The question before the Court is whether townships have the authority to regulate by ordinance boat docking and launching under the township ordinance act, MCL 41.181; MSA 5.45(1). We hold that townships have the authority to regulate boat docking and launching for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of persons and property within their communities under the township ordinance act. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to Oakland Circuit Court to enter an order pursuant to this opinion.
I
In the early 1960s, Milton and Barbara Sloban owned land adjacent to Square Lake in Bloomfield Township zoned as single-family residential use. The Slobans, who requested and were denied a variance to build apartments on their property, challenged the township’s zoning classification. Following trial, Judge Arthur E. Moore, Oakland Circuit Court, entered a judgment invalidating the township’s single-family zoning classification as applied to the Square Lake property and authorized multiple-family residential use.
The Slobans split the property in two, conveying *314the back-lot portion and an easement of 160 feet of beach frontage to Square Lake Apartments, Inc. (Phase One), and retained the front-lot portion adjacent to Square Lake. A few years later, the Slobans developed the lake-front property (Phase Two) into seventy-eight multifamily rental units.1 With the two apartment complexes in place, approximately forty homes and 152 multifamily units had access to Square Lake.
Square Lake Apartments, Inc., conveyed the Phase One development back to the Slobans early in 1973. As a result, the easement created for the Phase One residents was extinguished by merger of title. Later that year, the Slobans sold the Phase Two development to Lake Front Apartments and created another easement to allow Phase One residents access to the lake.2
Square Lake Hills Associates bought Phase One seven years later. They converted the apartments into condominiums, erected a small boat dock off of its easement, and advertised the units as affording lake-access rights for year-round recreation.
Meanwhile, Bloomfield Township responded to a call for inland lake regulation in 1974 by adopting ordinance no. 278. This ordinance restricted the use of inland lakes to owners or occupants of riparian parcels.3 In 1981, the township repealed *315ordinance no. 278. In its place, it adopted ordinance no. 3404 which required nonriparian owners who used the township’s inland lakes to obtain prior approval from the Township Zoning Board of Appeals.
In 1984, Bloomfield Township sued the current and former owners of the Phase Two development directing them to comply with ordinance no. 340 and prohibiting Phase One residents access to the beach-front easement area.5 While the lawsuit was pending, the Bloomfield Township Board of Supervisors proposed ordinance no. 397.6 This ordinance limited township riparian property owners, with a minimum of 150 feet of lake frontage, to launching and docking one motorboat. Plaintiff’s representative and the riparian property owners of Square Lake appeared at the township board meeting on April 13, 1987, to discuss the proposal.7 After a lengthy hearing, the township board unanimously voted to approve the ordinance.
Soon thereafter, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit challenging ordinance nos. 340 and 397. Bloomfield Township, questioning the substantive grounds of plaintiff’s complaint, responded with a motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff cross motioned for partial summary disposition on the basis of Fox & Associates, Inc v Hayes Twp, 162 Mich App 647; 413 NW2d 465 (1987), which held that townships do not have authority under the Township Rural Zoning Act to enact ordinances restricting boat docking or funnel development.
*316Judge Norman L. Lippitt heard both motions and concluded that Fox & Associates prohibited Bloomfield Township from regulating Square Lake under both the Township Rural Zoning Act and the township ordinance act.
