[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING TO REVIEW THE REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, CREDIT,
ENERGY, AND RESEARCH
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 9, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-40
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-579 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Ranking
Vice Chairman Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
Dakota K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
JIM COSTA, California JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
Pennsylvania CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TRAVIS W. CHILDERS, Mississippi
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
______
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff Nicole Scott, Minority Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel Director
April Slayton, Communications
Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania, Chairman
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Ranking
Dakota Minority Member
DEBORAH L. HALVORSON, Illinois JERRY MORAN, Kansas
KATHLEEN A. DAHLKEMPER, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado STEVE KING, Iowa
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JIM COSTA, California BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
FRANK KRATOVIL, Jr., Maryland
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
WALT MINNICK, Idaho
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
Nona Darrell, Subcommittee Staff Director
(iii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Virginia,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Submitted letters on behalf of:
Maryland Grain Producers Association..................... 103
Agri-Mark, Inc., et al................................... 104
Johnson, Donna Pugh, President, Virginia Agribusiness
Council................................................ 106
Schwartz, Stewart, Coalition for Smarter Growth, et al... 108
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Supplementary material....................................... 93
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from
Minnesota, prepared statement.................................. 5
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania; submitted letter on behalf of:
Shaffer, Carl, President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau....... 109
Witnesses
Mills, Ann, Deputy Under Secretary for National Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Fox, J. Charles, Senior Advisor to Administrator Lisa P. Jackson,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.......... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Redding, Russell C., Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA.................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Stoneman III, Wilmer N., Associate Director of Governmental
Relations, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Richmond, VA....... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Schwalb, Steve, Vice President of Environmental Sustainability,
Perdue Farms, Incorporated, Salisbury, MD...................... 55
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Curatolo, James A., Watershed Coordinator, Upper Susquehanna
Coalition, Burdett, NY......................................... 67
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Submitted Material
Connolly, Hon. Gerald E. a Representative in Congress from
Virginia; submitted letters on behalf of:
Baldwin, Malcolm F., Co-Owner, Weather Lea Farm.......... 110
Blake, David, Buckland Farm.............................. 111
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
Maryland, submitted statement.................................. 85
Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc., submitted statement............. 114
Phipps, W. Michael, President, Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc.,
submitted letter............................................... 112
The Nature Conservancy, submitted letter......................... 118
HEARING TO REVIEW THE REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES IN THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tim Holden
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Holden, Dahlkemper,
Schauer, Kissell, Boccieri, McIntyre, Ellsworth, Massa, Bright,
Kratovil, Murphy, Minnick, Goodlatte, Neugebauer, Smith, and
Thompson.
Staff present: Christy Birdsong, Claiborn Crain, Nona
Darrell, Tyler Jameson, John Konya, James Ryder, Anne Simmons,
April Slayton, Debbie Smith, Rebekah Solem, Patricia Barr, Josh
Maxwell, and Sangina Wright.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. This hearing of the Subcommittee on
Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research to review the
regulatory and legislative strategies in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed will come to order. I would like to thank our
witnesses and guests for coming today.
This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of the
Subcommittee to review the regulatory and legislative
strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Chesapeake Bay
is the nation's largest and most diverse estuary, and has been
recognized by Congress as a national treasure. The Bay is home
to more than 3,600 species of plants and animals, and is
recognized as the most significant migration and wintering
habitat in the Atlantic flyway. It is important that we protect
its fragile ecosystem.
Despite some areas of progress, improving water quality in
the Bay remains the most critical element in bringing about
restoration. Agriculture has been an important part of the
Chesapeake's landscape, comprising almost a quarter of the
watershed, and it can play a significant role in the Bay
cleanup. Farmers and ranchers have always been the original
stewards of the land and continue to be the best advocates for
resource conservation.
Last week, Members of this Subcommittee heard testimony
from Dr. Jude Capper, Assistant Professor of Dairy Science at
Washington State University. Dr. Capper's research found that
over the past 65 years, the carbon footprint of the entire
dairy industry has been reduced by 41 percent through the
voluntary adoption of technologies and modern management
practices that improve productivity. This includes a 65 percent
reduction in water use, a 76 percent reduction in manure
output, and a 90 percent reduction in total land required for
milk production. The dairy industry is not alone in finding
ways to increase productivity while decreasing pollution.
Efforts continue, even though the Chesapeake Bay farmers
receive significantly less money for environmental protection
practices, and despite being under some of the most stringent
environmental regulations.
The 2008 Farm Bill took significant steps to address this
under-funding and made many improvements to USDA conservation
programs. These programs are important tools that farmers and
ranchers use to protect the environment and address local
resource concerns.
The strong conservation title in the farm bill included a
$7.9 billion increase in conservation funding. Included in this
was a $3.4 billion increase in the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program, which helps producers implement practices
that enhance soil and water quality while conserving energy.
Perhaps most significant to today's discussion, the title
created a new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program of $438 million
initiative to help reduce nutrients and sediment that can flow
from farms and forestland into the Chesapeake Bay. This program
applies to all tributaries, backwaters and side channels
running into the Bay, including the Susquehanna River, which
runs through my Congressional district, Pennsylvania's 17th.
This new program will help to improve water quality and
quantity, restore, enhance and preserve wildlife habitat and
increase economic opportunity for rural communities and
producers. Agricultural practices can be some of the most cost-
effective at improving water quality in the region, and the
agriculture community and USDA stand ready to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and other conservation
efforts included in the 2008 Farm Bill have only recently been
implemented, and we have yet to see their full impact. It is
important that we allow these efforts to take effect to further
elevate the environmental stewardship of farmers across the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed before adding increased regulations.
I remain committed to working with NRCS and FSA, as well as
EPA, to ensure that Chesapeake Bay conservation programs are
implemented as effectively as possible while minimizing the
burdens on producers.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Holden, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
I would like to thank our witnesses and guests for coming today.
This hearing presents an opportunity for Members of the Subcommittee to
review the regulatory and legislative strategies in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest and most diverse estuary
and has been recognized by Congress as a national treasure. The Bay is
home to more than 3,600 species of plants and animals, and is
recognized as the most significant migration and wintering habitat in
the Atlantic Flyway. It is important that we protect its fragile
ecosystem.
Despite some areas of progress, improving water quality in the Bay
remains the most critical element in bringing about restoration.
Agriculture has been an important part of the Chesapeake's
landscape, comprising almost a quarter of the watershed, and it can
play a significant role in the Bay cleanup. Farmers and ranchers have
always been the original stewards of the land and continue to be the
best advocates for resource conservation.
Last week, Members of this Subcommittee heard testimony from Dr.
Jude Capper, Assistant Professor of Dairy Science at Washington State
University. Dr. Capper's research found that over the past 65 years,
the carbon footprint of the entire dairy industry has been reduced by
41 percent through the voluntary adoption of technologies and modern
management practices that improved productivity. This includes a 65
percent reduction in water use, a 76 percent reduction in manure
output, and a 90 percent reduction in total land required for milk
production.
The dairy industry is not alone in finding ways to increase
productivity while decreasing pollution. Efforts continue even though
Chesapeake Bay farmers receive significantly less money for
environmental protection practices, and despite being under some of the
most stringent environmental regulations.
The 2008 Farm Bill took significant steps to address this under-
funding and made many improvements to USDA conservation programs. These
programs are important tools that farmers and ranchers use to protect
the environment and address local resource concerns.
The strong conservation title in the farm bill included a $7.9
billion increase in conservation funding. Included in this was a $3.4
billion increase in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
which helps producers implement practices that enhance soil and water
quality while conserving energy.
Perhaps most significant to today's discussion, the title created a
new Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, a $438 million initiative to help
reduce nutrients and sediment which can flow from farm and forestland
into the Chesapeake Bay. This program applies to all tributaries,
backwaters, and side channels draining into the Bay, including the
Susquehanna River which runs through my home district, Pennsylvania's
17th. This new program will help to improve water quality and quantity;
restore, enhance and preserve wildlife habitat; and increase economic
opportunity for rural communities and producers.
Agricultural practices can be some of the most cost-effective at
improving water quality in the region and the agriculture community and
USDA stand ready to improve water quality and wildlife habitat.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program and other conservation efforts
included in the 2008 Farm Bill have only recently been implemented and
we have yet to see their full impact. It is important that we allow
these efforts to take effect to further elevate the environmental
stewardship of farmers across the Chesapeake Bay Watershed before
adding increased regulations.
I remain committed to working with NRCS and FSA, as well as EPA, to
ensure that Chesapeake Bay conservation programs are implemented as
efficiently as possible, while minimizing burdens on producers. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
The Chairman. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
today's hearing to review the regulatory and legislative
strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United
States, is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes
important habitats and is a cherished part of our American
heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all types of land uses,
from intensely urban areas, spread-out suburban development,
and diverse agricultural practices. But unquestionably, the Bay
is in need and worthy of our attention and concern, and I
believe everyone has a role to play in restoring it.
That is why I worked with Congressman Holden and other
Members of this Committee during the 2008 Farm Bill to include
critical funding to help farmers comply with increasing and
costly environmental regulations. The approach we took in the
farm bill was to provide unprecedented incentive-based
mandatory money for farmers and ranchers to improve management
practices. These incentive-based programs are the tools that
our farmers and ranchers need to restore and protect the Bay
and our watersheds, while continuing to provide the U.S. with
the safest, most affordable, most abundant feed and fiber
supply in the world.
Unfortunately, today we are here due to a Presidential
Executive Order and legislation that would codify this Order
which would enforce more mandates and overzealous regulation of
our producers. This strategy will limit economic growth and
unfairly over-regulate agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
The 2008 Farm Bill provides mandatory money specifically
for the Bay in addition to numerous voluntary conservation
programs. The Administration has barely released any of these
conservation dollars before the announcement of this Executive
Order. In addition, the Administration continues to call for
budget cuts to EQIP and other conservation program funding
which would help farmers in the Bay Watershed even more.
The goal for all involved is the same: the continued health
and vitality of the Bay. But the map to that health and
vitality is being strongly debated. It is a clear choice, over-
regulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of
those who chose to make the Chesapeake Bay Watershed their
home; or incentive-based programs that help restore and protect
our natural resources.
This Administration fails to realize that command and
control over citizen's lives is no way to govern.
Again, thank you, Chairman Holden, for holding today's
hearing. I look forward to hearing today's testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodlatte follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress
from Virginia
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing to review the
regulatory and legislative strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., is an
incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a
cherished part of our American heritage. The Bay Watershed includes all
types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread out suburban
development and diverse agricultural practices. But unquestionably the
Bay is in need and worthy of our attention and concern and I believe
everyone has a role to play in restoring it.
That is why I worked with Congressman Holden and other Members of
this Committee during the 2008 Farm Bill to include critical funding to
help farmers comply with increasing and costly environmental
regulations. The approach we took in the farm bill was to provide
unprecedented incentive-based mandatory money for farmers and ranchers
to improve management practices.
These incentive based programs are the tools that our farmers and
ranchers need to restore and protect the Bay and other watershed's,
while continuing to provide the U.S. with the safest, most affordable,
most abundant feed and fiber supply in the world. Unfortunately, today
we are here due to a Presidential Executive Order, and legislation that
would codify this Order, which would enforce more mandates and
overzealous regulation on our producers. This strategy will limit
economic growth and unfairly over regulate agriculture in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The 2008 Farm Bill provides mandatory money specifically for the
Bay in addition to numerous voluntary conservation programs. The
Administration has barely released any of these conservation dollars
before the announcement of this Executive Order. In addition, the
Administration continues to call for budget cuts to EQIP and other
conservation program funding which could help farmers in the Bay
Watershed even more.
The goal from all involved is the same, the continued health and
vitality of the Bay, but the map to that health and vitality is being
strongly debated. It is a clear choice, over-regulation and intrusion
into the lives and livelihoods of those who chose to make the Bay
Watershed their home, or incentive based programs that help restore and
protect our natural resources. This Administration fails to realize
that command and control of citizen's lives is no way to govern.
Again, thank you, Chairman Holden for holding today's hearing. I
look forward to hearing today's testimony.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman, and would ask
all other Members of the Subcommittee to submit any opening
statements for the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Collin C. Peterson, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Holden, for holding this oversight hearing to
look at what we are doing and what needs to be done to improve the
condition of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
In the 2008 Farm Bill, we included significant resources to help
farmers, ranchers and forest landowners improve the health of the
Chesapeake Bay by reducing runoff and improving water quality and
quantity.
It is an important responsibility of this Committee to ensure that
legislation and regulatory action is effectively addressing the
challenges facing the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. To that end, I am
looking forward to the testimony and discussion here today.
The Chairman. I would like to welcome our first panel
today: Ms. Ann Mills, Deputy Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, United States Department of
Agriculture; Mr. J. Charles Fox, Senior Advisor to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and Mr.
Russell C. Redding, Acting Secretary, Pennsylvania Department
of Agriculture, but that is only until Tuesday when you get
confirmed. Welcome.
Ms. Mills, you are may proceed.
STATEMENT OF ANN MILLS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATIONAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Mills. Thank you.
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte and Members of
the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today.
Conservation and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay is a
major priority for the United States Department of Agriculture.
At USDA, we view prosperous farms, forests and fisheries as
integral parts of the watershed's future. The Bay is a national
treasure, and the features that make it so special are more
than just the waters of the estuary. They are the landscapes
that stretch across six states. They are the rural communities
that are so important to the fabric of this watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay has the highest land-to-water ratio of
any estuary in the United States. As a result, what happens on
the land matters to the Bay and its upland tributaries.
USDA recognizes the responsibility of agriculture to
contribute its share to restoring the Bay Watershed. For their
part, farmers have stepped up. Agriculture has reached 50
percent of the goals established for nutrient and sediment
reduction, though more needs to be done.
In recent years, USDA has been helping these land owners
achieve their stewardship goals by investing more than $90
million per year directly on conservation practices and
projects to benefit the Bay. In the 2008 Farm Bill, this
Committee provided even further support through the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Program's additional $188 million. Agriculture
cannot, nor should it, bear a disproportional burden of
addressing the watershed's water quality goals. Nutrient and
sediment run off from agriculture is on the downward
trajectory, whereas it is rising in other sectors, notably
development; 130,000 new residents move into the Bay Watershed
every year. Every eight percent growth in population translates
into a 41 percent increase in impervious surfaces, such as
roads and parking lots. And every acre of parking lot generates
the same runoff as a 16 acre meadow.
As the Executive Order's draft strategy states, healthy
sustainable farms and forests are essential to restoring the
Bay and are the preferred land use. They also increase rural
prosperity, provide food, feed and fiber, and protect the
natural heritage that makes this watershed a natural treasure.
The USDA is pleased to be part of the Executive Order
effort and appreciates the opportunity to work closely with our
sister Federal agencies. USDA believes that voluntary
agriculture conservation practices and market-based solutions
will play a central role in achieving Bay health, while also
ensuring continued prosperity for producers.
The strategy captured in the Executive Order reports
contain six recommendations with a goal of equipping producers
with the incentives, tools and technology and improved
efficiency of operations to meet water quality challenges and
protect producers' bottom line. The recommendations include
focusing funding on high-priority watersheds, working with
partners to apply the most effective suite of conservation
practices, and improving accountability.
This Executive Order calls for a new level of collaboration
among the Federal family. This will help ensure stronger
science and better leveraging of Federal dollars. But
fundamental to the strategy's approach is USDA's continued
leadership in determining how and where to allocate farm bill
dollars, including the $188 million Chesapeake Bay Watershed
program funding.
Secretary Vilsack is leading USDA with an all-lands
approach to water quality conservation. We recognize that
upland activities are vitally important to achieving downstream
goals. Farmers and landowners in Lancaster or Dauphin Counties
may never boat or fish in the Chesapeake Bay, yet the
conservation benefits achieved by our collective Bay
restoration efforts will be seen and felt first hundreds of
miles away from the Bay in communities that will experience
cleaner water and air, and more productive wildlife habitat.
Farmers across the watershed are being asked to invest real
money at a time when agriculture is feeling significant
economic strain. Conservation programs require the farmer to
assume significant costs as part of implementing expensive
practices, such as nutrient management systems. Yet producers
continue to initiate new projects, and USDA continues to have
backlogs. We are proud to partner with these farmers. USDA
stands ready to provide the mix of technical help, incentives,
tools and market opportunities to tackle the challenges ahead.
In closing, additional details of USDA's role in the
strategy to restore and conserve the Bay are included in my
written testimony submitted for the record. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that Members of the Subcommittee might
have. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you
today.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mills follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ann Mills, Deputy Under Secretary for National
Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte, and distinguished
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear
before you to discuss the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
conservation efforts in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. As Deputy Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment (NRE), I oversee the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), which plays a key role
protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I will talk
first about the challenges ahead of us in the Bay before describing the
progressive steps USDA is taking to meet those challenges.
But first let me stress this about our work to protect the
Chesapeake Bay--USDA works with private landowners who live in the
watershed. We work hard to reinforce the notion that the work we do
throughout the Bay Watershed, along all of its tributaries, is designed
to improve local natural resource conditions, which in turn will have a
positive impact on the Bay itself.
The Challenge
Agriculture and forest land accounts for 75 percent of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, which stretches over 44 million acres in six
states and the District of Columbia. The Chesapeake Bay has the highest
land-to-water ratio of any estuary in the U.S. As a result, land-based
activities heavily influence the condition of the Bay. Over 80,000
farms, covering about 25 percent of the watershed, produce a diverse
array of fresh vegetables, fruits, grain, dairy, beef, poultry, and
much more. Although diminished, Chesapeake forests still account for 50
percent of the land cover and represent one of the most expansive
hardwood forests in the world, providing diverse habitats and valuable
ecosystem services.
These agricultural and forest lands also anchor rural communities
and provide open space and other amenities important to the economic,
cultural and social fabric of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Because of
their extent, the stewardship of these lands has a tremendous influence
on the quality of natural resources in the watershed.
Today, agriculture and forestry in the Bay Watershed are under
increasing pressure from development. To put this in perspective,
visualize a strip of land 1 mile wide running from Washington, D.C. to
San Francisco, CA. That is almost 2 million acres and the amount of
crop, pasture, and forestland that were converted in the Bay Watershed
to developed uses between 1982 and 2003. Currently, about 12 percent of
the land in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is classified as developed, up
from eight percent in 1982.
Approximately 130,000 new residents move to the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed each year, accelerating the development of agricultural and
other lands. Among the consequences of losing these agricultural and
forested areas are diminishing access to fresh local foods; reduced
capacity of soils and plants to capture carbon; reduction in
groundwater recharge; and increased runoff from roads, roofs, and
parking lots. According to the Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon Panel Finance
Panel, a 1 acre parking lot produces about 16 times the volume of
runoff that comes from a 1 acre meadow. This runoff from paved surfaces
also carries oil, exhaust residue, lawn chemicals and other pollutants.
While agriculture is an important component of the landscape and
economy, it also is a source of nutrients and sediment that adversely
affect water quality in the Bay and its tributary waters. Agriculture
has made significant strides in reducing these impacts through a
longstanding conservation partnership effort. According to the
Chesapeake Bay Program, since 1985, agriculture has reached nearly 50
percent of the goals established for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
reduction.
Despite these gains, the challenge ahead is substantial. One thing,
however, is clear--losing farms and forests is not in the best interest
of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Stakeholders from diverse
backgrounds--from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation to state regulatory agencies--support
agriculture as a preferred land use in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Under the Obama Administration, and with the help of additional funding
provided through the 2008 Farm Bill, USDA has accelerated its
conservation efforts in the Bay Watershed. USDA advocates a landscape
scale approach that recognizes natural resource conservation issues and
solutions do not stop and start at land ownership boundaries. A
successful Bay conservation effort must engage local, state, and
national partners. Integrated solutions must address intertwined issues
of rural prosperity, strong agricultural and forest product markets,
new revenue streams for ecosystem services, and healthy communities in
order to deliver sustainable solutions to protect the natural heritage
that makes the Chesapeake Bay Watershed a national treasure.
Conservation in the Bay Watershed
Concern about Chesapeake Bay water quality and its living resources
date back to the 1930s. Congress' longstanding commitment to protection
of the Bay is very clear, and was recently emphasized with the
establishment of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program in the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). The Obama
Administration took an unprecedented step on May 12, 2009 with the
release of an Executive Order [Chesapeake Bay Protection and
Restoration] that commits to solutions to restore and protect the
Chesapeake Bay.
USDA has been a long-standing partner in the effort to protect and
restore the Bay Watershed. Our employees across the Bay Watershed work
daily with farmers, forestland owners, other private land managers, and
communities to identify and address natural resource conservation
problems. This commitment is substantial--between 2004 and 2008, USDA
invested nearly $800 million in conservation, rural development, and
research activities related to restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed.
It is important to note that protection of the Chesapeake Bay, and
conservation on agricultural lands in the Bay Watershed, is a wide-
ranging effort that includes Federal, local, and state partners and
stakeholders. USDA, in particular, works in close partnership with
local Conservation Districts and State Departments of Agriculture
(often co-located with USDA) to help producers improve the condition of
their natural resources. Local land trusts and states in the Bay
Watershed have successful farmland preservation programs. Non-
governmental organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and
Environmental Defense have in recent years provided funding for on-the-
ground conservation efforts with producers. The Federal investment on
the part of USDA is noteworthy, but the restoration of the Bay and
widespread improvement in agricultural conservation will not be
possible without significant investment and commitment from our diverse
set of conservation partners.
Through its diverse portfolio of conservation programs, USDA
assists individuals and communities in planning and implementing
conservation solutions to reduce the losses of nutrients and sediment,
conserve wetlands, protect critical farm and forest acres, and improve
related natural resource conditions across the watershed. Below are
just a few examples of the amount of conservation applied from 2004 to
2008:
Top 5 Conservation Practices Applied on Agricultural Land in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, FY 2004-2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Practice Name Average Annual Total
Application
---------------------------------------------
_acres_
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Crop Rotation 145,559 727,796
Nutrient Management 116,381 581,906
Pest Management 82,488 412,441
Residue and Tillage 106,128 530,639
Management
Upland Wildlife Habitat 48,933 244,663
Management
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program
In 2009, USDA began implementation of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Program authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. In developing the initiative,
USDA worked to balance the program objectives of (1) improving water
quality and quantity, and (2) restoring, enhancing, and preserving
soil, air, and related resources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The
farm bill language also directed USDA to give special consideration to
four River basins (Susquehanna, Potomac, Shenandoah, and Patuxent).
This new authority offered an unparalleled opportunity to leverage
new information and technology to focus on accelerating conservation
and improving the condition of the watershed. USDA collaborated with
USGS, EPA, and others to identify watersheds expected to have the
greatest influence on Bay water quality, based on natural resource
condition and vulnerabilities, land use in different regions of the
watershed, existing conservation practices, and their relationship to
key Bay pollutants--nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. The partnership
drew upon a variety of analytical tools, databases, and local
knowledge. As a result of that effort, about 500 small watersheds (12
digit HUC watersheds) were identified. Eighty-seven percent of these
watersheds fall within the four special consideration river basins
mentioned in the farm bill.
Below is a table displaying CBWP financial assistance obligations
for Fiscal Year 2009.
Fiscal Year 2009 CBWP State-by-State Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State CBWP Obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaware $969,065
Maryland $4,150,068
New York $1,107,942
Pennsylvania $5,429,703
Virginia $5,642,956
West Virginia $1,148,621
-----------------------------------
Totals............................ $18,448,353
------------------------------------------------------------------------
58.3 percent of CBWP funds were obligated in the identified priority
watersheds using EQIP program authorities. In addition, to further
emphasize water quality practices through the CBWP, NRCS State Offices
in the Bay Watershed identified 24 practices that impact water quality.
Looking at the historical implementation of these 24 practices through
EQIP between 2004 and 2008, 45,602 practices were installed in the Bay
Watershed. Historically in the Bay Watershed, 51 percent of those
practices were applied in the now-identified priority watersheds.
Through the CBWP in Fiscal Year 2009, we were able to increase the
application rate of the 24 practices in priority watersheds to 75
percent. This translates into practices with the greatest impact on
water quality being implemented in locations that contribute the
largest amounts of nutrients and sediment to the Bay. Next year we hope
to further increase this rate.
We will soon announce the availability of CBWP funding for Fiscal
Year 2010. The 2008 Farm Bill authorizes $43 million for CBWP in 2010.
We will be re-evaluating the priority watersheds and practice list
based on what we learned through the first year of implementation. We
are also hoping to use innovative approaches to improve producer
outreach efforts.
Conservation Innovation Grants in the Bay Watershed
Conservation Innovation Grants was authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill
under EQIP. Through this program, funding is used to stimulate the
development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and
technologies. Since 2005, a portion of CIG funding has been dedicated
to projects in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In Fiscal Year 2009, over
$2 million was provided to six projects through the Chesapeake Bay
component.
Two recent awards focusing on developing water quality credit
trading markets are examples of the type of innovative approaches
funding through CIG. The Development and Implementation of a Water
Quality Bank and Trade Program for the Potomac River Watershed is a
three-phase project to develop and implement a water quality credit
trading program in the WV area of the Potomac River Watershed. This
project is being developed by the West Virginia University Research
Corporation. In Maryland, the Maryland Department of Agriculture is
piloting a Point source to Non-Point Source Nutrient Trading in the
Upper Chesapeake Bay Maryland. Deliverables from these projects will
hopefully enhance opportunities for intrastate and interstate water
quality trading in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Conservation Effects Assessment Project
In addition to delivering a wide array of conservation programs in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, USDA is also leading the Conservation
Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) that will be an important tool for
strengthening the science base in the Bay Watershed. CEAP began in 2003
as a multi-agency effort to quantify the environmental benefits of
conservation practices and systems.
The first CEAP cropland report (Upper Mississippi River Basin
(UMRB)) is being completed currently, while the CEAP Chesapeake Bay
Watershed assessment is underway. Analysts have identified some UMRB
results that are expected to apply equally in the Chesapeake Bay,
namely the importance of: (1) focusing conservation on the most
vulnerable acres to provide the quickest response; (2) conservation
systems that address runoff, edge-of-field mitigation, and carefully
manage inputs; and (3) managing the intensity of land use for some of
the most vulnerable acres.
We expect other important elements to emerge in the forthcoming
Chesapeake Bay Watershed assessment. For example, additional
conservation practices not included in the UMRB simulations will be
examined, such as drainage water management to promote de-nitrification
or construction of wetlands near interfaces with streams and cultivated
cropland. Given the concentration of animal agriculture in certain
parts of the Bay Watershed, there will be special emphasis on
conservation needs related to manure management. Last, the influence of
proximity to streams will be an important factor in assessing potential
vulnerabilities in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Expected to be completed in 2010, the CEAP Chesapeake Bay report
will be able to provide estimates of the progress in reducing the
delivery of agricultural contaminants, identify remaining under-treated
cropland acres, and estimate the environmental results from treating
those acres. There also will be an opportunity to coordinate between
the Bay Model and the CEAP Model to improve the identification of
priority landscapes as well as the estimates of environmental effects
of conservation applied.
Chesapeake Bay Executive Order
The May 12th Executive Order (EO) 13508 called on the Federal
Government to take significant action to restore and protect the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Agencies were directed to develop
recommendations for accomplishing important steps to protect and
restore the Bay. USDA, in collaboration with other Federal and
agencies, outlined an aggressive and focused voluntary conservation
strategy under Section 203 of the EO, titled ``Chesapeake Farms and
Forests for the 21st Century.'' This draft strategy contains six major
elements for focusing resources and developing new approaches to
protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters.
1. Focusing on the Highest Priorities First
This strategy will focus first on the watersheds and acres that
have the greatest conservation need--where our shared work will address
the most pressing challenges and deliver the biggest impact for
improving local water quality. Conservation applied on any acre
delivers an environmental benefit, but to date conservation applied in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has not reached dimensions needed to
achieve the broader goals for improving the aquatic health of the Bay
and its tributary waters. Applying lessons learned, we are using
science-based tools and input from local experts to determine where to
invest program and human resources in order to deliver the greatest
environmental benefit.
