Maryland
Maryland Senate Hearings on Phosphorus Regulations
The following is an account from my colleague, Neil Saunders, on the recent Maryland Senate hearings on phosphorus management, which he attended on February 24, in Annapolis. The hearing addressed the recent phosphorus management regulations proposed by former Governor Martin O’Malley, and reversed by newly inaugurated Governor Larry Hogan.
Listening to testimony provided in the Senate committee hearing on the proposed Phosphorus Management Tool bill, one theme that continued to be raised is that of unintended consequences. Proponents of the bill, Senator Pinsky who sponsored the bill and the environmental and scientific community, argued that not taking action necessary to address the problem of excessive phosphorus pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay watershed would have the unintended consequences of continuing to degrade the Bay’s poor water quality. Opponents of the bill, Secretary Bartenfelder and concerned partners of agriculture, countered that passage of the overly restrictive legislation would have the unintended consequences of mismanaging the state’s efforts to reduce nutrient pollution within the agricultural community. They do not oppose the PMT outright, but instead advocate for implementation of the PMT through flexible administrative regulations. Given the history of water quality policy around the Chesapeake Bay, it is clear that one side isn’t as sincere as they want to appear.
On February 24th, the Maryland Senate Committee on Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs heard testimony on a proposed bill to put into law the same PMT regulations that were stopped at the last minute by newly elected Governor Hogan. The bill, Senate Bill 257, was sponsored by Senator Pinsky to address the excessive phosphorus levels in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which has for decades contributed to the degradation of the Bay’s water quality. Specifically, the bill would update the method by which soil is measured for phosphorus and restrict the amount of animal manure, which is rich in the nutrient, that may be applied to farmlands where phosphorus levels are too high.
Under Maryland law, farmers must comply with a nutrient management plan to manage the application of nitrogen and phosphorus to their fields to prevent pollution to the Bay. The purpose of the nutrient management plan is to account for the nutrient needs of the crops as well as the risk of excessive nutrient runoff that can reach surface waters and ultimately pollute the Bay watershed. Currently, the Maryland Department of Agriculture relies on a model called the Phosphorus Site Index (PSI) to measure phosphorus levels and guides the department in making recommendations as to proper application rates. Senate Bill 257 would replace the PSI with a revised model for measuring phosphorus levels known as the Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT). The PMT, developed by the University of Maryland, more accurately identifies areas where there is high potential for phosphorus loss to nearby surface waters. The PSI, which was first developed in 2000 and revised in 2005, has been criticized by scientists to under-measure the risk of phosphorus loss, resulting in over-application of animal manure. The PMT would be implemented gradually over six years, with those fields with the highest phosphorus levels given the most time to be in compliance.
Senator Pinsky sponsored the bill after Governor Hogan recently blocked the PMT regulations from taking effect last month as part of outgoing Governor Martin O’Malley’s last moves before leaving office. Governor Hogan has since released his own proposed regulations immediately prior to the senate committee hearing; the debate is now whether the PMT should be adopted as regulations or passed as a piece of legislation. During testimony over the bill, Senator Pinsky acknowledged that adopting the PMT as an administrative regulation provides advantages in allowing flexibility to make minor changes in the future, but expressed serious concern that the Governor’s proposed regulations would ever be implemented and were not an attempt to delay implementation and save political face. Under Maryland law, the regulations proposed by the Governor cannot take effect until June 8th at the earliest. The previous regulations would have taken effect during the first week of February.
Senator Pinsky’s concerns do hold merit. For one, the environmental and scientific communities have advocated for years for new regulations to address excessive phosphorus caused by over application of animal manure. Several individuals from organizations such as the University of Maryland, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Chesapeake Bay Commission, U.S. Ecological Survey, and Environmental Integrity Project joined the Senator before the Senate committee to express support for the bill. The consensus among them was that this bill is long overdue and fundamental to addressing phosphorus pollution from agriculture. Despite huge efforts under the EPA TMDL program, parts of the Bay watershed are still impaired and others, including the Lower Eastern Shore where chicken farming is heavily concentrated, are worsening.
