Senator John Cherry, Jr., Democrat - Grand Blanc
Last year, the Michigan Legislature enacted a bill which exempted farm industry operations from regulation by the Department of Environmental Quality.
This means that hog farms, beef feedlots, and poultry warehouses may not be regulated and there will likely be little or no control on the methods of treating or disposing animal sewage. Pesticides and fertilizers may be applied without regard to where these chemicals end up downstream from the application in a watershed, if generally accepted practices are being followed. Soil erosion due to farming activity, which threatens the gravel beds which fish need to spawn, can no longer be reduced by local regulatory efforts.
You can read Public Act 261 of 1999 here.
One of the problems with the bill is that the state will take action on a complaint basis only, there will be no monitoring program. The Department of Environmental Quality is shut out of the monitoring and enforcement process, except when the Director of the Department of Agriculture requests their assistance. The bill relies on the good will of farming industry operators to follow Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices. This means that problems will not be addressed until after they have been identified by a complainant.
This bill was passed by Senate Republicans and signed by Governor Engler and is now law. It goes into effect on March 10, 2000.
Complaints regarding environmental damage caused by farms must go to the Director of the Department of Agriculture.
"the director shall investigate all complaints involving a farm or farm operation, including, but not limited to, complaints involving the use of manure and other nutrients, agricultural waste products, dust, noise, odor, fumes, air pollution, surface water or groundwater pollution, food and agricultural processing by-products, care of farm animals and pest infestations."
The Director must then determine if the farming operation is using "generally accepted agricultural and management practices".
And be careful about complaining about a problem:
"A complainant who brings more than 3 unverified complaints against the same farm or farm operation within 3 years may be ordered, by the director, to pay to the department the full costs of investigation of any fourth or subsequent unverified complaint against the same farm or farm operation. As used in this subsection, "unverified complaint" means a complaint in response to which the director determines that the farm or farm operation is using generally accepted agricultural and management practices."
To see legislative analysis and the history of the bill, go to: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/isapi/nls_ax.dll/BillSearch and search Senate Bill 205.
This page is the Journal of the day Senate Bill 205 was passed. It was the first bill discussed: http://198.109.122.10/pdf/senate.journal/1999-2000/sj100799.066.pdf
Senator Byrum tried to add an amendment which would exclude farming operations with more than 1000 head from the protections given by SB 205. The amendment was defeated.
Senators Cherry and Bynum used their constitutional right to protest passage of the bill.
Senator John Cherry, Jr., Democrat - Grand Blanc
Senator Cherry stated:
"I rise in opposition of Senate Bill No. 205 with some reluctance, because I do believe as the previous speaker has said that the family farm is in crisis and does need some concerted action on the part of the state to help ease the plight of the family farmer. But it strikes me that what Senate Bill No. 205 does, under the guise of protecting the family farmer, ultimately takes the rights away from a community on behalf of allowing big corporate factory farms to flourish in this state. I don't personally believe that's what our purpose is here today to do, but I think that's the ultimate effect of Senate Bill No. 205. And on that basis, I intend to vote "no."
Now, generally a family farm does not present that kind of public threat or hazard. But, believe you me, the size of some of these corporate operations we refer to as factory farms are of such a degree that it can disrupt a community. It can make life unbearable for citizens in that community. Today, with this bill we're saying that those citizens should not have a voice in this process; that we are going to take away their majority rights and invest it in a appointed state commission which will regulate these concerns after the fact. I think that's unsatisfactory. I think we will regret the day that we adopt Senate Bill No. 205. As one speaker has said, the complaints will start rolling in because quite literally these operations will disrupt lives. They will destroy home values, and they will make life unbearable through noxious odors. They will put other businesses out of place. In fact, by allowing these big corporate farms to invade these communities without local community check, we will drive many family farms out of business. That will be the impact of Senate Bill No. 205.
