Natural Stream Functions

Natural waterways have many functions--only one of which is carrying water downstream. Streams provide habitat, afford recreational opportunities, shape the landscape and deliver water for human and agricultural needs. They add immeasurably to human enjoyment and property values.

Planning that incorporates this concept is supported by The American Fisheries Society. See their position statements, especially the position statement on floodplain management.

The Drain Commissioner saw this stream only as a water channel and turned it into this:

Why? Because the Drain Code allows a single elected official to take this kind of arbitrary action. Hey, here's some extra money. Let's cut down all the trees on one side of the stream to make any future maintenance easy. It'll look like a park when we're done.

Solution: REFORM THE DRAIN CODE

Increase public input, require a cost-benefit test, introduce professionalism and accountability to the office of drain commissioner. Require drain commissioners to comply with recognized environmental standards.

READ ON:

Personal Account of George Parmenter:

This stream runs across my farm and it's name is the Little Maple River. It has always been one of the treasured features of this farm where my family has lived since 1859. I had never heard of the Michigan Drain Code and I never dreamed I'd see this little stream so defiled. Certainly not with the sanction of state law and local government. It took less than a day for this quarter mile of shaded stream to give up it's trees, shrubs and grassy bank. This was my introduction then to the eye opening fact that this sort of thing has been going on for years. More than that, I learned that my county has a reputation for being one of the worst in the state for this kind of irresponsible behavior.

A CASE STUDY: MILES OF TREES BULLDOZED ON LITTLE MAPLE RIVER

March 2, 1999

Mr. Norbert Schwartz
FEMA, Region 5
4th Floor, 175 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604

Re: FEMA Declaration #1226 DRMI; DSR#91962

Dear Mr. Schwartz,

It is our contention that FEMA funding for drain work in Michigan should be re-examined. Because of the exemption from EPA guidelines that was granted to Michigan in 1984, no one watches over the actions of drain maintenance in the environmental sphere. Governor Engler’s Hazard Mitigation Order 1998-5 has made procurement of FEMA money for drains easier, yet it has instituted no check or balance on the free authority of drain commissioners to conduct whatever action they deem necessary.

    As an example, please note the problematic areas of the Shepard Drain and Extension Application from Clinton County, Michigan (DSR#91962):
     1. Application is made for the Shepard Drain and Extension on Sheet # 89, but the request applies to all 2500 miles of Clinton County drains, according to the Damage Survey Report-Data Sheet.
     2. A wind event is cited with "severe straight-line winds with tornados" but residents reported only occasional trees were blown into drains, although extensive damage was done elsewhere and no tornados were documented to have touched down.
     3. The application seeks a remedy for the wind damage in the form of tree and limb debris removal and "ditch banks will be returned to original configuration."    Did the windstorm in this case change the banks of rivers or drains? Was work necessary along the entire drain?
      4. The contractor who performed the work completely removed trees along one bank and created an access road along the length of the "Shepard Drain and Extension," a watercourse that is known to residents as the Little Maple River.
     5. The Preliminary Environmental Checklist lists "NO" in all categories that would alert FEMA to potentially sensitive work or "improvement" work that would automatically require review. Under the Michigan Drain Code, "maintenance" can also include "improvement." This leads to expanded projects under the guise of "maintenance." In another state such as Minnesota, this would not be true.
      6. The FEMA application assumes a public benefit. No evidence was presented that justified the extensive work. Exactly what was the public interest in this project?

Is it possible that FEMA is being duped into paying for drain maintenance or improvement work? The Michigan Drain Code provides for $2500 per mile that may be spent annually for drain maintenance and assessed against property owners in the drainage district. Actual monies spent may be calculated on the basis of the whole length of the drain, not just the areas maintained. When FEMA pays 75% and the state pays 12 ½%, the remaining 12 ½% doesn’t seem like a great burden to residents of the drainage district. Therefore, projects that would be vigorously opposed at 100% local assessment go uncontested.

We respectfully request that FEMA re-examine its policy of granting funds for drain work in Michigan. FEMA should not be in the business of destroying riparian environments while, on the other hand, participating in the funding of "River Restoration" in other situations in conjunction with other agencies. Surely, FEMA has enough work to do responding to true emergencies, without getting into funding local works projects such as drain maintenance performed months after the "emergency."

Also, before making full payment in this case, or in any way considering a reapplication, we would like to show your review team the excessive work done in the name of debris removal. We believe that this clearly exceeds the MOA described under "Compliance with Regulatory Program" outlined in the "Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Handbook" EMD-Pub. 905.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Julian and William Bishop
for the Michigan Drain Code Coalition "Citizens United for Drain Code Reform"
P.O. Box 304, Holly, MI 48442
517-324-9664 or 248-634-3513 or 517-437-4813

cc. Ms. Susan F. Elston, USEPA
      Mr. Dan Roveto, FEMA
      Ms. Julie Stoneman, Mich Env. Council
      Captain Edward Buikema, MHMCC
      Mr. George Hosek, DEQ/LWMD

Back to MDCC Home