In appealing Judge Lippitt’s decision, Bloomfield Township additionally sought an order from this Court to consolidate with Fox & Associates.8 We denied Bloomfield Township’s motion to consolidate because we were not persuaded the questions presented by the township should be reviewed by this Court before consideration by the Court of Appeals.9
The Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the trial court, premising its decision on Fox & Associates. After its motion for reconsideration was denied, Bloomfield Township applied for leave to appeal in this Court. We granted the township’s motion, limiting review to the following issues:10
(1) Whether the delegation of powers in the township ordinance act allows Bloomfield Township to regulate by ordinance boat launching and boat docking; and
(2) Whether the Township Rural Zoning Act allows Bloomfield Township to regulate by ordinance boat launching and boat docking.11
*317II
Under the separation of powers doctrine,12 township regulations enacted under the township ordinance act are not subject to judicial intervention absent abuse of discretion, excessive use of power, or error of law. Tireman-Joy-Chicago Improvement Ass’n v Chernick, 361 Mich 211; 105 NW2d 57 (1960); Sheffield Development Co v City of Troy, 99 Mich App 527, 530; 298 NW2d 23 (1980). When asked to review a township ordinance, we will not substitute our judgment for that of a township official. Rather, we heed the advice of Justice Talbot Smith in Brae Burn, Inc v Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 425, 431; 86 NW2d 166 (1957):
The people of the community, through their appropriate legislative body, and not the courts, govern its growth and its life. Let us state the proposition as clearly as may be: It is not our function to approve the ordinance before us as to wisdom or desirability. For alleged abuses involving such factors the remedy is the ballot box, not the courts. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the legislative body charged with the duty and responsibility in the premises. [Emphasis added.]
As the majority in Brae Burn held, our function is to determine whether a township ordinance is within the range of conferred discretionary powers and then determine if it is reasonable. Id. at 437. See also People v Gibbs, 186 Mich 127, 133; 152 NW 1053 (1915); 1426 Woodward Ave Corp v Wolff, 312 Mich 352, 371; 20 NW2d 217 (1945); State, County & Municipal Employees Local 339 v *318Highland Park, 363 Mich 79, 86; 108 NW2d 898 (1961). The reasonableness of an ordinance, while a question of law, depends upon the particular facts of each case. Id. The test for determining whether an ordinance is reasonable requires us to assess the existence of a rational relationship between the exercise of police power13 and the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare in a particular manner in a given case. People v Armstrong, 73 Mich 288, 292; 41 NW 275 (1889); People v Gibbs, supra; Alderton v City of Saginaw, 367 Mich 28, 33; 116 NW2d 53 (1962); Delta Charter Twp v Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 271; 351 NW2d 831 (1984).14_
*319At common law, we narrowly construed township ordinances enacted pursuant to the delegated police power in the township ordinance act. Harding v Bader, 75 Mich 316, 319; 42 NW 942 (1889); Clements v McCabe, 210 Mich 207, 219; 177 NW 722 (1920). The delegates to the 1961 Michigan Constitutional Convention replaced the common-law rule of strict construction by constitutionally requiring courts to liberally construe all legislative and constitutional powers conferred upon townships. Const 1963, art 7, § 34; see also, 1 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp 1048-1058. While this constitutional directive does not provide an independent grant of authority for townships to act in a particular area, its mandate of liberal construction does provide a framework for analysis of Bloomfield Township’s arguments.15 See Arrowhead Development Co v Livingston Co Road Comm, 413 Mich 505, 511; 322 NW2d 702 (1982); Eyde Construction Co v Meridian Twp, 149 Mich App 802, 807; 386 NW2d 687 (1986).
A
Plaintiff first16 argues that Bloomfield Township acted beyond the delegated police powers in the *320township ordinance act when it limited the use of its easement by controlling the number of boats docked and launched on Square Lake.
Central to plaintiff’s analysis is the 1989 amendment of the township ordinance act which now provides in part:
The township board of a township may, at a regular or special meeting by a majority of the members elect of the township board, adopt ordinances regulating the public health, safety, and general welfare of persons and property, including, but not limited to fire protection, licensing or use of bicycles, trafile and parking of vehicles .... [MCL 41.181; MSA 5.45(1). Emphasis added.]
Thus, plaintiff maintains the Legislature did not intend for townships to have an unlimited amount of regulatory power under the township ordinance act. Moreover, plaintiff maintains the Legislature intended to restrict the authority of townships to act in situations where it expressly authorized township control.17
However, plaintiff’s argument fails to consider that in 1959 the Legislature amended the township ordinance act to include the authority to "adopt ordinances” regulating the "public health, safety, and general welfare of persons and property.” We view this amendatory action as evidencing the Legislature’s intent to broaden the township powers. Thirty years later, the Legislature *321added the words "including, but not limited to” to indicate that the areas of regulation were not confined to those expressly mentioned in the statute. The 1989 amendment adds nothing new to powers granted to townships in the township ordinance act. Rather, it reaffirms the Legislature’s intent that townships have the authority to resolve local matters.
