## Facts

- Glen Lake discharges over a dam into the Crystal River, and dam operations affect both Glen Lake’s elevation and Crystal River instream flow.
- A 1945 circuit court order established Glen Lake’s “natural height and level” at 596.75 feet above sea level.
- A 1954 circuit court order required the lake association’s predecessor to operate the dam through a supervisory committee to maintain the 596.75-foot level; the association continued operating the dam by adjusting boards and sometimes allowing temporary drops during dry periods to support downstream flow.
- In 2000, the lake association contracted for a new dam structure to allow more precise incremental control.
- Riparian owners on the Crystal River and a canoe livery filed an action seeking a new, lower “normal” lake level and a dam-operation plan that would increase Crystal River flow and depth.
- After expert testimony and competing proposals, the circuit court issued a modified lake-level order adopting plaintiffs’ regulation algorithms and management plan, effectively revising the previously established normal level.
- The lake association appealed, challenging the circuit court’s authority to modify the established level, plaintiffs’ standing, and the merits of the modification.

## Issues

1. Whether a circuit court that previously established an inland lake’s normal level under the statutory lake-level scheme retains continuing jurisdiction to modify that level in a later proceeding.
2. Whether private riparian owners and an affected business have standing to seek modification of a previously established inland lake level, or whether such actions are limited to governmental entities.
3. Whether the modified lake-level order and adopted management plan were clearly erroneous or otherwise improper under the governing statute.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s modified lake-level order.
- The court held that the circuit court retained continuing jurisdiction under the inland lake-level statutory scheme to revisit and modify the previously established level.
- The court held that private riparian owners and the canoe livery had standing to invoke the circuit court’s continuing jurisdiction.
- On the merits, the court concluded the circuit court’s factual findings and choice of a management plan were not clearly erroneous.

## Legal Principles

- A circuit court establishing an inland lake’s normal level under Michigan’s inland lake-level statutory scheme retains continuing jurisdiction to modify that level in subsequent proceedings when properly invoked.
- The statutory framework permits affected private riparian owners (and similarly situated users) to petition for modification; authority to seek relief is not confined to counties or other public bodies.
- Lake-level determinations are fact-intensive, and appellate review is deferential; a modified lake-level order will be upheld absent clear error where the trial court reasonably balances competing shoreline, recreational, and environmental interests within statutory bounds.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a modified lake-level and dam-operation order, holding that the circuit court’s lake-level jurisdiction continues beyond the initial level-setting judgment and may be invoked by private riparians directly affected by dam-controlled water levels, with appellate review limited to clear error.


Glen Lake-Crystal River Watershed Riparians v. Glen Lake Ass'n, 264 Mich. App. 523, 695 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)