Public Access
or Public Market Control?
The Cityās tourism pages are now openly promoting Harbor View Marina as part of Ludingtonās visitor economy.
This is not a small public access ramp.
This is a public marina business operating in private marina markets.
Fuel. Diesel. Seasonal slips. Transient slips. Dockage. Trailer parking. Customer traffic. Fishing and boating services.
Private marinas did not miss the opportunity.
The public system moved into it.
Pere Marquette Lake Watershed Council
REAL MONEY. REAL PROGRAM. REAL QUESTIONS.
We are not alleging fraud. We are showing what the public records themselves say about the scale of Michiganās Waterways program.
The Statewide Planning Record
RN-3 presented Michiganās Water Access and Boating Development Program as a statewide infrastructure buildout.
This was not a small local grant program. It was a statewide plan for harbors, marinas, ramps, river access, land acquisition, public access, and related infrastructure.
The Ludington Example
Ludington Municipal Marina was reported with an early estimate of approximately $1.4 million, later growing to about $2.3 million.
Harbor View Marina later added another multi-million-dollar state-local marina project, reported at more than $5 million.
These were not isolated projects. They were local examples of the larger Waterways infrastructure system.
Why the Audit Finding Matters
We have shown one Auditor General record where DNR acknowledged it should not have followed a Waterways Commission recommendation to increase Waterways Fund match amounts without first obtaining legislative approval.
That does not prove fraud, and we are not saying it does.
It proves the program required serious oversight because it involved real public money, real matching decisions, and real state-local infrastructure commitments.
The Public Question
If the Waterways Commission was advisory, who controlled the funding decisions?
If DNR reported corrective action, who independently audited the program after that?
If public marinas were built with state-supported infrastructure, how were private marinas and local markets affected?
Bottom Line
Their own records show the Waterways program was large, expensive, statewide, and consequential.
The public deserves a full accounting before more money, more grants, and more marina decisions move forward.
PART 5
Who Was Deciding?
The original Waterways system was created for public safety, harbors of refuge, access, and statewide water protection. Later records show something different: a controlled marina economy.
The Original Promise Was Not a Marina Business
The first records of the Michigan State Waterways Commission do not read like a business plan for public marinas.
They read like a public safety and public access mission.
The early Waterways system was built around protective harbors, harbors of refuge, navigation, recreation, fishery safety, and the full public use of Michiganās waters.
The starting point was public protection ā not seasonal slip economics.
That matters because the later marina records show a system increasingly tied to rates, waiting lists, fuel, seasonal occupancy, charter policy, grants, reimbursements, and financial controls.
Harbors of Refuge Came First
The early Waterways program focused heavily on harbors of refuge ā places where boats could seek safety, where dangerous stretches of shoreline could be served, and where public navigation could be protected.
These projects involved federal cooperation, local obligations, public lands, channels, breakwaters, and long-term public use.
In plain English, the program began as a public water system:
- safe harbor access
- navigation protection
- public recreation
- local-federal-state cooperation
- public shoreline infrastructure
That is the baseline. That is the public-purpose foundation.
The Commission Originally Had Real Operating Power
The original Waterways law gave the Commission broad authority. It could acquire, construct, and maintain harbors, channels, and facilities. It could acquire land. It could enter contracts. It could grant concessions. It could represent Michigan in dealings with the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
That is important because the Commission was not originally created as a ceremonial advisory group.
In the beginning, Waterways was operational.
Later, however, the public record describes the Waterways Commission as advisory to DNR.
That raises the core question:
If Waterways became advisory, who was actually deciding?
The Money System Was There From the Beginning
The first Waterways records also show the financial machinery behind the program.
Waterways funding included fuel taxes, watercraft registration, tonnage-related revenues, harbor improvements, maintenance, salaries, administration, and project allocations.
So when modern marina records show fuel sales, grants, reimbursements, dock projects, interfund balances, and marina revenue, that did not appear from nowhere.
It evolved from a public Waterways funding system.
Public money built the system. Public records should explain the system.
Then the System Changed
Over time, the Waterways story changed.
