News and analysis from The Center for Michigan •
©2015 Bridge Michigan. All Rights Reserved. • Join us online at

Original article URL:

Public sector/Quality of life

How much of Michigan should public own?

Land-Wars-350On a sunny June day, government officials joined conservation leaders on a Lake Michigan beach to dedicate the newest jewel of the state’s public lands program — the 173-acre Saugatuck Harbor Natural Area.

The spectacular sand dunes near the mouth of the Kalamazoo River were preserved rather than developed when the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund contributed $10.5 million to a $22 million campaign to acquire the scenic property.

Less than three weeks later, Gov. Rick Snyder signed Michigan’s first law capping the amount of land the state Department of Natural Resources could own.

The law capped state land ownership at 4.626 million acres and prevented the DNR from exceeding that cap until the agency develops a land acquisition strategy that the Legislature approves. It also required the DNR to receive legislative approval before buying any more land north of Clare.

The DNR currently owns 4.59 million acres of land and is negotiating purchases on another 18,000 acres. That leaves the agency with an approximately 17,000-acre cushion before hitting the land cap, DNR officials said.

At the heart of the land cap debate was a fundamental, vexing policy question that dates back nearly 75 years: How much public land should Michigan own?

It’s a simple question with no readily apparent answer.

No consensus on ownership figure


“Talking about the number of acres of land the state owns is pointless,” said Erin McDonough, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. “What we care about is the utility of state land and how we can utilize that land to strengthen the economy.”

None of the main players on either side of the land cap debate would provide a figure for how much land the state should own.

DNR critics — including state Sen. Tom Casperson, an Escanaba Republican who introduced the land cap legislation — want the agency to own less land. But they wouldn’t say how much less.

Several conservation leaders said the state should own more land, but none would specify how much more.

Steve Sutton, manager of the DNR’s real estate section, said state land acquisitions are driven by a detailed set of criteria, not acreage goals. The new law’s requirement that the DNR develop a land acquisition strategy may help answer the question of how much land Michigan should own, what types of land, and where.

But Casperson said the DNR should forget about acquiring more property in the U.P. or the northern Lower Peninsula.

“The northern part of the state and the U.P. are heavily inundated with government land,” he said.

Land cap critics said the law would hamstring Michigan’s burgeoning efforts to use natural resources — clean lakes and rivers, healthy forests and scenic Great Lakes beaches — to bolster tourism and strengthen local and regional economies.

“To say that we’ve got too much public land is very ironic from my perspective, particularly when the state is marketing our recreational assets to the rest of the United States with the Pure Michigan campaign,” said Glen Chown, executive director of the Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy. “Michigan is known for its recreational assets and we should take advantage of that.”

Land numbers haven’t changed much

Coming Thursday

Private land, public access  Fresh off his success in enacting a cap on land purchases by the public Department of Natural Resources, Sen. Tom Casperson is now drafting legislation to make nonprofit, private land conservancies pay property taxes – unless they provide unlimited public access. Conservation groups say Casperson’s idea creates a “no-win” situation.

Man with the plan  State Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, has moved to the forefront of land-use policies in Lansing. So what is his agenda? In a Bridge Q&A, Casperson, who was elected to the Senate in 2010, after previously serving in the Michigan House, discusses his philosophy and his desire to see the state DNR “excel.”

So how much public land should Michigan own? It’s a question that dates back nearly a century.

The state began acquiring land in 1902, after a 60-year logging frenzy left much of the state a barren wasteland. By 1940, the state had amassed nearly 5 million acres of land — most of which was tax-reverted property in northern Michigan that logging firms abandoned after harvesting the virgin pine forests.

Concerns about excessive state land holdings prompted a 1938 study that included input from nearly 2,000 landowners. They faced one question: How much public land should the state own north of Saginaw?

Their collective answer: About 3.8 million acres, according to a 1945 Michigan State University study called, “The Land Nobody Wanted.”

At the time, the predecessor to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources owned 4.6 million acres of land north of Saginaw.

Today, the DNR owns 4.59 million acres of land — virtually the same amount as in 1940. About 85 percent of DNR land, 3.9 million acres, is located north of Clare, just like in 1940, according to state data.

Nationally, Michigan ranks 7th in state land ownership, according to a 1995 study by the National Wilderness Institute. That study was the most recent assessment of government land ownership in all 50 states.

Michigan’s land portfolio dwarfs those in most Great Lakes states, according to the Wilderness Institute study. In 1995, only New York (with 11 million acres) and Minnesota (with 5.4 million acres) owned more land.

Though the state’s total land holdings have changed little since 1940, festering resentment of the DNR’s land acquisition and land management practices climaxed this year with passage of the land cap law.

Critics fear the law could force the DNR to sell land in the U.P. in order to acquire new parcels in the Lower Peninsula.

Supporters said it would require the DNR to live within its means; the agency lacks the financial resources to properly manage all the land it already owns.

Need for land-use plan is point of agreement

The one part of the law that drew widespread praise was a provision that requires the DNR to develop a comprehensive plan for acquiring and disposing of state land.