We find Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, 366 Mich 250, 253; 114 NW2d 205 (1962), supportive of our interpretation of the township ordinance act. The Miller Court examined the police power language of the township ordinance act in light of a township ordinance limiting the hours of water-skiing and powerboat racing on an inland lake. In holding that Fabius Township had the authority to enact its water-skiing ordinance on the basis of the police power language in the township ordinance act, the court weighed the benefits of township control of inland lakes.
While the general problem with reference to water skiing and motorboating and the use of our inland lakes by different classes of sportsmen are State-wide problems, there are peculiar circumstances that are local in character — such as the number of boat users on the lake; the amount of ñshing on the lake; the congestion and conflict between ñshermen and water skiers; the location of the lake to densely populated areas — which the 1959 amendment authorizes townships to deal with under the "health and safety of persons and property” clause. [Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, supra at 259. Emphasis added.]
Similarly, in Checker Cab Co v Romulus Twp, 371 Mich 232; 123 NW2d 772 (1963), the plaintiffs challenged a Romulus Township ordinance that required taxicab drivers working at Metropolitan *322Airport to obtain local licenses. The Court sustained the township regulation under the township ordinance act as a legitimate use of its police power because the taxicab business affected the health and safety of motorists, pedestrians, and other persons and property within the township.
We find the reasoning in Miller and Checker Cab particularly instructive in answering the question presented in this appeal. When the Legislature added the language to the township ordinance act giving townships the ability to "adopt ordinances regulating the public health, safety and general welfare of persons and property,” it provided a statutory mechanism for townships to adopt and enforce regulations, purely local in nature, to enhance the health and safety within its community. Miller v Fabius Twp Bd, supra at 259. The regulation of boat docking and launching by Bloomfield Township on inland lakes is a perfectly reasonable use of township police power.18_
*323Furthermore, we cannot agree with plaintiff’s conclusion that ordinance no. 397 is a zoning ordinance because it limits the use of lake frontage based on the number of feet of lake frontage owned. Bloomfield Township ordinance no. 397 is not a zoning ordinance. The ordinance does not regulate the use of land or lake frontage. Rather, it regulates an "activity” by limiting the number of boats that can be parked or "launched and/or docked adjacent to each separate frontage.”
A zoning ordinance is defined as an ordinance which regulates the use of land and buildings according to districts, areas, or locations. 8 Mc-Quillin, Municipal Corporations, §25.53, p 137. The question whether or not a particular ordinance is a zoning ordinance may be determined by a consideration of the substance of its provisions and terms, and its relation to the general plan of zoning in the city.19 Id._
*324We find plaintiff’s argument analogous to the argument made in Recreational Vehicle United Citizens Ass’n v City of Sterling Heights, 165 Mich App 130; 418 NW2d 702 (1987). In that case, the plaintiffs challenged a local regulation which restricted the parking and storage of recreational vehicles, enclosed campers, boats, snowmobiles, and utility trailers upon public and private property in a single-family residential area. The plaintiffs claimed the ordinance was not a regulation, but rather a "zoning ordinance” because it limited the use of their property, and invalid because the city did not follow the procedural guidelines in the Township Rural Zoning Act.
The Court of Appeals held that defendant’s ordinance was in fact a zoning ordinance because it regulated the storage and parking of plaintiffs’ vehicles without reference to a public street or sidewalk. However, relying on an earlier decision, Belanger v Chesterfield Twp, 96 Mich App 539, 541; 293 NW2d 622 (1980), rev’d on other grounds 409 Mich 941 (1980), the Court held that where a local ordinance regulates the parking of vehicles on its streets or sidewalks, the ordinance is regulatory. Recreational Vehicle United Citizens Ass’n v Sterling Heights, supra at 136.