2. Integrate Federal, State, and Local Programs
A substantial number of Federal and state programs are delivered in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed with objectives related to restoring and
protecting the Bay. With so many entities involved, it is critical to
coordinate and integrate programs on the ground to ensure that they are
working toward common objectives, maximizing synergistic opportunities,
and preventing potential duplication of efforts. Among the many
benefits of increasing integration of programs on the ground is the
potential to simplify program delivery for potential participants--
developing the virtual ``one-stop-shop'' for individuals and
communities that will need to participate in conservation efforts in
order to accomplish Chesapeake Bay Watershed restoration and protection
objectives. Coordinating programs across all of with the Bay Partners,
including the authorities under the farm bill, State and Private
Forestry, the Clean Water Act, as well as Department of the Interior
programs such as Partners for Wildlife, offers the best opportunity for
success.
3. Accelerate Conservation Adoption
Nearly 75 percent of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is in the hands
of agricultural and forest landowners and managers. Economic and non-
economic incentives play an important role in encouraging these
landowners to make the day-to-day stewardship decisions that shape
conservation in the Chesapeake Bay. Between 2004 and 2008, through USDA
conservation programs alone, nutrient management was applied on 600
thousand acres; while an important achievement, we must accelerate
conservation adoption if we are to achieve objectives for restoring the
health of the Bay. Existing incentive approaches will be improved on to
increase their effectiveness by better coordinating programs and
streamlining processes to simplify program participation.
4. Accelerate Development of New Conservation Technologies
USDA's research mission through the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) and the National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) is
engaged in a substantial partnership effort with public and private
sector interests to identify needed research and focus Federal
researchers and grant programs on developing solutions. We will be
focusing funding and increasing public-private research partnerships to
spur innovation in research and accelerate development of new
conservation technologies. New technologies that increase revenue
opportunities for farmers and their communities will also increase
rural wealth and sustain the restoration of the Bay.
5. Foster and Support Ecosystem Markets
Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration could also involve
private markets in order to reach the level and scope of progress
needed. Markets for carbon sequestration, water quality, wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and species protection have great potential to
complement existing federally supported conservation efforts and drive
private investment to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay. These
markets could connect the critical ecosystem services provided by
farms, forests, and ranches to beneficiaries who are willing, or
required, to pay for their stewardship--such as urban water utilities,
industry, and land developers who need to mitigate unavoidable negative
impacts to the watershed. While farmers and foresters use conservation
methods to improve the quality of the watershed's natural resources,
they could also be building new revenue streams for themselves and
their rural communities. Potential income from ecosystem markets could
provide new incentives for landowners to engage in restoration and
conservation activities on their land.
6. Implement a Sound System of Accountability
A sound system of accountability is critical to monitoring progress
toward the goals for the Bay. That system of accountability has many
parts starting with ensuring that objectives are clearly defined and
achievable, and that adequate resources are dedicated to make restoring
and protecting the Bay possible. An adaptive management approach is
fundamental to an effective accountability system, including monitoring
how well programs are working, evaluating and refining priorities, and
incorporating new science and strategies to improve results. Adaptive
management for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed will be data intensive, and
will depend on effective collaboration across the broad Bay
partnership.
USDA also will work to implement the Healthy Waters, Thriving
Agriculture Initiative included under the response to the EO. We will
be consulting with both Federal and non-Federal partners to align
financial and technical resources to accelerate our on-farm
conservation work in the Bay Watershed. For example, we will be
identifying watersheds and Centerpiece projects where the greatest
opportunity for demonstrating conservation benefits exist and working
with EPA and other partners to leverage their voluntary conservation
funding to accelerate action in these areas.
Conclusion
The shores of the Chesapeake Bay could likely be covered with past
proclamations and restoration goals that have gone unfulfilled and
deadlines that have been missed. At USDA, we know that, despite our
progress in agricultural conservation over the past few decades, we
have more work to do. Additional resources in the 2008 Farm Bill will
help us reach more customers. The Administration's Executive Order
provides USDA with new tools and strategies to accelerate our efforts
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We look forward to this challenge and
the opportunities ahead. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify
before you today and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fox.
STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, SENIOR ADVISOR TO
ADMINISTRATOR LISA P. JACKSON, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Goodlatte, Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you very much for the invitation to
appear here this morning.
We appreciate greatly the interest of this Subcommittee in
the restoration and protection of Chesapeake Bay. We would like
to extend a special thanks to Mr. Holden and Mr. Goodlatte for
their leadership in securing the new Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Initiative in the most recent farm bill. This program is
already producing impressive results, and we are immensely
appreciative of your actions.
At the outset, it is important to emphasize that EPA
believes that maintaining the viability of agriculture is
essential to sustaining healthy ecosystems in the watershed.
Put simply, environmentally sound farming is a preferred land
use. EPA remains committed to working together with USDA to
help farmers produce abundant and affordable foods while
managing nutrients and soils in a manner that helps to restore
the Bay's water quality.
It is also important to emphasize that while today's
testimony will focus on the challenges and opportunities for
the agricultural sector, EPA remains intensely focused on
reducing runoff pollution from urban and suburban lands. Since
1950, the number of residents in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
has doubled. Sprawling development patterns have exacerbated
pollution, consumed farms and forest lands, and degraded
habitats throughout the watershed. We expect to implement
several new actions to reduce pollution from these landscapes,
and we would be happy to discuss these further in response to
questions from the Subcommittee.
Over the past 2 decades, agricultural sources have
significantly reduced pollution to the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. This is a result both of substantial investments
and significant commitments of time and energy by the
agricultural community.
Some of the more effective actions include widespread
adoption of no-till systems, improved nutrient management,
increased use of cover crops, expanded installation of riparian
buffers, and improved fencing practices along streams.
At the same time, agriculture remains the single largest
source of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution to the
Chesapeake Bay, with about half of that pollution load directly
related to excess livestock waste.
On May 12, President Obama signed an Executive Order which
defined a new era of shared Federal leadership to restore the
Bay. The Executive Order created a Federal leadership committee
and directed the preparation of seven topical reports to
support a joint Federal strategy. A draft of that strategy was
released last month, and we are in the process of soliciting
comments from the public and key interest groups throughout the
watershed.
The draft strategy seeks to achieve three principal
objectives: One, restoring water quality; two, conserving
treasured places and restoring habitats; and three, adapting to
the impacts of climate change. Our written statement describes
these elements in some detail.
In my remaining comments, I will focus on actions to
improve water quality, which I know is of special interest to
the Chairman and the Committee.
The draft strategy defines several key steps to improve
water quality. The first is a new accountability program which
builds on the requirements of sections 117(g) and 303(d) of the
Federal Clean Water Act to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment pollution. Specifically, over the next 2 years, EPA
will work closely with the states to develop watershed
implementation plans that are consistent with the emerging
TMDL, which is required to meet water quality standards.
The second step includes a proposal for EPA to initiate new
Federal rulemakings designed to reduce run-off pollution from
urban, suburban and agricultural lands. Specifically, these
proposed rulemakings will focus on concentrated animal feeding
operations, urban storm water, and new or expanding discharges
of nutrients and sediments. Importantly, the draft strategy
emphasizes EPA's desire for state-level action in lieu of
Federal action whenever possible and appropriate.
Finally, the strategy defines an enhanced partnership with
the USDA to promote Healthy Waters, Thriving Agriculture. This
initiative is designed to improve several voluntary
conservation programs of each agency, relying upon our distinct
statutory authorities.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for this opportunity.
The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem remains severely degraded despite
the concerted efforts of many people for more than 25 years. We
look forward to working with you and your colleagues to chart a
new future for the Chesapeake Bay and its communities.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Charles Fox, Senior Advisor to Administrator
Lisa P. Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Holden, Congressman Goodlatte, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I am J. Charles Fox, Senior Advisor to Administrator Lisa
P. Jackson, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Thank
you for the invitation to speak today on the Chesapeake Bay Executive
Order and the Federal Agency Strategy for implementing it. We
appreciate greatly the interest of this Subcommittee in cleaning up the
Chesapeake and in the valuable role that the agriculture community can
play in doing so.
President Obama's Executive Order on the Chesapeake Bay defines a
new era of shared Federal leadership, one that is characterized by new
levels of accountability, performance, partnership and innovation. In
this regard, we intend to build on the progress made by the
agricultural community and other sectors in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed in implementing the important objectives of the Executive
Order. The twenty-six year history of the modern Chesapeake Bay cleanup
program suggests that we will need a new commitment and new tools to be
successful in achieving our ambitious goals for the Bay and the
watershed.
The Importance of the Watershed and the Bay
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed encompasses 64,000 square miles, parts
of six states and the District of Columbia. Nearly 17 million people
live in the watershed. The land mass of the Bay Watershed is sixteen
times the size of the Bay, a ratio higher than any other estuary in the
world. This means that our actions on the land have a profound impact
on our local streams, rivers and, ultimately the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in North America and is
ecologically, economically and culturally critical to the region and
the country. It is home to more than 3,600 species of fish, plants and
animals. For more than 300 years, the Bay and its tributaries have
sustained the region's economy and defined its traditions and culture.
The economic value of the Bay is estimated at more than $1 trillion \1\
and two of the five largest Atlantic ports (Baltimore and Norfolk) are
located in the Bay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the
Chesapeake Bay, A Report to the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council,
Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon Finance Panel, October 27, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The approximately 84,000 farms in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed form
a vital part of the watershed's economy and way of life. EPA believes
that maintaining the viability of agriculture is essential to
sustaining ecosystems in the Bay. Environmentally sound farming is a
preferred land use in the Region and EPA is committed to working
together with USDA to help farmers produce abundant and affordable
foods while managing nutrients and soils in a manner that helps to
restore the Bay's water quality and the values and benefits that derive
from clean water and a healthy, vibrant ecosystem.
The Health of the Bay
The main sources of nutrient and sediment pollution to the
Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are agriculture, urban and suburban
discharges and runoff, wastewater, and atmospheric deposition (see
Figure 1). While both nitrogen and phosphorus loadings have declined
since 1985, significant additional loading reductions are needed to
meet water quality standards (see Figures 2 and 3). Based on EPA's
current estimates, to meet water quality standards by 2025 in the Bay,
as specified in the President's Executive Order, nitrogen must be
reduced by 84 million pounds per year from current loadings and
phosphorus by 1.3 million pounds per year from current loadings.
It is clear that to achieve the loading reduction targets EPA, in
collaboration with the Bay states and stakeholders, estimate are needed
to achieve state water quality standards in the Bay and its
tributaries, significant nutrient and sediment loading reductions are
needed from each of these main pollution sources. Put differently,
water quality standards cannot be met without a significant reduction
of nutrients and sediments from each of these sectors.
Figure 1. Relative Responsibility for Pollution Loads to the Bay
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. Total Nitrogen Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay from the
Watershed
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Phase 5.2
(2009).
Figure 3. Total Phosphorus Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay from the
Watershed
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Phase 5.2
(2009).
Much of the reductions in agricultural pollution since 1985 been
achieved through implementation of nutrient management and conservation
practices, and changes in land use. In addition to this historical
progress, there are many current examples in the Bay Watershed of the
agricultural community's leadership in conservation. They include:
Manure injection technology on no-till systems.
The Commonwealth of PA and other Bay states have made tremendous
progress in sediment reductions by switching to no-till
systems. EPA, through our Innovative Nutrient and Sediment
Reduction Program, is funding a project to test manure
injection technologies on farms throughout the watershed to not
only get the sediment reductions from no-till systems, but to
increase the nutrient crop uptake and lower the manure nutrient
runoff from these systems. This technology will be tested soon
on farms in Pennsylvania, Maryland and New York.
Advanced nutrient management.
NRCS through the Conservation Innovation Grants program is funding
a project that will showcase how enhanced nutrient management
can be good for the farmers' bottom line and for the Bay.
Demonstrating how farmers can lower nitrogen application rates
on some fields by guaranteeing participating producers no loss
in net income, is a great way to test out new approaches
without negative impacts on the farmers' bottom line. This
approach will be demonstrated soon in Pennsylvania.
Cover crops and ethanol production.
EPA, through our Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Program
is funding a project in Maryland that will target 7,000 acres
per year in the Chester River Watershed to plant commodity
cover crops. The project will quantify nutrient uptake by
winter small grain commodity cover crops and promote cover crop
ethanol production. This work is good for the Bay and offers an
additional revenue stream for the farmer.
Accelerated Agricultural Conservation.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, under Congressman Goodlatte's
leadership the Virginia Waste Solutions Forum was formed to
address the most pressing challenges of livestock waste in the
Shenandoah Valley. EPA is pleased to be aligning our resources
with the USDA farm bill funding to harness the collaborative
efforts of the Virginia Waste Solutions Forum to accelerate
nutrient reduction efforts in areas of high-density animal
production in the Shenandoah Valley.
Still, agriculture remains the single largest source of nutrient
and sediment pollution to the Bay, with about half of that load
directly related to excess livestock waste. Agriculture covers about 25
percent of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, representing the largest
intensively managed land use. USDA's 2007 Census of Agriculture
estimates there are84,000 farms in the Bay Watershed covering about
12.8 million acres. Excess livestock waste and improperly applied
fertilizers still flow into creeks, streams and rivers, carrying excess
nitrogen and phosphorus into the Bay. Aggravating this problem are
certain cropland tillage practices that increase sediment and nutrient
discharges to the Bay and its tributaries by contributing to erosion.
Pollution from urban and suburban stormwater is also significant
and like agricultural sources, must be significantly reduced if the
Bay's water quality standards are to be met. Since 1950, the number of
residents in the Bay Watershed has doubled. Experts predict that
population will continue to rise, topping 19 million in the watershed
by 2030. Low density, disconnected development--commonly referred to as
sprawl--has been the predominant form of development in the Bay
Watershed for the past several decades and its impacts are very
significant. New development that is spread-out, far from existing
communities, schools, wastewater treatment facilities, shopping, and
jobs brings increased impervious surfaces that do not allow water to
filter into the ground. Instead, rainfall runs off, picking up
pollution and quickly carrying it into waterways, increasing the volume
and speed of storm water carried in nearby streams and rivers, eroding
stream banks, and increasing rates of nutrient and sediment discharges
downstream and into the Bay.
Clearly the manner in which we manage the impacts from such growth
must be improved and new and successful practices like low impact
development, and storm water retention and infiltration are necessary
if this growth is to be accommodated on the landscape and the Bay's
water quality standards achieved. Devising and delivering low impact
development practices on the ground is every bit as important to
reducing the impacts of urban and suburban development as conservation
practices like livestock waste management, conservation tillage and
buffers are to reducing impacts from agriculture.
Executive Order 13508
On May 12, 2009, President Obama presented all citizens who cherish
the Chesapeake with an historic opportunity when he signed an Executive
Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, directing a new era
of shared Federal leadership to restore the Bay. The Executive Order
acknowledged that the efforts of the past 25 years to reduce pollution
and clean up the Bay and its tributaries have yielded some progress.
However, it concluded that the poor health of the Chesapeake remains
one of our nation's most significant environmental challenges. Indeed,
Administrator Jackson has emphasized repeatedly that communities in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed expect and deserve rivers and streams that are
healthy and thriving.
The Executive Order created a Federal Leadership Committee, chaired
by EPA, to strengthen the role of the Federal Government in the Bay
restoration and align the capabilities of EPA, and the Departments of
the Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Defense, Homeland Security, and
Transportation. The Order directed Federal agencies to prepare seven
draft reports to support a joint Federal strategy. These topical
reports, on issues ranging from water quality to public access, were
released in draft on September 10, 2009 and in revised form on November
24, 2009. At the same time these reports were being prepared, EPA
conducted extensive outreach in public meetings and invitational
sessions with agriculture leaders in the Bay Watershed. We held public
meetings with agricultural stakeholders in Frederick, Maryland and
Harrisburg, met with key Chesapeake Bay leadership of the National
Association of Conservation Districts, twice met with producers in
meetings facilitated by NRCS and the American Farmland Trust, and held
numerous meetings with state agricultural agencies and producer groups.
And we will continue to seek public review and comment on the Executive
Order Strategy.
The Executive Order directed the Federal Leadership Committee to
prepare and release a Draft Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the
Chesapeake Bay. That Draft Strategy was released on November 9, 2009.
It contains a comprehensive suite of Federal initiatives that
collectively support three objectives:
1. Restoring clean water,
2. Conserving treasured places and restoring habitats, fish and
wildlife, and
3. Adapting for Climate Change.
To achieve these objectives, there are three mechanisms that
pervade our approach:
1. Empowering local efforts by governments, citizens, and
conservation districts;
2. Promoting science-based decision making, and
3. Establishing a new era of shared Federal leadership.
The Draft Strategy is available online at: http://
executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net. The formal public comment period
opened November 9, 2009 and extends through January 8, 2010. The
strategy will evolve significantly through public comments, state
consultations and agency revisions before the final version is
published in May 2010.
Actions to Restore Water Quality
The Executive Order challenged EPA to identify potential changes to
programs, policies and regulations that would be sufficient to achieve
water quality standards. The Strategy states the goal of implementing,
by 2025, all pollution control measures needed to restore water quality
and attain water quality standards. As explained in the draft Strategy,
EPA is proposing three key steps to accomplish these pollution
reductions:
1. Create a new accountability program to guide Federal and state
water quality efforts;
2. Initiate new Federal rulemakings as needed and other actions
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other authorities; and
3. An enhanced partnership between USDA and EPA to implement a
``Healthy Waters--Thriving Agriculture'' Initiative.
New Accountability Program
The proposed new accountability framework builds on the
requirements of Sections 117(g) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to
establish new expectations to guide state and Federal efforts for
reducing nutrient and sediment pollution.
On November 4, 2009, EPA sent a letter to the six watershed states
and the District of Columbia providing the Agency's expectations for
the development of Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs). These plans
are a key element of this new era of ecosystem restoration, greater
transparency and accountability, and improved performance.
Watershed Implementation Plans will express the specific intentions
and commitments of the states, and through the states, the local
partners, for achieving the Bay TMDL nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
load reductions necessary to meet Bay water quality standards. EPA
expects Phase One plans to be submitted by November 2010 and include a
description of the authorities, actions and control measures that will
be implemented to achieve point and nonpoint source target loads and
TMDL allocations. Phase Two plans, due November 1, 2011, will further
divide loads at a finer scale and among smaller geographic areas.
EPA expects the states and the District to have controls in place
for 60% of the necessary load reductions by 2017 as an interim
milestone to meeting the 2025 goal. These plans will be further
measured through a series of 2 year milestones detailing near term
actions to evaluate progress.
EPA's new accountability program, modeled on the Clean Air Act,
also includes actions we may take in the event that jurisdictions do
not commit to establish and implement effective restoration programs or
do not achieve interim milestones. EPA plans to articulate these so
called ``consequences'' in greater detail in a letter to the states
later this month, and they include:
Revising the draft or final pollutant reduction allocations
in the Bay TMDL that EPA will establish in December 2010 to
assign more stringent pollutant reduction responsibilities to
pollution sources where achievement of pollution reductions is
more reliable;
Objecting to state CWA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits that fail to incorporate
limitations consistent with the pollutant allocations in the
TMDL;
Acting to limit or prohibit new or expanded discharges of
nutrients and sediments unless appropriate offsets are made;
Withholding, conditioning, or reallocating Federal grant
funds; and
Taking other actions as appropriate.
New Federal Rulemakings and Actions
The draft Strategy calls for new clean water rulemakings to reduce
pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
stormwater, and new or expanding discharges of nutrients and sediment.
With these rulemakings, EPA would significantly strengthen or clarify
Federal requirements that would further limit nutrient and sediment
discharges to the Bay. EPA is also in the process of developing and
implementing a number of regulations and programs that will continue to
reduce nitrogen from a variety of stationary and mobile sources of air
deposition. EPA expects the full slate of planned air program
activities will result in at least an estimated additional 7 million
pounds of reduction in nitrogen loading to the Bay between 2010 and
2020.
It is important to note that with respect to the CAFO, stormwater
and new or expanding discharge rules, EPA has expressed its willingness
and desire to encourage state-level regulatory action in lieu of
Federal action whenever possible and appropriate. Nonetheless, EPA
believes initiating Federal rulemaking in the areas outlined here
provides important Federal leadership in support of state regulatory
action. As described in the Water Quality Report under Section 202(a)
of the Executive Order, EPA plans to initiate rulemakings under the CWA
to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution to the Bay
Watershed from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
stormwater \2\ and new or expanded dischargers. In the interim, EPA
will continue to collaborate closely with the Bay states in
establishing appropriate new programs that are consistent with the load
reductions necessary to achieve water quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ More information: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA will also implement a compliance and enforcement strategy that
focuses on four key sectors: concentrated animal feeding operations,
stormwater discharges, municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
facilities and stationary air sources of nitrogen deposition. In
addition, EPA will identify appropriate opportunities for compliance
and enforcement activities related to the CWA section 404 program
regulating dredge and fill operations, Federal facilities, and
Superfund sites, including remedial action and removal sites and
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action
facilities.
Enhanced Partnership between USDA and EPA
Let me emphasize again that EPA believes maintaining the viability
of agriculture is essential to sustaining ecosystems in the Bay.
Environmentally sound farming is a preferred land use in the region,
and the Agency is committed to strong partnerships and collaboration
with states and local governments, urban, suburban and rural
communities, the private sector, and USDA to achieve the water quality
and environmental objectives for the Bay. We want to work with USDA to
align our resources to complement USDA efforts. Recognizing that well-
managed forest and farm lands are the preferred land uses for water
quality in the Bay, EPA and USDA have committed to developing and
implementing a ``Healthy Waters--Thriving Agriculture Initiative.''
Meeting the challenges in the Bay will require Federal agencies to
commit and coordinate resources on a scale that matches the scope of
the environmental and agricultural issues in the region. EPA has a
unique opportunity to undertake with USDA several new and ambitious
efforts that build and expand on the strong working relationships that
have been reinforced in developing the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Initiative. Our hope and commitment is to work with USDA to achieve
significant improvements for the Bay itself and the farming communities
in its watershed in several key areas, including:
Strategically expanding intensive use of key conservation
practices in the high priority agricultural watersheds by
aligning EPA resources with those of USDA and other public and
private partners to engage farmers in nutrient and sediment
reduction efforts;
Collaborating in development of next generation conservation
planning tools with other Federal, state, agricultural, and
research partners;
Aligning Federal, state, and private resources and
partnerships to establish high profile projects to tackle some
of the most challenging agricultural issues facing the Bay; and
Aligning EPA programs and resources with USDA efforts to
achieve water quality improvements by developing critically
needed tools and technologies to help farmers meet their
conservation and farm operation objectives.
By aligning the resources and continued work of Federal, state and
local partners, EPA and USDA's collaboration can accelerate the wider
adoption of conservation practices and support innovative efforts to
address some of the most pressing challenges to meeting water quality
and agricultural goals in the Bay. For example, EPA will target its
resources as a catalyst for strong partnerships on local initiatives to
address challenging agricultural issues such as keeping livestock out
of streams and engaging small dairy operations in conservation.
EPA is also interested in working to expand market-based
conservation opportunities. We believe markets for ecosystem services
are an essential part of the solution to Bay impairment. EPA's 2003
National Water Quality Trading Policy and 2007 Water Quality Trading
Toolkit for Permit Writers recognize and promote trading markets. We
anticipate the 2010 Bay TMDL and state implementation plans will
provide a basis for trading whereby landowners who reduce their
nutrient discharges can generate nutrient credits in the process, and
sell a portion of those credits on the open market. EPA is also
supportive of wetland mitigation banking which creates a revenue stream
for participating landowners and we are interested in promoting other
types of markets such as carbon sequestration and endangered species
habitat protection, which could also benefit landowners.
Closing
As I noted earlier, a fundamental challenge for the Bay's water
quality is reducing pollutant discharges and run-off from both urban
and suburban development and agricultural lands. Pollutant discharges
and run-off to the Chesapeake from urban and suburban development are
increasing, while nutrient and sediment loadings from agriculture have
not declined enough to restore the Bay. Presently, we have a range of
tools that we are implementing to tackle these problems and we have
also laid the groundwork to achieve similar necessary pollution
reductions from municipal wastewater and air sources of nutrients. We
stand ready to work with the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress
to explore these issues in the months ahead.
Across the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, there have been important
actions over the past 25 years--by farmers to implement nutrient
management practices, such as installing buffer strips and fences; by
homeowners to reduce energy consumption and storm water pollution; by
localities to upgrade wastewater treatment plants and to reduce
stormwater pollution; by developers to implement sediment and erosion
control plans and implement smart growth practices; by states to expand
land conservation and strengthen their water quality protection
programs. These good efforts have helped to hold the line against
further degradation of the magnificent Chesapeake Bay, they have not,
however, been sufficient to restore the Bay to its once healthy
condition.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's March 2009 annual Health and
Restoration Assessment of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed, known as
the ``Bay Barometer,'' documents what so many residents of the Bay
Watershed already know: the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem remains severely
degraded, despite the concerted efforts of many people for more than 25
years. The data are sobering. Virtually all of the 13 measures which
comprise Bay health show conditions that fall short of restoration
goals.
Although we face daunting challenges, in all my conversations with
government officials and citizens around the Bay, I have heard a strong
sense of optimism for the future. Scientists have learned much about
the Bay and that knowledge is being used by managers to help plan and
evaluate new policies and practices. Our region's elected officials are
engaged as never before. At EPA and partner Federal agencies, we have
clear direction from the President to provide the leadership necessary
to protect and restore the Bay. We have a wonderful opportunity to
build on the work of farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to make a
clean and healthy Chesapeake Bay a reality.
I greatly appreciate your support in simultaneously addressing the
agricultural sustainability and water quality restoration imperatives
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Thank you again Chairman Holden,
Congressman Goodlatte, and Members of the Subcommittee, for the
opportunity to appear before you today.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Redding.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL C. REDDING, ACTING SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
HARRISBURG, PA
Mr. Redding. Mr. Chairman, thank you, first of all, for the
opportunity to be here.
I want to say thanks to Ranking Member Goodlatte and
Congressman Thompson and Congresswoman Dahlkemper.
We are pleased to have three leaders on this Committee.
Thank you for your interest and your leadership here in
Washington and on behalf of Pennsylvania agriculture.
On behalf of the Governor, thank you again for the
invitation to be here. It is certainly symbolic on this panel
to have the USDA, the EPA and the Commonwealth as partners, and
I will talk about that in a moment, the importance of the
partnership as we go forward.
Clearly, there are a multitude of legislative, regulatory
and administrative strategies that are being considered to
improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay.
Having an opportunity today to talk about that is an
important part of the conversation. In fact, the Obama
Administration, as Chuck has mentioned, has recognized the
Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure and worthy of national
attention. We agree with that.
The strategies being considered today are in part the
result of the Presidential attention. It is part Congressional
attention, and it is also a judicial process where the courts
have mandated that the Bay Watershed jurisdiction develop a
plan for clean water. Surely these programs must address the
broad spectrum of the very important natural resources and the
cultural issues which are multifaceted, complex and interwoven.
Your interest and willingness to examine these strategies
and how they will impact Pennsylvania farmers, citizens and the
communities of Pennsylvania is greatly appreciated. But let me
be clear at the outset. I believe we need to have two clear and
co-equal goals in any effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay and
its Watershed. First, it is imperative to meet the goals
established for clean water for Pennsylvania and the other Bay
Watershed states. Second, it is imperative that we have
economically viable and thriving farms and strong communities
in Pennsylvania and other Bay Watershed states. These goals
will need the strong support of Congress, and Federal support
in general.
And we certainly appreciate the work, Mr. Chairman, of this
Committee through the farm bill that you mentioned in your
opening statement.
We also have a chance in the reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act to further complement the work of the farm bill and
leverage the work that has been done and will have been done by
that time through the efforts of the farm bill funding.
