Search Results

1941–1950 of 3137 results

Farmland Protection #75

Disabled

We support the creation and effective implementation of both temporary and permanent farmland protection tools to stabilize the land base, help maintain the agricultural industry's competitive position, and aggressively increase its economic value to producers and the state. A successful approach to farmland protection will require a combination of strong local leadership and effective state support.

We believe an investment in farmland protection is an investment in the future of agriculture and the next generation of Michigan farmers and citizens.

A Strategic Approach

Farmland protection initiatives should strengthen the agricultural industry and maintain producer flexibility and control.

We support:

A voluntary, coordinated, and incentive-driven approach at the state and local levels that protects large blocks of farmland and increases the opportunity for economically viable agriculture.
Reviewing the local revenue-sharing formula and investigating the merits of linking revenue sharing to effective farmland preservation and urban redevelopment.

Funding Farmland Protection

We support Michigan Farm Bureau and county Farm Bureaus to continue working with partners to develop innovative farmland protection funding approaches at the state and local level, including tax relief based on parcel size and duration of ownership and the linking of urban development tax credits with greenfield preservation, in addition to established concepts including conversion fees, millage proposals, tax credits, and recapture penalties.

We support:

PA 116

The Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program (commonly known as PA 116) as an effective voluntary method of protecting farmland while giving farmers needed tax relief.
Refraining from future changes to existing contracts that risk eroding the integrity of the program.
Local units of government zoning land under PA 116 contracts as agriculture and identifying it as agriculture in their master plan.
All PA 116 tax credit recapture revenue being deposited into the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) Agricultural Preservation Fund.
Continued and aggressive use of PA 116 by creating additional incentives to maintain and increase participation.
Additional funding and staffing of MDARD and the Michigan Department of Treasury to administer PA 116 and process refunds in a timely manner.
MDARD and the Michigan Department of Treasury developing better communication to resolve issues with PA 116 tax returns.
Requiring the State to pay penalties for late issuance of PA 116 refunds to landowners.
Protection and exemption from special assessments excluding agricultural drainage.
Land currently enrolled in the PA 116 program not being eligible for commercial solar project development.

Agricultural Preservation Fund

Aggressive funding of the Agricultural Preservation Fund. Funding opportunities can include but should not be limited to bond issues, conversion fees, property transfer fees, the lease of mineral rights from state-owned land, and general appropriations.
Clarification of the “conflict of interest” policy for grants, including language such as “If an applicant has a conflict of interest, they shall abstain from participating if and when their application comes before the public body upon which they serve.”
The landowner option of spreading the Development Rights payments over a period of years.

Agricultural Security Areas

Legislation establishing voluntary Agricultural Security Areas to place temporary, long-term agricultural conservation easements on farmland.

Urban Revitalization

State programs incentivizing the redevelopment of brownfield properties in Michigan in an effort to stop the loss of farmland.
The improvement of cities, greater utilization of current infrastructure, and redevelopment of existing brownfields to reduce pressure to develop farmland.

Transfer of Development Rights

Transfer of development rights to facilitate the voluntary preservation of farmland where needed while allowing land development in appropriate areas without using public funds.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

If you’re a Farm Bureau member and have an idea or amendment that you think should be Farm Bureau policy, we want to hear it! Our quick online form makes it easy to get involved in Farm Bureau’s policy-setting process.

Submit Policy Idea

Land Acquisitions for Public Projects #78

Disabled

The condemnation of property by eminent domain should be permitted only in conformance with the amended State Constitution and when there is a clear need.

When the eminent domain provision is used to acquire easements, rights-of-way, leases, etc. through a farm, condemnation payments need to reflect the loss of value to the entire parcel. If property is taken for public ownership, such as for roads and bridges, the minimum payment should be two times its present value. If property is taken for private ownership, such as for shopping centers and utility uses, the minimum payment should be three times its present value.

