Maryland governor-elect vows to scrap phosphorous runoff rules

Larry Hogan, governor-elect of Maryland, promised poultry farmers that his "first fight" as governor will be to scrap rules aimed at curbing the amount of phosphorous from chicken manure running into the Chesapeake Bay. Hogan, a Republican, will take office in January.
"We won't allow [the rules] to put you out of business, destroy your way of life, or decimate your entire industry," Hogan told the Maryland Farm Bureau (MFB) convention.
The rules Hogan spoke of were announced in November under the administration of Gov. Martin O’Malley and Maryland Agriculture Secretary Earl F. Hance. The rules, known as the Phosphorous Management Tool (PMT) seek to curtail farmers’ use of poultry manure as fertilizer, which was said to be a source of phosphorous that gets into the Chesapeake Bay, according to a column in the Baltimore Sun.
MFB in November had written to Hance to voice its opposition to the PMT.
“If implemented, the PMT restrictions will dramatically limit the use of locally produced organic fertilizer to much of the land on the lower Eastern Shore and in many other areas of the state. This limitation will have far reaching negative economic impacts on individual poultry growers, dairymen, grain operators, support businesses and local communities,” MFB President Patricia Langenfelder wrote.
“Our members strongly believe that it makes no sense to impose this burden on farmers when at 130 percent we are the only sector to reach our bay cleanup goals in the most recent analysis and are, in fact, doing more than our fair share.”

Court urged to restore state authority in Chesapeake Bay cleanup

The American Farm Bureau Federation on August 20 asked a federal appellate court in Pennsylvania to reverse a lower court ruling that upheld pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay watershed imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Although restricted to areas surrounding the Chesapeake Bay, the court’s decision could have sweeping effects on states and economic activity across the country.
EPA has claimed that its bay limits were developed in cooperation with the bay states. But the AFBF brief points out that “if EPA can set federal limits and deadlines in a TMDL [total maximum daily load], then it can do so with or without state cooperation: that is why 21 State Attorneys General have supported us as amici.”
The appellate court will decide whether EPA has the power to set only the “total” allowable pollutant load for waters, as AFBF and its allies maintain, or also to set individual limits for farming, construction or other activities across the landscape, as EPA claims. AFBF maintains that Congress reserved such land use decision-making exclusively for the states.
According to AFBF, under EPA’s view of its power, “EPA could assign nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment limits for each farm, home site, or even each acre of undeveloped land across the countryside.” Such broad power “amounts to nothing short of federal land use zoning authority, which cannot be squared with Congress’s clear and consistent determination to reserve such authority for the states.”
AFBF also noted that because restoration of the bay does not depend on the unlawful aspects of the TMDL before the court, cleanup would continue with a court ruling in AFBF’s favor. According to the AFBF brief, a ruling in its favor would not disturb the total pollutant limit set by EPA for each segment of the bay. In addition, a ruling removing the challenged EPA source limits or “allocations” from the TMDL “would in no way impair the ability of any state to achieve those objectives. It would only allow them the freedom—as Congress intended—to set different allocations and deadlines, if they so choose.”

Maryland bill would tax poultry companies 5 cents per chicken

The General Assembly of Maryland is considering the Poultry Fair Share Act, a piece of legislation introduced February 4 that would place a tax of 5 cents per chicken on poultry companies operating in the state. The money raised through the tax would go toward efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.
The bill, heavily supported by environmental group Food & Water Watch, is expected to generate about $15 million annually for bay clean-up initiatives.
Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc., the trade association for the Delmarva Peninsula's broiler industry, has expressed its strong opposition to the bill, which would have grave consequences to the poultry industry in Maryland.
"This bill has the potential to drive the chicken industry out of Maryland," the group posted on its website. "This bill must be stopped."
Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc. points out that the bill overlooks all the good Maryland poultry producers have done for the environment, including:

• Spending more than $4 million through the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program for on-the-farm environmental programs
• Spending more than $4.5 million since the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 to move chicken manure to farms or alternative-use facilities that wanted it
• Planting trees and tall grasses on their farms for air and water quality improvements
• Examining more than 50 different types of technology to convert manure into something else
The organization also noted that Perdue Farms, which would be hit hard by the proposed tax, voluntarily constructed and operates a plant to convert manure into fertilizer pellets as an alternative to land application for growers. It has invested more than $45 million without any profit to do so.