What began as harbors of refuge, safety, public access, and navigation protection became tied to local marina authorities, seasonal slips, commercial charter use, rates, fuel sales, waiting lists, dock grants, and public-private marina competition.
That does not mean boating or fishing stopped mattering.
They mattered so much that they became the economic engine used to justify more control over public waterfront space.
Access became allocation. Allocation became revenue. Revenue shaped policy.
The Authority Question
This is where the issue becomes larger than one marina.
If the original Commission had operating power, but later Waterways was described as advisory, then the public deserves to know who actually controlled the decisions.
Who controlled:
- seasonal slip policy?
- commercial charter use?
- grant recommendations?
- public-access conditions?
- local marina expansion?
- public money flowing into marina infrastructure?
That is the question Part 5 raises.
Why This Matters in Ludington
Ludingtonās marina history cannot be understood by looking at one dock, one grant, one charter boat, or one city council vote.
It is part of a much larger system that began with statewide public-water planning and evolved into a marina economy managed through state and local decisions.
The public was told the system was about access.
The records now show it was also about control.
The question is not whether marinas should exist. The question is who controlled the public system ā and under what authority.
Plain English Summary
Michiganās Waterways system began as a public safety and public access program.
It was about harbors of refuge, navigation, public recreation, and protecting the use of Michiganās waters.
But later records show that the system became tied to marina economics ā seasonal slips, commercial use, fuel sales, waiting lists, grants, reimbursements, and dock replacement projects.
Part 5 asks the question that follows naturally:
When the mission changed, who was deciding?
Bottom Line
The original Waterways promise was public protection, access, and safe harbor development.
The later record shows a managed marina economy.
Before the public is asked to accept more spending, more grants, more dock projects, and more state-local marina decisions, the public deserves a clear answer: who had the authority, who made the decisions, and when did the mission change?
The Audit They Don't Talk About
Michigan Auditor General Follow-Up Report
In 2012, the Michigan Office of the Auditor General reviewed the Department of Natural Resources' Recreational Watercraft Access and Harbor Development Activities.
Why This Matters
- The Waterways Commission was officially described as advisory.
- Its recommendations influenced funding decisions.
- The Auditor General identified a material condition in the program.
- DNR later reported corrective action.
PART 4
When Public Access Became Marina Economics
The records show a shift from public recreation promises to rates, slips, fuel, charter policy, and financial controls.
The Original Promise Was Public Access
```The early state planning records did not describe public marinas as private waterfront businesses. They described them as public boating access.
Michiganās statewide boating plans projected major growth in recreational boating and justified public marina development partly on the claim that smaller boats needed access that commercial marinas were not expected to provide.
That matters because the public was told the purpose was access, recreation, and unmet need.
```Ludingtonās Marina Land Came With Public Conditions
```When Ludingtonās original municipal marina land was acquired with federal outdoor recreation assistance, the project was identified for public outdoor recreation use.
The approval also required that 20% of seasonal berths be assigned each year by a public lottery open to the public.
Public land. Public recreation. Public lottery access.
That was the public-access baseline before the marina system became increasingly tied to seasonal occupancy and commercial economics.
```But The Market Was Already There
```By the mid-1990s, Ludington already had an established private marina market. Private marinas were serving charter boats, local boaters, regional seasonal renters, and smaller to medium-sized vessels.
The 1995 harbor evaluation did not describe an empty waterfront waiting for service. It described a functioning marina market, including private marinas already carrying much of the charter boat activity.
That raises an important question:
Was the State solving a public-access problem, or entering an existing marina market?
The Demand Story Was Not Simple
```The 1995 evaluation used a regional demand projection covering Ludington, Pentwater, White Lake, and Muskegon. It projected future demand across that larger market area.
But it also acknowledged existing vacant slips and assumed that private marinas elsewhere would add hundreds of new slips.
In plain English:
- The study projected regional demand.
- It deducted existing vacant slips.
- It counted on future private marina expansion.
- Then it pointed to the state-controlled Ludington parcel as the available development site.
That is not the same as proving Ludington alone had an immediate need for a major new marina.
