To: Michigan Commission of Agriculture & Rural Development

July 17, 2012

To: Michigan Commission of Agriculture & Rural Development Velmar Green, Chair Bob Kennedy, Co-Chair Diane Hanson, Secretary Donald Coe, Member Trever Meachum, Member From: Wendy Lockwood Banka, Ann Arbor, MI Re: Statement regarding 2012 GAAMPS Preface language and MDARD implementation of the Michigan Right to Farm Act Good Morning. My name is Wendy Banka. I wish to address the comments made by Jim Johnson to this Commission in December 2011, which resulted in the approval of new GAAMPS language, written by MDARD, that has a goal of exempting RTF protection for individuals who live in cities with more than 100,000 residents. I live in Ann Arbor, and am one of the 1.5 million Michiganders whose Right to Farm rights are now challenged by that new language. I am here to formally protest those changes, and to request that the preface language added to the 2012 GAAMPS be revoked. As you know, the Michigan Right to Farm law was enacted in 1981, and was last amended by the state legislature in 1999: 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. This new language states clearly that the intent of the Michigan legislature was to preempt any kind of local regulation that would revise the provisions of RTF, and indeed since 1999 the courts have upheld the RTF rights of individuals across the state. What the 1999 language did not do is to similarly prohibit MDARD from revising these RTF provisions. Perhaps this is because at that time MDARD was not perceived to be a threat to RTF protection, either because it does not have the authority to revise the intent of the RTF provisions, or because doing so would conflict directly with the mission of MDARD. MDARD MISSION STATEMENT "Assure the food safety, agricultural, environmental, and economic interests of the people of the State of Michigan are met through service, partnership, and collaboration." However, I would argue that MDARD is currently engaged in activities that directly conflict with both RTF and its own mission. These conflicts can be seen in documents published by MDARD and heard in the answers MDARD provides to citizens and local governments who contact them. This morning I would like to point out that that conflict is also evident in the statements that Jim Johnson made to you just before you voted to add language to the 2012 GAAMPS that would exempt people like me from RTF protection. In the remainder of this document I have created two columns of text. On the left is the text of the December 14, 2011 minutes dealing with this issue. On the right are my comments to you.