Farm Bureau monitoring ag funding, permitting reforms in budget talks

“Michigan lawmakers still have a lot of work ahead before the state budget is finalized,” said Michigan Farm Bureau Legislative Counsel Rebecca Park. 

“Between a divided Legislature, a projected revenue shortfall, and competing priorities like road funding and income taxes, this year’s budget process has been especially challenging.”

Park explained that since the May Revenue Estimating Conference forecast a $320 million revenue shortfall, lawmakers have faced increasing pressure to weigh every state program carefully against limited resources. “It has really forced both the House and Senate to take a hard look at their spending priorities,” she said.

With budget deadlines looming, legislative leaders will soon convene conference committees and work with the Whitmer administration to find common ground between the House, Senate, and Governor’s proposals. 

For Michigan agriculture, what happens next carries significant weight.

Agriculture funding

The Senate’s budget for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) represents nearly a 2% increase over current spending. By contrast, the House’s proposal cuts MDARD funding by more than 34% — a difference that will be central to negotiations in the weeks ahead.

Here’s how the House and Senate compare to the Governor’s recommendations on key agriculture programs:

MSU Extension & AgBioResearch (within the higher education budget)

• Governor: 3% increase
• Senate: 2% increase
• House: 1% decrease

Michigan Alliance for Animal Agriculture

• Governor and Senate: $3 million maintained
• House: eliminates funding 

Agricultural Climate Resiliency

• Governor and Senate: $2 million ongoing funding
• House: no funding

Animal Disease Prevention & Response

• Governor and Senate: largely unchanged
• House: $3.7 million reduction and 11 staff positions cut

Conservation Districts

• Governor, Senate and House: $3 million maintained
• Senate combines this with Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program funds

Double Up Food Bucks

• Governor and Senate: $5 million maintained
• House: $3.75 million reduction

Protecting Michigan’s Food Supply

• Governor: $5.5 million new program
• Senate: $4 million
• House: no funding

Farm to Family

• Governor and Senate: $3 million maintained
• House: eliminates funding and 6 employees

Qualified Forest Program

• Governor and Senate: funding unchanged (~$8 million)
• House: $1.6 million cut

House budget adds EGLE permitting reform proposals

Beyond funding levels, the House budget includes boilerplate provisions aimed at reforming the permitting process within the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE).

“These recommendations speak to our members who are navigating the state’s permitting process and want greater transparency, accountability, and clearer guidance when it comes to environmental regulations,” said MFB Associate Legislative Counsel Josh Scramlin.

Key provisions include:

Justification for permit standard changes

• What: EGLE would be required to provide written justification for any modifications to permit standards, citing either statute or administrative rule. If neither exists, scientific justification must be provided.
• Why: Farm Bureau members face unclear or shifting standards, making compliance difficult. This change would increase transparency and consistency.

Discounted permit fees for delayed approvals

• What: Permit fees would be reduced by 10% for every full 30 days beyond a defined review timeframe that applications remain unprocessed.
• Why: Some permits have been delayed far beyond the statutory deadline. A fee reduction would add accountability and relief for applicants.

Stakeholder-developed permitting guidebooks

• What: EGLE would work with technical experts to develop practical, user-friendly permitting guidebooks, starting with areas like groundwater discharge for large livestock operations and food processors.
• Why: The current lack of clear guidance creates confusion and delays; stakeholder involvement would ensure materials reflect real-world needs.

“These proposals could have a big impact on efficiency and transparency that benefits both the regulatory agency and the permit applicants and holders they serve,” Scramlin added.

What’s next?

Park emphasized that budget negotiations are far from over. 

“Conference committees will work through these differences over the coming weeks,” she said. “Guided by Farm Bureau’s member-developed policy, our job is to ensure lawmakers understand how these funding decisions — and policy provisions — will impact Michigan farmers, rural communities, and the state’s entire food and agriculture system.”

She noted one example in the House budget that raises questions for Farm Bureau: a provision requiring the use of E-Verify for contractors and subcontractors working with MDARD and DHHS programs. “Because many of our farmers engage with these departments through grant programs and charitable food programs, we need clarity on which programs this requirement would impact and how it would be implemented,” Park said.

With so much on the line for Michigan agriculture, Farm Bureau will continue monitoring the process and advocating for programs and policies, grounded in member priorities, that support farmers, protect the food supply, and strengthen rural economies.