We support:

Legislation to stop or limit developmental grants or other state, local or federal funding to entities using condemnation procedures for private ownership.
Direct and verifiable communication in plain language informing landowners of projects seeking eminent domain.
Agricultural land not ranking lower than other types of land when calculating impact statements.
A complete agricultural impact statement before productive agricultural land is condemned. The statement should evaluate all direct and indirect physical and economic impacts to agriculture.
The concept of no-net gain for state and federal ownership of land in Michigan. An environmental impact statement should be a prerequisite for any eminent domain proceeding.
Efforts to further strengthen property rights of Michigan property owners, including additional opportunities for judicial review in eminent domain takings.
Landowners having at least five years from the time of the original settlement in which to negotiate claims for damages in eminent domain cases.
Permanent easements being given to the owners of property left land-locked through land acquired by public entities and utility companies.
Michigan Farm Bureau working with public utility companies to ensure they pay fair and reasonable rental rates to landowners for easements.

We oppose:

The taking of property by the government for the purpose of development of privately-owned projects.
The ability of non-elected public or private boards, agencies, or commissions to utilize the eminent domain process.
The practice of acquiring new rights-of-way through farmland when nearby public corridors exist, such as railways, highways, power lines, and pipelines.
Property being condemned in fee title if a lesser interest will suffice. In cases where any portion of condemned land is not needed at the completion of a public project, is abandoned, or is no longer used for the purpose stated, the landowner should have the right of first refusal at the price paid by the government entity.
The use of eminent domain for solar or wind energy projects.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Air Quality #71

Disabled

Changes to state and federal air quality standards and lawsuits driven by environmental groups impact farms by forcing the development of regulation and law in the absence of sound science. We insist government air quality policies be based on sound science and consider economic impact.

Federal and state air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter (dust), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and others consider agricultural practices such as livestock production facilities, fuel combustion, diesel emissions, and dust from soil tillage, crop harvesting, grain mills, grain elevators and value-added processing plants as potential sources of air quality concerns.

We urge Michigan Farm Bureau to seek out major university research on agricultural air quality standards and best management practices. We urge MFB to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to recognize normal agricultural production practices and the associated air particulate generated.

We support:

MFB educating members on air quality and how this issue impacts members and Michigan agriculture.
The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as lead agency for all agricultural air quality concerns.
The Michigan Right to Farm Act as the primary means for farmers to address air quality concerns. Regulatory provisions exempting farmers who conform to Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices from nuisance regulation must remain in law.
A scientific, practice-based approach to meet air quality objectives.
Re-evaluation of emissions standards for farm and ranch equipment and other non-highway use machinery.

We oppose:

Air emission permits for agriculture more stringent than federal rules and regulations and not science or practice-based.
Applying air quality regulations to areas of Michigan that are not pollution sources. Pollutants measured in areas of Michigan not meeting air quality standards may originate in urban/industrial settings far removed from the monitored area. Air quality concerns should be addressed at their source.
Enforcing air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter on farms and agricultural businesses voluntarily implementing effective environmental conservation practices.
Further emission control requirements for agricultural equipment and practices.
Any ban on the burning of biodegradable household waste.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Carbon Sequestration and Ecosystem Services Markets #72

Disabled

Ecosystem services markets are rapidly evolving. These would include carbon sequestration, phosphorus reduction, water quality and conservation, and others. Ecosystem services markets typically function with a financial exchange for outcomes (credits).

We support:

Ecosystem services markets to remain voluntary.
Sound science and public research related to ecosystem services credits addressing Michigan’s diverse agricultural industries.
Standardization, transparency, and clarity related to ecosystem services enrollment contracts, pricing, and credit(s).
Using updated models to estimate emissions for program standards.
Compensation and recognition for agricultural practices that keep carbon in the soil or in plant material.
Farmers receiving credit or compensation for maintaining previous or existing practices.
The length of time that farmers are compensated to be consistent with the length of practice implementation.
Producers being able to utilize USDA cost-share programs alongside carbon and ecosystem services programs to better support the return on investment of conservation practice adoption.
Michigan Farm Bureau staff, Michigan State University staff, and others in their mission to support farmers as they navigate carbon sequestration/ecosystem services credits contracting.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Game Farms and Hunting Preserves #76

Disabled

Michigan game breeders and hunting preserves that breed, feed, and graze privately-owned animals are an integral part of the agricultural economy of the state. The industry is concerned about increased government restrictions on the use of farms for hunting.

We support:

Legislation providing opportunities and protection for this growing segment of Michigan agriculture, including privately-owned Cervidae and other similar species.
The elimination of feral swine.
The invasive species order that went into effect on October 8, 2011, naming certain species of swine as invasive.