Launching and docking boats on inland lakes are "activities,” and the number of boats that can be launched or docked is very much akin to a *325parking regulation on a residential street. It follows that since township parking regulations on residential streets are within the scope of a township’s regulatory police power, Belanger v Chesterfield Twp, supra at 541, a township regulation of docking and launching boats on its inland lake is within the same scope of regulatory police power.
We therefore conclude that townships have the authority, under the township ordinance act, to enact ordinances regulating boat docking and launching on inland lakes as a measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of persons and property within a township.
B
Plaintiff also argues that even if Bloomfield Township has the authority to regulate boat docking and launching through the township ordinance act, ordinance no. 397 is an unreasonable use of police power.20 We disagree.
The township board determined that lack of regulation resulted in (1) a nuisance condition, (2) an impairment of important and irreplaceable natural resources, (3) the destruction of property values, and (4) a threatening of the public health, safety, and welfare. We conclude that each of the concerns raised by the township is reasonable and addresses a legitimate governmental interest.
The problems inherent in overcrowded lakes, pollution, and destruction of wildlife are shared by cities, townships, and villages throughout the state. The 1961 Constitutional Convention delegates recognized this concern by establishing a constitutional directive to protect the state’s wa*326ters from pollution, impairment, and destruction.21 Const 1963, art 4, § 52; see also, 2 Official Record, Constitutional Convention 1961, pp 2602-2612. In Thompson v Enz, 379 Mich 667, 699; 154 NW2d 473 (1967), Justice Brennan, in his dissenting opinion, urged the Legislature to address the problem of preserving Michigan’s lakes by enacting
wise and forethinking legislation, which will protect our lakes from overcrowding, and the pollution which flows from immoderate use, so that all of the people of the State, including riparian cottage owners, will be able to enjoy our great natural bounty for centuries to come.
The Legislature responded by enacting the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, Marine Safety Act, and the Wetland Protection Act, MCL 281.701; MSA 18.595(51). Under these acts, the Department of Natural Resources may choose which lakes, rivers and streams it wishes to regulate.22 Accordingly, local governments are left to regulate waterways not managed by the Department of Natural Resources. MCL 281.708(4); MSA 18.595(58)(4), MCL 281.904; MSA 11.419(4), MCL 281.1015; MSA 18.1287(15).
In the instant case, Bloomfield Township determined that it was necessary to regulate boat usage in order to preserve and protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons using and living near the *327inland lakes. The township found that lack of regulation resulted in a nuisance condition, an impairment of important and irreplaceable natural resources, the destruction of property values, and a threatening of the public health, safety, and welfare. Furthermore, the township recognized that if proper safety precautions were not immediately taken, the use of boats on inland lakes could be very dangerous to the persons and riparian property owners using the lake. In our view, Bloomfield Township took reasonable steps to alleviate future problems by recognizing this potential hazard.
Accordingly, we conclude that the objective sought to be achieved by the ordinance, in requiring a minimal amount of lake frontage for boat dockage through a uniform scheme of regulation to lessen the congestion and density of boats docked and launched around Square Lake, is a reasonable use of the township police power under the township ordinance act.
CONCLUSION
In the instant case, we granted leave to appeal to determine whether townships have the authority to regulate by ordinance boat launching and docking. We conclude that the delegated police power authority in the township ordinance act enables townships to regulate docking and launching boats for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of persons and property within their communities.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and we remand this case to Oakland Circuit Court for entry of an order pursuant to this opinion.
Brickley and Griffin, JJ., concurred with Riley, J.*328APPENDIX A
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO. 340
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 265 KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD ORDAINS
Section 1.01. That Ordinance No 265, known as the Zoning Ordinance is amended by revising or changing Article XV, Sec 1508, Performance Standards, Subsection 10 Residential Waterfront Use, to read as follows
(Repeals Ordinance No 278)
Revise or change Article XV, Sec 1508, Performance Standards, Subsection 10 Residential Waterfront Use
10. RESIDENTIAL WATERFRONT USE
The use of waters shall be restricted to that right of user enjoyed by virtue of riparian rights and shall be confined to reasonable use by the owner or occupant of a riparian parcel which is contiguous to the water as of the effective date of this ordinance, provided, however, that if a riparian parcel is proposed to be used by persons other than the owner residing thereon or occupant residing thereon, for a park, beach, picnic area or similar area for outdoor recreation, then in such event said use may be made of said riparian parcel only when permitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals, provided such use does not impair the natural appearance of said land or overcrowd the parcel or lake surface or tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties, and provided that no use shall be made of any land or water for boat liveries or public or com*329mercial beaches or recreational use operated for profit.
