examine the suggestions offered at the
conclusion of this report.

REVIEW OF MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS ESTABLISHED
UNDER ACT 253, P.A. OF 1964 (AS AMENDED)

Introduction
Prior to the creation of the Local River Management Act,

158

(see Appendix B, page 245), units of government interested in cooper­
atively working on local and regional problems found an organizational
framework under the Intermunicipality Committee Act.

159

The primary

focus of this act was to provide for various cooperative arrangements
between municipalities and other local government units for the
provision of community services and related community facilities.

It

was adapted to also provide for the study of watershed problems but
its adequacy was felt to be less apparent, especially in the downstate
watersheds.
In response to a need expressed within the Huron River Watershed
for a more formal authority or mechanism to study and recommend solu­
tions to problems having more of a watershed than strictly municipal
perspective, the Local River Management Act was passed.

The Act pro­

vided for the creation of an organization; namely, a watershed council
to study problems, recommend solutions, and otherwise assist state
and local government agencies in their dealings with water on a

158

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 252, P.A.
of 1964, as amended.
159

State of Michigan, Intermunicipality Committee Act, Act 200,
P.A. of 1957.

108
watershed basis.

As reflected in the comments of one of the Act's

sponsors, "the rationale for watershed councils was the need to
establish an advisory group wherein people living along the river
could work jointly on the study and solution of local issues and
ui
160
problems.
Since the creation of the Local River Management Act, three
watershed councils have been formed.
formation):

They are (in order of their

Huron River Watershed Council (1965); Grand River Water­

shed Council (1966); and Clinton River Watershed Council (1971).

(A

fourth watershed council representing the River Raisin Basin is expec­
ted to be formed late in 1974.)

The areas numbered on Figure 8 identify

the watersheds currently represented by a watershed council.
This report will attempt to examine and evaluate the background
and history of these councils by taking a look at the activities and
programs they have been involved in, as well as the approach taken
to accomplish or implement them.
A determination of the relative impact and degree of effectiveness
that each council has made to better water quality management will be
made in the analysis and concluding remarks sections of the report.
This determination will be based largely on review of council activ­
ities, functions, programs, supporting material, interview comments,
and results of surveys.
An examination of the enabling legislation will be made prior
to the discussion of the individual councils.

160

Provisions in the

Interview with Senator Gilbert E. Bursley, January 8, 1974.

E~i

MICHIGAN

Figure 8. Watershed Councils Established Under Act 253
1.
2.
3.

Grand River Watershed
Huron River Watershed
Clinton River Watershed

110
legislation that outline functions and authorities will be examined.
In addition, some discussion will be devoted to those shortcomings
observed with the legislation and the attempts made to remedy some
of them.

Ill
Review of the Enabling Act

Provisions
The Local River Management Act was designed to improve on Act 200
by making available to those watersheds having more water quality
related problems, and in need of more specific legislation, a choice
for organization.

The intent of Act 253

161

is to broaden the per­

spective provided by Act 200 and to specify the functions and respon­
sibilities available to watershed councils organizing under it.
As the preamble to the Local River Management Act states, this is
"An act to enable local units of government to
cooperate in planning and carrying out a coordi­
nated water management program in the watershed
which they share."162
To promote this cooperation in watershed management, the Act
provides for the formation of a watershed council "upon a petition
from 3 or more local governments lying wholly or partially in the
watershed..
Having met these conditions, this council formed to represent
the government units in a watershed may then perform the following
functions:
(1)

(2)

Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies of the water
resources of the watershed, including investigations of
water uses, water quality and the reliability of the
water resource
Prepare periodic reports concerning, among other things,
trends in water use and availability, emerging water
problems and recommendations for appropriate public water
resources for the watershed area

"^^State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), p. 1.
162t^
Ibid.
Ibid.

112
(3)

Request the commission to survey the watershed for the
purpose of determining minimum levels of streamflow
necessary for health, welfare and safety as provided in
sections 13 through 18
(4) Recommend the creation of a river management district or
districts under the provisions of sections 7 through 12
when the need for river management seems to warrant such
an action
(5) Advise agencies of federal, state and local governments
as to the council's view of the watershed's problems and
needs
(6) Cooperate with federal, state and local agencies in pro­
viding stream gauges, water quality sampling stations, or
other water resource data-gathering facilities or programs
that aide the council in its responsibility for studying
and reporting on water conditions
(7) Employ an executive secretary and such other professional
administrative or clerical staff including consultants, as
may be provided for in an approved budget
(8) Establish such subcommittees or advisory committees as are
deemed helpful in the discharge of its functions
(9) Establish special project funds as needed to finance special
studies outside its annual budget capacity and for this
purpose the council may accept gifts and grants from
private individuals, corporations and local, state or
federal governments^^
Membership by government units on a council is voluntary with
representation made possible according to the following stipulations:
(1)

(2)

(3)

Each local government using the river for water supply or
waste disposal shall appoint 1 representative for each
20,000 population or fraction thereof. The governing body
of each local government shall determine the method by which
its representatives shall be selected.
Each county having 15% or more of its area in the watershed
shall appoint 1 representative, and 1 additional representa­
tive for each 20,000 population or fraction thereof which
aggregate total shall be computed from population of eli­
gible townships not otherwise represented.
Such townships
shall be eligible under this section if they shall have
15% or more of their respective areas in the basin. The
methods by which the county representatives are selected
shall be determined by the county board of supervisors.
Any local agency wholly or partly within the basin may
appoint a representative to the council upon a finding by
the council that the agency is so affected by or concerned

164Ibid., Sec. 6, pp. 2-3.

113
with the use and development of water resources in the
basin as to warrant representation.
If any township
is represented under this subdivision, its population
shall not be counted in determining the eligible total
representatives of its county.-*-65
(In addition to formal representation, ex officio membership on the
councils has been provided through invitation of district Soil Conser­
vation Service representatives.)
Watershed councils established under this legislation have no
legal controls over water resource activity in their watersheds, but
rather are advisory in nature.

This arrangement normally is suffi­

cient if the need is primarily for cooperative studies and exchange
of information.

If, however, the need arises for more power and

authority because of more serious problems with river levels, flow or
maintenance, then the Act also provides for the formation of river
management districts.

Two or more local government units may petition

the Water Resources Commission to establish such a district.

The dis­

trict would serve as the agency permitted to acquire, construct, oper­
ate, and finance water storage and other river control facilities
necessary for river management.

('River management1 means the control

of river flow by the operation of dams, reservoirs, conduits and other
man-made devices in order to improve and expand the use of the river
for those who depend upon it for a variety of private and public
benefits .) ^ ^

Built into this definition are Craine's comments that

river management "is based on the belief that storage of high flows
should be used to increase and stabilize the level of dependable flows

165Ibid., Sec. 4, p. 2.
X66

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), Sec. 2, p. 1.

114
during the dry season...").

167

The district would be directed by a

river management board which may conduct studies necessary to make
their functions operational, compound and control river waters subject
to the minimum stream flow levels, operate reservoirs, negotiate and
contract with other government agencies on water development matters,
and perform the functions of the Council if a Council has not been
formed within the district.

168

be a voluntary organization.

The river management district would
It would have no authority in the area

of water supply, sewage disposal, or other related public purposes.
It merely provides the means whereby local units of government can
join together to monitor water quality and flow, and thereby deter­
mine whether or not controlling the river will in some way provide
for and maintain benefits to the communities involved.
A third feature of the Local River Mangement Act is that it
gives the Water Resources Commission powers with respect to the
low-flow period.

169

As this is interpreted, "the state agency would

establish low-flow levels in the watershed area so that in drought
periods withdrawals that are not in the best interests of the whole
watershed could be prevented or, in other words, the state agency
would provide a basis for apportioning the waters during the low-flow

16 7
Lyle Craine, Need for Water Legislation in Michigan, Statement
presented to the House of Representatives, Committee on Water
Resources, (lansing, Michigan, June 21, 1963), p. 3.
168

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), Sec. 9, p. 4.
State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), Sec. 14, p. 5.

3.15
periods.

Other provisions authorize the Commission to maintain

gauges and sampling devices, to cooperate and negotiate with
government units, and to promulgate rules.
In all, the Local River Management Act provides for the
establishment of two types of machinery, the Watershed Council and
the river management district.

Utilizing one of these two arrange­

ments, local units of government can, with varying degrees of author­
ity, jointly work toward the identification, study, and solution
of watershed problems.

Limitations
The primary advantage associated with the Local River Manage­
ment Act is its expanded perspective beyond that of Act 200, and
its more specific reference to provisions, functions, and responsi­
bilities.

Outside of this broad observation, most of the attention

here will be devoted to noting some of the Act's limitations and to
offering recommendations for their solution.
Shortcomings observed with the Local River Management Act were
among the topics discussed at a meeting of watershed councils in
1970.^^

The new Act shared a limitation with Act 200 in that member­

ship on both was strictly voluntary; units of government eligible
for membership could not be compelled to join.

Specific to Act 253

were certain stipulations built into the legislation limiting

"^^Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee. Proceed­
ings of the Conference on the Importance of the Management of the
Huron River Watershed (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1963), p. 33.
^^Conference on Organized River Watershed Councils, September 24,
1970.

116
membership to those units qualified.

172

The stipulation for

limited membership contributed to the uncertainty of how many units
of government would join, or how many would continue membership on
a council.

Subsequently, the amount of revenue from appropriation

that a watershed council would have available from participating
units to plan for its programs and activities was uncertain.
When the Act was passed in 1964, it was generally felt the
water management contributions made by a watershed council to the
overall state effort could be made by voluntary cooperative action,
and therefore more specific enforcement and regulatory powers would
not be necessary.

After several years of experience with two

watershed councils (the Huron and Grand River Watershed Councils), it
became apparent to the participants attending the conference
the Act needed to be amended.

173

that

The first attempt at changing the

legislation involved the proposal of two amendments, one concerning
membership, the other financial aid.
The first of these amendments, H. B. 5423, proposed to deal with
the problem of membership eligibility by extending the scope of the
title to include not just local units of government, but other
affected individuals or groups, as well.

174

One of the underlying

172

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of
1964, Sec. 4, p. 2.
173

Conference of Organized River Watershed Councils, September
24, 1970.
174
Michigan, Congress, House, An Act to Amend the Local River Manment Act of 1964, (as amended), 1971, H.B. 5423.

117
purposes of the amendment was to more effectively allow for all
organized watershed councils and related organizations to form under
one act.

The principal argument for the bill was that it "...would

principally revise council or group membership requirements in a
manner which would provide flexibility so that watershed councils or
groups which were previously formed under other acts (because of
difficulties encountered in meeting the population limitations of
Act 253) could now form under Act 253 of the Public Acts of 1964."

1 75

The bill proposed to amend the original Act in four general ways:
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ambiguous and contradictory language relating to local
government membership and representation on the councils
would be clarified.
Classes of watershed councils, based on the size and popu­
lation of the watershed, would be created, to afford the
smaller or less populous watershed areas within Michigan
a more realistic basis for organizing.
The concept of citizen involvement and special non-govern­
mental organizational participation in water planning and
management problems would be recognized, by permitting
interested individuals and organizations, and local agenices,
to participate in the council should the council so desire.
Watershed councils would be permitted to broaden the scope
of their activities to include investigations of the inter­
relationships of land and water use policies and programs,
in recognition of the concept that water resources planning,
use, and management are greatly affected by the land use
within the watershed.176

The intent and design of the amendment was to modify the original
legislation to help bring it more in line with needs of rural upstate
watershed councils and to establish representation by special member­
ship groups.

^Department of Natural Resources. Analysis of House Bill, 5423
(Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, 1971), p. 1.
176

Huron River Watershed Council. Comments on the Proposed
Amendment to the Local River Management Act (Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1971), p. 1.

118
Questions began to surface soon after the bill's Lntioduction
on whether or not the amended provisions would indeed create the type
of change intended.

Comments registered at a meeting of the Michigan

Association of Watershed Organizations
amendment.

177

ran largely against the

There was some doubt as to the need to include special

interest groups on a formal basis.

It was felt that special interest

groups could already, as could any individual, attend council meet­
ings and make an input or offer recommendations.

The group also

questioned how the inputs of special interest groups, say the Sierra
Club, would be dealt with in relation to inputs offered by the Drain
Commissioner or a representative of the Water Resources Commission.
Other questions that arose involved how to require and assess payment
of fees by special interest groups and how a watershed council
reorganization would be affected by the Governor's regional land use
organization plan if adopted.

The problems that may arise in

specifying what powers and duties may come in conflict with regional
agencies were also of concern at the meeting.
H. B. 5423, the first of the proposed amendments, was not
reported out of committee due to the conflicts previously mentioned,
and also because it lacked sufficient support within the legislature
for passage.

A similar fate occurred to the Grants-in-Aid Bill,

the second of the proposed amendments.

178

^ Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations, Special Meeting
Called by Honorable Raymond Smit for Soliciting Comments on the Reintro­
duction of Amendments to the Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), Williamstown, Michigan, November 3, 1972.
Michigan, Congress, House, An Act To Amend the Local River
Management Act of 1964 (as amended), 1971 H.B. 5422.

119
The Grants-in-Aid Bill was designed, "...to provide state grants
to watershed councils to match local government contributions for the
purpose of meeting operating expenses of the council."

179

According

to the Bill, the state would annually appropriate $250,000 from the
general fund to match, on a one-to-one basis, the dollar contributions received by each council from its participating member units.

180

The Bill was expected to ease funding problems experienced by water­
shed councils, thereby providing them with adequate financial sup­
port from which they could expand on the activities and services
they were currently providing their member units.

A statement issued

by the Huron River Watershed Council expressed that, "In addition to
enabling councils that have already been created to provide additional
services to its present members without increasing the financial
burden on them, it is felt that enactment of this Bill would greatly
stimulate new memberships in existing councils and the creation of
watershed councils in other drainage basins...."

181

Cited within the

statement were some secondary benefits the Huron River Watershed
Council viewed as spinoffs of the investment by the state in
watershed council activity:
"While state matching funds would become part of the
general operating fund of the watershed councils, much
of this additional money would be used to finance lim­
ited but vitally important water resources and related

179

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Analysis of House
Bill 5422 (Lansing, Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, 1971),
p. 1.
180

Michigan, Congress, House. An Act to Amend the Local River
Management Act of 1964 (as amended), 1971 H.B. 5422.
181

Huron River Watershed Council.
Statement Prepared on the
Watershed Council Grants-in-Aid Act, (Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River
Watershed Council, 1971), p. 4.

120
land use studies throughout the basins. While such
programs as water quality monitoring and flood damage
avoidance and flood warning programs would be designed
to meet particularly the needs of the local units of
government in the basin, these and other activities
which more active watershed councils would be engaged
in would, at the same time, provide information which
would be of significant value to the Michigan Water
Resources Commission, other state agencies and agencies
of the federal government in the carrying out of their
programs. Therefore, program development at the local
level would make necessary the expenditure of their
state funds for similar programs within the watersheds,
and would free these funds for use in areas of the
State where the local commitment to comprehensive
water resources development is less fully developed."
The Grants-in-Aid Bill, as did the bill that proposed to broaden
membership eligibility, represented attempts to bring about some
internal reorganization that was believed would help make watershed
councils formed under Act 253 more responsible to local units of
government.
Internal reorganization possible through the creation of a river
management district did not materialize either, but this time for a
different reason.

A good deal of the objections registered during

the time Act 253 was being debated centered on features of the
section that provided for the creation of river management districts.
Some concern surfaced at the state level and within some localities
on the assumption that the river management district provision might
interfere with procedures set up under other state laws regarding the
powers and authority of drain commissioners.

Private companies and

utilities were also concerned as to whether it would infringe on
their rights or needs to impound water for hydroelectric and other
purposes.

121
More specifically, the City of Detroit, Department of Public
Works, cited the following items as features they found to be
objectionable:
(1)

The bill would tend to oppose regulation by the Michigan
Department of Health in matters of water supply and sewage
disposal and stream pollution.

(2)

The bill is not clear as to the protection of riparian
rights of those areas not included in an established river
management area that may be downstream of the area.

(3)

The bill further fragments the metropolitan area which is
now suffering from existing fragmentation.

(4)

The bill would infringe on Detroit's existing service areas
for water supply and sewage treatment.

183

The State Soil Conservation Committee also made some similar
comments with regard to the possibility of a breach occurring in
riparian interests to water within the river management district.

184

More recent objection to the establishment of river management dis­
tricts has come from within the councils themselves.

Their concern

has not been with those items already mentioned, but with the timing
of district formation and with reaching an agreement on how the
districts would be financed.

The general feeling within the Huron

River Watershed Council was that there was not need, at that time,
for additional regional governments.

They felt that more effective

183

Letter to City Corporation Council from City of Detroit,
Department of Public Works, February 28, 1964.
(Clyde Palmer, City
Engineer)
^^Letter from State Soil Conservation Committee to the Huron
River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee, December 2, 1963. (Russell
Hill, Executive Secretary).

122
local action was required instead.

185

The favored method of financ­

ing, distribution of short notes and contract bonds, could not be
worked out to mutually satisfy the councils, partly because the
original legislation was not worded correctly to insure the redemp­
tion of those bonds.
A final attempt at bringing about a change and improvement in
the scope of the Local River Management Act came with the proposal for
the creation of Watershed Districts.

187

(This proposed Act is not

to be confused with Chapter 22 of the Michigan Drain Code that pro­
vides for the creation of water management districts, a description
of which can be found in Extension Bulletin E-382, Drain Law for
Michigan Landowners.

(Michigan State University, Cooperative Exten­

sion Service, 1966, pp. 6-7).

This Act proposed to consolidate

water resource management and water quality control at the local
level by granting the District authority to:
(1)

185

Exercise control over water quality within the watershed.
The District may set minimum acceptable flow standards
for the rivers, lakes, and streams within its boundaries.
It shall license all new withdrawals from the waters of
the District and review, with the power to revoke, exist­
ing withdrawals according to set criteria. The District
may initiate projects to alleviate flood damage, curb
siltation, or conserve the waters of the Districts.
Equally important, the District shall enforce the water
quality standards as applied by the Natural Resources
Commission.

Huron River Watershed Council, Minutes of Annual Meeting, 1973.

186

Interview with John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary of the Grand
River Watershed Council, Lansing, Michigan, May 3, 1974.
187

Environmental Law Society. Proposed Legislation for the
Creation of Watershed Districts. (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
of Michigan, Environmental Law Society, 1972).

123
(2)

(3)

Develop water resources and related services on a scale
which individual cities and counties find prohibitive.
For example, the District may construct and manage
recreational facilities, investigate and monitor water
withdrawals and discharge into the waters of the District,
and plan projects for low flow augmentation. Moreover,
the District shall devise an overall plan for the watershed
in order to forecast future needs of the watershed including
possible water supply problems.
Coordinate water management on a watershed-wide basis
and assist townsand counties within the watershed. Under
this heading, the District shall install and operate a
hydrometric scheme for measuring the factors which are
likely to affect water resources within the watershed.
The knowledge and expertise gained by such an investigation
shall be passed on to each community within the District.
The District shall provide plans for flood plain and shore­
line zoning in towns in the watershed.
It shall assist
counties and municipalities with any of their water manage­
ment problems and lend its considerable resources to defend­
ing the water needs and water quality of member communities.
The pollution enforcement and withdrawal licensing powers
will have a great impact in this area.-*-®®

To carry out these functions, the proposed Watershed District
Act gave the governing board of the district, "...power to tax,
issue revenue, general obligation and general improvement bonds;
and assess public corporations for smaller projects."

189

In general, the watershed district concept was proposing the
establishment of another unit of government.
proposal, as such, ran strongly against it.

Reaction to the
Examples of the type

of thinking that opposed establishment of watershed districts included

(1)

Rather than create another unit of government that would
duplicate existing state activity and create conflicts
in regulation and water quality surveillance, current
state efforts should be strengthened.

188

Grand River Watershed Council, Summary of Proposed Watershed
District Law, (Lansing, Michigan: Grand River Watershed Council,
1972), pp. 1-2.
189 T,
0
Ibid., p . 2.

124
(2)

(3)

The proposal was threatening to the Water Resources
Commission because it would, in effect, work to
fractionate the water quality program in Michigan
The public would be adverse to anything that further
gives any state agency or level of government taxing
or bonding a u t h o r i t y . 190

Comments such as these contributed to the lack of any sustained
deliberation over the watershed district proposal.

However, on a

recent reading of legislative support for the proposal, the Grand
River Watershed Council has reintroduced the Act for possible
consideration and action within the forthcoming legislative session.
The objective of this section has been to review

191

the provisions

and scope of the Local River Management Act and its proposed amend­
ments.

The intent was to identify both the extent of activity pro­

vided for, as well as the activity that was suggested be made
possible.

Analysis of the legislation and its shortcomings will

help provide a basis upon which the performance of those councils
established under Act 253 will later be evaluated.

190
Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations, Proceedings
of a meeting held in Williamston, Michigan, November 3, 1972.
191

Interview with John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary, Grand River
Watershed Council, Lansing, Michigan, June 6, 1974.

Review of Individual Council Activity
Introduction
It will be the objective of this section to briefly outline
representative activities, functions, interests, and programs of the
Clinton, Grand and Huron River Watershed Councils.

The approach will

be to identify highlights of watershed council activity and to relate
this to provisions in the enabling legislation that make certain
functions possible.

Identification of the most representative activ­

ity will help illustrate:
(1)

Where the emphasis in council activity has been

(2)

The extent to which this activity represents application
of functions made possible by the legislation

This information, in turn, will help provide an additional basis for
understanding and evaluating responses of council representatives and
government units to questions concerning watershed council activity.

126
Clinton River Watershed Council
The Clinton River Watershed is located in southeast Michigan and
drains some 760 square miles of portions of Macomb, Oakland, Lapeer
and St. Clair Counties (see Figure 9).

The Clinton River flows south­

eastward, largely through flat, urban areas.

The flat topography has

contributed to a number of problems associated with flooding, floodplain development and recreation management.
The Clinton River Watershed Council was formally organized on
May 13, 1971.

192

The impetus for the Council's formation came from

a group known as the Friends of the Clinton River, organized five
years earlier to promote river cleanup projects and citizen awareness
of river pollution problems.

193

An Army Corps of Engineer's proposal

to retard flooding through channelization of portions of the Red RunClinton River area provided the immediate backdrop for the council's
actual formation.

Citizen concern called for the formation of a

watershed council that would investigate proposals and collectively
speak for units of government on issues relating to water management.
Recognizing a responsibility to provide constructive leadership
in the protection and development of the Clinton River as a natural
resource, the Council adopted the following as its purposes and
functions:
(1)

Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies of water
resources of the Clinton River Watershed; including
investigations of water use, water quality, and the
reliability of the water resources.

192

Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of Organizational
Meeting, May 13, 1971.
193
1970.

City of Pontiac, Minutes of Community Meeting, October 29,

127

C"*k

nO'C^tluo

NOT

LJ
fl R A N O
■ LAM C

Ort#BCll

"ton OAKLAND CO.
in d c a

holly

P\

anovi-

?gg ly L1 W°

:

B a y p o rt^ P a rk ^ lS S ff TTOCPCN

ON C

R 09I

5nlNOt LB

ocncc

U arkston

iiio n

O lak/t.

Htigku

I
\

oAp
LANl

Antrdus
wfirc nrAT,aS«
lIki f

Pontiac

BirminghamIsfl
£

1#

F A B M IN G a T X y M

I - / — Roseville
M — Saint Clai

U&«h u^ p ov'j y°jP1
r

I N o * F irm ing C"*** _

ffdTiwiali

Itrper,

-J^oLAKC
r

D « tr o

r t -**OroM» Points

ao MILKS
Figure 9.

Clinton River Watershed

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

Prepare periodic reports covering among other things
trends in water use and availability, emerging water
problems, and recommendations for appropriate public
policies and programs necessary to maintain adequate
water resources for the Clinton River Watershed area.
If determined necessary by the Council, request the
Michigan Water Resources Commission to survey the
Clinton River Watershed for the purpose of determining
maximum levels of stream flow necessary for health,
welfare, and safety as provided in Sections 13 through
18 of Act No. 253, Public Acts of 1964, as amended.
Make plans for development and management of water
resources and recommend the creation of a river manage­
ment district or districts in the Clinton River Water­
shed under the provisions of Sections 7 through 12 of
Act No. 253, Public Acts of 1964, as amended, when the
needs warrant such an action.
Advise agencies of federal, state and local government
as to the Council's view of water resource problems
and needs in the Clinton River Watershed.
Cooperate with federal, state, and local agencies in
providing, maintaining and reading stream gauges, water
quality sampling stations, or other water resource datagathering facilities or programs that aid the Council in
its responsibility for studying and reporting on water
conditions.

Prior to the naming of a full-time executive secretary, little evi­
dence exists of activity in the direction of the purposes and func­
tions outlined.

Following the appointment of a paid staff member,

the Council, in the Fall of 1972, began to set forth some basic
objectives and guidelines for the activities and action of the
watershed council.

A "Statement of Position and Goals" was developed

and set forth the Council's intent to work in support of and in
cooperation with State and Federal agencies in developing programs
and activities designed to deal with the following problem areas:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

194
p. 2.

Wastewater disposal
Storm water runoff and surface drainage
Community water supply
Recreation use of water
Irrigation and industrial use
Conservation of natural resources and wildlife

Clinton River Watershed Council, Organization Bylaws, 1971,

129
(7)
(8 )
(9)
(10)

Stream flow
Flood plain control
Water quality
Public education and citizen participation

Since the adoption of these goals, the watershed council has
been developing its programs along a service approach to local units
of government that support it.

The council has directed its efforts

at providing information, developing a supportive data base on
flooding and water quality and providing a forum for discussion of
watershed issues and problems.

In structuring its programs and

activities, the council has taken up on its purposes and functions
in attempting to provide local governments with a specific organiza­
tion they can relate to and call upon for help in controlling
development in the river's floodplain, surveying the river's
environmental needs and in directing studies which will lead to river
improvement.
In an effort to build a power base and to establish themselves
as a credible organization capable of supplying a variety of water
management services, the watershed council is increasingly focusing
on providing information.

Much of the activities and programs of

the council have been designed to identify information needs and to
supply this information to affected units of government.

It is the

watershed council's objective to build a performance record based
on information supply, having this serve to develop the necessary
government and citizen support it needs to be an effective voice in

195

Clinton River Watershed Council, Statement of Position and
Goals, October 19, 1972, p. 1.

the watershed.

The Council has developed a committee system to help

it deal with particular areas of interest.
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The committees include:

Administration and Finance: To aid with administrative
detail of the Council and assist in assessments and
budget preparation; includes membership
Water Quality and Quantity Control: A committee to monitor
the actions of Council programs relacing to water quality
and quantity monitor of stream flow and watershed capacity
to provide for domestic, municipal, and industrial uses;
waste disposal, irrigation including sprinkling
Recreation and Conservation: To monitor and coordinate
efforts of communities and individuals along rivers and
in lake areas for providing recreation activities and
conservation programs, emphasis on areas such as Preserva­
tion and control of Inland Lakes and Soil Erosion Programs
Legislative Committee: To prepare or cause to be prepared
(and review) local regulatory measures for members and
monitor enabling legislation at state and national levels
Goals Committee: To be concerned with the philosophic
and long-range efforts of the Council; a watchdog over the
other committees (steering committee)
Watershed Coordinating Committee: To interact with other
watersheds for an exchange of ideas and programs; to
disseminate informational data and brochures relating
activities of the Council; to initiate the development of
a Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the Watershed B a s i n a - 9 6

For the most part, the committees have been responsible for develop­
ing council programs and activities.

A review of the major activi­

ties and programs will follow with the emphasis being placed on the
more recent examples of inputs the Council is making in the area of
water management.

Among the activities, functions, interests and

programs of the Clinton River Watershed Council in its relatively
short period of operation are:
(1)

Sponsoring river awareness and cleanup projects

(2)

Developing of a stream monitoring program

(3)

Preparing of public information and awareness reports

196

Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting,
February 24, 1972.

131
Brief descriptions of the nature of council activity in each of these
areas will be provided here.
(1)

Sponsoring River Awareness and Cleanup Projects.

This type

of activity largely characterized the early focus of the Clinton River
Watershed Council.

In response to a general decline in water quality

conditions on the Clinton River, the watershed council developed a
program aimed at soliciting participation and awareness by communities
and citizens in the basin area.

The effort was designed to bring

attention to problems on the river and to resources the watershed
council could bring to bear on these problems.

The council proposed

a four-point program to improve the river's condition in 1973.