“The Legislature has told the DNR to come back to them and do a better job of justifying your land purchases,” said Rich Bowman, director of government relations for The Nature Conservancy’s Michigan chapter. “Frankly, I think that’s a good thing.”

The DNR’s Sutton said the agency has done a good job of acquiring land, but has failed to convey the program’s economic and environmental value to the public.

“We need to really promote public land ownership and what a huge economic value it is,” Sutton said.

Public land is a pillar of Michigan’s $17 billion tourism industry. The forests, beaches and surface waters the state owns or manages provide many of the backdrops for the Pure Michigan advertising campaign.

Conservation leaders said that public lands and natural resources could play a major role in the effort to reinvent Michigan’s economy. A recent MSU study highlighted the economic value of so-called “green assets.” It found that the Rifle River Recreation Area in northern Michigan generates $1.8 million of economic activity annually and creates 38 jobs.

Grant results

A few examples of projects that received grants from the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund.

* $12.5 million toward the purchase of 5.5 miles of Lake Superior shoreline and 6,275 acres of rugged forest on the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula.
*$9.45 million for conservation easements that ensured public access to 247,806 acres of forest lands that stretch across the Upper Peninsula.
* $7 million to support the purchase of 6,000 acres of Lake Michigan dunes and coastal wetlands in Arcadia.
* Numerous grants to help communities acquire abandoned railroad lines and convert those into recreational trails, like the Kal-Haven Trail and Frederick Meijer White Pine Trail.
* $2.5 million to enable the DNR to purchase 2,354 acres of forest along the Menominee River.
$300,000 to improve Munising’s Tourist Park Campground on Lake Superior.
* $34 million for the Detroit Riverwalk project, which included developing the state’s first urban state park: William Milliken State Park on the Detroit River.
* $5.5 million to acquire land at the Bald Mountain Recreation Area in Lake Orion.
* $4.2 million to preserve 500 acres of pristine Lake Michigan sand dunes near Grand Haven.
* $1.3 million to add 517 acres of land to the Pigeon River Country State Forest.
* $315,000 grant for Munising’s municipal marina, which bolstered business for Pictured Rocks Cruises.
$290,000 to develop Bond Falls State Park.
* $280,000 grant to develop West Bay Beach in Traverse City.

All Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund grants, by county 

“Considering the fact that the park is only 4,450 acres in size, the estimated annual economic impacts are quite significant,” according to the study.

Trust fund undergirds land buys

The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund is the DNR’s primary funding mechanism for land acquisitions. Established in 1976, the fund uses royalties derived from oil and gas wells on state property to buy environmentally sensitive land and develop community facilities that enhance recreational opportunities.

The Trust Fund has provided $1 billion in grants to the DNR and local units of government since 1976, according to state data. The DNR has used Trust Fund grants to acquire 161,000 acres of land since 1976, according to state data.

Although Trust Fund grants have purchased just 3 percent of all state land, many of those acquisitions were significant to the state’s Pure Michigan brand. (info box)

Trust fund grants have: Expanded the Pigeon River Country State Forest and preserved rugged forests in the Keweenaw Peninsula; provided public access to coastal sand dunes, beaches and rivers; and supported upgrades at several marinas and municipal campgrounds. The trust fund also played a crucial role in developing Michigan’s first urban state park: William Milliken State Park in downtown Detroit.

Though widely praised, the Trust Fund was caught in the political crossfire over the land cap. Casperson led a successful effort to remove $4.3 million in Trust Fund grants for DNR land acquisitions in so-called “eco-regions” in the northern Lower Peninsula and the U.P.

The Legislature rejected those grants because the DNR didn’t identify specific parcels the agency hoped to acquire.

Sutton said eco-region grants were always vague, by design. He said the grants allow the DNR to consolidate land holdings in certain areas and act quickly when desirable land becomes available.

The Legislature’s rejection of the eco-region grants marked the first time state lawmakers have overruled the Trust Fund board’s recommendations for specific grants.

But it wasn’t the first time the vaunted Trust Fund has been scrutinized.

A 1988 study by Lansing-based Public Sector Consultants found that most Trust Fund grants went to projects in Northern Michigan, far from the state’s most populous regions. That trend continues to this day, according to state officials.

Sutton said the DNR is making a concerted effort to acquire more public land and provide more recreational opportunities in southern Michigan. The Trust Fund, for instance, poured $34 million into the Detroit Riverwalk project, which included Milliken State Park.

It’s hard to acquire land in southern Michigan because the prices are higher and there aren’t many parcels of land that meet our criteria,” Sutton said.

Ironically, the land cap could make it more difficult for the DNR to buy property where public lands are most scarce and most needed — in the southern part of Michigan.

Jeff Alexander is owner of J. Alexander Communications LLC and the author of “Pandora’s Locks: The Opening of the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Seaway.” He’s a former staff writer for the Muskegon Chronicle.

6 comments from Bridge readers.Add mine!