Senator Dianne Byrum, Democrat - Lansing
Senator Byrum's statements were as follows:
There was a mention as to the EPA guidelines and that we're going to wait as a state for the federal government to come down from high and dictate to us as to exactly what we're going to do as to how it relates to the confined feeding operations. First of all, there are already EPA guidelines in place. Michigan has been very hesitant and dragging our feet, and we have not implemented those guidelines that we know are in existence right now. If we are going to wait until either we are fined by the federal government or there is some reason or push behind the state Department of Ag to implement these guidelines, I really don't know why we would put the townships at risk until that point in time might occur. If we basically remove all local regulations for the siting and the operation of these large livestock feeding operations, then we are going to be creating a haven in Michigan for their placement. It is counter to what is going on nationally in some very large agriculture states. Because if you create a haven for these large feeding operations, you put at risk the family farm.
First of all, I think we need to recognize that there is a difference in the intensity of the agriculture between a factory farm with over a thousand animal units and those under and the dramatic impacts and effects it has on the community and the environment. We are kidding ourselves if we have blinders on to that impact. We talked a lot about GAAMPS. Well, GAAMPS does not have a different tier or a different set of guidelines for intensive animal operations. You need to be very cognizant of that. Plus, GAAMPS are not promulgated rules. They are a moving target. Now, are we going to put local townships and their ability to impact and regulate what goes on in their townships against a moving target in an area that is very sensitive to people we represent? I think you have to have a broader vision of who those residents and people are and the frustration level we're all going to experience as well as those township officials when somebody wants to site one of these intensive animal operations, and the township board says, "You go call your Senator, and you find out how they voted to pull away our ability to have any local voice or enforcement on that." It's going to happen. Michigan will be a haven for these kinds of operations if we wholesale strip that power away from local governments.
As someone who has a degree in agriculture, who lives on a family farm, and spent an awful lot of time working as the vice chair on the Senate agriculture task force—and outside of the good chair, Senator McManus, and his personal staff—I probably put more hours than anyone else did on that task force and that report. So I come to this issue with a deep understanding of agriculture, as well as a real commitment and desire to see a strong agricultural economy. I really don't believe this chamber differs in our desire to have a strong vibrant agricultural economy. I have worked to try to improve this legislation, to narrow the scope of application to protect family farms, and use that definition of 1000 livestock units. However, I believe we are doing is reaching too far. We are setting up a situation where we are creating Michigan as a safe haven for large corporate factory farms. We are relying on GAAMPS, which are not promulgated rules, but the best practice guidelines that are a free-flowing document. Coupled with the fact that Michigan may be the last state in the nation that is refusing to recognize the EPA guidelines on large, intensive livestock operations. And the threat to the environment to the public health, safety and welfare that they may pose if they are not properly run.
What we are doing is stripping local control. We are taking local zoning decisions away from townships, cities, villages, counties, and the citizens–putting them in an appointed Department of Agriculture to use some loose guidelines that are voluntary and have a complaint driven enforcement mechanisms, that is only going to compound and exacerbate the situation.
For more rebuttals and debate, see: http://198.109.122.10/pdf/senate.journal/1999-2000/sj100799.066.pdf
What YOU can do:
Contact your legislators by fax. Fax is the most effective means of getting in touch with your legislators. Email is too easy, the staff is flooded by email and your message will likely be overlooked. Mail is OK, but a little slow and response is usually not as good as a fax.
Unfortunately I could not find a fax directory of Michigan Legislators on the net. The following site is a good way to find the phone and email of your:
Representative: http://db.voyager.net/house/cgi-bin/house-query.cgi
and Senator: http://www.state.mi.us/senate/senfull.html
If you don't know who your senator is, try this page: http://www.state.mi.us/senate/
1. Write a short message asking about the Public Act 261 of 1999. Ask how your legislator voted on the bill. Tell them that you heard that it means that hog farms and other industrial-scale farming operations are exempt from environmental regulation. Say that you care about water quality of the _______ River and that you are concerned with how this law could affect water quality downstream from farmers. Ask for a copy of the bill and ask what was the reason that this bill was passed. If you own a business, are a volunteer, or an elected official, let the legislator know your position in your community. Fax your message out and wait a week or so for a reply. After a week fax it out again if you have not received a reply.
