Volume   #46, Report #119 --Wednesday, June 20, 2007

<< back

SENATE   PASSES C.A.F.O. BILLS

A controversial series of bills making   major changes to the regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations -   legislation vigorously opposed by environmentalists and just as vigorously   supported by most agriculture interests - passed the Senate on a series of   divided votes on Wednesday.

Not dealt with, however, was a measure   that critics said would subject individuals trying to monitor and report CAFO   violations to potential harassment because it would require individuals   filing a complaint about a CAFO to identify themselves.

The bills - SB 504,   passed 21-17; SB 447,   passed 22-16; SB 448,   passed 21-17; SB 501,   passed 22-16; and SB 503,   passed 23-15 - now go to the House where environmentalists expect they will   either be killed or substantially changed.   As now drafted the   bills are not supported by the administration of Governor Jennifer Granholm,   and the Department of Environmental Quality distributed a letter on the Senate   floor listing its objections to the package.

The bills passed mainly on party-line   votes with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed.   Sen. Jim Barcia (D-Bay    City) and Sen. Bruce Patterson (R-Canton) switched from their caucuses   on the main bills, SB 504 and SB 448.

Sen. Gerald Van Woerkom (R-Norton Shores) said the package would both   provide greater protection for the environment by requiring farmers running   CAFO operations to be certified and help promote the growth of agriculture in   the state.

And in reaction to charges that the   legislation would leave the state with less environmental protection, Mr. Van   Woerkom said that agriculture relies on clean water in order to prosper.

Throughout the debate on the bills,   supporters said agriculture was the state's second largest industry, one of the   few growing sections of the economy and that individuals now had to recognize   that the era of the family farm had given way to larger operations.

SB 504 is the main bill in the package   and Mr. Van Woerkom said it will require that CAFOs get either certified as   an agricultural environmentally approved facility or a permit from the   DEQ.   The measure will also require annual inspections as well as   soil testing and call for creation of a committee to research where pathogens   in waterways originate.

SB 448 also sets requirements and   standards for shutting down CAFOs and fining them if they violate pollution   laws.

But Sen. Liz Brater (D-Ann Arbor) said regulation of CAFOs by   the Department of Agriculture would not be as vigorous as by the   DEQ.   The potential environmental effects of a CAFO are enormous,   she said, especially when a farm with as many as 700 cattle can produce as   much waste as a city with a population of 16,000.

She also questioned how much economic   activity the bills would generate, citing a study that suggests large CAFO   operations actually have a negative effect on a local area's overall economy.

Senate Democrats attempted and failed to   win approval of a five-year moratorium on any new CAFOs in the   state.   Mr. Van Woerkom the definition in the bill would take into   account smaller farms along with CAFOs.   "This would have a   chilling effect on the industry," he said.

And Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) said the U.S. is   helping feed the world because it has the freedom to allow production methods   like CAFOs.   Critics of CAFOs are probably opposed to animal   farming in general and "should turn vegetarian."