2007 Senate Bill 448: Impose new CAFO regulations

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown (R) on April 25, 2007, to authorize the repeal a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit if the operator is found responsible under civil law or guilty under criminal law of violating certain water pollution laws.
- Referred to the Senate Agriculture and Bioeconomy Committee on April 25, 2007.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 19, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 20, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details, amended to give a court the authority to shut down a large CAFO that has caused a discharge of pollutants in violation of state water pollution laws. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Roger Kahn (R) on June 20, 2007, to require the Department of Agriculture to notify local governments when it receives a construction permit application for a large CAFO in the area. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Liz Brater (D) on June 20, 2007, to authorize the neighbor of a large CAFO to sue the operation for damages resulting from the loss of property value due to objectionable odors, if the neighbor was there first. The amendment failed 17 to 21 in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 21 to 17 in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on June 20, 2007.
- Referred to the House Agriculture Committee on June 20, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) cafos by eric lewis on August 6, 2007
the Right to FArm Act is a disaster for Michigan. So is this new bill. How much money have cafos given the republican legislators?
Reply

Line

2) Sen. Brown's "journal statement" by Admin003 on June 21, 2007
Senator Brown's statement is as follows:

I rise to oppose the amendment. There is nothing in this legislation that expressly prohibits a private right of action. This amendment will increase unnecessary litigation. It certainly singles out agriculture, and if it's good in this instance, what about other circumstances where individuals think their neighbor is diminishing their property values?

Mr.President, people are moving into prime agricultural areas in our state which, as we know, is leading to more conflict, but we should as a consequence look for more ways to reduce this conflict, not increase it.

Reply

Line

3) Sen. Brater's "journal statement" by Admin003 on June 21, 2007
Senator Brater's statement is as follows:

Mr.President, what this amendment does is it gives recourse to neighbors of CAFOs. Usually, they are other farmers, as I stated earlier, who have significantly lost their property value and their ability to inhabit their homes due to their proximity to these operations.

The sighting rules in these bills allow CAFOs to establish operations within just hundreds of feet from an existing home. Currently, the law prohibits the owner of property from recovering lost property value from the CAFO operation. This type of restriction has been found to be unconstitutional in a number of states, including Iowa. My amendment would assure that landowners in Michigan can recover at least the lost value of their property.

Mr.President, I hope that you and our other colleagues have had an opportunity to view the Sierra Club video interviewing farmers who live side-by-side in these operations. It is completely heartbreaking. It's enough to make you cry. In fact, there are farmers on that film weeping because of their inability to live in their homes anymore that their families have lived in and farmed in for generations.

What we are talking about here is fumes where you can't eat, you can't breathe, and you can't sleep, dealing with these noxious odors. You're dealing with pathogens in your close proximity: E-coli, cryptosporidium, and other pathogens that you and your children are being exposed to. There is no way that you can inhabit your own home, and there is no way that you can sell it to anybody else.

I hope that you will take mercy on these poor people. Through no fault of their own, they are being forced, because of the inaction of this Legislature, to live side-by-side with these operations. I ask you to support this amendment.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation