Chesapeake Bay News

On May 25, 2011, A coalition of environmental groups announced that they have filed a motion in federal court to oppose the efforts of major national agricultural organizations to force an end to federal and state programs to reduce pollution and restore the Chesapeake Bay.

The coalition includes the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, Defenders of Wildlife, the Jefferson County Public Service District, the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, and the National Wildlife Federation.

Within days after the federal government announced scientific pollution limits and the states laid out specific plans to reduce pollution in local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau went to federal court in Pennsylvania to stop those efforts.

They have since been joined by other national agricultural lobbying groups, including the Fertilizer Institute, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Chicken Council, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, and the National Turkey Federation.

“Just as the Bay is making progress in its long fight to survive, these big money industry lobbyists are trying to derail the process.  Why? A simple profit motive,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker. “They want the rest of us to suffer dirty and dangerous water so they can maximize their corn, hog, and poultry profit.”

For decades, science has known that nitrogen and phosphorus pollution are responsible for the dead zones, fish kills, and harmful algal blooms that annually plague the Chesapeake Bay. Under the Clean Water Act, and as the result of numerous court cases, a scientific limit, or TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load), has been set.

State governments then developed plans designed to ensure that all pollution control measures needed to fully restore the Bay and its tidal rivers are in place by 2025, with at least 60 percent of the actions completed by 2017. Science set the limits, and the states designed individual plans to achieve the goals.

Opponents of the pollution limits claim that EPA is overstepping its authority, and wants the process to start all over again.

source: press release from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation,  Defenders of Wildlife, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, National Wildlife Federation & Penn Future

A new analysis of the nutrient trading program contained in the proposed federal Chesapeake Clean Water Act has determined that Maryland farmers could be paid as much as $85 million annually to reduce nitrogen pollution, creating jobs and bolstering the agricultural economy. The analysis by the World Resources Institute (WRI), an international leader in market based environmental programs, found that water quality trading could potentially double conservation funding compared to what is currently available in the federal Farm Bill.

“The Chesapeake Clean Water Act puts farmers squarely in the driver’s seat – directing significant public and private market dollars to farmers to address the problems,” said CBF President Will Baker.  “Even without this legislation pollution from all sources, including agriculture, will have to be reduced. Working against the legislation is short sighted and not in the best interest of farming’s future.”

Water quality trading for nutrients, or “nutrient trading,” makes it possible to achieve reductions more efficiently and at a lower cost, and offers a new revenue source for those able to sell “nutrient credits.” The trading program works like this, once a farm has implemented baseline pollution controls the farmer is eligible to sell credits for additional pollution reduction. Since reducing pollution from agriculture is the most cost effective way to reduce pollution, farmers will be able to sell the credits, for example to a municipality, for significantly less than that local government would pay to reduce a pound of pollution from stormwater.

“WRI works to identify cost-effective ways to achieve environmental goals, and our analysis supports the concept that there is a significant market for nutrient trading in the region,” said WRI President Jonathan Lash. “The creation of a market for nutrient reductions would allow farmers to earn a reasonable return for making choices that benefit the Bay and its millions of users.”

“We all are responsible for the Bay’s poor condition, and we all must take responsibility for its revival – including farmers. This legislation has the provisions, including funding and accountability, to ensure we have profitable farms and a restored Chesapeake Bay. Because we believe you can’t have one without the other.” said Kim Coble, Maryland executive director for CBF.

The trading provision of the proposed federal legislation and the federal Farm Bill are just two components of federal strategies that will benefit the agricultural community.  The Chesapeake Clean Water Act also includes no less than $96 million, and possibly substantially more, for technical assistance to farmers, as well as $75 million for a new “Stewardship Grants” program to fund pollution reduction activities.

“The technical assistance the proposed legislation will provide is critical, and has been lacking for many years,” said Chesapeake Bay Commission Executive Director Ann Swanson. “This bill will provide funding for state and local governments, colleges, soil conservation districts and others to advise and assist farmers in developing and maintaining conservation practices.”

Large agricultural interests including the Maryland Farm Bureau have expressed opposition to the Chesapeake Clean Water Act currently being considered by Congress. While they cite concerns that the pending legislation will force farmers out of business, the legislation does not mandate regulation, but sets scientifically-based standards for pollution reduction and gives the states flexibility in how to achieve them, along with consequences for failure.