It is clear to me that the problems we face in the Bay in
terms of nutrient and sediment reduction goals is not
exclusively an agricultural problem, nor is it exclusively an
urban problem. Regardless, it is a Pennsylvania problem. More
than three million Pennsylvania citizens call a portion of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed their home. Each and every person who
lives in a portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed contributes
to the nutrient and sediment loads that are impacting the Bay.
Whether you milk cows in Bradford County, the northern
reaches of the state, fertilize your lawn in State College,
flush the toilet in Lancaster County, or park your car in
Gettysburg, you are contributing to the problem of the
Chesapeake Bay. And, therefore, you must contribute to the
solution as well.
In terms of farmers, they fully understand that clean water
for the Chesapeake Bay means clean water for their families,
communities and their livestock. Pennsylvania farmers are
trying to better understand how the changes called for in the
Executive Order proposed report, strategies, and legislative
bills will impact their day-to-day farming decisions. What
changes will they need to make? And what will the cost be? All
are legitimate questions.
It is imperative that, as legislative leaders and appointed
political leaders, we fully understand the impact of these
proposals, their solutions, and what a balanced and effective
solution looks like for addressing the issues of the Bay.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the economic issues
of agriculture right now; just to make sure that we achieve
this goal and to achieve one of the two goals I stated at the
outset, we will have to deal with the economic issues of
agriculture. We are asking farmers to come up with money to
match, to leverage Federal and state investment. But we have to
be sensitive to the economic times we are in. And for that
reason, and it is the reason I state in the testimony, we need
to have a long-term view of this. As long as we are smart about
the approach and sensitive to the progress made, we are
sensitive to the times we live in, I believe we can achieve
those two co-equal goals.
We also have to understand, as you do, the issues of local
government, state government and the resources. They are the
partners. They are the folks who are being asked to come up
with money to implement the strategies to help advance the
plans. They are in a tough spot. Again, just being smart about
that is an important statement at the outset of us being able
to achieve our goals.
I mentioned the complexity, and I just put this on the
table, this is a complex issue. There are four different
components that we are talking about when we say strategies for
the Chesapeake Bay. Certainly the Presidential Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Executive Order that Chuck has mentioned, the ongoing
Chesapeake Bay TMDL process is what I referenced earlier in
terms of the court-mandated action, the proposed
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Clean
Water Act, and in our case, Region 3's Agricultural Assessment
Initiative in Lancaster County. All four of these are of a part
of the conversation in Pennsylvania at the moment about the
Chesapeake Bay. They are all interrelated, and all will have
significant impact on the progress we make and the action plan
that we lay forth to achieve the goal.
The bottom line in Pennsylvania, especially for
Pennsylvania farmers, they have much at stake, and we have to
be sensitive to the economic times. But also, I would ask
recognition of the progress made by farmers. Ms. Mills
mentioned this, and I think farmers have done a phenomenal job.
It is also important to note that we have been at this for
over 25 years, and that is only in terms of the legal mandates
we have had, but, obviously, part of agriculture is good
conservation. So, in many terms, we have made the investments
needed. We have shown reductions, as noted here earlier.
Pennsylvania is the first state to have a mandatory Farm
Nutrient Management Plan, the first Nutrient Management Plan to
regulate both nitrogen and phosphorus, and the first EPA
approved regulatory program for confined animal feeding
operations. It is also important to note that we have
permanently preserved 20 percent, nearly 3 million acres, in
this watershed. All of that is important in achieving the goal.
You have the testimony, and I won't read that verbatim,
just a couple of highlights. I mentioned the partnership and
each of the four points here that are on the table for the
Chesapeake Bay. Partnerships have brought us here, and
partnership is really how we have achieved what we have
achieved, whether it is at the state level with our partners,
both in county government and the conservation districts,
whether it be the Federal level with USDA and EPA and many
others, or the nonprofit community.
But the largest partner and the partner that is being asked
to put the most on the table is agriculture, and the farmers
who have signed on the dotted line to repay the loans that they
have taken out to stay in this business called agriculture.
They are a partner. Respecting that partnership as we go forth
I think is absolutely critical. And it is an important
statement of Congress and this government about what we believe
is achievable with those partners.
Finding some balance between our approach, and we know on
the one hand that we need greater compliance, and we know that
we need greater investment. We know that we need farmers and
communities to step up to achieve more. It is clearly known. We
have to do more than we have done to achieve the goals. We can
do that if we are smart about it, if there is balance, and
continued investment in it.
A few specifics in terms of the framework, regulatory
framework, going forward, that I would ask the Committee to
consider.
I think we have to recognize that simply requiring more
operations to be confined animal feeding operations to get that
permit is not the right approach. What is important is not what
you term them, it is what they do on the ground. It is what
practices they put in place to give us the results we are
looking for in clean water.
Second, our farmers deserve clear, predictable legal
obligations. We need to know what it is we are obligated to do.
And that conversation has begun, and it is ongoing. To the
credit of Chuck Fox of the EPA and the USDA, we have had these
conversations. Knowing where the boundaries are is important.
But for the farmers at the outset, given the four pieces that
are at play here, we need to understand where the boundaries
are.
We also ask in this regard, and we suggest, that the
proposed legislation to reauthorize the Bay includes some
provision that dispels the notion that the EPA will be the
regulatory authority on farms under the bill. Make the
expectations clear. If a farmer has developed and is
implementing a plan, let's acknowledge that. That is an
important part of building their trust and getting the trust we
want.
There is much I could talk about on the compliance side.
There is nothing more important than getting good technical
assistance on the ground, and having resources available both
for the technical assistance, but also to help farmers and
landowners who will need the money to implement the plans. We
need to make that available.
We need a good tracking system. One of the revelations that
I think has come out of this discussion in the last several
months is that we are very good at tracking what we pay for as
a government. We are not good at tracking what farmers and
landowners have done on a voluntary basis. All of that, when
you start counting practices and counting acres that in the
models equate to certain changes in water quality. We need to
make sure that we are capturing that and doing a good job of
it, and that is a Bay-wide piece. We have taken some actions in
the state, and we have talked to USDA and the EPA about that.
But I think that is one of the items that helps build the
confidence of the folks who are asked to do more, to at least
give them credit for what they have already done. So we put
that on the table, a good tracking system that needs to be
available.
And we believe that new technologies will also help us get
there. It is part of the way you will address the problem.
Science is part of the solution here. We need technologies and
investments in those technologies.
With that, let me just stop where I began, and that is
there are co-equal goals: clean water and viable agriculture.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Redding follows:]
Prepared Statement of Russell C. Redding, Acting Secretary,
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA
Introductory Comments
Chairman Holden, Members of the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Energy and Research and guests, thank you for inviting the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to be a part of this important hearing
concerning the multitude of legislative, regulatory and administrative
strategies that are being considered to help improve the water quality
of the Chesapeake Bay, its tributaries, and its watershed. On behalf of
Governor Edward G. Rendell, it is my honor to testify before you today.
There is no doubt that the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary waters
are natural resources of outstanding ecological, economic and cultural
importance to the citizens of the United States, and especially to the
citizens and farmers of Pennsylvania. In fact, the Obama Administration
has recognized the Chesapeake Bay as a national treasure worthy of
national attention.
The strategies being discussed here today are in part the result of
that Presidential attention, in part the result of Congressional
attention, and in part the result of the judicial process as the courts
have mandated that the Bay Watershed jurisdictions develop a plan for
clean water. Surely these programs must address the broad spectrum of
very important natural resource and cultural issues which are
multifaceted, complex and intricately intertwined. Your interest and
willingness to examine these strategies and how they will impact
Pennsylvania farmers, citizens and communities is greatly appreciated.
Let me be clear at the outset, I believe we need to have two key,
clear, and co-equal goals in any effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay
and its watershed.
First, it is imperative to meet the goals established for clean
water for Pennsylvania and other Bay Watershed states.
Second, it is imperative that we have economically viable and
thriving farms and strong communities in Pennsylvania and other
Bay Watershed states.
To accomplish these goals, we need strong Federal support. This
Committee, and the Congress, must be commended for your work on the
farm bill to deliver to the watershed those tools and resources needed
to keep farmers in business protecting clean water. Now, we have a
second shot at the apple with the reauthorization of the Bay Program in
the Clean Water Act. If done right, this legislation can compliment the
farm bill and again ensure that farming will be sustainable while farms
are managed to deliver clean water.
It is clear to me that the problems we face in meeting the Bay
nutrient and sediment reduction goals is not exclusively an
agricultural problem, nor is it exclusively an urban problem;
regardless, it is a Pennsylvania problem. More than three million
Pennsylvania citizens call a portion of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
their home. Each and every person that lives in a portion of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed contributes to the nutrient and sediment loads
that are impacting the Bay. Whether you milk cows in Bradford County,
fertilize your lawn in the suburbs of State College, flush a toilet in
Lancaster City, or park your car at the mall in Gettysburg, we all
contribute to the nutrient and sediment loads that are impacting the
Bay. Likewise, we all need to contribute to the solutions that will
help restore the Bay.
Approximately 40,000 Pennsylvania farmers rely on the soil, water,
air and other natural resources of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to
raise and market their crops and livestock, support their families and
communities; and to help feed the citizens of Pennsylvania, the United
States, and people around the globe. These Pennsylvania farms are
extremely diverse, from 50 cow Amish dairy farms to 2,500 cow dairies;
small organic truck farms to cash-grain operations farming thousands of
acres; backyard cow-calf operations to large-scale poultry or swine
growers. The diversity of Pennsylvania agriculture is one of its most
important strengths.
It is often said that farmers are our first conservationists, and I
sincerely believe that. Pure and simple, they make their living off the
land. The quality, health and sustainability of the natural resources
they manage from day-to-day, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade on
their farms determines to a large degree their economic success,
viability and longevity. Farm families are often tied to their land for
generations.
Pennsylvania farmers have worked diligently over the generations to
help protect and restore the natural resources that they and their
fellow citizens depend on. I believe our farmers take seriously the
challenges we collectively face in achieving water quality goals that
have been established for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. They
fully understand that clean water for the Chesapeake Bay means clean
water for their families, their communities and their livestock.
Pennsylvania farmers are trying to better understand how the
changes called for in these Executive Order proposed reports,
strategies and legislative bills will impact their day-to-day farming
decisions, what changes will they need to make, and what the costs will
be. It is imperative that as legislative leaders and appointed
political leaders, we fully understand the impact of these proposals,
ensure the solutions are practical, balanced and effective, and work to
provide the financial and technical resources that will be necessary to
implement these changes.
Current Economic Challenges
I would do an injustice if I did not note that farmers are also
dealing with the some of the most difficult and challenging economic
conditions that they have faced in more than 30 years, at the same time
they are being asked to do more for the Bay. Requiring farmers to
expend significant amount of funds for conservation practices during
this economic recession could force many operators to make difficult
decisions about leaving the industry.
In addition, state and local governments in Pennsylvania also face
very real economic challenges. Pennsylvania's 2009-2010 state revenue
short falls resulted in the need to make difficult and painful
reductions in state agencies' budget and staff complements. County and
local governments are currently adopting 2010 annual budgets that are
extremely tight due to revenue short falls. County conservation
districts, which depend on a combination of state and county based
funding sources, are being impacted especially hard during this annual
budget cycle. Conservation districts are a key component of
Pennsylvania's outreach and technical assistance programs for nonpoint
source pollution programs.
Any Chesapeake Bay Watershed restoration strategy, initiative or
legislative solution must provide adequate Federal funds necessary to
accomplish new regulatory requirements and initiatives. As a state, we
truly appreciate and value the funds provided through farm bill
programs such as EQIP, and especially the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Initiative. These funds and the technical assistance they bring to
Pennsylvania are critical to our success, but unfortunately
significantly more financial and technical resources are needed to
achieve the nutrient and sediment reductions that are called for in the
TMDL and draft strategy.
For these reasons, our approach to the Bay restoration must be
viewed over many years to address the economic and fiscal cycles that
we will have to manage through.
Complexity of Challenges Faced
As I mentioned earlier, these strategies address a broad spectrum
of very important natural resource and cultural issues that are
multifaceted, complex and intricately intertwined. This is a very
complicated equation with a common denominator--the Chesapeake Bay.
Parts of the equation include:
The Presidential Chesapeake Bay Watershed Executive Order
with its seven draft reports and a draft strategy.
The ongoing Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
process to establish enforceable waste load allocations and
caps throughout the watershed that is currently being
implemented under existing authorities of the Federal Clean
Water Act.
The proposed reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program
provided for under Section 117 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
including S. 1816 and H.R. 3852 which propose to reauthorize
section 117, including broad codification of the TMDL process.
EPA Region 3's new ``Agricultural Assessment Initiative''
currently taking place on 26 farms (25 Amish, 1 English) in
Watson Run, Lancaster County.
The complex and inter-related nature of each of these proposals and
actions is challenging to those whose full-time job it is to review
rules, regulations and legislation. Imagine how overwhelming they are
when you're hustling everyday to make a living from farming.
The bottom line is Pennsylvania, and especially Pennsylvania
farmers, have much at stake in the intricate details of the evolving
national strategies and plans regarding the restoration of water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed lands and communities.
Recognizing Accomplishments to Date
Pennsylvania has worked diligently over many decades to help reach
the water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. We
were a signatory to the original 1983 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Restoration Agreement. From the beginning, Pennsylvania's approach has
focused on each of the challenges we have faced, with a strong emphasis
on agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Pennsylvania leads the Chesapeake Bay states in measures critical
to the restoration of the nation's largest estuary. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's most recent calculations show
Pennsylvania farmers can proudly lay claim to 55 percent of all the
nitrogen reductions made by agriculture anywhere in the multi-state
watershed. This leadership derives from the Commonwealth's set of
agricultural stewardship firsts:
The first mandatory farm nutrient management plans.
The first nutrient management program to regulate nitrogen
and phosphorus.
The first EPA-approved regulatory program for concentrated
animal feeding operations.
The first Bay state permanently to preserve 20 percent (now
more than 3 million acres) of land in the watershed. More than
425,000 of those acres represent some 3,900 preserved farms
(required to follow a conservation plan), representing an
investment of more than $1 billion in state, county and Federal
funds.
The Commonwealth also met its goal to plant 600 miles of riparian
forest buffers well ahead of the 2010 goal. Pennsylvania is home to the
largest Conservation Resource Enhancement Program in the entire nation.
Our CREP program delivers more than $50 million in state and Federal
assistance for best management practices and, unlike other Federal farm
bill programs, targets key edge-of-stream BMPs to maximize water
quality. Pennsylvania leads the Bay states in this category after
restoring 3,212 miles of 35 feet-wide buffers in the watershed.
From 2007 to 2009, Pennsylvania has invested more than $750 million
in a variety of programs to improve water quality in the Bay. This
includes $264 million in Commonwealth funds for financing municipal and
industrial wastewater systems. The largest funding sources have been
the Growing Greener bond initiatives, the state Resource Enhancement
And Protection Program (REAP), the Pennsylvania Farmland Preservation
Program, and land conservation acquisitions and easements funded by the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, through Growing
Greener and the `Key 93' real estate transfer tax fund.
Together, these measures and others have helped Pennsylvania
achieve 46% reductions in Nitrogen, 64% in Phosphorus and 88% in
sediment (as of 2008). Since 1985, the U.S. Geological Survey trend
analysis of water quality data shows that Pennsylvania has been sending
cleaner water to the Chesapeake Bay. While we have made important
gains, there is more to do. The Commonwealth continues to need funding
to improve water quality in the Susquehanna River and its tributaries,
and funding for conservation.
Local, State and Federal Partnerships
To date, achieving water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay has
been dependent on strong and balanced partnerships at the local, state
and Federal level. As new strategies, initiatives, regulations and/or
laws are developed, it is critical that these partnerships are enhanced
and that a proper balance of non-regulatory and regulatory approaches
are maintained. This is especially true as efforts are ramped up to
address nonpoint source pollution concerns.
Pennsylvania conservation districts and the USDA NRCS have worked
for decades to assist landowners in voluntarily managing their natural
resources in a manner to minimize nonpoint sources of pollution
(nutrients and sediment). They have developed relationships and trust
with landowners that are critical to solving nonpoint source pollution
problems. Our conservation districts also have experience in managing
regulatory nonpoint source programs such as nutrient management and
erosion and sediment control programs. When these efforts are combined
with the regulatory tools of the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection and other state agency partners, Pennsylvania
has access to a suite of tools that we believe are best equipped to
accomplish the nutrient and sediment reduction goals for the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries.
The key to success in addressing nonpoint source pollution problems
is using the right tool for the job at the correct time. Some
situations call for technical and or financial assistance; some call
for a regulatory approach; and some call for a mix of both. The key is
balance. By utilizing the appropriate mix of tools, positive tension
can be created that causes farmers and landowners to change behaviors
and adopt best management practices that are necessary to reduce
nutrients and sediments being delivered to the Bay.
Adopting a heavy handed or unbalanced approach will only drive
farmers away from compliance and or out of business. On the other hand,
if we work smartly, with a balanced approach, and allow the agency(s)
with the appropriate skills and necessary tools to work with farmers
and landowners, we will have a greater chance of accomplishing our goal
of clean water and thriving farms.
Based on the success of this existing regulatory frame work, we
recommend EPA and other Federal agencies work cooperatively with
Pennsylvania agencies to develop and implement a strategy for achieving
widespread compliance of agricultural producers using existing
Pennsylvania legal requirements. The strategy should address the
following:
Regulatory Authority:
Recognize that simply requiring more operations to obtain a
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit is not the
answer to improving water quality, but rather we believe
implementing Pennsylvania's current regulatory authority that
calls for an active on-site collaboration between producers and
conservation professionals to identify and implement required
practices for all farms, is the best approach.
Farmers require and deserve clear and predictable legal
obligations. We must do a better job of communicating those
expectations to farmers, and provide them with tools that
facilitate their ability to comply. Any changes to regulatory
and enforcement strategies must be made in a transparent manner
with cooperation between Federal, state, and local partners. In
this regard, we suggest that the proposed legislation to
reauthorize the Bay Program includes some provisions that
dispel the notion that EPA will be the regulatory authority on
farms under this bill and make the expectations clear. If a
farmer has developed and is implementing a plan (in accordance
with any existing state and/or Federal requirements and in
accordance with the criteria established), then the producer
should be deemed to be in compliance with the TMDL and its
Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP). Simply stated, if the Federal
Government develops a set of approved conservation practices
for the Bay water quality, and those practices being
implemented are part of an approved conservation and
comprehensive nutrient management plan, then the producer is
assured they have met the requirements.
The TMDL and the proposed language to reauthorize section
117 both recognize that one size does not fit all and identify
the states as the entity that will develop and carry out
Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPS). EPA has a legitimate
interest in overseeing a state's implementation, but as long as
a state continues to meet its commitments under the
Implementation Plan, the state must remain the primary entity
for regulation and enforcement. However, for a state to be
successful, we do need a strong Federal partner in the area of
compliance assistance.
Compliance assistance:
The proposed legislative language to reauthorize section 117
recognizes the crucial role that technical assistance plays in
agricultural compliance. We cannot underestimate the benefits
of having knowledgeable conservation professionals who can meet
one-on-one with farmers. The time and money spent on these
relationships are extremely cost-effective in the long run
because they help to ensure that practices are implemented
correctly both for the environment and for the farmer. This in
turn will help to keep plans implemented and practices on the
ground.
There is a critical shortage of technical assistance and
compliance oversight staff in Pennsylvania. Providing
additional technical assistance capacity (planning/engineering)
through conservation districts, an enhanced technical service
provider (TSP) program and increased compliance oversight staff
is critical. USDA must take action to expand their capacity
under the TSP program, and EPA must allocate funding to address
the staffing shortfall for compliance oversight staff at the
state agencies and conservation districts.
Technical and financial assistance programs must be
coordinated within the state to ensure that all farms develop
and implement the necessary conservation and manure management
plans. Program delivery and conservation practice
implementation at the state level should be integrated with
EPA's expectations for water quality improvement. They should
also be linked to individual states' implementation plans and
milestones.
A tracking system, to be effective, must include the ability
to capture all conservation practices, including those
implemented with or without Federal or state funding. Current
modeling has no effective method for including practices (i.e.,
cover crops, reduced tillage) established independently of
public assistance.
Technical and financial assistance programs should be used
holistically to address the overall water quality challenges on
a particular farm, instead of the current piecemeal approach
that leaves some water quality problems unaddressed. Good
overall farm management throughout the watershed is needed to
reach the goals we need to reach, not just individual priority
practices on certain farms or regions.
The practices needed on each farm must be site-specific and
address water quality cost-effectively. While we recognize that
best management practices must meet certain standards that
demonstrate water quality improvement, a rigid set of standards
may actually be a hindrance to compliance instead of an asset.
Instead, we need flexible standards that, while still being
based on water quality outcomes, recognize the differences
between types of farms and their configuration on the
landscape.
New and alternate technologies (i.e., phytase, manure
digestion) can play a key role in helping some farms improve
water quality. Strategically targeted technologies in areas
where it can make the most difference can be very cost-
effective. For example, focusing the placement of enhanced
regional digesters in areas of Franklin and Lancaster County
could help achieve 20 percent of Pennsylvania's manure-related
reductions. Investments in new research or technological
developments can provide significant opportunities.
Effective and simple planning tools are needed in order to
assist farmers in their efforts to comply with water quality
obligations. As we move to deal with a greater number of
smaller farms, we need to have planning tools that can be
easily understood and completed by farmers or their
consultants. The current array of extensive planning tools has
relevance to the larger farms; however, a very simple approach
is appropriate and needed in order to ensure compliance with
the vast number of smaller farms. Pennsylvania is in the
process of developing these tools (i.e., OneStop Online
Conservation Plans) and needs additional resources to finalize
them for public use.
Mr. Chairman and Committee, I'll end where I began by saying there
are two co-equal goals--
First, it is imperative to meet the goals established for clean
water for Pennsylvania and other Bay Watershed states.
Second, it is imperative that we have economically viable and
thriving farms and strong communities in Pennsylvania and other
Bay Watershed states.
If we are going to be successful, we must find balance between
these goals and be flexible as we develop the strategy. This year and
next, as the Reauthorization of the Bay Program is considered by
Congress, we hope that you will continue to champion these inextricably
linked goals. In doing so, you will be greatly assisting the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Chesapeake Bay and farmers throughout
the watershed.
Furthermore, we hope that you will continue to be our champion as
the farm bill is reconsidered, each time assuring that farm
sustainability and clean water are considered in tandem. The Bay-wide
TMDL must be implemented by 2025. Between that end goal and now stands
16 years and at least two, possibly three farm bills. We must count on
you then, as we count on you now, to be the voice for farms and clean
water.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Redding.
Ms. Mills, Mr. Goodlatte and I and many other Members of
this Subcommittee and the Committee worked very hard to come up
with a good Chesapeake Bay Program in the farm bill and devoted
mandatory money for this effort. We have heard, and you have
said, that it has been very popular, and we are committed to
making sure this program works.
The Executive Order outlines several new initiatives for
USDA, and I want to make sure that we are all on the same page
with regard to the role of ag in the Chesapeake Bay region. Can
you assure us that the Bay program in the farm bill will be run
and operated by USDA only?
Also, can you assure us today that all farm bill money is
allocated and based on decisions made by USDA?
Finally, can you assure us that agriculture decisions are
made by the Department of Agriculture?
Ms. Mills. Yes, sir. I would answer in the affirmative on
all of those. As it has for decades now, USDA has decided where
and how we invest farm bill dollars. This does not change with
the Chesapeake Bay at all.
We have been leaders in this. Certainly, as Mr. Redding has
indicated, there is a strong partnership and consultation with
our local, state and Federal partners, whether it is local
working groups, conservation districts, state technical
committees, Federal partners including the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, USGS and EPA. But at the end of the day, it
comes down to the science and the judgment of the NRCS staff as
to where these dollars are invested, both base farm bill
funding dollars and the $188 million Chesapeake Bay program
dollars.
The Chairman. Well, we are with you. We look forward to
working with you.
Mr. Fox, there are several regions of the country that have
similar problems that we currently are experiencing with the
Chesapeake Bay. Can you explain what distinguishes the need to
emphasize the new regulatory and enforcement approach in the
Bay but not in other regions, such as the Gulf Coast?
Mr. Fox. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The fundamental nature of the
Clean Water Act is a mandate for EPA, working with the states,
to tailor solutions to meeting the unique water quality
challenges of a specific water body.
We all remember when Lake Erie was declared dead in the
1970s. The response by states and the Federal Government was a
series of pollution control actions to improve water quality in
Lake Erie. These were not pollution control actions that were
then implemented throughout the nation. It is the way the Clean
Water Act is designed and how it is being implemented. All of
our actions are dictated towards improving and achieving the
water quality goals that are established by the states.
As a practical matter right now in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, EPA is implementing the CAFO regulations uniformly
in the Bay Watershed and throughout the country. There is no
difference whatsoever with how we treat a CAFO in Virginia,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, or how we treat one in Iowa with
respect to Federal law.
There are sharp distinctions in state laws in how they
regulate different sources throughout the country.
Fundamentally, our challenge here is, as Russ said, Mr. Redding
said, is to ensure viable agriculture and at the same time
achieve our goals for the Chesapeake Bay and the communities
throughout the watershed.
The Chairman. Mr. Fox, last week we heard from Jude Capper,
a dairy economist that I mentioned in my opening statement, and
I would like to enter her testimony into the record for this
hearing, along with some points that the dairy sector has been
doing to increase productivity while reducing the carbon
footprint.
[The information referred to is located on p. 93.]
The Chairman. Also, we will hear from some on the second
panel who will talk about voluntary programs underway to reduce
pollution in the Bay. My question is, given the voluntary
actions currently underway by agriculture, coupled with new
measures in the farm bill, why aren't we giving these
initiatives time to be implemented and to work? Why are we
increasing regulations before we give some of the programs a
chance to show their progress?
Mr. Fox. That is an excellent question, and one that we
struggle with every day. I look forward to learning more about
the dairy examples that you used. In the Chesapeake, we have
similar examples that I think cause us a great deal of
satisfaction.
The poultry industry, which you will hear from soon, has
voluntarily introduced some feed additives which have greatly
reduced the phosphorus concentration in the manure. There have
been tremendous success with voluntary programs since the Bay
program was started in 1983.
As you heard my counterparts on either side of me testify,
since the Bay program began, we have achieved roughly a 50
percent reduction in ag pollution, 50 percent of the goal we
need to achieve, and that is a remarkable testament to
voluntary programs.
The challenge we face today, though, is to achieve our
ultimate goals for the Chesapeake Bay, we need to do far better
than we have done in the past. This is where we are trying to
find the appropriate mix of enhancing our voluntary programs,
and in some cases strengthening the regulatory programs. At the
end of the day, the goals which have been established by the
Governors and the Administrator of EPA is that we have a
Chesapeake Bay to restore for the people in the communities and
the watershed.
The Chairman. Mr. Redding, if you want to comment on that,
and do you think anything in the Executive Order, or any of the
legislative initiatives that are being proposed, will put
Pennsylvania farmers at a competitive disadvantage?
Mr. Redding. Mr. Chairman, first on the voluntary efforts,
I would say a couple of things. Clearly we have made great
progress with our voluntary actions. I think at the moment we
are in, and I refer to this time as sort of a teachable moment.
We clearly, for the resource issues I mentioned earlier and in
agriculture, it is a moment that we have to be clear what the
expectations are. We can, both as a Congress and state, outline
where we want these producers to go, and particularly where we
want our citizens to go so all of us are clear. So the
voluntary actions have brought us so far. We will continue
that, and that will be parallel with some other actions.
But, the moment we have right now is to change the game,
and that is to be clear right now about what we want
agriculture to do and where we want them to be. In 16 years,
the TMDL is to be implemented. And when this Executive Order,
different pieces are done and with the Clean Water Act, I think
you have a moment here, Mr. Chairman, to use to reframe the
discussion. Acknowledge first of all that there has been some
progress. We are halfway there. And then be clear about how we
are going to reach the second half of that goal.