Opponents to the bill included newly-appointed MDA Secretary Bartenfelder and members of the agricultural community. These individuals also expressed their concern for phosphorus management, but strongly advocated for the committee to vote down the legislation and allow the MDA to implement the revised regulations proposed by Governor Hogan. The complexity of phosphorus management, they contend, warrants greater study. The reality is, however, that this issue has been debated and studied for years. According to Senator Pinsky, these PMT regulations have been proposed and pull back four times prior to proposal of the current bill. The agricultural community has been well aware that changes must be made in how animal manure is used as fertilizer but has long argued that it is too costly or unfair to farmers. To argue that now, after opposing similar PMT regulations for so long, that the proper course of action is to go with the more flexible regulation route, leaves too open the possibility that such regulations will never be imposed. When questioned on this possibility, the Secretary gave his word that they would. The real question is, what has this Hogan-appointed secretary done in his short time in office besides already pull back the same regulations once.
Another concern is that the Hogan regulations, while fundamentally similar to the previous PMT regulations, include changes that may have significant substantive consequences. First, the Hogan regulations would alter the schedule of implementation and provide an initial two-year period wherein the PSI model would remain in effect so that farmers may study the effects that the PMT model will have on their farmlands and prepare for whatever added costs they will face going forward. After the two-year period, a five-year phase in period will begin, with full PMT implementation by 2022, and not 2021 under the proposed bill. Second, the regulations would impose an immediate ban on phosphorus application to fields that have a P FIV (Phosphorus Fertility Index Value) of only over 500. While this is ultimately a good thing for reducing potential phosphorus loss, for reference the optimal FIV level is between 50 and 100. Finally, and potentially most significantly, is the inclusion of language that conditions restrictions on animal manure application to the ability to market the manure and provide adequate alternate uses. The agricultural community has long advocated that this problem is too costly and too detrimental to farmers to fix through additional regulations.
The reality is that phosphorus loss caused by excessive animal manure application is an issue that will continue to worsen if not addressed. The state of Maryland has delayed taking action through administrative regulation for too long. Passing legislation will finally provide the incentives to address this issue. Advances in technology exist to turn unused animal manure into alternative energies, but, as mentioned during the senate committee hearing, require certainty in legislation to justify investments in these technologies. Also, the bill provides adequate phased-in implementation to make the transition easier for those farmers most affected by these changes, and Senator Pinsky affirmed during the hearing that he is ready to make additions to the budget to support the additional costs of the bill.
Instead of arguing about unintended consequences, we should be arguing about the intended consequences of a cleaner Bay.
Bad News for the Bay
Yesterday newly inaugurated Governor of Maryland, Larry Hogan, decided to reverse regulation on phosphorus management that former Governor Martin O’Malley proposed late last year. The regulation was aimed at reducing agricultural runoff and phosphorus pollution in the Chesapeake Bay from farming operations that use chicken litter as fertilizer. The Phosphorus Management Tool, part of the proposed regulation which was set to be published tomorrow, January 23, was developed by scientists to enforce new standards on farmers in the region. The Phosphorus Management Tool, when implemented, was supposed to be used for Maryland farmers to determine how much fertilizer their croplands need, prevent the over-application of chicken litter, and in turn, prevent excessive levels of phosphorus runoff into the Bay and its tributaries.
While chicken litter is a useful and easily available form of fertilizer in the region (due to the high number of chicken feeding operations in the state), litter is often over-applied to croplands. Rain and snowmelt carry the excess nutrients in the soil, high in phosphorus, to the Chesapeake Bay. Phosphorus pollution contributes to hypoxia, or dead zones within the Bay, making it difficult for aquatic organisms to live and reproduce in affected regions of the estuary. In worst-case scenarios, dead zones can result in fish kills and act as biological stressors for shellfish species. Phosphorus pollution can also contribute to algal blooms, which block sunlight to underwater grasses, an important source of food and habitat for species in the watershed, especially the Chesapeake blue crab – a species that has had an incredible population decline in recent years due to habitat loss, overfishing, and water quality issues.
Governor Hogan cited economic reasons for overturning the proposed phosphorus regulation, claiming the economic burden for regional farmers would be too great were farmers forced to comply with new management tools. However, the Maryland Department of Agriculture had proposed subsidy programs for manure transport, which would have reduced this burden. There is also a large economic loss which needs to be considered for the Chesapeake region when cleanup programs are not implemented. Other groups, such as Chesapeake watermen, and recreational business, for example, suffer from a polluted Bay. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has estimated that watershed states stand to gain $20 billion should the Bay reach cleanup goals proposed for 2025. The new phosphorus regulation could have helped Maryland and other Bay states reach these ecological and economic goals. Reversing the regulation reverses this progress.
