# Right to Farm Act affect on trout streams



## riverbender (Dec 1, 2012)

New here so I apologize if this has been threaded to death. I live on a smaller designated trout stream and have witnessed a significant impact from the Right to Farm Act and the power it grants farmers and their ability to draw water from public streams. Not trying to farmer bash here, no way no how, though it might sound that way. Just one farmer upstream from me draws 860,000 gallons a day from our stream to water his cow corn (maybe 80 acres). This typically takes place, rain or shine, for the months of June, July, August and into September. Two summers ago, the water temperature in the river reached 67 degrees in August. Add to that the level fell farther than I've ever seen it, at least 8" below "normal" levels. There was an abundance of vegetative growth in slower waters and the fish, as would be expected, were not to be found (except for several dead carcasses along the bank). I was told by the DEQ that they could not and would not do anything, and that the only option would be for me to pursue the matter in a civil suit, which in their opinion would be fruitless as there are several laws in place with the specific intent of protecting the RTF Act from "harassment suits". 
So other than just using this thread to vent, and believe me...I've held back...what's an intelligent compromise between farmers and fishermen in a case like this?


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Since we are from about the same area, I would be interested to find out what creek and what farmer this is in relation to. 

That said, I agree that pulling large amounts of water from a creek can have negative results. To a lesser degree, but a similar situation, is the golf course pulling water from the Lincoln River just up from the bridge. They pull a ton of water out, and that river is already in rough shape. So, it really isn't just a "farmer" thing, but they probably do have a little more protection from the RTF Act than other businesses and private parties. 

Other than pulling the water from a water body, the only other option would be them putting in an irrigation well. You would think the state would rather contribute some money towards the farmer installing a well than the farmer continuing to impact the small creek.


----------



## riverbender (Dec 1, 2012)

PM sent wartfroggy.


----------



## troutguy26 (Apr 28, 2011)

I hear ya riverbender and probably go to that same creek myself... at least one of em I go to has some massive pumps rolled down to it. 

A buddy of mine tried to raise hell about it before and got the same response as you did. I've talked to some locals about it also and some of them suggested sabotage and that wasn't a route I thought would be smart to go. 

Its sad to see streams in the dead of summer getting pumped that hard.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

I suspect the "stream" is actually a dug drainage ditch from years past. If so, be happy it is cold enough for trout and the DNR has stocked it. Best trout fishing is in the spring anyway.


----------



## riverbender (Dec 1, 2012)

riverman said:


> I suspect the "stream" is actually a dug drainage ditch from years past. If so, be happy it is cold enough for trout and the DNR has stocked it. Best trout fishing is in the spring anyway.


 Nope...a real river. And while the fishing is good in the spring, we get a pretty substantial salmon run in the fall and I've found that fishing for the trailing browns can be outstanding. But it's become painfully obvious that the loss of water and rise in temperature is affecting the trout population. There even used to be brook trout several years ago but they're gone now. The DNR has occasionally planted small quantities of rainbows but they don't do well. I've been monitoring the temps for 8 years and they've gone up dramatically. I'm wondering why you'd think I was talking about a dug ditch when I mentioned a designated trout stream?


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

riverbender said:


> Nope...a real river. And while the fishing is good in the spring, we get a pretty substantial salmon run in the fall and I've found that fishing for the trailing browns can be outstanding. But it's become painfully obvious that the loss of water and rise in temperature is affecting the trout population. There even used to be brook trout several years ago but they're gone now. The DNR has occasionally planted small quantities of rainbows but they don't do well. I've been monitoring the temps for 8 years and they've gone up dramatically. I'm wondering why you'd think I was talking about a dug ditch when I mentioned a designated trout stream?


I missed that and your location. Bad read on my part and for some reason I thought this was in the southwest forums. I'll blame it on age and old eyes!


----------



## Minner_Chaser (Jul 9, 2013)

It's amazing what the agriculture industry does, and is allowed to do.


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

PM Sent.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Doesnt sound like much can be done besides talking to the farmer and seeing if you could come to a compromise. few irrigation ponds dug on his property would be nice but that costs money to do and right now he has free access to the water from the stream. At the end of the day he is feeding his family with profits from farming and not fishing. I hate to see any stream go without brookies when it is capable of holding them.

