Port Sheldon Beach Association v. Dept of Environmental Quality
328483
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 13, 2016Background
- Port Sheldon Beach Association owns three undeveloped parcels adjacent to Lake Michigan that the 1989 Atlas of Critical Dune Areas (incorporated into the SDPMA/NREPA) shows within a designated critical dune area (CDA).
- The Association alleges substantial accretion since 1989 (shoreline moved lakeward ~150 feet) and sought to remove dune grass/groom the newly accreted land.
- DEQ denied the work, treating the accreted land between the 1989 Atlas line and the current water’s edge as within the CDA.
- The Association sued; the Court of Claims granted summary disposition for DEQ, holding the atlas line at the lakeward edge functions as a meander line (boundary = water’s edge), not a fixed upland boundary.
- Association’s arguments included: the atlas designated boundaries were fixed when enacted; statutory mechanisms for boundary changes show Legislature expected fixed boundaries; and DEQ must show resource-specific justification to regulate newly accreted land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lakeward line on the Port Sheldon map is a fixed boundary or a meander line | Atlas lines are fixed as of 1989; accreted land outside that fixed line is not in the CDA | The map line is a meander line; the CDA extends to the current water’s edge, so accreted land is within the CDA | The map’s lakeward line is a meander line; the CDA boundary is the water’s edge (affirmed) |
| Whether statutory adjustment provisions show Legislature intended fixed atlas boundaries | Presence of sections allowing map review/adjustment implies original lines were fixed and only changeable via statutory process | These provisions authorize review/recommendation or limited extensions but do not alter that lines on the atlas at the water’s edge operate as meander lines | Adjustment provisions do not negate that a line drawn at the shoreline operates as a meander line; statutory review does not prove original lines were fixed |
| Whether DEQ must independently justify regulation of accreted land as unique/fragile under CDA purposes | DEQ must show the newly regulated land meets CDA’s protective rationale before asserting jurisdiction | Legislature’s designation (map showing CDA to water’s edge) suffices; no separate showing required for areas the Legislature placed at water’s edge | No additional resource-specific showing required when Legislature’s map places the area within the CDA |
| Whether DEQ’s public materials or mapping constitute misleading conduct or reliance by Association | Association reasonably relied on static online depictions of atlas boundaries as fixed | Online materials had disclaimers and only reproduced the 1989 atlas; they do not contradict the atlas or DEQ interpretation | No reasonable detrimental reliance shown; public materials did not alter legal effect of atlas lines |
Key Cases Cited
- Mumaugh v. McCarley, 219 Mich. App. 641 (discussing meander line means water edge is true boundary)
- Farabaugh v. Rhode, 305 Mich. 234 (meander line is descriptive, not a boundary)
- Porter v. Selleck, 236 Mich. 655 (meander line does not fix upland boundary; water is true boundary)
- Tomecek v. Bavas, 482 Mich. 484 (statutory/deed interpretation seeks grantor/legislative intent)
- St. Clair County v. Lovingston, 90 U.S. 46 (survey showing river as boundary implies no vacant land between river and boundary)
- Burleson v. Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 292 Mich. App. 544 (de novo review of agency statutory interpretation)