Furthermore, Maryland has an obligation to reduce pollution into the Chesapeake Bay, as part of its Watershed Implementation Plan, an agreement and plan of action Maryland entered into with the EPA, to restore the health of the Bay. Targeting phosphorus pollution from agricultural runoff would show that Maryland’s leaders were aware of their contribution to the Bay nutrient load, and committed to improving water quality in the estuary.
I am not sure what will become of this regulation going forward, but I am hopeful that the issue will continue to be brought up, and will eventually lead to the implementation of the Phosphorus Management Tool or a similar management strategy in the near future. I believe this tool is crucial to reducing phosphorus loads to the Bay, improving water quality, raising population numbers for at-risk aquatic organisms in the watershed, and raising standards of living for individuals who rely on the Bay for their livelihoods.
Please see DelmarvaNow for more information on Hogan’s action: http://www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/local/maryland/2015/01/21/hogan-halts-poultry-regs/22127497/.
Proposed Phosphorus Regulations in Maryland
Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has proposed new regulations aimed at reducing phosphorus loads to the Chesapeake Bay. The regulation would put into place a new Phosphorus Management Tool, which farmers will use to measure phosphorus levels in their soil, and determine how much fertilizer they can put down on their croplands. Agricultural runoff from the over application of phosphorus-laden fertilizers, including chicken litter, is a major pollutant in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The new proposed regulation will work to ensure that agricultural lands in Maryland do not have more applied fertilizer than is needed for crop production, and will ultimately help improve the state of the Chesapeake Bay. My colleagues and I have written a letter, posted below, in support of the this proposed regulation and will be sending it to the Maryland Department of Agriculture. (The regulation is currently open to comments from the public until the end of the year.) We are also working on a booklet on the regulation and issue of phosphorus pollution in the Bay, and will update on that in the near future.
December 22, 2014
Mr. Buddy Hance
Secretary
Maryland Department of Agriculture
50 Harry S. Truman Parkway
Annapolis, MD 21401
Dear Mr. Hance:
The purpose of this letter is to support the Department of Agriculture’s implementation of the new Phosphorus Management Tool (PMT) regulation recently proposed by Governor O’Malley. An average of 21.1 million pounds of phosphorus reach the Chesapeake Bay watershed each year, well above the EPA’s “healthy” level of 12.5 million pounds.[1]
Although past efforts to curb nutrient pollution to the Bay have been somewhat effective, by almost any measure, the Chesapeake Bay is still not a healthy body of water. And phosphorus loads from agriculture remain one of the leading sources of pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. In Maryland, phosphorus loads from agriculture accounted for almost 49% of the state’s total phosphorus loads of 3.3 million pounds in 2010.[2]
The new PMT regulation, which specifically targets the use of phosphorus-rich fertilizers and manures on farmlands, is an important step toward cleaning the Chesapeake Bay. This regulation will replace an existing model for measuring phosphorus levels in farm soil with an improved model developed by the University of Maryland.
More significantly, the new regulation will reduce the amount of phosphorus from farmlands entering the Chesapeake Bay by requiring farmers to reduce the application of excess phosphorus to their fields. Currently, farmers use fertilizers and animal manure, both rich in phosphorus, to fertilize their croplands. The regulation will limit the amount of manure that can be applied to farmlands with high phosphorus levels, and in its place require farmers to rely on inorganic fertilizers which do not contain phosphorus. Any remaining unused animal manure will be transported to other farmlands that can utilize the manure under the new restrictions or to nearby manure treatment facilities.
The regulation’s six-year phase-in approach properly addresses concerns among farmers and the agriculture industry that implementation of the regulation would be too economically burdensome. First, the regulation will offer farmers most affected by the regulation the greatest latitude by providing the six-year window to come into compliance with the new restrictions. Second, the state intends to provide incentives and program support of $79 million over the six-year program, which would more than offset its costs, estimated at $22.5 million.[3]
The proposed PMT regulation is part of Maryland’s plan to meet the state’s commitments under the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL). The Bay TMDL is a regulatory framework issued in December 2010, which is designed to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, with participation from all the states in the Bay watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest and most productive estuary in the United States. Its economic value is estimated to be over $1 trillion, and a recent Chesapeake Bay Foundation report estimates an additional $4.6 billion of annual economic benefit to Maryland as a result of meeting the TMDL Bay restoration goals.[4] State initiatives, such as the Phosphorus Management Tool regulation, are an important and necessary step toward meeting Maryland’s commitment to restore the health of the Chesapeake.