It also presents an opportunity for us, with the efforts at
hand, to spawn some innovation. How do you close the gap? If we
haven't done it in 25 years, what is going to get us there?
There is going to be technology, and there are folks who
haven't complied to this point, and we haven't needed them to
because of recommendations or law. We ought to use them. So you
have this moment to really spawn some innovation.
I think, in terms of the Committee and for the Federal
Government, you have spoken very clearly in the farm bill about
what your expectations are. I think in this initiative, we now
have an obligation to tell you what we have done. And one way
to do that is to be clear in the framing, so everyone in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed knows where the end goal is and how we
will get there. We will do it with volunteers, but we will also
do it with continued investments and collaboration with
partners.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask both Ms. Mills and Mr. Fox, has the
Administration issued a statement of policy or SAP on the
legislation introduced by Senator Cardin, and there is a House
companion bill as well?
Ms. Mills. Congressman Goodlatte, we have not. We are
looking forward to commenting on the bill and will do so as
soon as we get a request to comment on it.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you need a request to comment on it?
Ms. Mills. Yes. My understanding is that we need a formal
request. Actually, we did meet with Senator Cardin's staff last
week, I believe, and made the request. And we have eagerly
started looking at the bill, and will comment on it the
earliest we can.
Mr. Goodlatte. Have you consulted with Senator Cardin on
the drafting of this legislation?
Ms. Mills. No, sir, we did not.
Mr. Goodlatte. You have stated that farms are essential to
the fabric of the Bay Watershed while also alleging that they
are a major source of pollution in need of greater regulatory
mandates. Farmland continues to diminish, while population
growth skyrockets, along with more impervious surfaces. Farms
operate on thin margins in the best of times. This legislation
and the Administration's plan promises more costly regulatory
mandates for farmers. How do you expect to improve the Bay with
policies that will accelerate the loss of farmland and the
proliferation of land uses that deliver a greater nutrient load
to the Bay?
Ms. Mills?
Ms. Mills. USDA cannot comment on the role of regulation,
and we have not done so. So, again, with regard to the
legislation, we do look forward to commenting on the bill and
giving our full analysis of each of the provisions in the bill.
I will note that one question we are asking ourselves as we
have looked at the legislation is reconciling what the farm
bill asked USDA to do, and that is to establish uniform
standards for ecosystem service markets. And we have within the
Natural Resources and Environment mission area stood up an
Office of Ecosystem Service Markets to do that. And we are
pleased that in the Executive Order draft summary, that USDA is
identified as the leader in working with Federal partners to
develop this framework and these standards.
There appears to be a conflict between what the Executive
Order summary and the farm bill say and what is in the
legislation. This is something that we are looking at, and
again, one of the provisions we are interested in giving
comments on.
Mr. Goodlatte. Did you reach out to the agricultural
community prior to the Executive Order? And if so, specifically
who in the ag community did you reach out to?
Ms. Mills. Yes, Congressman Goodlatte, there were a series
of listening sessions throughout the summer during the course
of crafting our, USDA's, specific 202(b) report, and USDA staff
was involved in that in addition, just after the publication of
both the----
Mr. Goodlatte. But Ms. Mills, the Executive Order was
issued on May 12.
Ms. Mills. Yes.
Mr. Goodlatte. Who did you reach out to in the agricultural
community prior to the issuance of the Executive Order?
Ms. Mills. The consultation all took place afterwards.
Mr. Goodlatte. Why was that? Before you issue an Executive
Order that has dramatic implications on the agriculture
community, on farms all across the Chesapeake Bay region, why
wouldn't you reach out to members of that community, at least
to members of the Farm Bureau or other organizations like that,
before you issued an Executive Order?
Ms. Mills. The Department of Agriculture was not involved
in drafting the Executive Order.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Fox?
Mr. Fox. Yes, Mr. Goodlatte, if I can respond to a few of
the issues.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me ask you to respond to that
question. Did you reach out to members of the ag community
prior to the issuance of the Executive Order on May 12?
Mr. Fox. The roots of the Executive Order go back to an
initiative that began with Governor Kaine, Governor O'Malley
and Governor Rendell, on behalf of the Chesapeake Executive
Council, they presented----
Mr. Goodlatte. I didn't ask for a history of it. I asked
you whether the Environmental Protection Agency reached out to
the agriculture community in the Chesapeake Bay region prior to
issuing an Executive Order that has, potentially, a dramatic
impact upon the viability of agriculture, of farms, in my
district and Mr. Holden's district and dozens of other
Congressional districts in the Chesapeake Bay region?
Mr. Fox. The Administration was responding to a request
from the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council to issue the
Executive Order. We did not have extensive consultations with
any interest group, whether they were agricultural interest
groups, municipal interest groups, or stormwater interest
groups.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you.
Earlier this week, the Waterkeeper Alliance filed a 58 page
petition with the EPA that would require the EPA to be the
enforcer for the Clean Water Act to better protect the
Chesapeake Bay. Their petition, if approved, would set
increased NPDES fees and increased EPA oversight of state
government agencies, and, essentially, having the EPA run the
Clean Water Act in the Bay Watershed. While I assume you have
not taken a position on this petition, can you share with the
Committee your vision of the role you think EPA should play in
enforcing and overseeing the Clean Water Act in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed and throughout the country?
Mr. Fox. Yes, Mr. Goodlatte. Just a few very brief
comments. First, your comment about expanded regulations
pursuant to the Executive Order, I just want to make it very
clear that we have only proposed one specific change in
regulatory authorities, those governing CAFO regulations, and
specifically it relates to the provisions of the land
application of manure with respect to CAFO regulations.
Second, I agree completely with your characterization about
sprawl and development patterns and how difficult it will be to
achieve our goals given the patterns of the past.
Third, with respect to legislation, the Administration did
receive a request from Senator Cardin to testify on the
legislation. We do have Administration-approved testimony that
I would be happy to provide to the Committee. It doesn't
specifically support or oppose the legislation in terms of a
bottom line, but I would be happy to get that to you.
Finally, with respect to the petition, we received numerous
petitions for withdrawal of NPDES programs. We have received
over a dozen of them. We received one when I was Assistant
Administrator for the State of Virginia. We consider these
pursuant to the legal requirements of the Federal Clean Water
Act. Every single state in the country that has a delegated
program is delegated pursuant to the law by EPA, and we have an
obligation to ensure that the states are implementing these
programs efficiently and effectively, and this petition will be
considered like all of the others.
Mr. Goodlatte. And what factors will you employ in doing so
in terms of what role you believe the EPA should play in
implementing Clean Water Act provisions within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed relative to the role of the states?
Mr. Fox. I haven't specifically read the petition, let me
be clear about that. The allegations that I have heard about in
summaries include that the State of Maryland is not reissuing
permits in a timely fashion, is not taking aggressive
enforcement action, and is not appropriately implementing the
TMDL programs. These are three allegations that the petitioners
have made. Again, we are going to have to go through a process
to review these evaluations and have conversations with the
State of Maryland and, ultimately, make some determination. We
have never in the history of the agency withdrawn a state
program.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, I have plenty more questions,
but my time has expired.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to thank the panel for being here today.
The Chesapeake Bay area is unique, vital and a very
important community in all regards. I have learned from reading
Michener's book a few years ago, Chesapeake, to understand the
history and culture and the environment. Also, in having a wife
whose family is multigenerational in farming in Lancaster
County, I am very familiar with that part of the world also.
Mr. Fox, I have concerns that we are making decisions, and
I would like for you to respond to this concern, that we are
making decisions based upon a model that predates a lot of the
changes that have taken place in agricultural practices. It is
based on numbers and agriculture Census numbers that would not
be current to some of the improvements we have already heard
about in the poultry and dairy industry, and agriculture in
general. You even responded a second ago, I think that you said
you are interested in learning more about these programs and
the positive effects.
Are we making decisions, and how would you respond to
somebody who says that you are making decisions based upon
outdated information, a model that has changed, and you are
going to require a lot of changes in the agricultural community
based upon outdated information? How would you comment on that?
Mr. Fox. Thank you, and I welcome the connections you have
to the Chesapeake Bay. It is a wonderful place.
The short answer is, we can be very proud of the science
that we have on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I will tell you,
as the former national manager of the Federal Water Program, I
don't know of any other place in the country where we have as
good information about the specific cause and effects of
pollution like we have in the Chesapeake Bay.
The model that you referred to specifically has been peer-
reviewed numerous times. It has been in development for over 25
years. Literally tens of millions of dollars have been invested
into it. And at the same time, it is but one tool that we use,
ultimately, to make decisions. I have a lot of confidence in
the model. But it is, at the end, just a model, and it is
something you should know that is constantly updated with new
information.
In the last year, for example, we have revised all of the
calculations for the efficiencies of various agricultural best-
management practices based on some of the best science that we
have. Some of these efficiencies showed that these practices
were more efficient than we thought, and others showed that
they were less efficient. And this is the kind of commitment we
have to science. It is an interagency commitment and a multi-
jurisdictional commitment to science that I think has been the
hallmark of the Chesapeake Bay program.
Mr. Kissell. So people in the agriculture community then
could accept and feel good that you all will have taken into
consideration all of these improvements that have been made and
will be made. So, as we have talked about and witnesses have
said, it is a very fragile economic time for agriculture
everywhere, and this area included, and regulations that are
put on top of things that are already being done that don't
serve to a positive end against what is being done, that you
all take that into effect.
Mr. Fox. I won't for a minute begin to represent the
agricultural community, but I will tell you there is one
significant issue, at least one that I am aware of. Mr. Redding
mentioned it in his testimony. We do need to improve the
procedures by which we incorporate the most recent data about
practices that are going on the ground, particularly those that
are not part of any Federal or state cost-share program, and we
are working closely with our counterparts at the state. NRCS, I
am aware, is very actively working on this. It is something
that we hope to improve, going forward. But again, it is
important to keep in mind that the model is just one tool that
we use, ultimately, to guide our decisions.
Mr. Kissell. As my time is running out, I would like to
caution, as we move forward, as the Ranking Member just talked
about, for us to make proclamations on regulations before we
seek input is not a good way to go. It needs to be, if we talk
about a joint exercise, it needs to be a fully informed joint
exercise.
Mr. Fox. Mr. Chairman, I need to dispel something very
clearly here. Any regulatory actions by this agency will go
through the normal regulatory procedures. At this point, we
have a draft strategy. As I suggested, it proposes one change
in agricultural regulations dealing with CAFOs. If this
regulation is proposed, that proposal process will probably
take about a year and a half to propose. Finalization of that
will probably be another year and a half. So you are looking at
between now and probably 3 years of a whole lot of process
before any regulations would ultimately be changed for CAFOs.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this
hearing. This issue has implications, not just for the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed but I believe for agriculture as a
whole. I have been very concerned about this process.
With that, I would like to yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, to continue this
very important questioning he has started.
Mr. Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman from Texas, who is the
Ranking Member on our Livestock Subcommittee.
I want to follow-up on the comments and question of the
gentleman from North Carolina, which I thought was a very good
one, regarding the concern about not taking note of the
dramatic progress that agriculture has made in terms of
reduction in various types of sediments and so on that get into
our waterways. It also was pointed out by the Chairman in his
comments on how efficient dairy production has become in the
country. And it is true in other sectors of agriculture as
well.
But the gentleman from North Carolina expressed concern
about piling on more regulation. So I would like to ask Mr. Fox
to comment, even though I know the Administration has not yet
issued an SAP on the reauthorization legislation that Mr.
Cardin introduced in the Senate.
The legislation to reauthorize the Bay is far more
expansive than simply the reauthorization of the Bay program.
Included in this reauthorization legislation is the
codification of President Obama's Executive Order to
incorporate into the reauthorization legislation new law on how
agriculture will operate in the watershed.
President Obama's Executive Order and the subsequent EPA
section 202(b) reports focus on a centralized Federal oversight
approach to Bay restoration activities that emphasize
regulatory mandates and enforcement rather than cooperative
approaches.
This reauthorization bill could result in Federal
regulation and enforcement of the Chesapeake Bay, yet
legislation introduced earlier this year to reauthorize the
Gulf States Program simply reauthorizes the program.
What distinguishes the need to add all of these additional
provisions into the Chesapeake Bay reauthorization where no
similar need was found in the reauthorization for the Gulf
States?
Mr. Fox. I think you are asking me to speculate on the
motivation of the Senator for introducing the legislation.
Mr. Goodlatte. No, I am asking you to speculate on why an
Executive Order was issued with regard to the Chesapeake Bay,
and why that Chesapeake Bay reauthorization should be put into
this legislation? If your position is that it should not be,
then we certainly would welcome hearing that. If your position
is that the additional mandates that go beyond the Executive
Order that are in Senator Cardin's legislation should not be in
the legislation, we would welcome hearing that as well.
Mr. Fox. Just to be very clear, the Administration has no
formal position on the Cardin legislation. And again, I would
be happy to share our formal Administration-cleared testimony,
which does discuss some of the nuances that I think you are
getting at.
With respect to why the Executive Order was issued, again,
first and foremost, it was in response to a request that we
received from the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, made up of
the Governors of the Chesapeake Bay States, the Mayor of the
District of Columbia and the head of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission. And, second, it was in response to the
Administrator and the President's interest in delivering on
some real results for the people of this watershed. The
Chesapeake Bay, as you well know, we have not fulfilled our
goals for the better part of almost 30 years, and we believe it
is time to change that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Have they achieved those goals in the Gulf
States?
Mr. Fox. To the best of my knowledge, the Gulf States do
not have the specific goals that we have here for the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Goodlatte. But do they not have the same type of
problems with sedimentation and water quality standards that we
have issues here of in the Chesapeake Bay area?
Mr. Fox. I couldn't testify to that, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. You don't know? The Chesapeake Bay is the
only watershed in the country that faces water quality issues?
Mr. Fox. Of course not, and I did not say that. What I am
suggesting is that I don't know about the water quality
standards and the criteria for the Mississippi River and the
Gulf of Mexico. I am quite familiar with those of the
Chesapeake, and I know of no other part of the country where we
have dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll and clarity standards with
the specificity that we have in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Mr. Goodlatte. So that means, because the Chesapeake Bay
region, without by the way consulting with the farmers in that
region, as you have acknowledged, because we have more
information about the nature of the problem, the farmers in
that region should face greater environmental burdens and
economic burdens than farmers in other parts of the country?
Or are you simply saying because we have reached this
information with the Chesapeake Bay sooner than we have in
other areas, what is coming down the pipeline for the
Chesapeake Bay and the farmers in that region, it is only a
matter of time before those same burdens would fall upon the
Gulf States or other parts of the country that have similar
programs or similar needs and concerns that have to be
addressed. What we are looking at here in terms of government
regulation is coming to those areas in the not-to-distant
future, but you have more information for the Chesapeake Bay so
you are going there first?
Mr. Fox. Responding first to your question of consultation,
it is true that there was not extensive consultation with
anybody in advance of the Executive Order. I am not aware of
typical consultation periods that happen with Executive Orders
anyway. I can tell you there has been extensive consultation
after the Executive Order at many different points, and I will
continue that. I have spent many days in your state and the
Chairman's state and many times with Mr. Redding talking about
these precise matters. And I am committed to continuing to do
that.
With respect to your characterizations about what is
happening next in other parts of the country, I am trying to be
respectful, but I just don't feel comfortable talking about it
because it is not my job, and I am not aware of it. It is
certainly fair to say that the challenges we face here in the
Chesapeake are very similar to challenges that other
communities and waters are facing throughout the rest of the
country. That is true.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, and recognize the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Kratovil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin by thanking you for holding the hearing, and
thanking all of the panelists here today, coming to testify.
It is, obviously, a very important opportunity for all of
us to hear from all sides on this issue and do our best. Mr.
Redding, you have certainly suggested, and all of you have
suggested, trying to find a reasonable, pragmatic, and fair
approach to doing something that at times clearly appears to be
to be at opposite ends--improving water quality in the Bay and
the watershed and at the same time obviously recognizing and
doing everything we can to promote and protect the agriculture
industry.
My district and the First District both are critically
important, not only economically but culturally, and as we go
forward, as we move forward, all of us need to recognize that
this cannot be a zero-sum game. There has to be a reasonable,
fair, pragmatic approach. I think everyone has to have an open
mind about it in moving us forward.
There is no question we have been trying to clean up the
Bay for 25 years. We have a long way to go. The flip side of
that, as Mr. Fox, you and I have talked about on a number of
occasions, I do feel that there has been substantial focus on
agriculture as opposed to other areas. You have all mentioned
the fact that ag has made substantial progress reducing by 50
percent, and I don't think we have had the same kind of focus
in other areas. So let me begin with that.
Mr. Fox, you mentioned in your statement that there have
been substantial declines in nitrogen and phosphorus loading
since 1985. Specifically, what has that decline been in
agriculture, and how does that compare to the other areas of
municipal-industrial wastewater, atmospheric deposition, and
urban and suburban stormwater runoff.
Mr. Fox. With the Chairman's permission, I would like to
get you the specific quantitative pound reductions for the
record. I can characterize them fairly precisely though for
you, Mr. Kratovil.
The most significant percentage reduction since 1985 has
clearly been in the wastewater publicly owned treatment works
sector. There has been literally billions of dollars invested
in improving pollution control at wastewater treatment plants.
That is, I think everyone would agree, a very big success
story.
Agriculture, as Mr. Redding testified, has contributed
significant total poundage reductions that have also been very
impressive. But as I suggested there is still--because it is
the largest source of pollution, we still have a long ways to
go.
There have been also significant reductions in air
pollution. The one area that we have actually seen going the
wrong direction, as you implied in your question, has been the
urban-suburban runoff. This is a huge challenge and it is the
focus of considerable attention of the Executive Order and some
of the regulatory responses that we are considering.
By and large, we have to turn around the pollution loads
from the urban and suburban sector and not only just get them
to come down again, but they ultimately have to get reduced.
And this will require new pollution requirements most likely on
new development projects, on redevelopment projects, and we are
going to have to explore ways of retrofitting some of the most
impactful large development projects that have occurred over
the last 40-50 years.
Mr. Kratovil. Mr. Fox and Ms. Mills, one of the things I
noticed when we were having discussions about the energy bill
was, looking at Maryland specifically and how Maryland farmers
in my view have in some ways been ahead of the curve, depending
on where you are on the issue for good or for bad and the
consequence of not taking that into consideration in terms of
moving forward. Similarly, in this situation, I am concerned
that Maryland farmers have already been leaders in implementing
best management practices to help clean up the Bay.
Will the fact that many are already taking responsible
steps put them at a disadvantage to other states when the
responsibility to reduce pollution is allocated under TMDL?
Ms. Mills. Congressman Kratovil, in fact, I was just in
your district last week in Queen Anne and Kent County, seeing
some of the steps that producers there are taking to put
conservation on the ground.
I think the potential to help agriculture, to help farmers,
through these new markets, ecosystem service markets, is
tremendous. USDA is, as I noted earlier, is taking the
leadership role with the Federal partners to set up standards
in a framework that will create certainty and expand the market
opportunities to give producers income, new streams of income.
We are in conversations with EPA. We feel strongly that it
is important to create room for producers to take advantage of
these markets. As Mr. Redding said, we have to take the long
view here, and we have to allow producers to position
themselves to not only do what is right and what they want to
do in terms of stewardship of the land, but also to experience
the benefits of conservation on the ground through these new
market center developments.
So that is certainly our commitment, and we will continue
to talk to EPA about this.
Mr. Kratovil. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I yield
back.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
panel for being here for your testimony today.
I will start out by saying I am very disappointed,
actually, in the shortsightedness of the President's Executive
Order. While it certainly recognizes the Chesapeake Bay as a
national treasure, it fails to recognize all components of
national treasures--and that is our agriculture, our tradition,
our heritage, the importance of our independence over having
our own healthy agriculture--there is a failure to recognize
our farms as a natural treasure.
As Secretary Redding noted in his testimony, I think he
captured what the President missed. Our goals are to establish
clean water, and also to have economically viable and thriving
farms. That, to me, is extremely critical, both components.
Secretary Redding, in your opinion, what do you see as some
of the practical impacts and effects on Pennsylvania farms
should the Cummings bill become law?
Mr. Redding. Congressman, I haven't looked at the other
bill in detail. I will say this: Generally, our concern, as I
stated, has been sort of respecting that balance between the
state and Federal Government. I think that is crucial. At least
early indications are that that balance may not be there, or at
least recognized fully as it should be. So we think that is an
important piece that needs to be taken into account.
So, making sure that that partnership that I spoke of
earlier, and we recognized here that has been so valuable to
bringing us to that point, is respected in whatever legislation
goes forward.
I, too, think the issues of trading and how they are
addressed in the legislation are key. I will say in
Pennsylvania we have the only viable trading program, the only
workable trading program at the moment. We have eight trades as
of today. Not big numbers, but you have to start somewhere.
To the Congressman's earlier comments about how do you find
this equity between the producers who have really stood up and
have done everything we asked them to do, what is the incentive
to keep going? And you have this issue across fence lines.
Well, part of it is that we can offer those folks, who have
gone to baseline, who have done a good job, a trading
opportunity. To deal with some of the issues of the community,
whether it be the stormwater runoff or municipal authorities,
the answer is in part linking production of agriculture with
the other entities. So how trading is handled there is
important.
The final point, whatever you do in the legislation has to
acknowledge the technical assistance and the funding needed to
do it. The legitimate question we get all the time, if everyone
knows what the problem is, why isn't it fixed now? Well, part
of it is money. It is about resources. It is about having
enough money to do what you want to do, either on the farms or
at the municipal level.
So making sure there is some technical assistance to deal
with getting people--landowners, farmers, others--into the
proper stage of planning, implementing the plans, and then the
resources to help them do that.
But most important in that is making sure we acknowledge
that this has been a partnership between the Federal Government
and the state. States should have the primacy in making sure
that they are meeting the goals set forth so you have the
accountability, and the EPA then can oversee that to make sure
it is done.
But we are continuing the review of the legislation.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Mr. Fox, actually just one comment first, and then a
question for you. One of my colleagues was talking about the
concern over the regulations, where that would go. You assured
us it would go through normal regulatory process. Well, myself,
and I know some of my colleagues are probably skeptical of
that, given the most recent EPA announcement that
CO2 is a dangerous gas. That really, from the best I
can see, circumvented all normal regulatory processing.
But my question for you is that I really am concerned about
the attitude toward our farmers that has been shown by some
organizations pushing this bill. As you mentioned, stormwater
runoff and agriculture pollution are, in EPA's opinion, the
largest source of pollution in the Bay. When family farms that
are struggling currently go out of business, those farms are
rarely returned to forestland. Instead, those farms are
developed into shopping malls, houses, and expansions of
services.
Can you assure this Committee that as you move forward with
the Executive Order in whatever Bay program bill that we move,
that you will do everything you can to assist farmers in
meeting your goals? That you will do your best not to make the
precarious financial situation that they find themselves in
today, for many different reasons, even worse?
Mr. Fox. Absolutely. We are not going to save this Bay
unless we can find a way to do it with the cooperation and
engagement of not just members of the agriculture community,
but the building community, members of the public, the hunting-
sportsmen community. We all have to be in this together.
I am acutely aware, I spent enough time with Mr. Redding
and his counterparts in the other states, I am acutely aware of
the economic situation facing the farmers in the region and the
nation, for that matter. We have to be mindful of that and
tailor our solutions so that they work for everybody.
The goal we are working on right now is to have practices
on the ground by the year 2025. That seems like a long way
away, but there is a lot that has to happen in the next 17
years, and this is the challenge we face. We have to do that in
a way that respects the economic realities that not just the
farmers are facing, but in Russ' case, the economic realities
that state governments are facing as well.
Mr. Thompson. You are talking about 17 years. We have had
25 years and we have remediated--I don't know what the proper
word is, I guess that is the best word as any--50 percent of
the problem. You are talking about 17 years and approaching it,
and you are changing course in how we are going to address it.
So what is the problem? If you are looking at 17 years out and
we have mediated the first 50 percent in 25 years, and it takes
some time I am sure to get that started, what is the problem
with staying the course?
Mr. Fox. You have done the math quite well. Just to
elaborate a little bit on this, the leadership of Mr. Goodlatte
and Mr. Holden with the new farm bill provisions are huge, and
this is going to significantly improve things. But, at the same
time, it is also fair to say that we have done a lot of the
low-hanging fruit, the easy things first, and Mr. Redding and
his counterparts will all agree that the challenge gets much,
much more difficult with time.
For example, no-till agriculture is now pretty much
universal throughout the watershed. There are huge benefits
that we get from that. It has been a tremendous success story.
We are not going to be able to go to that well again.
So, this is where we are trying to look at the appropriate
mix of an expansion of our voluntary programs, expansion,
hopefully, of using the new farm bill monies as efficiently as
we can, and then considering some tailored expansion of some of
our regulatory and accountability programs.
Mr. Thompson. I am well over my time. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
panel.
I have a number of questions, but I want to first state
that I am not from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. I am from
Pennsylvania, but I am from the far western side. I am on the
Lake Erie side, which is where I reside.
So, Mr. Fox, you brought up Lake Erie. As a school girl, I
remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. I also know
the economic benefits that have come to my region from the
cleaning up of that lake. And we have a beautiful bay on Erie.
Anyone looking for a vacation spot in the summer, or in the
winter if you want to ice fish, come up there. But it certainly
has improved our economy greatly by improving the quality of
that lake.
So, I only have 5 minutes. Mr. Fox, if you just could give
us a 30 second history on that and maybe how that would tie
into what we are doing today?
Mr. Fox. Thank you very much. It is a wonderful story. Lake
Erie was impaired by phosphorous, one of the two nutrients that
is identical to what we are facing in the Chesapeake Bay.
Unlike the Chesapeake, it is a very small watershed. It is
literally a little ribbon, and it was heavily dominated by
point sources, sewage treatment plans. The fix, the solution,
was a series of permanent limitations that restricted the
amount of phosphorous discharges. That in turn led to very
remarkable improvements in Lake Erie.
We have had phosphorus limitations in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed since the early 1980s from municipal sewage treatment
plants. Since then the Bay Program has grown and expanded and
we now have very aggressive programs to control phosphorus and
nitrogen. But this is exactly what we are trying to do in the
Chesapeake. It is just a lot harder here, because the watershed
is so large.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Okay. So the 30 years you have been
working on this is just not enough time because of the expanse
of the watershed basically?
Mr. Fox. Right.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Thank you for that quick history lesson. I
do have a couple of questions.
Mr. Redding, you mentioned in your testimony that the
economic hardships facing our farmers are dire, and, of course,
you and I have dealt with this on my side of the state and
different issues than we are currently talking about today. But
I just wanted you to elaborate on that a little bit and how
much you think it would cost for farmers, on average, to
implement the Executive Order?
Mr. Redding. Thank you first of all for hosting some
discussions in your district on dairy and the perils we have at
the moment on that. Certainly that is what I was referring to
in the testimony.
Two points: One is just on dairy, and then for Pennsylvania
specifically. That is 42 percent of our cash receipts in the
state; big numbers. It is the key part of agriculture. So what
happens there at the moment speaks volumes for what happens to
the rest of agriculture and what you could expect from it.
It has cost about a $1,000 loss in the last year per cow;
550,000 cows, that is $550 million of lost income to
Pennsylvania. So when we talk about resources being available
to take the next step to implement plans, that is what I was
referring to.
In the terms of cost per plan, I think it is going to
develop. I think for someone to develop a plan, it is going to
cost a couple thousand dollars to put the plan at least on
paper. Then it depends on the scope of that plan for
implementation, but it will be tens of thousands of dollars to
do it and do it well.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. And the help that might be there for those
farmers?
Mr. Redding. Well, that is a good question. That is why I
keep emphasizing the technical assistance. It begins there.
