Chesapeake Lobbying War Over Exemption for Agriculture. Ag Out-Spends Clean Water Advocates on Lobbying 3 X 1

EPA's pollution "diet" for the Chesapeake Bay has provoked a backlash. National agriculture industry groups are afraid of these pollution limits. Why? One word: accountability.

The secret of the ag industry is that it enjoys a sweet deal from taxpayers and the federal government today. The industry receives more than $17 billion a year in federal subsidies, but has little or no responsibility to control the runoff pollution that is fouling the nation’s waterways. They get money from us taxpayers, but are not accountable to us taxpayers to keep our water clean.

Ever since Congress amended the federal Clean Water Act in 1987, most agricultural runoff pollution has been exempt from federal regulation, with an exception for concentrated animal feeding operations.

The agriculture industry knows that the Chesapeake Bay pollution “diet” is a threat to their exemption and their sweet deal from taxpayers, because the pollution limits compel the states to start getting serious about controlling runoff pollution from all sectors, including farms. The “diet,” formally known as the Bay Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL, is designed to reduce the amount of pollution flowing into the Bay by about 25 percent by 2025.

So big ag has declared war to avoid accountability.  Now, to be clear about this, these are not family farmers we’re talking about.  Many family farmers here in the Chesapeake region are working hard to control their runoff, and they deserve great praise and our help.  This war has been launched in Washington D.C., by national trade groups with great power and influence that are motivated by an anti-regulatory agenda.

And in this war, the ag industry has a lot of powerful friends. For example, they have been joined in their federal lawsuit to stop the Bay pollution “diet” by the National Association of Homebuilders.

Congressional records show that these opponents of Bay pollution limits spend more than $15 million a year on lobbying and campaign contributions. Together, they have 119 lobbyists working the halls of Congress and federal agencies.

Here’s a breakdown of some of the groups that have sued to stop the Bay pollution “diet,” and how much they are spending on lobbying. These are 2010 numbers from Congressional records.

* The American Farm Bureau last year paid $5.5 million to 48 lobbyists.

* The Fertilizer Institute paid $1.5 million to four lobbyists.

* The National Pork Producers Council paid $1.1 million to 31 lobbyists.

* The National Corn Growers Association paid $495,000 to 12 lobbyists.

* The National Chicken Council paid $595,000 to 20 lobbyists.

* The National Association of Homebuilders paid $2.4 million to 33 lobbyists.

And, on the other side of the battlefield, there is the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which has one full time federal lobbyist on staff. (CBF also has a federal affairs director and other employees who help out with federal advocacy from time to time).

You could say it's 119 lobbyists vs. one (or, a handful, if you want to count part-timers). Either way, you can tell this is going to be a tough fight.

Now, some might ask: what about all those other environmental groups and their lobbyists?  Okay, fair enough.  If you add in all other green organizations that are on record as supporting the Bay pollution limits, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, Environment America, the National Resources Defense Council, the Congressional records still show that:

* Those fighting the Bay pollution limits spent almost three times as much in federal lobbying in 2010 as all of the environmental groups.

* Even more lopsided, the adversaries of the Bay pollution "diet" have doled out an annual average of more than 250 times more in campaign contributions over the last six years than the clean water groups, according to federal election records. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, as a non-partisan charitable organization, is prohibited from giving campaign contributions.

So those are the numbers.  But what is the argument against the Bay pollution “diet?”

One of the main claims that opponents of the Bay pollution limits have made is that the “diet” is based on “bad science.”  But as we reported yesterday in Bay Daily, an independent panel of scientific experts has concluded that the agriculture industry report that made this claim was of “poor scientific merit.” The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee determined that these ag industry claims do not hold water, and are not justification to delay the Bay pollution “diet.”

The cost of the Bay pollution limits is still being calculated. But EPA has acknowledged it will run into the billions of dollars.

That's a lot of money. But to put it in perspective, even at a cost of billions, it would make up only a tiny fraction of annual value of the Chesapeake Bay.  Respected economists have valued the Bay at over $1 trillion dollars related to fishing, tourism, property values and shipping.