Neil Saunders Kathleen Daley
Environmental Analyst Environmental Analyst
[1] http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/phosphorus_loads_and_river_flow_to_the_bay
[2] http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Documents/FINAL_PhaseII_Report_Docs/Final_Documents_PhaseII/Final_Phase_II_WIP_MAIN_REPORT_102612.pdf
[3] http://www.dsd.state.md.us/MDRegister/4124.pdf (page 1433)
The Future of Small Islands in the Chesapeake
Maryland’s Smith Island and Virginia’s Tangier Island, both in the Chesapeake Bay, are rapidly losing land due to sea level rise, erosion and storm damage. I last visited the islands in 2011 for a school field trip. Smith Island seemed to be especially suffering from land loss. Many properties were flooded and front yards covered in standing water. Talking to the residents, many were worried about the rising waters coupled with a disappearing local economy. What little jobs were left revolved around harvesting seafood; most residents have to commute to the mainland for work (Crisfield), while many of the younger generations had moved off the island permanently in search of better prospects.
Tangier Island is struggling with the same land loss issues, although from what I observed, seemed to be a small step ahead of Smith Island. At the time Tangier had a seawall built around the more heavily inhabited part of the island, while Smith Island had no effective means of holding back the encroaching waters. In November of 2012 Tangier was approved state and federal funds to have a jetty built to protect their harbor- a $4.2 million project (source: Washington Post). According to a Bay Journal article released Sunday, Smith Island has recently been awarded funds for a similar project. Smith Island will be getting $15 million from the federal government’s Sandy relief fund. Money will be split between financing a breakwater project, jetty and dock repair on the island. Will the money save these Chesapeake islands from sea level rise and land loss, or is it just delaying the inevitable?
Information on Blue Crab Regulations
This article summarizes the regulations for blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay, and includes the perspective of the VMRC. In a few weeks, I’d like to talk to a neighbor and Chesapeake waterman, to share his perspective as well.
There are lower than average numbers of blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay this year according to the annual winter dredging surveys, from the Virginia Marine Resources Committee (VMRC) and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, released last week. With this news, there is concern over the numbers of adult female crabs in bay waters. In order to ensure that there is a sustainable reproducing population of crabs for next year, should there be additional or harsher regulations enforced for the culling of adult female crabs carrying eggs, also known as sponge crabs, this season?
Sponge crabs are defined as an “adult female hard blue crab that has extruded her eggs on the abdomen or abdominal flap, and eggs have developed a coloration ranging from any shade of brown through black,” according to the VMRC. Female crabs spawn anywhere from two to nine months after mating. When spawning, crabs migrate to high salinity waters, traveling to the lower reaches of the Bay in September or October. Sponge crabs generally release their eggs the following spring and summer, from May to August.
The current regulation for the culling of sponge crabs in Virginia is limited possession from March 17 through June 30. A person in possession of a crabbing license shall not have more than 10 dark sponge crabs per bushel or 35 dark sponge crabs per barrel. Any additional sponge crabs culled in this time frame must be returned to the water.
Maryland regulation toward the culling of sponge crabs is significantly more limited. Unless imported from another state from April 25 through July 5, no person shall be in possession of, transport, or pack sponge crabs or a female crab from which the egg pouch has been removed.
The VMRC press release from last week stated that the minimum safe level of 70 million spawning-age female crabs was estimated to be in the bay in this year’s survey, and that “management actions will be considered in the upcoming months.” The crabbing season in already well underway, and the culling of sponge crabs is still allowed, albeit in limited numbers, until June 30. If a decision is made in the upcoming months, will it be too late to limit the catch of sponge crabs this season? Should Virginia adopt Maryland’s stricter regulations for the culling of sponge crabs? Given that sponge crabs release their eggs from May to August, should the limitation of possession of sponge crabs be extended past the end of June? Perhaps permanently?