The

program emphasized local input and control in calling for:
(1)

A river cleanup campaign using local resources to remove
debris from the Clinton River

(2)

A comprehensive stream monitoring program to help identify
pollution sources

(3)

An assessment of the recreational potential along the Clinton
to aid communities in developing river-related leisure
facilities

(4)

A role as planning consultant to the local communities in
the basin in seeking government grants for projects which
have an impact in the river and basin area

In an effort to gain the support of communities and citizens, the
watershed council sponsored several walks and canoe trips.

The primary

purpose of these was "...to allow government officials and citizens to
evaluate the stream for themselves and to discuss possible river
management programs...

197
p. 1.

..197

The Macomb Daily.

'Tour' Clinton River.

October 18, 1973,

132
A more aggressive program taken on by the council involved plan­
ning a Clinton River Cleanup for the summer of 1974.

A special com­

mittee was organized to coordinate local efforts along the stream
from Pontiac to the mouth.

The council's role was to spearhead the

cleanup, coordinate the actual effort and to act as an information
source for local efforts.
(2)

Development of a Stream Monitoring Program.

As a part of

the river awareness and cleanup program developed by the watershed
council, a stream monitoring system was developed to supplement
state monitoring efforts.

Early in 1973, in an effort to improve on

the availability of water quality data for the Clinton River Basin,
the watershed council launched a program to collect, analyze and
store water quality data.

The first phase of this program was

initiated in July 1973, and included fifteen grab sampling stations.

198

month.

These stations were tested at a frequency of once a

Parameters examined included temperature, dissolved oxygen,

biological oxygen demand, fecal coliform indices and nutrients.

199

Limitations present in the grab sampling technique, however, limited
the application of the data collected.

In response to this, the

watershed council in September 1973, approved the expenditure of
$15,000 to purchase four continuous monitoring stations that would
allow the council to expand and improve its testing program.

198

Clinton River Watershed Council, Preliminary Annual Report,
October 1973, p. 5.
199

Clinton River Watershed Council, Stream Monitoring Committee
Report, October 18, 1973, pp. 1-2.

200^ . . ,

Ibid.

133
These units are equipped to monitor levels of dissolved oxygen and
temperature on a continuous basis.

The information collected is

designed to supplement recent state water quality studies on segments
of the Clinton River and to provide a basis for assessing current
water quality conditions and problems.

201

The Stream Monitoring Committee has collected existing informa­
tion on water use in the basin from a number of sources including
the Water Resources Commission, Bureau of Water Management, Oakland
and Macomb County Soil Conservation Service Districts, SEMCOG and
the Army Corps of Engineers.

202

This data, in conjunction with

information collected from the monitoring units (expected to be in
operation by 1975), the council believes will play a vital role in
the preparation of recommendations for development of basin water
policies and programs, in promoting preservation and optimum use of
resources and in identifying water quality problems and demands on
•
^
existing
resources. 2°3

(3)

Preparation of Public Information and Awareness Reports.

The Watershed council is concerned about demonstrating the services
it can provide and informing and educating communities and citizens
on the problems facing the watershed.

To this end, the council

201

State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management, Clinton River
Study, Pontiac to Rochester, 1974.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management, Clinton River
Study, Rochester to Mouth, 1974.

202

Clinton River Watershed Council, A Preliminary Report on
Water Use in the Clinton River Basin, 1973, p. 1.
203

Clinton River Watershed Council, Water Uses in the Clinton
River Basin, 1973, p. 1.

134
has published a series of informational brochures that identify a
variety of concerns and problems and call for citizen and community
action and support.

The brochures have been distributed to govern­

ment units and to interested citizens in the watershed.

The Dro-

chures are designed to stimulate discussion of water management
issues and to serve as a focal point for further action.

The

brochures include:
(1)

Local Recreation and Open Space

(2)

Water Uses in the Clinton River Basin

(3)

Water Quality Management Issues

(4)

Water Quality Problems in the Clinton

River Basin

(5)

Flood Plain Management in the Clinton

River Basin

(6 )

Water Quality in the Clinton River Basin

Beginning in the Fall of 1974, several informational meetings are
planned to discuss the brochures and to develop approaches for
watershed council involvement.
In addition to the foregoing activities, the Clinton River
Watershed Council has been instrumental in:
(1)

(2)
(3)
(4)

Opposing Corps of Engineers and Soil Conservation Service
proposals to alleviate flood problems on portions of the
Clinton River (Red Run and North Branch) through construc­
tion of retarding structures, spillways and i m p o u n d m e n t s 204
Reviewing municipal plans for wastewater plant improvements
Receiving and reviewing applications for permits to author­
ize work in or over Michigan's inland waters
Recommending communities implement provisions of the
Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Act205

204

Soil Conservation Service, Technical Report-North Branch of
the Clinton River Watershed, 1970, pp. 2-3.
205

State of Michigan, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act
of 1972, Act 347, P.A. of 1972.

135
In relating the activities of the Clinton River Watershed Council
to provisions in the enabling legislation that make certain functions
possible, it becomes evident that the Clinton Council has followed
a strong service-oriented approach in its application of legislative
provisions.

The emphasis has been on education and information sup­

ply, evidenced in the studies and reports performed and prepared by
the council as well as in the advice, education and discussion
services provided.

More recently, the council has begun to

examine deficiencies in water resource data for the Clinton River
Watershed and as a result has taken steps to improve the water
quality data base by embarking on its own comprehensive stream
monitoring program.

This effort is expected to supplement existing

state water sampling activity and to further help establish the
watershed council as a credible data collection and information
supply organization.

136
Grand River Watershed Council
The Grand River Watershed is the major drainage basin of western
Michigan.

It has a drainage area of approximately 5,570 square miles

involving some 243 local government units (see Figure 10).

206

The

basin includes the watershed of the Grand River and seven major
tributaries including the Flat River, Looking Glass River, Maple
River, Portage River, Red Cedar River, Rogue River and Thornapple
River.

207

All of these are characterized by varying degrees of

agricultural, urbanized and forested lands, though they remain
predominantly agricultural.
The Grand River Watershed Council was organized in 1966 to
promote cooperation among the local governments in a water management
program in the watershed.

208

The goals of the Council are to enhance

the quality of the water and related natural resources in the Grand
River Watershed by:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Stimulating public involvement
Providing local units of government guidance in regional
management decisions
Assisting local units of government in planning water and
land management programs
Correlating water and land management programs
Uniting various local publics with all levels of govern­
ment

The Council proposes to accomplish these goals largely through
performing the following functions:

206
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Information Bulletin,
July, 1970.
207t, . ,
Ibid.
208
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
June, 1966.

Organization Bylaws,

209
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, March,
1974.

Figure 10.

Grand River Watershed

138
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6 )

Conduct, or cause to be conducted studies of water resources
of the Michigan Grand River Watershed, including investi­
gations of water use, water quality, and the reliability
of the water resources
Prepare periodic reports concerning among other things,
trends in water use and availability, emerging water
problems and recommendations for appropriate public
policies and programs necessary to maintain adequate water
resources for the Grand River Watershed area
If determined necessary by the Council, request the Michi­
gan Water Resources Commission to survey the Grand River
Watershed for the purpose of determining minimum levels
of stream flow necessary for health, welfare and safety
as provided in Sections 13 through 18 of Act No. 253,
Public Acts of 1964 as amended
Make plans for development and management of water resources
and recommend the creation of a river management district
or districts in the Grand River watershed under the pro­
visions of Section 7 through 12 of Act No. 253, Public
Acts of 1964 as amended, when the needs warrant such an
action
Advise agencies of federal, state, and local government as
to the Council's view of water resource problems and needs
in the Grand River Watershed
Cooperate with federal, state, and local agencies in pro­
viding stream gauges, water quality sampling stations, or
other water resource data-gathering facilities or programs
that aid the Council in its responsibility for studying
and reporting on water conditions^!®

Since its formation, the Council has been involved in a variety
of activities, most of which illustrate a strong service-program
approach to watershed planning and assistance.

The Council has been

concerned with the study of river use requirements, the necessity for
effective river management and the development of alternative
methods of meeting both public and private river needs.

211

The

Council has prepared several reports on water usage, water supply,

210

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Organization Bylaws,
June 1966.
211m ichigan Grand River Watershed Council, Paper presented at the
Water Management Orientation and Workshop Conference, Appleton, Wiscon­
sin, May 28, 1969.

stream monitoring and soil erosion and sedimentation controls.

In

addition, the Council has sponsored, been involved in, and provided
for a number of services and activities.

These include, but are

not limited to, watershed protection and flood prevention, stream
appreciation, the Grand River Basin Study, and conservation education
through programs with schools and organizations and through regional
meetings with government units.

Discussion of these and other

representative activities will follow with an emphasis being placed
on showing the Council's involvement in action programs.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control.

In recognition of major

pollution problems along the Grand River and its tributaries from soil
erosion, poor land management and uncontrolled runoff, the watershed
council, in conjunction with the Soil Conservation Service, local
and regional planning commissions, county and state highway depart­
ments and the Water Resources Commission has developed a program for
encouraging local government units to adopt soil erosion control
measures.

Some early examples of Council activity in this area

include the following efforts:
(1)
(2)

(3)

(4)

Program participant in the Governor's Conference on Water
Sediment Pollution, March 11, 1969
Participated as a specialist for the National Association
of Counties Research Foundation for the preparation of a
"Community Action Guidebook for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control"
Co-sponsored with the Michigan Association of Counties and
the Michigan Soil Conservation Districts in the Grand River
Basin a series of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Confer­
ences in 1971
Published an informational booklet "Soil Erosion & Sedimen­
tation Control Program" with the assistance of Michigan
Water Resources Commission, Michigan State Highway Depart­
ment, Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation

140
Service, Ingham County Road Commission, Lansing Planning
Department, and the Tri-County Regional Planning
Commission^l^
The intent of this information booklet was to develop guidelines
that would demonstrate proper management practices for abating soil
erosion in rural and urbanizing areas.

The guidelines have been

made available to property owners, developers and to government
units in the watershed area.
More recently, the Council has been active in encouraging support
for the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972.

This

support is largely grounded in basic principles the Council has
identified as necessary components of an effective sediment control
program:
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

Sediment control in urban areas should be a stated policy
of all local governmental units
Public information-education programs on sediment control
is necessary to "obtain public support
Competent technical personnel, workable procedures, regu­
lations and enforcement are essential for a successful
sediment control program
Sediment control provisions should be incorporated in
the planning stages for most effective application in the
construction stage of development^13

In furtherance of these, the Council has cosponsored a series of
regional meetings to help communities become acquainted with the
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act and to encourage local
implementation of soil erosion regulations.

The Council was also

instrumental in presenting testimony for legislative enactment of the
Act and in providing comments on the preparation of the Administrative

212

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
a General Meeting, September 20, 1972.
213

Paper presented at

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Annual Report, 1969.

141
Rules.,

The most recent example of watershed council involvement in

the soil erosion program has come as a result of a contractual agree­
ment between the State of Michigan and the watershed council to have
the council assist in administering the soil erosion and sedimentation
control program.

214

The Council's executive secretary will be respon­

sible for processing soil erosion and sedimentation programs filed
by county agencies and other local units of government.

He will also

be responsible for conducting training sessions and informational
meetings for enforcing agencies and other groups involved in making
earth change.
Stream Monitoring Control Program.

The watershed council, begin­

ning in 1968, developed a stream monitoring program through the
cooperation of twelve governmental units in the Grand River Basin.

216

The program involves monthly sampling and analysis of samples taken
at some 100 locations.

217

Basic parameters tested monthly at these

stations include temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen
demand, hydrogen ions, and total coliforms.

214

218

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, September,

1974.
Ibid., p . 1.
216

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Annual Report, 1973.

217

Center for Environmental Study. Environmental Quality Improve­
ment through Water Pollution Control, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1971,
p. 6 .
218

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Meeting, 1972.

Minutes of Annual

142
The purpose of the council in establishing the program was to
supplement the State's efforts in collecting, analyzing, and storing
water quality data.

The Department of Natural Resources and the

Michigan Water Resources Commission has made available to the Council
water quality monitoring equipment and has provided consulting serv­
ices in the development of the program.

In recognition of the value

of the program, the State has certified the watershed council's
stream monitoring program as a part of the Water Quality Management
Plan for the Grand River Basin.

219

In addition, the Council, under

the auspices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has had
access to a Storet computer for storage and retrieval of the data.

220

After six years of operation, five additional government units
and the Center of Environmental Studies of Jackson Community College,
have joined the program and are participating in collecting and
analyzing data.

221

With the assistance of program participants and

the computerized retrieval program of Storet, the watershed council
hopes to continue to expand its analysis of water quality conditions
in the basin, and to be better able to identify and forecast changes
in these water quality conditions.
Flood Plain Control Regulations and Watershed Protection.

The

watershed council's involvement in flood plain management has largely

219

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, September,
1974, p. 1.
220

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Stream Monitoring
Program Report, April, 1972, p. 1.
221,
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Annual Report, 1973,

p. 6.

taken the form of information and assistance provided local units
of government in having flood plain information and hazard studies
performed in their areas.

The Council has assisted a number of com­

munities in filing applications with the Department of Natural
Resources to have the Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conserva­
tion Service perform the studies.

The studies are designed to

produce technical reports that will enable communities to adopt
and enforce flood plain management programs.

222

In conjunction with these flood management programs, the water­
shed council has encouraged communities in flood hazard areas to
participate in the federal flood insurance program.

Local community

support, however, has been mixed on this, evidenced by the reluctance
of some communities to adopt local regulations, a condition necessary
for qualification in the program.

The watershed council has a con­

tinuing role to play in encouraging those communities not already
included to join the program before it expires to new applicants
in 1975.
The watershed council has also participated in flood plain
management through its involvement in P. L. 566 Watershed Protection
and Flood Prevention programs.

The program provides for a cost-

share arrangement with local communities and property owners inter­
ested in water and land management improvement programs.

Several

programs have been conducted on the Grand, Red Cedar, Looking Glass,
Flat and Maple River Watersheds.

Watershed council input has come

as a result of designation by the Michigan Soil Conservation Service

222

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, October,
1973, p. 1.

144
as a participant on the Watershed Technical Review Committee.

223

The

Committee is responsible for conducting field investigations and
submitting reports to the State Soil Conservation Committee to
help it determine the feasibility for federal cost-sharing of local
. „ 224
projects.
Grand River Basin Study.

The Grand River Basin was one of

sixteen basins in the nation designated by Congress to have a Type II
study.

225

The watershed council was selected to represent local

government units in the development of the river basin plan through
its participation on the Grand River Basin Coordinating Committee.
The Council was given the responsibility of devising and managing an
extensive information program of presenting the suggested plan to
local government units and the public.

A series of public information

meetings was conducted to help government units interpret reports and
to determine how they could best benefit from the recommendations
and the suggested programs.

The Grand River Basin Study, when

completed, will consist of the main report and ten volumes of appendi­
ces.

The compiled volumes will contain the following reports:
Volume I:
Volume II:
Volume III:
Volume IV:

Main Report
Appendix A (History of the Investigation)
Appendix C (Climate) and Appendix D (Surface Water
Hydrology and Hydraulics and Fluvial Sediment)
Appendix E (Ground Water and Geology) and Appendix
F (Mineral Resources)

223

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, September,
1973, p. 2.
224
225

Ibid.

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, The Role of Michigan
Communities to Combat the Wacer Pollution Problem, 1971, p. 2.

145
Volume V:
Volume VI:
Volume VII:
Volume
Volume
Volume
Volume

VIII:
IX:
X:
XI:

Appendix G (Water Supply and Stream Quality) and
(Health Guidelines)
Appendix H (Flood Control) and Appendix I (Navi­
gation)
Appendix J (Recreation), Appendix K (Fish and
Wildlife) and Appendix L (Power)
Appendix M (Agriculture)
Appendix N (Water Laws)
Appendix 0 (Economic Base Study)
Appendix P (Basin Plan Formulation Criteria) and
Appendix Q (Alternative Plans)

The watershed council is currently negotiating with the Army Corps
of Engineers to announce a completion date and the availability of
the report for local review and comment.

The watershed council will

hold a second round of public information meetings on the final report
during the 180-day public review period.

The council will then con­

tinue in its role as representative and spokesman of local government
units in the Basin by assisting government units in interpreting the
plan and in coordinating their efforts in implementing the recommenda­
tions of the plan.
Watershed Planning and Management Program.

The watershed council's

technical committee has developed a conceptual framework for an
educational-planning tool to be used by government units, organizations, and general public in the basin.

226

The educational planning

tool suggested by the Committee would be developed and operated in
cooperation with the Environmental Simulation Laboratory, University
of Michigan and the Center for Environmental Study in Grand Rapids.
It is proposed that the tool would help inform watershed constituents
of the many interrelationships involved in watershed management.

226
p. 8.

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.

Annual Report, 1973,

146
The committee is currently exploring private funding sources
after attempts to secure federal funds proved unsuccessful.

227

The

committee believes the program would provide the council with an
educational tool to help people recognize the problems of multiinterests and concerns for resource management.

228

Upon receipt of

funds for developing the program, it is expected to take one year to
operationalize the educational tool.

At that time, the council

believes it will have started on an effective program for planning
and managing the water quality in the basin; a program the council
believes should be readily adaptable to other river basins of the
state and the country.
West Michigan Water Supply Study.

An early focus of the Grand

River Watershed Council was the study of future water supply needs
of the west central Michigan area.

A Technical Advisory Committee

was established in 1967 to examine expected growth in this area and
to make a determination on the feasibility (in terms of costs) of
supplying Lake Michigan water to a twelve county area.

229

Funds for

the study were solicited from a number of organizations including:
W. K. Kellogg Foundation
Consumers Power Company
American Bank & Trust Company, Lansing
Security National Bank, Battle Creek

227

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Agenda of Annual
Meeting, May 9, 1974, Sec. 6 .

229
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Lake Michigan Water
Supply for West Central Michigan, 1971, p. 1.

147
Michigan National Bank
Michigan Consolidated Gas Company
Union Bank & Trust
230
General Motors Company
Based on costs, the study found that for all areas except Grand
Rapids and Wyoming, the costs were higher than those currently being
borne for producing and softening water from existing ground water
sources.

231

The study went on to recommend, however, that should

communities consider this in the future, the cost of supplying from
the existing systems will no longer be the most economical.
Stream Appreciation Programs.

232

Beginning in 1968, the watershed

council established a stream appreciation program for improving pub­
lic awareness of problems and needs in the watershed and along the
Grand River and its tributaries.

As initially developed, the program

called for an eight-point action program for action by communities
within the basin area. "The program included:
Program
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6 )
(7)
(8 )

Stream Cleanup
Boating, Trips and Excursions
Streamside Park Development
Stream Nuisance Monitoring
Fish Planting, Fishing Contests
Conservation Projects
Special Studies— Academic
The River in Community Drama

Purpose
Physical Improvement
Educational, Recreational
Physical Improvement
Educational
Educational
Physical Improvement
Educational
Recreational

230

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Report of the Techni­
cal Advisory Committee, 1971, p. F-l.
^^\lichigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Supply for West Central Michigan, 1971, p. 37.
232..
Ibid.

Lake Michigan Water

148
Municipal and private groups have been encouraged to sponsor special
activities to develop programs and opportunities that will provide the
public with a greater awareness of their local water resources.
The best example of a stream appreciation, public action program
occurred in 1973 with the Council's promotion of the Alpha 37 canoe
trip of the Grand River.

A ten-day itinerary was planned with "stop-

off" points keyed to generate local involvement and interest.

A

variety of organizations, groups, and individuals participated in
planning the program and in developing activities for stopping points.
A spinoff of the Alpha 37 canoe trip was the preparation of canoe maps
from Michigan Center to Grand Haven.

233

The maps were prepared by

the Council under the sponsorship of the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources.

The maps, available free from the Council's office,

show park sites and facilities, dams and points for portage, and other
information for convenient canoeing.
Other Inputs.

234

In addition to the aforementioned activities and

programs of the Grand River Watershed Council, the Council has also
been involved in:
(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

Natural Rivers Planning for the Rogue and Thornapple Rivers
Sponsoring regional awareness meetings of council programs
Review of:
(a) dredge and fill applications required by the Inland
Lakes and Streams Act
(b) Applications for National Pollutant Discharge Elimina­
tion System (NPDES) permits required of all municipal,
industrial, and commercial dischargers to surface
waters
Obtaining recognition of watershed councils in the state's
water programs and strategies for fiscal year 1975

233

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, October,
1973, p. 2
234

Ibid.

149
(5)

Sponsoring a Water and Land Resource Utilization Simu­
lation (WALRUS) workshop for schools, political, profes­
sional and citizen groups. The purpose of the workshop
is to seek awareness by the participants in the impact
of public and private decisions on water pollution^-*
(6 ) Participating as representative of Michigan's Watershed
organizations on the Department of Natural Resources
Public Participation Committee
Reflecting on the activities, programs and accomplishments of
the Grand River Watershed Council, it becomes evident that the
council has followed a strong approach toward acting as a service
agency to the local units of government that support it.

In terms

of relating what the council has done to provisions in the enabling
legislation that make certain functions possible, the council's
application of these provisions is best represented by the water
monitoring, water supply, flood control and soil erosion studies,
reports and activities the council has conducted or requested be
conducted.

Another strong area of emphasis by the council has been

in cooperating with federal and state agencies in performing studies
and in cooperating with organizations, group and government units
in developing water and land management improvement programs.

The

council is expected to continue its emphasis in these areas of
involvement in an effort to improve participation and support of
council activity.

The council is also working to achieve broader

recognition of the watershed water quality management planning.

235
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Newsletter, November
1973, p. 2.

150
Huron River Watershed Council
The Huron River Watershed (see Figure 11) is situated in the
southeast corner of lower Michigan and occupies a largely urban area
of 892 aquare miles in Washtenaw, Livingston, Oakland and Wayne
Counties.

236

From near Ann Arbor to the mouth, the watershed basin

narrows where the river has cut its channel.

Above this portion of

the basin, the watershed fans out into a more rural area from which
most of the total drainage comes.
Organized under Act 253 in 1965, the Huron River Watershed
Council draws its representatives from local units of government in
four counties (Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Livingston) 10 cities
and villages and 13 townships.

237

Membership on the council is volun­

tary as is funding which is based on an assessment of 6 q per capita
for each local unit of government, excluding counties which have
been assessed according to a flat rate.

238

(A new assessment schedule

has been developed by the executive committee and approved by the
representatives that will maintain the 6 q per capita assessment for
villages, cities and townships but counties will be assessed according
to the population and land area in the watershed.

The new county

formula is 3C per capita plus $1.50 per square mile, with a $6,000
ceiling on total assessment for each county.)

236

Huron River Watershed Council,
Meeting, (Ann Arbor: June 3, 1975).
237
Arbor:
238
Arbor:
239
Arbor:

239

Minutes of the Organizational

Huron River Watershed Council, Information Brochure,
Huron River Watershed Council, 1968), p. 2.
Huron River Watershed Council, Internal Memorandum,
September 27, 1973), p. 4.

(Ann

(Ann

Huron River Watershed Council, Recommended DuesSchedule,
Huron River Watershed Council, May 1974), p. 1.

(Ann

152
The origianal Impetus for the council's formation came from the
Huron River Intergovernmental Committee formed in 1958 under Act 200.
The group was formed primarily to study area problems relating to
wastewater disposal, water withdrawal, low flow, etc.

The Inter­

governmental Committee helped lay the foundation for a coherent
water use policy for the Huron.

In order that it might continue in

these efforts, the Committee decided to organize on a more permanent
basis under Act 253.

240

As a result of this, the original study

function of the group was expanded to include advisory, educational
and planning functions.
In an effort to "promote cooperation among local governments
in river

management," the Huron River Watershed Council set upon

defining

its goals in light of the more expanded provisions set forth

in Act 253.

The Council, in 1968, adopted a goals statement entitled

241
Water Use and Resource Management Goals for the Huron Watershed.
In this statement, the following goals were outlined as areas in which
the council could become involved through its advisory-planning
capacity:
(1)

Waste water disposal

(2)

Storm water runoff and surface drainage

(3)

Community water supply

(4)

Recreational use of water

(5)

Irrigation and industrial use

240

State of Michigan.
Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A.
of 1964 (as amended), p. 1.
241

Huron River Watershed Council, Water Use and Resource Manage­
ment Goals for the Huron River Watershed (Ann Arbor: Huron River
Watershed Council, 1968).

153
(6 )

Conservation of natural resources and wildlife

(7)

Stream flow

(8 )

Floodplain control

(9)

Water quality

(10) Public education and citizen participation
In adopting these goals, the council took on the responsibility
of providing leadership and resources necessary to constructively
seek the wise and orderly use and development of the Huron River.
The Council endeavored to meet this responsibility by conducting,
encouraging, coordinating and reviewing studies and plans regarding
the water and related land resources of the watershed, and by keeping
the public informed of watershed conditions and of proposals which
may affect these conditions.

The council performs this latter func­

tion by preparing reports, making recommendations regarding public
policies and programs, conducting informational meetings for council
members and the general public, responding to requests for information
and assistance and by publishing a periodic newsletter.
Since 1965, the Huron River Watershed Council has directed its
efforts at providing research and public information, and in providing
opportunities for evaluating inquiries and public forums on many
watershed issues and problems.

The executive committee, the council's

policy-making arm, provides the policy guidance for the council and
helps direct attention toward particular issues and problems.
A review of the major activities and programs of the council will
follow with the emphasis falling on some of the more recent examples
of inputs the council is making in the area of water quality manage­
ment.

Included here is work being done by the council in helping

154
bring the Huron River under Natural Rivers Protection and in working
with local government units in establishing a flood warning system.
Other major activities of the watershed council include (in some
sort of chronological order):
1965-

: Evaluation of the Mill Creek Metropark and Impound­
ment proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers

1968-

: Participation in the Southeastern Michigan Water
Resources Study

1972-

: Evaluation of the Pointe Mouillee Diked
Facility

Disposal

1968-1973:

Evaluation of the proposed Southeastern Michigan
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan

1969-1971:

Research performed on Inland Lakes and Shorelands
(Special Project)

1974-

: Research being conducted on selected Creeksheds
Special Project)

1972-

: Assistance to Local Government Units in the Areas
of floodplain planning, insurance, and flood
monitoring

1972-

: Support for bringing the Huron into the
Rivers System

Natural

1973-

: Researching the need for a water supply
flow study

and drought

Brief descriptions of the form and extent of council activity
in each of the areas mentioned will be provided here.

Where an issue,

problem or activity spans several years or has not yet been completed,
a general overview will be made as well as an update of the status
of the particular issue, problem or activity.
Evaluation of the Mill Creek Impoundment and Metropark.

As early

as 1965, the Army Corps of Engineers became interested in conducting
studies on the feasibility of constructing an impoundment on Mill
Creek for the purpose of improving water-based recreation in Lima and

Freedom Townships in western Washtenaw County.

242

The idea was

picked up and developed by the Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority
(HCMA).

Original watershed council involvement took the form of

a public information meeting held to discuss the proposal, together
with position statements issued on the water resource implications
of the impoundment.

Following review of the environmental impact

statement prepared for the project, the council took the following
position in conditional support of the project.
The impoundment is not opposed by the Huron River Watershed
Council as long as it can be shown:
(1)
(2)
(3)

Surface and subsurface drainage are not adversely affected
Water quality and quantity impacts downstream from the
impoundment are not adverse
Sanitary wastes generated by park users do not adversely
affect Mill Creek and the Huron Riv e r ^ ^

As a result of further study of the environmental impacts of
the proposed impoundment, the project is still under review and has
not yet been funded by the U.S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation.
The Metropark, planned in conjunction with the reservoir, is in
the same position, with the grant application of the HCMA still under
review by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and

the South­

east Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG).
Participation in the Southeastern Michigan Water Resources
Study.

The Council has been active in the Coordinating Committee for

the long-range Southeastern Michigan Water Resources Study being
jointly carried out by local, state and federal agencies under the

242

Huron River Watershed Council, Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1972), p. 4.

156
leadership of the Corps of Engineers.

Watershed council input has

been primarily through the executive secretary and the contributions
he has been able to make on the study's Environmental Quality and
Public Participation Subcommittees.

244

Evaluation of the Pointe Mouillee Diked Disposal Facility.

Water­

shed council involvement on this issue has been primarily through
extensive review and comments made on the planning procedures and
environmental impact statements presented by the Army Corps of Engi­
neers.

The proposal calls for building a diked area of approximately

470 acres on existing marshland and Lake Erie bottomland to contain
mercury-contaminated dredge spoil from the Detroit and Rouge
Rivers.