Continued development and implementation of regulations on swine hunting facilities should include, but not be limited to:

Disease testing and record keeping for all incoming and outgoing animals.
Strict fencing requirements to eliminate the risk of recreationally hunted swine escaping into the wild.
Following all standard accepted practices for swine meat production operations moving animals interstate and internationally.
Hunting swine populations consisting only of sterile animals.
Permanent individual animal identification on all animals used for breeding and stocking swine in hunting facilities.
All cost of regulation being paid for by a licensing fee.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Climate Change #73

Disabled

Farmers were the original environmental pioneers and have led the environmental movement regarding land, water, and air quality since the beginning of agrarian practices. We urge Michigan Farm Bureau, with the assistance of Michigan State University, to research and communicate to its membership the impact climate change legislation and policies and the resulting legislative and policy changes will have on our industry.

We support:

Research and investments to assist agriculture/forestry in adapting to climate variability.

We oppose:

Mandatory restrictions to achieve agricultural greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Mandates, such as carbon taxes or fees and cap and trade policies.
State or federal mandates that are not fully funded.
Any attempt to regulate emissions from animals
Emission control rules for farming practices, farm equipment, grain handling facilities, etc.
The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy involvement in the state’s determination of energy needs; that is the role of the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Non-scientific assumptions linking biofuel production and international land use.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy #81

Enabled

Regulatory Authority and Responsibility

To protect the environment, ensure public safety, and enhance production agriculture, we challenge state and federal agencies to work together to produce more user-friendly programs that provide clear direction and consistent regulatory authority. Oversight should focus on solving problems and not simply on penalizing the regulated community. We support the current statute in Part 31 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) that prohibits the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (MDEGLE) from promulgating (putting into effect) rules under this part. If MDEGLE is granted rulemaking authority, we support requiring enhanced legislative oversight of the rulemaking process to minimize economic impacts to the regulated community.

Farmers who violate state environmental law are under the jurisdiction of MDEGLE. While the vast majority of farms put forth a considerable effort and are environmentally safe, we recognize the potential for environmental problems.

Environmental Enforcement and Standards

We encourage Michigan Farm Bureau to work with state and federal agencies, land grant universities and stakeholder groups to develop standards indicating agriculture’s positive impact on the environment. We believe environmental credit standards should be developed and applied against any new regulations to offset the regulatory burden on producers. State regulations and standards enforced by MDEGLE should not be more restrictive than federal standards.

In addition to providing pollution prevention programs for all farms, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) should have an increased role in providing regulatory certainty to Michigan agriculture.

We support:

Timely, effective and consistent enforcement of environmental laws and issuance of permits.
Standards for dam management, maintenance, and purchases in cooperation with federal agencies.
Timely enforcement of water quality standards using credible data. We urge MFB to pursue legislation on credible data and how it may be used to better invoke sound science in regulation of water quality, air quality and water quantity.
Applying sound science and performing economic impact analysis to MDEGLE rules and standards prior to promulgation.
Maximum use of Natural Resources Conservation Service standards within MDEGLE regulations.
Appropriate timelines for producer implementation of regulations.
MDARD intervention on behalf of farmers in legal actions if the farmer has worked with state agencies to address pollution challenges.
Development of a third-party arbitration process for disputes between MDEGLE and a farmer.
MDEGLE being responsible to pay legal fees incurred by the respondent from a wrongful enforcement action if the enforcement action is settled, a consent agreement is reached, or the action is decided in the respondent’s favor.
PA 268 of 2018 creating the MDEGLE Appeals Board.
Using funds derived from enforcement penalties to support pollution prevention in agriculture.
Authorizing permits at the local level in accordance with state and federal rules to provide for more timely decisions.
Allowing water quality testing in lieu of existing well setback standards to satisfy the siting requirement.
A farm’s ability to move portable toilets within and between their farms.