Where a plan for subdividing a parcel of land contiguous to a body of water is granted tentative approval by the Township, a recreational park bordering on said body of water may be dedicated for such purpose, the privileges of which and riparian rights of user incident thereto, are to be reasonably enjoyed by the owners and occupants of lots included in any plat or plats recorded within said parcel and only such owners and occupants, provided that said recreational park is dedicated at the time of recording the first plat in said parcel, and provided that where such a recreational park is dedicated for the use of owners and occupants of lots contained in such a recorded plat or plats, at least twenty (20) lineal feet of water frontage and fifty (50) feet in depth to waters edge as platted shall be reserved in upland for the rights of each lot of the size required by this Ordinance and which it is intended shall enjoy water rights, and provided further that in no event shall any plat not in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance create any riparian rights in parcels of land so platted and such a nonconforming plat will not be approved for recording.
Ordinance No 278 is hereby repealed
Section 2.01. The provisions of this Ordinance are hereby given immediate effect pursuant to the provisions of Section 11 and Section 14 of Act 184 of the Public Acts of 1943 as amended.
The ordinance was adopted by the township board on November 9, 1981, as verified by Deloris V. Little, Township Clerk.
*330APPENDIX B
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP ORDINANCE NO. 397
THE TOWNSHIP OF BLOOMFIELD ORDAINS:
Article I. Intent, Purpose and Short Title:
Section 1.1. Intent and Purpose: In its deliberations leading to the adoption of this Ordinance, the Township Board has recognized and concluded that the use of water resources, including the inland lakes situated in the Township, should be considered within a framework of long-term costs and benefits to the Township, and that it is desirable to retain and maintain the physical, cultural and aesthetic characteristics of lakes in the Township. Moreover, it has been recognized that, as the shore lines of lakes become further developed, the cumulative impact of boat usage from each respective property must be regulated in order to preserve and protect the rights of riparian owners as well as the Township as a whole. It has further been recognized that the lack of regulation shall result in a nuisance condition and an impairment of these important and irreplaceable natural resources of the Township, and shall further result in the destruction of property values and threaten the public health, safety and welfare of all persons making use of lakes within the Township and properties adjacent to lakes in the Township. Accordingly, it is the intent and purpose of the Township Board to adopt reasonable regulations for boat usage in the Township.
Section 1.2. Short Title: This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited and referred to as the Bloomfield Township Boat Regulation Ordinance, and shall hereinafter be referred to as "this Ordinance.”
*331Article II. Scope and Application.
Section 2.1. The terms and provisions of this Ordinance shall be interpreted and applied as minimum standards and requirements for the promotion and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and for the public peace and preservation of natural resources and public and private property within the Township.
Section 2.2. This Ordinance shall not interfere with, abrogate, annul nor appeal any other law, ordinance, rule or regulation previously in effect, including any other ordinance regulating boat launching and/or usage. Moreover, in instances where this Ordinance specifically imposes a greater restriction or higher standard than other ordinances, the provisions of this Ordinance shall govern.
Section 2.3. This [Ordinance is not intended to conflict with and/or pre-empt application of the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, but intended to supplement such Act in a compatible manner so as to enhance water usage in a manner consistent with the public interest.
Article III. Definitions.
Section 3.1. For the purpose of construction and application of this Ordinance, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Boat” shall mean a water craft having a motor or engine of more than five [horse]power.