```Public Docks Became Managed Assets
```Once seasonal slips, charter slips, rates, fuel sales, waiting lists, parking, fish cleaning, and marina services entered the system, public access became something more complicated.
The marina was no longer just a public dock. It became a managed economic platform.
That does not mean marinas should not make money. The question is whether the public was ever clearly told when the mission changed.
Access became allocation. Allocation became revenue. Revenue shaped policy.
Plain English Summary
```The public marina system was justified as a way to provide access.
But over time, the records show the system became tied to rates, seasonal slips, commercial charter use, fuel sales, waiting lists, and financial management.
The issue is not whether boating, fishing, tourism, or marinas matter. They do.
The issue is whether public-access language was used to build a system that later competed inside an existing waterfront economy.
```Bottom Line
```Ludingtonās marina history is not just a story about docks. It is a story about public land, public money, seasonal access, commercial use, private marina competition, and state-local decision-making.
Part 4.5 will begin showing the next layer: charter boat rebates and refunds appearing directly in the public financial records.
```PART 3.5
Charter Boats Were Not an Accident
Newly reviewed historical records show charter policy was being formally managed decades ago.
What We Are Learning
Parts 1 through 3 explained how public marina access changed over time: from transient access, to seasonal occupancy, to commercial charter use.
The records we are now reviewing show something even clearer: charter boat policy was not informal, accidental, or simply local custom.
It was discussed in Marina Authority meetings, tied to rates, linked to fuel and parking issues, and addressed directly through Waterways correspondence.
The Pattern Appears Early
Historical marina records from the late 1970s and 1980s show discussions involving:
- charter boat policy
- seasonal slip allocation
- commercial rates
- fuel requirements
- parking pressure
- fish cleaning and fish offal
- dock financing and expansion
- Waterways Commission and Waterways Division involvement
That matters because it shows the marina system was already becoming more than a simple public dock.
Why This Matters
When charter boats entered public marina systems, the question became larger than fishing.
The real question became:
Who controls public waterfront space, under what rules, and for whose benefit?
The records show that these questions were being handled through formal policy, correspondence, rates, and infrastructure planning many years ago.
The Same Pressures Continue Today
The issues appearing in those older records are familiar today:
- who gets seasonal slips
- how commercial use is approved
- how public access is protected
- how parking and services are handled
- how marina infrastructure is financed
- how much control state and local agencies exercise together
This is why current marina questions cannot be understood only by looking at one dock, one grant, or one recent project.
The system has a history.
Plain English Summary
Charter boat use in public marinas was not something that simply appeared later.
Historical records show it was discussed, structured, limited, priced, and managed as part of a larger marina operating system.
That helps explain why todayās questions about public access, grants, dock replacement, and marina governance are all connected.
Bottom Line
The more records we review, the clearer the pattern becomes: Michiganās public marina system evolved through formal policy, public money, commercial use, seasonal occupancy, and state-local coordination over many decades. Part 4 will begin showing how those policies affected money, rates, and public access.
PART ONE: How Public Marina Access Changed Over Time
From Harbor Refuge to Seasonal Occupancy
Public marinas were originally promoted as places where boaters could find safe harbor, temporary dockage, and access to the water. They were part of a public boating system ā not simply private parking spaces on the water.
The Original Idea
Public marina space was supposed to support boating access: transient boaters, safe refuge, public use, and rotating availability.
But over time, a major shift occurred. More slips became seasonal. Instead of short-term public access turning over regularly, many slips began staying with the same users season after season.
That changed the public-access model. A marina can still be āpublicā on paper, while much of its actual space becomes functionally occupied long-term.
Why This Matters
Once seasonal occupancy becomes the dominant model, access changes. Waiting lists grow. Transient flexibility shrinks. Larger boats require larger slips. Trailer parking pressure increases. Public access becomes harder to see, even though the infrastructure was built with public purposes in mind.
This Was Not Just a Local Pattern
Michiganās own Waterways Program now describes the marina system as a statewide recreational boating infrastructure network. That network includes harbors, boating access sites, grant-in-aid communities, capital planning, dock replacement, utilities, dredging, and long-term reinvestment.