Manure, Nutrient, and Fuel Management

We support:

The continued ability for farmers of all sizes to manifest, move or sell animal nutrients from their farm to another farm/owner. We will vigorously oppose any attempts to limit or eliminate the ability of agriculture to utilize animal nutrients when they are being utilized according to nutrient requirements and at agronomic rates.
The continuation of manure application to frozen or snow-covered ground in accordance with the Manure Management and Utilization Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). We will vigorously oppose any attempt to eliminate the practice.
The continued practice of broadcasting and injecting nutrients, including manure, in accordance with best practices identified in the Nutrient Utilization GAAMP.
Allowing the application of animal nutrients to non-frozen, non-snow-covered ground any time during the year, regardless of type or size of farm operation.
Updating fertilizer and manure nutrient utilization guidelines.
MDEGLE accepting third-party determinations that an existing manure storage structure is functioning properly for regulatory purposes.
Regulatory recognition of the influence of extreme weather (e.g., rainfall, snow melt) on farming practices.
Flexibility for unlimited on-farm fuel, chemical and fertilizer storage with consistent and adequate containment standards.
Consistency of fuel, chemical and fertilizer containment structure regulations across governmental agencies.

Processing Wastewater and Groundwater Regulation

We support:

MFB proactively working with MDEGLE to seek solutions that support changes to the regulatory requirement that allow ag processors to land apply wastewater without permitting under a specifically defined set of circumstances.
MDARD working with MDEGLE to implement a threshold below which no Groundwater Discharge permit or testing is required for agricultural processing discharge.
MDARD assisting MDEGLE to determine appropriate treatment of all types of processing wastewater (breweries, distilleries, fruit and vegetable producers, sugar processing, etc.) that generate high-strength wastewater that has nutrients useful for land application.
MFB continuing to work with MDEGLE on development of a general permit specific to slaughterhouses that permits land application of process wastewater without advance treatment.
Allowing septic haulers licensed under Part 117 of NREPA to also haul food processing wastewater and not requiring them to be licensed as industrial haulers under NREPA Part 121.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

We support:

Legislative or administrative changes to require a formal committee of appropriate stakeholders to be involved in all permit developments and rewrites so that input is balanced. All NPDES writing or rewrite committees should be chaired by an unbiased third-party individual.
An evaluation of the NPDES permitting process in Michigan with changes to allow long-term certainty for the ag industry and which eliminate the change that takes place for all industries every time a new administration is elected in our state. We support a study committee by MFB to establish this evaluation and make recommendations.
Amending state laws to more clearly define MDEGLE’s regulatory authority under NPDES permits and where they have no authority, especially animal health which falls under the authority of the Animal Industry Act and wildlife, which falls under the authority of the state veterinarian or the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
Amending or repealing Part 17 of NREPA to prevent predatory litigation by special interests to penalize farmers operating under legitimate permits issued by MDEGLE.
Timely issuance of NPDES permits, in accordance with state and federal rules.
MFB continuing efforts to eliminate state regulation of animal agriculture more restrictive than federal requirements, including lowering permitting thresholds.
Reduced permit paperwork requirements and an increased focus on performance with minimized costs to permitted farms.
Increasing incentives for permitted farms to become Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program verified such as limiting annual reporting requirements.
Application of permit standards in force at the time of permit application.
An appropriate phase-in period for any change in permit requirements.
Implementation of permit requirements derived with scientifically verifiable standards as provided in administrative rules.
MDEGLE adopting Environmental Protection Agency aquaculture effluent guidelines and promoting feed-based Best Management Practices discharge standards.
Development of a General Permit for aquaculture for up to 200,000 pounds of production.

We oppose:

Classification of manure, sand, accidental commodity spillage, and ag processing by-products as hazardous waste.
Taxation and/or fees assessed on the nutrient content of manure.
Public access to agricultural information on the MiEnviro Portal online permitting database.
Legislation inhibiting the viability of agriculture.
Decisions made in response to emotion instead of science, law and common sense.
Arbitrary moratoriums affecting the growth of animal agriculture, including limits on animal expansion and storage structure size.
State agencies labeling or identifying farm operations, such as CAFO, GMO, or other labels, in any form of communication, no matter the size of operation or requirement of permits.
Well setback distances from agriculture practices greater than 75 feet, as listed in the Grade A Dairy Law.

Response to Environmental Scrutiny

Public scrutiny of agriculture and increased regulation continues to challenge farmers to improve farm management and protect the environment. We urge all members to voluntarily implement pollution prevention practices. The agricultural community realizes the need to protect the environment; however, when regulations limit agricultural viability, we believe it is time to take a more aggressive approach to protect our industry. Michigan producers and MFB should aggressively work to counter propaganda that depicts production agriculture in Michigan as abusers of the environment.