245

The Council began its involvement by disseminating back­

ground information on the proposal and its potential environmental
effects.

Largely-as a result of the pressure the council was able

to stimulate, a new public hearing on the proposal was held.
The Council registered a number of comments on the draft
environmental impact statement.

Among the major questions raised

were:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Loss of marshland and Lake Erie bottomland, and subsequent
adverse effects on fish and wildlife habitat
Possible adverse impacts resulting from the proposed
peninsula in Lake Erie
Possible contamination of water, flora and fauna from
toxic substances in the dredge spoil
Principle of using a wildlife habitat as a disposal site

244

Huron River Watershed Council, Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1971), pp. 3-4.
245

Huron River Watershed Council, Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1973), p. 3.
246t, . ,
Ibxd.

157
The council submitted a detailed statement to the Corps, addressing
these questions and the overall policy considerations as well as
specific points noted in the environmental impact statement.

The

Corps, as a result of comments received, has now released a final
impact statement.

The statement has been generally accepted by the

Department of Natural Resources and construction is expected to move
forward in the spring of 1975.

247

Proposed Southeastern Michigan Wastewater Management Plan.

The

Huron River Basin portion of this plan, adopted by the Michigan Water
Resources Commission in September 1971, calls for the construction of
a large interceptor sewer to serve western Wayne, southwestern Oak­
land and eastern Washtenaw Counties, transporting sewage to a large
treatment plant at the mouth of the Huron River.

248

After treatment

there, the effluent would be discharged into Lake Erie offshore from
the Pointe Mouillee Marsh area.

The watershed council did not for­

mally take a position on the proposal but it did submit a request to
the EPA to prepare an environmental impact study on the plan prior
to approval.

As a result of this request, a draft statement was

prepared and released to the public in February 1973.

249

Subsequent to this, public hearings have been held and additional
reactions to the draft environmental impact statement and alternative
plans have been taken.

Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Coucnil, 1974), p. 6 .
248

Huron River Watershed Council, Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1972), p. 4.
249

Huron River Watershed Council, Minutes of an Executive Commit­
tee Meeting, May 3, 1973.

158
Research Performed on Inland Lakes and Shorelands.

Through

their Special Projects function, the watershed council was awarded
a grant from the Office of Water Research and Technology to conduct
a two-year research effort designed to develop a working program
for effectively educating property owners about the inland lake
environment.

Approximately 3000 property owners on five inland

lakes in the watershed participated.

250

The study produced several

reports designed to serve as information handbooks to landowners.
Materials developed were printed and distributed by the Michigan
State Cooperative Extension Service and by the watershed council.
Research Being Conducted on Selected Creeksheds.

251

The watershed

council is currently involved in a second OWRT study designed to
identify values relevant to creeksheds and explore the forces and
institutions that influence them.

252

A second objective of the

study is to develop strategies for creekshed protection in selected
areas representing rural, urban and fringe situations.
It is intended that the research will produce a description
of a strategy or technique for involving local citizens and public
officials in area water resource management problems as well as

250

Huron River Watershed Council. Your Effective Involvement
in Improving and Protecting the Quality of the Environment of the
Huron River Watershed, (Ann Arbor: Huron River Watershed Council,
1971), p. 2.
251

Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report, (Ann Arbor:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1971), p. 5.
252

Huron River Watershed Council. What is the Future of the
Creeks in the Huron River Watershed?
(Ann Arbor: Huron River Watershed
Council, 1974), p. 2.

159
to produce a collection of written and graphic materials designed to
relate local water resource management problems to concerns of local
area residents and officials.

253

Assistance to Local Units of Government in Flood Plain Control.
The watershed council first began its program in this area in 1969
with its Flood Damage Avoidance Project.

As part of the program,

the watershed council purchased and installed three rain gauges for
the purpose of correlating data from other stations by the Weather
Service in the process of making flood predictions.

Together with

this, the council had worked in developing a telephone warning system
where various designated people would be called on to relay informa­
tion to authorities and individuals in flood prone areas.

This was

a desirable service but has since fallen into somewhat of a dormant
state of operation, largely as a result of minimal flooding problems
over recent years.

Probably the most significant role the council

has played in the area of flood control has been in pushing local
units of government into applying for federal flood insurance.

The

council has provided information and assistance to local units apply­
ing for federal flood insurance.

Ann Arbor was among those units

assisted by the watershed council and as a result of their acceptance
into the program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development
is now responsible for working with Ann Arbor in identifying the
floodplain area and in scientifically determining where the flood

253

Huron River Watershed Council, Summary of Objective-Creeksheds
Project, (Ann Arbor:
Special Projects Office, 1974), p. 2.

160
hazard areas are.

Once the scientific data has been collected on

Ann Arbor and other communities brought into the program, flood plain
ordinances can be developed.
Support for Bringing the Huron River into the Natural Rivers
Program.

In 1970, the Michigan Legislature passed the Natural Rivers

f
tr /

Act

in order to establish a system for the preservation and pro­

tection of Michigan rivers.

Some 37 rivers were chosen for study

as rivers meeting the natural and scenic qualities outlined in the
Act.

The Huron River was one of five rivers in southern Michigan

chosen for study under the "country scenic" classification.

255

The watershed council became involved through its efforts in
soliciting resolutions from local government units (statements of
support that were necessary before the Department of Natural Resources
would agree to begin the study of the Huron.)

The council has also

organized a public meeting for the purpose of gaining additional
support for the program and for. laying the groundwork for development
of the long range management plan.

The council is now coordinating

local initiative and work through a committee chosen to assist the DNR
in the development of the management plan.

The status of the com­

mittee's work has been to outline what should be included in the
plan and to identify land uses that exist in the area of the river to
be protected by the program.

^■^State of Michigan, Natural Rivers Act, Act 231, P.A. of 1970.
255

State of Michigan, Office of Planning Services, Questions
and Answers Concerning the Huron River and the Natural Rivers Program,
(Lansing: Office of Planning Services, 1974), p. 1.

161
Research the Need for a Water Supply-Drought Flow Study.

At

the request of the Washtenaw County Board of Public Works, the
Watershed Council was asked to consider sponsoring a comprehensive
water supply-drought flow study of the Huron River.

Results of the

study were intended to serve as a basis for a council request that
the Water Resources Commission establish minimum low flow on the
river.
The council, fearing repercussions of too early a decision,
decided to open the question to discussion.

A public forum held to

discuss the issue identified the need for a study that would update
existing water supply and flow information by taking into account
changing uses of the river, increased demands, etc.

The watershed

council received a mandate to prepare an outline for such a study
and investigate methods of having the study performed.
The council reestablished its Technical Advisory Committee for
the purpose of beginning the review and collection of all available
data relating to water supply and drought flow on the Huron River.
In addition to the preceding activities and issues, the water­
shed council has been involved in a number of education-information
related activities.

Included here is watershed council activity in

assisting with the planning for the remodeling of Barton Power House
as a museum to exhibit historical information on the Huron.

In

addition, there is a special projects proposal to establish a summer
youth employment program focusing on the local environment, a project
to be financed by federal funds.
Based on review of the activities and issues discussed, it
appears that the contribution the watershed council has made to

water quality management has been largely in the form of information,
education and advisory roles it has been able to play.

Most of the

activity has been issue-oriented as opposed to service or
program-oriented.
The watershed council has shown that there is a definite role
for it to play, especially in those areas where other agencies or
government units are not currently providing a service.

In areas

such as flood warning and natural rivers planning, the watershed
council can play its most important roles.

Both of these programs

depend on local government coordination and cooperation; the watershed
council can serve to bring together and direct local initiative and
thereby achieve some useful functions.

163
Analysis of Watershed Councils Established Under Act 253,
P.A. of 1964

Introduction to the Analysis of Surveys
In addition to reviewing council activities and functions, sev­
eral surveys were conducted of watershed councils established under
Act 253.

These surveys attempted to further evaluate the degree of

impact each council has had on contributing to more effective water
quality management.

Among those surveyed were the executive secre­

taries of the three study councils (the Clinton, Grand and Huron
River Watershed Councils), the representatives to the councils and
the units of government that support the councils.

The first of the

surveys, that of the executive secretaries, provided a reference
point to which the comments made by representatives and units could
be compared for differences and similarities in opinion regarding
council performance and operation.

The separate surveys of

representatives and units of government were analyzed individually
and then compared, once again noting when and where there was a
difference of opinion regarding some aspect of council operation.
The results presented in this report provide an overview of
how various groups perceive watershed council operation and perform­
ance.

Their reactions, together with the examination of activities,

functions and features of the study councils, will form the basis
for an evaluation aimed at determining the degree of impact each
council has made in contributing to more effective water quality
management.

164
Survey of Executive Secretaries
The executive secretaries of the Clinton, Grand and Huron River
Watershed Councils were asked to assign weighted values to a list of
activities, functions, and features (variables) of watershed councils
granted by enabling legislation.

They were asked to rank the ten

variables in descending order of importance according to the degree
of effectiveness they believed each variable has on affecting water
quality management in their watershed.

They were also requested to

list any additional variables not presently allowed by the enabling
legislation that they would like to see made available to their
watershed council.
Table 1 shows how each of the three executive secretaries
perceived the relative importance of each of the variables listed.
Analysis of these rankings shows that agreement on the relative
importance of each of the variables to water quality management
was mixed, with full or close agreement reached on only five of the
ten variables.

Of those five variables, full agreement was reached

only on variable number nine.

The remaining five variables,

representing some consensus of opinion, concern those variables
considered to be of less importance.

The Clinton River Watershed

Council, the most recently formed of the three, placed a greater
emphasis on funding, membership and coordination as variables making
a contribution to water quality management.

The Grand and Huron

Councils emphasized information-education functions, activities,
and features as most important in contributing to water quality
management.

The Huron Council also gave funding a high rating.

165

Table 1.

Rankings of Variables

Variables

Weighted Values
Clinton

1.
2.

Availability and Source of Funds
Membership Number (Actual and
Potential), Turnover, Involvement,
Leadership, etc.

1

2
5

Grand

Huron

8

2

7

7

6

3.

Conduct Studies of Water Resources
in the Watershed

4.

Cause to be Conducted Studies;
Contracts

6

5.

Prepare Reports

8

4

8

6.

Request the Water Resources
Commission to Perform Streamflow
Level Studies

9

10

9

10

9

10

7.

Creation of River Management
Districts

8.

Advise Local, State, Federal
Units of Government as to Council
Views of Watershed Problems and
Needs

7

Coordinate, Cooperate with other
Units of Government in:
(a) Handling Mutual Problems
(b) Providing for Water Quality
Sampling

3

9.

10.

Public Information and Education
Services and Programs

4

4

5

1

3

2

5

1

3

6

166
Due to the variation present in these rankings it was deter­
mined impractical to consider taking an average value and proceeding
with this as a reference model.

Rather, each ranking was preserved

and utilized as a separate model for evaluating individual council
activity.

The models were also used as points of comparison to

responses that came in from surveys of representatives and units of
government.
In addition to this comparative value, the additional variables
listed by the executive secretaries were used to identify and pin­
point limitations in the enabling legislation.

Among the variables

named as desirable and not currently allowed by the legislation were:
(1)

Secured financial support, derived in part by taxes and
from state contributions

(2)

Required membership

(3)

Decentralized management

(4)

Legitimizing councils as planning agencies

This identification of the needs of watershed councils was then
compared with responses to similar questions posed to representatives
and units of government.
Survey of Representatives to Watershed Councils
Selection of Respondents and Review of Return Patterns.

A

reaction-attitude survey of representatives to the Clinton, Grand
and Huron River Watershed Councils (see Appendix A, page 238) was
conducted primarily for the following reasons:
(1)

To identify water quality-related issues and problems in
each of the study watersheds

167
(2)

To determine how well the watershed councils were perform­
ing a service or otherwise making a contribution to better
water quality management

(3)

To solicit suggestions for change and recommendations
for improvement in council operations

The first order of business was to determine how many units
of government were eligible for representation on the council as a
result of the fact that they had paid their annual dues or had
indicated they intended to.

It was determined, based on information

made available by the councils, that as of February 1974 there were
112 units of government represented on the three councils.

272

The

Grand River Watershed Council was represented by 50 units, the Huron
by 26 and the Clinton by 36 (see Appendix C, pages 253-255).

273

The determination that there were 165 representatives on the
councils at the time the survey was run was based on the unit's
estimated membership.

A breakdown shows the Grand River Watershed

Council with 70 representatives, the Huron with 35, and the Clinton
•.-i ,n 274
with 60.
All 165 representatives were sent questionnaires.

Table 2

indicates the general response and return rates. (An overall return
rate of 49% representing 80 of the 165 questionnaires distributed)
was achieved as a result of this survey.

272

First and second followups

Listings provided by Executive Secretaries of the Grand,
Huron, and Clinton Watershed Councils.

273Ibid.
274Ibid.

168
were timed to coincide with the receipt of the greatest number of
returns, approximately 10 days after each mailing.

275

Incomplete

responses ran highest in the second mailing (17) yet the number of
complete responses obtained for the survey represented nearly 64%
of the questionnaires returned.

Table 2.

Response and Return Rates
original
first
mailing

first
followup

second
followup

Totals

30

13

8

51

31

6

17

6

29

18

Questionnaires
Returned

36

30

14

80

49

Questionnaires
Not Returned

129

99

85

85

51

Number Complete
Responses
Incomplete Responses

Total Number of
Mailings

165

165

% Rate of
return (to
nearest %)

(total)

100%

Table 3 gives a breakdown of how well representatives from
each of the watershed councils responded to the questionnaire.
also compares response and return rates.

It

Proportionately speaking,

representatives from the Huron River Watershed Council returned the
most questionnaires for a rate of return of 54%.
Table 4 (see page 171 ) was prepared to identify how representa­
tive responses varied with respect to types of member units on each

275

Irving Howards and Edward Kaynor, Institutional Patterns'in
Evolving Regional Programs for Water Resource Management. (Amherst,
Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, 1971), p. 228.

I

Table 3.

Comparison of Response and Return Rates

Number
Complete
Responses

1st Mailing

1st Followup

2nd Followup

Grand Huron Clinton

Grand Huron Clinton

Grand Huron Clinton

Totals

Percentages

Grand Huron Clinton

Grand Huron Clinton

7

11

5

4

4

4

3

1

21

14

16

30

40

27

2

3

1

8

1

8

4

1

1

14

5

10

20

14

17

Ques tlonnaires
Returned

14

10

12

13

5

12

8

4

2

35

19

26

50

54

44

Ques tionnaires
Not Returned

56

25

48

43

20

36

35

16

34

35

16

34

50

46

56

Total Number
of Mailings

70

35

60

70

35

60

70

35

60

70

35

60

100

100

100

Incomplete
Responses

169

12

170
council.

This information on units responding through their

representatives, was in turn plotted out on maps of each of the
three councils (Figures 12, 13, and 14).

Examination of Table 4

and Figures 12-14, shows that city representatives on the councils
proportionately returned the most questionnaires.

This breakdown

of government unit response rates will be useful later in this
analysis in evaluating and understanding the kinds of responses.
will also aid in identifying where in the watershed and among what
types of units more participation and interest in council activity
may be needed.

It

Table 4.

Variation in Response with Respect to Member Units

A. Clinton
B. Huron
C. Grand

Cc>unt-y
Re preslent:ati\sea
A

*

B

C

City
Ileprt;sent ati\res
A

B

Townsh ip
Re present atl ves

C

A

B

Vi 11a ge
Rep res ent at:.ves

T otal s

C

A

B

C

A

B

C

2

4

3

11

6

12

2

4

5

1

0

1

16

14

21

Incomplete
Responses

2

1

5

3

1

8

3

3

0

1

0

1

9

5

14

4

5

9

14

7

19

5

7

5

2

0

2

26

19

35

Questionnaires
not Returned

13

3

9

16

3

17

4

7

5

2

3

4

34

16

35

Total No. of
Mailings

17

8

18

30

10

37

9

14

9

4

3

6

60

35

70

Ques tionnaires
Returned

Two counties are eligible for membership to the Clinton River Watershed Council: Macomb and Oakland
County. Only Oakland was a member at the time the survey was begun and it dropped its membership
prior to the completion of the survey.

171

Number of
Complete
Responses

p,i Q r u d \ l « a e

Crook
MOV

, G oodrich
H A D L IY

LJ
O ff A M O
BLANC

* T I% S

-T O M .

OAKLAND CO.

,nd^ |

holly

- E k

onovi-

?*<■"» L*NO

epci T
BayportPark^uklsiSf WW
OENCC
RO 0B

SmiMOa

C la rk u o n

&Lakft
LjO m a *
IcHKBTC
.

[It C!«B<

PISLO

BilW R ffhA m l STI

5 lif
* W

FANMING55jjr*Xi) S —JC
I TON j y - ^ r * Z

] i0jJO i s S o u t h ^

N o l ■- F w m in i L J „

_

„ _

f - [ — Roseville

M ---- Saint Clai

!_ l___E .a t D .tro

_ V ^ - LAKE
f r t ~C*rramr Point**

SO MILKS
Figure 12.

Clinton River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire

A

Villages

A.

Cities

©

Townships

©

Counties

173

ItKUDJUCD

Figure 13.

Grand River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire

A

Villages

A

Cities
Townships

<s>

Counties

174

U - g M ___

INGHAM GO.

Bifpon ratkM>kisiTf

V IN G SIO N CO.

lo c h i

IMA

mo<

MaroN

TAM

ffcFtN-

V \

ICNCC
w asm - I N M
w*iHio<> ls6 * * o n ft O A K T I , n o t o n I V j
D la i/fT r io n H tr fii* | y LAN^
J_ ^
\

J ilH iia i

3

W*bb#nnlJ* Q •

> < w tlu i <f r

*
I \
flSw.-P^Tfcuir L.V'tNivIM
1N

p

P o n tia c

BIoaaiHt

•t CW

2V33
IU N IIK I I T iB R .

UTON

Sowtfe Lyoa

B M c ib ifii

N bl

P w n lB <
N irik < illi
n*rip*»»'»

"

w a sh

J

gf

■/«"

, 3

S

a

2|
21

U v o n l. J U

I V IW.'TMOUtM ■

^Mfl fM t

W k ^AJ
| O C A I t a f 1*
_

D e tro it

U nrborn
k lO N I
Cm ii

L ake

"

H i*W »nd V V ^ * *

M clvittfsl*

Rt«*r R#*|«
IflHt

KxMWM*
u n c o lr f

Park

;< m fc T * v io a
LU* | k

mh«»t
QftOSSC IkC

o
fSS'lXI l e x a w e e CO.

MONROE CO.

I M O O . ' .S f i 'o , I
| STOCK
O a iu B |

■A C «M

* MIWAM

l l O P l O 'I M

C X C T tM
E a t. a

SCALE

so

Figure 14.

so

Huron River Watershed Council Member Units whose
Representatives Responded to the Questionnaire

A

Villages

A

Cities

@

Townships
Counties

175
Analysis of the Returns
Analysis of the questionnaires administered representatives of
each of the three watershed councils established under Act 253 began
with a review of the questionnaire as a whole.

Questions 1 and 10

were then singled out for more specific analysis and comparison.
Percentage and frequency distributions formed the basis for
analyzing the responses.
General Review.

Some general observations were made of the

responses from the questionnaire, highlights of which will be
presented here.

A more complete display of response patterns is

available in Appendix D of this report (see Table 19, page 256),
where the overall and individual council responses have been tallied
and displayed for each question.
In general, the responses that came in to the questionnaires
administered the representatives were supportive of the council's
role and of the need to continue their operation.

Water quality was

most frequently cited as the most pressing issue in the watersheds,
with representatives from the Clinton Watershed Council most in
agreement.

Table 5 gives the percentage results of how representatives

responded to this question, and to the question of whether or not
the watershed council was playing a role there.

Representatives from

the Huron and Clinton River Watershed Councils were most convinced
that the councils were playing a role.
The reactions in Table 6 , were given when the representatives
were asked whether or not the watershed council had a place in water
quality management, and what that role might be.

The Huron River

Watershed Council received the most favorable response to supporting

w>ir-v

176
Table 5.

Response Characteristics:
Categories of
Responses

1
1
1
1

A.

What is (are)
the most pressing
issue(s) in your
watershed?

Issues and Roles
%*
Overall

%
Grand

%
Huron

%
Clinton

(a) waste water
management

42

36

60

37

(b) water quality

55

47

55

67

(c) land use

28

31

25

26

(d) water quantity

23

11

55

15

60

47

75

67

22

31

15

15

if

i
3
I
!♦
rs

\

(a) yes
B. Is the water­
shed council play­
(b) no
ing a role there?

}

* an average value for the three watershed councils

i

i

Table 6 .

Response Characteristics:
Categories of
Responses
(a) yes

Water Quality Management Roles

%

%

%

%

Overall

Grand

Huron

Clinton

67

61

90

60

7

8

5

7

A. Is there a
place for your
watershed council
in water quality
management?

(b) no

If yes, what
should that
role be?

(a) provide
information
and education

46

36

60

48

(b) advocate,
assist,
cooperate

46

44

50

44

* an average value for the three watershed councils

177
the place of the council in water quality management.

Analysis of

the second of these two questions (Table 6 ) reveals that representa­
tives of the three councils are evenly split on what the role of the
council should be in water quality management.

However, both roles

are complementary in that they emphasize service functions.
Representatives were later asked to respond to several questions
relating to watershed council effectiveness (Table 7).
Again, the representatives from the Huron River Watershed Council
appear to be most convinced that the council has been doing an effec­
tive job.

When asked about the need for improvement, 85% of the

Huron’s representatives believed there was such a need.

It is

interesting to note that 53% of the representatives believed that
improvement was most necessary in operation as opposed to organiza­
tion.

More involvement scored consistently higher than all other

suggestions for improving council effectiveness.

Improving the flow

of information and education materials ran close behind with 27% of
the respondents choosing this.

Choosing these two suggestions sup­

ports the roles cited earlier by the representatives in Table 6 .
Based on review of the preceding information, it appears that
watershed councils, as viewed by the representatives, do have a role
to play in water quality management.

By better than a 2/3 margin,

the councils were rated as having performed effectively and were
expected to be able to continue to do so.

Rather than calling for

changes in the enabling legislation, the majority of the representa­
tives responding felt the councils could best improve themselves by
changing their internal operation to become more involved in issues
and problems facing the watershed.

Increased involvement and awareness

178
Table 7.

Response Characteristics:
Categories of
Responses

Council Effectiveness
%
Overall

%
Grand

Generally speaking, (a) yes
do you believe your
council has been
(b) no
and can continue
to be an effective
group?

67

64

80

63

8

8

10

7

Is there room for
improvement?

(a) yes
(b) no

70

72
3

85

56

1

0

0

If yes, in what
area or areas:

(a) statutory,
organiza­
tional
(b) operational

46

44

55

41

53

56

60

44

improve information, education
flow

27

31

40

15

more involvement in issues,
problems

38

39

40

33

(c)

increase level of funding

19

22

30

7

(d)

increase available authority

18

22

15

15

(e)

improve coordination with other
groups

8

11

15

0

%
Huron

%
Clinton

Suggestions for improving
effectiveness:
(a)

(b)

179
were felt to be most Important to improving the information-education
and advisory roles cited as being what the council could do best
toward contributing to better water quality management.
Review and Analysis of Responses to Questions 1 and 10.

Questions

1 and 10 were singled out for more specific review and analysis as
a result of the expected contribution that responses to these questions
would make to the evaluation.
The approach taken was much the same as that followed with the
previous review of questions.

Overall and individual council percent­

age and frequency characteristics were compiled and analyzed.
Table 8 gives the overall percentage and frequency character­
istics of questions la. - le. relating to council service.

The

response pattern generally shows a small majority of representatives
reacting favorably to council service with a rating of adequate.

In

the adequate category "representing interests of your unit" and
"responding to problems and issues" had the highest ratings with 61%
and 58%, respectively.

Responses were relatively evenly split between

the more than and less than adequate choices, hovering in the 10- 12%
bracket for each of the five questions relating to council service.
Tables 20-22 (see Appendix D, pages 264-266 ) provide a breakdown of
responses by individual councils.

Sixty-three percent of the repre­

sentatives from the Huron River Watershed Council supported the
adequate rating, while 58% and 46% of the representatives from the
Grand and Clinton River Watershed Councils gave the same rating.
The comparison of the responses given to question 1 with those
of question 10 relating to council involvement is shown in Table 9.
Overall, 50% of the representatives responding believed the watershed

Table 8.

Response Characteristics:

Council Service

HOW WELL HAS THE WATERSHED COUNCIL:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

represented the interests of your unit
responded to problems and issues in your watershed
perceived problems and issues in your watershed
performed in terms of making effective contributions to water quality management issues and problems
communicated with your unit

more than
adeauate
a.
b.

no
response

less than
adequate

adequate

5

6

51

61

10

12

17

21

7

8

48

58

10

12

18

22

12

14

18

22

52

c.

10

12

43

d.

8

10

43

52

13

16

19

23

9

11

44

53

12

14

18

22

Number
of
Respondents

Percent

Number
of
Respondents

Percent

Number
of
Respondents

Percent

e.

Number
of
Respondents

Percent

**

*

Based on a return rate of 49% or 83 of 165 questionnaires mailed (see Table 3).

**

Rounded to nearest percent.

181
council has been involved in the various activities listed.

Repre­

sentatives cited that the councils have been most involved in citizen
education and in promoting wise development (57%).

The councils have

been least involved in soil erosion control (34%).

The results of the

analysis of council involvement would tend to support the 55% adequate
rating received by the councils for question 1 (how well the councils
have provided a service).
Tables 23-25 (see Appendix D, pages 267-269 ) break down the
overall characteristics presented here into responses from each of
the individual councils.

Regarding council involvement, 57% of the

representatives to the Huron Council believe the council has been
involved as compared to 49% and 48% from the Grand and Huron Councils.
Responses show that the Huron Council has been most involved in pro­
moting wise development and use, whereas 58% and 63% of the repre­
sentatives from the Grand and Clinton say most involvement among the
three councils has been in the area of soil erosion control, with only
35%, 42%, and 22% of the representatives to the Huron, Grand and
Clinton River Watershed Councils saying the Council has been involved.
Table 9 shows approximately 64% of those responding felt that
the watershed councils should be involved in the various activities
listed.

Comprehensive stream monitoring and soil erosion control

were given the smallest margin of approval at 58% and 57%, respec­
tively.

(Notice, however, the 23% increase over have the councils

been involved in soil erosion control to should the councils be
involved.)

A similar rise was also noted for assisting in programs

for better waste water disposal.

Most of the other activities

Table 9.

Response Characteristics:

Council Involvement

Regarding the following areas that have, in varying degrees, some bearing on water quality management:

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

f.

Promoting wise development and recreational
use of river and land resources
g. Promoting better water quality standards
h. Promoting better water quality management
and use
1. Informing public agencies and requesting
that studies be performed
j . Encouraging and enlisting citizen and
community support for conservation and
preservation of natural resources

Assisting communities in the development
of flood plain ordinances and controls
Assisting communities in the development of
soil erosion, sedimentation control ordinances
Comprehensive stream monitoring
Citizen education and awareness of issues
in the watershed
Encouraging and supporting proposals for
better waste water disposal

Has the watershed
council been involved
HO RESPONSE

NO

YES

Should the watershed
council be involved
NO RESPONSE

NO

YES

Direct

How:
**

Indirect

NO RESPONSE

45

54

12

15

26

31

51

61

2

3

30

36

25

30

26

31

32

39

28

34

25

30

30

36

47

57

7

8

29

35

23

28

25

30

35

42

c.

46

55

12

14

25

30

48

58

4

5

31

37

36

43

11

13

36

43

d.

47

57

9

11

27

33

53

64

1

1

29

35

45

54

6

7

32

39

e.

40

48

14

17

29

35

58

70

1

1

24

29

32

39

17

20

34

41

f.

47

57

11

13

25

30

57

69

0

0

26

31

35

42

16

19

32

39

g.

40

48

13

16

30

36

54

65

2

2

27

33

35

37

11

13

41

49

h.

40

48

10

12

33

40

55

66

0

0

28

34

28

34

17

20

38

46

48

8

10

35

42

9

11

33

40

X

9

%

i.

45

54

10

12

28

34

52

63

4

5

27

33

40

j.

42

51

15

18

26

31

55

66

1

1

27

33

41

49

%

9

X

9

X

9

X

#

X

9

%

9

9

%

9

*

See Table 3 for information on return and response rates for the entire questionnaire.

**

Direct —

***

Council takes initiative.

Indirect —

Council supports or encourages agency activity.

182

a.
b.

183

experienced about a 10% change in the number of representatives saying
the councils should be involved.