In plain English: Ludington is not an isolated case. It is one example of how public marina infrastructure across Michigan evolved into a managed, revenue-dependent boating system.
The Question Now
If public marina space has gradually shifted toward long-term seasonal occupancy, how should public access be protected today?
Part One of a continuing series on public marina access, seasonal slips, charter operations, Harbor View, and Michiganās statewide marina infrastructure system.
PART TWO
Waiting Lists, Lotteries, and Permanent Occupancy
How seasonal slips slowly changed public marina access in Michigan
What Happened?
Public marinas in Michigan were originally promoted as places where boaters could temporarily stop, seek refuge, and move through the Great Lakes system.
But over time, something changed.
More slips became occupied seasonally by the same boaters year after year. Waiting lists began growing. Some marinas debated lotteries. And public access gradually shifted from rotating short-term use toward long-term occupancy.
This did not happen all at once. It evolved slowly across decades through marina policy, infrastructure planning, and financial pressure to maintain stable occupancy and revenue.
Early Signs of the Shift
Records from the 1970s already show discussions about repeat occupancy, waiting lists, and whether boaters should continue receiving the same wells year after year.
By 1980, public discussions included:
- Lottery systems for slips
- Concerns about fairness and access
- Growing seasonal demand
- Pressure on transient availability
These were not hidden discussions. They were openly debated because the system was already evolving.
The Financial Reality
Over time, marina systems increasingly depended on stable seasonal occupancy to support operations, maintenance, staffing, utilities, dredging, and future dock replacement.
Eventually, statewide marina planning documents acknowledged the reality directly:
āThere is often pressure to increase the number of seasonal slipsā¦ which further reduces transient availabilityā¦ but improves overall financial performance.ā
That single statement explains the larger transition:
- More seasonal occupancy
- Fewer transient openings
- Higher financial stability
- Growing dependence on repeat users
Plain English Summary
Public marina access did not suddenly disappear.
Instead, Michiganās marina system slowly shifted toward long-term seasonal occupancy because stable occupancy generated predictable revenue and helped support increasingly expensive marina infrastructure.
Waiting lists and access debates were signs of that transition already happening decades ago.
Bottom Line
The historical record shows that seasonal occupancy gradually became a central part of Michiganās marina infrastructure model. As financial pressure and dock replacement costs increased, public access slowly evolved from rotating transient use toward more permanent seasonal occupancy.
PART THREE
Charter Boats, Commercial Use, and the Public Marina
How public boating infrastructure became tied to tourism and commercial pressure
The Next Layer of the Story
In Part 1, we looked at how public marinas were originally understood as places for access, safe harbor, and transient boating.
In Part 2, we looked at how seasonal slips, waiting lists, and long-term occupancy gradually changed that public-access model.
Part 3 adds another important layer: commercial use.
Charter boats did not appear in public marinas by accident. Over time, public marina systems were asked to serve more than one purpose: public access, seasonal dockage, tourism, fishing economy, local revenue, and commercial activity.
Why Charter Boats Matter
Charter fishing became part of the marina economy because it brought visitors, activity, fuel sales, tourism spending, and visibility to waterfront communities.
But charter boats also raised a difficult question:
When public marina space is used for commercial activity, how is public access protected?
That question has followed Michiganās marina system for decades.
The Balancing Problem
Public marinas increasingly had to balance competing uses:
- Transient boaters looking for short-term access
- Seasonal slip holders returning year after year
- Charter boats supporting the tourism and fishing economy
- Local governments relying on marina revenue
- State grant systems funding dock and harbor infrastructure
None of these uses exist in isolation. They all compete for the same docks, the same parking, the same fuel docks, the same launch areas, and the same public waterfront space.
The Public / Private Tension
Charter use also created tension between public marinas and private marinas.
Private marinas depended on seasonal customers, charter operators, fuel sales, service work, and long-term relationships to survive.
Public marinas, meanwhile, often had public infrastructure advantages: grant-funded docks, public land, state support, and municipal backing.
That created a question many people are only now beginning to understand:
How should a publicly supported marina compete ā or not compete ā with private waterfront businesses?
The System Became More Complicated
Once seasonal slips and charter boats became part of the same marina system, public access was no longer a simple question of whether a dock existed.
