Farm Bureau sues to stop Ches Bay clean-up plan

[kwk]

Well, no one saw this coming ...

ATLANTA (Reuters) – The head of the largest U.S. farm group called on Congress to stop ruinous EPA "over-regulation" of agriculture and announced on Sunday a lawsuit against EPA rules to reduce Chesapeake Bay pollution.
Bob Stallman, president of the 6 million-member American Farm Bureau Federation, announced the lawsuit during a speech that opened the group's annual meeting. He said the Environmental Protection Agency's "over-regulation endangers our industry."

Farmers have been leery of EPA for years. Opposition has grown in the past couple of years out of concern that regulation of greenhouse gases will drive up farming expenses and that EPA may tell farmers to limit dust from fields.
"Our message to the new Congress is clear: It is time to stop the EPA," said Stallman. "But we don't intend to leave this to Congress alone. We are prepared to carry this battle to the courts."

A lawsuit will be filed on Monday in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania, to block the Chesapeake Bay "pollution diet" announced by EPA on December 29, he told reporters later.

The "diet" calls for a 25 percent reduction in nitrogen, 24 percent reduction in phosphorus and 20 percent reduction in sediment runoff by 2025. Six states -- Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia -- and the District of Columbia are obliged to impose new controls on wastewater and storm water runoff from cities and on agricultural runoff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110109/ts_nm/us_usa_agriculture;_ylt=A0LEao2tYSpNNTQA_QhZ.3QA;_ ylu=X3oDMTJwMWcyczlyBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMTA5L3VzX3 VzYV9hZ3JpY3VsdHVyZQRwb3MDMjEEc2VjA3luX3BhZ2luYXRl X3N1bW1hcnlfbGlzdARzbGsDZXBhcXVvdHBvbGx1

[J.P. Williams]

Oh yeah, we did. Stay tuned.

John Page Williams, Senior Naturalist
Chesapeake Bay Foundation

[scottdd1]

About time Farm Bureau used the tactics used by others to force EPA down this illegal road.

Congress is taking note, too.

[J.P. Williams]

Scott, I apologize if I offended you.

We at CBF have some raw nerves from being villified by the American Farm Bureau Federation. All of us here who are involved in the issue have [U]great[U] respect for everything that the leaders in the Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania farm communities have done to install BMPs, protect their land from development, and otherwise exercise care for the waters into which their rain flows. As you pointed out in another post, the EPA Bay Program's Barometer rightly recognizes that, overall, the farm community has [U]voluntarily[U] accomplished about half of the pollution reductions that the Bay needs from it. To us, that statistic means that the glass is half-full, and that farmers have made truly valuable contributions to the cleanup effort, for both their local waters and the Susquehanna/ Chesapeake ecosystem as a whole.

What has given us raw nerves is the Farm Bureau's assertion that we are the enemy, ready to wreck American agriculture, when we have worked hard over the past decade to help farmers, especially in building the systems of financial resources and technical assistance they need to practice conservation, even as our food delivery system relies on such low prices that producing something as essential as food becomes a money-losing proposition. Thus we fought hard at the federal level for conservation funds for Chesapeake farmers in the 2008 Farm Bill and are already gearing up for the next one, which will be tricky at a time of tight money.

At the same time, we have led coalitions (that included state Farm Bureaus) in building state conservation funds in VA, MD, & PA, and in raising private funds to serve as extra incentives, especially right now in PA with Plain Sect producers who are leery of accepting government $. We have restoration biologists in the field in all three states, assisting farmers in installing a wide range of conservation practices.

The other side of the coin, though, is that we spend a lot of time studying the Chesapeake and its rivers (incluiding "resource assessments" with fishing rods), and we see the problems first-hand. We have fought this fight with pollution from [U]ALL[U] sectors since the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1983, and we have seen both the good that has been accomplished and the degrees to which we have fallen short. We have seen, over twenty-seven years, just how far voluntary programs will carry us, and we applaud all of the All-Stars in agriculture, wastewater treatment, and urban/suburban stormwater management who have set the high standards in pollution reduction that the Chesapeake and its rivers need to be healthy.

Now the question is "How do we get the rest of the necessary pollution reductions?" What combinations of incentives (like cost-share $ and technical assistance) and disincentives (negative peer pressure, inspections, fines, stop-work orders) do we need? In this case, as in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for point source wastewater set up in the Clean Water Act of 1972, the federal government sets a standard or system of standards, based on its best information, and asks the states to work out the most appropriate reductions for their waterways.

This is a problem to solve by listening to each other respectfully and debating solutions, not a time to sling accusations. Our region cannot afford to have to choose between healthy agriculture and clean water. We must figure out how to have both. CBF and our partners have tried to contribute to the solutions--in all sectors--and we will continue to do so. We believe that healthy farms, healthy rural communities, and healthy waterways can actually reinforce each other, bringing even greater value to this part of the country.

Believe me, I respect your point of view about the importance of Chesapeake agriculture, and with your love for rockfish, you are just the kind of person who can contribute to both. Thanks for listening. Let's keep talking.

Best regards, John Page

[BILL H]

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!

[kwk]

I am shocked, shocked, I tell you!

Yup. I guess I should have put a little rolling eye smiley with my post to indicate the snark, but I usually just use ellipses ...

[uno]

If the CBF and other enviro groups were volunteer organizations they would have a lot more credibility. As it is, they are making extremely good livings pursuing their causes. Do you actually think they will ever declare their quests over? Not likely, they would all be out of jobs.