Chesapeake water quality ruling appealed by ag groups

Some agriculture trade groups are appealing a September 13 federal court decision which upheld the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay. The ruling was initially challenged in 2011, when ag organizations attempted to block federal and state limits designed to improve the health of the bay through tighter regulations on agricultural treatment, but U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo ruled that the EPA was within its authority to set and enforce standards to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that drain from rivers into the bay.
National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) President Martin Barbre on October 8 released the following statement after filing a notice to appeal the ruling: "NCGA feels it is in the best interest of farmers to appeal the district court's decision which upheld the TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay. Our organization understands and supports the need to protect water quality, but we don't support a wrongfully decided case when it has a profoundly negative impact on agricultural production and innovation.
"We continue to believe the policies and science behind Chesapeake Bay TMDL are wrong, and that it goes beyond the scope of Clean Water Act authority. We hope the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider these arguments and ultimately provide state and local jurisdiction more flexibility to work with agriculture in meeting water quality goals."
Bob Stallman, American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) president, added that the September ruling has dangerous implications for farmers and other who live not only in the Chesapeake Bay area, but also nationwide.
"This case isn't about whether or not to protect the Chesapeake Bay - we all share that goal," said Stallman. "This case is about whether EPA can dictate where farming will be allowed, where homes can be built, and where businesses can be established. By taking over decisions like that, EPA has turned the whole concept of cooperative federalism out the barn door."
The American Farm Bureau Federation filed the initial suit in 2011. They were joined at the time by the NCCA, National Chicken Council, U.S. Poultry & Egg Association, National Turkey Federation, the Fertilizer Institute, and the National Pork Producers Council, but not all of those groups have announced if they are joining AFBF and the NCGA in the appeal.

Judge rules in favor of EPA in Chesapeake water quality case

U.S. agriculture groups' efforts to block federal and state limits designed to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay through tighter regulations on agricultural runoff and wastewater treatment were rejected by a federal judge in Harrisburg, Penn. U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo on September 13 ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was within its authority to set and enforce standards to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that drain from rivers into the bay.
The American Farm Bureau Federation initially filed the suit in 2011, claiming the EPA overstepped its bounds and created an unfair process by using standards that were flawed and unlawfully complicated, the Associated Press reported. Other groups, including the National Chicken Council, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the National Turkey Federation, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Pork Producers Council and the National Corn Growers Association, joined in the suit.
The EPA and six states - Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia - and Washington, D.C., in 2007 agreed to establish a pollution-reduction program by May 1, 2011, and to reach the targeted limits by 2025. The agreement did not violate the Clean Water Act, Rambo ruled, because the EPA and the states all agreed to it and states were given the flexibility to decide how to meet the limits.

EPA, Chesapeake Bay Foundation reach agreement on poultry, livestock pollution discharges

The Environmetal Protection Agency and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation have recently announced the details of a new agreement to declare a new national concentrated animal feeding operation rule that addresses pollution discharges from livestock and poultry farms. The agreement, arises from the 2010 settlement of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's lawsuit. 
The U.S. poultry industry released the following statement in response to the agreement:
"The National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation and U.S. Poultry & Egg Association support EPA's collection of more data to verify the efficacy of the current regulatory program rather than developing further regulations that are not needed. This will help to assure that no false assumptions are made about the potential contribution of livestock and production to pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
"The poultry industry recognizes that there are indeed challenges within this and other watersheds to reduce the level of nutrients in surface waters. All of animal agriculture has been working together to minimize its impact on these watersheds. By EPA's own admission, the agricultural industry has made tremendous progress in reducing potential runoff and improving the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and other watersheds throughout the country.
"A recent study by the University of Delaware not only found that the amount of nutrient runoff in the Chesapeake Bay supposedly caused by chicken litter is much less than EPA's outdated and overstated estimates, but that the concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous in the litter are far lower, too.  The study concluded that new management practices, better growing environments, feed technology and genetics have improved efficiencies over the last 30 years.
"Everyone should have a vested interest in preserving watersheds across the country. The poultry industry is doing its part, and we're making progress. Individuals and their families who raise and process chickens on the land in these watersheds all swim in the same rivers, eat seafood out of the same bodies of water and enjoy the same waterways as do others. They want to preserve that as much as anyone."

National Chicken Council, Turkey Federation support Chesapeake Bay legislation

The National Chicken Council and National Turkey Federation have announced their support for the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act, which would allow states and communities more flexibility in meeting water quality goals to help restore and protect natural resources, according to the organizations.
The bill would also set up programs to give farmers, homebuilders and localities new ways to meet their water quality goals. “The bill offers a sound and straightforward approach in dealing with on-going efforts to enhance the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay," said the associations in a statement. "It also provides a good combination of incentives, coordination and technical assistance needed to achieve the necessary goal of advancing the Bay’s water quality objectives."
According to the two groups, the legislation strikes an important balance between regulatory requirements that are achievable and the use of technologies that have proven results while not jeopardizing the financial sustainability of the poultry farmers that care about the quality of the land and water they rely upon in the Chesapeake Bay.