The real question became: who gets access, for what purpose, under what rules, and with whose money?
That is why todayās marina questions cannot be separated from:
- grant funding
- dock replacement costs
- seasonal occupancy
- charter allocation
- parking and trailer pressure
- public versus private competition
- local government financial dependence
Plain English Summary
Charter boats became part of the public marina system because they supported tourism, fishing, and local waterfront economies.
But their presence also made public access harder to define.
A marina could still be public, but portions of it could be occupied seasonally, commercially, or repeatedly by the same users.
That is how public marina access became more complicated over time.
Bottom Line
The charter boat issue was never just about fishing boats. It was about how Michiganās public marina system came to balance public access, seasonal occupancy, tourism revenue, private competition, and grant-funded infrastructure inside the same waterfront space.
What We Added Tonight: Harbor View Was Not Just a Private Marina
Tonightās documents changed the picture. The 1999 Harbor View lease records show that Harbor View Marina was not simply a private marina operating on its own. It was built as a long-term public/private marina enterprise, jointly controlled by the City of Ludington and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The Key Finding
Harbor View was structured from the beginning as a revenue-producing marina system ā with state oversight, City involvement, private operation, fuel sales, retail activity, seasonal slips, transient slips, and long-term lease payments tied to gross income.
Why This Matters
Earlier records showed decades of DNR/Waterways involvement in Ludington marina planning, public-access grant restrictions, charter boat controls, commercial-use limits, trailer parking rules, and recurring dock investments.
The Harbor View lease documents now add the missing bridge: they show how the public marina system evolved into a hybrid public/private marina economy.
- The City and DNR acted together as lessors.
- The project was designed for seasonal and transient marina revenue.
- The lease included percentage payments based on gross income.
- The operation included fuel, retail, fish cleaning, showers, laundry, pool, ship store, and dockmaster facilities.
- The DNR retained oversight and approval rights.
Plain English Summary
Ludingtonās marina system did not evolve by accident. It developed over decades through grants, leases, engineering studies, public-access rules, charter allocations, and enterprise-style revenue planning.
What This Means Going Forward
This is no longer just a question about one dock, one grant, one marina, or one year of spending.
The record now shows a continuous historical infrastructure model ā public money, public land, state oversight, private operation, marina revenue, and controlled access all working together over time.
Bottom Line
Harbor View Marina was intentionally structured as part of a broader City/DNR marina system. The documents show that Ludingtonās waterfront marina operations evolved far beyond a simple public harbor into a managed recreational infrastructure economy.
Did They Know About Act 58?
By 1995, Michigan recodified the old Waterways law into Part 781 of NREPA. Legislative Services has now confirmed the key point: the Waterways Commission advises. The DNR holds the authority.
The Question the Record Now Forces
If the law said the Michigan State Waterways Commission was advisory, why did the public record continue to make it look operational?
1973
Executive Reorganization Order 1973-2 transferred the Commissionās statutory authority, powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities to the Department of Natural Resources.
1995
Act 58 recodified the old Waterways law into Part 781 of NREPA. The old structure did not continue as an independent operational authority.
Part 781
The recodified law states that the Commission shall advise the department. In this part, ādepartmentā means the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
The law said advisory.
The public record looked operational.
So Now We Ask:
- Did the Attorney Generalās office know Act 58 had recodified the Waterways law?
- Did the DNR know the Commissionās authority had already been transferred?
- Did long-time Waterways Commission leadership understand the advisory limit?
- Why were marina funding, rates, grants, and harbor development still presented as if the Commission carried operational weight?
The Careful Answer
They should have known. And the public record now makes the question unavoidable.
Why FOIA Was Necessary
The State Could Not Produce the Law
When we asked for the original law governing the Michigan State Waterways Commission, the answer did not produce the law. Instead, we were pointed to modern webpages and incomplete public sources. FOIA, Legislative Service Bureau records, Public Act tables, and archived session laws became necessary to reconstruct what actually happened.