Because the first question for any farmer is what do I have to
do to get me to the baseline compliance, and that is where
NRCS, the conservation districts, and the technical assistance
money that has been available to date, both through EPA and the
farm bill and the state, has been so critical. But it begins
there, and then builds from that in terms of the dollars.
Everything beyond the baseline planning though is a match.
You have to put a dollar on the table, or some amount, to
leverage that money. So it is going to take some additional
resources to get it done. But everything that we are working
with is anywhere from a 25 percent match to a 75 percent match,
depending on what the practice would be.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. Do you see these increased regulations
really forcing many farmers out of business? I know that it is
hard to look in the crystal ball, but what do you see, going
forward?
Mr. Redding. Well, I don't know if it is going to force
them out. That is the reason I use the word smart in the
testimony, because we have to be smart about this. I think we
know what the end goal is, right? We know where we want to get
to. But we have to understand the world in which we are living.
Financially it is upside down right now, right? Financially.
So having some great expectation we are going to find some
new money in the next 12-24 months to do what we want to do is
not the answer. That has to be conveyed though to the
landowner, the producers, and to many others, is that we are
taking a long view of this. We will work with you, we will get
there, and there will be opportunities for you; in our case, if
you meet the baseline, that there will be some trading
opportunities.
We haven't spent a lot of time on that today, but it has
great potential because it says for the folks that have
invested for 25 years, you are there. Now you can add value to
your income stream by trading that across the state, the
watershed, and potentially the legislation is considered
federally, across state lines.
So I don't know if we force them out. But we have to be
clear up front about what we want them to do, reassure them we
will work with them, and reassure them we are going to support
them through the state and conservation districts and have an
open conversation, but to do that in a positive and
constructive way.
Mrs. Dahlkemper. My time has expired. But I just want to
finish by saying, as I look at my own experience and my own
district with Lake Erie, there are a lot of economic issues
that have to do with making sure we have that clean water;
economic issues for those who work in the aqua-industries,
whatever they might be, as well as certainly for the health of
the people, including the agriculture around there. I think our
farmers are with us on that. We have to find a way to do that.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman.
Now I recognize the Ranking Member for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would ask unanimous consent that three letters be
submitted for the record. One of those is signed by the
Virginia Agribusiness Council; one by the Maryland, New York
and Virginia Grain and Corn Growers as well as the National
Corn and Wheat Growers; and the third signed by 63 state and
national agriculture producer organizations, including producer
groups from each of the six states in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed.
Each of these letters expresses concerns about H.R. 3852,
the House version of the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem
Restoration Act of 2009 and the potentially severe economic
effects it will have on the agriculture sector in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
This bill goes beyond reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay
program under the Clean Water Act and codifies the Presidential
Executive Order that we are discussing today, and the
legislation does not have the support of our farmers and
ranchers.
Just to give you an example, I won't read all 63 of these
organizations, but just to show you how widespread this is, in
Virginia it includes the Virginia Agribusiness Council, the
Virginia Cattlemen's Association, the Christmas Tree Growers
Association, the Cotton Growers Association, the Crop
Production Association, the Virginia Farm Bureau Federation,
the Forage and Grasslands Council, the Forest Products
Association, the Golf Course Superintendents Association, the
Grain Producers Association, the Green Industry Council, the
Virginia Horse Council, the Nursery and Landscape Association,
the Peanut Growers Association, the Pork Industry Association,
the Virginia Poultry Federation, the Sheep Producers
Association, the Soybean Association, the Virginia State
Dairymen's Association, the Virginia State Horticulture
Society, the Virginia Turf Grass Council, and the Virginia
Wineries Association.
So this is widespread. And I will tell you, this is the
product of legislation being drafted without consulting with
the agriculture community. In fact, I was not consulted, as has
been noted. And I thank Mr. Fox for his comments about the
efforts of Mr. Holden and myself. We strongly want to help the
Chesapeake Bay. We think the approach taken in this legislation
is misguided. I wasn't contacted by anybody with the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, anybody, about
the introduction of this legislation or about the Executive
Order before either were put forward.
I think this is the wrong approach to take to help the
Chesapeake Bay to create this kind of confrontation and
controversy, and it is spreading nationwide. The American Farm
Bureau Federation and many national organizations related to
those Virginia ones, and Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West
Virginia, and New York organizations, have all expressed very,
very strong concerns about the legislation. I think it is the
wrong foot to be starting out on.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to ask unanimous
consent that those three letters be made part of the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, the three letters will be
made part of the record.
[The information referred to is located on p. 103.]
The Chairman. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Massa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a quick question, if I could, for Mr. Fox. I represent
the northernmost and westernmost headwaters of the Chesapeake
Bay. From the confluence of the Tioga-Chemung-Cohocton Rivers,
one can kayak to the Susquehanna and all the way south, as
millenniums worth of humankind have done. With that
understanding and with the focus today that we are talking
about agriculture, I would like to place a marker, if I could,
in those headwaters.
For the first time ever, New York State is now considering
a natural gas extraction process called chemical hydrofracking,
which accesses the second largest natural gas field in the
world, the North American Marcellus Shale, cutting from
southern New York through most of central and Western
Pennsylvania and southward. Depending on where you drill,
natural gas is available from a depth of 5,000 to 14,000 feet
under the actual shale rock.
Through a simple quirk of legislative legerdemain, the
chemical hydrofracking process was exempt in the last energy
bill passed in the previous legislation from all controls of
the Clean Water Act. We now know that the chemicals that are
used to dissolve and dislocate the shale rock include some of
the most carcinogenic chemicals known to man, aromatic
benzoates, et cetera. I am not a chemical scientist, but I am a
cancer survivor, so this is something in which I have some
interest.
The Finger Lakes in western New York State represent one of
the largest depositories of fresh water in the world. In fact,
Lake Seneca is 900 feet deep. There are those who have tried to
tell me that drilling to a depth of 8,000 feet, injecting 1
million gallons of chemical-laced water, including, at least in
a million-gallon load, some 15 tons of known carcinogenic
chemicals, will in no way affect groundwater, because there is
no commingling. To which I say, Bunk. Over the millennium in
time, there is no doubt in my mind that the aquifer commingles
across natural fissures occurring in shale.
So as a marker in this hearing, I would like to lay before
you, Mr. Fox, and this Administration, the fact that all that
you are talking about doing now with agriculture, everything
and every effort that has been yet undertaken to protect the
Chesapeake Bay, is about to be for naught. And unless we
understand very clearly what it is we are about to do in the
name of extracting cheap natural gas, which I am all in favor
of--everybody would want to use natural gas from an American
source rather than imported crude from our enemies, and make no
doubt they are our enemies--unless the provisions of the Clean
Water Act are assigned to chemical hydrofracking, this hearing
is useless. And in 20 years, it makes no difference how much
cow urine we keep out of the Cohocton River if we are pumping
in tens of millions of gallons of a hydrofracking solution to
the northern Marcellus Shale.
I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you and the
other Representatives concerned with this, one on one. I don't
think that anyone yet has connected the dots. But if I throw a
rubber ducky in the Cohocton River three blocks from my house,
it will end up in the Chesapeake Bay. And if I pump 1 million
gallons of chemically laced carcinogenic waters into the
aquifer of western New York State, you are going to be drinking
it in 20 to 30 years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
time. Anyone want to comment? Mr. Fox?
Mr. Fox. I would just say thank you for that. That was a
very articulate statement, and I would be happy to follow up
with you and make sure we get you in touch with the appropriate
folks at EPA.
Mr. Massa. I don't think I am out of bounds here, sir. I
really don't. My personality and my public persona and my
politics are not one of being an off-the-chart tree-hugging
environmentalist. I am a very pragmatic and practical person.
But long after these drilling companies leave my hometown and
long after they have extracted the mineral wealth that lies
underneath western New York State and shipped it overseas--
because many of these companies are foreign-owned--I would like
to be able to drink the water, and I don't know for sure that I
am going to be able to do that.
Mr. Fox. Thank you.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman, and also
thanks our witnesses for their testimony today.
We will now call on our second panel. We would like to
welcome Mr. Wilmer Stoneman, Associate Director of Governmental
Relations, Virginia Farm Bureau; Mr. Steve Schwalb, Vice
President of Environmental Sustainability of Perdue, Salisbury,
Maryland; and Mr. Jim Curatolo, Watershed Coordinator of the
Upper Susquehanna Coalition.
Mr. Stoneman, whenever you are ready, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF WILMER N. STONEMAN III, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, VIRGINIA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION, RICHMOND, VA
Mr. Stoneman. Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte, I
want to express to you the thanks of farmers throughout the
watershed for having this hearing. Without question, the Bay
relies upon USDA for our technical assistance. It relies on the
farm bill for funding to help us make it through. And
certainly, without question, you have heard today that farmers
throughout the watershed are certainly trending in the right
direction. We have made 50 percent of our goal. But as you have
heard, there is 50 percent more to do.
So we thank you for, certainly, your leadership in having
this hearing today. We certainly thank you for your interest in
this subject, and we think it is something that affects farmers
nationwide.
The EPA Administrator has very plainly said that the
Chesapeake Bay Program, this legislation, the Executive Order
and perhaps the TMDL, will be the blueprint for the Gulf of
Mexico, the Great Lakes, Puget Sound, and perhaps even
Albemarle Sound. So this is big. This is something that farmers
everywhere have on their mind.
I greatly appreciate Mr. Goodlatte listing off the 63, or
at least the Virginia portion of the 63 organizations that are
certainly concerned about this legislation. I will say up front
and I will say very clearly, and I have done this many times
over the last few weeks, the Virginia Farm Bureau and farmers
throughout the watershed support reauthorization of the
Chesapeake Bay Program. But we don't support the extra things
that go along with it that are included in this bill, like
codification of the TMDL, like upping the ante, including
enforceable and otherwise binding programs for farmers, like
including citizen suits in this particular legislation.
Now, the bill does have redeeming qualities. It includes
further technical assistance for farmers. It includes an idea
certainly that is of concern to us, and you have heard about it
today: voluntary measures that have not been accounted for in
the Bay model up until this point. And certainly in that
discussion we are heartened, because in Virginia we found out
that certainly the Federal dollars that you have sent us
through the USDA for the last 4 years have not been included in
the Bay model. We think there is a lot more to be said about
the good things that farmers have done for the Chesapeake Bay.
So the bill has its redeeming qualities. It takes into
account these volunteer measures. It takes into account the
fact that we need technical assistance, and it reauthorizes the
Bay Program.
Mr. Chairman, you have heard today about the 25 year
history of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort. I contend that
the Chesapeake Bay's current state is 400 years old. From the
time John Smith made that right-hand turn with three ships full
of paper, we have had an effect on the Chesapeake Bay. We are
not going to clean it up right away.
My family and I own a farm in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Actually it goes back 400 years. We are the proud current
owners of the farm that Pocahontas and John Rolfe owned, where
the tobacco industry as we know it was started. So we have a
keen sense of what has gone on certainly in the Chesapeake Bay,
and what is needed for farmers.
We talk about 50 percent improvement. Well, over the last
20 to 30 years, since 1987, we have lost 41 percent of our
farms. No amount of efficiency, no amount of technical
advancements, no amount of money is going to bring those
farmers back. You hear a lot about Farm Bureau crying wolf
about farmers being lost or farmers going out of business. That
is an ag statistics fact; 41 percent fewer are there today.
That may not be all because of regulation, but there are 41
percent fewer.
Very much our concern about this particular bill is about
the TMDL. It caps our growth. It caps our farms. A no-net
increase of nitrogen and phosphorus to the Chesapeake Bay
basically says a young farmer will have to buy the farm and
then buy offsets for the right to use it. Farmers are generally
considered as being the beneficiaries of offsets. But I contend
with the TMDL in place, there will be no room for a trade,
because the compliance level will be so high.
Mr. Chairman, I have used all of my time and certainly will
answer any question that you ask of me. But I want to remind
you that we have had 400 years of effect on the Chesapeake Bay.
We are not going to fix it in 30. We are not going to fix it in
25, and we certainly are not going to fix it in 2 year
increments.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoneman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wilmer N. Stoneman III, Associate Director of
Governmental Relations, Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, Richmond, VA
Chairman Holden, Ranking Member Goodlatte, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on the
regulatory and legislative strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
My testimony will specifically address S. 1816 and H.R. 3852 and the
efforts to expand and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. I ask
that these comments be entered into Congressional record as part of the
December 9, 2009 hearing on Regulatory and Legislative Strategies in
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed before the Subcommittee on Conservation,
Credit, Energy and Research of the House Committee on Agriculture. As a
supplement to my comments, I have received permission to attach the
testimony of Susan Parker Bodine, Partner, Barnes and Thornburg, before
the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works on the ``Chesapeake Clean Water and
Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009.''
Across the Chesapeake Bay watershed and nation, agricultural
producers are very concerned about the implications of these
legislative proposals that seek to significantly expand Federal
enforcement and spur citizen litigation of Chesapeake Bay programs. In
addition to heavy-handed enforcement we understand that the legislation
also places a cap on economic growth in the watershed--impacting jobs,
development, and food production. These bills will impose severe
economic hardship to our industry and further increase pressure to the
Chesapeake Bay's most effective and efficient land use, production
agriculture, to move out of the watershed.
First, before exploring the specifics of the regulatory and
legislative proposals I would like to give you a brief update on the
plight of agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. According to
USDA's National Agriculture Statistic Service, farms across the Bay
watershed are under significant financial pressure. Over the period of
1987 to 2007, NASS's numbers indicate that almost 14 percent of the
tillable farmland has been converted to another use. Over that same
period, 20 percent of all agricultural land--tillable land and pasture,
has been converted to another use. However, the most significant loss
in the watershed has been in the loss of farms. Over that same 20 year
time period, the Chesapeake Bay watershed has lost 41 percent of its
farms. In this area, no amount of scientific advance, gain in
efficiency or technology will replace the people and families we have
lost.
Second, I would like to discuss the regulations and requirements
that are already in place and mandated on farms by state regulation in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed. I am talking about mandatory nutrient
management, setbacks and buffer zones that take land out of production,
and tillage practices and farm plans that require farms and ranches to
operate in a manner that seeks to increase environmental outcomes.
Almost all require significant management and labor but most of these
practices achieve two important and complementary things. They reduce
environmental externalities, improve efficiencies and if managed
properly can help the farmer's bottom line. The management practices
that will be required to achieve the load reductions called for in the
Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) will have a high cost and will
only take away from the farms' already thin bottom line. Mandating
environmental practices will push more and more of Bay watershed
farmers and ranchers from the land. This will be a sad consequence of
this legislation and a significant issue for the nations' food
security.
Last, TMDLs and ``hard'' nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment caps
will have profound negative implications for agriculture and the
overall economy in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In current EPA
regulations, there are ``prohibitions'' on any new or expanding permits
in ``impaired'' watersheds. In other words, if a new activity needs a
permit--EPA can object or any person can sue in order to stop the
issuance of the permit. That means no new jobs if the owner of the
business needs a construction stormwater permit to build a factory or
parking lot. That means no new homes for an increasing population
because the developer would need a construction stormwater permit. That
means farmers can be stopped from building a barn or poultry facility
because the activity would need a construction stormwater permit. The
process will likely force a very harsh economic reality. It could mean
that new jobs could not be brought into the watershed unless other jobs
are pushed out of the watershed. It could mean no new homes could be
built unless others are torn down. It means that any development or
redevelopment activity in the watershed must be ``offset'' which brings
mandates to restore the land to a ``pre-development'' hydrology
standard. This applies to the construction of schools, hospitals and
roads as well as homes and businesses. If the restoration can not be
accomplished on site, offsets must be installed elsewhere in the
watershed.
Proponents of the offset or trading concept have proposed that the
offsets can be supplied by farmers. But there is a significant problem
with that reasoning because the approach mandated in the leading
proposals only allows offsets to be traded after the farm reaches its
individual nutrient reduction obligations. Individuals who understand
the Bay model know that every farm will have to install every BMP
available on every acre just to reach the goal. That means, and experts
in this area agree, there will be no offsets left to sell on working
farms. So we believe the offset provisions will leave local governments
and developers with no other option than to purchase whole farms and
take them out of production in order to achieve the offset. The
alternative is a halt to all economic development in the watershed.
We understand that improving the Bay will require a lot of time,
money and individual effort. Improving the Bay is an important task,
but the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act is too
heavy on Federal enforcement and will force states to:
1. Adopt and submit to EPA for approval watershed implementation
plans that must have reduction targets, key actions, and
schedules to attain water quality standards by reducing loads
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment from all sources,
including agricultural runoff, point sources including
stormwater point sources, nonpoint source stormwater runoff,
and septic systems;
2. Codify the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment caps identified in
a December 2003 EPA document, unless more stringent limits are
established by a state or EPA;
3. Adopt control measures that identify, and include enforcement
mechanisms;
4. Phase implementation into 2 year periods with modeling to show
reductions associated with each period--the plan must also
identify contingency measures if reductions are not achieved;
and
5. Adopt plans that address offsets for new or expanded sources.
The legislation also mandates EPA to approve or disapprove a
state's implementation plan, based on minimum criteria established by
EPA. If a state fails to submit an implementation plan or meet its 2
year milestones, EPA must:
1. In the Senate bill, withhold all Clean Water Act funds from the
state; this includes state revolving fund (SRF) capitalization
grants under section 601, and section 106 and section 319
funds. In the House bill, all funds except SRF capitalization
grants are completely withheld. For the SRF grants, 75 percent
of the grant is withheld and given to EPA to select projects
and activities from among those eligible for SRF funding in
that state.
2. Develop and administer an implementation plan in that state.
3. Require 2-1 offsets for all new or expanded sources of nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediments.
4. Promulgate any regulations or issue any permits as EPA
determines are needed to control pollution to meet water
quality goals, notwithstanding any other provision of the Clean
Water Act and notwithstanding any existing exclusion or
exemption. For farmers in the watershed, this provision repeals
the agricultural stormwater exemption and provides EPA with
blanket authority to do anything to meet water quality
standards, not limited to issuing 402 permits.
5. Enforce any permits issued under a watershed implementation plan
as if they were section 402 permits.
The Chesapeake Clean Water Ecosystem Restoration Act contains broad
and far reaching language that ``authorizes states to issue permits
under section 402 of the Clean Water Act to any pollution source the
state determines to be necessary to achieve the nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment reductions in the implementation plan.'' These permits are
authorized for any source of pollution, whether or not that source is
currently excluded from regulation under current law (the agricultural
stormwater exemption). The permits are then fully enforceable by EPA
and citizen suits.
In addition, to implement the TMDL, the legislation grants EPA
sweeping new authority to promulgate any regulations or issue any
permits as EPA determines is necessary to control pollution sufficient
to meet the water quality goals defined in the implementation plan.
This is an extraordinary expansion of Federal authority. As was pointed
out in the Senate testimony on S. 1816, ``EPA could supersede the local
development plan of every community, as well as state and metropolitan
transportation plans. EPA could prohibit or prescribe sidewalks,
parking lots, buildings, roads, even lawns. EPA could dictate the
length of gutters or require rain barrels and green roofs. EPA could
prohibit the use of fertilizer. EPA could shut down factories or force
land out of agriculture production.''
Nutrient Trading
Nutrient trading should be a safety valve to facilitate
implementation of sound conservation practices, but as anyone that
understands the load reduction required to achieve the TMDL knows,
trading opportunities are likely to be limited or non-existent. First,
it appears that trading will be limited to regulated entities and few
sources in agriculture will be able to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, or
sediment loadings above the reductions assigned to them under the TMDL
implementation plan. In other words, within agriculture, there will be
very few excess reductions to trade as credits. The unfortunate fact is
that the only cost-effective source of credits will be the retirement
of agricultural land, driving agriculture from the watershed. The May
2009 plans put forth by states to meet their 2011 milestones for
reducing nitrogen and phosphorus already assume the retirement of
81,676 acres of land.
Citizen Suites
The legislation authorizes citizen suits against EPA for failure to
carry out any provision of the Act. While EPA does retain the
discretion to choose where and how to utilize most of its new
authorities, if a citizen believes that EPA's actions are not
sufficient to meet the goals of the TMDL, then that person can file
suit in Federal court to compel action. Implementation of the load
allocations from nonpoint sources in the TMDL will likely be the
outcome of litigation, no matter what the impact is on communities,
individuals or farmers and ranchers.
Codification of the TMDL
Through codifying executive and regulatory authorities, the
Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will hamper
innovative solutions in areas such as nutrient trading, economic
growth, farm adaptive management and overall water quality restoration.
Without adequate time and science to effectively work through processes
such as the drafting of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will
impose burdensome regulations and penalties before defining procedures
and practices that are proven to efficiently achieve desired water
quality goals. This accelerated course of action will be expensive and
damaging to the watershed's economy, viability of our agriculture
sector, and overall water quality objectives.
Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed have a strong history of
being responsible and proactive environmental stewards, both through
compliance with existing regulations and through implementation of
voluntary conservation practices. However, a significant amount of
conservation practices implemented by agricultural producers have not
been given accurate credit in decision making models. The Chesapeake
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act will create a system of
burdensome regulations without understanding the full impact of water
quality improvements from implementing additional requirements on
agriculture. Reauthorization of the Bay Program should enhance the
current Chesapeake Bay Model to ensure it is based on comprehensive and
accurate data.
We support reauthorization of the existing Chesapeake Bay Program
without dramatically expanding Federal authorities. We believe adequate
time should be given to develop creative ways for economic recovery and
growth to partner with water quality goals, as well as to refine the
science and modeling in the watershed. We are committed to developing
strategies to protect all resources within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, including family farmers and other agribusinesses. Our
organizations look forward to continuing discussions with you regarding
this critical issue and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Attachment
prepared statement of susan parker bodine, partner, barnes & thornburg,
before the subcommittee on water and wildlife, senate committee on
environment and public works, hearing on great water body legislation:
s. 1816 and s. 1311, dated november 9, 2009
Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Crapo, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify today on S. 1816,
the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 and S.
1311, the Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act.
My goal today is to provide a legal analysis of these two
legislative proposals, based on my understanding of the Clean Water Act
and water quality implementation programs. I am currently a partner in
the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg. I have previously held positions at
both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and
in the House of Representatives, as the staff director for the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. During my tenure on the Water
Resources and Environment Subcommittee, I worked on the last
reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program, as Title II of Public
Law 106-457 (2000). I also participated in extensive oversight of EPA's
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program.
S. 1816, the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of
2009
Establishment of a Chesapeake Bay TMDL
Consistent with EPA's announced plans, S. 1816, the Chesapeake
Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, requires EPA to
establish, by December 31, 2010, a basin-wide Chesapeake Bay TMDL for
the 92 Bay and tidal tributary segments that are impaired by nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment. This TMDL will cover 64,000 square miles in
six states and the District of Columbia. Under the bill, the TMDL must
include wasteload allocations for point sources for nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment, necessary to implement applicable water
quality standards. The bill also requires the TMDL to include
enforceable or otherwise binding load allocations on nonpoint sources,
including atmospheric deposition, agricultural runoff, and any
stormwater runoff that is not currently regulated. Finally, under the
bill, the TMDL must prohibit any net increase in nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment from any new or expanding source, including increases from
new or increased impervious surfaces, concentrated animal feeding
operations, transportation systems, and septic systems, even if a
discharge meets water quality criteria so the source is not causing or
contributing to the violation of a water quality standard.
S. 1816 provides states with greatly expanded state authorities to
implement the TMDL. If a state fails to implement the TMDL, EPA must
implement it, with the greatly expanded Federal authorities provided by
the bill. Finally, if persons are not satisfied with the implementation
by a state or by EPA, the bill provides for citizen suits to use the
courts to implement the TMDL. These provisions all raise significant
issues. A few of those issues are highlighted below.
Load Allocations and Water Quality Standards
Under new section 117(j), S. 1816 requires each state to develop an
implementation plan for each impaired segment in its jurisdiction. The
implementation plans must incorporate the caps on nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment that were agreed to among EPA and the states in 2003, or
the caps identified in the TMDL developed by EPA. The 2003 agreement
caps nitrogen loads at 175 million pounds, phosphorus loads at 12.8
million pounds, and sediment loads at 4.15 million pounds.\1\ These
maximum loads were based on modeling in 2003 that assumed that states
would be modifying their water quality standards based on ambient water
quality criteria for the Bay for dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and
chlorophyll published by EPA in April 2003.\2\ The 2003 agreement notes
that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Memorandum dated April 28, 2003, from W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.,
Chair, Chesapeake Bay Program Principals' Staff Committee to Principal
Staff Committee Members and Representatives of the Chesapeake Bay
``Headwater'' states, titled ``Summary of Decision Regarding Nutrient
and Sediment Load Allocations and New Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
(SAV) Restoration Goals,'' reprinted as Appendix A of ``Setting and
Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and Sediment Loads,'' EPA
903-R-03-007, December 2003.
\2\ Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water
Clarity and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal
Tributaries, EPA 903-R-03-002 (April 2003).
``Over the next two years, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and
the District of Columbia will promulgate new water quality
standards based on the guidance published by EPA. Although the
public process for adopting water quality standards varies
among the states, each state's process will provide
opportunities for considering and acquiring new information at
the local level. States may choose to explore a number of
issues during their adoption process, such as the economic
impact of water quality standards and specific designated
uses.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Setting and Allocating the Chesapeake Bay Basin Nutrient and
Sediment Loads,'' December 2003, at A6. For example, in setting its
water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, Maryland has included
variance that allows dissolved oxygen criteria to exceed the water
quality standard in some of the deepest parts of the Bay because:
``Even after spending billions of dollars to reduce nitrogen,
phosphorus, and sediment pollution to clean up the rest of the Bay,
essentially doing everything we know how to do at this time, the deep
areas still could not attain the dissolved oxygen standard.'' http://
www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/TMDL/wqstandards/faqs.asp.
Scientific analysis did not stop in December 2003, and EPA and the
Chesapeake Bay States have continued to refine the models on which
these load allocations are based. In fact, based on the most recent
modeling, EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Program's Principals' Staff
Committee have agreed to preliminary target loads of 200 million tons
per year of nitrogen and 15 million tons per year of phosphorus. These
targets are likely to continue to change. In fact, the most recent
model (phase 5.3) is not expected to be ready until December 2009.
However, S. 1816 codifies the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment load
allocations as no more than the December 2003 allocations, or whatever
allocations EPA establishes in the TMDL. Thus, the load allocations are
capped by Federal law even if, after the TMDL is established in
December 2010, new data or further changes to the model show that
increased loads would achieve water quality standards.
By codifying specific pollutant caps in law, S. 1813 may be
freezing both science and policy. As noted above, the models used to
establish pollutant loads are very complex and are continually
evolving. Codifying the pollutant caps could preclude EPA and states
from using their evolving understanding of the Bay and improved
modeling to achieve water quality goals. Also, the models seek to
answer the question of whether or not water quality standards are met.
States must review and, as appropriate, revise, their water quality
standards every 3 years. 40 CFR 131.20. Under current law, water
quality standards can be made less stringent if meeting those standards
``would result in substantial and widespread economic and social
impact.'' 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). It appears that, by codifying specific
load allocations, S. 1813 would eliminate the ability of states to
later make changes to the loads based on changed water quality
standards that may be needed to account for substantial and widespread
economic and social impacts. Finally, codifying load allocations is
contrary to the principles of adaptive management. The Chesapeake Bay
watershed is a complex, dynamic system. It is unclear how the watershed
will respond to the various measures being proposed. In its report,
Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management, the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended using the scientific method to
apply adaptive implementation to TMDLs. NAS describes this as ``a
process of taking actions of limited scope commensurate with available
data and information to continuously improve our understanding of a
problem and its solutions, while at the same time making progress
toward attaining a water quality standard.'' \4\ The NAS's recommended
framework for water quality management includes reviewing the
attainability of designated uses and water quality standards both
before the development of a TMDL and as part of adaptive
implementation.\5\ S. 1813 would prevent EPA and states from
implementing that recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management,
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (2001), at 90.