(b) "Dock” or "docking” shall mean the mooring of a boat directly to a pier, which is a platform or other permanent or seasonal fixture extending from the shore, and directly accessible to a separate frontage; and shall also mean the regular anchoring of a boat adjacent to a separate frontage.
(c) "Lake” shall mean a navigable body of water situated, wholly within the Township, but shall not mean nor include lakes to which other ordinance regulations apply so as to prohibit certain boats with engines or motors.
*332(d) "Person” shall mean a human being, partnership, corporation, association, including a condominium association, and any other entity to which the law provides or imposes rights or responsibilities.
(e) "Separate Frontage” means that portion of a lot or parcel of land existing on documentation recorded within the Oakland County Register of Deeds, which abuts or intersects with the normal high water mark of a lake, whether such lot or parcel is owned by one or more persons, or commonly owned by several persons, or combinations of persons.
Article IV. Regulations.
Section 4.1. Subject to the provisions below, not more than one boat shall be launched and/or docked adjacent to each separate frontage.
Section 4.2. If the continuous length of a separate frontage is greater than 150 feet, one additional boat may be launched and/or docked for each 100 feet of continuous frontage in excess of the initial 150 feet. For the purpose of computing the length of frontage, the measurement shall be along the water’s edge at the normal high water mark of the lake as determined by the Department of Natural Resources, or if the Department has not made such a finding, the normal high water mark location shall be determined in the [discretion] of the Township. Moreover, the measurement shall be made only along a natural shoreline, and shall not include any man-made[] channel, lagoon, canal or the like.
Section 4.3. Following the effective date of this Ordinance, no launching and/or docking shall be permitted with respect to a separate frontage of less than 100 feet, provided, this provision shall not apply to lots or parcels constituting a building site of record prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.
*333Article V. Penalties.
Section 5.1. Any person who shall be convicted of a violation of the regulations contained in this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 90 days or by fine of not more than $500.00, or both such imprisonment or fine, as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 5.2. In addition to, or in lieu of, seeking to enforce this Ordinance by proceeding under Section 5.1, above, the Township may institute an appropriate action in a Court of general jurisdiction seeking equitable relief.
Article VI. Severability.
Section 6.1. In the event that any one or more sections, provisions, phrases or words of this Ordinance shall be found to be invalid by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity nor the enforceability of the remaining sections, provisions, phrases or words of this Ordinance unless expressly so determined by the Court.
Article VII. Nonexclusivity.
Section 7.1. The prohibitions and penalties provided for in this Ordinance shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, other prohibitions and penalties provided for by other law, ordinance, rule and/or regulation.
Article VIII. Adoption.
Section 8.1. Provision of this Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days from the date of publication in accordance with the Statutes of the State of Michigan.
The ordinance was unanimously adopted by the township board on April 13, 1987 as verified by Wilma S. Cotton, Township Clerk.
More recently, Phase Two, the lake-side multifamily unit complex, was converted to condominium use. The seventy-eight condominium unit owners in Phase Two, who also claim access to Square Lake, are not parties to this case.
The easement runs perpendicular to the lake shore and extends approximately 250 feet onto the lake bed. A private drive and a cement boat-launch ramp over the Phase Two property allows access to the easement area for Phase One residents. The legal description in the land contract, the master deed, the site plan, and the recorded warranty deed executed on March 31, 1981, all include the easement for lake access with the same metes and bounds as the original lake access easement created in 1968.
The record indicates that the ordinance was never enforced against the residents of the Phase One or Phase Two developments.
The validity of ordinance no. 340 is not before the Court at this time. See Bloomfield Township ordinance no. 340 (Appendix A, p 328).
The suit was dismissed on June 1, 1987, by stipulation of the parties.
See Bloomfield Township ordinance no. 397 (Appendix b, p 330).
The record indicates that single-family owners of Square Lake favored adoption of the ordinance, while plaintiff’s association opposed it.
We granted leave to appeal in Fox & Associates to determine whether a township has the authority to enact zoning ordinances to limit boat docking and funnel development by riparian owners under the Township Rural Zoning Act. Fox & Associates was briefed and argued before this Court on January 5, 1989. However, we vacated our order granting leave to appeal in light of a proposed consent judgment agreed to by the parties, and because we were no longer persuaded that we should review the question presented. 432 Mich 932 (1989).