[Matt]

This is a problem to solve by listening to each other respectfully and debating solutions,

I agree with many items in your position, but not this one. Our country has a long history, a tradition if you will, of environmental disagreements getting decided in court. Like it or not, the courtroom is the inevitable battleground when legislative and executive branches can't figure it out. Some people prefer respectful debate, no matter how protracted. Others including myself expect these matters to end in court. When it comes to clean water and or clean air (and many other natural resource issues), I think the sooner issues get to legal judgment the better. This is how our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. If farmers think they have a case, let them take it to court. Unfortunately this course of action usually encourages or requires parties to vilify eachother, even if there are in fact no villains.

[J.P. Williams]

OK, Matt. Some of these disagreements do have to get settled in court. That's why CBF has a litigation department.

But a lot of other issues get worked out in policy debates, legislative action, and even agreements of common ground worked out in fishboats and duck blinds. One good example is Pennsylvania's REAP transferrable tax credit program that speaks to specific needs of farmers for nutrient management planning and purchase of conservation equipment. Based on watching the Bay cleanup over time, I believe that listening to each other and solving problems together is still a vital--and timely--part of the solution.

[goose70]

Our country has a long history, a tradition if you will, of environmental disagreements getting decided in court. Like it or not, the courtroom is the inevitable battleground when legislative and executive branches can't figure it out.

Thank God! My daughter's new bike won't pay for itself, and neither will my wife's kitchen "make-over."

Uno, good point. I hear that Goldman had to increase bonuses just to keep the company from hemorrhaging employees to grassroots environmental organizations. Question: would you be willing to work your tail off for free, especially if that left you with no time for a "real" job? Just curious if there are any alternative routes to credibility beside forgoing compensation, in the off chance that any of these CBF folks still require the means to purchase food and provide shelter for their families.

[BILL H]

Yup. I guess I should have put a little rolling eye smiley with my post to indicate the snark, but I usually just use ellipses ...
Those ellipses are just too subtle...

[Matt]

OK, Matt. Some of these disagreements do have to get settled in court. That's why CBF has a litigation department.

But a lot of other issues get worked out in policy debates, legislative action, and even agreements of common ground worked out in fishboats and duck blinds. One good example is Pennsylvania's REAP transferrable tax credit program that speaks to specific needs of farmers for nutrient management planning and purchase of conservation equipment. Based on watching the Bay cleanup over time, I believe that listening to each other and solving problems together is still a vital--and timely--part of the solution.

I guess its worth reiterating...most big environmental disputes do end up in court, and I think the US is better and cleaner for it. If farmers want to challenge the rules let'em. This sword has two edges. Personally I would love to see this 2025 TMDL stuff challenged so there's a nice big fat court ruling. If the TMDL program really has legs, let it be known. If not, lets dismantle this program before we waste more money.

[paxfish]

hear hear!

[scottdd1]

John Page,

I owe you the dignity of a response. I have just been waiting a while, because I tend to formulate things better if I think them through even if it costs me some shut eye.

Thoughtful response on your behalf, but I am not sure how the Farm Bureau filing suit vilifies CBF, or if so I haven’t seen those passages.

I HAVE been involved, going way back to when CBF did vilify and alienate many in the Ag Community. It has only been in the 2000s that there has been progress within the two camps. MD was first to come along, and other states have followed.
My main problems with EPA and why I am defending Farm Bureau’s suit, is IF EPA had done the job it was SUPPOSED to do with WWTP particularly in PA, the Bay would have shown MUCH more progress. Now, they want even more authority, with more teeth. I just feel they are expanding their reach when their record in enforcement of areas that they do have authority for was weak at best and terrible at worst.
I have worked with CBF folks to get help within the Farm Bill. However, with TMDLs, many of these programs are/will be mandatory. When funders look at limited monies - former voluntary programs and practices suddenly become mandatory - what reason is there to continue to fund those programs?
I was along with a few others when the group of farmers and CBF folks went over to Port Isobel and came back in a Nor’easter. That was the early 90s, so I HAVE had some of the conversations and I am pleased with what the relationship between Ag and CBF has become.
I am just not comfortable with the model being used as the bank account for nutrient withdraws. It may be the only tool we have, but as somebody that has dealt with trying to get adjustments in the model and now seeing the report showing the disparity between the model and USDA data, it gives me even more distress. There was not enough input from Ag folks in the development of the process. I know there were folks from all agencies and areas involved, but it is still EPA’s model.

Honestly, I believe Matt is right. It should be in the courts, and then we will know if the law is being applied in the correct manner.

I appreciate your work and your measured and honest response to my comments.

[fly flinger]

If the CBF and other enviro groups were volunteer organizations they would have a lot more credibility. As it is, they are making extremely good livings pursuing their causes. Do you actually think they will ever declare their quests over? Not likely, they would all be out of jobs.

The CBF is a full time job that requires long hours researching legalities,regulations, and other technical subjects. Why shouldn't they be paid for doing the tedious work we sport & commercial fisherman don't have time for or don't want to get involved with? It ain't no fun attending long meetings waiting for your turn to speak. YOU, should be thankful they're folks who care enough about the Bay to do the heavy lifting. The reason their "quests" are still "quests" is due to the foot dragging by the polluters who have FULL TIME PAID mouth pieces who represent their causes. The various state farm bureaus make their money selling insurance to farmers. So they have a vested interest in how their customers spend their cash. The farm bureaus are very jealous when a farmer blows money fencing out cattle from the bay's tributaries instead off purchasing a crop failure policy.