  1. Javan Kienzle

    Just out of curiosity, how much land in Michigan is owned by Matty Moroun and his companies? Is he the second or third largest land owner in Michigan?

  2. Jim

    America (and the world) is starting to run out of usable water, and a lot of other things. If you have 20 or so minutes I highly recommend this from (of all sources, a hedge fund manager)
    Anyway, unless Michigan irreversibly pollutes our water, or allows a giant pipeline to suck it away, we are just years away from a massive in migration. Everybody who left, and many others, are coming back.

  3. John Saari

    The State needs help balancing their budget. Think Community. Pass as much of the State down to the Community. Including public land ownership, maintenance, management etc. Lands once tax reverted to the State, now they revert to the County. The Community should decide how much to own and manage. The State should consolidate its current holdings. Sell key pieces, requested by Communities. Probably the oil and gas rights and surface waters should be retained by the state. It is so important that we have a lot of quality private property to pay the taxes. If you add the Federal, County, City and Village properties to the States tax free lands, you have a little too much public land. What should the ratio be?
    John Saari X-Wexford County Commissioner

  4. Beaufort Cranford

    Natural lands are one of Michigan’s greatest assets. Trying to justify the purchase of undeveloped land by virtue of its economic benefits misses a fundamental point. Michiganians and the tourists we attract are great “consumers” of wild land — we fish, kayak, canoe, jet-ski and power boat on the water, tromp through the woods, kill animals anywhere, cut and sell timber, climb on the rocks, ski on the hillsides, as though we were trying to use up the place. Undeveloped land is an essential part of what makes Michigan attractive to begin with; nobody’s coming here to look a strip malls or Rep. Casperson’s house. Then there’s the preservation of biodiversity, on and on. There are lots of very good arguments –including banking land for the future and our children’s future– for the DNR’s buying land. The people of Michigan should own as much of their state as possible; what they don’t own is always in jeopardy.

  5. Jeffrey Poling

    I would hope that the state of Michigan does whatever it takes – land ownership, restrictive laws – whatever is necessary to protect our coasts from developers including off shore drilling and unsightly windmills. If I understand this correctly, Gov. Snyder has recently relaxed restrictions allowing developers to build on our sand dunes. If so, our dunes and lake shore will soon be off limits to the average citizen just as most inland lakes are where private development is so dense that even viewing the lakes is near impossible.

  6. Dave Smethurst

    Some want land in private ownership. Sounds good, but there is a LOT of land for sale in northern Michigan that is not selling and hasn’t. Communities should get the land is another theme. And where will the money come from to manage those community lands. Higher local taxes? Yep, let’s have a strategic plan. Target southern Michigan, but don’t pass up unique land up north that can add to the ecomony.

Leave your comment...

Your email address will not be published.

Currently on Bridge

Todd Courser hits Lansing like a cannonball

Will we be better off if Proposal 1 passes? Former treasurer says yes

An Earth Day pitch: When you hang up the phone for good, toss it the right way

Michigan’s roads affect everyone, so a 'yes' vote on Proposal 1 makes sense

‘Diplomacy Begins Here’ conference aims to illuminate international relations

What NOT to post on Facebook: Jokes about prison rape, when you’re in charge of preventing prison rape

A program to give young offenders a second chance is sending many to prison

Similar accounts in suit over alleged teen prison rapes pose challenge to state's defense

‘New fish’ ‒ One teen inmate’s account of alleged sexual assault

Early learning summit in June could impact Michigan’s children

Money Smart Week: Be penny wise, and pound savvier

Plan B or no Plan B, here’s what happens if road proposal fails

The political tale behind the selling of Proposal 1

A Bridge primer: Untangling the pothole promise of Proposal 1

Who supports, and opposes, Proposal 1

Let's rebuild Michigan through its greatest asset: its water

Could a public boarding school model work in Detroit?

Coalition supporting Detroit schools a step in the city’s road back

Chasing fads? Today’s schools are struggling too much for that

For one Michigan legislative staffer, an hour or two in the spotlight

A cull is a kill, and it’s an overreaction to deer ‘problem’

Lack of college guidance keeps poor and rural students from applying

Those who can, do – and get their hands ‘dirty’ in the process

For one Detroit mom, a complicated path to employment

Detroit by the numbers – the truth about poverty

Michigan should require dental screening for all children entering kindergarten

Where in the world is the Center for Michigan?

After two years, hard to call ACA anything but a success

Bridge’s Academic State Champs emphasizes all the wrong measurements

A graying population poses challenges for Up North counties

Up North, isolation impedes health care for seniors

Enbridge oil pipes and the Straits of Mackinac: Too risky to ignore

Not bigger government, but better services when Community Health and Human Services merge

Two Michigans gaze across a widening gap

In northern counties, workers and business find each other lacking

Hidden poverty stalks a Pure Michigan setting

Postcard: How a git-’er-done spirit helps one rural school district

Postcard: When elk is for dinner

Postcard: Luxe life at Bay Harbor reflects changing economy

Postcard: A roof and a bed

Invest in non-partisan journalism.

Donate to The Center for Michigan. Find out why.