posted 05-13-2012 11:37 AM ET (US)        

Leland is a federal harbor of refuge on Lake Michigan. I am not sure precisely what that means, but I infer that the original construction of the break wall and the creation of the harbor in 1965 was paid for by the federal government, and that the rationale for its construction was to provide a safe harbor for small boats in storm conditions along that stretch of the coastline.

At the present, the entrance to the harbor has shoaled to a depth of about four feet or less. You can see the shoaling in this nice aerial view:

The shoaling seems to be a chronic problem with the harbor entrance. The harbormaster, Russell Dzuba, notes that the harbor was dredged in 2009. You'd think that the harbor entrance could maintain navigable depth more than three years, but apparently three years is about the limit for Leland. You can see from the aerial view (above) that there could be a natural tendency with a swell from the Southwest--the prevailing direction--for wave action to move sand from the beach over to the harbor entrance.

According to comments from the locals in Leland, there is a federal fund for maintenance of harbors that has $6-billion sitting in it. There has been a recent change in policy of the federal government in its Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), and it appears that ACE are using this funding only for maintenance of commercial harbors, not for recreational boat harbors. So the federal government seems disinclined to pay for the dredging needed at Leland.

The State of Michigan also seems reluctant to pay for the dredging, perhaps because they don't want to set a precedent and take over for all future dredging, or at least that is the conjecture of some of the locals.

The harbor is an important part of the town of Leland, and it as seen as being an economic asset. Leland is a resort town, and it is typical for the boaters who visit the harbor to spend money in the local shops and restaurants. So the town in very keen on keeping the harbor open, especially to larger boats.

As a result, the Leland community has generated about $60,000 from voluntary contributions to pay for emergency dredging this Spring. Just this week they made a deal with a contractor to begin dredging. The contractor is charging $88,000, but is willing to take the missing $22,000 in the form of a promisary note.

The dredging is only going to move about 10,000-cubic-yards of sand from the harbor entrance. The harbormaster estimates that a proper job ought to remove about 20,000 each year. Interpolating the three year lack of dredging, it sounds like the harbor really needs about 60,000-cubic-feet removed to get to its project depth.

There are several ironies in this story. The first of them is the designation of the harbor as a federal harbor of refuge. As a result of this, the harbor cannot offer seasonal slips to local boaters; only transient boats can use the harbor. The last time I was there, in June of 2011, the harbor was almost empty. Of about 50 boat slips, only a handful were in use. I am sure that the occupancy is higher during July and August. The harbormaster has suggested that the harbor could generate more revenue if it could lease seasonal slips. With more revenue, the harbor could more easily pay for more dredging with its own funds.

Another irony in the harbor is its use by the federal government. The Leland harbor is the base for several federal boats. There is typically a National Park Service boat or two stationed there for use by park rangers for the offshore North Manitou Island National Park and South Manitou Island National Park. The ferry service that brings visitors to the Manitou Islands runs from Leland harbor. And there is often a federal fisheries management boat or two there as well. So the federal government is one of the primary users of the harbor--yet the federal government is not willing to pay for the dredging to keep the harbor open.

A third irony is the recent investment of about $1-million in upgrading the shore facilities at Leland. There is a beautiful marina house there for transient boaters, with wonderful facilities for showers and a lounge. Leland is also a very popular launching ramp location, and the ramp and parking lot have been recently upgraded, too. A lot of money has been spent on the facilities there, and now the harbor mouth is shoaling in! It seems rather crazy to have this great shore facility and have a harbor that has a three-foot shoal at the entrance.

The dispute seems to center on the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. The fund has a balance of $6-billion, which was collected from shippers by the Harbor Maintenance Tax. The ACE has been ignoring recreational harbor dredging. In Michigan alone there are 69 federal harbors to maintain. The DETROIT FREE PRESS says there are $200-million in unfunded harbor dredging project in the Great Lakes.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, along with two dozen other legislators, sent this letter recently to Senate members of a House-Senate conference committee:

quote:

---

Dear Chairmen Boxer and Baucus, and Ranking Members Inhofe and Hatch:

As you proceed to a House-Senate conference committee on the transportation reauthorization bill, to resolve differences between S. 1813 and H.R. 4348, we want to call your attention to important provisions included in both of the bills that involve our federal harbors.