Order of the Supreme Court, entered September 7, 1988 (Docket No. 83704).
435 Mich 862 (1990).
We elect not to address the Township Rural Zoning Act because Bloomfield Township failed to adopt ordinance no. 397 within the *317procedural requirements imposed by the act. Krajenke Buick Sales v Hamtramck City Engineer, 322 Mich 250, 255; 33 NW2d 781 (1948).
Const 1963, art 3, § 2.
We have held that the term police power, by its very nature, is incapable of precise definition inasmuch as it varies with the independent circumstances of each diverse community within the state. People v Sell, 310 Mich 305, 315-316; 17 NW2d 193 (1945). It does, however, lend itself to description.
"The [term] 'police power’ is said to be a power or organization of a system of regulations tending to the health, order, convenience, and comfort of the people and to the prevention and punishment of injuries and offenses to the public. It is the expression of an instinct of self-preservation and characteristic of every living creature, an inherent faculty and function of life, attributed to all self-governing bodies as indispensable to their healthy existence and to the public welfare. It embraces all rules and regulations for the protection of life and the security of property. 28 Cyc, p 692; 31 Cyc, p 902. It has for its object the improvement of social and economic conditions affecting the community at large and collectively with a view to bring about 'the greatest good of the greatest number.’ Courts have consistently and wisely declined to set any fixed limitations upon subjects calling for the exercise of this power. It is elastic and is exercised from time to time as varying social conditions demand correction.” [See People v Brazee, 183 Mich 259, 262; 149 NW 1053 (1914), aff’d 241 US 340; 36 S Ct 561; 60 L Ed 1034 (1915).]
See also Cady v Detroit, 289 Mich 499, 514; 286 NW 805 (1939), cert den 309 US 620 (1939).
We caution reviewing courts to carefully exercise this power. When an ordinance purports to be, and is obviously enacted, in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare, it is presumed valid. Kirk v Tyrone Twp, 398 Mich 429, 439; 247 NW2d 848 (1976). It may *319be declared invalid only when it plainly appears that it does not tend, in any applicable degree, to promote those ends and the power to legislate has been exercised arbitrarily.
Const 1963, art 7, § 34 provides:
The provisions of this constitution and law concerning counties, townships, cities and villages shall be liberally construed in their favor. Powers granted to counties and townships by this constitution and by law shall include those fairly implied and not prohibited by this constitution.
Plaintiff also argued that the subject matter of Bloomfield Township’s zoning ordinance is preempted by the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, MCL 281.951 et seq.; MSA 11.475(1) et seq. and the Marine Safety Act, MCL 281.1012 et seq.; MSA 18.1287(1) et seq. However, we granted leave to appeal on a very narrow issue: whether *320a township has the authority to regulate boat docking and launching under the township ordinance act or the Township Rural Zoning Act. Therefore, we deem it unnecessary to consider the preemption argument and decline to do so.
Plaintiff believes that the delegated functions under township control include the adoption of fire codes (MCL 125.1508; MSA 5.2949[8]), junk yard regulations (MCL 445.451; MSA 19.731), or public recreation areas (MCL 123.51; MSA 5.2421), but does not include regulating boat launching and docking.
Our review of Michigan case law evidences numerous instances in which we have upheld township ordinances regulating a broad range of activities, all of which were enacted to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons and property within the townships. In Belanger v Chesterfield Twp, 96 Mich App 539, 541-542; 293 NW2d 622 (1980), rev’d on other grounds 409 Mich 941 (1980), a township parking ordinance was reviewed. In Casco Twp v Brame Trucking Co, Inc, 34 Mich App 466; 191 NW2d 506 (1971), a soil removal ordinance was reviewed. In Suits v Meridian Charter Twp, 60 Mich App 347; 230 NW2d 426 (1975), an ordinance regulating the public display of sexually explicit material was reviewed. In People v Yeo, 103 Mich App 418; 302 NW2d 883 (1981), cert den 457 US 1134 (1982), reh den 458 US 1132 (1982), a dog-kennel licensing ordinance was reviewed.