The harassment of farmers adhering to the State's pollution prevention program for agriculture shall not be tolerated. We support requiring MDEGLE to notify local law enforcement and authorities before any actions are taken against farms. Individuals who lodge complaints with MDEGLE against farms must be required to provide their name for public record. If an individual makes more than three unverified complaints within three years, that individual must pay for the complaint investigation.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Water Use in the Great Lakes Basin #87

Enabled

The Great Lakes Basin represents the largest reserve of fresh water in the world. This unique resource should be used in a responsible manner and protected for future generations and the future of Michigan agriculture. Food and fiber production is in the public interest, is a reasonable use of water, and provides economic and ecological benefits to the Great Lakes Basin.

Michigan Water Law and Policy

Management of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin does not require water use permitting. Burdensome regulation is not necessary to protect the Great Lakes and could challenge the competitiveness of Michigan farms. Any laws regarding water use permitting must be carefully examined and opposed if they do not include the following provisions:

No fees may EVER be charged for agricultural water use.
Existing documented surface and groundwater uses and sites must be grandfathered.
Public hearings must take place in the watershed areas before consideration of any reclassification.
All reclassification notices should be given at a minimum of 180 days before hearings.
Water use permits for withdrawals supplying a common distribution system of less than two million gallons per day in any 90-day consecutive period for agriculture must be handled by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD).
Municipalities or other governments with jurisdiction over artificial impoundments, such as ponds and lakes, should be allowed to reduce water levels to remove accumulated sediments.

We support:

An increased role in any current or future state water use committees due to the diversity of Michigan agriculture.
The State of Michigan making every effort to approve agricultural water withdrawals in a timely manner.
MDARD being the primary department for agricultural water use reporting and conflict resolution.
Basing all water use policies and regulations on validated scientific research.
Landowners receiving water recharge credit for maintaining open, undeveloped ground. Water use reporting should include “water in” (rainfall) provisions. We encourage the development of incentives for farmers who recover more water than they use.
Legislation strengthening Michigan’s authority to conserve and protect the waters of the Great Lakes Basin.
Including agricultural water uses in the Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP). The state should be required to have a greater burden of proof in determining a water use is causing an adverse resource impact if the verified producer is addressing applicable water conservation measures through MAEAP.
The inclusion of scientifically sound, environmentally protective and economically feasible water conservation measures in Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices.
Increased development and use of Michigan’s Wellogic database of well drilling logs. Accurate records of existing uses including residential wells are needed to assess Michigan water supplies and use.
Seasonal exemptions in Michigan’s Well Code for shallow aquifer water withdrawals regardless of well depth.

Water Withdrawal Assessment

Michigan has implemented an online science-based water withdrawal assessment tool (WWAT). As there are significant differences between Michigan regions regarding water availability and use, we recognize a “one size fits all” solution may not be the best answer. The process has experienced complications and technical difficulties. According to the Michigan Geological Survey, the current data used in the WWAT is insufficient to adequately map and assess Michigan’s groundwater resources and consider applications for groundwater withdrawal. Although the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (MDEGLE) reported the WWAT provides automatic authorization for withdrawals in nearly 70 percent of all applications statewide, Michigan Farm Bureau believes continued improvement of the WWAT is needed, including but not limited to the following:

Continued MFB leadership in implementing the state’s water withdrawal assessment law in accordance with MFB policy.
Additional data collection and model enhancement with the latest scientific data so streamflow depletion predictions agree with actual results of water withdrawals.
Continued refinement of the WWAT accounting for regional variability and privately collected data.
Requiring MDEGLE through legislation or legal action to update the WWAT and the site-specific review process based upon current research data and enhanced models.
University research to verify accuracy of the WWAT.
An exemption from the WWAT for withdrawals where the potential for adverse resource impact is negligible based on the collection and analysis of field data using industry standards, methodology and practices.
Privately researched data collected in accordance with standard research protocols being included into the WWAT and accepted by the MDEGLE, as well as MDARD.
MDARD and MDEGLE, with input of stakeholders, developing and using a standardized template for site specific reviews of high-capacity agricultural water withdrawals.
Completing the comprehensive water use study in Southwest Michigan to collect the data necessary to make appropriate changes within the WWAT.
The changes made by PA 209 of 2018 to provide an optional alternate process for site specific reviews of high-capacity water withdrawals. This law is based on updated scientific modeling and provides a more accurate reflection of the regional variability of water use impacts. Additionally, the law clarifies MDEGLE’s role and timeframes for review and approval of withdrawal applications under the new process. We encourage MFB to oversee the implementation of the law and develop educational information about the process for members.