There were no negative differences;

generally, none of the representatives felt activity in these areas
should decrease.
More specific identification of the individual council responses
to this part of question 10 is available in Tables 23, 24, and 25 (see
Appendix D).

This analysis reveals that nearly 75% of the Huron's

representatives on the Huron Council rated promoting wise development
(90%) and encouraging better wastewater disposal (85%) as the most
important activities the Council should become involved in.

(This is,

in part, a reflection on the development pressures building along the
river and of the increasing concern over waste loads on the river
below Ann Arbor.)
an 80% response.

Establishing community and citizen support drew
Differences between what the Council has been

involved in and what it should be involved in showed the greatest
increase in support for the following activities:
Soil erosion control - 30% increase
Stream monitoring - 25% increase
Encouraging better wasewater management - 30% increase
Promoting wise development - 25% increase
The representatives on the Grand River Watershed Council said
the Council should be most involved in promoting wise development,
encouraging better wasewater disposal, and informing public agencies
(64%).

The remaining activities drew a close 58-61% rating.

The

representatives on the Grand River Watershed Council are just about
evenly divided on the need for all the activities.

Regarding

differences in response between what the Council has been involved in,
20% more representatives felt the Council should become more involved

184
In informing public agencies, encouraging citizen support, promoting
better water quality standards and assisting communities in soil
erosion and sedimentation control.
Representatives from the Clinton River Watershed Council believe
the council should be most involved in encouraging proposals for
better wastewater management and in promoting better water quality
standards (67%).

In comparison, only 44% of the representatives felt

the council should be involved in assisting communities in soil
erosion and sedimentation control.

This percentage, however, repre­

sents the greatest -increase (22%) between what the council has been
involved in to what the council should be involved in.
In suggesting how the watershed councils should be involved in
the activities listed, 40% of the representatives responding indicated
they would like to see the watershed council take a direct approach
(Table 9).
initiative.

In other words they would like the council to take the
Alternatively, only 17% felt the watershed councils

should adopt a more indirect approach to involving itself in these
activities, with the least amount (7%) saying they felt citizen
education should be indirect (where the council supports or encourages
agency activity.)

All three councils favored the most indirect

involvement in developing floodplain and erosion control ordinances,
feeling that this is more appropriately the job of an agency or
government unit.
Review of Tables 23-25 shows a breakdown by individual council
on how representatives wanted to see involvement implemented.

Response

from representatives to the Huron Council showed that 70% wanted direct
involvement by the council in encouraging and enlisting community

support, with 65% of the representatives also favoring direct involve­
ment in citizen education and awareness programs.

Forty-three per­

cent of the representatives felt the approach taken in floodplain
and erosion-sedimentation control assistance should be indirect.
These statistics show that representatives on the Huron Council
want to see more direct council involvement in programs designed to
improve citizen and community awareness of what they perceive to be
pressing problems in development and wastewater disposal in the
Huron Watershed.
Representatives on the Grand River Watershed Council, (53% of
those responding) believe citizen education should receive the most
direct attention.

Indirect approaches to assisting communities in

soil erosion-sedimentation and floodplain controls were favored by 31%
of those responding.
Citizen education and awareness was chosen by 48% of the Clinton
River Watershed Council representatives as an activity that the council
should be directly involved in.

A similar trend was evident in their

support for indirect involvement in floodplain and soil erosionsedimentation control assistance.

Concern by representatives on the

Clinton River Watershed Council parallels responses from the Grand
and Huron Councils in that all three reflect a desire for more direct
involvement by the council in programs designed to improve citizen
and community education and awareness of problems and issues in the
watershed.
Review of the preceding information reveals that representatives
from all three councils believe the councils have been involved in
water quality management, primarily through the education-information

186
and advisory functions they have played.

Representatives among the

councils attached somewhat different significance to specific problems,
though the focus was on wastewater management, public awareness, and
promoting wise development.

The percentage of representatives from

the Huron Council asking for better wastewater disposal (85%) and
wise development (90%) was highest.

The representatives from the

Clinton and Grand River Watershed Councils attached somewhat less
significance to these problems with 67% and 59% of Clinton's repre­
sentatives and 64% of Grand's representatives citing wastewater disposal
and promoting wise development as areas where the council should be
most involved.

In all, representatives from the three councils would

like to see the councils take more initiative to make more information
available to agencies and to the public; to get more people interested
and involved in problems and issues facing the watershed is one area
where the watershed council has a direct responsibility and role to
play in water quality management.
Survey of Government Units:

Review and Analysis of Responses

As pointed out earlier, 112 units of government were identified
as represented on the three watershed councils established under Act
253.

All of these units were contacted in this survey in an attempt

to determine how responses of government officials (those sitting on
city and village councils, county and township boards) compared with
those made by representatives to the watershed councils.

The ques­

tionnaire administered these units was basically an abbreviated version
of the one administered to the representatives.
The number of questionnaires returned was 27% of those mailed. The
bulk of the information derived from this small survey comes largely

187
from the responses provided by the units responding from the Huron
and Grand River Watershed Councils.

Nothing was prepared on the

responses obtained from units in the Clinton River Watershed Council
due to the very light response from the units there (11%).

Outside

of some problems the Council has been having with Oakland County
which may be contributing to problems developing with other units,
no apparent reason exists for the small return.
An examination and comparison of the responses from the units
was made, and then compared to the responses from representatives
of these units on the council.

For the most part, the responses

that came in from officials in these units were more critical of
what services the council has provided.

Problems cited were similar

to both groups and suggestions for improvement and change pretty
much followed those offered earlier by the representatives.

One

thing that stood out with responses from the units was a distinct
interest and concern for getting more information on what the councils
are doing.
Evidence exists that units are lacking in sufficient information
on the council's activities.

Several units indicated they had

received no recent information on the council and that they were
generally unaware of council activity.

Tables 10 and 11 compare

responses of the units with those of the representatives to question
1 concerning council service.

It is evident that there is a difference

of opinion in service provided, with the units giving the less
favorable reactions.

For example, representatives to the Huron River

Watershed Council see the Huron's record of representing interests
of the units and of performance as primarily adequate (75%, 65%) while

Table 10.

Comparison of Responses:

Representatives
Response
Characteris tics

1.

Member Units and Representatives on the Huron Council

HOW WELL HAS THE WATERSHED COUNCIL:

more
than
adequate

adequate

representated the interests of
your unit . . . . ............

0

0

15

75

1

5

4

20

b.

responded to problems and issues
in your watershed ............

0

0

13

65

4

20

3

15

c.

perceived problems and issues in
your watershed ................

A

20

9

45

4

20

3

15

d.

performed in terms of making
effective contributions to water
quality management issues and
problems . . . ................ 0
A*
communicated with your unit . . 1

0

13

65

4

20

3

15

5

13

65

3

15

3

15

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

1.

no
response

a.

e.

Units
Response
Characteris tics

less
than
adequate

HOW WELL HAS THE WATERSHED COUNCIL:

%

more
than
adequate

adec uate

less
than
adequate

no
response

a.

represented the interests of
your unit ....................

2

25

2

25

4

50

0

0

b.

responded to problems and issues
in your watershed ............

3

38

2

25

3

38

0

0

c.

perceived problems and issues in
your watershed ................

1

13

4

50

3

36

0

d.

performed in terms of making
effective contributions to water
quality management issues and
problems .....................

2

25

2

25

4

50

0

0

e.

communicated with your unit

1

13

5

63

•2

25

0

0

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

%

'fcfc

. .

.

0

*

Unit response was solicited from those officials sitting on the local governing Councils and
Boards (City and Village Councils, Townships and County Boards).

**

Figures are based on a return rate of 27% or 8 of 27 questionnaires distributed. It is acknowl­
edged that this sample is small and that it may not be statistically representative of all the
member units on the Council.

Table 11.

Comparison of Responses:

Representatives
Response
Characteristics

1.

Member Units and Representatives on the Grand River Council

HOW WELL HAS THE WATERSHED COUNCIL:

more
than
adequate

adequate

represented the interests of
your unit ..................

2

6

23

64

4

11

7

19

b.

responded to problems and
Issues in your watershed . . .

2

6

23

64

2

5

9

25

c.

perceived problems and issues
in your watershed ..........

2

5

21

61

3

8

9

25,

d.

performed in terms of making
effective contributions to
water quality management
issues and problems ........
**
communicated with your unit .

4

11

16

44

6

17

10

28

1

3

20

56

6

17

9

25

%

8

%

8

%

8

*
**

1.

no
response

a.

e.

Units
Response
Characteristics

less
than
adequate

%

8

less
than
adequate

more
than
adequate

adequate

represented the interests of
your unit ..................

0

0

9

66

3

20

2

13

b.

responded to problems and
issues in your watershed . . .

2

13

8

53

3

20

2

13

c.

perceived problems and issues
in your watershed ..........

0

0

8

53

4

27

3

20

d.

performed in terms of making
effective contributions to
water quality management
issues and problems........

0

0

8

53

3

20

4

27

e.

communicated with your unit .

2

13

7

47

3

20

3

20

#

%

8

%

8

%

8

%

HOW WELL HAS THE WATERSHED COUNCIL:
a.

no
response

Unit response was solicited from those officials sitting on the local governing Councils and Boards
(City and Village Councils, Township and County Boards).
Figures are based on a return rate of 27% or 15 of 51 questionnaires distributed. It is acknowledged
that this sample's small and that it may not be statistically representative of all the member units
on the Council.

190
only 25% of the units believe the council has done an adequate job in
these areas.

On the other hand, 50% of the units believe the job

done has been less than adequate.

Ironically, representatives and

units on both councils were in general agreement on the council’s
communication with their constituents.

Outlying units on both

councils were quicker to identify the communication factor as a
problem.

Comparison of representatives' responses on the Grand

River to the remaining parts of question 1 shows the two groups to
be relatively similar in their responses overall.
Both the Grand and Huron River Watershed Councils suffer from
this information supply problem, though it appears, on the basis of
the difference in opinion between the representatives and the units,
that the Huron Council has the more serious problem of the two.

It

seems that more information would be desirable in both cases but the
questions that must first be answered are:

1.

are the councils currently generating? and, 2.

How much information
How much of this

information gets to governing boards of these units from either their
representatives on the council or through the mail?

Once this is

determined, then an approach can be developed to help close this
information gap.

It may, in large part, be a supply problem that is

responsible for the less than adequate ratings given council service
by the units.

Where there has been little correlation in responses

given by units and by representatives, it appears poor communication,
and perceptions based on limited information, have been contributing
factors in the councils receiving lower ratings by the units than by
the representatives.

This variation in response was evident in question 2 where the
units were asked if the watershed councils were playing a role in
certain problems that were identified as water quality issues in the
watershed.

Units on the Huron Council reacted with 60% saying "no."

Units on the Grand River Watershed Council registered a 33% negative
response.

In contrast, representatives’ answers to the same question

showed 47% responding "yes" on the Grand River Watershed Council and
75% answering "yes" for the Huron Council.
Conclusions drawn from this small sample seem to indicate that
units of government that support the councils are generally less
impressed with the services provided and the benefits received from
the contributions they make.

This feeling is most evident with the

units associated with the Huron River Watershed Council.

The less

than adequate ratings given, however, appear to be, at least in part,
due to the lack of information on what the council is doing.

There

is more visible evidence of information generation and flow on the
Grand River Watershed Council which may have been responsible for the
similar, more positive reactions given there by both representatives
and units on questions concerning council service.
It would seem necessary, in any case, that the councils set
about determining whether or not the lower ratings given by the units
to council service are in any way related to poor communication and
information.

It this is found to be the case, then it is most likely

the result of a combination of little feedback to the units from the
representatives and too little initiative on the part of the council
to generate and make available information to its constituents.

192
On the other hand, lower ratings by the units,,especially on the
Huron Council, on how well the council has represented the interests
of the units and performed in terms of making a contribution to water
quality management issues and problems may in fact be due to too little
council activity.

This could also be the case as more involvement in

issues and problems was most frequently cited by representatives in
their suggestions for improving council effectiveness.
If the reactions presented here are representative of a majority
of units on the councils, then the following would seem appropriate.
The councils should make contact with the units individually in an
effort to find out how they feel about the services the council is
providing, and what they could do to improve the level and quality of
service currently being provided the units.

In this way, the councils

could help better insure that the services provided are what the units
that support them would both need and like to see.

The end product is

that the information flow, currently cited as insufficient, could be
expected to improve with more frequent contacts and with evidence that
the councils were providing a service that the units desired.

What

this suggestion would.require, in essence, is more coordination,
cooperation, and sharing of council responsibilities among the repre­
sentatives on the council.

The extent to which the representatives

were willing to organize and share these responsibilities, would
determine how well this program succeeded in carrying the council to
the units.

193
Summary
The conclusion, based on the results of the preceding surveys is
that watershed councils, largely through their information, education,
and advisory functions, have made and can continue to make an impact
on water quality management.

Analysis of the surveys showed that

while respondents were in agreement that an impact had been made,
they did believe that the councils varied in the extent of impact each
was able to provide.

Where variation did exist, it was traced largely

to differences between councils in extent of council activity,
involvement, and information generated and distributed.

Where there

was less visible evidence of these factors, responses (especially
those coming in from the governmental units) tended to be more
critical of the job the council has done.

This was expressed in terms

of both the quality and level of service provided, as well as in
terms of the involvement the council had in water quality-related
issues and problems in the watershed.
Consistency and reasonableness of responses to the surveys form the
basis for verifying that the councils have been able to contribute
to water quality management.

An examination of responses to questions

concerning council effectiveness will also be used to develop
recommendations.

THE CASE FOR A COOPERATIVE APPROACH BY
MICHIGAN WATERSHED COUNCILS: THE MICHIGAN
ASSOCIATION OF WATERSHED COUNCILS

An Overview of the Development, Purpose and
Success of the Association
The idea that a program of communication, cooperation and
interaction among existing watershed councils be established to assist
in the preservation of state-wide water quality was first suggested
at a workshop of organized river watershed councils held in 1970.

256

As a result, a steering committee was chosen for the purpose of
studying the possibility of a formal state-wide association that would
help promote cooperation and coordination among the State's watershed
councils.
A number of recommendations were offered on what the purposes of
the association should be and what groups should be allowed to main­
tain membership.

Recommendations for purposes and objectives

revolved around having it serve as a coordinating unit, an information
clearinghouse, a source of assistance to watershed organizations in
development of programs, and as a local arm of state agencies in
assisting and advising them on local matters.

257

256

Conference of Organized River Watershed Councils, September
24, 1970.
257

Huron River Watershed Council, Minutes of Executive Committee
Meeting, October 25, 1971, p. 1.

195
The Grand and Huron River Watershed Councils first took the
position that membership should not necessarily be restricted to
organizations formed under Act 200 or Act 253.
suggestion that membership not be designated
organized as private associations or

It was their

to exclude groups

through some other legislative

mechanism, but rather to open membership to organizations which have
similar purposes, goals, and perspectives.

Examples of possible

organizations included:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Watershed Councils per Act 253, Public Act of 1964
Intermunicipality Committees per Act 200, Public Act of 1957
Watershed Associations per Federal Public Law 566
County Department of Public Works per Act 185, Public Act
of 1957
(5) Water Management
Districtsper Act 40, Public Act of 1956
(6 ) River Management
Districtsper Act 253, Public Act of 1964
(7)
Surplus Water Boards per Act 20, Public Act of 1964
(8 )
Soil Conservation Districts per Act 297,
Public Actof 1957
(9)
County Planning Commissions per Act 282,
Public Actof 1945
(10) Regional Planning Commissions per Act 281, Public Act of 1945
Act 302, Public Act,.ef 1947; and Act 147, Public Act of 1939
(11) Social Authorities
Their reasoning was that member units should be those whose purpose is
to encourage the development of public management programs.

259

An Association of Watershed Organizations was formally organized
260
on April 10, 1972.. The purposes and objectives
(1)
(2)

are:

To promote the concepts and goals of coordinated water and
land resource planning and programs
To encourage the formation of voluntary public and private
watershed organizations

258^.,
Ibid., p. 2.
259

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, Outline for the Pro­
posed Michigan Watershed Association, (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
Grand River Watershed Council, 1971), p. 1.
260
Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations, Organization
Bylaws, April 10, 1972.

196
(3)
(4)
(5)

To assist watershed organizations to develop programs and
policies of benefit to their members and their watershed
To promote communication and interaction on matters that
concern watershed organizations
To assist and encourage federal, state, and local governments
to develop programs and policies for watershed management
and protection261

It was also decided that founding membership would be limited to
watershed organizations established under Act 200 or 253 and incorpo­
rated non-profit watershed councils.

Associate memberships (non-voting)

were extended to several agencies and organizations.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Included were:

Cooperative Extension Service
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Soil Conservation Service
called upon from time to time
Other agencies which may
for technical assistance^

Built into the bylaws, however, was a provision that would make possible
a more expansive membership if and when it was decided by the Associ­
ation that a group expressing a desire to join was in agreement with
the purposes, goals, and perspectives of the Michigan Association of
Watershed Organizations.

263

The Association was to be managed by a six-man executive committee
which would be largely responsible for setting the direction of the
Association as well as handling all financial matters and transactions.

264

The funds available to the executive committee were

those to be derived from annual dues of $25 paid by organizations
wishing to maintain voting privileges in the Association.

261Ibid., p. 1 .
262Ibid., p. 2 .
263Ibid.
264Ibid., p. 5.
265Ibid., p. 5.

265

197
By and large, the Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations
has adapted a rather low key approach in its activity.

This has, to

a large degree, been the result of poor participation at Association
meetings and lack of general agreement as to the Association’s activi­
ties.

The purposes and objectives outlined in the bylaws of the

Association depend on participation from members for any activity that
takes place.

The executive committee has demonstrated most of the

initiative that has been generated to date.

Outside of six meetings

held since the Association was first formed, the Association does not
really have much to call upon as far as accomplishments are concerned.
The Association has placed its greatest emphasis on discussing legis­
lation and in reviewing problems within the watersheds.

No real formal

action has generally followed due to this lack of visible cooperation
and participation in sharing some of the responsibilities for making
the Association operate.
Concerned over poor attendance and participation in the Associ­
ation, the Executive Committee decided in March 1973, to distribute
a questionnaire to individual members in an attempt to determine their
attitude about various, concerns and issues.

266

The following questions

were asked:
(1)
(2)

Is there a need for MAWO?
Should MAWO: have an active role in legislative matters?
be providing information to member organizations on legis­
lative matters?
lobby on legislative matters?
provide information on watershed management programs?
provide information on DNR programs and proposals?
provide information on programs of member organizations?
be involved in natural resource problems around the State
such as the Williamsburg disaster?

266x,
,
Ibid., p. 6.

198
develop operating relationships with other State departments?
allow each member organization to have a member on the
Executive Committee?
adopt a position on the Watershed District proposal?
favor the Watershed District proposal?
follow the procedures for determining policies as prepared
by Gordon Hayward for the annual meeting?
only meet on an annual b a s i s ? 267
As of September 25, 1973, more than two months after the question­
naires were to be returned, only four of the 12 watershed councils
sent questionnaires had returned them.

268

The general opinion of

those responding (Grand, Ausable, Muskegon, and Clinton) ran strongly
in favor of continuing the MAWO and having it provide information,
establish relationships with state agencies and support legislation.

269

Overall, however, discussion of the results of the questionnaire among
the three councils in attendance at the next meeting of the Associa­
tion, showed that it appeared most councils were negative on the need
for an association or simply did not wish to participate because of a
lack of interest or absence of a tangible reason(s) for them to become
actively involved.

270

Also suggested during the course of that

December meeting was the recommendation that the next meeting of the
Association emphasize doing something positive and something that
would help attract more interest among watershed organizations in
attending and participating in future Association activity.

267T, . ,
.
Ibid., p. 1.
268

Interview with John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary, Michigan
Grand River Watershed Council, September 25, 1973.
Ibid.
270
Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations, Minutes of
General Meeting, Clare, Michigan, December 19, 1973.

199
A program was planned for the, next annual meeting (March 1974) at
which time representatives from eight of the organizations agreed to
present a brief discussion of some activity or current issue within
their watershed.

The meeting served two primary purposes:

it provided

for an informational exchange and the opportunity to further discuss
the future role of the Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations.
It was generally agreed in the discussion that the Association needed
to make some changes in its organization if it was to continue.

One

of the principal problems acknowledged during the discussions was
finding someone with the time and interest to help develop more frequent
contacts, to supply information and to organize and plan meetings that
would better reflect the interests and desires of all watershed
organizations.
The members present at this meeting were not able to reach a firm
decision on the actions to be taken to improve

the Association.

Given

the nature of the Association, the fact that it operates on voluntary
participation, and the fact that it has inadequate funds available to
secure the services of an individual to perform these activities, such
a decision could not be. reached.

It was decided to continue meeting

only as the need arose.
As a result of this, it appears that the Association will continue
primarily on an inactive basis.

It is evident, on review of the pre­

ceding information, that the Association has not been able to bring
about the degree of cooperation and coordination anticipated nor has it
been able to individually or collectively provide assistance to member

Association of Watershed Organizations, Minutes of
Annual Meeting, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, March 28, 1974.

200
watershed organizations in their efforts to improve water quality.
The resources at the Association's disposal are inadequate, in terms
of individual commitment and funding, to support an active program.
With the decision to meet only as necessary, it might be useful to
consider a less formal operating arrangement until such time as it
becomes necessary to formally reorganize because of improved partici­
pation or an important issue.
If the Association wishes to maintain a formal framework, it is
suggested that soliciting new members among similarly-motivated
organizations be established.

Increased membership could help

provide a healthy stimulus to organizations and planning as well as
helping to promote cooperation between councils.

It could also help

improve interest, participation, and financial support of Association
activity.

It is suggested that committees be established to handle

areas of responsibilities and to deal with issues and topics that are
identified to be of mutual concern and interest if the formal approach
is taken.
Regardless of whether the Association decides to be formal or
informal in its operation, it needs to define its role.

The Associa­

tion needs to decide the role it wishes to play if it is to accomplish
anything on a voluntary basis.

It will be necessary to examine those

areas where the Association feels it can fulfill some need or provide
a service; be it legislative review, advice and assistance, a base
for information exchange, or role-sharing with state agencies.

Depend­

ing on the extent of activity the Association wants to become involved
in, it might consider investigating outside funding sources, locating
and utilizing state computer facilities (STORET, WISE), sponsoring

201
publication of a natural resources information directory, and taking
advantage of high attitude imagery available in Michigan to help
individual councils identify problem areas and particular kinds of
land uses.

These kinds of considerations and actions could help the

Association to achieve the cooperation among councils that it needs to
make a contribution to state-wide water quality management planning.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The primary objective of this report has been to examine the
ability of eight Michigan watershed councils to make inputs in basin
water quality management plans within constraints imposed by existing
legislation.

Differences in enabling act provisions made it necessary

to separate the watershed councils according to their respective
organizational frameworks.

The approach selected to evaluate councils

organized under Act 200 concentrated on review of available literature.
Watershed councils formed under Act 253, however, were evaluated on
the basis of comparisons made between a series of surveys as well as
on the basis of an extensive literature review.

As a result of the

wider availability of information, the accessibility of paid staff,
and the more specific nature of enabling act provisions, watershed
councils organized under Act 253 were analyzed more extensively.
Despite the issue that the Michigan Association of Watershed
Organizations was largely unsuccessful in its efforts to provide a
collective basis for water quality improvement, it has been shown
that the individual watershed councils have made an impact on water
quality management planning.

The nature of this impact was traced

largely to information-education functions and to providing a forum
for discussion of problems.

Watershed councils were found to vary

in their fulfillment of these functions largely as a result of
differences in:

202

203
(1 )

enabling act provisions

(2)

level and type of membership involvement

(3)

leadership continuity

(4)

executive committee direction and perception

(5)

character of the watershed (rural or urban)

(6 )

approach taken:

(7)

willingness to seek out financial aid and physical support
from other groups and organizations

(8 )

level of communication with constituents, the state govern­
ment, and other watershed councils

problem-service approach vs. issue approach

More specific discussion of these general conclusions will focus on
watershed councils formed under Act 253.

It is intended, however,

that comments and suggestions offered may supplement conclusions and
recommendations drawn previously for councils organized under Act 200.
Overall, this report does not call for legislative changes.
Emphasis, however, is placed on more complete utilization and appli­
cation of existing legislative provisions.

The underlying response

from legislators and respondents to the surveys is that up to this
point in time, watershed councils have not shown that they have fully
utilized resources at their disposal.

Prior to suggesting legislative

changes, councils need to demonstrate more effective use of existing
resources.

In the comments obtained, it is apparent that respondents

feel watershed councils do not need more authority but rather need to
direct their attention toward more actively involving their members
in projects and activities.

Respondents feel the watershed councils

have a role and service to play, but not in a direct pollution control
capacity.

Rather, the essential function of the council is felt to lie

in advising, informing, educating, and in providing a forum for

204
discussion.

The result of emphasizing more actively-involved member­

ship instead of pushing for more authority will be to encourage new
membership, to develop more extensive programs of activities and to
secure additional funding through new membership dues and solicita­
tion of grants.
At some future point in time, however, when legislative changes
become politically more attractive, and/or watershed councils take on
a larger role in water quality management, then it might be feasible
to recommend that recognized statutory weaknesses and deficiencies
associated with watershed council legislation be corrected.

The major

statutory weaknesses involve limited authority and lack of an adequate
funding base.

Currently, all watershed council powers are permissive;

there are no mandatory powers.
or disapprove of projects.

Councils have no authority to approve

What this means is that no one needs to get

watershed council approval to do anything and that no one really has
to take their advice.

As river and watershed management become more

important to the continued regulation and control of water quality,
it might then be appropriate to recommend vesting more authority in
watershed councils.
On the other point, lack of an adequate funding base, watershed
councils currently have no power to assess taxes nor do they have
any assured funding source.

All contributions come as a result of

voluntary commitments of member units of government.

Built into this

approach is a responsibility on the part of watershed councils to
convince member units of the worthwhileness of their contributing
to the council's operation.

Given that much of what watershed

councils do is not really tangible in form, but rather information and

205
advisory, then it is understandable that this voluntary funding
approach affects the extent to which the councils can become involved
in issues and problems facing their watershed.
In spite of these recognized statutory weaknesses, there is much
watershed councils can do to minimize the impact of these and other
statutory deficiencies.

The focus of attention will be directed at

membership and revenue; attempting to show how more members could
contribute to new strength, involvement and additional revenue.
As of April 1974, there were 112 participating units on the
Clinton, Grand and Huron River Watershed Councils (see pages 253-255 ).
Their participation is based on statements in Act 253 that allow
membership under the following conditions:
(a)

(b)

Each local government using the river for water supply or
waste disposal shall appoint 1 representative for each
20,000 population or fraction thereof. The governing body
of each local government shall determine the method by
which its representatives shall be selected.
Each county having 15% or more of its area in the watershed
shall appoint 1 representative, and 1 additional representa­
tive for each 20,000 population or fraction thereof which
aggregate total shall be computed from population of eli­
gible townships not otherwise represented.
Such townships
shall be eligible under this section if they shall have
15% or more of their respective areas in the basin.
The
methods by which the county representatives are selected
shall be determined by the county board of s u p e r v i s o r s . ^76

Reference to Tables 12, 13 and 14, provides information on population
assessment and number of representatives allowed for each participating
unit on each council.

In the case of the Huron River Watershed Coun­

cil, an adjusted assessment has been prepared based on a revised

276

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, Public
Act of 1964 (as amended), Section 4a. and 4b., pp. 1-2.

206
assessment schedule adopted by the council in June 1974.
lowing figures, please note:

In the fol­

Items in parentheses indicate changes

that should be made by each council.
The information presented in the following figures will now be
compared with information on potential membership and revenue.

Con­

sidered here will be all remaining units of government in each of
the three watersheds.

Each of these currently non-participating

units of government has the potential of becoming a member by virtue
of the fact that it meets the conditions spelled out in Section
4a.-4b.

277

or that it can show a general interest as required in

Section c . :
(c):
Any local agency wholly or partly within the
basin may appoint a representative to the council upon
a finding by the council that the agency is so affected
by or concerned with the use and development of water
resources in the basin as to warrant representation.
If
any township is represented under this subdivision, its
population shall not be counted in determining the eligi­
ble total representatives of its c o u n t y . ^ 7 8
Essentially, this statement makes possible membership by any unit of
government interested in or concerned with the use and development of
water resources in the watershed.

