Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Good news.....U.S. Appeals court upheld federal program at reducing the Bay's pollution in the watershed area; the program limits the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment allowed in the watershed area. This program was challenged by farmers, builders and the attorney generals of 21 states; I don't have to tell you which 19 states (Red) were involved. Maryland, Virginia and D.C. support these regulations. I'm sure this will go to the Supreme Court. Most of those states aren't even near here. They should take care their own problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
I'll step in this pile of pooh. I understand the intent but where is the science behind this EPA proposal? Oh yea, government funded science right. How long have farms and farmers been around the bay watershed? When did the bay really start having problems? I don't understand the thinking here. It's so obvious. The problem is overpopulation and the pollution we put off as humans in the form hardscape runoff, waste water treatment plants that fail, etc... The governors had every right and should fight this as it's not a farming problem. it's a population problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I'll step in the pooh too. Will this stop the millions of homeowners from putting millions of pounds of fertilizer on their lawns ? I think not. You are brainwashed by the belief that farmers are the bad guys . This pollution problem didn't exist in the 50s 60s and 70s when there were more farms than homes . NOW READ THAT LAST STATEMENT AGAIN . Kevin7 is right. Logic dictates its a population problem . All this legislation is going to do is make the farmers pay more to raise their crop and you and I will pay more for food and the pollution from the lawns of all those homes , new asphalt roads and pavements will continue to go in the bay . You would think the govt would spend more resources on growing more oysters and menhaden to filter the bay of algae so grass could grow . I don't farm . This farm thing is just a diversion on the states incompetents .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
439 Posts
What islandgoose and kevin are stating. Every time I hear a report about this it's about farmers or ranchers. The bigger issue is the cities and all of the communities around the cities. There is no logic that all of a sudden it's because of farmers when there are less of them and they've already cut way back. Soon they are going to be putting poop catchers under the cow's ass so the poop doesn't hit the ground and leech into the earth and into the bay.
 

·
Tidal Fish Super Subscriber - I rock!
Joined
·
3,298 Posts
.......... So your solution is to kill the population instead of limiting and cutting back on pollution ........ You guys poo pood the rain tax that would have paid for the cleanup by taxing those that cause the run off that overflows the sewerage plants everytime it rains ........ Typical cons ......... ***** and complain about the bay without offering solutions and fighting tooth and nail against the any solution that's attempted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I'll step in the pooh too. Will this stop the millions of homeowners from putting millions of pounds of fertilizer on their lawns ? I think not. You are brainwashed by the belief that farmers are the bad guys . This pollution problem didn't exist in the 50s 60s and 70s when there were more farms than homes . NOW READ THAT LAST STATEMENT AGAIN . Kevin7 is right. Logic dictates its a population problem . All this legislation is going to do is make the farmers pay more to raise their crop and you and I will pay more for food and the pollution from the lawns of all those homes , new asphalt roads and pavements will continue to go in the bay . You would think the govt would spend more resources on growing more oysters and menhaden to filter the bay of algae so grass could grow . I don't farm . This farm thing is just a diversion on the states incompetents .
Why does the government need to grow more oysters and menhaden. Can't we just reduce the harvest of the ones we have?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I thought the blue print/EPA work ran across all 7 Chesapeake watershed states. I thought it was there to reduce the pollution load on major rivers such as the Susquehanna by coordinating pollution loads and dictating a state pollution diet. I also thought that most MD counties on the western shore were mandated to reduce run off and that Hogan supported that when he cut the rain tax. Also isn't Baltimore under a consent decree to reduce sewer overflows?

Wasn't Hogan in real estate before he was in the Governors office? I am pretty sure we will not see him go after developers to tighten up regulations on run off from development.

What am I missing about this? I always like hearing about what is going on is not working but there is never a solution. Why is that? The science is never right, but there is never someone to say here is a better piece of science?

If the chicken manure on the eastern shore farms was so good for the environment then why hasn't the big dollars at Purdue paid for a little study to show how little of it is going into the bay?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
Were there factory chicken farms proliferating on the eastern shore in the 50s, 60s and 70s? I grew up in a farming area and farming practices have changed over the years. There used to be many family farms that are now owned by corporations. Now, farmers utilize every available piece of land they can whereas in the past they were more buffers and hedge rows, etc. I like farmers, but farming practices play a role in the bay's health.

Of course population is a big factor, but how do you solve a population problem? I agree that restriction should be implemented on the amount of fertilizer people put on their lawns, but how do you enforce it? Maybe through education.

I think that anything that helps reduce runoff and pollution will benefit the bay. The bay is dying from a thousand cuts, not one big wound, so if this measure helps improve water quality we should celebrate it, not criticize those who support it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
Were there factory chicken farms proliferating on the eastern shore in the 50s, 60s and 70s? I grew up in a farming area and farming practices have changed over the years. There used to be many family farms that are now owned by corporations. Now, farmers utilize every available piece of land they can whereas in the past they were more buffers and hedge rows, etc. I like farmers, but farming practices play a role in the bay's health.