There are nearly 1,000 federal ports and harbors that are supposed to be maintained by the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that our navigation system operates effectively. Yet, only about half of the funds collected through a fee charged to shippers are actually appropriated for harbor maintenance, even though our harbors are in great need of dredging and other maintenance work. The Army Corps has estimated that even the so-called top-priority harbors, those that handle about 90 percent of the commercial traffic, are dredged to their authorized depths and widths only 35 percent of the time. This lack of maintenance is simply unacceptable.

Ports and harbors support about 13 million jobs and account for $4 trillion in economic impacts. Additionally, because waterborne transportation is often the least expensive means of transporting vital commodities used for manufacturing, construction, and energy generation, shipping bolsters our international competitiveness and helps keep costs in check for American consumers. Shipping also helps relieve highway and rail congestion. Having a well-maintained harbor and navigational infrastructure is a vital component to our overall transportation infrastructure and supports our economic recovery and job creation.

The harbor maintenance provisions, contained in Sections 1533 and 401 of the Senate and House bills, respectively, would ensure that all funds deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund in a given fiscal year be fully expended to operate and maintain the navigation channels of the United States, and not for other purposes. We ask that this language be retained and strengthened further through an “enforcement of guarantees,” language that should mirror that provided in Section 2(c) of the Harbor Maintenance Act (S. 412). Similar action was taken for aviation programs in the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) to more closely tie aviation trust fund revenues with expenditures in the Airports and Airways Trust Fund. Given this precedent, we believe taking similar action for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is appropriate, and it will provide a greater degree of certainty to our nation’s ports and harbors.

Thank you for your consideration of our request. As the economy struggles to recover, we cannot afford to threaten commerce and trade by failing to maintain our harbor infrastructure. We look forward to working with you to ensure our nation has a strong transportation infrastructure supporting jobs, growing our economy, and competing successfully in this global economy.”

---

posted 05-13-2012 01:26 PM ET (US)            

Leland has needed regular dredging for as long as I can remember. It is a man again nature thing. The river running thought the harbor probably adds to the challenge.

The State of Michigan will not renew the commercial fishing licenses to the boats that used to work out of Leland any more. There are few fish to catch any how.

posted 05-13-2012 05:33 PM ET (US)            

The transient boater lounge at Leland is great. We have watched the final game of the Stanley Cup playoffs on the big-screen LCD high-definition television on the wall in the lounge for two years running, as our boating schedule has just happened to put us in Leland for those two games.

posted 05-14-2012 12:41 AM ET (US)            

I was in Barb's Bakery the other day and the talk there was that a Kentucky Fried Chicken joint is opening at the Northport Marina.

posted 05-14-2012 08:35 AM ET (US)            

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig

Once Leland became a federal harbor in 1965, the cost of the dredging to maintain it became a recurring federal expense. The federal government has already collected money and set money aside for the dredging--it's just some new policy that decided not to use it for certain recreational harbors like Leland.

Michigan has a long coastline and the state has created a very large number of state-run harbors and marinas for boaters. I hold the view that, in the current political climate today, boaters would never receive anywhere near the level of support and money the state has spent on these harbors in the last 50 years when they were all created. In today's politics, it would be a scandal that the state spent money helping some privileged group like boaters.

ConB--Thanks for the information on the commercial fishing. I can clearly remember visiting Leland when I was a ten-year-old, and the harbor had many commercial fishing boats. I remember watching with amazement as the guys cleaned and filleted their catch in their fishing shacks. They could cut and fillet a fish in twenty seconds. The gill net tugs are gone, the gill net racks now are purely decorative, and in the old fish shacks there are gift shops now.

posted 05-14-2012 09:03 AM ET (US)            

Without any boats in the harbor, the harbor becomes much less attractive. Tourists and visitors don't get very excited about seeing a harbor that has no boats in it.

We've got the biggest budget in the history of our country, and now we find out that the federal government has a new policy that stops maintaining its federal harbors, even thought there is $6-billion in a fund for such work?

posted 05-14-2012 10:45 AM ET (US)         

The 6 billion dollar fund is not enough to cover the cost of deepening all harbors on the Great Lakes, so small recreational harbors are going to have to raise the money locally or at the State level. Bailey's Harbor WI is in a similar situation.