I recently spoke with a contact at the VMRC on regulations that will be used to protect crab numbers in the future. According to the VMRC, the juvenile crab population, both males and female, is at a higher abundance this year (199 million juvenile crabs) than was recorded in 2013 (111 million juvenile crabs). Future management strategies will focus on these crabs for 2014 and 2015. The juvenile crabs will begin to enter the fishery this August into the fall of 2014, and represent a large part of the potential spawning stock for 2015. The VMRC states, “The management strategy from this point forward will be two-fold: Continue the current female management framework that was established initially in 2008 is the first part. The second part is to establish measures to conserve the juvenile crabs of 2014 to become the potential spawners of 2015.”
Virginia regulators will continue to work with Maryland’s Department of Conservation and the Potomac River Fisheries, a partnership that has been ongoing for 5 years. These departments will look at factors such as submerged aquatic vegetation, water temperatures, overwintering mortality, and water quality, which have an effect on the blue crab population.
Other Virginia regulations on crabbing:
The lawful seasons for the harvest of male crabs shall be March 17 through November 30, 2014. The lawful seasons for the harvest of female crabs shall be March 17 through November 30, 2014.
Size restrictions:
From March 16 through July 15, it shall be unlawful for any person to harvest, possess, sell or offer for sale more than 10 peeler crabs, per United States standard bushel, or 5.0% of peeler crabs in any other container, that measure less than 3-¼ inches across the shell from tip to tip of the longest spikes. From July 16 through November 30, 2014, it shall be unlawful for any person to harvest, possess, sell or offer for sale more than 10 peeler crabs, per United States standard bushel, or 5.0% of peeler crabs in any other container, that measure less than 3-½ inches across the shell from tip to tip of the longest spikes, except as described in subsections B and C of this section.
From July 16 through November 30, 2014, it shall be unlawful for any person to harvest, possess, sell or offer for sale more than 10 peeler crabs, per United States standard bushel, or 5.0% of peeler crabs in any other container, that are harvested from waters on the ocean side of Accomack and Northampton counties and measure less than 3-¼ inches across the shell from tip to tip of the longest spikes, except as described in subsection C of this section.
It shall be unlawful for any person to take, catch, harvest, possess, sell or offer for sale, or to destroy in any manner, any soft crab that measures less than 3-½ inches across the shell from tip to tip of the longest spikes.
Restricted areas:
Virginia has 4 blue crab sanctuary areas where crabbing is restricted (areas that tend to have high numbers of sponge crabs)
Commercial crabbing is restricted on Sundays
Maryland regulations on crabbing:
A person may not catch blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries from December 16 through March 31, inclusive.
An individual licensed to catch crabs for commercial purposes may not harvest mature female hard crabs from the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries during the periods:
(a) June 1 through June 15, inclusive;
(b) September 26 through October 4, inclusive; and
(c) November 11 through December 15 inclusive.
A person may not catch crabs using a crab scrape from October 31 to April 14, inclusive. (dredging)
An individual licensed to catch crabs for commercial purposes may not catch or possess in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries more than:
(a) Five mature female hard crabs per bushel of male crabs; or
(b) 13 mature female hard crabs per barrel of male crabs.
Size restrictions:
From April 1 through July 14, it is illegal to catch or possess a hard crab which measures less than 5 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike, from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries, except that the minimum size of crabs does not apply to mature female crabs, identified by the apron;
-After July 14, it is illegal to catch or possess a hard crab which measures less than 5-1/4 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike from the waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries, except that the minimum size of crabs does not apply to mature female crabs, identified by the apron;
– It is illegal to catch or possess a hard crab which measures less than 5 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike from the waters of Worcester County, except that the minimum size of crabs does not apply to mature female crabs, identified by the apron;
– It is illegal to catch or possess more than 10 peeler crabs per bushel or more than 20 per float, which are:
(a) Less than 3-1/4 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike during the period from April 1 through July 14; and
(b) Less than 3-1/2 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike during the period from July 15 through December 15; or
-It is illegal to catch or possess more than one soft crab per 2 dozen soft crabs which is less than 3-1/2 inches across the shell from tip to tip of the spike
Commercial crabbing is restricted on Sundays and Mondays
* The Maryland regulations on the culling of female crabs were a response to low survey numbers in 2007. In 2008, Virginia and Maryland agreed to limit the number of fishermen, pots and traps, allowable hours in a fishing day and/or months in a season. Maryland shortened the crabbing season, Virginia outlawed winter dredging that year (which was already illegal in Maryland). The following years saw a blue crab recovery, although it is hard to contribute that to a change in management or to weather conditions.