USPOULTRY, National Chicken Council join lawsuit challenging EPA Chesapeake Bay program

U.S. Poultry & Egg Association and the National Chicken Council have joined the American Farm Bureau Federation in a lawsuit challenging an Environmental Protection Agency program that will set limits on discharges to each of the individual watersheds within the Chesapeake Bay region on the East Coast of the U.S.
“The poultry industry is extremely concerned with the potential ramifications that could come from the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load recently implemented by the EPA,” said John Starkey, president of USPOULTRY, and Mike Brown, president of the NCC. “The poultry industry has a large presence in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. It provides thousands of jobs and contributes well over $1 billion each year to the region’s economy. The viability of the industry in the watershed is essential if we hope to continue providing a safe, sustainable, wholesome, economical source of protein to the United States and the world.”
According to Starkey and Brown, the poultry industry has already made significant efforts to clean up the bay, but the EPA is looking for further reductions from agriculture. “The EPA has announced this program will be a model that will be implemented on a nationwide level,” said Brown. “If so, the assumptions and data that went into developing this model deserves the highest level of scrutiny."

EPA data scrutinized in Chesapeake Bay rule US House hearing

Representatives from the Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council and the poultry industry were among those testifying at the recent U.S. Congressional hearing involving the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load rule.
ANPC senior advisor Tom Herbert focused on certain discrepancies between EPA data and U.S. Department of Agriculture data, including baseline sediment loads (EPA numbers are three times USDA numbers), nitrogen estimates (EPA numbers are 25% lower than the USDA's) and phosphorus loads (EPA numbers are 25% higher than the USDA's). “In terms of sediment and phosphorus, this comparison could be interpreted to mean that agriculture has already met its TMDL obligations, and in the case of nitrogen it would indicate that in absolute terms agriculture can meet the EPA’s TMDL load allocation,” said Hebert. “But the real bottom line is that these differences are so substantial that the need for further work on the TMDL is apparent.”
Hobey Bauhan, president of Virginia Poultry Federation and representative for the National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation and U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, said the EPA should recognize the poultry industry’s tools and programs that are improving water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and across the nation. Family poultry farms in Virginia have, for more than a decade, expanded their conservation practices to enhance water quality, according to Bauhan. “The results of these actions are reflected in the EPA’s estimates that between 1985 and 2005 nutrient loads from agriculture decreased to the Chesapeake Bay, while nutrient loadings from developed lands increased by 16 percent,” he said.
Poultry industry representatives believe that heavy-handed federal mandates are unnecessary because states have already adopted effective regulations to improve water quality. “Imposing burdensome mandates based on questionable data only imposes more costs, paperwork and burdens on family farmers, while achieving few real benefits for water quality,” said Bauhan.

IPE program to examine Chesapeake Bay, national water quality standards

The 2011 International Poultry Expo's environmental education program will review the Total Maximum Daily Load requirements implemented for the Chesapeake Bay and examine their impact on nationwide water quality standards.
Experts will discuss effects the requirements may have on the poultry industry, as well as issues that may come up as a result of those effects. Speakers include LimnoTech Senior Scientist Pat Bradley, LimnoTech Vice President Adrienne Nemura and Environmental Defense Fund Deputy Director Suzy Friedman.

Agriculture groups comment on proposed Chesapeake Bay regulations

Thirty agricultural and forestry groups submitted joint comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding proposed Chesapeake Bay water quality regulations.
The organizations have concerns regarding the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements for the Bay and want to bring attention to the "significant contributions of agriculture to improvements to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay," according to The Fertilizer Institute (TFI). “Even the EPA’s data shows that since 1985 the agriculture community has reduced phosphorus loadings by over 21%, nitrogen loadings by 27% and sediment loadings by 24% within the Bay watershed,” said TFI President Ford B. West.
The groups are concerned that the EPA is withholding information that would allow the public to fully understand the EPA's stance on TMDL and that stance's impact on the surrounding economy. “By withholding adequate information regarding the TMDL, the EPA has inhibited the agriculture community’s ability to properly evaluate and comment on the requirements,” said West.

TFI expresses opposition to US Senate water bill

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) is urging the U.S. Senate to oppose the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act (S. 1816).
The bill, according to TFI, would fundamentally change aspects of the Clean Water Act and set water policy precedents that will impact watersheds throughout the United States. "S. 1816 would set a major legislative precedent in federal environmental law, taking the authority and control granted to states and local governments under the Clean Water Act and turning it over to [the Environmental Protection Agency] — a step never before taken in the 38-year history of the law."
TFI has joined with other agriculture organizations to send a joint letter to the members of the Senate detailing their concerns.