Ganzer


----------



## riverbender (Dec 1, 2012)

MERGANZER said:


> Doesnt sound like much can be done besides talking to the farmer and seeing if you could come to a compromise. few irrigation ponds dug on his property would be nice but that costs money to do and right now he has free access to the water from the stream. At the end of the day he is feeding his family with profits from farming and not fishing. I hate to see any stream go without brookies when it is capable of holding them.
> 
> Ganzer


 Yep! Tough situation, and I really am trying to stay clear of farmer bashing. There's an old song, "The Taxes on the Farmer Feed Us All", and the viability and sustainability of the small farmer is an essential part of our heritage. Especially nowadays with the dominate footing of the agri-giants who are buying up huge tracts and laying down their GMO seeds. But there's no dialogue to be had with this farmer, unfortunately, and his understandably sole objective is to water his corn to feed his cows to feed his family. And you know what? It's only going to get more difficult down the road trying to find any balance. What saddens me, and was my point in this thread, is that in the case of this river in question, there is absolutely zero compromise, and even extensive legislation built entirely for the purpose of eliminating ANY chance of compromise. Several laws are already on the books in Michigan written to prevent, in their words, "harassment" lawsuits against farmers for water usage made possible by the RTF Act. The grandfathered usage is especially disturbing, as it allows an extraordinary amount of water to be pumped out, although there are newer usage limits placed upon new pumps, with some usage calculators built into the new permit process. Less water, higher average temperatures, less oxygen...significantly fewer trout. To make things even a bit worse, at least on my stretch of river, is a neighbor who keeps removing great habitat and shade from stretches of water that border his property. He thinks he's helping the fish, plus he's the type you just don't even try and educate, but that's a whole 'nother story. I feel like I'm watching a beautiful trout stream die right in front of my eyes.


----------



## Minner_Chaser (Jul 9, 2013)

riverbender said:


> I feel like I'm watching a beautiful trout stream die right in front of my eyes.


Mother earth in her entirety is dying right in front of your eyes. I almost regretting becoming an environmental activists - it's such a depressing life.


----------



## Benzie Rover (Mar 17, 2008)

Riverbender -

I wish you luck fighting the good fight, but as you suspect, law in not on your side. I have worked a bunch in the Big South Branch of the PM shed and many of those tribs, many of which are severly impacted by Ag in their upper most reaches. Sadly, Beaver Creek (Type 2 trout stream) joins with Winnepasaug Creek to form the Big So Branch of the PM and actually has several true Ag ditches (designated as such and channelized, etc) that makes up its headwaters. Luckily the Winnie does not, but still, this puts a bit smack down on the Big So Branch productivity. 

The worst Ag debacle I witnessed down that way was a pig farm that operated along the banks of Freeman Creek, which flows into the Big So Branch. About 10 years ago a super high spring melt flooded the pig fields, which were located waaaay to close to the creek (most of the riparian/flood zone was developed for Ag) so one high water event flushed a bunch of pig poop into the creek and whammo, big fish death, floating trout, the whole nine yards. DNR tried to use some of our research data for damages, but not sure if that ever panned out. It was a small operation though, relatively speaking, so not sure they was much they could ultimatley do about it. 

One person that can help start to make a difference is your local drain commissioner, but most of the time they defer to traditional usage, which is Ag and transportation in most rural stream areas and the law typically gives preference to them. So just like taxes, it's tough to beat 'the man' when he writes to rules. 

On a positive note, the temp issues and possible impacts to the Little Muskegon from water withdrawl were the driving force behing the judge's decision to not allow Perrier/Nestle/Ice Mountain to pump from some of their proposed locations. So at least occasionally this very same concern has resulted in at least some control on industrial impacts to our precious coldwater resources. But, it typically takes something as political at that to get action. Everybody loves farms and we all gotta eat. What we need are more BMP incentives that work and are fair to the farmers. Cooperation works, regulations not so much.


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

The Right to Farm Act is a very powerful piece of legislation that gives farmers Carte Blanche to do this kind of environmental damage (I'm no farmer basher, either...........just stating the obvious).


They even have protection when their irrigation wells use so much water that they essentially dry up adjacent homeowners' _drinking water_ wells.


You see what CAFOs do to surface water bodies.....!?!?!?!


----------



## Hart (Jan 27, 2008)

Benzie Rover said:


> One person that can help start to make a difference is your local drain commissioner, but most of the time they defer to traditional usage, which is Ag and transportation in most rural stream areas and the law typically gives preference to them.



That's something else most people don't know: the incredible power of the local Drain Commissioner. The laws they operate under are decades old and give them tremendous authority. 


Mind blowing when you actually learn about it.


----------



## riverbender (Dec 1, 2012)

Hart said:


> That's something else most people don't know: the incredible power of the local Drain Commissioner. The laws they operate under are decades old and give them tremendous authority.
> 
> Mind blowing when you actually learn about it.


The drain commissioner in these parts, I'm pretty sure, comes from a very long line of farmers.


----------