Related: Interesting article on the history of crabbing regulations in Maryland and Virginia from the Maryland Sea Grant Chesapeake Quarterly (UMD’s Chesapeake Bay research program)
Calls for Operators on Conowingo Dam to Reduce Pollution, Improve Fish Migration Routes
This week I’ve been working on a paper on dam construction and deconstruction in the United States for a class on Environmental Conservation and the American Landscape. I thought it was pretty interesting to come across an article, published May 5, on the Conowingo Dam in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has recently called on the company that oversees this hydroelectric dam in Maryland to address environmental concerns. Environmental issues associated with this and many dams in the country include a reduction in river levels, a prevention in flow of nutrients and plants, flooding, and an inability of migrating fish to travel up and down a river as needed. Of particular concern in the Chesapeake region is the buildup of sediment behind dams, which can runoff downstream in large storms. The excess sediment can result in sediment pollution, and disrupt cleanup goals in the lower reaches of the Chesapeake Bay. CBF Testimony Calls on Exelon to Help Mitigate Pollution and Improve Fish Passages
Blue Crab Numbers Low Again This Year
Today the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC) released a report on this year’s Chesapeake blue crab numbers. The VMRC stated that a total of 297 million blue crabs are in the Chesapeake, based on their winter dredge survey from earlier this year. From this number, there are less than 70 millions females of spawning age. Blue crab numbers were extremely low last year, raising the cost of seafood, and limiting the work and income of Chesapeake watermen. This year’s harvest will be as bad, if not slightly worse than last year, with a further depleted blue crab population. It seems likely that Virginia and Maryland will enforce a reduction in harvest to ensure a healthier crab population for next year. The long winter and cold water temperatures were cited as a major factor for low numbers; the VMRC estimates that 28% of the Maryland adult crab population died from prolonged low water temperatures.
Related: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Report on Blue Crab Numbers
Slow Start for Chesapeake Crabbing Season
Last year, the crab harvest in the Chesapeake Bay was down to historically low levels. Total abundance in blue crabs in the Bay dropped from 765 million to 300 million. The 2014 crabbing season is just beginning, and is off to a slow start, according to a piece I heard this morning on WAMU. Although there is hope that the harvest will pick up, last year saw similar reports of a slow start to the season, and incredibly low catches throughout 2013. Could we have another low crab harvest this year? It may be too early to tell.
The WAMU piece includes an interview with Robert T. Brown, the president of the Maryland Watermen’s Association. He expresses uncertainty over the 2014 crab harvest, as many of the Bay’s blue crabs are still buried in the mud with the low water temperatures. The start of the crabbing season in Maryland was April 1, and March 17 in Virginia. However, many watermen will not be able to crab until temperatures warm up and crabs emerge from the Bay floor.
Related:
–Maryland DNR commercial fishing regulations
–Virginia Marine Resources Commission “Pertaining to Crabbing” (Crabbing regulations)
More News on Stormwater Regulations
There’s been a lot of news on stormwater regulations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed this year. The latest comes from Maryland, as some lawmakers seek to reduce or avoid implementing stormwater management fees. The Maryland House of Representatives has, as of now, put a hold on the bill, so we’ll have to see what becomes of this issue in the coming days and weeks. B’More Green outlines the issue, and looks at the different positions.
Recent Environmental Legislation from Maryland
The Baltimore Sun’s environmental blog, B’More Green, has two stories this week on recent and proposed legislation in Maryland.
The first deals with the development of wind farms across Maryland and the Chesapeake region: House OKs energy project on preserved farmlands.
The second is an attempt by Maryland senators to stall regulation limiting phosphorus, a pollutant for the Bay: Senators seek to stall pollution regulations.
The senators claim they’re protecting state farmers in delaying regulation. Maryland, and the Eastern Shore in particular, is home to many poultry farms, which contribute a significant amount of phosphorus to the Chesapeake Bay. Limits on phosphorus were proposed in 2011; implementation has been delayed to the current day.
The B’More Green article reminded me of a piece I heard on NPR earlier this year on the links between agriculture, phosphorus and pollution. The piece outlines the economic consequences of implementing limits on phosphorus: the impacts on Maryland farmers, and on consumers as well. But it also highlights how the continuation of large-scale agricultural activities in the region can pose a serious risk to water quality.
- ← Previous
- 1
- …
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next →
Chesapeake Bay environment and water quality blog 