As the Federal Govt, the State governments, and Local governments continue to deleverage (get out of debt) from the spending excesses and unsustainable promises of the last 40 years, we are going to be seeing these situations for years to come. Leland is finding out what "austerity" means.

posted 05-14-2012 02:37 PM ET (US)            

Harbor of safe refuge means a port, inlet, or other body of water normally sheltered from heavy seas by land and in which a vessel can navigate and safely moor. The suitability of a location as a harbor of safe refuge shall be determined by the cognizant Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection, and varies for each vessel, dependent on the vessel's size, maneuverability, and mooring gear.

jimh had the definition pretty well described in his article.

It seems amazing to me that the entire harbor is used for transients, because this is a terrible economic model for infrastructure that has a very high fixed cost basis to maintain and operate. In the current situation, boats are unable to get in and out of the harbor due to shoaling, and the harbor has no means to generate revenue from slip rents as a result. With no revenue, it can't afford to dredge, and the problem goes unsolved. It seems to me that the only viable long-term solution is to generate steady income by converting at least a portion of the slips to annual leases, and using the lease revenue to fund the dredging program.

Despite the fact that low draft boats may be able to cross the shoals to get in and out, this is clearly an unsafe condition in a rough sea state. Waves will break over the shallow bar, and crossing it can become very hazardous, regardless of the draft of the vessel.

The harbor where I slip my Whaler went through a similar situation during it's history related to the unreliability of the Army Corps of Engineer dredging program. Ultimately, the Santa Cruz Harbor obtained its own dredge, and operates the dredging program entirely from funds generated by slip rents and other concessions. The model for this harbor is an interesting one. It is a California Special District, which means it's a small government agency that exists for a specific purpose. It runs surprisingly well, has excellent facilities, and has reasonable slip rates, transient rates and launch fees. This model, if something similar exists in Michigan, might be the way to go for Leland if the harbor is to survive. A history and background on the Santa Cruz harbor, including how it took control of dredging operations is here:

http://www.santacruzharbor.org/historyOfTheHarbor.html

posted 05-14-2012 09:46 PM ET (US)            

It is not clear to me if the shoaling is a result of sand moving up and out from the beach to the South, or if the river outlet that flows into the harbor is carrying sediment and dropping it in the harbor.

In this day and age there is not any real commercial traffic coming into Leland. There are a few guys running fishing charter boats out of there--they must have some special deal to get permanent space along the main pier. The guys with outboard boats can probably creep over the shoal.

A further irony of the shallow draft and transient harbor: the sort of boat that is cruising up the coastline of Lake Michigan in the summer is typically a sailboat with a five-foot draft or more--some of these racing sailboats have 8-foot draft or more--or some big motor yacht that draws four feet. Neither of those types of cruising boats can count on getting into Leland with the harbor shoaling. The fact that I can get in there with a 22-foot Boston Whaler does not help Leland very much; my slip fee is only $35 a night. There are not that many people cruising the coastline of Lake Michigan who need a transient slip in a 22-foot boat that only draws two-feet. Leland is not going to fill up its harbor unless the entrance shoal is dredged away.

posted 05-14-2012 11:16 PM ET (US)            

When the harbor stone break wall was built there was an opening on the north end close to the beach to let water circulate. The north west gales of November filled that in years ago.

At one time boaters that wanted a slip all season in Leland just paid the daily rate all season. I don't know how many folks do that at this time.

posted 05-15-2012 12:49 AM ET (US)            

Its not really that complicated whoever owns it or was in charge of building it is the one or group that is responsible to make the decision on what to do. If it was a free public service provided by the government ? then it just comes down to if they decide to put out the money. Everybody will have to live with that decision since nobody else to this point is managing the docks.

However, if it keeps costing more money all the time usually it means the fun is over just like an old dying engine on a boat. We keep fixing them until we have finally had enough and either pack it in altogether or use the money we saved and managed to buy a new one as needed expense for a lifestyle we live for.