* The commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia, depleted as it is, still contributes about $2 billion a year in sales and more than 41,000 jobs to the regional economy, according to NOAA.

* Recreational saltwater fishing contributes about $1.6 billion in annual sales to the region and 13,000 jobs.

* Recreational boating in Maryland is a $2 billion a year industry that supports about 35,025 jobs.

* Roughly 8 million people a year in Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia travel for wildlife and bird watching, spending almost $3 billion a year.

Also, consider that these cleanup costs are not new obligations that have suddenly popped up because of the Bay pollution diet.  They have been known for a long time and reflect longstanding obligations to upgrade sewage plants and clean up local waterways.  The costs will also be spread out between now and 2025, so the tab won't have to be paid all at once.

Moreover, these costs are investments that will mean the hiring of construction workers, engineers and others. 

Every $1 dollar invested in water and sewer infrastructure boosts the economy by more than $6, including the hiring of workers and boosts to local businesses, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

Every $1 dollar invested in agricultural runoff control projects, like building fences to keep cattle out of streams and planting trees as natural filters beside waterways, generates $1.56 in economic activity, according to a recent University of Virginia study that examined the cost-benefit ratio in Virginia.

The Chesapeake Bay pollution “diet” is hard for some people to warm up to, in part because the term “TMDL” sounds bureaucratic.

But, unsexy as the TMDL may be, these pollution limits are the best hope for the Chesapeake Bay, and for saving our streams and rivers.

If our adversaries win in their efforts in Congress and court to sink these pollution limits, all of our efforts to save these waterways will be thrown back decades, perhaps never to recover.

A world without pollution limits would be fertile ground for the Fertilizer Institute. But it would be a dead zone for our children. 

Those of us who care about clean water need to do everything in our power to defend the Bay pollution “diet.”

By Tom Pelton

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(Photo at top from USDA)

 

 

Comments

[Jeff Kelble]

Very well articulated Tom, thank you.

There is no doubt that widespread farm improvements will be necessary not only for bay health, but for the health of our local rivers like the Shenandoah River.

Jeff Kelble
Shenandoah Riverkeeper

[Tom Pelton]

Thanks, Jeff! You are absolutely right, and I appreciate the kind words.

[Elevation22]

Finally, something we can all agree on! Widespread improvements on farms are needed to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. That is where the agreement ends. Someone recently said that the Chesapeake Bay is dying the death of a thousand cuts. What that person didn’t tell you is that autopsy will show that the cause of death is failure to treat coronary artery disease and high blood pressure. (Legacy sediments and storm water runoff).
I hate computer models, whether it is a weather model, or the pollution model used by the CBP or by USDA. These models are tools that supposedly simulate reality. In reality they often do not properly simulate the real word situations. Now we are relying on them to help clean up the Chesapeake. They are in many ways like political surveys. Depending on how a question is asked, a result can be significantly skewed depending on the desired outcome. I have no idea how the Chesapeake bay computer model works, and have to a certain extent been denied the opportunity to check it out (Rich Eskin of MDE said “don’t question the data”, at a WIP I meeting I attended). I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand that complex model. Only a limited number of academics and its creators are familiar with its design. It has passed muster with independent reviewers and has been peer reviewed.
Having all of these credentials doesn’t make the model useful in dictating pollution reduction strategies. As it is often stated, a model is only as accurate as information used in its input deck. I have repeatedly questioned the geographic scale used for land use land cover data. No one has ever answered my question as to how features that can only be mapped at a smaller scale can be accounted for in the model. I’ve also questions how the nutrient load allocations and nutrient reduction efficiencies have dramatically changed from model 5.2 to model 5.3.2. I’m not going to expand on my past diatribes as to the flaws I’ve already pointed out.
The most critical flaw I’ve found in the Bay Model is how it can’t be applied to real word solutions to Bay pollution. This tool has limited use outside of model world. To make my point I’ve created a homework problem for you Tom. Go to the MDE website that shows the final load allocations by county. The link at the end of this post is provided for your conveyance. Click on the Charles County Link and find the page that has only the Federal load for nitrogen. Each pollution source is singled out, such as agriculture, septics, urban and so on. You will notice that there is an agricultural load of 2,389 lbs of nitrogen attributed to federal properties in Charles County. I’ve been to most federal properties in Charles County and I haven’t seen any farm land. I inventoried all federal properties in Charles County from several sources and found no actively farmed land. I decided to make some calls to local agricultural officials to find out where these farms on federal lands are located. I’ve talked with county, state and federal agricultural offices in Charles County and none of them could locate these farms. I then talked with an environmental employee at the navy base in Indian Head and he said there is no agricultural land on any federal properties in Charles County, except for “maybe 10 or 15 acres of wildlife food plots”. So I conclude that the model output that shows an agricultural load on those properties is bogus. Poor analysis of the land use land cover data or improper scale of the data layer is likely to blame for the false model output. What do you conclude Tom? Can you find these phantom farms?
Those of you who continue to advocate the use of this model for Bay restoration be warned. The model analysis is dubious at best. There are provable errors in the output information. Maybe if MDE or EPA would actually attend some of these local meetings they would see how impractical the process has become. Model world is model world, but reality bites. I’ll continue to test the accuracy of model outputs with observations along with basic math. You’ve gone all in with your chips and you have a weak hand to play.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Pages/MD_WIP_Phase_II_Target_load_summaries.aspx