Aquifer Conflicts

We support the Aquifer Conflict and Dispute Resolution law and further support the following changes to the process:

MDARD shall certify well drillers to verify complaints by onsite inspection. These contracted well drillers will be ineligible to replace, repair or modify any well they are sent to inspect.
The owner of a high-capacity well should not be assumed at fault until proven otherwise.
The law should establish a statute of limitations and release from future claims.

Research and Education

We support:

Research enhancing the understanding of water resources, validating the ecological benefits of agriculture’s role in the water cycle, and leading to increased agricultural water use efficiency.
MFB developing partnerships to increase education and promoting the value of agricultural water use to the public.
MFB and partners such as conservation districts facilitating the formation of farmer collectives to gather and share data and develop regional models to assess and predict water use impacts.
Increasing education, financial and technical assistance for farmers who participate in voluntary, incentive-driven water use conservation programs.
The voluntary use of monitoring wells.
Seeking new and expanded opportunities to reclaim and recycle water.
Water use record keeping on farms to increase water use efficiencies, protect producer rights to water access and validate agricultural water use as a high priority.
Working with well drillers to ensure they have sufficient understanding of geological and hydrologic processes to provide the best possible knowledge and service to clients and the most accurate and useful reporting of data to the State, including groundwater location and availability, and soil and geological formations. We encourage landowners voluntarily submitting geological samples to the Michigan Geological Survey and developing a trust fund to protect participants against liability for negative sample analysis findings.
Investigating funding sources for geological mapping.
The findings of the Southwest Michigan Water Resource Council, which was charged with studying water resources in the region.

We oppose:

Any water allocation system preempting surface water riparian doctrine or groundwater rights.
Applying a “public trust doctrine” to groundwater.
Diverting water in its natural state from the Great Lakes Basin.
The definition of consumptive use as applied to agriculture.
Legislative or regulatory efforts resulting from federal, regional, state and/or local initiatives that adversely impact agriculture.
The State of Michigan removing dams located on drains and waterways recharging aquifers of the state and not requiring owners of existing dams to maintain them.
Attempts to limit efficient agricultural water use.
Water use prioritization.
Filing fees for agricultural water use reporting.
Using collected agricultural water use data for regulatory purposes or to advance agendas in opposition to efficient agricultural water use.
Well code changes placing economic or regulatory burdens on landowners in the absence of sound science.
Any attempt to turn water into a commodity.
The Environmental Protection Agency designating interstate aquifers as “sole source aquifers.”
Fraudulent use of the WWAT to register a water withdrawal.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Nonpoint Source Pollution and Watershed Management #82

Disabled

Farmers, along with other rural and urban residents, are concerned about nonpoint source pollution of Michigan's surface and groundwater. Protecting surface and groundwater from contamination is a priority and we recognize agriculture shares the responsibility with many others.

Nonpoint source pollution prevention programs implemented by state and federal agencies should reflect a coordinated, integrated and consistent management approach. The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) should coordinate all agricultural nonpoint source pollution programs.

Michigan's conservation districts are an important component of MDARD’s nonpoint source pollution programs. These voluntary programs are best administered by locally elected conservation district boards who understand their community's needs and problems.

Agriculture should lead watershed management, or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will make efforts to place permits on the industry. We encourage full representation of agricultural interests in watershed initiative projects funded through the Clean Water Act. Any management practices prescribed by the project should be voluntary rather than mandatory. Municipalities share the same responsibilities to our environment and should be held to the same standards and penalties as private individuals.