Generally, representation under

Section c. is determined by a consideration of the following factors:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

277

Planned future use of the river for water supply of waste
disposal
Percentage of area in the basin
Use of the river for purposes not mentioned in (a), such as
irrigation and recreation
Effects of river flow (flooding and low flow) and general
water quality
Land use

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of
1964 (as amended), Section 4a. & 4b., pp. 1-2.

207

Table 12.

Current Participating Membership:
**

Counties

Population

Clinton River Watershed Council

Number of
Representatives

xxxx
Assessment

Macomb

625,309
(544,018)

6(2)

$6,253.09 ($5,440.00)

Oakland

907,871
(435,778)

27(2)

$9,078.71 ($4,357.00)

Cities and Villages

Almont
Armada
Birmingham
Centerline
Clarkston
Fraser
Mt. Clemens
Pontiac
Rochester
Romeo
Sterling Heights
Utica
Warren

1,634
1,352
6,542
10,379
1,034
4,032
20,476
85,279
7,054
4,012
61,365
3,504
179,260

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
4
1
9

88.24
73.00
353.26
560.46
55.84
217.70
1,105.70
4,605.06
380.92
216.65
3,313.71
189.22
9,680.04

Townships
Addison
Armada
Avon
Brandon
Bruce
Clinton
Harrison
Independence
Lenox
Macomb
Oakland
Orion
Oxford
Pontiac
Ray
Richmond
Royal Oak
Shelby
Washington
Waterford
West Bloomfield

2,431
1,601
24,513
3,830
2,213
48,865
18,755
16,327
2,869
6,140
4,793
14,189
5,953
12,646
2,683
1,719
6,326
29,467
5,651
59,123
28,563

1
1
2

1
1
3

1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3

J2
80(61)

131.27
86.45
1.323.70
206.82
119.50
2.638.71
1,012.77
881.66
154.93
331.56
258.82
766.21
321.46
682.88
144.88
92.83
341.60
1,591.22
305.15
3,192.64
1,542.40
$52,299.09
($46,764.29)

*

Based on Information provided to April 1974.

**

Based on 1970 census figures derived from the County and Regional Fact Book
Series. Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Department
of Resource Development, 1973. Population has been adjusted to reflect
percent of county in the watershed (Macomb, 87%; Oakland, 48%).

***

For counties, one representative plus one each for every 20,000 population or
fraction thereof of townships NOT OTHERWISE REPRESENTED; for townships, cities
and villages, one representative for each 20,00 population or fraction thereof
In computing county representation, the Council has mistakenly counted town­
ships already represented individually.

**** Based on an assessment schedule charging counties $.01 per capita and cities,
villages and townships $.054 per capita.

208

Table 13.

Current Participating Membership:

Counties
Barry
Eaton
Gratiot
Ingham
Livingston
Montcalm
Ottawa

_

„

Population

**

Grand River Watershed Council

Number of ***
.Representatives

Assessment

****

20,858
24,591
6,612
21,857
8,649
22,188
29,828

3
3
2
3
2
3
3

1,042.90
1,229.55
330.60
1,092.85
432.45
1,109.40
1,491.40

5,121
716
1,217
1,807
2,129
12,565
47,540
1,149
2,196
1,978
11,844
6,032
197,649
10,764
7,493
6,501
3,523
6,361
45,484
20,310
1,924
131,403
3,068
5,468
1,865
1,558
2,428
1,048
1,223
3,034
6,672
497
11,492
2,600
473
56,560

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3

256.05
35.80
60.85
90.35
106.45
628.25
2,377.00
57.45
109.80
98.90
592.20
301.60
9,882.45
538.20
374.65
325.05
176.15
318.05
2,274.20
1,015.50
96.20
6,570.15
153.40
273.40
93.25
77.90
121.40
52.40
61.15
151.70
333.60
24.85
574.60
130.00
23.65
2,828.00

1
1
1
1
2
_1
84

689.75
869.80
880.75
566.35
1,190.85
846.75
$42,948.00

Cities and Tillages
Belding
Caledonia
Carson City
Cedar Springs
Coopersville
E. Grand Rapids
East Lansing
Edmore
Ferrysburg
Fowlerville
Grand Haven
Grand Ledge
Grand Rapids
Grandville
Greenville
Hastings
Hudsonville
Ionia
Jackson
Kentwood
Lake Odessa
Lansing
Lowell
Mason
Middleville
Nashville
Rockford
Ravenna
Saranac
Spring Lake
St. Johns
Sanfield
Walker
Williamston
Woodland
Wyoming

1
1
1
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
3

Townships
Delhi
Delta
Georgetown
Lansing
Meridan
Plainfield

*
**
***

13,795
17,396
17,615
11,127
23,817
16,935

Based on information provided to April 1974.
Population in watershed area, 1970 census data.
For counties, one representative plus one each, for every 20,00population
or fraction thereof of townships NOT OTHERWISE REPRESENTED; for townships,
cities, and villages, one representative for each 20,000 population or
fraction thereof.
**** Based on an assessment schedule charging cities, villages, and townships
$.05 per capita and counties according to the population oftownships not
already counted at a rate of $.05 per capita.

209

Table 14.

Counties
Livingston
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne

Current Participating Membership:

Huron River Watershed Council
74-75
Adjusted
Assessment

Population

Humber of A
Representatives

29,833
72,477
183,199
30,331

2 (3)
3 (5)
2
1 (3)

1,240.00
2,480.00
4,960.00
2,480.00

1,500.00
2,471.00
6,000.00
1,500.00

+ 260.00
- 9.00
+1040.00
- 980.00

99,797
2,406
2,457
3,444
1,729
5,643
3,225

4 (5)
1
1
1
1
1
1

5,981.82
144.36
147.42
231.48
103.74
338.58
187.14

5,981.82
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
338.58
250.00

+
+
+
+

73-74
Assessment

Hat Change

Cities and
Villages
Ann Arbor
Belleville
Brighton
Chelsea
Oexter
Plat Bock
Sockwood
Wolverine
Lake
Tpsilanti

0
105.64
102.58
18.52
146.26
0
+ 62.86

4,301

1

258.06

258.06

0

29,538

2

1,772.28

1,772.28

0

3,589
5,882
7,088
2,238
5,481
1,695
1,934
3,975
5,562
13,162
1,981
33,194

1
1
1
1
1
1

215.34
352.92
420.72
134.28
328.86
76.86
116.04
238.50
333.72
789.22
118.86
1.991.64
$25,441.84

250.00
352.92
420.72
250.00
328.86
250.00
250.00
250.00
333.72
789.22
250.00
1.991.64
$26,789.32

Tovnshlos
Ann Arbor
Brighton
Brownstown
Dexter
Hamburg
Lima
Lodi
Horthfleld
Superior
Van Buren
Webster
Tpsilanti

1
1
1
1
2
34 (40)

+

34.66
0
0
+ 115.72
0
+ 173.14
+ 133.96
+ 11.50
0
0
+ 131.44
0
+1347.48

Based on Information provided Co April 1974.
Population In watershod area, 1970 census data.
For counties, one representative plua one each for every 20,000 population or fraction
thereof of tovnshlps HOT OTHERWISE REPRSSSITED; for townships, cities, and villages,
one representative for each 20,000 population or fraction thereof.
Based on an assessment schedule charging cities, villages and tovnshlps $.06 per capita
and counties according to a flat rate based on percent of area In the watershed.
Cities, villages and townships at $.06 per capita with a maximum and minimum rate of
$6000 and $250; counties according to population and land area In the watershed at a rate
of $.03 percapita plus $1.50 per square mile ($6000.00 maximum, $1,500.00 minimum).

210
(6 )
(7)

Proposed impoundment areas
Other factors that may be pertinent in the particular
situation under consideration^???

The only real limitation here in opening membership to concerned
and interested units of government is the extent to which the water­
shed council is willing to interpret these general guidelines.
In considering the value of extending membership to other units
of government, two considerations should be made:
(1)

The additional revenue that would be made available to the
watershed council from new members

(2)

More importantly, the additional representation and
participation in watershed council activity

In relating these considerations to the watershed councils, the fol­
lowing information was derived.

The bulk of additional potential

representation and revenue was found to be associated with units of
government made eligible for membership on the watershed councils by
virtue of Section 4c.

280

Based on information obtained from the

Water Quality Control Section, Bureau of Water Management, Department
of Natural Resources and the Water Supply Section of the Environmental
Health Bureau, State Health Department, it was determined that few
additional government units would be made eligible for membership
under Section 4a.

279

281

Tables 15-17 identify additional representation

Huron River Watershed Council, Organization Bylaws, 1968.

280

State of Michigan, Local River Management Act, Act 253, P.A. of
1964 (as amended), Section 4c., p. 2.
281

Generally, most units that use the rivers for water supply or
waste disposal are either already members or listed as potential mem­
bers. In the Huron River Watershed, however, there are five units of
government that use the river for sewage disposal and that currently
are not members. These units are: Village of Milford, City of S. Lyon,
City of Wixom, Commerce Township and Pittsfield Township. The combined
additional revenue available to the Huron River Watershed Council if
these units joined would be $2404.46.

211
and revenue from government units made eligible for membership on each
of the three watershed councils largely by virtue of Section 4c.
Where a non-participating unit qualifies for membership under Section
a., that unit will be identified by an asterisk (*).

Listed are those

government units for which population figures were available.

282

Useful to keep in mind is that as townships are added as individual
members, it will be necessary to downwardly adjust county population
for assessment and representation purposes.

The population of town­

ships choosing not to join individually will continue to be counted
as part of the county population.

It is acknowledged that the

addition of townships as individual members will have an effect on
the total number of representatives and revenue coming in from the
counties.

The extreme possibility of all townships becoming individ­

ual members would necessitate a change in the legislation that would
base county representation and assessment on something other than
the population of townships not currently members.

One approach might

be to allow the same number of representatives for each county in the
watershed and to assess counties on a per capita basis according to
the total population of all non-participating units of government.

In

any case, it is suggested watershed councils apprehensive about
encouraging more townships to become individual members consider the

282

Sources consulted included:
Michigan State Cooperative Extension Service, County and
Regional Fact Books, Department of Resource Development, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1973.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census of Population, Number
of Inhabitants, Final Report PC (1)-A 24 Michigan, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1971; U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, The National Atlas of the United States, Washington,
DC, 1970.

212
Table 15.

Potential Representation and Revenue:
Watershed Council

Cities and Villages
Berkley
Berville
Clawson
Drayton Plains
Hazel Park
Huntington Woods
Keego Harbor
Lake Angelus
Lake Orion
Madison Heights
New Haven
Orchard Lake
Oxford
Pleasant Ridge
Roseville
Royal Oak
Sylvan Lake
Troy
Washington

Population
22,618

200
17,617
16,462
23,784
8,536
3,092
573
2,921
38,599
1,855
1,487
2,536
3,989
60,529
85,499
2,219
39,419
1,563

Number of
Representatives

2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1

Clinton River

Assessment*
1,221.37
10.80
951.32
888.95
1,284.34
460.94
166.97
30.94
157.73
2,084.35
100.17
80.30
136.94

.

4
5

210.01

1
2
1

3,268.57
4,616.95
119.83
2,128.63
84.40

1

236.95

31

$18,240.46

Townships**
Springfield

4,388

Based on an assessment schedule charging cities, villages and
townships $.054 per capita
Minimum of 15% of township area in watershed

213
Table 16.

Potential Representation and Revenue:

Cities and Villages
Alta
(*) Ashley
Bancroft
Byron Ctr.
(*) Casnovia
Clarksville
Comstock
Cutlerville
Dansville
(*) Dewitt
(*) Diamondale
Dowling
Eagle
(*) Eaton Rapids
(*) Elsie
(*> Fowler
Freeport
Fruitport
Grass Lake
Holt
Hubbardston
Jenison
(*) Kent City
(*> Laingsburg
(*) Leslie
(*) Lyons
(*) Maple Rapids
Marne
c*> McBride
Middleton
Morrice
<*) Muir
(*) Mulliken
Okemos
(*) Ovid
(*) Parma
(*) Perrington
(*) Perry
<*) Pewamo
(*) Pierson
(*) Portland
(*) Potterville
Rives
(*) Sand Lake
Sheridan
Springport
(*) Stanton
Stockbridge
Trufant
(*) Vermontville
Walker
(*) Webbervllle
(*) Westphalia
Woodbury

Populatio

Grand River Watershed Council

Number of
Representatives

250
521
724
655
403
346
5,766
6,267
486
1,829
970
100
175
4,494
988
1,020
501
1,409
1,061
6,980
403
11,266
686
1,159
1,894
758
683
500
272
500
734
617
454
7,770
1,650
880
489
1,531
498
193
3,817
1,280
350
380
653
723
1,089
1,190
250
857
11,492
1,251
806
125

^
Assessment
12.50
26.05
36.20
32.75
20.15
17.30
288.30
313.35
24.30
91.45
48.50
5.00
8.75
224.70
49.40
51.00
25.05
70.45
53.05
349.00
20.15
563.30
34.30
57.95
94.70
37.90
34.15
25.00
13.60
25.00
36.70
30.85
22.70
388.50
82.51
44.00
24.45
76.55
24.90
9.65
190.85
64.00
17.50
19.00
32.65
36.15
54.45
59.50
12.50
42.85
574.60
62.55
40.30
6.25
$4,607.76

Based on an assessment schedule charging cities, villages and townships
at a rate of .05 per capita.
**

Potential membership exists by virtue of Sec 4a.

214

Table 16 (cont'd.).
Humber of
Assessment

Townships
In Barry County:
Baltimore
Castleton
Carlton
(*) Hastings
Hope
Irving
Johnson
Maple Grove
Orangeville
Rutland
Thomapple
Woodland
Yankee Springs

1,482
2,611
1,533
2,159
1,783
1,282
2,388
1,111
1,932
2,107
3,363
1,776
1,482

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

74.10
130.55
76.65
107.95
89.15
64.10
119.40
55.55
96.60
105.35
168.15
88.80
74.10

4,832
1,005
1,561
2,182
9,909
2,221
1,594
1,435
1,626
673
1,907
3,017
1,222
1,522
3,146
806

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

241.60
50.25
78.05
109.10
495.49
111.05
79.70
71.75
81.30
33.65
95.35
68.35
61.10
76.10
157.30
40.30

1,754
1,539
1,205
2,104
2,066
1,621
1,310
2,635
1,671
1,710
1,734
4,483

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

87.70
76.95
60.25
105.20
103.30
81.05
65.50
131.75
83.55
85.50
86.70
224.15

1,544
1,904
513
1,047
915

1
1
1
1
1

In Clinton County:
(*) Bath
Bengal
Bingham
Dallas
(*) Dewitt
Duplain
Eagle
Essex
Greenbush
Lebanon
Olive
Ovid
Riley
Victor
(*) Watertown
Westphalia
In Eaton County:
Benton
Carmel
Chester
Eaton
Eaton Rapids
Hamlin
Kalamo
Oneida
Roxand
Sunfield
Vermontville
Windsor

■

In Gratiot County:
Elba
(* ) Fulton
Hamilton
Newark
New Haven
(continued)

(*) Potential membership exists by virtue of Sec 4a.

77.20
94.20
25.65
52.35
45.75

215

Table 16 (ccm't.).

Townahi.ua

Population

Nunber of
Representatives

Assessment

In Ingham County:
2,487
1,987
1,464
1,498
2,598
1,718
1,370
1,981
2,526
1,916
1,177
875
2,847

124.35
99.35
73.20
74.90
129.90
85.90
68.50
99.05
126.30
95.80
58.85
43.75
142.35

2,213
2,751
1,560
1,621
3,908
2,444
947
2,882
1,165
3,103
866
1,707
1,479
1,244
944

110.65
137.55
78.00
81.0
195.40

16,997
4,523
2,970
3,594
2,533
13,953
1,840
5,500
2,138
2,708
2,743
5,650
1,879
21,754
1,832

849.85
226.15
148.50
179.70
126.65
697.65
92.00
275.00
106.90
135.40
111.85
282.50
93.95
1,087.70
91.60

Alaledon
Aurelius
Bunkarhill
Ingham
Leroy
Leslie
Locke
Onondaga
Stockbridge
Vavay
Wheatfield
White Oak
WilliBoston
In Ionia County:
Berlin
Boston
Campbell
Dauby
(*) Easton
(*) Ionia
Keene
Lyons
8. Plain*
Odessa
Orange
Orleans .
Otisco
Ronald
Sebewa

122.20
47.35
144.10
58.25
155.15
43.30
85.35
73.95
62.20
47.20

In Jackson County:
Blackman
Columbia
Grass Lake
Henrietta
Hanover
(*) Leoni
Liberty
Napolean
Parma
Riveo
Sandstone
Spring Arbor
Sprlngport
(*) Summit
Tompkins .

(2)

In Kent County:
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(*)
(a)
(*)
(»)
(*)

Ada
Algoma
Alpine
Bowne
Byron
Caledonia
Cannon
Cascade
Gaines
Grand Baplds
Grattan
Lowell
Kelson
Oakfleld
Solon
Sparta
Spencer
Tyrone
(.continued)
(*) Potential membership

4,479
3,088
8.163
1,429
7,493
3,842
3,690
5,243
8,794
6,823
1,893
3,068
1,938
2,159
2,114
6,466
1,458
2,638
exists by virtue of Sec 4a.

223.95
154.40
408.15
71.45
379.65
192.10
184.50
262.15
439.70
341.15
94.65
153.40
96.90
107.95
105.70
323.30
72.90
131.90

216
Table 16 (cont'd.).

Townships

Population

Number of
Representatives

Assessment

1,160
3,556
5,224
2,668
817

1
1
1
1
1

58.00
177.80
261.20
133.40
40.85

1,345
1,152
1,025
2,205
1,781
1,180
1,118
1,938
1,842
1,087
2,487
1,476
1,984
1,261
984

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

67.25
57.60
51.25
110.25
89.05
59.00
55.90
96.90
92.10
54.35
124.35
73.80
99.20
63.05
49.20

1,879
1,488
2,403
2,051
10,241

1
1
1
1
1

93.95
74.40
120.15
102.55
512.05

3,553
2,927
1,786
2,861
17,615
5,489
2,926
1,962
2,051
8,013
4,883
2,983

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

177.70
146.35
89.30
143.05
880.75
274.45
146.30
98.10
102.55
400.65
244.15
149.15

1,277
1,973
964
1,362
4,002
2,598
1,054
2,549
2,609

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
154

63.85
98.65
48.20

In Livingston County:
Conway
Handy
Howell
Marion
Iosco
In Montcalm County:
Belvedere
Bloomer
Bushnell
Cato
Crystal
Day
Douglas
Eureka
Evergreen
Fair Plain
Home
Maple Valley
Montcalm
Pierson
Pine
In Muskegon County:
Casnovia
Fruitport
Moorland
Ravenna
Sullivan
In Ottawa County:
Allendale
Blendon
Chester
Crockery
Georgetown
Grand Haven
Jamestown
Polkton
Robinson
Spring Lake
Tallmadge
Wright
In Shiawassee County:
Antrim
Bennington
Fairfield
Middlebury
Owosso
Perry
Sciota
Shiawassee
Woodhull

(*) Potential membership exists by virtue of Sec 4a.

68.10
200.10
129.90
52.70
127.45
130.45
$21,984.69

217

Table 17.

Potential Representation and Revenue:

Cities and Villases
Commerce
Dlxboro
Gregory
Milford
New Boston
New Hudson
Pinckney
Romulus
S. Rockwood
S. Lyon
Wixom
Wolverine Lake
Townships

Population
3,500
350
300
4,699
900
600
921
2,500
1,477
2,675
2,010
4,301

Huron River Watershed Council

Number of
Representatives
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

.
Assessment
250.00
250.00
250.00
281.94
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
258.06

**

Commerce
Freedom
Genoa
Green Oak
Hartland
Highland
Huron
Lyndon
Lyon
Milford
Novi
Pittsfield
Putnam
Romulus
Salem
Sharon
Springfield ,
Sumpter
Sylvan
Unadilla
West Bloomfield
White Lake

18,857
1,267
4,800
7,598
2,630
8,372
8,030
1,373
4,500
7,256
182
8,185
3,354
22,879
3,001
831
4,388
8,091
5,086
1,793
13,504
14,311

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JL
35

1,131.42
250.00
288.00
455.88
250.00
502.32
481.80
250.00
270.00
435.36
250.00
491.10
250.00
1,372.74
250.00
250.00
263.28
485.06
305.16
250.00
810.24
858.66
$13,191.02

*

Based on an assessment schedule charging cities, villages and town­
ships $.06 per capita with a maximum and minimum rate of $6,000 and
$250.

**

Minimum of 15% of township area in watershed.

(*)

Potential membership exists by virtue of Sec 4a.

218
the value of additional representation and participation.

Effec­

tively used, additional members could provide a stronger base for
involvement in projects and activities as well as for advocating
state financial support and working on securing grants and special
project funding.
The point in comparing actual and potential representation and
revenue figures for the Clinton, Grand and Huron River Watershed
Councils is to show just how much additional members and revenue are
available to each of these three councils.

Table 18 illustrates

this point.
In proposing that these watershed councils consider encouraging
new members, it is acknowledged that the councils will have to be
prepared to convince potential members of the value and benefits to
them in joining.
on this.

Several factors have been shown to have an effect

Largely as a result of comments obtained in interviews and

surveys, the following have been identified as factors watershed
councils need deal with in order to boost their credibility, encour­
age participation and improve on their ability to effectively
contribute to water quality management planning:
(1)

Encourage more participation and role-sharing by repre­
sentatives in council activities

(2)

Providing for the accountability of representatives

(3)

Demonstrating that the watershed council performs a useful
service not provided elsewhere

(4)

Establishing closer working relationships with other
watershed councils and with state agencies

The first of these factors is a key to carrying the watershed council
to prospective member units and convincing them of the council's

Table 18.

Comparison of Actual and Potential Representation and Revenue
A C T U A L
Number of
Representatives

P O T E N T

Revenue

I A L

Number of
Representatives

Revenue

Clinton River
Watershed Council

61

$46,764.29

31

$18,240.46

Grand River
Watershed Council

84

$42,948.00

208

$26,592.45

Huron River
Watershed Council

40

$26,789.32

35

$13,191.02

*

Refers only to additional membership and revenue

220
worth.

A few well-chosen, short-term action programs having general

appeal and benefit would help the watershed council in its efforts
to encourage more participation.

A major limiting factor, however,

has been the general unwillingness of council representatives to
actively share in the responsibilities of the council.

The executive

secretary, as the only paid staff member, has the bulk of the respon­
sibility for operating the watershed council.
inaction falls on him.

Much of the blame for

The resources to further improve the nature

and scope of the council's operation are largely beyond his reach.
It is necessary to mobilize council representatives to assist him in
his efforts.

One approach that could be implemented to help accomplish

some role-sharing is through the formation of committees.

The

Grand River Watershed Council and to a lesser extent the Clinton
and Huron River Watershed Coucnils have developed finance, recreation,
watershed management and technical advisory committees.

By and

large, their function has been to accomplish a particular task or
special project.

At the direction of the executive secretary and

the executive committee, it is suggested that functions currently
being performed by special committees be evaluated and expanded to
include more of the ongoing activities of the council.

Committees

could be set up to serve as "sub-councils" to include establishment
of a speaker's bureau.

In addition to assigning each committee

member with specific responsibilities in line with the function of
the committee, members could serve as representatives of the execu­
tive secretary by maintaining personal contact with government units
and by periodically meeting with these units to discuss problems and
what kinds of services the unit would like to see the council supply.

221
This would help stimulate two-way communication between the watershed
council and its member government units as well as helping insure
that programs the council develops are in line with what local units
want and are willing to support.
Another factor having an effect on how much the watershed council
can contribute to better water quality management planning involves
the accountability of representatives.

Currently there is no mech­

anism for insuring that representatives report back to their respec­
tive units of government.

Responses obtained in the surveys pointed

to a basic lack of understanding among government units of what kinds
of activities the councils are involved in.

This lack of understanding

was not shown to be related exclusively to the amount of information
being produced.

It is suggested that watershed councils evaluate the

current procedure for appointing representatives to their constituent
units of government in an effort to improve on the understanding
units have of council activity as well as on the communication and
information flow taking place.
Potential member units of government also need to be convinced
that the watershed is a viable planning unit and that the watershed
council has a service to provide that is currently not available
elsewhere.

Watershed councils are set up according to natural

boundaries and as such help provide for internalizing regional problems.
With the growing emphasis on the need for state authorities to relate
to regional areas and for units of government to have a forum for
discussion, then watershed councils could be said to be viable
institutions.

On the second point, the watershed councils provide

a variety of useful services.

In addition to buffering forces and

222
institutions involved in water resources planning, the council creates
a good beginning for making choices that a greater authority may fol­
low up on.

Councils provide a device where government units can

thrash out and debate fundamental questions of water policy.

Accord­

ing to Lyle Craine, the most important role for watershed councils is
in those areas where other government units are not relating to water
problems.

283

For example, SEMCOG and HCMA, as regional planning

authorities, have substantial funding and formal approval powers but
their emphasis in relating to local units of government is largely
outside the area of water resources.

Watershed councils, on the

other hand, serve a constructive purpose in that they specialize in
water resources and, hence, are able to provide a service local units
of government can call upon in dealing with water related issues and
problems.
A fourth factor involved in watershed council efforts to boost
membership, participation and credibility involves the position coun­
cils maintain with each other and with state agencies.

Outside of

periodic contacts made at meetings of the Michigan Association of
Watershed Organizations, watershed councils were found to have little
communication with each other.

This is unfortunate in light of

the experiences and information that could be shared.

Watershed

councils should periodically meet and discuss mutual problems and
interests.

Since it is a mutual problem, it is suggested that

there might be some value in watershed councils meeting and actively

283

Interview with Dr. Lyle Craine, University of Michigan, School
of Natural Resources, December 4, 1973.

223
approaching the issue of membership and funding.

With reference to the

relationship the councils maintain with State agencies, this is an
essential consideration and factor in long-term efforts aimed at
watershed council improvement.

The problem is one of minimal

recognition of watershed council activity by state agencies.

To date,

the State has not committed itself to a cooperative approach with
local units of government.

The State wants to maintain local auton­

omy in terms of decision making, yet it is reluctant to give additional
functions to watershed councils or to recognize that councils can be
effective at supporting state responsibilities at the local level.
The Department of Natural Resources has a pivotal role to play in
whether the watershed councils can be effective.

In addition to

the recognition the State provides watershed councils in the
Natural Rivers Act

284

and the Inland Lakes and Streams Act,

285

the

State should augment watershed council responsibilities by allowing
councils to take on a more active role in the implementation of the
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act,

286

processing of National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits and in providing assistance
with stream monitoring and data collection.

OOA

State of Michigan, Natural River Act, Act 231, P.A. of 1970,
Section 3.
285

State of Michigan, Inland Lakes and Streams Act, Act 346, P.A.
of 1972, Section 6 .
OQfi

State of Michigan, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act,
Act 347, P.A. of 1972.

224
The basis of these concluding remarks has been to focus on more
complete utilization of resources available to watershed councils.
The basic problems of these councils have been shown to center
largely on:
(1)

Low level of participation be membership in watershed
council activities

(2)

Inadequate communication between and among membership and
government units

(3)

Inadequate communications and cooperation between the
watershed councils and the state

(4)

Lack of public understanding of the role and potential
usefulness of watershed councils

Based on information gathered in this report watershed councils,
in general, have been shown to have made an impact on water quality
management planning through their advisory and information-education
functions.

The councils, however, have the potential to improve on

this impact.

One approach is through more actively involving existing

and potential membership and by maintaining more extensive communica­
tion linkages between councils, members, units of government, and
state and public agencies.
The following additional recommendations represent activities
and concerns watershed councils should consider in their efforts to
improve their ability to provide services and to contribute to better
water quality management planning:
(1)

Watershed councils should become more involved in data
collection and information supply

Water resource information for urban planning is badly needed.
Watershed councils are particularly suited to provide a service here

225
due to their focus on water resources.

Watershed councils could

assist planners in identifying and evaluating water related
problems and in determining their relative importance.
With the assistance of state agencies, universities and other
agencies and institutions, watershed councils could stimulate
interest in how simulation may be utilized during the watershed plan­
ning process for:

floodplain delineation, computation of monetary

flood damages, analysis of structural flood control alternatives,
determination of land use effects, and synthesis of low flows.
According to Walesh, "applications of simulation in plan implementa­
tion include:

floodway determination, encroachment studies, provi­

sion of design data for river crossings, preparation of flood
insurance reports, incorporation of improved mapping and watershed
changes, dissemination of flood hazard information and flood forecasting.