This is not to suggest that township ordinances will always be upheld under the reasonable relationship standard. We have invalidated numerous township ordinances when they act as an unwarranted exercise of police power. See Frischkorn Construction Co v Redford Twp Building Inspector, 315 Mich 556; 24 NW2d 209 (1946) (ordinance requiring a minimum amount of usable floor space in residential homes); Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit v Village of Orchard Lake, 333 Mich 389; 53 NW2d 308 (1952) (exclusion of church and schools from a residential neighborhood); Smith v Plymouth Twp Building Inspector, 346 Mich 57; 77 NW2d 332 (1956) (exclusion of trailer parks from a township); Johnson Construction Co *323v White Lake Twp, 351 Mich 374; 88 NW2d 426 (1958) (building ordinance requiring certain types of materials to be used).
The dissent relies on Bane v Pontiac Twp, 343 Mich 481, 492; 72 NW2d 134 (1955), to support its position that ordinance no. 397 has the effect of zoning. Post, pp 338-339. In Bane, Pontiac Township adopted an ordinance, pursuant to the township building regulation enabling statute, 1943 PA 185, that required running water in dwellings, indoor plumbing, and adopted a definition of substandard dwellings as defined in the state housing law. Id. at 485. Residents of Pontiac Township who lived without running water and indoor plumbing sought a declaratory judgment from the court to prevent the township from enforcing the ordinance against them. The Bane Court held the township had the authority to enact the regulation, but could not enforce it retroactively against the petitioners. The Court did not hold, as the dissent suggests, that the township regulation had the effect of zoning and could not be enforced against them. Rather, the Court expanded the principle of nonconforming use, retroactivity in zoning, and the use of declaratory judgments. The dissent’s reliance on the words "ha[ve] 'the effect of zoning,’ ” can only be viewed as dicta and not controlling authority for this case. Post, p 334.
Moreover, Bane has never been interpreted by this Court or the Court of Appeals in the manner suggested by the dissent. The Michigan appellate courts use Bane as precedent in cases dealing with declaratory judgments, Henry v Henry, 362 Mich 85, 90; 106 NW2d 570 (1960); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v State Police, 20 Mich App *324502, 512; 174 NW2d 298 (1969); Kalamazoo Police Supervisors’ Ass’n v Kalamazoo, 130 Mich App 513, 518; 343 NW2d 601 (1983); Recall Blanchard Comm v Secretary of State, 146 Mich App 117, 121; 380 NW2d 71 (1985), and the principle of nonretroactivity of zoning ordinances, Farmington Twp v Scott, 374 Mich 536, 540; 132 NW2d 607 (1965); Detroit Edison v City of Wixom, 382 Mich 673, 690; 172 NW2d 382 (1969) (T. M. Kavanagh, J., concurring); Walsh v River Rouge, 385 Mich 623, 638; 189 NW2d 318 (1971); People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314; 257 NW2d 902 (1977); Bruggeman v Minster, 42 Mich App 177, 179; 201 NW2d 344 (1972); Palmer v Superior Twp, 60 Mich App 664, 679; 233 NW2d 14 (1975); 96 ALR2d 241, § 5a, 260, § 14; 79 ALR3d 731, § 6b, 735, § 8b.
The validity of ordinance no. 340 is not before the Court at this time.
The conservation and development of the natural resources of the state are hereby declared to be of paramount public concern in the interest of the health, safety, and general welfare of the people. The Legislature is to provide for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, and destruction. Const 1963, art 4, § 52.
Michigan has more than 3,000 miles of Great Lake coastline encompassing 38,575 square miles of water, over 11,000 inland lakes, and more than 36,350 miles of inland rivers and streams. Theut & Davis, Michigan’s Marine Safety Act, 66 Mich B J 882 (1987). The Legislature must have realized that the Department of Natural Resources has neither the manpower nor the money to properly regulate the state waterways.