We support:

Fertilizer and Nutrient Management

All fertilizer retailers becoming certified in the 4R (Right fertilizer source, Right rate, Right time, Right place) Nutrient Stewardship Program and/or similar fertilizer management efforts.
Michigan Farm Bureau coordinating with neighboring states and Canada where a watershed is shared to reduce nutrient loading issues.
University, state and federal programs promptly updating guidelines when nutrient research is completed, so farmers have time to implement them.
Additional research on dissolved phosphorus.
Continued education on appropriate phosphorus and other nutrient use.
Biosolid applications being consistent with the guidelines in the Michigan Water Environment Association’s Land Application of Biosolids in Michigan Management Recommendations.
The current regulated use of biosolids as a source of nutrients on farmland as allowed in the Right to Farm Act.
Research in Michigan to determine the safe levels of emerging contaminants (including per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS) in biosolids that will be applied to land used for crop production.
Michigan developing standards to keep biosolids a feasible crop production nutrient source, without the risk of soil contamination by emerging contaminants (including PFAS) from any applied biosolid.

Conservation and Pollution Prevention Programs

The farm bill providing opportunities for farmers to address conservation programs on farms.
The continued refining of conservation program delivery to ensure the process is transparent, consistent and simple to participating farmers. We appreciate newly available technical and financial assistance to address on-farm above-ground fuel tanks and liquid fertilizer storage.
Developing nutrient management plans for all farms.
Continuing the cost-share provided to producers for conservation practices.
A state-funded cover crop and filter strip cost-share program.
The Clean Sweep Program with MDARD accepting responsibility for future liability for chemicals collected.
Legislation clarifying forest management practices are not point sources of pollution.
Developing baseline environmental standards for agriculture in line with current production standards and methods.
Coordinated efforts to expedite soil stabilization permits.
Scientific, site-specific testing protocols and/or landowner consent prior to the state and federal agencies determining an area is contaminated, with testing costs, loss of land value, and indemnification being the responsibility of the state and/or federal government if the contamination is not the fault of the landowner.
The acting agency being held liable for current and future losses and expenses; including but not limited to, loss of value of commodities, loss of land, loss of business, etc. and for complete indemnification of everything a farm loses when the agency decides a farm's soil, water, crops, or livestock is contaminated, when the contamination is not the landowner’s fault.
Funding for research and collaboration between agencies, universities, and the private sector to evaluate the health risks and strategies for mitigating risks associated with chemical contaminants in water and food.
Using sound science to determine the level of impact of emerging contaminant (including PFAS) issues. Before any new regulations are developed the financial impact and liability to the affected community must be determined.
MDARD, working in cooperation with MDEGLE and local governments, overseeing the disposal of moderately contaminated watershed sediments on farm lands containing greater levels of the identified contaminants.
Legislation providing liability protection to farmers who follow the label directions, pertinent regulations, and Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for fertilizers and pesticides.
Legislation providing financial support to farms that have been determined by the state to be contaminated with PFAS and other emerging contaminants.
MFB being involved in fiscally responsible strategies to fund voluntary conservation practices.
The existing Soil and Sedimentation Control Act exemption for plowing, tilling and other agricultural and land improvement activities.
Eliminating the acreage cap for Michigan’s Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program.

Water Quality and Watershed Management

Use of the Saginaw Bay Optimization Model.
The Lake Erie Domestic Action Plan.
Prioritizing funding for conservation practices to address impaired waters.
Streamlining the process of allocating funds to improve water quality at the farm level.
The use of sound science to determine water quality.
MFB taking a leadership role in developing protocols for water quality monitoring.
An unbiased study to determine contributors negatively impacting water quality before additional regulations are imposed upon agriculture.
Farm Bureau members participating in voluntary water quality monitoring programs, in which results are kept confidential.
Farmer representation on local boards and commissions making decisions on environmental policies such as land use and watershed planning.
Encouraging state and local governments to utilize buffer strips around government owned buildings and parking areas.

We oppose:

Water quality monitoring of ditches and streams selectively performed to incriminate individuals and not performed by certified individuals in accordance with MDEGLE protocols.
Any fertilizer and pesticide use regulation by local government more restrictive than MDARD and EPA regulations.
Farmers being presumed to cause pollution of public or private water supplies near agricultural operations.
Additional environmental permits for agricultural non-point source pollution.
Restricting phosphorus for agricultural use if producers follow GAAMPs or soil testing by a certified lab.
Giving legal standing or rights to natural resources and bodies of water.
A statewide septic code that requires mandatory inspections of private septic systems.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea

Land Use #79

Disabled

Local land use planning in Michigan is essential for the long-term viability of all communities. We must all work together to plan the proper utilization of land for the long-term. Any plan to address land uses in Michigan must consider and protect the rights of private property owners.