I think if this expense is ongoing there might need to be a compromise between the people that use it and the group that has funded to keep a public dock. The in between are the merchants that should pitch in and manage the docks to bring in transient moorage fees.

posted 05-15-2012 10:07 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

I am sure that the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) are the ones who designed the harbor in the first place. The ACE is supposed to be full of skilled and experienced engineers who are familiar with water, current, sediments, wave actions, and things like that, and you'd expect they could design the harbor so it did not need to be dredged every year if there were some simple way to avoid it.
It is not clear to me if the shoaling is a result of sand moving up and out from the beach to the South, or if the river outlet that flows into the harbor is carrying sediment and dropping it in the harbor.

---

jimh,you hit the nail on the head! NEVER assume the ACE has the slightest idea of how, what or where when it come to building something/anything. Their incompetence is only marginlized by their ineptitude.

Who in their right mind builds a harbor that is completely cut off from a cross flow water, while being freshly supplied with river sediment and what appears to be a natural SAND beach, right at the mouth of the pen. Could you ask for a more impossible condition?

posted 05-15-2012 11:08 AM ET (US)            

Less than two years ago, they dredged the river mouth to a depth of at least 12 feet minimum. All the sand they removed was pumped back up onto the beaches of Plum Island (to the south of the river) and Salisbury (to the north of the river) in an effort to replenish the beaches that in recent years have eroded rapidly - to the point that houses are endangered.

The sand pumped back to the beaches for the most part quickly eroded away, and now the river mouth is clogged up again.

Here is an article in one of the local papers.

http://www.eagletribune.com/local/x241725745/Sand-choking-river-mouth

posted 05-15-2012 12:22 PM ET (US)            

On the issue of the actual users paying the cost of the dredging, the problem is that the federal government has restricted the class of acceptable users. In order for the harbor to be self-sufficient, some of those restrictions have to be removed.

posted 05-15-2012 06:07 PM ET (US)            

Must be managed though this is not going to work as is. If its too good to be true is usually is. If its man made it will eventually bow down to nature which means more money to keep it afloat.

posted 05-15-2012 06:55 PM ET (US)            

USACE, if they were the designers or contracted for the design, did a poor job. The Corps has many excellent hydraulic engineers. Unfortunately they also have some less than excellent ones who are not well supervised.

posted 05-16-2012 02:50 PM ET (US)         

It is the only harbor on this long stretch of high sand dune shorline between Frankfort to the south to Charlevoix to the North, a distance of 60 miles or so. It is definitely needed for recreational cruising. The very existance of this high dune shoreline indicates how wild the wind and waves can be in this area. The Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is just to the south.

posted 05-16-2012 06:14 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

Lake Superior is 1 inch higher than it was last year and Lake Michigan-Huron is at its level of a year ago. Lakes St. Clair, Erie, and Ontario are 2, 4, and 9 inches, respectively, lower than a year ago. Over the next month, Lakes Superior and Michigan-Huron are forecasted to rise 3 and 2 inches, respectively, from their current levels. The water levels of Lakes St. Clair and Erie are both expected to fall 1 inch, while the level of Lake Ontario is expected to rise 1 inch over the next thirty days. See our Daily Levels web page for more water level information.

---

Source: http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/greatlakeswaterlevels/ waterlevelforecasts/weeklygreatlakeswaterlevels/

posted 05-17-2012 09:09 AM ET (US)            

I don't believe my comment had any particular merit as I am not a hydraulic engineer. However, I did spend virtually all of my adult working life (35 years) as a USACE soldier. My last USACE assignment was with a civil works district where I was in the Navigation Branch of the Operations Division. The Navigation Branch is responsible for all dredging operations within the District boundaries. I was able to learn a wee bit in the two years I was there but I cannot claim even freshman knowledge of hydraulic engineering.

The USACE civilian engineers are a great bunch and incredibly dedicated to the job.

Your comment defending USACE is appreciated.

posted 05-17-2012 10:13 AM ET (US)            

An other thing that influenced the upgrading of Leland harbor was that along with the commercial fishing boats that operated there also was a United States Mail Boat that took mail and supplies to the Manitou Islands and a U.S. Coast Guard manned light house. The "crib" was in Manitou Passage between North and South Manitou Island.

posted 05-17-2012 12:30 PM ET (US)            

http://www.flickr.com/photos/upnorthmemories/96420906/in/photostream/

posted 05-17-2012 01:32 PM ET (US)            

Kevin presents more clearly my initial point, which I suggested with my several mentions of the ironies affecting Leland.

