SENATE BILL No. 668

June 29, 2005, Introduced by Senators VAN WOERKOM, SANBORN, GILBERT, TOY, ALLEN, JELINEK, STAMAS, KUIPERS, SIKKEMA, HAMMERSTROM, McMANUS, GARCIA, BIRKHOLZ, HARDIMAN, GOSCHKA and BARCIA and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Tourism.

A bill to amend 1998 PA 381, entitled

"Michigan agricultural processing act,"

by amending section 3 (MCL 289.823).

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 3. (1) A processing operation shall not be found to be a

public or private nuisance if the processing operation alleged to

be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted fruit, vegetable,

dairy product, and grain processing practices as determined by the

Michigan commission of agriculture. Until the Michigan commission

of agriculture establishes the generally accepted fruit, vegetable,

dairy product, and grain processing practices, a processing

operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if,

in an action brought in a court of competent jurisdiction, the

processing operation is found as a matter of law to be in

compliance with existing national generally accepted practices. The

Michigan commission of agriculture shall annually review and

revise, as determined necessary, the generally accepted fruit,

vegetable, dairy product, and grain processing practices.

(2) A processing operation shall not be found to be a public

or private nuisance ~~if the~~ under either of the following

circumstances:

(a) The processing operation existed before a change in the

use or occupancy of land within 1 mile of the boundaries of the

land upon which the processing operation is located and, ~~if,~~

before that change in use or occupancy of land, the processing

operation would not have been found to be a nuisance.

(b) The processing operation had been operating under

generally accepted practices before any nuisance complaint was

brought, had been operating pursuant to any required water permits,

and had not been subject to prosecution or sanction on the basis of

an imminent public health threat. The finding of the circumstances

described in this subdivision is considered to be a finding as a

matter of law and creates a rebuttable presumption that the

processing operation is operating under generally accepted

practices.

(3) A processing operation that is in conformance with

subsection (1) shall not be found to be a public or private

nuisance as a result of any of the following:

(a) A change in ownership or size.

(b) Temporary cessation or interruption of processing.