The Core Finding
The public webpage for Act 320 of 1947 now shows only a repealed statute stub. It does not show the original Waterways Commission law, the amendment history, or the full legal transition into 1995 PA 58 and Part 781.
That missing context matters. Without the archived Act, the Public Act tables, and Executive Order 1973-2, officials and the public cannot see whether the Commission retained operational authority ā or whether that authority had already been transferred.
Primary Evidence
The AG Email Problem
In August 2024, when Act 58 was raised, the Attorney Generalās office did not explain what Act 58 did, did not cite its operative language, and did not describe its legal effect. Instead, the response stated that ā1995, Act 58 might be what you are looking for.ā
That matters because Act 58 is not a minor reference. It is the enrolled bill that repealed the original Waterways Commission statute, PA 320 of 1947, and created the Part 781 structure inside NREPA.
This is why FOIA and archival research were necessary. The governing law could not be reconstructed from a webpage alone.
What the Public Website Shows Today
The Michigan Legislature page for Act 320 of 1947 shows a repealed statute reference, but not the original law, the amendment history, or the legal effect of the repeal.
This screenshot shows the modern public-facing stub for Act 320 of 1947. It confirms repeal, but does not provide the full historical law needed to understand the Waterways Commissionās authority.
Exhibit: 1995 Public Act 58 / HB 4349
This is the full enrolled bill that added Part 781 to NREPA and repealed prior acts, including PA 320 of 1947.
Page 1: The Beginning
The opening page identifies 1995 PA 58 / HB 4349 and shows the broad NREPA amendment structure.
Open Page 1Page 109: The Repeal
Section 90106 lists Public Act 320 of 1947, MCL 281.501ā281.511, as repealed.
Open Page 109Authority Collapse Timeline
1947: PA 320 creates the Michigan State Waterways Commission.
1959: PA 237 creates confusion because some sections were repealed or amended, but the Commission itself was not eliminated.
1973: Executive Order 1973-2 transfers powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities into the DNR/NRC structure.
1973ā1995: The Commission continues to meet, while the Waterways Division appears to exercise operational control.
1995: PA 58 repeals PA 320 of 1947 and creates Part 781 within NREPA.
2024ā2026: FOIA, LSB records, Act tables, and archived session laws begin reconstructing the missing history.
Attorney General Email Exhibits
Exhibit A ā Feb. 12, 2025, 10:43 AM
The AG described EO 1973-2 as āsimplyā a reorganization order and stated that portions of PA 320 were repealed and recodified into Part 781.
View EmailExhibit B ā Feb. 12, 2025, 3:14 PM
The AG framed the issue as a disagreement over statutory interpretation and relied on Part 781 and MCL 324.78115.
View EmailExhibit C ā Aug. 21, 2024 Act 58 Email
The AG stated that ā1995, Act 58 might be what you are looking for,ā without explaining its contents or legal effect.
View Email ThreadThe Repeal Confusion
The word ārepealedā does not always answer the legal question. Earlier repeals and amendments changed parts of PA 320 without eliminating the Commission itself. That confusion is why the legislative history had to be reconstructed carefully.
The critical difference is this: 1959 PA 237 did not repeal the Commission. But 1995 PA 58 repealed PA 320 of 1947, the original Waterways Commission statute.
Without Shanda Grecoās LSB clarification, the PA tables, and the archived session laws, this distinction is nearly impossible to see from the public website alone.
Executive Order 1973-2
Executive Order 1973-2 is central because it addresses where the Commissionās powers, duties, functions, and responsibilities went before the 1995 repeal. That means the key question is not merely whether the Commission continued to exist by name ā but what authority it actually retained.
View EO 1973-2Public Act Tables
The PA tables are the roadmap. They show the amendment trail that cannot be understood from the current MCL page alone. This is how the missing legal chain was reconstructed.
View 1980ā1995 PA TableWhy This Matters
This is not just about old statutes. It is about public trust, shoreline control, grant funding, marina governance, environmental accountability, and the publicās right to know who actually holds authority over Michiganās waterways.
FOIA made this reconstruction possible. Now the public can read the documents, follow the law, and demand lawful governance.
Have you read this document?