\5\ See id, Figure 5-1, at p. 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Implementation
S. 1816 requires state implementation plans to include enforceable
or otherwise binding measures to reduce loads of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediments, to meet the targets discussed above. Although programs
to achieve voluntary reductions through funding commitments may be
included in the implementation plan, S. 1816 makes it clear that the
state must have enforcement mechanisms to employ if an entity does not
achieve its assigned pollutant reductions. S. 1816 provides Federal
authority for binding measures and enforcement mechanisms in new
section 117(j)(2), which authorizes states to issue permits under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act to any pollution source the state
determines to be necessary to achieve the nitrogen, phosphorus, and
sediment reductions in the implementation plan. These permits are
authorized for any source of pollution, whether or not that source is
currently excluded from regulation under current law. The permits are
then fully enforceable by EPA and by citizen suits.
This provision greatly expands the scope of Federal water pollution
control law. Under current law, the Clean Water Act controls point
source discharges of pollutants. ``Point sources'' are defined in
section 502 of the Clean Water Act as any discernible, confined and
discrete conveyance, such as pipes, ditches, channels, etc. Diffuse
runoff of water is not a point source. The Clean Water Act also
specifically excludes agricultural stormwater discharges and return
flows from irrigated agriculture from the definition of point source,
so they are not regulated under Federal law. In addition, EPA, by
regulation (in 40 CFR 122.27) has defined what is and is not a
silviculture point source, excluding a variety of activities such as
natural runoff from forest road construction and maintenance. These
sources all could be subject to permits under S. 1816.
``Pollutants'' are defined in section 502 of the Act as specific,
measurable, materials that are discharged into water, such as solid
waste, sewage, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive
materials, heat, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. In
contrast, ``pollution'' is defined as the man-made or man-induced
alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological
integrity of water. Pollution includes increased water flows and
habitat alternation. Under S. 1816, any activity that causes increases
flow or habitat alteration, no matter how distant from a body of water,
could be required to obtain a permit.
In fact, under S. 1816, permits issued under section 402 of the
Clean Water Act could be required for any activity that affects water,
whether or not there is any addition of a pollutant to the water, and
whether or not there is even a discharge that can be measured and
controlled. The bill specifically requires reductions in pollution from
agricultural runoff, point sources including point source stormwater
discharges, nonpoint source stormwater discharges, and septic systems.
Although not specifically required, the bill also would authorize a
state to issue a section 402 permit to a source of air deposition,
because the states' new authority applies to ``any pollution source,''
and air deposition is a source of pollution to the Bay. Finally, the
bill does not restrict the states' new authority to sources located
within the geographic boundaries of that state.
The section 402 permitting program is designed for point source
discharges of measurable pollutants into bodies of water. It is unclear
how section 402 permits could be used to address all the diverse
sources of pollution affecting the Chesapeake Bay. For example, S. 1816
does not address what types of technology-based and water-quality based
effluent limitations could be established to address diffuse sources of
pollution that do not directly discharge into a water body. Absent
specific statutory language clarifying how these sources are intended
to be controlled, it is unclear where and how compliance is to be
measured, whether numeric limitations could be imposed, and who would
be legally responsible for meeting any requirements. Because these new
permits can be enforced by citizen suits, these questions may be
answered by courts.
S. 1816 also imposes specific requirements for development. Under
new section 117(j)(3), EPA must issue regulations identifying, based on
the area of impervious surface,\6\ what development projects states
must regulate to maintain or restore predevelopment hydrology, to the
maximum extent feasible. EPA must define ``predevelopment hydrology''
by regulation. This may mean that the owner of property must return the
volume of water leaving the property to its predevelopment levels,
whether or not the water flows into a water body and whether or not
there is any impact on water quality. These requirements will apply to
existing projects seeking to expand, as well as new projects. When the
term ``maximum extent feasible'' is used, that is usually understood to
mean technically feasible without regard to cost.\7\ If an impact to
predevelopment hydrology is not avoidable, then a permit (presumably a
section 402 permit, although the bill does not specify) must require
mitigation using a ratio to be established by EPA by regulation. States
are required to provide assurance to EPA that they will implement these
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The area of impervious surface may include roofs as well as
parking lots.
\7\ In contrast, the term ``practicable'' is usually understood to
include consideration of cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Implementation
If a state fails to submit an implementation plan or submits a plan
that does not meet criteria established by EPA, new section 117(k)(5)
requires EPA to withhold all Clean Water Act funds from the state. This
includes the capitalization grants for State Revolving Loan Funds. EPA
also must develop a Federal implementation plan to implement the TMDL
in that state.
To implement the TMDL, S. 1816 gives EPA the authority to
promulgate any regulations or issue any permits as EPA determines is
necessary to control pollution sufficient to meet the water quality
goals defined in the implementation plan. This is an extraordinary
expansion of Federal authority. It literally means that EPA could
regulate any activity that has any impact at all on water quality.
Under this provision EPA could supersede the local development plan of
every community, as well as state and metropolitan transportation
plans. EPA could prohibit or prescribe sidewalks, parking lots,
buildings, roads, even lawns. EPA could dictate the length of gutters
or require rain barrels and green roofs. EPA could prohibit the use of
fertilizer. EPA could shut down factories or require farm land to
become idle. EPA could force communities to spend billions of dollars
beyond the limits of affordability to meet nutrient standards at sewage
treatment plants. EPA could require all municipal separate storm sewer
systems to carry out retrofits, at an estimated cost of $7.9
billion.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See ``The Next Generation of Tools and Actions to Restore Water
Quality in the Chesapeake Bay, A Draft Report Fulfilling Section 202a
of Executive Order 13508'' (Sept. 9, 2009), at 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1816 also requires EPA to impose requirements for 2 to 1 offsets
in permits under section 402 for any new or expanding discharges of
nitrogen, phosphorus, or sediments in a state where EPA is implementing
the TMDL. All permits would be enforceable as permits issued under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act, including citizen suit enforcement.
EPA's new authority is to be implemented to advance a single goal:
meeting the load allocations of a TMDL. S. 1816 does not provide for
consideration of other values that a state or local government may want
to take into account, such as safe transportation, locally grown
produce, the economic health of a community, and even the ability of
individuals to afford the cost of shelter. In fact, as discussed above,
even if a state chooses to change its water quality standards to
address any substantial and widespread social and economic impacts of
implementing the TMDL, those new standards may not be implemented. It
appears that S. 1816 would still mandate achievement of the goals
established in 2003 or in the TMDL to be issued in December 2010.
Nutrient Trading
New section 117(k)6) directs EPA to establish, by May 2012, an
interstate nitrogen and phosphorus trading program to facilitate
implementation of the TMDL. However, trading opportunities may be
limited. First, it appears that trading must occur between ``points-of-
regulation'' which must be entities regulated under the Clean Water
Act. It is unclear if a regulated entity can rely on credits generated
from unregulated activities, such as wetlands restoration, nutria
eradication, or increasing the number of filter feeders such as
oysters. It also is unclear if trading can occur with sources of air
deposition. Second, few sources will be able to reduce nitrogen,
phosphorus, or sediment loadings above the reductions assigned to them
under the TMDL implementation plan. Given that credits must arise in
the watershed and all sources of pollution in the watershed would
become regulated under the bill, there may be very few excess
reductions to trade as credits. In fact, the only cost-effective source
of credits may be the retirement of agricultural land, driving
agriculture from the watershed. The May 2009 plans put forth by states
to meet their 2011 milestones for reducing nitrogen and phosphorus
already assume the retirement of 81,676 acres of land.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See http://archive.chesapeakebay.net/pressrelease/
EC_2009_allmilestones.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Assistance
S. 1816 requires EPA to develop guidance, model ordinances, and
guidelines, to help states and local governments ensure that land
maintains predevelopment hydrology and to encourage low impact
development. The bill authorizes $1.5 billion in grants to help local
governments that adopt the guidance, ordinances, and guidelines to
implement projects designed to reduce stormwater discharges. However,
as noted above, EPA estimates the cost of retrofitting municipal
separate storm sewer systems to reduce stormwater discharges of
nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to be $7.9 billion.
Enforcement
New section 117(o) includes provisions to authorize Federal and
citizen suit enforcement against states for failure to implement the
TMDL, and citizen suit enforcement against EPA for failure to carry out
any requirement of section 117.
The section authorizing Federal and citizen suit enforcement
against states for failure to act would likely be found to be
unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, even if
the bill successfully waives state sovereign immunity under the 11th
Amendment.\10\ Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that Congress
may not ``commandeer the legislative process of the states by directly
compelling them to enact a Federal regulatory program.'' New York v.
United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992) (relating to solid waste
disposal). See also Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 98 (1997) (the
Federal Government may not compel the states to enact or administer a
Federal program, relating to regulation of guns). Thus, Congress cannot
compel a state to implement the Bay TMDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Supreme Court has gone back and forth in recent years
regarding whether Congress can waive state sovereign immunity through
the exercise of Article I authority. Compare Seminole Tribe of Florida
v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (Congress cannot abrogate state
sovereign immunity under Article I), with Central Virginia Community
College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (the Bankruptcy Clause of Article
I abrogates state sovereign immunity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress can authorize citizen suits against EPA for failure to
carry out any provision of the Act. While EPA does retain the
discretion to choose where and how to utilize most of its new
authorities, if a citizen believes that EPA's actions are not
sufficient to meet the goals of the TMDL, then that person can file
suit in Federal court to compel action. In deciding the case, the
Federal court will not be able to balance competing interests.
Implementation of the load allocations in the TMDL could be ordered, no
matter what the impact is on communities or individuals.
S. 1311, the Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act
S. 1311, the Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act would
amend the Clean Water Act to add section 123 to formally establish a
Gulf of Mexico Program office, to be located in a Gulf Coast State.\11\
The Program Office is to coordinate and carry out activities to improve
the water quality and living resources in the Gulf of Mexico. These
activities may include research, monitoring, modeling, education and
outreach, and providing information. The Program Office also is to be a
liaison with counterparts in Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The existing Gulf of Mexico Program Office is located at the
Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 1311 authorizes grants to nonprofits, state and local
governments, colleges and universities, interstate agencies, and
individuals for monitoring, research, addressing water quality and
living resource needs, habitat restoration, and reducing point source
discharges of pollutants. The grants have a 25 percent local cost share
and a 15 percent cap on administrative costs. The bill also requires
periodic reports and, in coordination with the Gulf of Mexico Executive
Council, periodic assessments of the state of the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem and implementation of the Program. The bill authorizes $10
million in 2010, $15 million in 2011, and $25 million in each of 2012
through 2014 to carry out the Program.
The bill defines the Gulf of Mexico Executive Council as ``the
formal collaborative Federal, state, local and private participants in
the Program'' but does not establish the Council or specify how people
become members of the Council. If the Council includes private
citizens, it can be advisory only. The only function provided for the
Council in the bill is to coordinate with EPA on the assessment of the
ecosystem and the Program that must take place every 5 years. It is
unclear what other functions, if any, the Council is intended to
perform. Currently, there is a Gulf of Mexico Alliance that is a
partnership of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi,
and Texas. There also is a Citizens Advisory Committee, a Policy Review
Board that includes public and private entities, and a Management
Committee that includes public and private entities. It is unclear how
the efforts of these existing organizations are intended to be
integrated. It also is unclear how existing efforts, such as the
Governors' Action Plans developed by the Gulf of Mexico Alliance, will
be supported.
In new section 123(b)(1)(C)(iii), the bill authorizes the Program
Office to implement state-led and community-led restoration plans and
projects, and facilitate science, research, modeling, monitoring, data
collection and other activities to support the program. As drafted, it
appears that this provision would be carried out using contract
authority. If it is intended to be carried out using grants, it should
cross-reference subsection (d), authorizing grants.
Among the purposes of the grants authorized under subsection (d) is
to eliminate or reduce point sources of pollutants, including
eliminating leaking septic systems. Septic systems are nonpoint
sources, not point sources.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Schwalb.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SCHWALB, VICE PRESIDENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, PERDUE FARMS,
INCORPORATED, SALISBURY, MD
Mr. Schwalb. Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte,
other Subcommittee Members, thank you for the opportunity to
appear today. I am Steve Schwalb, Vice President of
Environmental Sustainability of Perdue, Incorporated.
Perdue, a family owned business, is the largest
agribusiness company in the eastern U.S., and the third largest
poultry company in the nation. Perdue employs 22,000 associates
in 15 states, with operations throughout the mid-Atlantic,
South and Indiana. With our headquarters located in the heart
of the Chesapeake Bay's Eastern Shore, we know the ecological
sensitivity of the Bay and its watershed.
Our Chairman, Jim Perdue, is committed to preserving the
Bay and the highest level of environmental stewardship. We are
proud of the leadership we have provided on environmental
challenges. We have invested millions of dollars in research
and technology. Let me mention a few examples.
In 1999, we created Perdue AgraRecycle, the first and only
full-scale litter processing facility in the world that
converts poultry litter into organic fertilizer. Since then,
Perdue AgraRecycle has handled 639,000 tons of poultry litter.
That is 26 million pounds of nitrogen, 13 million pounds of
phosphorus, and 20 million pounds of potassium. At least half
of those nutrients have been relocated out of the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed.
Since 2006, Perdue has had a unique partnership with the
EPA, now called the Perdue Clean Waters Initiative. This
initiative fosters and produces on-farm environmental
leadership. Implementation of the Clean Waters Initiative is on
schedule, with almost 700 Delmarva poultry farmers coming on
line first. By the end of the 4 year implementation, 1,650
family farms in the eastern U.S. will be included.
In 2007, we established the Perdue Environmental
Sustainability Initiative under three platforms: Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle; Research and Innovation; and Community Outreach.
Now, Perdue is not alone in our efforts to care for the
Bay. Agriculture on Delmarva is a three-legged stool with the
poultry companies, poultry growers and grain farmers working
together. According to Maryland's Department of Agriculture,
poultry growers and grain farmer conservation accomplishments
have been numerous.
Our position on the Chesapeake Bay Program is that Perdue
also wholeheartedly supports its reauthorization. However, we
have concerns that the legislation creates new law on how
agriculture will operate in the watershed. The President's
Executive Order and EPA's section 202 reports envision a
centralized Federal oversight approach to Bay restoration.
Perdue's Clean Waters Initiative is producing measurable
results. Before Congress codifies Federal oversight and
enforcement of the Bay restoration, we should first let these
efforts take hold. Codification is unwarranted.
The bill creates an uneven playing field for poultry in
Delmarva. It establishes a higher level of EPA Clean Water Act
regulation for farmers in the Bay Watershed than elsewhere.
This bill puts our operations and growers at significant
competitive disadvantage, and that threatens the very existence
of the Delmarva poultry industry.
Second, the bill gives EPA unprecedented authority to take
any actions the Agency deems necessary to reach Bay restoration
goals. This includes requiring all poultry and livestock
operations, and potentially any farmer that fertilizes a field,
to operate under a Clean Water Act permit. This would be cost-
prohibitive.
Third, the bill mandates caps, specific caps, for the TMDL
for the Chesapeake Bay, sets deadlines and gives EPA ultimate
authority to run the program. Unfortunately, the agricultural
community still has very little information on the Bay-wide
TMDL. USDA's NRCS is still gathering information to determine
what agricultural BMPs are included in the Bay model. Many of
the volunteer practices outlined in my written testimony are
not included in the Bay model. It is not an accurate
representation of agriculture's environmental impact on the
Bay. We need to better understand the baseline and outcomes
before mandating a Bay-wide TMDL.
Fourth, codifying the citizen suits will generate
unnecessary legal actions directed at family farmers.
Fifth, this reauthorization would require farmers to get a
Clean Water Act permit, yet not place the same oversight and
enforcement mechanisms on the other nutrient contributors in
the watershed. The bill envisions that all nutrient
contributors should protect the Chesapeake Bay. Why then is
agriculture the only one facing penalties if this fails?
Sixth, while the Bay envisions Federal funds for technical
support to help farmers, the bill does not ensure such funding.
Thus, farmers are left with the stick of enforcement and merely
the promise of a carrot, without a guarantee of funds, placing
the financial burden on the back of the farmer.
Finally, this legislation mandates an environmental credit
program that would be generated by agricultural efforts to
enable farmers to pay for the costs associated with additional
regulation, and to utilize those credits to provide necessary
offsets for any form of additional development. Experts agree
that there will be no farm credit offsets to sell, leaving
local governments to purchase whole farms and take them out of
production to achieve the offsets necessary for additional
development, such as schools and hospitals.
Perdue's actions are in place and effective. Congress must
ensure the actions of the agricultural community are included
in an updated Bay model and that the Executive Order not be
codified. Otherwise, agriculture and the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed will be at a competitive and economic disadvantage.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schwalb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steve Schwalb, Vice President of Environmental
Sustainability, Perdue Farms, Incorporated, Salisbury, MD
Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today before the Subcommittee as you review
regulations and legislation impacting the Chesapeake Bay Program.
My name is Steve Schwalb. I am Vice President of Environmental
Sustainability at Perdue Incorporated, headquartered in Salisbury,
Maryland, on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. Perdue
Incorporated's (Perdue) operating entities consists of Perdue Farms and
Perdue Agribusiness. Perdue Farms is the number-one brand of premium
chicken in the Eastern U.S. and is synonymous with quality products
around the globe. With annual sales in excess of $4.6 billion, Perdue
is ranked as the third largest poultry company in the U.S. and the
largest agribusiness company in the eastern U.S. Combined, we provide
food and agricultural products and services to customers in more than
50 countries and to our servicemen and women serving in war. Perdue
employs 22,000 associates in 15 states, with operations in Alabama,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey,
New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia.
With our headquarters located in the heart of the Chesapeake Bay's
Eastern Shore, we know all too well the importance and ecological
sensitivity of the Bay and its watershed. Our Chairman, Jim Perdue is
fully committed to restoring, protecting and preserving the Bay, like
the other watermen and farmers of the Shore. With a family history on
the Shore dating back to the 1600s and a PhD in fisheries, Jim
continues to support the highest level of commitment to environmental
stewardship. As a firm believer that the restoration of the oyster
population in the Bay is critical to a successful Bay restoration, he
serves as a board member of the Oyster Recovery Partnership.
Perdue is committed to environmental stewardship and shares that
commitment with our farm-family partners. Together, we can continue to
provide a safe, abundant and affordable food supply while protecting
our natural resources.
Perdue is proud of the leadership role we're providing in
addressing the full range of environmental challenges related to animal
agriculture and food production. We have invested, and continue to
invest, millions of dollars in research, new technology, equipment
upgrades and awareness and education as part of our ongoing commitment
to protecting the environment. Some examples:
Perdue has been conducting environmental research for more
than 2 decades.
Perdue was among the first poultry companies with a
dedicated Environmental Services department. A group of
corporate environmental specialists and environmental managers
are responsible for ensuring that every Perdue facility
operates within 100 percent compliance of all environmental
regulations and permits.
Our processing plants have some of the newest and most-
advanced wastewater treatment facilities, helping us to protect
the waterways in our communities.
We've invested thousands of man-hours in producer education
to assist our farm-family partners manage their independent
poultry operations in the most environmentally responsible
manner.
Our Technical Services department is conducting ongoing
research into feed technology as a means of reducing nutrients
in poultry manure. We've already achieved phosphorus reductions
that far exceed the rest of the industry.
Perdue was one of four poultry companies operating in
Delaware to sign a historic agreement with Delaware officials
outlining our companies' voluntary commitment to help
independent producers solve on-farm environmental challenges.
Perdue signed MOUs with Delaware, Maryland and Virginia
pledging cooperative efforts to address current and potential
environmental challenges created from poultry production on the
Eastern Shore.
Our demonstrated commitment to protecting the Chesapeake Bay is not
something recent. In 1999, as ``physteria hysteria'' was settling in
over the watershed, Perdue took immediate action. We entered into a
joint venture and created Perdue AgriRecycle. Because many Delmarva
poultry producers did not have sufficient land to be able to utilize
poultry litter as fertilizer, especially those with smaller farms, an
alternative to traditional land application of poultry litter was
needed. Perdue AgriRecycle provides that alternative. Our manufacturing
facility, the first-ever, large-scale litter-pelletizing operation and
the result of an initial investment of $13 million, is located in
Sussex County, Delaware, the center of one of the country's most-
concentrated areas of poultry production. While the close proximity to
hundreds of poultry farms helps the supply of raw material, the plant's
location also demonstrates Perdue's environmental commitment to the
independent poultry grower and the grain farmer. Perdue's willingness
to continue to invest an additional $17+ million to-date to keep Perdue
AgriRecycle operating further demonstrates our commitment to the
environment.
Perdue AgriRecycle can process the equivalent of 400 poultry houses
worth of litter each year. Perdue AgriRecycle also participates in
litter relocation programs, further reducing excess nutrients on the
Delmarva Peninsula.
The Perdue AgriRecycle process begins at the farm, where surplus
poultry litter is loaded into specially designed, sealed trucks for
transport to our 65,000 square-foot manufacturing facility. The trucks
are unloaded inside the plant, where a negative-air system prevents
dust and odor from escaping to the environment (the same negative-air
system is used in the finished product storage area). Special filters
and scrubbers ensure that the air leaving the plant is cleaner than the
outside air. Raw material is heated to a temperature that kills
Salmonella and E. coli as well as destroys bacteria and weed seed. The
dried material is then reduced to a powder before it is transferred to
the pellet mill. Moisture captured in the drying step is re-used in the
pelletizing process. The finished product is then stored in an enclosed
warehouse room. Product can be shipped by truck or rail to our
customers.
While poultry litter remains a valuable resource for many producers
as a natural alternative to chemical fertilizers, Perdue AgriRecycle
provides an environmentally friendly alternative for those producers
who do not have the acreage for traditional land application or whose
fields do not need the nutrients in poultry litter. Our organic
fertilizer, approved by the USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) and
classified as approved for use without restriction by the Organic
Materials Review Institute (OMRI) is used in horticulture, landscaping,
organic crop production, on golf courses and as a key ingredient in
popular organic lawn and garden products. Perdue AgriRecycle also
participates in litter transport programs, relocating raw litter to
farmers who can appropriately utilize the nutrients. Since its
inception, Perdue AgriRecycle has handled 639,000 tons of poultry
litter, the equivalent of 1535 poultry houses and over 51 million
pounds of nitrogen, 25 million pounds of phosphorus and 38 million
pounds of potassium. Also since its inception, Perdue AgriRecycle has
sold almost 329,000 tons of finished product. This represents 26.3
million pounds of nitrogen, 13.1 million pounds of phosphorous, and
19.7 million pounds of potassium. At least half of those nutrients have
been relocated to states out of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
In 2001, Perdue approached the Delaware Center for Inland Bays (a
private, nonprofit National Estuary Program) and proposed a ``model
watershed'' concept for the Little Assawoman Bay that would include
cooperative efforts to accelerate compliance with Delaware's Nutrient
Management regulations. The proposal developed into the Poultry
Integrators Nutrient Effort (P.I.N.E.). Partnership, which includes the
poultry industry, the Center for Inland Bays, the Delaware Nutrient
Management Program, the Sussex Conservation District, the Delaware Non-
point Source Program and the University of Delaware. The P.I.N.E.
Partnership includes environmental surveys of poultry farms within the
watershed and the development of nutrient management planning and best
management practices for the Little Assawoman Bay Watershed. Most
recently, as part of the P.I.N.E. partnership, Perdue helped create a
model farm that incorporates technology and best practices to reduce
the environmental impact and is more ``neighbor-friendly.''
Another example of our commitment to environmental sustainability
centered on the independent farm families that grow poultry for Perdue.
On September 18, 2006, Perdue and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 3 signed a Memorandum of Agreement for the Perdue-
EPA Clean Bays Environmental Management Initiative (Clean Bays), a
corporate stewardship program aimed at reducing environmental impacts
of poultry farms on the Chesapeake Bay and Coastal Bays throughout the
Delmarva Peninsula.
The first-of-its-kind Pilot Program for the poultry industry, Clean
Bays was also designed to improve the independent poultry producers'
compliance with environmental regulations by utilizing the unique
relationship between the Perdue flock supervision and those producers
within the comprehensive structure and organization of Perdue Farms.
Although EPA was a participating partner, the strong reliance upon
corporate leadership throughout many levels within Perdue Farms
constituted the majority of the effort under the Clean Bays Memorandum
of Agreement.
The pilot program included trained area flock supervisors visiting
the 19 largest poultry farms that were growing birds for Perdue to
evaluate how the producer was managing important aspects of poultry
litter as well as how best management practices (BMPs) were being
implemented to help reduce nutrient runoff.
After training was provided to area flock supervisors and producers
by Perdue and EPA, poultry farms in the pilot program throughout the
Delmarva Peninsula were visited several times throughout 2007 and early
2008 by the area flock supervisors. Utilizing an environmental
assessment checklist jointly developed by Perdue and EPA, the area
flock supervisor recorded how farms were implementing environmental
practices in accordance with Clean Bays, identified areas needing
improvements, and assisted producers with ensuring that corrective
measures were taken.
The pilot program also included recognition awards to producers
that demonstrate excellence in environmental stewardship.
This pilot program was a new model for how industry, agriculture
and regulators can cooperate to promote environmental compliance and
protect our natural resources.
Based upon the very positive results of the pilot program, Perdue
and the EPA agreed to expand the Clean Bays initiative company-wide. On
November 21, 2008, Perdue and EPA Regions 3 and 4 signed an MOA to
continue to work together to develop and implement the Perdue Clean
Waters Environmental Initiative (Clean Waters). The purpose of this
Initiative was to continue to foster Perdue's environmental leadership
in the poultry industry by providing training, assistance, and
environmental assessments to all the producers to enhance their
compliance with Federal, state, and local environmental regulations and
specific BMPs and by the use of Environmental Management Systems (EMSs)
at Perdue processing facilities.
As outlined in the ``Clean Waters Initiative'' MOA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goal of this Initiative is to restore and protect our nation's
waters. To accomplish this goal, the Initiative is designed to minimize
environmental impacts to our nation's waters, to support continued
corporate environmental excellence, to encourage sustainable
agriculture, and to improve Producers' compliance with environmental
requirements. The Parties have identified the following critical
components of the Initiative and plan to work together to refine these:
Perdue Corporate Environmental Stewardship
1. Sustainable Agriculture: It is in the interest of Perdue and the
Producers to employ agricultural practices to ensure environmental
protection and a prosperous and sustainable agricultural industry.
Toward that end, Perdue agrees to utilize feed management
techniques to minimize phosphorous content of poultry litter and
endeavor to minimize the use of substances that are determined
jointly by the Parties to adversely affect surface and groundwater
quality. Perdue currently utilizes phytase in its feed formulation
and has adjusted the composition of its feed to minimize the
phosphorous content of poultry manure. Perdue agrees to continue
this practice and to continue to investigate and utilize other
means to minimize the phosphorus levels of litter if found not to
detrimentally affect bird health or growth. Perdue agrees to make
every effort not to use arsenic compounds in its feed, but may use
it where the health of the flock is a concern and other non-arsenic
techniques fail to restore the flock to health in a timely manner.
EPA and Perdue intend to engage in regular technical discussions on
advances in feed management practices to identify and employ new
advances in sustainable agriculture.