..287

On the subject of flooding, watershed councils could help
initiate an early warning system similar to the approach suggested by
the Huron River Watershed Council.

Flood warning is an example of

a service that is currently not provided by any agency and it is
certainly an activity falling within the ability of watershed councils
to perform.

Councils could also become involved in flood control by

collecting and distributing flood-related information to communities,
by working with communities to secure funding for flood plain studies

287

S.
G. Walesh, Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No. HY9, Proceedings paper No.
10020, September, 1973.

226
and by advising and assisting interested communities on flood plain
delineation, writing flood plain ordinances, and assisting them
in locating help.
It is also recommended that watershed councils help citizens
take an active role in water-related land use planning by teaching them
how to inventory and evaluate natural resources in their areas.

For

example, the watershed councils could sponsor workshops where they
inform citizens and interested groups on such things as how to use
soil surveys, aerial photographs and other land use classificiation
information.

Special watershed council committees could research the

information and conduct workshop sessions on any number of subject
areas.

For the subjects mentioned here, the information is readily

available from sources like the Soil Conservation Service and the
Department of Natural Resources.

Aerial photographic imagery is

available on much of Michigan and assistance in interpreting and
gaining access to it is located in the Project for the Use of Remote
Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation at Michigan State University.
This is an area watershed councils should explore because of the
potential wealth of information and basic data that could assist them
in watershed evaluation.
The workshop concept, given the necessary involvement of
watershed council members, could significantly help establish councils
as a credible information source for state agencies, local units of
government, groups and citizens.
(2)

Watershed councils should explore additional funding sources

Available revenue from membership has had the effect of limiting
the extent to which the watershed councils have been able to get

227
involved in activities and projects.

Councils should consider

securing additional operating funds through agreements to perform
special projects for interested clients, by soliciting businesses,
special interest groups and foundations for funding support, by
raising assessments to units for performing short term projects, and
by exploring Federal and State research and planning assistance that
does not require a statutory planning authority or a matching funds
arrangement.

One source of state funding that councils should consider

more seriously is soil conservation funds.

State soil conservation­

ists have a line item in the budget to support the P.L. 566 "Small
Watershed Program."

Priority is given to the allocation of funds

for technical assistance and engineering services.

The program

names township boards, river management districts, counties, certain
cities, county drainage districts, inter-county drainage districts
and water management districts as potential sponsors, or co-sponsors
with Soil Conservation Districts for P.L. 566 watershed assistance.

288

Watershed councils are not specifically named but it is suggested
councils work with state soil conservationists on exploring the
possibility of watershed councils qualifying for assistance.

Even

if watershed councils are unsuccessful in their bid for assistance,
councils can work with units of government in their efforts to secure
funds for special projects.
As evidenced in the suggestions and recommendations offered
here, watershed councils have a significant role to play in watershed
water quality management planning.

288

The extent to which they can

Russell G. Hill and Eckhart Dersch, Watersheds for Water
Management, Michigan State University, Cooperative Extension Service,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1971, p. 11.

228
impact water quality management has been shown to be largely a
factor of how well they utilize resources at their disposal.

The

future success of watershed councils is dependent on broader
recognition of their abilities and on the exposure gained through
more activity.

Role-sharing by council representatives and state

agencies will help contribute to a greater awareness of the benefits
and services the watershed councils are equipped to provide.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

APPENDIX A.

Figure 15.
I.

QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

Information Checklist for an Interview Survey

Background

1.

Council's date of formation

2.

Were you advised to form under Act 200?
a.
b.
c.

3.

Was the council aware of P.A. 253?
a.

If yes, why did they opt for 200 as
an organizational framework?

4.

What was(were) the stimulus(stimuli) for
the council's formation?

5.

What were the council's goals?

6.

Have the reason(s) for the council's
existence changed in any way?
a.

II.

By whom?
For what reasons?
Why did you ultimately decide to form
under 200?

Have the original goals been expanded
to include new ones?

Council

7.

(objectives,
roles, activities,
membership,
funding)

8. What projects and activities has your
council been involved in?
9.

What is(are) the current role(s) and
objective(s) for your council?

What has been the outcome of these
projects and activities?

10.

In what areas would your council like to
have an input where it presently does
not?

11.

In what areas, on what kinds of issues
and problems, can your council be most
effective?
229

230
Figure 15 (cont'd.).

III.

Assessment

12.

What does your council need to be more
effective?

13.

How important is membership to your
ability to be effective?

14.

How does your council derive its
membership?

15.

Has the council actively solicited new
members?

16.

How does the council derive its operating
funds?

17.

Do you feel the lack of funds and/or low
membership is in some way holding back on
your ability to be effective?

18.

How would you propose obtaining this
additional financial support?

19.

What does your council need most to be an
effective voice in the watershed?

20.

Where can the council be most effective?

21.

What has been the level of involvement by
your council in problems and issues
facing the watershed?
a.
b.
c.

22.

In what areas has the council been
most involved? least involved?
What segment of your membership
generates the most involvement?
Are there reasons for this?

Is water quality an issue or problem in
your watershed?
a.
b.

Where and on what issues?
Do you feel the council can react to
them? How?

23.

What is (are) the most pressing issue(s)/
problem(s) in your watershed?

24.

Is the council playing a role there?
Should they? How? When?

231
Figure 15 (cont'd.)*

25.

Generally speaking, has your council
favored direct or indirect involvement
in issues facing the watershed? Why?

26.

How has community and citizen support been
for the council?
a.

27.

What has been done to boost community
interest and awareness of council
activities? Results?

With regard to the following, which has
some bearing on water quality management?
a.
b.

Has the council been involved?
Should the council be involved?

-assisting communities in developing
floodplain ordinances and controls
-assisting communities in developing soil
erosion and sedimentation controls
-assisting communities in developing plans
for protection of natural and scenic
rivers
-comprehensive stream monitoring
-citizen education and awareness of issues
in the watershed
-encouraging and supporting proposals for
better waste water disposal
-informing public agencies and requesting
that studies be performed
-promoting better water quality standards
-promoting wise development and recrea­
tional use of river and land resources
-promoting better water quality manage­
ment, use
-encouraging and enlisting citizen and
community support for conservation
and preservation of natural resources

IV.

Legislation

28.

Reaction, reflection on P.A. 200— advan­
tages, disadvantages, suggestions for
change

29.

Reaction to P.A. 253— advantages, disad­
vantages, suggestions for change

232
Figure 15 (cont d.).

V.

253 Councils

30.

Are you in favor of legislation that
would give watershed councils a greater
voice in watershed planning for quality
safeguards and future use?
If yes, what form do you feel this
legislation should take?

31.

Are you familiar with what the 253
councils can be/are involved in and the
results of their activities?
a.

32.

With which councils are you most
familiar?

Have you solicited support, advice,
information or assistance from any of
them?
a.
b.
c.

On what?
Which councils?
Their response?

33.

Is there a common ground for 200, 253
councils communicating? What is it?

34.

Would closer communication, cooperation
with these 253 councilshelp to improve on
your council's ability to be effective?
If yes, how would you suggest this take
place?

35.

VI.

Michigan Association
of Watershed Organiza­
tions
36.

How could 253 councils be of the most
value to 200 councils?

Are you familiar with this organization,
its goals and purposes?

37.

What has been your council's participation
in it?

38.

Do you support it financially?

39.

What could it do to gain broader support
among its members?

In theory?

APPENDIX A.

Figure 16.

QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

Weighted Value of Watershed Council Activities, Functions
and Features

Instructions: Listed below are several activities, functions and
features (later called "variables") of watershed councils granted
by enabling legislation. Please examine this list and add any other
variables made possible by legislation which you feel are important.
According to the degree of effectiveness each variable has on
affecting water quality management in your watershed, rank the
variables in descending order of importance.
Place number 1 in
the "weighted value" column adjacent to the most important variable,
number 2 adjacent to the variable next in importance and continue
downward to 10. If you added variables, be sure to include these in
your ranking. In this case your numbers will, of course, exceed 10
and go on to 11, 12, 13, or 14, etc. Please assign a different
number to each variable listed, no matter how fine the distinction
may be.
Weighted Value:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.

10.

_________________
Availability and source of funds
Membership number (actual and potential,
turnover, involvement, leadership, etc.)
_________________
Conduct studies of water resources in the
watershed
_________________
Cause to be conducted studies-contracts
_________________
Prepare reports '
_________________
Request the water resources commission to
perform streamflow level studies
_________________
Creation of river management districts
_________________
Advise local, state, federal units of govern­
ment as to council views of watershed problems
and needs_____________________________________ _________________
Coordinate, cooperate with other units of
government in handling mutual problems and
providing for water quality sampling
_________________
Public information and education services
and programs__________________________________ _________________

Please list activities, functions and features you would like to see
available to your watershed council but not presently allowed by
enabling legislation. Limit these variables to those impacting on

234

235
Figure 16 (cont'd.).
water quality management in your watershed.
Rank these variables in
the "weighted value" column in the same manner as you did in the above
section.

1

.

_

2.
3.
4.
5.
Please return by January 25, 1974, to:
Edward Hood
Department of Resource Development
324 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Submitted by:

Name, Watershed Council:

APPENDIX A.

Figure 17.

QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

Watershed Council Member Unit Survey

Name of Government Unit:________________________________________
more than
adequate

adequate

less than
adequate

1. How well has the watershed council:
represented the interests of your unit
perceived water quality management prob­
lems and issues
responded to water quality management
problems and issues
performed in terms of making effective
contributions to water quality manage­
ment problems and issues in your unit
communicated with your unit (if less
than adequate, how could it improve?)
Comment:
In order of priority:
2a.

b.

What are the most pressing water quality
management problems, issues in your unit?

Is the watershed council playing a role in
bringing attention to or correction of rany
of these?
c.
d.
e.
f

.

3.

In which of those you indicated
Should the watershed council play a
role?
In which of those you indicated
How?
1 . advice and assistance
1.
2.
2 . planning
3. conduct studies
3.
4.
4. education
5. other (please specify)
5.

1.
2
3.

.
yes

no

l.( ) 2 . (
yes

) 3. (
no

) 2. (

) 3. (

l.(

Is your unit satisfied with the amount and
type of benefits received from the financial
contribution it makes to the watershed
yes
council?
236

no

237
Figure 17 (cont'd.)*
Brief Comment
4.

How could the watershed council be of the
most benefit and service to your unit?

5.

What changes would you recommend in watershed
council performance in order to bring it
more in line with your unit's expectations?

APPENDIX A.

Figure 18.

QUESTIONNAIRES AND SURVEYS

Questionnaire Administered Council Representatives

Name:
Representing: ____________________________________________
(name of watershed council)
more than
adequate

adequate

less than
adequate

1. How well has the watershed council:
represented the interest of your unit,
responded to problems and issues in
your watershed,
perceived problems and issues in your
watershed,
performed in terms of making effective
contributions to water quality manage­
ment issues and problems,
communicated with your unit*
* (if less than adequate, how could it improve?)

2.

What is (are) the most pressing issue (s) in your watershed?
a.
b.

3.

Is the watershed council playing a /ole there?
Should they? If yes, how?

Is there a place for your watershed council in water
management? If yes, what should that role be?

yes

quality
yes

4.

Is water quality management an issue in your watershed?
what are the water quality management issues?
yes

238

no

no
If yes,

no

239
Figure 18 (cont'd.)*
5.

Do you feel your watershed council can, in some way, react to
these issues? If yes, how?
yes
no

6.

As a means of providing the watershed council with greater ability
to impact water quality management, do you feel the river manage­
ment district concept, as provided in the enabling legislation, is
a feasible alternative and that it should be exercised by your
council? Why or why not?

7.

Does your unit feel its money is being spent well in contributing
to the support of the x?atershed council?
yes
no
a.
If no, are the amount and type of benefits
received the issue?
yes
no
b.
if no, what is(are) the issues?

8.

Would you like to see the watershed council's direction changed
in some way?
If y e s , in what way?
yes
no

9.

Generally speaking, do you believe your council has been and can
continue to be an effective group?
yes
no
a.
Is there room for improvement in your water­
shed council?
yes
no
b.
If yes, in what area(s): 1. statutory ____
2. organizational _____
3. operational ____
c.

Suggestions for improving council's effectiveness

d.

Assuming funding arrangements were changed so as to increase
the financial resources available to the watershed council,
would this measurably improve on their ability to effectively
contribute to better water quality management?
yes
no

10.

Regarding the following areas that have, in varying degrees, some bearing on water quality management:

Has the watershed
council been involved
NO
YES

Should the watershed
council be involved
YES
NO

How:
Direct*
Indirect**

a. Assisting communities in the development
of flood plain ordinances and controls . . . .
b. Assisting communities in the development of
soil erosion, sedimentation control ordinances
c. Comprehensive stream monitoring ..............
d. Citizen education and awareness of issues
in the watershed ............................
e. Encouraging and supporting proposals for
better waste water disposal ..................

8- Promoting better water quality standards . . .
h. Promoting better water quality management
and use .....................................
i. Informing public agencies and requesting
that studies be performed ....................
j. Encouraging and enlisting citizen and
community support for conservation and
preservation of natural resources ............

*Direct - Council takes Initiative
**Indirect - Council supports current agency activity

240

f. Promoting wise development and recreational
use of river and land resources . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX B
WATERSHED COUNCILS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION

APPENDIX B.

Figure 19.

WATERSHED COUNCILS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION

Michigan Watershed Councils and Related Organizations

September 1974

FORMED UNDER ACT 253:

Clinton River Watershed Council
Peggy Johnson, Executive Secretary
8215Hall Road, Utica, MI 48087
(313) 739-1122
Grand River Watershed Council
John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary
3322 W. Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48917
(517) 489-0514
Huron River Watershed Council
Owen Jansson
415 W. Washington
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
(313) 665-0514
FORMED UNDER ACT 200:
Ausable River Watershed Study
Willard Bosserman, Secretary
Box 507, Roscommon, MI 48653
(517) 275-5043
Boardman River Advisory Council
George Sams, Chairman
1816 River Road
Traverse City, MI 49684
Elk River Watershed Council
Earl Dunn, Chairman
Rt. #2, Williamsburg, MI 49690
(616) 267-5956
Jordan River Watershed Council
Ed Rebman, Secretary
Charlevoix County Extension Agent
Federal Bldg., Boyne City, MI
49712
(616) 582-6232

242
Figure 19 (cont’d.)*
Kearsley Creek Preservation Council
Robert Williams, Chairman
503 Main Street, Davison, MI 48423
(313) 653-4181
FORMED AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS:
Muskegon River Watershed Council
Lane Rushmore, Secretary
Fremont Community Building
Fremont, MI 49412
(616) 924-0500
Pere Marquette Watershed Council
John M. Keene, President
Wilbur Street
Big Rapids, MI 49307
(616) 796-8017
Upper St. Joe River Valley
Environmental Council
Charles Rockhold
5051 Pleasant Ridge Road
Quincy, MI 49082
(517) 639-8261
White River Watershed Council
Wesley Cooper, President
Rt. #2, Fremont, MI 49412
(616) 924-5300 (or 924-3606)
FOR INFORMATION ON STATE ASSISTANCE:
J. Mark Hargitt
Water Development Services Division
Department of Natural Resources
Mason Building
Lansing, MI 48926
(517) 373-1950

APPENDIX B.

Figure 20.

WATERSHED COUNCILS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION

State of Michigan, Act 200, Public Acts 1957

An Act to provide for the creation by 2 or more municipalities of
an intermunicipality committee for the purpose of studying area prob­
lems; and to provide authority for the committee to receive gifts
and grants.
The People of the State of Michigan enact
123.631 Intermunicipality area problem study committee; definition of
municipalities. [M.S.A. 5.2450 (1)]
Sec. 1. As used in this act, "municipalities” means any city,
village, township, chartered township or other incorporated political
subdivision of this state.
123.632 Same; organization; purposes [M.S.A. 5.2450 (2)]
Sec. 2. The governing bodies of any 2 or more municipalities,
by resolution, may establish and organize an intermunicipality commit­
tee, to be known as the intermunicipality committee; for the purpose
of studying area governmental problems of mutual interest and concern,
including such matters as facility studies on sewers and sewage dis­
posal, water, drains, roads, rubbish, and garbage disposal, recreation
and parks, and ports, and to formulate recommendations for review and
action thereon by the member governing bodies.
123.633 Same; surveys, recommendations, reports. [M.S.A. 5.2450 (3)]
Sec. 3. The intermunicipality committee may employ personnel to
coordinate and conduct all types of surveys and studies relating to
the mutual problems of its member municipalises or may enter into
agreements for such surveys and studies to be conducted by other pub­
lic or private agencies. It shall adopt, by resolution of a majority
of its full membership, any recommendation for submission to the
several member governing bodies.
It may publicize its purposes,
objectives and findings, and may distribute reports thereon.
It shall
make an annual report of its activities to the several member governing
bodies.
123.634 Same; funds. [M.S.A. 5.2450 (4)]
Sec. 4. For the purpose of providing funds to meet the expenses
of the intermunicipal committee, the member governing bodies, by
resolution, may authorize the allocation of municipal funds for such
purpose. The proportion of the total amount of funds to be provided
by each member municipality shall be based on the recommendation of
243

244
Figure 20 (cont'd.).
the intermuncipality committee, or shall be provided for in the bylaws
of the committee, which shall have been approved by the member
governing bodies.
123.635 Same; contributions of service of personnel, equipment,
office space [M.S.A. 5.2450 (5)]
Sec. 5. Services of personnel, use of equipment and office
space and other necessary services may be accepted from member
municipalities and may be considered as a part of the financial
support of that municipality.
123.636 Same; gifts and grants from governmental units and from
private sources [M.S.A. 5.2450 (6)]
Sec. 6. The intermunicipal committee may accept gifts and
grants from the federal government, state government and local
governments, also from private individuals, foundations or agencies,
if the grants are made for furtherance of the objectives for which
the committee is established.
Approved June 4, 1957.

APPENDIX B.

Figure 21.

WATERSHED COUNCILS AND ENABLING LEGISLATION

State of Michigan, Act 253, Public Acts of 1966 (as amended)

An Act to enable local units of government to cooperate in planning
and carrying out a coordinated water management program in the watershed
which they share.
The People of the State of Michigan enact
323.301 Local river management act; short title.
Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "local
river management act."
323.302 Same; definitions.
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) "Council" means a watershed council created under the terms of
this act.
(b) "District" means a river management district established under
the terms of this act.
(c) "Board" means a river management board created as the
governing body of a river management district in accordance with the
terms of this act.
(d) "Commission" means the state water resources commission.
(e) "Watershed" means the drainage area of a stream.
(f) "Local governments" means cities, villages, counties, townships
and charter townships.
(g) "Local agencies" means local governments, special districts or
other legally constituted agencies of local government exercising
powers which may affect water resources.
(h) "River management" means the control of river flow by the
operation of dams, reservoirs, conduits and other man-made devices
in order to improve and expand the uses of the river for those who
depend upon it for a variety of private and public benefits.
(i) "Level of stream flow" means a measure of water quantity
including the amount of water passing a designated point over a
designated period and the levels of lakes which are an integral
part of the surface drainage system of the watershed.
323.303 Watershed council; creation, organizational meeting, notice.
Sec. 3. (1) To promote cooperation among local governments in
river management, a watershed council shall be established by the
commission upon a petition from 3 or more local governments lying wholly
or partially in the watershed as defined in the petition.
The petition
shall provide a statement of necessity, a description of general purposes
and functions to be performed, a description of the area, including a

245

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
map, and a list of all local governmental units, lying wholly or partly
within the watershed, which shall be eligible for membership on the
watershed council.
(2) Upon finding that the petition is in conformance with this
statute the commission shall adopt an order establishing the council,
schedule an organizational meeting, and notify all local governments
eligible for membership by registered mail. The date for such meeting
shall be not less than 60 nor more than 90 days after the date of
mailing the notice.
323.304. Watershed council; membership, local or county representatives,
appointment.
Sec. 4. (1) The watershed council shall be composed of representa­
tives of local governments within the watershed who shall be appointed
and maintain membership in the council in the following manner:
(a) Each local government using the river for water supply or
waste disposal shall appoint 1 representative for each 20,000 popula­
tion or fraction thereof. The governing body of each local government
shall determine the method by which its representatives shall be
selected.
(b) Each county having 15% or more of its area in the watershed
shall appoint 1 representative, and 1 additional representative for each
20,000 population or fraction thereof which aggregate total shall be
computed
from population of eligible townships not otherwise repre­
sented.
Such townships shall be eligible under this section if they
shall have 15% or more of their respective areas in the basin.
The
methods by which the county representatives are selected shall be
determined by the county board of supervisors.
(c)
Any local agency wholly or partly within the basin may
appoint a representative to the council upon a finding by the council
that the agency is so affected by or concerned with the use and
development of water resources in the basin as to warrant representa­
tion. If any township is represented under this subdivision, its popu­
lation shall not be counted in determining the eligible total repre­
sentatives of its county.
Term, eligibility to vote
(2) Representatives on the watershed council shall be appointed
for 2 years, but shall be subject to replacement at the pleasure of the
appointing authority. No representative shall be eligible to vote on
the council unless the local government he represents has met its
financial obligations to the council.
River management boards.
(3) Representatives to the watershed council may also represent
their local governments if so designated thereby on river management
boards established in accordance with this act.
323.305
Same; bylaws, budget, annual meeting, officers
Sec. 5. In carrying out its authorized functions, the council
shall:
(a) Adopt bylaws which shall govern its operations.
(b) Prepare an annual operating budget, including apportionment
of costs to member governments.

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
map, and a list of all local governmental units, lying wholly or partly
within the watershed, which shall be eligible for membership on the
watershed council.
(2) Upon finding that the petition is in conformance with this
statute the commission shall adopt an order establishing the council,
schedule an organizational meeting, and notify all local governments
eligible for membership by registered mail. The date for such meeting
shall be not less than 60 nor more than 90 days after the date of
mailing the notice.
323.304. Watershed council; membership, local or county representa­
tives, appointment.
Sec. 4. (1) The watershed council shall be composed of representa­
tives of local governments within the watershed who shall be appointed
and maintain membership in the council in the following manner:
(a) Each local government using the river for water supply or
waste disposal shall appoint 1 representative for each 20,000 popula­
tion or fraction thereof. The governing body of each local government
shall determine the method by which its representatives shall be
selected.
(b) Each county having 15% or more of its area in the watershed
shall appoint 1 representative, and 1 additional representative for
each 20,000 population or fraction thereof which aggregate total shall
be computed from population of eligible townships not otherwise repre­
sented.
Such townships shall be eligible under this section if they
shall have 15% or more of their respective areas in the basin. The
methods by which the county representatives are selected shall be
determined by the county board of supervisors.
(c) Any local agency wholly or partly within the basin may
appoint a representative to the council upon a finding by the council
that the agency is so affected by or concerned with the use and
development of water resources in the basin as to warrant representa­
tion.
If any township is represented under this subdivision, its popu­
lation shall not be counted in determining the eligible total repre­
sentatives of its county.
Term, eligibility to vote
(2) Representatives on the watershed council shall be appointed
for 2 years, but shall be subject to replacement at the pleasure of the
appointing authority. No representative shall be eligible to vote on
the council unless the local government he represents has met its
financial obligations to the council.
River management boards.
(3) Representatives to the watershed council may also represent
their local governments if so designated thereby on river management
boards established in accordance with this act.
323.305
Same; bylaws, budget, annual meeting, officers
Sec. 5. In carrying out its authorized functions, the council
shall:
(a) Adopt bylaws which shall govern its operations.
(b) Prepare an annual operating budget, including apportionment
of costs to member governments.

243

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
(c)
Hold an annual meeting at which time it shall elect a chair­
man, vice-chairman and secretary-treasurer, submit an annual report
to the member governments and adopt an annual budget which consti­
tutes the council's authorization of activities for the year.
323.306 Same; permissive powers.
Sec. 6. A watershed council may perform the following:
(a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, studies of the water
resources of the watershed, including investigations of water uses,
water quality and the reliability of the water resource.
(b) Prepare periodic reports concerning, among other things,
trends in water use and availability, emerging water problems and
recommendations for appropriate public policies and programs neces­
sary to maintain adequate water resources for the watershed area.
(c) Request the commission to survey the watershed for the
purpose of determining minimum levels of stream flow necessary for
health, welfare and safety as provided in sections 13 through 18.
(d) Recommend the creation of a river management district or
districts under the provisions of sections 7 through 12 when the
need for river management seems to warrant such an action.
(e) Advise agencies of federal, state and local governments as
to the council's view of the watershed's problems and needs.
(f) Cooperate with federal, state and local agencies in pro­
viding stream gauges, water quality sampling stations, or other
water resource data-gathering facilities or programs that aid the
council in its responsibility for studying and reporting on water
conditions.
(g) Employ an executive secretary and such other professional,
administrative or clerical staff, including consultants, as may be
provided for in an approved budget.
(h) Establish such subcommittees or advisory committees as are
deemed helpful in the discharge of its functions.
(i) Establish special project funds as needed to finance special
studies outside its annual budget capacity and for this purpose the
council may accept gifts and grants from private individuals, corpor­
ations and local, state or federal governments.
323.307 River management district; establishment, powers, consoli­
dation, coordination.
Sec. 7. The governing bodies of any two or more local govern­
ments may petition the water resources commission to establish a
river management district in order to provide an agency for the
acquisition, construction, operation and financing of water storage
and other river control facilities necessary for river management.
The petition shall be accompanied by a statement of necessity, a des­
cription of the district purposes, functions and operating procedures,
which shall include methods of financing capital improvements and of
apportioning benefit charges, and a general plan of development.
Not
later than 60 days following receipt of such a petition the commis­
sion shall fix the time and place for a public hearing thereon and
shall publich notice of the hearing.
The notice shall be published

249
Figure 21 (cont'd.)*
twice in each county involved in at least 1 newspaper of general cir­
culation in the county. At the hearing the applicant and any other
interested party may appear, present witnesses and submit evidence.
Following the hearing, the commission may adopt an order establishing
the district and publish notice thereof in the manner provided for
publication of notice of hearing, upon finding the following condi­
tions :
(1) That the proposal is consistent with the public interest
in the conservation, development and use of water resources, and the
proposed district is geographically suitable to effectuation of the
district purposes.
(2) That the establishment and operation of the district will not
unreasonably impair the interests
of the public or of riparians in
lands or waters or the beneficial
public use thereof, and will not
endanger public health or safety.
No management district shall be created which affects any city
now or hereafter having a population of more than 1,500,000 except
with the concurrence of the governing body of this city.
Prior to approving the establishment of a district consisting
of a portion of a river basin, the commission shall determine the
feasibility of establishing the district to include the entire
river basin or as large a portion
of the basin as is possible. Approval
of districts consisting of a portion of a river basin shall be on
the basis that at such time as in the judgment of the commission it
becomes feasible to form a district including the entire river basin,
the river management boards shall initiate proceedings to combine the
smaller districts into larger districts or into an entire watershedwide district.
Any plans for a river management district shall be coordinated
with plans of adjacent river basins, organizations or agencies and
with any comprehensive regional master programs for river management.
323.308 Same; organizational meeting, board, officers, membership,
voting rights.
Sec. 8. Within 60 days after the adoption of an order estab­
lishing a district the commission shall schedule an organizational
meeting of the district board and shall provide notice thereof by
registered mail to the governing bodies of all local governments
comprising the district. The date for such meeting shall be not less
than 60 nor more than 90 days after the date of mailing the notice.
At the meeting the executive secretary of the water resources com­
mission shall serve as temporary chairman.
The board shall elect
a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary and treasurer and adopt by-laws.
A district shall be governed by a river management board composed
of representatives of local governments within the district.
The
representation of each local government on the board may be provided
as part of the operating procedures submitted to the commission in
the petition of local governments made in accordance with section 7.
If the composition of the board is not so designated, representation
shall be established under the provisions of section 4.
Representatives on the river mangement board shall be appointed
for 2 years but shall be subject to replacement at the pleasure of

250

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
the appointing authority. No representative shall be eligible to vote
on the board unless the local government he represents has met its
financial obligations to the district.
Representatives to the river management board may also serve
as representatives of their local governments if so designated thereby
on the watershed council.
323.309 Same; powers of board.
Sec. 9. A river management board may perform any of the following:
(a) Conduct continuing study of river use requirements and needs
for river management within its area of jurisdiction; analyze alter­
native methods of meeting needs; and develop and adopt a river manage­
ment program, including plans for constructing, operating and financing
water storage and river control structure and negotiating coordinated
policies and programs relating to river use among local governments
within the district.
(b) Impound and control the waters of the river system within
the district, subject to minimum levels of stream flow established
pursuant to sections 13 and 14, through acquisition, construction,
maintenance and/or operation of water storage reservoirs, dams or other
river control structures as necessary to assure adequate quantity,
quality and stability of river flow to protect the public health,
welfare and safety. A river management district shall not release
water in such an amount as to produce or increase flooding or other­
wise damage downstream interests.
(c) Contract with or enter into agreement with the federal
government or any agency or department thereof or with other govern­
mental agencies or with private individuals or corporations which
may maintain and operate reservoirs and control structures or which
may construct, maintain and operate new reservoirs and control struc­
tures as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act.
(d) Perform, with respect to the area within the district, the
functions assigned to a watershed council by sections 3 through 6
whenever a relevant watershed council has not been formed, or if
the appropriate watershed council's failure to act impairs the
functions and programs of a district.
323.310 Same; corporate powers; financing.
Sec. 10. A district formed under this act is a body corporate
with powers to contract; to sue and be sued; to exercise the right
of eminent domain; to apportion administrative costs and benefit
charges for river management and related facilities among the local
government members which costs shall be payable from general funds or
taxes raised by the local governments; to collect revenues for serv­
ices rendered by the exercise of its functions; to issue bonds; to
apply for and receive grants, gifts and other devises from any govern­
mental agency, or from the federal government; and to exercise such
other powers as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. The
river management district shall have no direct taxing power.