1995 Harbor Evaluation (DNR) ā itās finally live on our site, and it answers the questions everyone keeps asking.
Why was it built? Who said yes?
Ā
š§¾Star Watch Case used gold plating and degreasing solvents. Leaking pipes released hazardous waste into the soil and groundwater. Environmental investigations confirmed two plumes of contaminated groundwater flowing toward Pere Marquette Lake.
The City of Ludington later acquired the site and called it āthe greatest single hindrance to further economic development of the waterfront.ā
Redevelopment began with a $796,923 DEQ grant and $225,000 from Michiganās tank fund. Contaminated soil was treated or capped, and groundwater is now intercepted before reaching the lake. ā£ļø
Ā
š§¾This was the first official land purchase in the Harbor View Marina project. The DNR paid $51,000 for a 0.24-acre parcel with two older frame rental homes. The property had paved frontage on Rath Avenue, and the buildings were later demolished.
Funding came from the Harbor Development Act (Act 79 of 1988). This marked the beginning of a series of state acquisitions in a contaminated corridor bordering the Star Watch Case site and the CSX rail yard. š
Ā
The State of Michigan paid $904,200 to purchase 10.45 acres from CSX Transportation for the Harbor View Marina project.
A Phase II Environmental Audit revealed:
-
Groundwater contaminated with vinyl chloride and trichloroethylene (TCE)
-
Arsenic and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in surface soils
-
Two contaminated groundwater plumes migrating toward Pere Marquette River
Despite these findings, the DNR moved forward with the purchase. Officials noted increased construction costs, legal liability, and third-party lawsuit risks ā but called it āan excellent reuseā of a contaminated dock site.
Funding came from the Harbor Development Act (Act 79 of 1988) and the Michigan Environmental Response Act (Act 307 of 1982) under ādue diligenceā provisions.
š¢
The Michigan DNR and Natural Resources Commission (NRC) approved a land exchange with Trans-Lake Shortcut, Inc., owner of the S.S. Badger car ferry.
š The State received 1.84 acres of land needed for the Harbor View Marina project, valued at $160,000.
š In return, the ferry company received 1.99 acres of state-owned land to be used as a parking lot.
This strategic exchange helped complete the Harbor View footprint while strengthening private-sector influence on the waterfront.
The Stateās parcel had been acquired with Harbor Development funds, and the swap was formalized under Act 451 of 1994 and EO 1991-31.
On June 10, 1996, the State acquired 0.44 acres from East Shore Partners, LLC for $41,800, at a rate of $0.18 per square foot, with the purchase option set to expire in September of that year.
Though the property was unimproved, the vendor reserved mineral rights on Parcel B, and the state agreed to allow the site to be used as a parking lot until December 31, 1996.
This acquisition was approved under Act 451 of 1994 and Executive Order 1991-31, and represents one of the final land consolidations in the Harbor View zone. It bordered prior contaminated parcels and was essential for vehicle access and support infrastructure tied to the marina and park system.
NRC approval was scheduled for July 1, 1996. The site was open, level, and directly linked to DNRās Harbor Development Project.
By mid-1996, the State of Michigan had spent over $1.2 million to acquire and consolidate multiple parcels ā several of them contaminated ā as part of the Harbor View Development Project.
Despite internal audits confirming toxic groundwater, underground tank failures, and legal risks, state officials proceeded with each acquisition using Harbor Development Act funds.
The final parcel, acquired from East Shore Partners and approved on July 1, 1996, provided support infrastructure (parking, access) and helped the DNR finalize the zone now known as Harbor View.
This publicly funded land assembly occurred while Dow Chemicalās exfiltration plume silently advanced beneath it ā contaminating the same waters the public was told were safe for boating and recreation.
Today, the timeline stands as evidence:
They knew. They bought. They rebranded.And the contamination never stopped.
š§± š“ RedĀ
Key Facts:
-
Total cost: $1.2M+
-
Legal frameworks used: Act 79 (1988), Act 451 (1994), EO 1991-31
-
Outcome: Public park, marina, and charter facility placed above contaminated corridor
š Source: Summary of all 7 acquisitions (1994ā1996), LandAcquisitionHarborView PDF