Hi ernurse, and welcome to BYC.
It is no surprise that you're confused about RTF in Michigan. I've been trying to figure this out for almost two years now, and here is how it looks to me:
(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.
The difficulty of the issue, in terms of legal versus non-legal uses, is that the RTF Act itself does not place a restriction in any way on land use or land zoning. It has been very clear from the beginning the RTF Act applies across the entire state.
So the legislature, the courts, the scholars, and MDARD all recognize that "it has been very clear from the beginning that the RTF Act applies across the state." But here's the rub: what MDARD believes to be true legally is not what they convey to constituents like you, or me, or local units of government that contact them for guidance. What they say to us can be found in the statement jphillips posted just before your post yesterday. What Jim Johnson said to her was this:
Thank You for your e-mail dated August 22. Director Clover Adams has asked me to respond to you directly.
Protection under that Right to Farm Act is not a determination the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) makes; this determination is made by the courts. MDARD’s role within the Act is to determine if landowners are in conformance Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). Your reading and interpretation of the GAAMPs is correct. Since the Siting GAAMP was intended to address nuisance issues on farms in rural Michigan, set-backs and conditions for having chickens or any other livestock were developed for that purpose. This includes zoning that allows agriculture. As you can imagine, defining nuisance conditions for situations where homes and people are very close to one another becomes very difficult. The broad application of RTF in these situations is also very difficult because the Act does not specify livestock restricts at all. As an example, you may want 3 chickens but your neighbor may want 5 pigs – a broad application of RTF would allow for this to occur. The GAAMP limitation avoids the possibility of this thus reducing the neighbor versus neighbor nuisance situation.
That is not to say that there may be acceptable numbers and types of livestock in backyards. We simply believe that within a more urban situation, this is a local community decision.
So I would throw out the hypothesis that the confusion over RTF in Michigan comes directly from MDARD. Jim Johnson has said both of these things, both in the last 8 months:
"It has been clear from the very beginning that the RTF applies across the state." (To the Agriculture Commission in December 2011)
"We believe that within a more urban situation, this is a local community decision." (To us.)
The first statement is with respect to the law, and the second is his opinion, which is fine - except that it was in his official capacity at MDARD that he made this statement, and the person who read it interpreted it to mean that RTF does not protect her. This is what is happening across the state. MDARD believe RTF protects us, but when asked, asserts their opinion that it does not.
This is all very important right now, because MDARD is currently taking efforts to change the meaning of the law by changing the language of the GAAMPS. The legislature gave them the power to adjust the GAAMPS to keep up with scientific advances in agricultural management practices, but in 2012 and now in 2013 they are adding a new kind of change - one that exempts anyone living in a city of over 100,000 (2012), and anyone not living on land zoned agriculture (2013). The 2012 change would exempt 1.5 million Michiganders of 10 million - so 15%, and the 2013 would exempt 8 million Michigander - so 80% of us will lose RTF protection IF that language is approved by the Ag Commission meeting.
I have been to the last two Ag Commission Meetings, and can tell you that these 5 people appear to have had very little input from people like us who are attempting to establish very small operations. However, at least some of them were around in 1999 when the amendment was passed, and understand the historic and agricultural importance of what is at stake here. I encourage any and all of you to attend one or more of the remaining Ag Commission meetings this year, and to convince them to pull back from this new kind of GAAMPS language that is added not to improve agricultural practices, but instead to exempt the vast majority of the state from RTF protection.
Ag Commission meeting dates and times have been posted repeatedly on this thread, but feel free to contact me if you'd like me to send them to you. We have until December, and this is worth fighting for.
It is no surprise that you're confused about RTF in Michigan. I've been trying to figure this out for almost two years now, and here is how it looks to me:
- In 1981 the state legislature passed a Right to Farm Law to protect existing farmers from nuisance suits as new neighborhoods began to be built in areas that were previously agricultural.
- In 1999 the state legislature recognized that local units of government such as townships and municipalities in general do not support agriculture, and could not be depended on to come up with local regulations that would permit agriculture while also mitigating potential conflicts. Instead, it tends to be in the interest of those local units of government to mitigate conflicts by passing local ordinances that prohibit agricultural operations. They concluded that if agriculture is to remain strong in Michigan, it must be regulated at the state, rather than the local level, and passed the 1999 amendment that did two things: it removed language from the previous law that gave regulatory power to local units of government, and added language to make their intent clear:
(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.
- Since 1999 the meaning of that language has been contested in the courts several times, most famously in the Papesh case in Shelby Township, and the Papedelis case in Troy, and both won cases that acknowledged that the Michigan RTF protects farmers regardless of local regulations.