From an economic point of view, a deep entrance to Leland is a machine that allows visitors to spend money there. When I visit Leland I spend money. I pay for a slip, I buy some fuel, I buy one or two dinners for two at nice restaurants. I may buy something in the gift shop. I figure I probably drop $200 minimum for each day I visit. There are 50 slips. That is $10,000-per-day as a minimum from the marina. The marina is probably full the entire months of July and August, or 60-days. That is $600,000 in spending in Leland that might not happen if not for the marina. Add in the long term leasing of dock space to the park service and natural resources boats. Add in the shoulder-season revenue. It probably adds up to $800,000 in spending in Leland.

If Leland has to invest $80,000 per year in dredging, I think they can consider it a good investment. The $80,000 dredging will permit $800,000 in extra spending to occur in the town.

I don't know that this model will work for all the harbors of refuge on the Great Lakes. Some of them, like Grand Marais, are not much of a tourist magnet. They will never draw $800,000 in added spending to the community. But if you are caught in a sudden Summer storm on Lake Superior, you would very much appreciate being able to enter the harbor at Grand Marais.

posted 05-17-2012 04:01 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

By the way, the dredging mentioned in the linked article (above) about the Merrimack River in Northern Massachusetts was a project of many millions of dollars. Leland does not need a multi-million-dollar project.

---

posted 05-17-2012 05:01 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

jimh-I guess I missed seeing and reading the rule that says any comments should only be from experts.

---

Comments are welcome. In the matter of maintenance of waterways, the Army Corps of Engineers has been doing it for two hundred years, or more.

Some participants apparently have decided that the ACE are idiots and they could do better. Their assessment of the hydrology of Leland consists of looking at one small image taken at one particular day of the year. Now they know more than the ACE does about Leland, even though the ACE has been maintaining it since 1965 in its current form.

To reply to you, gusgus, in the same manner you have commented, I would then have to say:

gusgus--I guess I missed seeing the credentials and experience of the armchair hydrologists who could tell so much from one small aerial image.

posted 05-17-2012 08:20 PM ET (US)            

My point is the internet is never the place to fix anything. No one is an expert. No one is the end all of information, through anonymity.

Leland aside and hydrology aside, to suggest comments need accompanied fact is not likely when it could never be a forum's intention to fix the world. If it is someones intention, then we have a seriously misguided individual, IMHO. That is a different internet use, that is called wikipedia.

posted 05-17-2012 10:42 PM ET (US)            

The federal government keeps coming up with money for welfare cheese (and here I use that phrase as a figure of speech not as a literal phrase) but it no longer has the money to keep harbors dredged.

Leland is not operating with a free hand; they're constrained because their harbor is a federal harbor of refuge. All of a sudden Leland--a town of population perhaps 400 in a township of population 2,033--is supposed to dredge the harbor so the federal government's boats can run out and back to the federal park and administer the federal fishery.

posted 05-17-2012 11:30 PM ET (US)            

Absolutely, if it brings in six figures over three months or so then as a maintenance fee the 80k should be allocated as a contingency fund for this problem. They certainly owe it to their cliental to fix this and keep it working as functional marina. I would be shocked if they did not pay this and relied on federal help. Foolish, but I am sure they will do it because 600K is not easy money to come by in this world. It takes spending a little money to make money.

posted 05-18-2012 11:03 AM ET (US)            

Anyway we slice it this marina that sounds like a real nice boating spot that is profitable to the merchants in my opinion needs to be supported solely by them because as you said it really does bring in business from many different forms that are related to transient boating.

It so easy to bring in money and not look the other way. If we have to put out money that is not always expected its generally a bit of a shock. In their current state I can see why some of these business owners may not want to put money aside. However, if we look at the bigger picture they should see that if managed properly I don't think it will be that noticeable. Lets put it this way, without the marina they really! will notice it, and in a negative manner.

posted 05-18-2012 02:55 PM ET (US)            

http://www.lelandreport.com/Default.aspx?bid=4177&rdate=5/15/2012

posted 05-18-2012 03:58 PM ET (US)            

Sorry they were given a gift way back in the day now its time for them to keep it going. I don't want to paint a evil picture on these business they are probably good people who work hard for their money but its just the way business is and they should be taking it on themselves as a group to keep it alive and not looking for tax dollars for regular maintenance at least what seems like is starting to become inevitable with the sand issue.

Personally I don't think they really have a choice if they want to keep the business they are accustomed to over the many years.

posted 05-18-2012 08:09 PM ET (US)            

"Suggesting that the Big Dig and the dinkly marina problem in Leland have anything in common is commical (sic)."

posted 05-18-2012 09:24 PM ET (US)            

If the federal government pays to dredge one harbor - commercial or otherwise - they should pay to dredge others, including Leland.

posted 05-19-2012 03:34 AM ET (US)            

The obvious answer is of course no.

Just because taxes are stolen from us does not demand that we get in a line and marching to this countries funeral. Like Zombies without clear vision.

There is a much more important direction than understanding who stole from whom. The federal government is so corrupt it doesn't really matter to them what happens as long as we continue to argue about little things like this. While they give a billion to another islamic country without us even batting an eye, because Leland is far to sandy!

We are playing ourselves for fools when we believe any part of the promises these thieves have told us or that they will follow any laws they are ordered to follow.

posted 05-19-2012 07:34 AM ET (US)            

"This entire thread is based on second or third hand information."

posted 05-19-2012 10:03 AM ET (US)            

The primary purpose of the federal government in making Leland a harbor of refuge was to provide a resource to boaters in bad weather conditions. Let me ask for opinions on this question:

If you were approaching Leland from seaward in storm conditions with large waves coming onshore, which harbor would be safer or easier to enter? The pre-1965 harbor with its straight-in entrance? Or the post-1965 harbor with its dog-leg entrance?

My opinion is the pre-1965 harbor would be easier to enter from seaward in a storm. The approach is a straight line. You could approach the opening from a wide range of angles and pass through it at the best angle with the waves.

The current harbor could be difficult to enter from seaward in certain conditions. If there were large waves from the Southwest, one would have to approach from the Southwest, then make a 90-degree turn across the waves and duck behind the breakwall.

A corollary question: which harbor gives the inner harbor the best immunity to waves. In this case I favor the post-1965 design. I suspect that the earlier harbor did not knock down all the wave action coming into its entrance.

Pre-1965 harbor at Leland

posted 06-24-2012 07:21 PM ET (US)            

I mention this because here we are , about 130 years later, and we are still bemoaning the lack of or at least the cost of a good harbor at Leland.

By the way, as it happened, we arrived at Leland on June 12, a Tuesday, and found that the dredging of the harbor entrance had been complete just the day before. We found the dredge made fast to the bottom by her spuds just inside the harbor and the entrance having a depth of about 12-feet.

I want to thank the people of Leland who voluntarily contributed their own money to maintain the harbor in a navigable state. On that day we were the only boat arriving until much later in the day, when a sailboat came in that had travelled the width of Lake Michigan from Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin. We two were the only recreational boats using the harbor. We could have snuck in to Leland even without the dredge, but the sailboat had a six-foot draft, there were four-foot waves running at the inlet, and it would have been very chancy for that boat to enter the undredged harbor.

At the marina docks there were very few boats, only a half-dozen local boats whose owners had sufficient resources to pay the daily dockage rate to keep their boats there, but there was quite a collection of boats owned by federal agencies there. As best as I can recall, there were--

--two RIB type law-enforcement high-speed boats owned by some federal regulatory agency related to fisheries

--a 25-foot aluminum chambered boat from a federal agency involved in some sort of geologic survey activity

--a 40-foot utility boat for the National Park Service

--a 65-foot passenger ferry for the National Park Service that takes people out to the two offshore island national park grounds (and, by the way, it was so rough that day that the ferry did not run, which gives you an idea of the sea state we were out running around in with our Boston Whaler 22-footer)

--a 20-foot tribal fishing boat owned by the Grand Traverse Band of Indians

--a 50-foot tribal fishing boat owned by the Grand Traverse Band of Indians

I think it was darn nice of the local citizens to pay for the harbor dredging so that all of those federal government boats could continue to use the harbor.

