# Burt Township v. Department of Natural Resources

> Michigan Court of Appeals · March 26, 1998 · 227 Mich. App. 252

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654502

## Case

- **Full name:** Burt Township v. Department of Natural Resources
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 26, 1998
- **Citations:** 227 Mich. App. 252; 576 N.W.2d 170
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by White
- **Judges:** White, Cavanagh, Reilly
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654502

## Opinion text

White, P.J.
([dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
While I agree with the majority that our task is to discern and implement the Legislature’s intent, I do not agree that the Legislature intended the Department of Natural Resources’ mandate to provide and develop facilities for outdoor recreation, its power to buy or condemn land for this purpose, and its power to acquire and construct facilities for vessels in the navigable waters within this state to be subject to and dependent on local zoning decisions.
While neither the Township Rural Zoning Act (trza), MCL 125.271 et seq.) MSA 5.2963 et seq., nor the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), MCL 324.101 et seq.) MSA 13A.101 et seq., expressly addresses the question whether the dnr’s implementation of the nrepa is subject to local zoning ordinances, the nrepa sets forth a comprehensive legislative scheme addressing the protection, conservation, and development of the natural resources of this state. The dnr is granted “the power and jurisdiction over the management, control, and disposition of all land under the public domain, except for those lands under the public domain that are managed by other state agencies to carry out their *263 assigned duties and responsibilities,” and is granted authority to buy or condemn land on behalf of the people of the state for the purposes of providing and developing facilities for outdoor recreation. MCL 324.503; MSA 13A.503. Subchapter 4 of the NREPA creates the Michigan State Waterways Commission, MCL 324.78102; MSA 13A.78102, and the Michigan State Waterways Fund, MCL 324.78110(1); MSA 13A.78110(1), and grants the DNR certain powers and duties, including “[t]o acquire, construct, and maintain . . . facilities for vessels in the navigable waters lying within the boundaries of the state of Michigan,” MCL 324.78105(a); MSA 13A.78105(a), and to charge fees for the daily and seasonal use of state-operated public access sites, and deposit the revenues in the Michigan State Waterways Fund. MCL 324.78105(h); MSA 13A.78105(h).
While the nrepa contemplates that there will be opportunities for cooperation between the DNR and local units of government, MCL 324.78106; MSA 13A.78106, the nrepa does not reflect an intent that the dnr’s implementation of its purpose be subject to or dependent on local cooperation. The navigable waters within this state belong to all the citizens of this state, Collins v Gerhardt, 237 Mich 38 ; 211 NW 115 (1926), and the Legislature has granted the DNR the power to construct facilities for vessels in those waters. The grant of the authority to acquire or condemn land in the name of the people of this state and to develop facilities for recreation and navigation, using money within a state fund, is inconsistent with the view that a local unit of government can control public access through local zoning. I would reverse.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9654502. Public record. Not legal advice.