Of course population is a big factor, but how do you solve a population problem? I agree that restriction should be implemented on the amount of fertilizer people put on their lawns, but how do you enforce it? Maybe through education.

I think that anything that helps reduce runoff and pollution will benefit the bay. The bay is dying from a thousand cuts, not one big wound, so if this measure helps improve water quality we should celebrate it, not criticize those who support it.
Good points. No-till farming produces so much more run-off then older tillable methods. I also agree with the above post that calls out many peoples perfectly manicured "chemicalized" lawn. That add's a ton to the bay also. I, for one, have quit using it on my lawn. Now I have all the white clover flowers and dandelions but hey it looks fine to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,744 Posts
Are we allowed to talk about 3-4 million dogs in the watershed pooping atop the soil daily?

It does not go to a septic tank or Waste Water Treatment Plant.

At least a cat will bury it's feces in the first few inches of soil where the most microbial activity occurs. We need to teach dogs how to do that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
.......... So your solution is to kill the population instead of limiting and cutting back on pollution ........ You guys poo pood the rain tax that would have paid for the cleanup by taxing those that cause the run off that overflows the sewerage plants everytime it rains ........ Typical cons ......... ***** and complain about the bay without offering solutions and fighting tooth and nail against the any solution that's attempted
"kill the population" Give me a friggin break. Nobody mentioned anything like that. Simply a difference in opinion....although I know libs don't like that. But yet you probably tell people conservatives are the ones who overreact and take things completely out of context, don't ya!?!? GTFOH with that BS.

Have a different opinion, and you see it as "***** and complain".....but yet your response offers nothing but insults.

And as far as the appeal goes, it wasn't just about nosy states wanting to have a say in the CB. It was more about states rights vs. having the federal government regulate issues like this. And is anyone suprised that a Federal Court (with appointed Judges) backed up the EPA (Federal Agency)? Regardless of party politics, do you think the President (ANY President) should be able to govern these matters with executive orders? Because that's what happened......
 

·
Tidal Fish Super Subscriber - I rock!
Joined
·
3,298 Posts
"kill the population" Give me a friggin break. Nobody mentioned anything like that. Simply a difference in opinion....although I know libs don't like that. But yet you probably tell people conservatives are the ones who overreact and take things completely out of context, don't ya!?!? GTFOH with that BS.

Have a different opinion, and you see it as "***** and complain".....but yet your response offers nothing but insults.
.......... Well ......... what is your solution? ........ If you read the posts, they say its not due to the farmers but its due to the over population around the bay which is true. Soooo ......... if you won't allow the rain tax which distributes the costs to the ones that cause the most run off ( and its the runoff that gets the fertilizers and other stuff into the bay when the sewerage treatment plants over flow) from the population, then you have to do something. Either reduce the population or reduce the runoff from farms and new cosrtuction and then try to find away to fund bigger and more efficient sewerage treatment plants.

And yeah ...... it is *****in and complainin when you comdemn a solution and don't offer a better one. So what's your solution Bubba ........... the courts gave one and you guys condemn it ........

Oh ..... and "GTFOH" ....... that's not insulting? ..........

As I said ........ Typical Con
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,603 Posts
Are we allowed to talk about 3-4 million dogs in the watershed pooping atop the soil daily?

It does not go to a septic tank or Waste Water Treatment Plant.

At least a cat will bury it's feces in the first few inches of soil where the most microbial activity occurs. We need to teach dogs how to do that...
Mind if we use your yard for a training field?:yes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
.......... Well ......... what is your solution? ........ If you read the posts, they say its not due to the farmers but its due to the over population around the bay which is true. Soooo ......... if you won't allow the rain tax which distributes the costs to the ones that cause the most run off ( and its the runoff that gets the fertilizers and other stuff into the bay when the sewerage treatment plants over flow) from the population, then you have to do something. Either reduce the population or reduce the runoff from farms and new cosrtuction and then try to find away to fund bigger and more efficient sewerage treatment plants.

And yeah ...... it is *****in and complainin when you comdemn a solution and don't offer a better one. So what's your solution Bubba ........... the courts gave one and you guys condemn it ........

Oh ..... and "GTFOH" ....... that's not insulting? ..........

As I said ........ Typical Con
I'm not necessarily against the outcome....just against your attitude/stance of exaggerating and blindly attacking everything from a (D) vs. (R) standpoint and lashing out at people that have differing opinions, that's all. I don't think all answers should have to come from "Federal Leadership Committees" though....and I'm not a biologist, so I don't know all about TMDL's and what is acceptable and realistic. The concerns I've read/heard stem from the timeframes given from the EPA and how realistic they are and what potential economic repercussions could result. I'm not sure about MD's compliance so far, but I'm pretty sure I read that Virginia is behind on part of it.

And just so you know, the courts didn't give any solution......they just upheld the EPA's authority.

You can cry about "GTFOH" if you want, but after your $h!tty initial response, I don't care about being diplomatic to you.

