Michigan farmland is enhanced by an adequate and well-managed drain system. Over half of Michigan's farmland requires drainage to produce food, feed and fiber.
We support:
- Members obtaining and recording drainage easements for private drains crossing neighboring properties.
- Requiring an individual or entity who breaks or damages a properly functioning and marked tile or properly marked outlet to be responsible for returning the tile to operational condition within 30 days.
- Legislation revoking the 1982 Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) Rule 8 under Part 31 Rules for Inland Lakes and Streams, designating several drains as mainstream portions of eleven natural water courses. If the rule is not revoked, EGLE should be responsible for paying maintenance costs of the waterways according to county drain standards.
- Landowners taking a proactive role and/or being timely notified and involved with their drain or water resources commissioners in routine drain maintenance and emergency repairs.
- Drain or water resources commissioners offering incentives or credits for landowners who properly maintain drains located on their property.
- Landowners voluntarily contributing to county drain maintenance through appropriate soil conservation practices working with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and county drain or water resources commissioners.
- Michigan Farm Bureau providing farmers and members with a better understanding of the Michigan Drain Code by creating an educational series available to the public.
- The Michigan Drain Code provides a legal framework for landowners to organize to solve mutual drainage problems for their benefit. We support the following provisions in the drain code:
- The authority for administering the drain code should be maintained within the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the office of the drain or water resources commissioner at the local level.
- If existing ditches are moved at the request of the county or county road commission, the additional cost should be the responsibility of the county or county road commission's project.
- Current exemptions for drain maintenance within state statute are appropriate and should be maintained.
- Increasing the limit on drainage maintenance assessments (such as $10,000 per mile), and payback time, to allow drain work to be done more efficiently and at a lower cost.
Urbanization, agriculture and technology have increased the need for water resource management. Institutional structures such as the Michigan Drain Code, Subdivision Control Act, and Wetlands Protection Act, lack the necessary uniformity to provide water management standards that meet today's demands and tomorrow's needs. Revisions to the drain code that benefit agriculture are necessary to address the following concerns.
We support:
- The concept of watershed management plan development with collaboration between drain or water resources commissioners, township and municipal officials, landowners, and conservation districts, and/or NRCS, and Army Corps of Engineers that improves county drain function. Watershed management boards should include representation from affected county road commissions and landowners throughout the watershed selected by county commissioners. Watershed management plans developed by these boards should be subject to review by county commissioners with the authority to approve, amend, or reject plans.
- The limited use of eminent domain to take private property for projects in watershed or drainage district management plans.
- Elimination of the current exemption allowing non-elected drain or water resources commissioners.
- All land in a drainage district being assessed according to benefits derived, including public lands.
- Requiring that special assessment notices include the estimated percentage and dollar amounts apportioned to the recipient’s land, the estimated annual total of project assessments, and the estimated project assessment duration.
- Keeping records of public drain work in a manner so the public can view them and understand the scope of work completed and the cost associated with the types and dates of maintenance performed on a drain.
- Drain or water resources commissioners providing notice of timing and duration of scheduled drain maintenance projects to affected landowners.
- Requiring performance bonds on work done on intercounty drains where project construction costs exceed $100,000.
- Clarification that no drainage district should be extended or established for the purpose of removing sediment from man-made reservoirs on rivers or drains.
- The drain or water resources commissioner directing the deployment of drain sediments, both organic and inorganic, to adjacent land as required to minimize sediment return to the drain.
- The drain or water resources commissioner being responsible for removing blockage of a natural watercourse if it affects the function of a county drain.
- The use of current technology.
- For new construction, a description of the work to be performed being provided to owners of property abutting the drain at least 10 days prior to the start of construction to ensure appropriate planning to handle increased storm water due to development. Alternatives to storm water retention ponds should be considered.
- Exploring strategies for a major investment into our county drain system, such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, a dedicated statewide fund, or other new revenue sources that lower the burden on landowners.
- The creation of a taskforce comprised of farmers, stakeholders, and state lawmakers to explore and evaluate current statute that allows county drain commissioners the almost unlimited power of taxation for drainage projects.
We oppose:
- Changes to rules developed under the Inland Lakes and Streams Act that increase regulatory burdens on farmers, drain or water resources commissioners, or road commissioners.
- Requiring all ditches to be two-stage ditches and/or requiring additional engineering or planning on every new or established drain.
- Using state funding to purchase farmland to construct retention wetlands for private benefit.
- The implementation of structures affecting the flow in waterways that negatively impacts agriculture.