Just leave your first fax at that, don't go into much more detail until you get an explanation and a response.
Don't rant and rave, or threaten that you will never vote for so and so again. That is counter-productive. Use the prod and sponge method. Ask "why" and take notes on what the response is.
2. When you write your second letter, the tone should be friendly. Say that you are a lifelong supporter of the legislator's political party (whether or not you actually voted that way). Remember that the Republicans passed this bill and the Democrats opposed it. Tell them about yourself and others that you have talked to about this bill (local group of friends who enjoy canoeing, or a fish and game club, etc.) who are very concerned with water quality in the _____ River and say that you would like more information on how the farm industry is regulated with regard to runoff and environmental hazards to waterways. Compare the farm industry to other industries (such as manufacturing) which are highly regulated with regard to environmental contamination, and the boating community which is subject to no discharge rules (If you support those rules, say so).
Tell the legislator that at first glance, this bill looks like is not in the interest of the voters in your community. Ask if the legislator knows of any action groups that you could join to find a solution to this threat to water quality in the _____ River. Ask who is the local Republican/Democratic party leader in your area (usually organized by county) and say that you want to contact this person with your concerns.
Never, Never, Never get angry or complain. Always try to ask intelligent questions which are focused on the legislation or the problem and TAKE NOTES ON THE RESPONSES. The staff and legislator should be giving you thoughtful responses that explain why an action was taken. Your job is to use common sense and good reasoning to counter the sweet talk. Keep prodding with questions. Act like you are a pillar of the community and that you are faced with a dilemma between loyalty to the local ruling party and the community's environmental health. Don't freak out and froth at the mouth like a militia weenie.
Be friendly and understand that the legislator is there because he/she cares about his community. Every legislator I have had to deal with is caring person who wants to do right. Unfortunately many decisions that the legislator makes have winners and losers. This time, the lakes and streams lost.
3. Ask your regional Michigan Department of Agriculture representative for a list of operations with a Livestock Dealer Permit in your county or counties in your watershed, or call the Animal Industry Division -- 517-373-1077. To find the phone number of your local MDA representative, go to: http://www.mda.state.mi.us/about/regions/index.html
It is now up to the citizen to identify farming industry operations which are not following Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices. There is no state overview or regulation! To read the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Manure Runoff Control and Wastewater Management: http://www.mda.state.mi.us/right2farm/Manure/manrun.html
4. Learn about the threats to your watershed and find out what you can do to protect water quality. Join your local watershed committee, if one exists, or start one. The Michigan Lake and Stream Associations, Inc. can help you find your watershed committee or help start one.
As you learn more about the bill, you can react intelligently. Look into local concerns with your local lake, stream or river. Are there high amounts of nutrients? Are there many weeds? Are there pesticides being applied to fields near the water? Are their farms in the watershed? Do you know of any feedlots or intensive animal farming operations in the watershed? What streams or branches are they located on? What is the water quality of these watercourses? Surf Your Watershed, EPA, is a good source fo info for Michigan watersheds.
Finally, tell other people about this bill. Try to get them to sign your faxes along with you. Leave copies of your letters at the local fishing supply or outdoors store. Find others, especially groups that would be willing to start asking the same questions as those above. Talk about the bill in ways other people can relate to. Bringing this bill to light is the only way to get the legislators working to fix it.
MORE INFORMATION:
Pollution Prevention Strategy for Michigan Agriculture
Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices for Manure Management and Utilization
Runoff Control and Wastewater Management
Michigan's Nonpoint Source Program
MDEQ Surface Water Quality Division
Please respond with comments and advice to:
Paul VandenBosch
This article may be reproduced and published at will.