I am sure there were a few state-owned boats there, too, but I don't recall the details. And I bet the local law enforcement boats would have been around the harbor, too, but for the ramp being closed.

posted 07-14-2012 12:24 PM ET (US)            

The harbormaster mentioned that the recent dredging cost a total of $175,000, and as explained in the discussion above, was paid for by Leland itself, in spite of the accumulation of millions and millions of dollars in tax revenue collected by the federal government for harbor maintenance that remains unspent. The increase in mooring fees is anticipated to recoup some of the expense borne by Leland in conducting their own harbor dredging project without any federal or state support.

posted 07-14-2012 12:29 PM ET (US)            

For more about the new ramp and parking facilities, see my comments in

posted 07-14-2012 01:37 PM ET (US)            

There is no other choice other than to close it down which kills most of their small town livelihood. Im glad to see they are doing something about it. I hope they have long term plan to put money side for the future dredging occurrences.
If not and they require money again, Im not so sure boaters will be as understanding. More or less like government always needing more money raising taxes and gas prices to justify.

posted 07-14-2012 07:21 PM ET (US)         

As a founding member and President of the Club, I can think of 6 to 8 boats I could produce for the event, people some of you have not seen in a while. Perhaps sometime in August.

posted 07-14-2012 08:00 PM ET (US)            

Jim,

One would hope that the good citizens who paid for the dredging apply for a 10X increase in mooring fees for Federally owned boats, as a thank you for not chipping in ther tax funds for the improvements.

We will probably spend a few nights there in September, be nice to see the harbor now.

Dave

.

posted 08-19-2012 01:17 PM ET (US)            

There was also more news locally about the dredging. The dredging was done by Michigan Hydraulic Dredging of Cheboygan, Michigan. They undertook the job on the basis of a $18,000 mobilization fee and a charge of $7 per cubic-yard of sand removed. There was an anticipation that 10,000-cubic-yards of sand would be removed, and the cost would be $88,000. The work was begun with a partial payment of $15,000 and a promissory note for the balance.

According to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) survey of the harbor, the dredging removed 14,000-cubic yards of material, with the result that the cost of the work increased to $116,000, a variance from the original estimate of $28,000.

According to an article in the local newspaper, the dredging company is still awaiting payment. Adding further to Leland's difficulties, a significant portion of promised voluntary contributions to pay for the dredging has not materialized, as some donors have apparently backed away from their pledged commitments. Of the pledged $60,000, only $22,000 was actually raised, and of that amount $15,000 was used for the down-payment to begin the work. Thus there remains only $7,000 in the coffers and a $101,000 outstanding bill for the dredging. Leland Harbor is $94,000 short on its dredging bill.

There are committed donations in the works from the National Park Service and the U. S. Geologic Study. Both agencies use the harbor for their boats and as an access point for the offshore island park lands. They're going to kick-in $12,000, which seems only fair, considering their dependence on the harbor being open for operation of their boats. That leaves $82,000 to be raised.

The USACE also helped control the project cost by not charging their usual $40,000 fees for the permitting and survey work.

The Leland Township Board recently approved making a $20,000 payment to the dredging company "as soon as possible," and hopes to perhaps negotiate a reduction in the cost of services provided.

posted 03-17-2013 12:46 PM ET (US)            

The Michigan State House of Representatives is said to be about to approve or may have already approved a proposal from the governor authorizing the expenditure of about $20,900,000 to perform emergency dredging of certain harbors in Michigan. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources will add this funding to their own budget allocations for dredging to create an Emergency Dredging Plan. For more details, see

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-153-39002_23334-296565--,00.html

Leland is on the list of harbors to receive assistance in dredging. See

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/ Emergency_Dredging_Projects_412972_7.pdf

The above document calls for removal of 12,000-cubic-yards of material from the harbor. The document shows the 12,000-cubic-yards of material are in the column marked "USACE Responsibility." I am not clear if that means the USACE is going to do the actual work.

The local newspaper, THE LEELANAU ENTERPRISE, is reporting the DNR has announced $420,000 will be allocated to this project. I believe the $420,000 figure comes from this pending legislation:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billengrossed/Senate/ pdf/2013-SEBS-0233.pdf

See page 15, where Leland Township Harbor is a line item with $420,000 allocated for estimated cost of emergency dredging.