[Tom Pelton]

Thanks, Elevation.

I am not a scientist or a mathmetician, and so I personally have no qualifications to judge the computer models you discuss.

However, I do know that back on November 8, 2010, Dr. Donald Boesch, President of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; Dr. John Wells, Director of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science; and Dr. Denise Wardrop, Senior Scientist at Penn State University jointly wrote a letter to EPA testifying that the scientific models used to create the Bay TMDL are “state of the art” and both “useful and adequate."

I trust that these experts know what they are talking about.

[Drew Koslow]

Great work Tom. It's interesting that many family farmers are willing partners with Riverkeepers and other conservationists while Big Ag is fighting tooth and nail to avoid serious regulation.

Keep up the great writing.

Drew Koslow
Choptank Riverkeeper

[pat kelly]

Yes, finally something we can agree on. Ag can do a better job....and needs to.

Pat Kelly in Centreville

[קידום אתרים]

Trade secret is that AG has a sweet deal for taxpayers and the federal government today.

[Elevation22]

Wow,
It appears you riverkeeper guys have each other’s back. Thanks for your reply Tom. It would really be nice if you and some of those who responded to this post would attend some of these agriculture work groups and county work groups for the WIP II. I think it would be a huge eye opener as to how difficult this process has become. Please remember that the objective of this process is to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. If you would attend one of these meetings you would see how faulty this model is when applied to the county scale. I talked with government official who helps coordinate the agriculture workgroups and they said officials from MDE have only attended one workgroup meeting. I think attendance by the CBF and the EPA has also been lacking (or completely absent). The presence of these agencies at the table would be very helpful at the local level when the county governments are struggling with the deficiencies in the data. Tom, the riverkeepers, and the others who responded to this post; practice what you preach and get involved in the process. Believe me when I say that MDE, EPA and the riverkeepers have a more constructive role to play than just advocating regulation and blindly following what others proclaim as gospel (ever hear the saying, don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see?). Beware false prophets on both sides of this issue. You are well informed of the pollution that poisons the bay but you are completely ignorant of the solutions that are needed to fix the problem. The use of this model will at best just partially improve water quality in the bay, not meet tmdl. Please critique the issues I address in my last post and dispute what I have said based on your experience participating in this process. Don’t base your defense of this process on what others have said, get involved!
Thanks

[בוקיפר]

I have long been known, and reflects the long standing commitment to the modernization of waste water treatment plants and clean up local waterways.

[article writing service]

What a technology, what a technology!! Some one has to motivate the farmers to adopt such type of technologies for better results..Thank you.