We support:

Requiring agriculture to be included in community master plans, county economic development plans and all aspects of local planning and zoning.
Regional cooperation between municipalities, counties and townships.
Requiring the county road commission and drain/water resources commission to collaborate with the county planning commission when developing the county’s master plan and setting long-term plans.
Intra-jurisdictional coordination between all public entities in a community, including fire districts, emergency medical services, water and sewer authorities, school district, solid waste management.
Encouraging the use of current infrastructure.
Transportation development projects incorporating local land use planning and minimizing impacts to farmland. Transportation infrastructure placement is a primary influence on land development patterns.
Enabling local communities to use the statutory authority of “concurrency” when negotiating new development approval. Concurrency establishes a pay-as you-go approach which ensures public facilities and services are available at the same time as the impacts of development.
Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) providing technical assistance, education and research to local officials and property owners.
Encouraging local communities to utilize existing zoning tools when appropriate to help protect farmland and farm operations by including cluster housing, buffer areas, fencing, planted tree setbacks, and site density zoning.
Acknowledgement of the diversity and uniqueness of each community in our state. We believe that land use decisions are best made by local communities including planning and zoning decisions for energy siting and mega site development. We oppose preemption of local zoning for these purposes.
The sale of state and federally owned land suitable for residential or industrial use to preserve farmland and increase local revenue. This development should only be considered on vacant sites with existing or nearby utilities fitting the local land use plan.
Local governments considering alternatives to minimize adverse impacts to farms within one mile of where land is divided.
Encouraging local units of government to utilize brownfield redevelopment authorities.
Amending the Land Division Act to:
- Change the platting process to reduce cost, time and bureaucracy.
- Create density in communities by revisiting the 10-year redivision requirement.
- Allow local units of government to utilize the entire Zoning Enabling Act to locally govern the Land Division Act.
- Require site condominiums, manufactured housing developments and mobile home parks to comply with land division and/or the platting process in the Land Division Act.
When agricultural land is within a governmental unit, a representative of production agriculture being appointed to the planning commissions and zoning boards.
Members becoming actively involved in land use planning and zoning.
Individuals appointed to councils, commissions and boards created by government, state legislators, and MDARD to represent agricultural interests being, or having been, directly involved in the agriculture industry.
Legislation being enacted to prevent farmland from being annexed to a municipality without a vote of the people in the affected area. Upon approval of the people in the affected area, an annexation proposal should then be approved by a vote of the residents of the appropriate units of government.
Requiring consent of landowners for annexation proposals. Changing the use of property must consider and protect the rights of private property owners.
Property enrolled in farmland preservation programs having concurrent approval for annexation or public use by the contracted parties, including land owners.
The development and uniformity of Geographic Information Systems and we encourage use by local units of government in land use planning.
Michigan Farm Bureau assisting county Farm Bureaus with model zoning ordinances pertaining to agriculture.
The development of entry-level or moderate-income housing to attract and maintain an agriculture workforce in rural and small communities.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) continuing and expanding the bidding, renting, and/or sale of state land for agricultural use.

In areas where trails run through production agriculture and other private lands, the authority responsible for the trail should build and maintain fences to keep trail users on the trail and install gates so that property owners have access to both sides of their property if the trail divides the property. All users of the trails shall stop or yield at all crossings, regardless of whether public or private.

In addition to required bonding, we believe that state and federal funding for industrial clean-up should be consistent in rural areas for any private and/or publicly funded megasite development that needs to be decommissioned.

We oppose:

Rezoning agricultural zones if the use has not changed and the landowners have not requested the zoning change.
Limitations being placed on state lands for recreational purposes unless there is sound scientific justification or funding restrictions. If limitations are proposed, then justification should be in writing and public hearings conducted. When the MDNR proposes public land use changes, it is imperative that those impacted are involved in the decision-making process.
Restrictions on leases of state-owned agricultural land exceeding Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices.
State and federal funds being used to develop farmland for non-agricultural purposes, to balance private property rights with the fact that farmland is not infinite.

Natural Resources & Environment

Submit a Policy Idea

Submit Policy Idea