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
323.311 Same; board, duties, bylaws, budgets, assessments, annual
meeting, records.
Sec. 11. A river management board shall:
(a) Adopt bylaws to govern its operations.
(b) Prepare an annual operating budget and levy an annual assess­
ment of local government members to cover costs of organizing, devel­
oping plans and maintaining general overhead administration.
(c) Adopt and maintain a schedule of benefit assessments upon
local governments in the district levied to help defray the costs
of capital improvements, which schedule, shall constitute a legal
obligation upon those assessed.
(d) Hold an annual meeting at which it shall report to its mem­
bers and to the watershed council, elect officers and adopt an annual
budget.
(e) Maintain a public record of its transactions.
(f) Do all other things necessary for the operation of the
district.
323.312 Executive secretary, additional staff.
Sec. 12. The executive secretary of a watershed council may
serve as executive secretary to the river management board.
If no
relevant watershed council exists, or if the executive secretary of a
watershed council is otherwise unavailable, the board may employ an
executive secretary.
In addition, the board may employ such addi­
tional staff as it may determine within its approved budget.
323.313 Minimum level of stream flow; industrial use of water.
Sec. 13. Upon request of a council or a board, the commission
shall determine, within the watershed subject to the council, the
minimum level of stream flow necessary to safeguard the public health,
welfare and safety, but no determination or order shall prevent any
industry along the stream from using water from the stream for indus­
trial use sufficient for the industry's requirement if all the water
so used is returned to the stream within 72 hours of the taking.
323.314 Same; order of determination, notice, review.
Sec. 14. In carrying out its authority to determine minimum
levels of stream flow, the commission, after public hearing, shall
adopt an order of determination setting forth minimum levels at such
locations as necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. Notice
of such order of determination shall be published and the order may
be reviewed in the circuit court in accordance with Act No. 197 of the
Public Acts of 1952 upon petition filed by any person within 15 days
following the last date of such publication.
323.315 Same; request to watershed council for determination.
Sec. 15. A river management board may request a watershed coun­
cil to seek a determination of minimum levels of stream flow in
accordance with sections 13 and 14, or the board may request the com­
mission to make such determinations whenever no watershed council has

252

Figure 21 (cont'd.).
been formed for the larger watershed of which the district is a part,
or when an appropriately established council fails to act within 90
days upon the district's request.
323.316 Measurement of stream flow, lake levels, and water quality.
Sec. 16. The commission may maintain such gauges and sampling
devices to measure stream flow, lake levels and water quality as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this act, and may enter at all
reasonable time in or upon any public property for the purpose of
inspecting and investigating conditions relating to carrying out the
provisions of this act.
323.317 Water resources commission, approval of plan, supervision over
functioning of district.
Sec. 17. The commission may cooperate and negotiate with any
government, unit of government, agency thereof, or with any person in
establishing and maintaining gauges and sampling devices to measure
stream flow, lake levels or water quality or in carrying out any other
provision of this act. When requested by a council or board, the
commission shall provide technical advice and assistance in the prep­
aration of a river management plan of the district. No river manage­
ment plan shall be placed into effect until it shall have been
approved by the commission as conforming to the stated objectives of
the petition. The commission shall maintain supervision over the
functioning of the district to the extent it deems necessary for the
purpose of insuring conformance with the plan in the public interest.
323.318 Same; rules and regulations.
Sec. 18. The commission shall make rules and regulations in
accordance with the provisions of Act No. 88 of the Public Acts of
1943, as amended, being sections 24.71 to 24.82 of the Compiled Laws
of 1948, and subject to Act No. 197 of the Public Acts of 1952, as
amended, being sections 24.101 to 24.110 of the Compiled Laws of 1948.
323.319 Same; powers under other acts not abridged.
Sec. 19. Nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abridge
the authority vested in the commission by Act No. 245 of the Public
Acts of 1929, as amended, being sections 323.1 to 323.12 of the Com­
piled Laws of 1948. Permits granted by the commission in accordance
with Act No. 143 of the Public Acts of 1959, being sections 323.251
to 323.258 of the Compiled Laws of 1948 shall not be affected by this
act. The granting of future permits under Act No. 143 of the Public
Acts of 1959 shall proceed without regard to anything contained in this
act.
323.320 State health commissioner; powers unaffected.
Sec. 20. The functions, powers and duties of the state health com­
missioner as provided for by Act No. 98 of the Public Acts of 1913, as
amended, being sections 325.201 to 325.214 of the Compiled Laws of
1948, shall remain unaffected by this act.

APPENDIX C
LISTS OF GOVERNMENT UNITS REPRESENTED
ON WATERSHED COUNCILS

APPENDIX C.

Figure 22.

LISTS OF GOVERNMENT UNITS REPRESENTED
ON WATERSHED COUNCILS

Member Units:

Clinton River Watershed Council

Counties
Oakland
Cities
Birmingham
Centerline
Fraser
M t . Clemens
Pontiac
Rochester
Sterling Heights
Utica
Warren
Villages
Almont
Armada
Clarkston
Romeo
Townships
Addison
Armada
Avon
Brandon
Bruce
Clinton
Harrison
Independence
Lenox
Macomb
Oakland

Orion
Oxford
Pontiac
Ray
Richmond
,,
Royal Oak
Shelby
Washington
Waterford
West Bloomfield

*Based on information made available by the watershed council as of
February 1974

253

APPENDIX C.

Figure 23.

LISTS OF GOVERNMENT UNITS REPRESENTED
ON WATERSHED COUNCILS
Member Units:

Counties
Barry
Eaton
Gratiot
Ingham

Grand River Watershed Council

Kent
Livingston
Montcalm
Ottawa

Cities
Belding
Carson City
Cedar Springs
Coopersville
E . Grand Rapids
E. Lansing
Ferrysburg
Grand Haven
Grand Ledge
Grand Rapids
Grandville
Greenville
Hastings

Hudsonville
Ionia
Jackson
Kentwood
Lansing
Lowell
Mason
Rockford
St. Johns
Walker
Williamston
Wyoming

Villages
Cadedonia
Edmore
Fowlerville
Lake Odessa
Middleville
Nashville

Ravenna
Saranac
Spring Lake
Sunfield
Woodland

Townships
Delhi
Delta
Georgetown
Lansing
Meridian
Plainfield
*Based on information made available by the watershed council as of
February 1974.

254

APPENDIX C.

Figure 24.

LISTS OF GOVERNMENT UNITS REPRESENTED
ON WATERSHED COUNCILS

Member Units:

Huron River Watershed Council

Counties
Livingston
Oakland
Washtenaw
Wayne
Cities
Ann Arbor
Belleville
Brighton
Flat Rock
Rockwood
Ypsilanti
Villages
Chelsea
Dexter
Wolverine Lake
Townships
Ann Arbor
Brighton
Brownstown
Dexter
Hamburg
Lima
Lodi
Northfield
Scio
Superior
Van Buren
Webster
Ypsilanti
*Based on information made available by the watershed council as
of February 1974.

255

APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

1
Table 19.

Overall Response Characteristics of Watershed Council Representatives

Watershed Councils
QUESTIONS
IE.

If Communication from your
unit was less than adequate,
how could it be improved?

a)

b)

What is(are) the most
pressing issue(s) in your
watershed:

a)

b)

c)

d)

*

increase flow of communi­
cation.

11

13

6

17

4

20

1

4

No Response

72

87

30

83

16

80

26

96

9

11

4

11

1

5

4

15

No Response

74

89

32

89

19

95

23

85

waste water management

35

42

13

36

12

60

10

37

No Response

48

58

23

64

8

40

17

63

water quality

46

55

17

47

11

55

18

67

No Response

37

45

19

53

9

45

9

33

land use

23

28

11

31

5

25

7

26

No Response

60

72

25

69

15

75

20

74

water quantity

19

23

4

11

11

55

4

15

No Response

64

77

32

89

9

45

23

85

increase size of staff.

Grand
No.
X

Huron
No.
X

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in identified general categories.

Clinton
No.
X

256

2A.

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES*

Overall
No.
%

Table 19 (cont'd.)

Watershed Councils
CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES*

Overall
No.
X

Grand
No.
X

Huron
No.
X

a)

yes

56

67

22

61

18

90

16

60

b)

no

6

7

8

1

5

2

7

No Response

21

25

11

31

1

5

1

33

provide information and
education

38

46

13

36

12

60

13

48

No Response

45

54

23

64

8

40

14

52

advocate, assist, cooperate

38

46

16

44

10

50

12

44

No Response

45

54

20

56

10

50

15

56

a)

yes

49

59

18

50

18

90

13

48

b)

no

14

17

8

22

1

5

5

19

No Response

20

24

10

28

1

5

9

33

water quality

33

40

11

31

14

70

8

30

No Response

50

64

25

69

6

30

19

70

QUESTIONS
3A.

3B.

Is there a place for your
watershed council in water
quality management?

IF YES. what should that
role be?

a)

4A.

4B.

*

Is water quality manage­
ment an issue in your
watershed?

IF YES, what are the water
quality management

a)

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in identified general categories.

257

b)

3 .

Clinton
No.
%

Table 19 (cont'd.)

Watershed Councils

4B.

IF YES, what are the water
quality management issues?

Grand
No.
%

lack of adequate control,
communication

26

31

10

28

8

40

8

30

No Response

57

69

26

72

12

60

19

70

water quantity

10

12

1

3

7

35

2

7

No Response

73

89

35

98

13

65

25

93

a)

yes

52

63

21

58

17

85

14

52

b)

no

5

6

2

6

1

5

2

7

No Response

26

31

13

36

2

10

11

41

provide information and
education

37

45

16

44

11

55

10

37

No Response

46

55

20

56

9

45

17

63

communication, cooperation,
assistance

36

43

15

42

11

55

10

37

No Response

47

57

21

58

9

45

17

63

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES *

b)

c)

5B.

Do you feel your watershed
council can, in some way,
react to these issues?

IF YES, how?

a)

b)

*

Clinton
No.
%

258

5A.

Huron
No.
X

Overall
No.
%

QUESTIONS

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in Identified general categories.

Table 19 (cont'd.)

Watershed Councils
QUESTIONS
5B.

6A.

As a means of providing
the watershed council with
greater ability to impact
water quality management,
do you feel the river
management district con­
cept, as provided in the
enabling legislation, is
a feasible alternative
and that is should be
exercised by your
council?
Why or why not?

c)

Grand
No.
%

Huron
No.
%

Clinton
No.
Z

advocate, draw attention
to

22

27

6

17

11

55

5

19

No Response

61

73

30

83

9

45

22

82

a)

yes

32

38

13

36

10

50

9

33

b)

no

12

14

6

17

2

10

4

15

No Response

39

47

17

47

8

40

14

52

authority is needed and
this will provide it

12

14

5

14

1

5

6

22

No Response

71

85

31

86

19

95

21

78

9

11

4

11

2

10

3

11

74

89

32

89

18

90

24

89

a)

b)

not practical — too much
proliferation now
No Response

*

Overall
No.
%

259

6B.

IF YES, how?

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES*

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in identified general categories.

Table 19 (cont'd.)

Watershed Councils
CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES*

Overall
No.
Z

Grand
No.
X

Huron
No.
Z

Clinton
No.
Z

a)

yes

44

53

18

50

12

60

14

52

b)

no

12

14

4

11

4

20

4

15

No Response

27

33

14

39

4

20

9

33

QUESTIONS
7A.

7B.

7C.

Does your unit feel Its
money is being spent well
in contributing to the
support of the watershed
council?
IF NO. are the amount
and type of benefits
received the Issue?

IF NO, what is(are)
the i88ue(s)?

a)

yes

6

7

3

8

2

10

1

4

b)

no

3

4

1

3

0

0

2

7

No Response

74

89

32

89

18

90

24

89

how money is ueed

12

14

5

14

1

5

6

22

No Response

71

86

31

86

19

95

21

78

2

2

1

3

1

5

0

0

No Response

81

98

35

97

19

95

0

0

a)

yes

31

37

14

39

10

50

7

26

b)

no

21

25

10

28

3

15

8

30

No Response

31

37

12

33

7

35

12

44

a)

b)

8A.

*

Would you like to see
the watershed council's
direction changed in
some way?

availability of money

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed In Identified general categories.

Table 19 (cont'd.)

Watershed Councils
Overall
CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES*

QUESTIONS

8B.

IF YES , in what way?

%

No.

Z

No.

%

No.

Z

increase existing activity,
develop more "expertness"

23

28

7

19

10

50

6

22

No Response

60

72

29

81

10

50

21

78

7

8

4

11

2

10

1

4

No Response

76

92

32

89

18

90

26

96

seek more authority

10

12

7

19

0

0

3

11

No Response

73

88

29

81

0

0

24

89

a)

yes

56

67

23

64

16

80

17

63

b)

no

7

8

3

8

2

10

2

7

No Response

20

24

10

28

2

10

8

30

a)

yes

58

70

26

72

17

85

15

56

b)

no

1

1

1

3

0

0

0

0

24

29

9

25

3

15

12

44

a)

c)

9B.

Generally speaking, do you
believe your council has
been and can continue to
be an effective group?

Is there room for improve­
ment in your watershed
council?

more cooperation, communi­
cation, assistance

No Response
*

Clinton

No.

b)

9A.

Huron

Grand

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed In identified general categories.

Table 19 (coat'd.)

Watershed Councils
Overall

Grand

Huron

Clinton

QUESTIONS
No.
9C.

IF YES, in what area or
areas:

a)

b)

Suggestions for improving
council’s effectiveness.

a)

b)

c)

*

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

statutory
organizational

38

46

16

44

11

55

11

41

No Response

45

54

20

56

9

45

16

59

operational

44

53

20

56

12

60

12

44

No Response

39

47

16

44

8

40

15

56

improve informationeducation flow;
advisory role

23

27

11

31

8

40

4

15

No Response

60

72

25

69

12

60

23

85

more involvement in
issues, problems

31

38

14

39

8

40

9

33

No Response

52

63

22

61

12

60

18

67

increase level of funding;
make mandatory or assured

16

19

8

22

6

30

2

7

No Response

67

81

28

78

14

70

25

93

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in identified general categori.es*

262

9D.

%

Table 19 (cont’d.)

Watershed Councils
*
QUESTIONS

90.

Suggestions for improving
council's effectiveness.

CATEGORIES OF RESPONSES

X

No.

Huron

X

No.

Clinton
%

No.

X

15

18

8

22

3

15

4

15

No Response

68

82

28

78

17

85

23

85

7

8

4

11

17

15

0

0

No Response

76

92

32

89

17

85

0

0

a)

yes

48

58

17

47

17

85

14

52

b)

no

13

16

12

33

1

5

5

19

No Response

22

26

7

19

2

10

8

30

improve coordination with
units, agencies, other
councils.

Individual representative responses were sorted and placed in identified general categories.

263

*

Assuming funding arrange­
ments were changed so as to
increase the financial
resources available to the
watershed council, would
this measurably improve on
their ability to effective­
ly contribute to better
water quality management.

No.

Grand

Increase amount of authority
available

d)

e)

9E.

Overall

|

Table 20.

Grand River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

Council Service

3

HOW WEIL HAS THE GRAND RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL:

more
than
adequate adequate

less
than
adequate

no
response

a.

represented the interests of your unit . .

2

6

23

64

4

11

7

19

b.

responded to problems and issues in
your watershed ..........................

2

6

23

64

2

5

9

25

perceived problems and issues in
your watershed . ........................

2

5

21

61

3

8

9

25

performed in terms of making effective
contributions to water quality manage­
ment issues and problems................

4

11

16

44

6

17

10

28

communicated with your unit ..............

1

3

20

56

6

17

9

25

%

if

c.

d.

e.

**

if %
*
**

if

%

if

Based on a return rate of 50% or 36 of 70 questionnaires mailed (see Table 3).
Rounded to the nearest percent.

%

p r ^

265

Table 21.

Huron River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

HOW WELL HAS THE HURON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL:

more
than
adequate adequate

Council Service

less
no
than
adequate response

3a

represented the interests of your unit . . .

0

0

15

75

1

5

4

20

b.

responded to problems and issues in
your watershed ............................

0

0

13

65

4

20

3

15

perceived problems and issues in your
watershed ...............................

4

20

9

45

4

20

3

15

performed In terms of making effective
contributions to water quality manage­
ment issues and problems............ .

0

0

13

65

4

20

3

15

communicated with your unit ..............

1

5

13

65

3

15

3

15

0

Z

#

Z

c.

d.

e.

%

**

Based on a return rate of 622, or 20 of 35 questionnaires mailed.
Rounded to the nearest percent.

Z

266

Table 22.

Clinton River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

HOW WELL HAS THE CLINTON RIVER WATERSHED COUNCIL:

more
than
adequate

adequate

Council Service

less
than
no
adequate response

a.

represented the interests of your unit . . . .

3

11

13

48

5

19

6

22

b.

responded to problems and issues in
your watershed .............................

5

19

12

44

4

15

6

22

perceived problems and issues in your
watershed .................................

4

15

12

44

5

19

6

22

performed in terms of making effective
contributions to water quality manage­
ment issues and problems ....................

4

15

14

52

3

11

6

22

communicated with your unit ................

7

26

11

41

3

11

6

22

9

%

9

%

9

%

c.

d.

e.

**

9 %
*
**

Based on a return rate of 44%, or 27 of 61 questionnaires mailed (see Table 3).
Rounded to the nearest percent.

Table 23.

Huron River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

Council Involvement

The following areas have some bearing on water quality management:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1.
j.

Assisting communities in the development of flood plainordinances
andcontrols.
Assisting communities in the development of soil erosion,sedimentation control ordinances.
Comprehensive stream monitoring.
Citizen education and awareness of issues in the watershed.
Encouraging and supporting proposals for better waste water disposal.
Promoting wise development and recreational use of river and land resources.
Promoting better water quality standards.
Promoting better water quality management and use.
Informing public agencies and requesting that studies be performed,
Encouraging and enlisting citizen and community support for conservation and
preservation of natural resources.
Has the watershed
council been
involved?
no

ves

How?
no
response

no

AA

Direct

AAA

Indirect

no
response

55

6

30

3

15

13

65

2

10

5

25

6

30

9

A5

5

25

7

35

9

A5

A

20

13

65

3

15

A

20

5

25

8

A0

7

35

c.

8

AO

9

A5

3

15

13

65

3

15

A

20

11

55

3

15

6

30

d.

13

65

A

20

3

15

16

80

0

0

A

20

13

65

2

10

5

25

e.

11

55

5

25

A

20

17

85

0

0

3

15

8

A0

7

35

5

25

f.

15

75

3

15

2

10

18

90

0

0

2

10

g-

11

55

5

25

A

20

1A

70

0

0

6

30

10

h.

12

60

5

25

3

15

16

80

0

0

A

20

i.

13

65

3

15

A

20

13

65

1

5

6

j.

13

65

A

20

3

15

16

80

0

0

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

%

a.
b.

*
**
***

no
response

11

A5

6

30

5

25

.50

3

15

7

35

10

50

A

20

6

30

30

12

60

2

10

6

30

A

20

1A

70

1

5

5

25

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

%

9

See Table 3 for information on the sample from which these characteristics were computed.
Direct — Council takes initiative.
Indirect — Council supports or encourages current agency activity.

267

ves

Should the water­
shed council be
involved?

Table 24.

Grand River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

Council Involvement

The following areas have some bearing on water quality management:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Assisting communities in the development of flood plain ordinances and controls.
Assisting communities in the development of soil erosion, sedimentation control ordinances.
Comprehensive stream monitoring.
Citizen education and awareness of issues in the watershed.
Encouraging and supporting proposals for better waste water disposal.
Promoting wise development and recreational use of river and land resources.
Promoting better water quality standards.
Promoting better water quality management and use.
Informing public agencies and requesting that studies be performed.
Encouraging and enlisting citizen and community support for conservation and preservation of
natural resources.
Should the watershed
council be involved?

Has the watershed
council been involved?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
1
J-

.

*
**
***

no response

20
15
21
20
18
19
16
17
16
16

56
42
58
56
50
53
44
47
44
44

4
8
3
3
4
4
5
2
6
7

11
22
8
8
11
11
14
6
17
19

12
13
12
13
14
13
15
17
14
13

33
36
33
36
39
36
42
47
39
36

22
22
19
21
23
23
22
23
22
22

61
61
53
58
64
64
61
64
61
61

0

%

0

%

0

%

0

Z

How?
no response

No

Yes

Direct**

Indirect***

0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
1 3
0 0
2 6
0 0
2 6
1 3

14
14
16
15
12
13
12
13
12
13

39
39
44
42
33
36
33
36
33
36

11
9
13
19
13
14
11
/
17
16

31
25
36
53
36
39
31
19
47
44

11
11
7
3
6
7
5
11
4
5

31
31
19
8
17
19
14
31
11
14

14
16
16
14
17
15
20
18
15
15

39
44
44
39
47
42
56
50
42
42

Z

0

%

0

%

0

Z

0

Z

0

See Table 3 for information on the sample from which these characteristics were computed
Direct —

Council takes initiative

Indirect —

no response

Council supports or encourages current agency activity

268

No

Yes

r

Table 25.

Clinton River Watershed Council Representatives' Responses:

Council Involvement

The following have some bearing on water quality management:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.

Assisting
communities in the development of
flood plainordinancesandcontrols.
Assisting
communities in the development of
soil erosion,sedimentationcontrol ordinances.
Comprehensive stream monitoring.
Citizen education and awareness of issues in the watershed.
Encouraging and supporting proposals for better waste water disposal.
Promoting wise development and recreational use of river and land resources.
Promoting
better water quality standards.
Promotingbetter water quality management and use.
Informing public agencies and requesting that studies be performed.
Encouraging and enlisting citizen and community support for conservation and preservation
of natural resources.

Has the watershed
council been involved?

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Rh.
i.
j.

2

no response

14
6
17
14
11
13
13
11
16
13

52
22
63
52
41
48
48
41
59
48

8
0
2
5
4
3
3
1
4

7
30
0
7
19
15
11
11
4
15

11
13
10
11
11
10
11
13
10
10

41
48
37
41
41
37
41
48
37
37

9

Z

9

%

9

Z

No

Yes
16
12
16
16
18
16
18
16
17
17

it

How?
no response

60
44
60
59
67
59
67
59
63
63

0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0

0
15
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0

11
11
11
10
9
11
9
11
9
10

41
41
41
37
33
41
33
41
33
37

Z

9

%

9

X

Direct**

9 30

Indirect***

no response

33
44
48
41
44
37
41
41
41

6
6
1
1
4
3
3
2
2
3

22
22
4
4
15
11
11
7
7
11

13
12
14
13
12
12
14
14
14
13

48
44
52
48
44
44
52
52
52
48

9 %%

9

%

9

X

9
12
13
11
12
10
11
11
11

* See Table 3 for information on the sample from which these characteristics were computed
** Direct — Council takes initiative
*** Indirect — Council supports or encourages current agency activity

269

No

Yes

Should the watershed
council be involved?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ausable River

Watershed Study Council

Ausable River Watershed Study Council. Greenbelt Zoning Ordinance.
Grayling, Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Council, 1968.
Ausable River Watershed Study Council.
of January 15, 1974.

Minutes of Meeting, Meeting

Ausable River Watershed Study Council. Organization Bylaws.
Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Study Council, 1967.

Grayling,

Bassett, J . ; Driver, B.; and Schreyer, R. User Study: Characteristics
and Attitudes, Michigan's Ausable River Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, 1972.
Bosserman, W. Protecting Your Waterfront Property. Roscommon,
Michigan: Cooperative Extension Service, 1968.
Bosserman, W . ; Higgins, L.A. Ausable River Watershed Study Council
Report. Grayling, Michigan: Ausable River Watershed Study
Council, 1968.
Brege, Doranee C. Extent of Contamination of a Cold-Water Stream
by Private Domestic Waste Disposal Systems, Masters Thesis.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969.
Hendrickson, G.E. Michigan's Ausable River — Today and Tomorrow.
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Geological Survey, 1966.
Interview with W. Bosserman, Roscommon County Extension Agent,
Roscommon, Michigan, February 22, 1974.
Letter from George Byelich, Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and
Development Commission, Rogers City, Michigan: March 28, 1974.
Interview with Harrison Goodhue, Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, April 23, 1974.
Miller, H.L. The River that Came Back.
Power Company, 1972.

Jackson, Michigan:

Consumers

Northeast Michigan Regional Planning and Development Commission. Ausa­
ble River Pro.ject. Rogers City, Michigan: Northeast Regional
Planning and Development Commission, 1974.
270

271
Roscommon Herald News.

July 4, 1968, pp. 5-6.

State of Michigan, Chamber of Commerce.
"Green Strip Zoning —
It is Working Along the Ausable River." Natural Resources
Special Report, October 31, 1969.
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources.
"DNR Seeks State
Court of Appeals Review of River Rules." News Bulletin Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, April 18, 1974.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water Resource Condi­
tions and Uses in the Ausable River Basin. Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1966.

Boardman River Watershed Advisory Council
Boardman River Advisory Council. First
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory

Annual Report. South
Council, 1971.

Boardman River Advisory Council. Fourth Annual Report.
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1974.
Boardman River Advisory Council. Organization Bylaws.
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1969.

Boardman,

South Boardman,

South Boardman,

Boardman River Advisory Council. Policy on Oil and Gas Development
Within the Boardman River Watershed. South Boardman, Michigan:
Boardman River Advisory Council, 1972.
Boardman River Advisory Council.
Second Annual Report.
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1972.

South Boardman,

Boardman River Advisory Council. Third Annual Report. South
Michigan: Boardman River Advisory Council, 1973.

Boardman,

Hosley, J., and Humphrys, C.R. Water Resources Bibliography for Board­
man River Watershed, Grand Traverse Bay and Elk River Watershed.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of
Resource Development, 1968.
Hosley, J. , and Humphrys, C.R. Water Resources Bibliography for Leela­
nau, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska and Antrim Counties. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, 1968.
Interview with George Sarns, Chairman, Boardman River Advisory Council,
Traverse City, Michigan, March 21, 1974.
Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc. Boardman River Study, A Technique for
River Planning in a Rapidly Urbanizing Watershed. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Johnson, Johnson & Roy, Inc., 1973.
Interview with Gordan Hayward, Past Chairman, Boardman River Advisory
Council, East Lansing, Michigan, February 5, 1974.

272

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Water Quality of
Selected Lakes and Streams in the Grand Traverse Bay Region.
Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1970.
Student Water Publications. Grand Traverse Bay. East Lansing, Michi­
gan: Michigan State University, Student Water Publications,
Department of Resource Development, 1969.
Student Water Publications. Michigan's Boardman River. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, Student Water Publications,
Department of Resource Development, 1969.

Clinton River Watershed Council
Clinton River Watershed Council.
in the Clinton River Basin.
shed Council, 1972.