Recall that dredging in June of 2012 removed 14,000-cubic-yards of material at a cost of $116,000. (See article above.) That is more material removed for about one-third the cost of the estimate of $420,000. When Leland hired a private company to dredge their harbor, they paid much less than the State is prepared to pay the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if I understand the facts and figures correctly.

posted 03-25-2013 04:01 PM ET (US)            

quote:

---

I'm surprised that the legislature didn't take it out of breakfasts for poor kids. Or medicaid for old people. Everyone knows we have to take care of yachts first.

---

quote:

---

Why not just tax the benefactors of the drudging more. Oh yeah it is a republiCON gov. Take from the little guy and reward big business.

---

quote:

---

Whenever a problem comes up that affects the richest among us, like yachts scraping the bottom of waterways, the solution is always to socialize the costs. But when it affects the poor and middle class, the solution is to privatize the costs...

---

quote:

---

I hope they tax the recreational beneficiaries to pay for this work...

---

posted 03-25-2013 04:43 PM ET (US)            

Dave

posted 03-25-2013 06:51 PM ET (US)            

Essentially, some Upper Peninsula Republican's drove the project, got the funding, and built the bridge. Popular Democrat governor Soapy Williams attended the ribbon cutting ceremony and posed for pictures, but the State of Michigan and his administration didn't really lend much support. Today, it is hard to imagine not having the Mackinaw Bridge to link the two peninsulas.

posted 03-26-2013 10:53 AM ET (US)         

quote:

---

These comments would likely surprise the thousands of small businesses and tens of thousands of people employed to service and support the HUGE tourism industry provided by the recreational facilities and infrastructure of the harbors.

---

Amen! To bring it to a boating level, many complain of indulgence and conspicuous consumption when waxing woefully of the wealthy and their oversized yachts, but exactly who is the beneficiary of this indulgence?

Is it the fiberglass layup crew, or maybe the joinery worker/craftsman, maybe it's the welder or the line worker at the radar factory, or it could be the salesman, or.....We always need to be real careful of what we condemn, for the reach of the free enterprise system is quite involved.

We had to deal with many realities of renewing a city that was destroyed by man-made systems that were built and insured and ensured that would sustain Mother Nature. Admittedly, you can't prepare for every event, but nonetheless, decisions had to be made afterwards. Does a city repair its highest tax base assets (businesses and rich folks) first and get the wheels of economy going (which propels everyone), or do you do the politically correct thing of cater to the needs of the poor and "disenfranchised." Reality: you do both as best you can! You get lambasted by the ivory tower press, but do your best to ignore and move forward. No good deed goes unpunished!

posted 03-28-2013 11:24 AM ET (US)            

I worked as a research assistant in college for a professor whose research showed that over time, the amount the government brought in in taxes remained remarkably constant regardless of what the marginal income tax rate was. However, there was a very strong inverse correlation between the marginal tax rate and GDP growth.

posted 03-30-2013 01:37 PM ET (US)            

The notion that people visit Leland by boat appears to be difficult for some to understand. There was a time when travel by boat to Leland was the much preferred method to get there. It was only after a few trillion dollars of public money were invested in a public, free, no-toll, paved, high-speed highway system that a car became the more convenient means of travel for reaching Leland.

The only reason the State of Michigan has taken action is because the USACE is not taking action. The USACE has maintained harbors like Leland for decades, but apparently there has been a policy change, and now USACE is not going to spend its own money on harbor maintenance, even for harbors of refuge like Leland.

posted 05-14-2013 05:41 PM ET (US)            

Leland just can't get any respect.

http://www.upnorthlive.com/news/story.aspx?id=897663#.UZKr45WQ5UQ

Suttons Bay Harbor is being dredged as we speak and will be open soon. Paying for the dredging them selves, I think.

posted 05-15-2013 04:25 PM ET (US)            

I sold my sailboat; for the last two years I could not get to some of the refuge harbors which are so conveniently placed and accessible being 15 to 30 miles apart. All are nice resort towns with good food and entertainment. Many times commercial boaters and pleasure boaters have ducked into these harbor to wait out a storm. I couldn't and can't get into Leland with my 5-1/2-foot draft, and ran into problem in many other harbors.