|
|
EPA and the Chesapeake BayThe Environmental Protection Agency has declared that it will use its regulatory authority to reduce the amount of pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. There are many parallels that can be drawn between intensively managed livestock operations and row crop farming in the midcontinent region and the regulatory plans for the mid-Atlantic coastal region. Agricultural interests should be advised to watch closely and learn quickly. There are six states, and the District of Columbia, that contribute to the waters of the Chesapeake Bay: New York, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The location is highly significant as the region is large, urban and industrialized. A part of the area is also heavily agricultural. The Delmarva Peninsula extends down the east side of the Chesapeake to form a barrier against the Atlantic Ocean. It is not island sand but mainland soil that is ideal for farming. It is hard to tell it from the fields of Illinois if you can't see any of the development close to the water. Large-scale poultry operations dot the landscape, as about 10 percent of the nation's production comes from Delaware, Maryland and Virginia (Delmarva). The land adjacent to the bay is quite valuable and mostly residential. The home owners are generally affluent and chose the location for its beauty and the exclusive nature of having frontage on the water. The longstanding joke in the area is the difference between an "environmentalist" and a "developer." The answer is: "The environmentalist already has his house built." The bay itself is a part of early American history. Settlements in the 1600s were able to utilize the resources of the bay--oysters, blue crabs and migratory waterfowl--to sustain their populace while they grew tobacco and other crops for export. Early descriptions of the Chesapeake depict the plentiful fish and shallow water wildlife as well as the Indian tribes who utilized it for food and transportation. Although not a historical account, the book "Chesapeake" by James Michener describes the progression of colonial settlers who became "watermen" and their descendants who are modern-day Americans. The political and historical background of the land and water was not lost on the EPA as it laid out the 15-year plan for putting the bay on a "pollution diet" and the requirement that states enforce their laws to achieve the federal goal. Agriculture has not been singled out to be held accountable for inflow of pollutants. The EPA is going after wastewater treatment plants and municipalities who discharge stormwater runoff into the contributing rivers that flow into the bay. Pennsylvania has been tagged with an estimated 6 percent of the total pollution coming from its streets and parking lots. Agricultural interests, both crop and livestock, will be held accountable for the water quality downstream from their property. The identified agricultural pollutants are nitrates, phosphorous and sediment. The EPA plan calls for a 25 percent decrease in nitrogen, 24 percent decrease in phosphorous and 20 percent decrease in sediment. To put it in perspective, the reduction in Total Maximum Daily Load of these products and by products translates into 186 million pounds of nitrogen, 12 million pounds of phosphorous and over 6 billion pounds of sediment per year. The EPA timeline to clean the Chesapeake has slipped but the resolve has not. First slated for the year 2000, the new goal is 2025 with no shortage of money and regulation to accomplish the task. EPA says it doesn't know how much money it will take to do the job, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that it will spend $700 million over the next five years on restoration. Farmers, if they can continue to grow row crops under the requirements, may have to plant an off-season cover crop on all acres to prevent soil erosion. Pennsylvania projects that it will cost their state $2 billion to make the changes required to comply with the new EPA standards. West Virginia says it will have to spend $136 million to upgrade water treatment facilities to comply. All states adjoining the Chesapeake Bay agree that improving the estuary will increase tourism and property values. Virginia's response is that it wishes to balance cleanup with continued economic development and maintain jobs in all sectors. Livestock producers have already been under scrutiny in the large circle around the bay. Regulation on application of manure on farmland as well as waste water management may make it cost-prohibitive for them to remain there. Maryland has pushed livestock farms to the "outhouse" side of the state for many years. Now they may have to enforce stronger regulations against all consolidated animal feeding operations or run afoul of the EPA. The upside of the federal plan is that the water quality and habitat for all creatures in the ecosystem may be improved. The amount of human activity in the watershed makes that unlikely unless the states become much more aggressive with regulatory actions. The EPA says it will demand that states strengthen and enforce their laws, but the proof will be in the coexistence of industrial and agricultural enterprises with residential property owners. EPA says it will even regulate how much fertilizer homeowners may apply to their yards. I doubt we'll see anyone in handcuffs for having too green a yard, but the culture of the region may be changed to bring greater awareness that every source of pollution must be addressed. It appears that the EPA, using existing clean water regulatory authority, will impose its will on the Chesapeake region to force states to come into compliance. It can also be assumed that the EPA will concurrently target other sensitive areas and apply the same tactics that they are using on the East coast. The likely Midwest target will be the river system and improving water quality in the Gulf of Mexico. This will reach all of the drainage area of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers or all of the land between the Rocky Mountains and the Ohio Valley. As the political winds change for elected officials, it appears they have strengthened for regulatory action. Many questions remain as to government authority, funding and public will to achieve measurable environmental improvement goals. The Chesapeake appears to be the test tube for now. Stay tuned! Editor's note: Ken Root is an independent agricultural journalist. He was named the 2009 Farm Broadcaster of the Year and was the 2008 winner of the Oscar in Agriculture. He is an Oklahoma native and an experienced print, radio and television journalist. He has spent the last five years as Lead Farm Broadcaster at WHO Radio in¬ Des Moines, Iowa. He and his wife Gail have two adult children and two grandchildren.
1
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