- But there are actually many court cases about RTF, and it does get confusing; you especially have to separate the ones fought before and after the 1999 amendment, for example, to know which are relevant to the current situation. Fortunately, the academics at MSU have summarized this history for us, and have produced a very simple and clear document that explains the history of the court cases, and concludes that RTF protects anyone in Michigan who has a farming operation (chickens, for example, or pigs), is commercial (so you would have to sell something from your chickens or pigs to be covered, and follows generally accepted management practices (GAAMPS). A link to that document is in my signature line, and I encourage you to take a look at it.
- So now we have 3 groups all apparently in agreement that RTF covers everyone in Michigan who meets their requirements of having a farming operation that is commercial and follows GAAMPS: the legislature (passed the 1999 amendment), the courts (interpreted the law in this way in Papesh, Papedelis, others), the scholars (reviewed the language of the law and the courts decision and concluded that RTF covers us all). And there is finally a fourth group that recognizes that we are all protected by Right to Farm: Jim Johnson, the Director of Environmental Stewardship - the group that administers RTF for the Michigan Department of Agriculutre and Rural Development (MDARD) at the state level - made this statement at the December 14, 2011 Agriculture Commission meeting:
The difficulty of the issue, in terms of legal versus non-legal uses, is that the RTF Act itself does not place a restriction in any way on land use or land zoning. It has been very clear from the beginning the RTF Act applies across the entire state.
So the legislature, the courts, the scholars, and MDARD all recognize that "it has been very clear from the beginning that the RTF Act applies across the state." But here's the rub: what MDARD believes to be true legally is not what they convey to constituents like you, or me, or local units of government that contact them for guidance. What they say to us can be found in the statement jphillips posted just before your post yesterday. What Jim Johnson said to her was this:
Thank You for your e-mail dated August 22. Director Clover Adams has asked me to respond to you directly.
Protection under that Right to Farm Act is not a determination the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) makes; this determination is made by the courts. MDARD’s role within the Act is to determine if landowners are in conformance Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs). Your reading and interpretation of the GAAMPs is correct. Since the Siting GAAMP was intended to address nuisance issues on farms in rural Michigan, set-backs and conditions for having chickens or any other livestock were developed for that purpose. This includes zoning that allows agriculture. As you can imagine, defining nuisance conditions for situations where homes and people are very close to one another becomes very difficult. The broad application of RTF in these situations is also very difficult because the Act does not specify livestock restricts at all. As an example, you may want 3 chickens but your neighbor may want 5 pigs – a broad application of RTF would allow for this to occur. The GAAMP limitation avoids the possibility of this thus reducing the neighbor versus neighbor nuisance situation.
That is not to say that there may be acceptable numbers and types of livestock in backyards. We simply believe that within a more urban situation, this is a local community decision.
- So now the confusion begins. This doesn't sound like "it has been very clear from the beginning that the RTF applies across the state" - and I could provide many more examples of chicken farmers and others getting this response from MDARD. There is someone in Michigan right now fighting a court battle over this, and he said that MDARD is the only one who ever said RTF doesn't protect him - but because they said it, he is in court.
So I would throw out the hypothesis that the confusion over RTF in Michigan comes directly from MDARD. Jim Johnson has said both of these things, both in the last 8 months:
"It has been clear from the very beginning that the RTF applies across the state." (To the Agriculture Commission in December 2011)
"We believe that within a more urban situation, this is a local community decision." (To us.)
The first statement is with respect to the law, and the second is his opinion, which is fine - except that it was in his official capacity at MDARD that he made this statement, and the person who read it interpreted it to mean that RTF does not protect her. This is what is happening across the state. MDARD believe RTF protects us, but when asked, asserts their opinion that it does not.
This is all very important right now, because MDARD is currently taking efforts to change the meaning of the law by changing the language of the GAAMPS. The legislature gave them the power to adjust the GAAMPS to keep up with scientific advances in agricultural management practices, but in 2012 and now in 2013 they are adding a new kind of change - one that exempts anyone living in a city of over 100,000 (2012), and anyone not living on land zoned agriculture (2013). The 2012 change would exempt 1.5 million Michiganders of 10 million - so 15%, and the 2013 would exempt 8 million Michigander - so 80% of us will lose RTF protection IF that language is approved by the Ag Commission meeting.
I have been to the last two Ag Commission Meetings, and can tell you that these 5 people appear to have had very little input from people like us who are attempting to establish very small operations. However, at least some of them were around in 1999 when the amendment was passed, and understand the historic and agricultural importance of what is at stake here. I encourage any and all of you to attend one or more of the remaining Ag Commission meetings this year, and to convince them to pull back from this new kind of GAAMPS language that is added not to improve agricultural practices, but instead to exempt the vast majority of the state from RTF protection.
Ag Commission meeting dates and times have been posted repeatedly on this thread, but feel free to contact me if you'd like me to send them to you. We have until December, and this is worth fighting for.