2. Environmental Management Systems: To enhance Perdue's
environmental excellence, Perdue plans to implement an
Environmental Management System at all of its processing plants
using as a model the ISO 14001 based program that has been
developed for Perdue's Salisbury processing plant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Producer Program 1. Training and Assistance: Proper training and assistance are
critical to ensure that both Perdue associates and the Producers
have sufficient tools and knowledge to comply with environmental
regulations and to take the necessary actions to minimize nutrient
loads to our nation's waters. Under the September 2006 Perdue-EPA
Clean Bays Environmental Management Initiative, Perdue and Region 3
have developed a training program in consultation with other
Federal and state agricultural agencies. Under this Initiative, the
Parties plan to modify the training program to incorporate lessons
learned from the Perdue-EPA Clean Bays Environmental Management
Initiative. The Parties will also review modifications proposed by
Region 4 and agricultural agencies and environmental departments in
Region 4 states that were not part of the September 2006 Perdue-EPA
Clean Bays Environmental Management Initiative's pilot program. Once updated, the training program, to be jointly presented by
Perdue and EPA, will: a. provide Perdue flock supervisors training necessary to
perform thorough environmental and compliance assessments; b. provide Producers information on Best Management Practices
and how they are to comply with Federal, state and local
environmental requirements governing poultry operations; and c. provide Producers with technical guidance and information
about publicly available financial assistance to support
implementation of nutrient management plans. 2. Producer Environmental Assessments: Regular and thorough Producer
Environmental Assessments (``Assessments'') are critical if the
goals of this Initiative are to be achieved. Perdue, in previous
consultation with EPA, developed an Assessment program that Perdue
implemented as a part of the Perdue-EPA Clean Bays Environmental
Management Initiative's pilot program. With this Initiative, the
previous pilot program is being expanded to include the Assessment
of all dry litter chicken facilities owned or operated by the
Producers located in Region 3 and 4 states only. In addition, an
updated assessment checklist has been developed by Perdue. This
expanded Assessment program is to be implemented in phases
according to the following schedule:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
April October April October April October April
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retrain Region 3 Train Region 3 Train Region 3
Region assessmen Region assessmen remaini assessme
3 Flock ts on 3 ts on ng nts on
Supervi farms Produce farms Region remainin
sors, with rs with with 3 g farms
Produce >100,000 60,000- 60,000-10 Produce
rs with capacity 100,000 0,000 rs
>100,00 capacit capacity
0 y
capacit
y
Train Region 4 Train Region 4 Train Region
Region 4 assessm Region 4 assessm remainin 4
Flock ents on Producers ents on g Region assess
Superviso farms with farms 4 ments
rs, with 80,000-12 80,000- Producer on
Producers >125,00 5,000 125,000 s remain
with 0 capacity capacit ing
>125,000 capacit y farms
capacity y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to maintain a more comprehensive Assessment checklist,
EPA, in consultation with participating Region 3 and 4 states
agrees to provide available guidance that reflects state and
Federal environmental requirements. These criteria will be
incorporated by Perdue into the Assessment checklist.
The Assessment checklist is intended to promote compliance by the
Producers with applicable state and Federal environmental
requirements, and evaluate: whether Producers have obtained a Nutrient Management
Plan,------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whether critical elements of the Nutrient Management
Plan, as it relates to chicken operations within the production
area, are being followed, and whether required Best Management Practices are fully
implemented within the production area. The Assessment should also record that the Producer has a means of
disposing of and handling litter that is consistent with good
environmental practices and all applicable Federal and state
regulations. Perdue is not expected to verify the accuracy of the
Producer's plan and does not intend to perform assessments of
operations outside the production area.
The Assessments are to occur at a frequency of two (2) times per
year at each Producer's facility. One assessment should be
conducted within a reasonable time after birds have been removed
from the farm but prior to the next placement of birds and another
assessment should be conducted during the Producer's grow-out
cycle. Perdue agrees to make the Assessments available to EPA in
redacted form upon request. 3. Deviation Notification Process: During Perdue's Assessments, it
is possible that deviations may be identified regarding some
Producers' operations. It is important from an environmental
compliance standpoint that these deviations be corrected in a
timely and appropriate manner. During the Perdue-EPA Clean Bays
Environmental Management Initiative, Perdue developed and
implemented a program to enable the Producers to address deviations
identified during the Assessments. The same response to deviations
will operate under this Initiative. Specifically, in the event that
Perdue's Assessment identifies a deviation, Perdue should implement
the Deviation Notification Process, which alerts the Producer to
correct the deficiency by a certain date. If a deviation is not
addressed by a Producer in the time specified in the Assessment and
the issue is elevated to Perdue's Environmental. Services group, it
will be logged and tracked to closure. Perdue agrees to make the
deviation log available to EPA for review upon request with
Producer names redacted and agrees to notify EPA annually of
Producers that are no longer in the program. 4. Environmental Results: Our shared goal in the development and
implementation of this Program is the restoration and protection of
our nation's waters. Toward that end, it is central that the
program be designed and implemented to achieve environmental
results. Perdue, in consultation with EPA, intends to develop and
implement an information system and set of program measures
designed to track progress in achieving environmental improvement
and compliance. Perdue agrees to make available information
regarding Assessments and deviations available for EPA review
except that the database will not contain Producer names and
locations but will substitute a confidential identification number
specific to an individual farm. 5. Program Evaluation: In order to ensure that the program is
accomplishing the intended results, Perdue and EPA plan to conduct
an annual evaluation, involving joint site visits, joint record
reviews, including reviews of Assessments and Deviation Response
Plans, and environmental results analysis. Perdue and EPA intend to
use the information obtained from these evaluations to assess the
effectiveness of program implementation and make any necessary
program modifications. 6. Recognition: EPA appreciates the efforts of its partners to
improve water quality and compliance. Perdue, in consultation with
EPA, intends to work with other agencies and organizations to
develop a program designed to recognize those program participants
who demonstrate environmental and compliance excellence,
particularly those that are judged to be outstanding in their
efforts to minimize nutrient loads to our waters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Outreach: In order to further our shared goals of environmental
protection and compliance, materials and tools developed under this
program with EPA assistance may be shared with the public and other
members of the poultry industry. 8. EPA Compliance Assurance Activities: While nothing in this
agreement waives or limits the authority of EPA to conduct
compliance monitoring (including inspections or other information
gathering activities) or to take enforcement action pursuant to
Federal law, the Agency intends to consider the good faith and full
participation by Perdue and the participating Producers in this MOA
as a factor in determining whether and how such activities will be
undertaken. 9. Record Retention: Perdue agrees to maintain copies of all
Assessments and Deviation Response Plans for a period of 4 years (1
year after full implementation) of the Producer Program. 10. Record Review: Perdue agrees to provide EPA with copies of any
documents generated by Perdue as part of this initiative upon
request by EPA. These documents may be redacted to shield the
identity of the Producers. However, if EPA needs to review
documents in their entirety for program evaluation purposes, EPA
can have access to these documents on-site at Perdue's regional
complexes located in Salisbury, Maryland and Perry, Georgia. This
MOA in no way limits EPA's legal authority to obtain documents from
Perdue or any of the Producers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Progress-to-date on the implementation of the Clean Bays initiative
has been on-schedule, with the largest of the almost 700 Delmarva
producers the first to come on-line. By the end of the 4 year
implementation, approximately 1,650 producers in Alabama, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina
and Virginia, as well as all Perdue processing operations, will be
included in the initiative.
Since the on-farm environmental assessment component of the Clean
Bays initiative is especially applicable to the purpose of this
hearing, I would like to highlight the specifics of the assessment
process and how the process is executed:
Two on-farm environmental assessments are to be performed on
each farm annually. These assessments are performed by the
Perdue area flock supervisor. One is performed when the house
is in production (birds in) and one is performed when the house
is out of production (birds out).
It's important to note that although ``official''
assessments are conducted two times per year, the Perdue flock
supervisors visit the poultry farms each week, and will be
observing and noting assessment items during those times. Any
issues of concern noted during these visits will be addressed
with the producer.
Assessment information includes:
General Farm Information.
Nutrient Management Plan review.
Manure Management practices review and evaluation.
Mortality Management practices review and evaluation.
Chemical Management practices review and evaluation.
Environmentally Beneficial Practices (EBS)/Best
Management Practices (BMP) review and evaluation.
Direct Contact with Waters evaluation.
Records Management review.
Status & Summary
A graduated ``deviation notification process'' is part of
the initiative, and operates as follows:
Step One: Issue identified, brought to the producers
attention by the Perdue flock supervisor to address with a
follow-up time scheduled to verify completion.
Step Two: Should the producer not address the issue,
it is elevated to Perdue Corporate Environmental Services
and Perdue Live Production management, who meet with the
producer to address/correct the issue.
Step Three: Should the issue remain unresolved, Perdue
will not place birds at the farm until the producer
rectifies the situation.
Final Step: If all previous steps do not result in
satisfactory resolution, the contract with the producer
will be terminated. Perdue's contract with the producer
clearly states that the producer agrees to comply with
applicable Federal, state and local laws, regulations and
codes.
It's also important to note that the Clean Waters initiative
includes a commitment by Perdue to implement an Environmental
Management System (EMS) in each processing facility. This is a major
undertaking to ensure that all environmental aspects related to the
processing of our poultry at our processing plants are considered.
Based on the ISO 14001 standard, Perdue's EMS is a Plan-Do-Check-
Improve process for controlling and improving environmental
performance. By requiring the setting of clear environmental goals,
roles and responsibilities, an EMS provides the mechanism for ensuring
involvement of every facility associate in environmental issues. The
EMS also serves as a comprehensive training tool for facility and
environmental management.
I hope it is apparent that the Clean Bays and subsequent Clean
Waters initiatives are a different model for supporting environmental
compliance. Since September 2006, Perdue has demonstrated our on-going
commitment through thousands of man-hours and substantial funds to
support this initiative, and will continue to do so in the future.
Perdue has established a long record for exceeding compliance and
leading the industry in addressing the environmental challenges
associated with animal agriculture and food production. Continuing that
record, we formally established the Perdue Environmental Sustainability
Initiative in November 2007. This initiative, operating parallel and in
harmony with the Corporate Environmental Services function mentioned
earlier, is a comprehensive approach. It's driven by the Environmental
Steering Committee, a cross- business unit and cross-functional team
that set the strategic direction for the overall Environmental
Sustainability Initiative and ensures there are measurable results to
support Perdue's environmental story. Today, we're organizing our
Environmental Sustainability Initiative efforts under three platforms:
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; Research and Innovation; and Community
Outreach:
The Reduce, Reuse, Recycle platform at Perdue is defined as
conserving resources and reducing waste streams by managing
material usage more efficiently. Some examples are:
Phytase, an enzyme added to our feed formulations
since 2000, reduces phosphorus in manure by over 25%.
Water Conservation initiatives for our facilities on
Delmarva resulted in an average reduction in water use of 2
million gallons of water per week per plant.
Energy saving pilot projects at our Delaware
processing plants will save 3.98 million kWh annually and
pave the way for even greater energy savings throughout the
company.
A pilot recycling project at our Dillon, S.C.,
processing plant recycled 2 million pounds of solid waste
in 1 year, and is now a model being implemented in all of
our plants.
Perdue uses recyclable, eco-friendly corrugated boxes.
Improvements at our Accomac, Va., protein conversion
plant reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by 29,000 pounds per
year and sulfur dioxide by 121,000 pounds.
Perdue Transportation Inc. is an EPA SmartWay
Transport Partner with an ``exceptional rating'' for our
fuel savings and environmental improvements.
Revised routing for flock supervisors reduced
distances traveled by 2,000 miles per week. This process is
being applied to other live production transportation.
The Research and Innovation platform at Perdue is leveraging
technology discovered through research or developed through
innovation to drive environmental sustainability throughout
Perdue's supply chain for the benefit of associates, consumers,
customers and our businesses. Some examples are:
Perdue BioEnergy, LLC, is pursuing opportunities in
alternative fuels, including wood chips, poultry fat and
by-products from our waste treatment plants to replace fuel
oil at our processing plants.
Perdue is working to reduce packaging and make our
packaging more recyclable.
The company has modified formulas in our products to
be less impactful on our waste treatment facilities.
We've modified our packaging case sizes to reduce the
environmental impact of the transportation of our finished
products. In one example, a case-size change enabled the
same product to be shipped in 240,000 less corrugated boxes
on 1,666 less wood pallets needing 75 less trucks to
deliver.
The Community Outreach platform at Perdue is bringing us
together with various stakeholders to communicate, educate and
collaborate on environmental sustainability efforts. Some
examples are:
The Perdue EPA Clean Waters Environmental Initiative
that is currently being implemented.
As part of the P.I.N.E. Project from 2004, activity at
the Model Farm continues, the latest being the installation
and testing of diverters for the exhaust fans to minimize
airborne dust. This project is managed within an ongoing
partnership with the Delaware Center for Inland Bays.
For 2008 & 2009, Perdue supported Maryland Public
Television's Chesapeake Bay Week volunteer-a-thon by
pledging 500 and 700 volunteer hours respectively to Bay-
based environmental projects.
Also for 2008 & 2009, Perdue participated in Project
Clean Stream, an effort coordinated by the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay. Perdue associates volunteered 498 hours
over the two yearly efforts. Additionally, a Perdue
executive serves on the Board of the Alliance.
In 2009, Perdue initiated a pilot partnership with the
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. By committing funds
to NFWF, Perdue supported two important Chesapeake Bay-
oriented projects: an Oyster Recovery Partnership project
that attached 200+ oyster gardens to docks along the
Nanticoke River; and a Nanticoke Watershed Alliance project
that will develop a Green Infrastructure conservation plan
for ecologically sensitive areas in the Nanticoke River
Watershed.
When this Environmental Sustainability Initiative is combined with
our Environmental Services efforts to ensure compliance at our Perdue
facilities and locations, I hope it is very apparent that Perdue is
committed to a comprehensive approach to addressing our corporate
environmental impact.
Perdue is not alone in our efforts to care for the Bay. Agriculture
on Delmarva is best characterized as a three-legged stool, with the
poultry companies, poultry growers and grain farmers working to equally
support a viable poultry industry. According to the Maryland Department
of Agriculture, poultry grower and grain farmer conservation
accomplishments include:
Since 1984, farmers have spent over $12.25 million of their
own money to match $98 million in state and Federal funds to
install over 20,000 water quality best management practices
(BMP) or about 2.5 BMPs per day, every day, for 24 years.
Installation of agricultural BMPs on farmland will account for
67 percent of 2.5 million pounds of nitrogen of Maryland's
recent 2011 Chesapeake Bay milestones.
In 2007 and 2008 alone, farmers matched $24.4 million in
MACS state grants with $3 million of their own money to install
over 4,000 capital and special projects on their farms. These
practices are preventing 5.1 million pounds of nitrogen, and
287,000 pounds of phosphorus from impacting waterways.
Cover crops are widely recognized as one of the most cost-
effective and environmentally promising ways to reduce
agricultural runoff into the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. In 2004, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund was
established to create a dedicated and stable funding source for
Maryland's cover crop cost-share program. In 2008, Governor
O'Malley's 2010 Chesapeake Bay Fund provided millions more. In
2009, farmers have signed up to plant 330,500 acres of cover
crops to take up excess nutrients and prevent soil erosion over
the winter.
Since 1999, through Maryland's Manure Transport Program,
approximately 456,983 tons of excess poultry litter and manure
have been transported from areas with excess manure or high
soil phosphorus levels to other farms or alternative use
facilities that can use the product in an environmentally-sound
manner. In 2008, approximately $520,357 in state cost-share
funding to transport manure was matched by Delmarva poultry
companies, for a total of $891,342 provided to participating
poultry growers.
99 percent of the state's 1.3 million acres of crop land and
99 percent of the state's 6,200 eligible farmers have nutrient
management plans and are complying with the state's nutrient
management law.
Over the last 10 years, Maryland farmers have converted
approximately 74,000 acres of environmentally sensitive
farmland into streamside buffers, wetlands other wildlife
habitat areas through the Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP). The program helps protect water quality in
local streams and rivers by reducing soil erosion, controlling
nutrient runoff and increasing wildlife habitat.
Approximately 22 percent of all Maryland farmland is managed
as woodland, which promotes sustainable forestry to provide
clean water, improve stream health, stabilize soil reduce
nutrients and sequester of carbon through actively growing
forests and tree biomass.
More than 50 percent of Maryland farmers in targeted
watersheds achieved the highest assistance rate available from
the Conservation Security Program--a Federal program that
provides funds for the farmers that go the extra mile for
conservation. More farms in Maryland qualified in their first
year of eligibility than any other state in the Northeast.
The Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation has
permanently preserved 277,475 acres of priority farmland for
farming, with a public investment of over $550 million since
its founding in 1977. The Foundation has preserved farmland in
all of Maryland's 23 counties.
Today you, the Members of this Committee, are exploring legislation
and regulation as it relates to the Chesapeake Bay Program. On behalf
of the 8,000 Perdue associates that live and work in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, the 700 independent farm families on Delmarva that grow
poultry for Perdue, and the more than 7,000 independent farm families
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed that grow grain, we appreciative of
your efforts.
Our position on the Chesapeake Bay Program is clear. Perdue
wholeheartedly supports the reauthorization of the program, Section 117
of the Clean Water Act. We do, however, have concerns with the efforts
to incorporate into the reauthorization legislation new law on how
agriculture will operate in the watershed. President Obama's Executive
Order (EO 13508) and the subsequent Section 202 reports recently issued
by EPA focus on a centralized, Federal oversight approach to Bay
restoration activities that emphasize regulatory mandates rather than
cooperative approaches. Through the efforts taken by Perdue and our
family farm partners, in cooperation with both Federal and state
officials, and the actions taken by the agriculture community, we have
implemented an initiative that is producing measurable results for the
Bay and the watershed. Before Congress codifies the Federal oversight
and enforcement of the Bay restoration, we should first let the efforts
that Perdue and the farmers in the watershed have started take hold.
Many of the concepts and regulations included in this legislation to
reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program are codification of proposals
recently set forth in EO 13508. This EO is not yet promulgated into
regulation, but now without the opportunity to see if the regulation
has value or testing its impact, it would be set in stone as law. Such
action is premature.
As for specific areas of concern, first, H.R. 3852 will create an
uneven playing field for the ever tenuous continued operation of
poultry processing in the Delmarva by establishing a higher level of
EPA Clean Water Act regulation for the states in the Bay Watershed than
is required by farmers throughout the rest of the country. Today,
Delmarva is one of the least cost effective locations for the
agriculture community and, in particular, for the poultry industry.
This reauthorization would put our operations and our growers at a
significant competitive disadvantage and would threaten the very
existence of the poultry industry.
Second, the bill gives EPA unprecedented authority to take any and
all action the agency deems necessary to reach Bay restoration goals.
This includes requiring all poultry and livestock operations, and
potentially any farmer that fertilizes a field, to operate under a
Clean Water Act permit. This will be cost prohibitive for small and
medium size farm operations.
Third, the bill puts into law specific caps for the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay, sets deadlines to achieve
these TMDLs and gives EPA ultimate authority to implement the program.
Unfortunately, the agricultural community still has very little
information on the TMDL, what it means at the farm level and how they
are expected to measure the nonpoint sources attributed to their farms.
Based on information from the USDA, the NRCS is still gathering
information to determine what agricultural BMPs are included in the Bay
Model, the basis for the TMDL program. We know that many of the
voluntary practices outlined in this testimony are not included in the
Bay Model, and therefore, the baseline on which the initial TMDLs have
been developed is not an accurate representation of agriculture's
environmental impact on the Bay. This baseline effort needs to be
completed, and the outcomes better understood, before the TMDL program
is mandated through codification by this legislation.
Fourth, citizen right of action or citizen suits must not be
codified as they will generate unnecessary legal actions that are
intended to stop a project or prolong the issuance of permits. This
will provide a legal tool to be used by any group against farmers and
other permitted projects from getting established, and will become a
huge financial burden to farm families targeted by special interest
groups.
Fifth, this new reauthorization would designate agriculture as
permittees, yet would not place the same oversight and enforcement
mechanisms on the other nutrient contributors in the watershed. Why if
the legislation envisions that all nutrient contributors should be
engaged in the process of protecting the Bay is agriculture the only
one facing penalty if they fail to meet the goals established by EPA?
Sixth, while we appreciate the provisions in the bill to set aside
Federal funds for technical support in NRCS and Soil Conservation
District offices to help farmers develop conservation plans and install
BMPs, this authorization of legislation does not ensure that such
funding will be made available through an appropriation. Thus farmers
are left with ``the stick'' of enforcement and merely the promise of a
``carrot'' without a guarantee of the funds. We are concerned that if
Congress fails to make the annual appropriation, farmers will bear the
brunt of nutrient reduction when local governments cannot afford the
investment.
Finally, it is our understanding that the legislation mandates an
``environmental credit'' program that would be generated by
agricultural efforts for farmers to ``pay'' for the costs associated
with additional regulation, and utilize those credits to provide
necessary ``offsets'' for any form of additional development. However,
it is our understanding that farmers will be required to meet all
individual farm nutrient obligations under the TMDL program, and
therefore have to implement all available BMPs, before being eligible
to generate any credits. According to the Maryland Farm Bureau, experts
in this area agree that there will be no offsets on farms to sell,
leading to local governments utilizing very onerous alternatives, such
as purchasing whole farm and taking them out of production, to achieve
the mandated offsets necessary for additional required development,
such as schools and hospitals.
Earlier in my testimony, I outlined the actions Perdue is taking to
address our environmental impact and help sustain the environment.
These actions are in place and effective. I also outlined a few actions
that the agricultural community currently has in place that's proving
to be effective. I respectfully request that Congress ensure the
current actions of Perdue and others in the agriculture community are
included in an updated Bay Model, and that President Obama's Executive
Order not be codified through legislation at this time to allow the
agricultural community to work cooperatively with the Federal
Leadership Committee charged to develop the strategy to address EO
13508. To do otherwise would be placing all agriculture in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed at a competitive and economic disadvantage.
To that end, we urge you to share with your colleagues at the
Transportation Committee that this legislation, as introduced, could
dramatically and adversely impact the future of agriculture in the
watershed.
In closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I thank
you for your time and I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Schwalb.
Mr. Curatolo.
STATEMENT OF JAMES A. CURATOLO, WATERSHED
COORDINATOR, UPPER SUSQUEHANNA COALITION, BURDETT, NY
Mr. Curatolo. I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
allowing me to testify, and I would like----
The Chairman. Sir, if you would move the microphone closer
to you. Thank you.
Mr. Curatolo. And I would like to thank Congressman Massa
for having me come from New York and provide you with some
information. My testimony will be a little different. I want to
give you a local perspective from water quality professionals
on how we see the Chesapeake Bay.
I am the Watershed Coordinator for the Upper Susquehanna
Coalition. The Coalition consists of 19 county soil and water
districts, 16 in New York and three in Pennsylvania, that
completely cover the headwaters of the Susquehanna River and
Chesapeake Bay. I think in your package you all have a map, and
that map actually delineates the USC boundaries, and I will
talk about that map a little later.
I am employed by the Tioga Soil and Water Conservation
District. I am a conservation employee. The USC has three major
focus areas. Where the folks work on ag sustainability, we do
stream rehabilitation and wetland restoration. Agriculture
sustainability I define as farmers having a good bottom line
and also being environmentally healthy.
I suggest that for a delivery system that you folks look at
soil and water districts, organization of soil and water
districts as a delivery system that can complement the state
and Federal folks in working on Chesapeake Bay issues,
especially ag.
We are the folks who provide the technical support to the
farmer, and I always like to say we don't have a regulatory
bone in our body. We are the ones that go out and help farmers
get things done. And when you go out on a farm with the
district person, the farmers are real comfortable working with
us. And, if you read my written testimony, we can do things
outside that box that the NRCS and the state folks need to work
under for what they do. So we add value and expanded work on
farms that other folks just can't do because they have too much
bureaucracy.
There is a discussion on data collection. I think it is
very important to have true, important, baseline data so that
the agricultural models that are out there that define what we
need to do have a source in truth.
The way the Coalition works, we actually have a dot on the
map and a data stream that defines all the good practices that
every farm has done. I always say the truth will set you free.
If we have really good information on the nutrient loads from
farms, from real good assessment work, we will see that our
farm loads are not quite as high as thought. And there is your
information needs, if you want to get into nutrient trading,
you can really document things.
We have developed a fantastic data management system that
we use to give the information to the Chesapeake Bay, and I
suggest that this is a good way to, over time, work on Bay
issues. Which gets me to a real important point, is how we
deliver programs effectively, which is one of the major
Executive Order discussions.
The way that EPA and NRCS look at delivering programs, if
you look at that map, they target by geographical region. A few
points I should suggest, that by targeting geographically and
putting all your money in those certain watersheds, you
disenfranchise a lot of the farmers. Those farmers are not able
to access that funding. They are still under the same
regulations, and we have found that those farms outside the
targeted areas--there are plenty of farms where we could get
just as much bang for our bucks--deliver just as much in
nutrient load reduction. By disbursing your work, you don't
overload the technicians in those watersheds, you keep
everybody sustainable, and you have a true watershed approach.
You can even it out over the long term, if you are only
working a portion of your watershed, you are going to reduce
the infrastructure that farming needs. We are a dairy area. If
we only work on dairy over here, the milk trucks over at this
end of the watershed will be gone and it is hard to bring them
back.
The devil is in the details, but it is so important that we
address a scientific approach to farms. And the answer is that
you pick a farm that has a willing farmer, has that nutrient
reduction need, and has the technical work to do it. And with
the models, which are pretty good, we can pick the right farm,
get the job done, and do it faster.
The other thing is we need to get things done. If you put
all your money in one watershed, it will slow things down. I am
the proposal writer. I am the one--the spin doctor gets money.
I guarantee you, if you keep all the money in certain
watersheds, you will be paying for diapers on dairies sooner or
later, and it will sound very good because I will write it the
right way.
So you are going to get to that third tier of practices
that won't be as efficient, but because you are forced to spend
money there, that is what will happen. I think NRCS has said
they will select the areas. The model they use, all it really
shows if you look at that map, what their model shows basically
is this is where there are a lot of farms. The model isn't good
enough to say these are leaky farms that need help. These are
just farms.
So I would hope that the farm bill could do two things:
allow work to be done where it should, and also to put a plug
in for districts, allow districts to get access to that
funding, not through NRCS, but directly. That way the practices
that we can do don't have to follow NRCS specs, because we do
things that NRCS can't do. We can pound posts with Amish
farmers and show them how to build things, where if it is not
an NRCS BMP, it doesn't fit.
They do good work, but we can expand on that and do that
cost-effective stuff, especially management plans where we can
go back and visit with the farmer, make sure he is doing it
right. We can visit with him, do the planning it needs, and you
will support the local implementation of folks who really are
there to help.
I think I am over time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curatolo follows:]
Prepared Statement of James A. Curatolo, Watershed Coordinator, Upper
Susquehanna Coalition, Burdett, NY
I am the Watershed Coordinator for the Upper Susquehanna Coalition.
I write proposals and develop programs to promote the ability of
Conservation Districts to work on a watershed scale. The Coalition is
composed of the 16 County Soil and Water Conservation Districts in NY
and three County Conservation Districts in PA that cover the Headwaters
of the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay. Its mission is to
protect and improve water quality and natural resources in the Upper
Susquehanna River Basin with the involvement of citizens and agencies
through education, partnerships, planning, implementation and
advocating for our water resources. The Coalition formed in 1992 and I
was hired as Coordinator in 1996. We implement agricultural practices,
rehabilitate streams and restore wetlands. The following testimony
contains my own opinions and views.
I bring a county-based watershed perspective on how to best develop
strategies that support Agricultural sustainability and maximize
nutrient and sediment reductions to the Chesapeake Bay. I would like to
address several major themes that run through the Chesapeake Bay
Program, President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration
Executive Order, The farm bill, and the proposed Chesapeake Clean Water
and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 (S. 1816, H.R. 3852). This
legislation gives us 16 more years to get the mechanisms in place to
restore water quality throughout our region. If this bill and
subsequent farm bills can get us more resources to build our capacity
to provide technical assistance, we should be able to get the job done.
Let me begin with ``Deliver programs most effectively'' from the
Executive Order:
``Technical assistance is an essential ingredient in delivering
conservation programs effectively. We will develop a
coordinated plan to assess technical assistance capacity across
the partnership and identify and create strategies to fill
technical gaps to ensure success of this effort. . . . We will
also explore new ways to develop local capacity, taking into
account innovative approaches for delivering assistance,
opportunities to build third-party capacity, and the need to
reach out to landowners who may not have traditionally
participated in conservation programs. As we broaden and
strengthen the traditional conservation partnership, these
local advocates will help to leverage the interest and
participation needed to accelerate the application of
conservation on the ground'';
and S. 1816/H.R 3852: ``give preference to cooperative projects that
involve local governments''.