A Preliminary Report on Water Use
Utica, Michigan:
Clinton River Water­

Clinton River Watershed Council. Basic Elements of Flood Plain Zoning
Ordinances. Utica, Michigan: Clinton River Watershed Council,
1972.
Clinton River Watershed Council. Clinton River; Water Quality Mangement Issues. Utica, Michigan: Clinton River Watershed Council,
1974.
Clinton River Watershed Council. Flood Plain Management in the
Clinton River Basin: A Guide for Community Action. Utica, Michi­
gan: Clinton River Watershed Council, 1974.
Clinton River Watershed Council. Local Recreation and Open Space:
Suggested Methodology for Site Evaluation. Utica, Michigan:
Clinton River Watershed Council, 1972.
Clinton River Watershed Council.
Statement of Position and Goals for
the Clinton River Watershed Council. Utica, Michigan: Clinton
River Watershed Council, 1972.
Clinton River Watershed Council.
Stream Monitoring Committee Report.
Utica, Michigan: Clinton River Watershed Council, October 18,
1973.
Clinton River Watershed Council.
in the Clinton River Basin.
Watershed Council, 1973.

Urban River; Water Quality Problems
Utica, Michigan: Clinton River

Clinton River Watersed Council. .Water Quality in the Clinton River
Basin. Utica, Michigan: Clinton River Watershed Council, 1974.
Clinton River Watershed Council. What is the Clinton River Watershed
Council. Utica, Michigan: Clinton River Watershed Council, 1973.

273
Detroit News, "Clinton River Council Seeks Members."

November 11, 1972.

Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of Organizational Meeting, May
13, 1971.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, August 12,
1971.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, September
23, 1971.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, February
24, 1972.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of Annual Meeting, October 19,
1972.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of Annual Meeting, October 18,
1973.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, January
18, 1973.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, April 19,
1973.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, July 19,
1973.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, January
17, 1974.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, April 18,
1974.
Clinton River Watershed Council, Minutes of General Meeting, July 18,
1974.
Clinton River

Watershed

Council,

Newsletter, December 12, 1972.

Clinton River

Watershed

Council,

Newsletter, March 27, 1973.

Clinton River

Watershed

Council,

Newsletter, September 17, 1973.

Clinton River

Watershed

Council,

Newsletter, December 14, 1973.

Clinton River

Watershed

Council,

Newsletter, June 14, 1974.

Interview with David Brouwer, Executive Secretary, Clinton River
Watershed Council, November 19, 1973.
Interview with David Brouwer, Executive Secretary, Clinton River
Watershed Council, March 1974.

274

Macomb County Public Works Commission.
September 27, 1973.

Minutes of a Regular Meeting,

Macomb Daily.

"Group Walks for Ecology."

Macomb Daily.

"Tour Clinton River."

November 27, 1972.

October 18, 1973.

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
Pontiac to Rochester. Lansing, Michigan:
ment, 1974.

Clinton River Study,
Bureau of Water Manage­

State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
Clinton River Study,
Rochester to Mouth. Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Manage­
ment, 1974.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Report on the Water
Resources of the Clinton River Basin. Lansing, Michigan: Water
Resources Commission, 1953.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. The Water Resources of
Southeastern Michigan: An Overview of Region Water Uses.
Lansing, Michigan: Department of Conservation, 1968.
Student Water Publications. Oakland County, Michigan Water Resources.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Student Water
Publications, Department of Resource Development, 1968.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Flood Plain Information on Clinton River
and Panet Creek, Oakland County, Michigan. Detroit: U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1973.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Gazeteer of the Clinton River Basin.
Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Elk River Watershed Council
Benjamin, D . ; Brinker, R . ; Dalebout, C.; Gill, W . ; and Haan, D. A Base
Line Study of the Upper Chain-O-Lakes in Antrim, Kalkaska, and
Grand Traverse Counties, Michigan. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan:
Central Michigan University, Biology Department, 1970.
Curry, LaVerne L. Summary Report of Projects Conducted on the ChainO-Lakes in Antrim, Charlevoix, Kalkaska, and Grand Traverse
Counties July, 1970 - October, 1971. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan:
Central Michigan University, Biology Department, 1971.
Detroit Free Press.

"Year Old Gas Dispute Bubbles On," April 21, 1974.

Elk River Watershed Council. Gas and Oil Policy.
gan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1972.

Williamsburg, Michi­

275

Elk River Watershed Council. Information Brochure.
Michigan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1972.
Elk River Watershed Council.
1973.

Williamsburg,

Minutes of General Meeting.

Elk River Watershed Council. Organization Bylaws.
gan: Elk River Watershed Council, 1973.

September 10,

Williamsburg, Michi­

Interview with Chet Worthington, Vice-Chairman, Elk River Watershed
Council, April 22, 1974.
Interview with Earl Dunn, Chairman, Elk River Watershed Council, April
22, 1974.
Interview with Thomas Kampinnen. Michigan Bureau of Water Management,
Water Quality Control Section, Lansing, Michigan. May 1, 1974.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management. Michigan's Contingency
Plan for Oil and Hazardous Materials Pollution. Lansing, Michigan:
Bureau of Water Management, 1973.
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources.
"Well Drilling
Safeguards to be Discussed at Meeting." News Bulletin. Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, May 30, 1974.
State of Michigan, Office of the Attorney General.
"Record Recovery
for State From Williamsburg Natural Gas Eruptions." Environmental
Newsletter. Lansing, Michigan: Environmental Protection and
Natural Resources Division, May 15, 1974.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Authorization for the
Elk River Packing Company to Discharge Under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. Lansing, Michigan: Water Resources
Commission, May 1974.
Student Water Publications. A Perspective on Michigan Laws Relating to
Watershed Management. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, Student Water Publications, Department of Resource
Development, 1969.

Grand River Watershed Council
Ettesvold, W. "Statement on Behalf of the Michigan Grand River Water­
shed Council." Statement presented before the Great Lakes Basin
Commission, Muskegon, Michigan, November 30, 1972.
Great Lakes Basin Commission.
"Grand River Review." Great Lakes Basin
Commission Communicator, Vol. 2, February 1972, p. 2.
Interview with John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary, Grand River Watershed
Council, Lansing, Michigan, May 3, 1974.

276
Interview with John Kennaugh, Executive Secretary, Grand River Watershed
Council', Lansing, Michigan, June 6, 1974.
Kennaugh, John H. Implementation of Water and Land Related Resources
Management Programs. Masters Thesis.
East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1971.
Kennaugh, John H. "Management of Water and Land Related Areas in the
Grand River Basin." Unpublished research material, 1970.
Kennaugh, John H. "Preservation and Utilization of Flood Plain Areas."
Unpublished research material, 1971.
Kennaugh, J. H. Public Involvement in River Basin Planning and Manage­
ment through Watershed Councils." Paper presented to Conference
of Kalamazoo Planning Association, Kalamazoo, Michigan, October
10, 1973.
Kennaugh, John H. "The Grass Roots Role in Planning and Implementation
of Water Resource Management Programs." Unpublished research
material, 1968.
Kennaugh, John H. "The Michigan Grand River Watershed Council Story."
Paper presented at the Water Management Orientation and Workshop
Conference, Appleton, Wisconsin, May 28, 1969.
Lansing State Journal.
May 30, 1972.

"Apathy to Grand River Plan Concerns Officials,"

Lansing State Journal.
March 26, 1974.

"Free Maps Available for Grand River Canoeists,"

Lansing State Journal.
October 11, 1973.

"Regional Water Approach Gains Support,"

Lansing State Journal.
December 6, 1973.

"Walrus —

A Newfangled Ecology Game,"

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
(typewritten).

Agenda for Annual Meeting, 1972,

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
(typewritten).

Agenda for Annual Meeting, 1973,

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
gan, 1968.

Annual Report. Lansing,

Michi­

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
gan, 1969.

Annual Report. Lansing,

Michi­

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
gan, 1970.

Annual Report. Lansing,

Michi­

277
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Updated. Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

Special Report, Revised and

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
gan, 1973.

Annual Report.

Lansing, Michi­

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Aqua 1974— Watershed Council
Stream Appreciation Program." Grand River Watershed Council
Newsletter, March, 1974, p. 1.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Educational Workshops Spon­
sored by Watershed Council." Michigan Grand River Watershed
Council Newsletter, November 1973, p. 2.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Grand River Basin Study." Mich­
igan Grand River Watershed Council Newsletter, February 1974, p. 1.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Ionia Flood Plain Information
Study." Michigan Grand River Watershed Council Newsletter, October
1973, p. 1.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
1972, (typewritten).

Minutes of Annual Meeting,

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council. Minutes of Executive Committee
Meeting, December 6, 1973 (typewritten).
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
1974. (typewritten).

Minutes of Annual Meeting,

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Monitoring Streams and
Lakes." Unpublished research material. Lansing, Michigan:
gan Grand River Watershed Council, 1968.
Michigan Grand

River Watershed Council.

Organization Bylaws.

Michi­

1966.

Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Preliminary Plan Grand River
Basin. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Grand River Watershed Council,
1969.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council. Proposed Legislation for the
Creation of Watershed Districts. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
Grand River Watershed Council, 1971.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Program. Lansing, Michigan: Grand River Watershed Coun­
cil, 1972.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
Stream Monitoring Program
Report. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Grand River Watershed Council,
1972.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"The Role of Local Communities
to Combat the Natural Water Pollution Problem." Paper presented at
the Lake Michigan Pollution Conference, Chicago, January 31, 1968.

278
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council. The Role of the Grand River
Watershed Council to Combat the Water Pollution Problem. Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, 1970.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council. The Role of Michigan Comunities to Combat the Water Pollution Problem. Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council, 1969.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"The Watershed Council and the
Grand River Basin." Michigan Grand River Watershed Council News­
letter, January, 1974, p. 1.
Michigan Grand River Watershed Council.
"Watershed Council Appeals to
Water Resources Commission for Soil Erosion Control Training Pro­
gram." Michigan Grand River Watershed Council Newsletter, May
1974, p. 1.
Smith, Bradley F. Pollution Abatement at the Regional Level: A Case
Study of the Grand River Watershed Council. Masters Thesis.
Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1974.
Sietsema, J.
"Report to the Special House Study Committee on the
Grand River Basin Plan." Statement presented at the Grand River
Basin Public Hearings, December, 1970.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
Interim Water Quality
Management Plan for the Grand River Basin. Lansing, Michigan:
Water Resources Commission, 1972.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
Interim Water Quality
Management Plan for the Lansing Metropolitan/Regional Area.
Lansing, Michigan: Water Development Services Division, 1971.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Floods on the Grand River in Ingham and
Eaton Counties, Michigan: How to Avoid Damages. Detroit: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1969.
West Michigan Environmental Action Council. What is Going to Happen to
the Grand River— Suggested Fifteen Year Development Plan. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: 1970.

Huron River Watershed Council
Ann Arbor News.
1974.

"City Discounts Threat of Water Plant Suit," May 3,

Ann Arbor News. "Detroit to Allow Watershed Bill to Reach Floor,"
March 20, 1964.
Ann Arbor News.
"DNR’s Approval Moves Mill Creek Park a Step Closer,"
May 17, 1973.
Ann Arbor News.
"Mayor Hoping to End Opposition of Detroit to Water­
shed Rule Bill," March 13, 1964.

279
Ann Arbor News.
"Now is Time to Make Decision on Building Mill Creek
Park," August 27, 1971.
Ann Arbor News.

"State Rejects City's Sewer Plan," February 18, 1972.

Ann Arbor News.
"Watershed Council Asks Naming of Huron as 'Natural'."
November 5, 1972.
Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers. A Report on Waste Disposal and
and Water Use in the Downstream Portions of the Huron River.
Kansas City, Missouri: 1960.
Borchardt, J. A Review of the Proposed Water Quality Management Plans
for the Huron River Valley. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of
Michigan, Sanitary Resources Engineering, 1973.
Buckley, J. and Antil, J. Regional Versus Local Sewage Systems: A
Political Case Study. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michi­
gan, Department of Civil Engineering, 1970.
City of Ann Arbor. Comment in Behalf of City of Ann Arbor to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on the Environmental Impact State­
ment on Water Quality Management Planning for the Huron River Basin
Portion of Southeast Michigan. April 12, 1973.
Craine, L.
"Statement Relating to the Need for Water Legislation in
Michigan." Paper presented to the House of Representatives Interim
Committee on Water Resources. Lansing, Michigan, June 21, 1963.
Fulton, J. A Suggested Water Use Policy and Development Program for the
Huron River Watershed. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River Watershed
Council, 1966.
Fulton, J. Development and Evaluation of Citizen Participation Tech­
niques for Inland Lake and Shoreland Management. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Huron River Watershed Council, 1971.
Fulton, J. "Regional Organization for Water Resources Management in
the Huron River Watershed." Unpublished research material, 1966.
Gable, W.
"History and Development of Water Policy for the Huron River
Watershed." Paper presented at meeting of the Huron River Water­
shed Council. Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 1966.
Gable, W.
"Statement on Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Commit­
tee." Presented to the Senate Select Committee on National Water
Resources. Detroit, Michigan, October 29, 1959.
Haugard, H. "A Brief Look at Our Lakes and People Problems." Huron
River Watershed Council Newsletter. Ann Arbor, Michigan, November
1967.
Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report.
Huron River Watershed Council, 1966.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

280
Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report.
Huron River Watershed Council, 1969.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report.
Huron River Watershed Council, 1972.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Huron River Watershed Council. Annual Report.
Huron River Watershed Council, 1973.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Huron River Watershed Council. Directory of Township, Village, City,
County, Regional, State and Federal Agencies and Officials Con­
cerned with Inland Lakes and Shoreland Management. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Huron River Watershed Council, 1970.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Environmental Assessment of the Proposed
Mill Creek Metropolitan Park, Washtenaw County, Michigan. Ann
Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1973.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Function and Organization of the Huron
River Watershed Council. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River Water­
shed Council, 1971.
Huron River Watershed Council.
"House Resolution on Pointe Mouillee
Under Consideration in Lansing." Huron River Watershed Council
News Release, March 23, 1973.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Inland Lakes, Analysis and Action.
Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1971.

Ann

Huron River Watershed Council.
Inland Lakes Reference Manual. Ann
Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1971.
Huron River Watershed Council.
1970.

Minutes of Annual Meeting, April 23,

Huron River Watershed Council.
1971.

Minutes of Annual Meeting, April 15,

Huron River Watershed Council.

Minutes of Annual Meeting, May 23, 1973.

Huron River Watershed Council.
October 30, 1968.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
October 25, 1971.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
December 7, 1971.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
May 3, 1973.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
November 7, 1973.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

281
Huron River Watershed Council.
February 7, 1974.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
April 11, 1974.

Minutes of Executive Committee Meeting,

Huron River Watershed Council.
3, 1965.

Minutes of Organizational Meeting, June

Huron River Watershed Council. Minutes of Special Meeting Concerning
Michigan Natural Rivers Program, July
19, 1972.
Huron River

Watershed Council, Newsletter. September 21, 1973.

Huron River

Watershed Council, Newsletter. November 1973.

Huron River
Watershed Council. Proceedings of the Conference on the
Importance of the Management of the Huron River Watershed. Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 1963.
Huron River Watershed Council. Releases for Public Information
Meeting on the Future of the Huron River and the role of the
Michigan Natural Rivers Program, April 3, 1974.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Statement of Position on the Proposed
Impoundment of Mill Creek by the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan
Authority. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council,
1971.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Statement prepared on the Draft Environ­
ment Impact Statement for the Confined Disposal Facility at Pointe
Mouillee for the Detroit and Rouge Rivers. February 12, 1974.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Statement presented at Public Hearing
on Pointe Mouillee Diked Disposal Area, April 25, 1972.
Huron River Watershed Council.
Summary of Objectives— Creeksheds Proj­
ect. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Huron River Watershed Council, 1973.
Huron River Watershed Council. Water Use and Resource Management Goals
for the Huron River Watershed. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River
Watershed Council, 1968.
Huron River Watershed Council. Your Effective Involvement in Improving
and Protecting the Quality of the Environment of the Huron River
Watershed. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River Watershed Council,
1972.
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
Arbor, Michigan, 1959.

Annual Report.

Ann

Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
Arbor, Michigan, 1961.

Annual Report.

Ann

282
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee. Minutes of Organiza­
tional Meeting, February 4, 1958.
(typewritten)
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
1958.

Organization Bylaws.

Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee. Organization for
Water Planning and Management of the Huron River. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee, 1962.
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee, Technical Advisory
Subcommittee. The Huron River: A Water Use Policy and Development
Program. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Huron River Watershed Intergovern­
mental Committee, 1960.
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
"The Importance of
the Management of the Huron River Watershed." Proceedings of
Conference Program. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
September 9, 1963.
Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
December, 1958.

Watershed News,

Huron River Watershed Intergovernmental Committee.
November, 1959.

Watershed News,

Interview with Jerome Fulton, Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, February 7, 1974.
Interview with Owen Jansson, Executive Secretary of the Huron River
Watershed Council, Ann Arbor, Michigan, November 20, 1973.
Interview with Owen Jansson, Executive Secretary of the Huron River
Watershed Council, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 22, 1974.
Interview with Senator Gilbert Bursley, Lansing, Michigan, January 8,
1974.
Jansson, 0.
"Watershed Council Alert."
News Release, December 10, 1973.

Huron River Watershed Council

Mill Creek Research Council. Deficiencies in Research Concerning the
Mill Creek Impoundment Project. Chelsea, Michigan: Mill Creek
Research Council, 1968.
Mill Creek Research Council. Newsletter.
Creek Research Council, August 1968.

Chelsea, Michigan:

Mill

National Sanitation Foundation.
A Report on Sewage Disposal Problems
in the Six County Metropolitan Area of Southeastern Michigan.
1964.
Purdy, R. "Non-Point Source Pollution of Michigan's Waters." Statement
presented at the Huron River Watershed Council Quarterly Meeting,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, December 4, 1973.

Say, E. W. Summary Special Projects Program.
Huron River Watershed Council, 1972.

Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Sierra Club, Mackinac Chapter.
Statement Concerning the Proposed HCMA
Mill Creek Metropark. Lansing, Michigan:
Sierra Club, Mackinac
Chapter, March 15, 1973.
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments.
Statement on the Proposed
Mill Creek Metropark. Detroit, Michigan:
SEMCOG, 1973.
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources.
The Mill Creek
Metropark Proposal— A Position Statement. Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Natural Resources, 1973.
State of Michigan. Water Resources Commission. Huron River, Geddes Dam
through Ford Lake. Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Management,
1974.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
Interior Water Quality
Management Plan for the Southeast Michigan Metropolitan— Regional
A r e a . Lansing, Michigan: Water Development Services Division,
1972.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Plans for Water Quality
Management, Phase II, Southeastern Michigan Area. Lansing, Michi­
gan: Water Resources Commission, 1973.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Report on the Water
Resource Conditions and Uses in the Huron River Basin. Lansing,
Michigan: Water Resources Commission, 1957.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission.
The Water Resources of
Southeastern Michigan, An Overview of Region Water Uses. Lansing,
Michigan: Water Resources Commission, 1968.
University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources.
SNR Reporter.
Arbor, Michigan:
School of Natural Resources, March 1973.

Ann

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alternatives for Managing Wastewater for
Southeastern Michigan, Summary Report. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1971.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
(Draft Environmental Impact Statement):
Confined Disposal Facility at Pointe Mouillee for Detroit and
Rouge Rivers. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Final Environmental Impact Statement:
Confined Disposal Facility at Pointe Mouillee for Detroit and Rouge
Rivers. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Gazeteer of the Huron River Basin.
Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1972.

284
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Southeastern Michigan Water Resources
Study. Detroit: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1966.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(Draft Environmental Impact State­
ment) : Water Quality Management Planning for the Huron River Basin
Portion of Southeastern Michigan. Chicago: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973.
Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners.
on Proposed Regional Sewer Project.

Proceedings of Public Hearing
Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1973.

Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission.
A Study of the Pro­
posed Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority Mill Creek Report. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission,
1971.

Jordan River Watershed Council
Interview with John Hodge, District Extension Leader, Petoskey, Michi­
gan, April 23, 1974.
Interview with Edward Rebman, Charlevoix County Extension Agent, Boyne
City, Michigan, April 23, 1974.
Jordan River Watershed Council. First Annual Report.
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968.

East Jordan,

Jordan River Watershed Council. Organization Bylaws.
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1967.

East Jordan,

Jordan River Watershed Council.
Proposed Greenbelt Zoning Ordinance.
East Jordan, Michigan:
Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969.
Jordan River Watershed Council.
Resolution Opposing State Fish Hatch­
er y . East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council,
October 14, 1968.
Jordan River WAtershed Council.
Second Annual Report.
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969.
Jordan River Watershed Council.
Third Annual Report.
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1970.

East Jordan,

East Jordan,

Judson, A. and Humphrys, C.R.
"Save the Jordan." The Jordan River
Watershed Program. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, Student Water Publications, 1971.
Morgan, John C. Biological Survey of the Jordan River.
Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1969.
Rebman, E. Save the Jordan. Boyne City, Michigan:
Extension Office, 1968.

East Jordan,

Charlevoix County

285
Rebman, E. Save the Jordan— The Jordan River Watershed Commission.
Boyne City, Michigan: Charlevoix County Extension Service, 1971.
Shauver, John M. A Preliminary Survey of the Jordan River Watershed.
East Jordan, Michigan: Jordan River Watershed Council, 1968.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management, Water Quality of
Selected Lakes and Streams in the Traverse Bay Region. Lansing,
Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1970.

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council
Interview with Kearsley Creek Preservation Council Managing Committee,
Davison, Michigan, November 29, 1973.
Kearsley Creek Preservation Council.

Organization Bylaws.

1972.

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council.
"The Riparian's Interest in
Watershed Management." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations, Mt. Pleasant,
Michigan, March 28, 1974.
Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations.
held at Clare, Michigan, December 19, 1973.

Minutes of Meeting,

Michigan State University, Kearsley Creek, Genesee County, Michigan:
Geology, Soils, Land Use, Hydrology, Fishery. Student Water
Publications, 1971.
Michigan State University. Kearsley Creek, Genesee County— Michigan
Water Quality Study. East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water Publi­
cations, 1971.
Michigan State University. Kearsley Creek Watershed, Recreation, and
Open Space Study. East Lansing, Michigan: Student Water Publi­
cations, 1971.
Michigan State University. The Upper Flint River Watershed— Vol. 1-4
East Lansing, Michigan: Student Water Publications, 1970.
Michigan State University. Upper Flint River Watershed, Recreation, and
Open Space Study. East Lansing, Michigan:
Student Water Publi­
cations, 1971.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management. Water Quality Study:
Flint River Tributaries At Flint, Michigan. Lansing, Michigan:
Bureau of Water Management, 1970.

GENERAL REFERENCES

Ackoff, Russell L. Scientific Method; Optimizing Applied Research
Decisions. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
Adams, B.J.; Dajani, J.S.; and Gemmell, R.S.
"On the Centralization of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities." Water Resources Bulletin,
Vol. 8, (August, 1972), pp. 669-678.
Barlowe, Raleigh; McGuire, Michael; and Vertrees, Robert. Michigan's
Water Resource Needs. Lansing, Michigan: Water Resources Commis­
sion, 1969.
Blalock, Hubert M.
pany, 1960.

Social Statistics.

New York:

McGraw-Hill Book Com­

Center for Environmental Study.
Environmental Quality Improvement
through Water Pollution Control. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Center
for Environmental Quality, 1971.
Center for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, Extension Committee on
Land and Water, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State
University. Conference Proceedings: Toward an Effective Land Use
Policy for Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan, 1973.
Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques.
Sons, Inc., 1963.

New York:

John Wiley and

Cotner, M. and Schmid, A. Drain Law for Michigan Landowners. East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Cooperative
Extension Service, 1966.
Craine, Lyle. Need for Water Legislation in Michigan. Statement
presented to the House of Representatives Interim Committee on
Water Resources, Lansing, Michigan, June 21, 1963.
Crapo, Douglas and Chubb, Michael. Recreation Area Day-Use Investi­
gation Techniques: A Study of Survey Methodology. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of Park and
Recreation Resources, 1969.
Environmental Law Society. Proposed Legislation for the Creation of
Watershed Districts. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan:
Environmental Law Society, 1972.
Great Lakes Basin Commission.
"Lake Ontario Management Institutions'
Effectiveness Assessed." Great Lakes Basin Commission Communi­
cator, Vol. 2, (November, 1971), p. 8.
286

287
Great Lakes Basin Communicator.
"Panic— 1970." Great Lakes Basin
Commission Communicator, Vol. 2, (June, 1972), pp. 3-4.
Hendrickson, G.E., and Doonan C.J. Hydrology and Recreation on the
Cold-Water Rivers of Michigan's Southern Peninsula. Washington:
U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.
Joint Committee on Water Resources Planning. Michigan Laws Relating to
Water; Lansing, Michigan: Legislative Services Bureau, 1965.
McNamee, Porter and Seeling Consulting Engineers. Lake Michigan Water
Supply for West Central Michigan: A Report Prepared for the Michi­
gan Grand River Watershed Council. Ann Arbor, Michigan: McNamee,
Porter, and Seeley Consulting Engineers, 1971.
Michigan Association
of Counties.
Directory of Chairmen andViceChairmen of the County Boards of Commissioners. Lansing, Michi­
gan Association
of Counties, 1974.
Michigan Association
of Watershed
1972. Lansing, Michigan.

Organizations.

Organization Bylaws,

Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations.
Meeting. Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, 1974.

Proceedings of Annual

Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations.
ence of Organized River Watershed Councils.
1970.

Proceedings of Confer­
Lansing, Michigan,

Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations. Proceedings of Decem­
ber 19, 1973, Meeting. Clare, Michigan, 1973.
Michigan Association of Watershed Organizations. Proceedings of
November 3, 1972, Meeting. Williamston, Michigan, 1972.
Michigan Municipal League. Directory of Michigan Municipal Officials.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Michigan Municipal League, 1974.
Michigan Townships Association. Township Record.
Michigan Townships Association, 1974.

Lansing, Michigan:

Michigan Water Pollution Control Association. Proceedings of 41st
Annual Conference. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966.
Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement.
York, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966.

New

Potter, Dale R. ; Sharpe, Kathryn M . ; Hender, John C.; and Clark, Roger
N. Questionnaires for Research: An Annotated Bibliography on
Design Construction, and Use. Portland, Oregon: Pacific North­
west Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1972.
Siegal, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

288
Simon, Julian L. Basic Research Methods in Social Science— The Art
of Emperical Investigation. New York: Random House, 1969.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management.
Biennial Report,
Fiscal Years 1971-1972. Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water
Management, 1972.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management.
Environmental Guidelines
for Inland Lakefront Property Owners. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, 1972.
State of Michigan, Bureau of Water Management. Federal and State Agen­
cies, Commissions, and Councils Influencing Water Management in
Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Bureau of Water Management, 1969.
State of Michigan,Department of Natural Resources. Air, Water and
Solid Waste Strategy for Fiscal Year 1975. Lansing, Michigan:
Environmental Protection Branch, 1974.
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, "Maple River Water­
shed Project Supported." Michigan Department of Natural Resources
News Bulletin, May 1974.
State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources.
News Bulletin.
Lansing, Michigan:
Information Services, April 16, 1974.
State of

Michigan. H.B. 5422 (1971).

State of

Michigan. H.B. 5423 (1971).

State of

Michigan. Inland Lakes and Streams

A c t . Act 346 (1972).

State of

Michigan. Intermunicipal Committee

Act. Act 200 (1957).

State of Michigan. Local River Management A c t .
amended by Act 119 (1966).
State of

Michigan.

Act 253 (1964), as

Natural Rivers Act of 1970. Act 231 (1970).

State of Michigan, Office of Planning Services. Michigan's Natural
Rivers Program. Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning Services,
1974.
State of Michigan.
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act of 1972.
Act 347 (1972).
State of Michigan. The Shorelands Protection and Management Act of
1970. Act 245 (1970).
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission and Bureau of Water
Management.
Activity Report. Lansing, Michigan: January 1974.
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. General Rules. Lansing,
Michigan: Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources
Commission, 1973.

289
State of Michigan, Water Resources Commission. Watershed Newsletter.
Lansing, Michigan: Water Resources Commission, 1973.
Stephenson, M.E. and Waybrant, J.R. Watershed Analysis Relating to
Eutrophication of Lake Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, Institute of Water Research, 1971.
Student Water Publications. Water Quality Management. East Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan State University, Student Water Publications,
Department of Resource Development, 1968.
United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Water
Resources Data for Michigan, Part I. Surface Water Records.
Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Water Resources
Data for Michigan, Part II, Water Quality Records. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.
Vondruska, John. An Economic Analysis of Small Watershed Project
Evaluation Procedures, Ph.D. Dissertation.
East Lansing, Michi­
gan: Michigan State University, 1971.
Woolley, B.
"Shoreline-Management Programs in the Thirty Coastal
States: Varying Degrees of Effort to Conserve a Natural Resource."
National Journal, Vol. 4, (December 9, 1972), pp. 1896-1897.