And in closing, I'm a registered Democrat. So keep on with your ASSumptions!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,949 Posts
It has to be under a microscope. My personal Opinion. I live in Paris, way away from all this however **** rolls downstream. My biggest peave is the building.
At present you can't believe the amount of traffic up here without any road work. Build Build Build. Many horse farms that have been in generation after generation 1000 of acres are now have for sale signs 9 out of 10. 5000 to 8000 more new homes per farm. No road work planned , no widening of roads
All that building and digging runs off , all the fertilizer pouring into the Shen and Potomac and recent fish kills again .
The Environmental Terrorist don't make efforts to keep it clean no matter what you hear. I see it in person and its a joke. Were talking 10's of 1000's of new homes , 2 car per average per home on the road . Hell they even got permission to build a golf course on a Civil War Battlefield after many protest and signatures, it was like a waste of time. Warren County says build it anyway the hell with those soldiers who gave their lives.

Summary- I hope someone makes a real effort to try to fix the bay. It really starts up here. Everything is like a funnel to the bay. Can't build on a Chesapeake
watershed? Bull**** they do it all the time. Between Loudoun , Warren, Frederick, and Clarke , as well as West Va and Pa. all this ends up there. Its time to
fix this here to help fix things there. Greedy bastard developers , I hope all of you rot in Hell
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I support TidalFish.com
Joined
·
693 Posts
Folks--

This thread is going all over the place, mostly based on opinion instead of information. All of the problems you raise contribute to the Chesapeake's ills to one degree or another. As rhahn427 says, it's death by a thousand cuts. The emphasis on agriculture stems from the fact that 25% of the land in the Bay watershed is in agricultural production (to feed us). A lot of farmers are doing great conservation work, but the Chesapeake ecosystem needs all of them. And yes, population growth is a big issue, with everything our 21st century culture brings.

If you're really looking for answers, do some homework. A great place to start is the "Learn the Issues" section of the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership web site: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues. It'll give you the basics of 26 different issues, ranging from agriculture, stormwater runoff, and sewage treatment to oysters and rockfish. No simple answers here, and no finger pointing. Saving the Bay is hard, really hard. If it were simple, we'd have gotten it done twenty years ago. If you want a healthy Chesapeake and good fishing, get educated and find a constructive way to help.

And if you really want to understand what that court decision was about, visit www.cbf.org and read "The Bay Wins!" But then you'll have to figure out what "cooperative federalism" means. It's federal, state, and local governments working together, a critical element in getting the job done. Like I said, no simple answers, but do we want to hand a sick Chesapeake on to our kids? Or live with it the rest of our lives? You decide. Me, I'm going to work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
Rhahn


Have you thought to cut spending in other areas to pay for WWTP upgrades? Do you think we don't wast billions in this state every year? THe answer is always tax, tax, tax. 40 new taxes in the last administration is TAX OPPRESSION. That is a liberal problem. Does your household work like that? Keep spending what you don't have and if you can't pay for it make someone else???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,564 Posts
First, this case has nothing to do with tax policy. It simply decided whether a federal agency has the legal authority to set and coordinate clean water standards. One side essentially argued that nobody has such interstate authority and that those who pollute (agriculture, homebuilders and anyone else) cannot be effectively regulated on a watershed level. The prevailing side argued otherwise.

But the comment, we waste "billions" every year, caught my attention. We like to say that because we like to think that we don't need to spend more to achieve [name your objective]. It must be someone else's fault. Someone is wasting the money.

The fact is that we are way underpaying if we truly want to achieve all of the transportation, safety and ecological goals that politicians promise and the public demands. And that's even if we cut "social spending" to zero.

Why is that? All of those sprawling water and sewer pipes, treatment plants, bridges, fire and police don't come free. But let's make sure we don't get in the way of these developers, and let's make darn sure that they internalize the profits while exporting most of the costs to all of us. If you want one reason why our tax contributions no longer cover these basic costs, look first and foremost to the Ponzi scheme called sprawl development. A subdivision in the middle of a Delmarva farm field is, for example, about as expensive to society as it gets. It has little to do with population increase and, to get back on topic (sort of), it is the one source of pollution in the Bay watershed that is increasing instead of improving.

Simply put, we'll always be behind in water pollution, transportation and revenue if we continue these practices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I don't want to do this, but I have to jump in. I think I'll leave the issue of nitrogen pollution alone. I think you guys are all over that one. I do want to bring something to your attention.

In the mid seventies I worked as a surfactant chemist at a plant in Baltimore City near the water. Thousands of pounds of highly toxic chemicals were dumped into the ground by the plant I worked for and many of our neighbors (large chemical manufacturing area). Many of these chemical have since been outlawed and some can't even be sold in the US. Some of the plants have been abandoned and still stand or have been torn down. No one has ever been tasked to clean these sights. These compounds will continue to leach into the Bay for ????? years. Some of the ones I am aware of are toxic in aqueous concentrations as low as 1ppb. I seldom hear that there is even a problem with these sites. No I don't have any answers, but they should at least be on the radar.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top