I suggest the paradigm for such an approach is the Upper
Susquehanna Coalition (USC). The USC works under a simple Memorandum of
Understanding where the Districts agreed to work on watershed issues in
the Chesapeake Bay Headwaters, and to the degree possible, without
regard to county boundaries. And to answer the question now: funds from
NY stay in NY, funds from PA stay in PA, but Federal funds for the Bay
go to wherever the best project is located.
The USC, being a coalition of Conservation Districts, houses the
local agricultural professionals that implement Best Management
Practices on farms. By taking a watershed approach we have developed an
integrated network where a state or Federal agency can sit down and
talk with people from an entire Basin on an issue. Our integrated,
networking abilities were championed by the NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation when it gave the USC the task of writing the
agricultural portion (as well as the other nonpoint chapters) of its
original Tributary Strategy for the Bay and as well as future
implementation plans. We are a one-stop shop for getting nonpoint
messages out to watershed residents.
A Conservation District person is frequently the liaison between
the state and Federal agencies and the farmer: she or he is the one
that helps them through the increasingly complex maze of farming
bureaucracy. District staff don't have ``a regulatory bone in their
body'' and maybe that is why they can, like no other entity, reach out
and be trusted by farmers. We have had great success helping the
``nontraditional'' farmers by teaching how to install practices rather
than paying for them. For example, we bought a post pounder for our
Grazing Specialist, Troy Bishop, and he held a fence building workshops
on Amish farms. They ended up buying their own pounder and the cows are
now out of the streams and grazing where they should be. Troy is always
welcome on their farms. Helpful Hint: If you have the opportunity to go
on a farm tour be sure to go stand next to the person wearing the
District cap when everyone piles out of their vehicles.
When you organize Districts by watershed you have an efficient
delivery system to complement Federal and state approaches. The USC
covers 12% of the Bay Watershed. Seven more similar sized coalitions
would cover the entire Basin. Even a few more strategically located in
high agricultural areas would be tremendously helpful. We have spent
the last 18 years perfecting the approach and will gladly provide all
of our lessons learned to help other coalitions form.
And since there is a great need to help build capacity and
capability at the local level I suggest that a direct funding mechanism
for Districts be included in a future farm bill similar to what is
described in the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act. I believe Conservation
Districts are the local partner you want; it will be the most cost
effective use of money you can find. Comparison Shop: In the NY
Chesapeake Bay headwaters you can get almost all District Technical
support for $34 per hour.
Second I would like to discuss ``Targeting funds to Priority
Watersheds'', a tremendously important approach that will drive the
entire Bay cleanup.
Everyone agrees that the best use of the limited funding that is
available is to reduce the maximum amount of nutrients and sediment for
the least amount of dollars. That is the End Game. The strategy of
choice is targeting watersheds for funding. There is a great desire to
``focus in'' on small areas where many good projects can be done, its
the ``Targeting Priority Watersheds'' approach. Computer models
estimate where the nutrient loads originate and high loading watersheds
are selected. The EPA Bay Program and the USDA have almost completely
gone to this approach. You can see a myriad of maps with ``Priority
Watersheds'' delineated based on computer models. These computer models
are actually fairly good; however, they do not designate watersheds
with ``leaky farms'' as high priority and watersheds having ``clean
farms'' as low. To the computer all the farms are basically the same.
The model is highlighting watersheds with more farms per square mile
that cumulatively deliver the most nutrients. However we do not
implement at the watershed level. To implement we drive up to a single
farm and begin identifying Best Management Practices. At that level
there are many farms in the lower priority watersheds that have exactly
the same potential for nutrient reduction as the high priority
watershed farms. Exactly the same or even better. Just not as many. But
the need to target has disenfranchised those farms from participation.
So the next time you see a priority map look at the white areas. Those
are the areas where farms are not allowed to participate for funding.
But they are still going to be under the same TMDL regulations.
There a simple solution that I believe is most efficient. Let us
``target'' instead two things:
the farm that has a willing landowner and nutrient imbalance
that we can address, and
the computer model agrees that the practices we select on
this farm will be most cost effective.
The results after we place all our red dots on a map for farms
where efficient nutrient reduction measures were implemented will look
quite similar to a priority watershed map (it should, as the computer
was telling us where most of the farms are) but with two important
differences.
There will be a scattering of red dots where we were able to
work on all of the High Priority Farms, and everyone was ``in
the game''.
We had a truly watershed-based approach where every Member
of Congress can go home to his or her District and say ``you
all are eligible to get implementation money but we are
starting with the highest priority farms and practices that we
can scientifically show will give us the most reductions to the
Bay.'' Every farmer will agree this is a truly democratic and
cost effective approach. There is no disenfranchisement. I
reviewed the S. 1816/H.R 3852 and this bill allows for all
stakeholders to participate.
And as a grant proposal writer and seeker of funds for the past 37
years I can guarantee you when funds are dedicated only to a small
portion of the watershed the good projects will be done first and the
second tier of lower-value projects will get funded out of necessity
spend the funding. You will not maximize your implementation dollars.
Part of a watershed approach is to keep farming sustainable and
environmentally friendly and to ensure that we have a functioning area-
wide infrastructure. If only certain farming areas (the geographical
targeting approach) are subsidized it could lead to loss of farms in
other areas ultimately causing infrastructure to disappear; getting
that system back up and running is very difficult.
A third strategic topic is supporting ``innovative practices''. I
suggest that it is indeed critical that we continue to add to our
toolbox. However the objective of developing ``innovative'' practices
is to shake out those that will become ``Tried and True'' and have a
lasting and important benefit. Much of the competitive funding
proposals solicited from EPA and USDA now needs to be ``innovative''. I
suggest the agencies provide funding for high quality practices that a
farmer needs while adding to the innovativeness.
Innovativeness is good. The USC, Cornell University and Cornell
Cooperative Extension have developed some tools to help a farmer reduce
costs. Cornell developed a simple mass balance calculator that farmers
can use to calculate nutrient inputs and outputs. Interestingly we have
found that over several years of use on a farm the mass balances get
more ``balanced'' and we believe the farmers are reviewing data in a
different way and they see places for savings. And we have taken that
concept one step further by developing a series of benchmarks for dairy
farmers, who can quietly, at their own kitchen table, measure
themselves against a ``standard'' to see if they can do better and
reduce their costs (one benchmark example is home grown feed as a
percent of diet--it should be at least 60% to ensure cost
effectiveness).
Last, I want to support the need for good, high quality data so we
can track all the good practices that we have installed. High quality
data is needed for computer modeling to support watershed planning; it
will ensure that we target the right practices. The Chesapeake Clean
Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 does an excellent job of
walking that fine line between confidentiality and data needs. To
further assess farm operations I suggest that one look at NY State's
Agricultural Environmental Management Program (http://www.nys-
soilandwater.org/). This entire voluntary Program uses a simple yet
sophisticated farm assessment approach that aids the farmer and his
planner in determining how to reduce both his costs and his nutrient
loading by helping identify where a problems may exist on the farm.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
We have talked a lot today about the farm bill provisions
for the Chesapeake Bay. I am just curious; have your members or
your associates utilized the program and how do you think it is
being administered?
Mr. Stoneman. Yes. Our members, we rely on a couple of
sources for funding for BMPs. Certainly the Commonwealth of
Virginia in recent years has put forward $20 million for these
practices. We certainly rely upon EQIP dollars and that type of
thing.
But, without question, $3 fuel has pushed no-till farming
far beyond any technical assistance or far beyond any cost-
share dollars. So most of our farmers are looking for
efficiencies and are looking for better ways to farm, and it
just so happens they have environmental benefits.
The Chairman. But the specific programs are Chesapeake
Bay--in the new farm bill, I know USDA is still in the process
of getting the program up and running. But have you been able
to utilize those provisions, and how do you think it is being
administered by the Department?
Mr. Stoneman. I think without question the intent was good.
I think, certainly, in the priority areas that were selected,
those dollars were being put out as quickly as possible. The
unfortunate thing is a lot of dollars are flowing through too
little technical assistance, and that is a positive of the
bill.
I will say that there is a good--USDA has made a change in
the last 6 months to expand the priority areas, and it was
something of concern to my members that folks that could see
the Bay, touch the Bay, and are near the Bay every day, weren't
in a priority area. It was in some of our livestock regions. So
there have been tweaks that have made the program better.
The Chairman. Anyone else care to comment?
Mr. Stoneman and Mr. Schwalb, you have made clear your
opposition to the proposed legislation. Do you care to
elaborate why you think the voluntary program has made such
good progress, and why people have had the incentives to
participate in your voluntary programs, that we don't have the
need for any advanced regulatory legislation?
Mr. Stoneman. I think without question, farmers want to do
the right thing. They need water quality as badly as anyone
else. So they are there. They want to do these practices.
I think the detail that it shows--even the Presidential
Executive Order says we are trending in the right direction
with voluntary measures. I think once we get the voluntary
measures that are done outside of any state or voluntary
program in the Bay model, then you will see an even further
impressive record for agriculture with respect to the
Chesapeake Bay. That has been a concern of ours for a long
time, and I think that is another positive for the bill.
But our concern about the codification of this TMDL and the
acceleration of its process could bring all of that to a halt.
The Chairman. Mr. Schwalb?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes, I would echo for our poultry growers, our
Clean Water environmental issue is a great example. There is a
thirst to understand what the regulations are. They want to do
what is right. And really one of the emphases behind our Clean
Waters Initiative was for us, with our expertise, to help
explain to the farmer what is required to be a poultry farmer
today from an environmental standpoint. It is increasingly
complex.
So really what this process does, and it is voluntary on
our part, and it is mandatory for anyone that grows with us, it
is something that utilizes really a very established
relationship between the grower and our flock supervisor. That
is the person who they deal with on a weekly basis. And
utilizing that relationship, that flock supervisor goes through
training and an education and an environmental assessment
process with that grower. It is a four-step--there is a
deviation process. If there are problems, there are four steps
to work with the grower to ensure they are corrected.
But the grower needs that information to know what to do,
and the role that we have is to help them understand that
information. And it is a much more comfortable role dealing
with us than dealing with the EPA.
Now we do partner with the EPA on this, and they have
helped us develop this training program. But it is really
something that the grower is looking to understand--what do we
do, just help us understand that, and help us understand where
to get resources to get that done--and they like to do that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, before I question these witnesses, I would
like to commend Mr. Fox. He stayed and listened to their
testimony. You know, as a courtesy, we have always recognized
government representatives to speak on our first panels, and
usually it happens that they give their testimony and then get
up and leave, and don't listen to what their constituents have
to say. So, Mr. Fox, thank you for staying. It is not unheard
of, but it is definitely out of order. I thank you for that.
Mr. Stoneman, you have testified about some of the positive
things that farmers and agribusinesses have done to protect
water quality. You have also stated that the proposed
reauthorization bill would be economically harmful to farmers
and agribusinesses. What impacts will this legislation have on
agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed in being able to
compete nationally and internationally?
Mr. Stoneman. Well, without question if we put this TMDL in
place, if we codify it in such a way and it actually does cap
the growth of our industries, a young farmer will not be able
to expand his business. And certainly that could push him to
another place, if he wants a bigger farm or a more economical
farm.
I think without question, if we have the--if he is capped
in such a way that he has to buy the right to farm his
property, that is an economic cost that other folks don't have
in the rest of the nation and the world. I think without
question, if we codify the citizen suit provisions of this
particular bill, then that particular farmer may not ever get a
permit, because of being held up in litigation, and actually
never receive his permit.
So there is a high cost associated with the provisions of
this bill.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Schwalb, you have briefly outlined in
your statement the actions that Perdue has taken with its Clean
Bay and Clean Water Initiatives with EPA. How does this program
actually work, and how do family farmers who work with Perdue
feel about this program?
Mr. Schwalb. The program works. As I said, it utilizes that
relationship between the grower and the flock supervisor. And
we have found during the pilot piece of it, which started in
2006, through the implementation of the full roll-out of it,
that the growers have been very receptive. Again, it is a
thirst for knowledge and it is a thirst to understand what the
regulations are about.
There is a genuine fear of doing something wrong and not
really understanding what that is. So each grower is educated.
They go through a training process that we have developed with
the EPA. That is on a CD, or it is written for those growers
that don't have access to a computer. That is a training,
educational, and environmental assessment process that we
review with them, all the resources they would need to know how
to operate a poultry farm.
Included in that, the environmental assessment piece, is
two times a year, the area flock supervisor, who is someone who
is a step up from the flock supervisor, who knows a larger
area. They assess each farm with an assessment that has been
developed jointly by the EPA and Perdue. And that is an
environmental assessment, looking at key things like nutrient
management plans, bird disposal, renewal management, best
management practices on the farm, like vegetative buffers,
stormwater management. And based on that plan, if there are
processes that are needed to improve, those are identified.
Those supervisors come up with an action plan to fix and the
growers are in a responsible position to get that done.
If it happens that the grower decides they do not want to
get on board, then Perdue has made the decision that we will no
longer place birds on that farm.
So there is a tremendous set of teeth involved in this.
There is a tremendous impetus for the grower to participate.
And during our pilot program, we really have not had anybody
that has not been interested, and during the roll-out we are
finding the same thing so far.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Kissell.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
gentlemen, for being on the panel today.
Mr. Stoneman, we talked about the voluntary aspect of best
practices and that so much has been accomplished. From your
perspective, how widespread are the voluntary practices across
the board in all the different aspects of agriculture?
Mr. Stoneman. I think without question, certainly with the
high price of fuel, the economy overall, and the economic
condition of all farmers, they are looking for better ways to
do everything. We have had technical advances in biotechnology.
We have had technical advances in equipment. So farmers are
doing more and more and more of the right things.
I think in my brief history associated with this program
and in farming, I have seen--we have talked about the explosion
of no-till farming. Farmers are doing that everywhere. I think,
certainly, the important take-home point of this is that
farmers are doing--stepping up to the plate. In fact, I get the
response from my members all the time, You mean they want us to
do more? What we have done hasn't been good enough? That has
been quite disappointing to all of them.
I think the Clean Water Act in the past has taken aim on
farmers of large scale. Certainly this bill and the activities
of the Presidential Executive Order are going to make the EPA's
reach or the Federal reach all the way down to the smallest of
the small, and that is of concern to all farmers.
Mr. Kissell. I would like to join in expressing my
appreciation to Mr. Fox for staying on and listening.
It is kind of a question to combine the testimony earlier
and the question I had earlier. Mr. Stoneman, Mr. Fox said that
the best practices that the farmers are practicing now, that
they are included in current models and how they will be
viewing this relationship as we move forward.
You mentioned a few minutes ago, I kind of thought maybe
you thought they weren't being accounted for in these models. I
am just wondering, did I interpret what you said right? Are you
comfortable that the best practices are being accounted for in
the model?
Mr. Stoneman. Up until this discussion, it has been my
experience that when we talk about BMPs or practices that have
been installed by a farmer on his own, free from any connection
to a local soil, water and conservation district, NRCS, or any
government program, they have not been counted in that model.
However, just this summer when we have had this discussion,
we have brought to light that those practices do count, they do
have a meaning, and they should be included in the model. But
they are not currently included in the model.
We have also discovered that because of a lack of manpower
and lack of funding, that even the best management practices
that you have funded through the farm bill in Virginia for the
last 4 years have not been counted in the model.
So we think that is a significant difference in where the
water quality regarding agriculture is and where folks think it
could be.
Mr. Kissell. And Mr. Chairman, it would seem that this may
be, this gap of understanding may be some opportunity we have
to improve the models or improve the communication as we move
forward.
One last question. Mr. Schwalb, I don't know the percentage
and I am not asking you the percentage of Perdue's share of the
poultry production on the Eastern Shore, but assuming there are
other competitors out there, do they follow the same practices
that Perdue has put forth?
Mr. Schwalb. At this point, the answer is no. They do
follow some practices. I am not really sure as to what all of
their practices with their growers are. They do not have a
Clean Waters Environmental Initiative with the EPA yet. They do
practice good environmental stewardship. They have
environmental management. I do know that they work with growers
on similar issues the way we do. I don't know of a formal
program, but I am sure that they do work with their growers on
similar nutrient management issues and best management
practices.
Mr. Kissell. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Thompson. First of all, I would like to submit a letter
from the Farm Bureau on this particular issue.
[The document referred to is located on p. 109.]
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Thompson. Second, I would like to follow up on my
colleague from New York, who brought up the issue of natural
gas, and my perspective. My home State of Pennsylvania is
sitting on what is the largest natural gas plane in the world,
the Marcellus, and the shale is virtually on tap, close to the
Northeast. The infrastructure is there. I believe if developed
correctly, it will bring significant wealth and jobs throughout
Pennsylvania and our surrounding states.
Finally, I speak with farmers in Pennsylvania regularly who
are anxious to supplement their farms, especially in this
current economy, with revenues from natural gas leases.
Most recently I met with the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Secretary John Hanger, and
Pennsylvania DP has a long record, and a successful record of
overseeing natural gas drilling, ensuring that this industry's
accessing of domestic energy is safe and meets quality
standards. Frankly, under the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection standards, I don't believe anyone in
Pennsylvania would consider the Pennsylvania DP as warm and
fuzzy in providing oversight on environmental standards. They
are fair, they do their job, and there are consequences if they
don't follow those. But under the Pennsylvania DP standards
compliance, no history of water quality compromises have
occurred with natural gas drilling.
Mr. Stoneman, you talked about the potential and
unnecessary litigation H.R. 3852 could impose on many farms in
the watershed. In my district, we are seeing firsthand the
problems that are created when unnecessary suits are brought on
the Federal Government. The Allegheny National Forest is in my
district, and the Forest Service has shut down the leasing of
oil and natural gas, which is putting many businesses, frankly,
many families and people out of jobs, even though the Federal
Government doesn't even own the mineral rights and subsurface
rights. And some of the environmental groups are using the
courts to systematically put these mom-and-pop producers out of
business. This Executive Order, I believe, actually provides--I
mean the bill provides for the establishment of a citizen right
of action for civil suits.
In your opinion, what impact could these suits regarding
total maximum daily loads have on the ability of farmers to
operate in the watershed?
Mr. Stoneman. Without question the TMDL is going to require
practices of farmers. The Presidential Executive Order you
heard a good bit about today contemplates requiring further
work on behalf of confined animal feeding operations. Certainly
the bill in and of itself requires states to implement certain
programs. If they don't, then the state can be sued, and
generally the way to get a permit is through our Commonwealth
or through the state. If you are tangled up with litigation,
ultimately you will end up with no permit and ultimately
spending a lot of dollars for nothing.
Mr. Thompson. In the previous panel, Mr. Fox mentioned that
EPA wants to continue to foster the relationship with states
and local governments. I want to check with all three gentlemen
on the panel, do you have any suggestions or ideas on how the
EPA could foster that partnership?
Mr. Curatolo. We work closely with the Department of
Environmental Conservation. I think the state's view is they
really want to have control of how to finalize all our TMDL
work and our BMP practices. I think between the state and the
counties, they have the information and the local understanding
of how to maximize our reductions, minimize money, and
definitely minimize the cost to our farmers and our
communities. I think it is important that EPA provide enough
opportunity for the state to develop its strategy, and each
state strategy should be different, because each state is a
little different in its philosophy and its watershed, and that
is an important way to go.
Mr. Stoneman. I would like to add, the bill in and of
itself asks states to do certain things and asks local
governments to do certain things. It seems, though, in this
particular scenario, the way the bill is drafted EPA holds all
of the cards. You either do it or they withhold funds. You
either do it or we regulate somebody else, therefore creating a
civil war among economic sectors.
So my suggestion is we take, we go back to where we are, a
cooperative nature, a voluntary program, and keep moving the
ball forward. Holding all of the cards, or both the carrot and
the stick, one in one hand and one in the other, is just going
to stifle where we are.
Mr. Schwalb. If I could add, EPA working with state and
local agencies, to truly understand what BMPs have been
accomplished on farms, be they ones that were cost-shared or be
they ones that were voluntary, is critical to gaining
credibility. AgriRecycle is a great example. The Bay model,
based on agriculture Census, assumes a certain number of birds
generate a certain amount of litter. But all of the litter that
goes to AgriRecycle does not get put on the ground as
fertilizer. As I mentioned in my testimony, over half of that
is moved out of the watershed; yet the Bay model assumes, based
on the number of chickens, this is the amount of litter and
here is where it goes. So there is a lot of local knowledge
that I think is just not tapped yet, and so I would encourage
that.
Mr. Thompson. I thank you.
The Chairman. The Chair would like to add to Mr. Thompson's
statement that also the Susquehanna River Basin Commission is
heavily involved in regulating a new natural gas field that has
been recently discovered. I would just like to add that for the
record.
I recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Kratovil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stoneman, going back to something that you said that I
think is very important. You were talking about the decline in
farms. And first of all, congratulations on the ability to
maintain the family farm and the historic value of it and so
forth.
One of the things that strikes me about this debate that we
have, again, is looking at these sources of pollution and, in a
sense, putting them on equal footing. And the bottom line is
they should not be, because looking at the critical value that
farming has to our country, not just economically and
culturally, but clearly in terms of national security issues,
there is a big difference between farming and, in my view, the
issues of sprawl and development.
I would say, Mr. Fox, thank you for sticking around, but I
think that is something important to consider as we look at how
we deal with these different sources of pollution. There is a
big difference in terms of promoting and protecting
agriculture, as opposed to allowing for sprawl and development.
Mr. Schwalb, you have obviously talked at length about your
initiative, Clean Bays and Clean Water Initiative. What has the
relationship with EPA been on that and how did that
relationship come about?
Mr. Schwalb. The relationship has been excellent. Really it
was a discussion early on in 2006 about how to help ensure--a
group discussion that we had with EPA about how to help ensure
that our growers had a good understanding of all of the
regulations. Perdue, as part of our environmental commitment,
said it is tough for the growers to understand that. It is hard
for us to understand them sometimes.
Really what evolved was how best can we work together to
come up with a process that would help the growers understand
it, and, from Perdue's standpoint, if you can't grow chickens,
we can't sell them. So that is a very important part of our
supply chain. We felt that the relationship we had with our
growers is much more comfortable in working with the grower
than the EPA's relationship with the grower.
Mr. Kratovil. Going back to the point that the Ranking
Member was making about lack of communication prior to the
Executive Order, did you have any idea, heads-up--anybody that
you guys were dealing with in terms of EPA know, despite the
efforts you were making, sort of what was going to happen and
where this was going?
Mr. Schwalb. I can't say that would be something that we
would have discussed with the EPA folks during this time. So I
can't say that we had that discussion; but I don't know if I
would have expected to.
Mr. Kratovil. One of the innovations that you haven't
talked about is the use of the feed additive by the growers to
reduce the phosphorus generated in poultry litter. Tell me
about that, and how has that been working, and how do we know?
Mr. Schwalb. Phytase, which is an enzyme, we have been
giving it to our poultry since 2000. What it does, it helps the
chicken better utilize the phosphorus in the feed. The chicken
needs phosphorus in the feed to support its bone structure. So
if the chicken can utilize the phosphorus in the feed better,
then we have to add less phosphorus generating products in the
feed itself. If the chicken utilizes that phosphorus better,
then there is less in the manure. Studies have shown that the
reduced phosphorus level in the manure has been by 25 to 30
percent, and we do that by analysis of the manure.
Mr. Kratovil. Are other growers, other companies doing
that?
Mr. Schwalb. Yes, other companies are doing that.
Mr. Kratovil. All of you have expressed concerns about the
Bay model. Given your concerns, what are your specific
suggestions in terms of how we deal with that?
Mr. Stoneman. I think without question, you include or
figure out a way to include the voluntary measures that farmers
are doing on their own.
Now I am going to mention a thorny little subject, but one
of the reasons why we haven't been able to get that information
in there is a little nuance in the farm bill that even my
organization supported at the time because it seemed like a
wonderful thing, and that was the privacy clause. Certainly we
need to figure out how to get aggregate data into the model.
Individual data is problematic and certainly fits into the
privacy clause that was put in the farm bill, I think 1619 is
the number. But we have to get Federal agencies--and I am not
going to be the one that says the Presidential Executive Order
is all bad, because if it has gotten Federal agencies talking
together and communicating and sharing data, then that will
certainly help that Bay model be a better model.
But harkening back to my computer 101 course, garbage in is
garbage out, and no information is no information. So that's
what we have to do with that Bay model.
Mr. Kratovil. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stoneman, I was intrigued by the 41 percent loss of
Virginia farmers, and I certainly don't want to see them
becoming an extinct entity by any means, especially the
Virginia peanuts. We survive on those on the Agriculture
Committee, along with North Carolina and Georgia.
Talking about what Mr. Kratovil said about sprawl, I know
you don't have it broken down, but as the Farm Bureau
President, in discussions, how much of that is the family
decides that a subdivider or developer, whether office
buildings, subdivisions, that come in and offer the family
farmer thousands per acre and they make that decision based on
finances, and once they do that, it never goes back to
farmland. Virginia is a pretty good example. They make that
conscious decision to do what they want with their land.
Can you break down a little bit in your discussions, how
much is regulation; how much is a farmer, the family decides
let's profit, the kids decide I am not going to get into the
business that mom and dad were in?
Mr. Stoneman. The 41 percent is for Bay-wide. So Bay-wide,
we have lost 41 percent of our farmers.
The interesting statistic in Virginia is we have gained
farmers, but they have gotten smaller. In some discussion, a 10
acre farmette that is raising pumpkins, strawberries, or
watermelons is what Virginia is sustaining itself with as far
as farming.
The second part of your question, I have some very strong
experience with that. I have talked about the farm that my
family and I own. I farmed it myself for 12 long years. My
child wanted to eat better, and I wanted a better standard of
life for her. We have several family members involved, so we
figured the best thing to do was to rent it out. But my father
was one of the largest dairymen in the state. When the Clean
Water Act was passed, he made a conscious decision, because he
didn't feel like he could justify the rules associated with his
size of dairy. They went out of the dairy business. They became
a grain farmer, which made it a little simpler but not a whole
lot more.
But I contend--and we have just gotten through with our
state annual meeting. We had a farmer from Amelia very
passionately say to the press that she is a small dairyman.
This particular regulation puts a target in Virginia on the
back of small dairies because most poultry farms, as has been
discussed, are regulated. Most pork farms because of their size
are regulated by the state. In fact, our state regulations are
three times more stringent than anything EPA has put forward so
far.
So when EPA says it wants more, it is the 200 cow dairies
and less that they are after. At least in Virginia. They are
the only ones left. Eighty-four percent of our dairies in
Virginia, a significant number in Mr. Goodlatte's district, are
200 cow dairies. They feel like they are the target, the ones
left.
So I cannot stand here and tell you that for any one
specific farmer, a regulation put them out of business. But I
will tell you that along with the cumulative effect of the
economy and the situation of the ag enterprises, it will.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schwalb, what will Perdue do? What is the tipping point
with these regulations that Perdue decides either your growers
decide it is not worth it anymore, kind of like we are talking
about with dairy, and what will Perdue do? We don't mind you
coming to Indiana, but I know you already have producers there.
I am sure there would be people glad to see you go out of the
area.
Mr. Kratovil. We mind you going to Indiana.
Mr. Schwalb. We are in both places, so we will keep you
both happy.
Mr. Ellsworth. So what is the game plan when you start
pulling producers and pulling jobs and affecting the economy
when these regulations start? Or do you suspect they will go to
Indiana? What does the crystal ball say?
Mr. Schwalb. Again, it a three-legged stool. Perdue is in
15 states. If you think about agriculture on the Shore,
agriculture on the Shore is a combination of the grain farmers
that grow the grain, the poultry farmers that grow the
chickens, and the integrators that keep all those together.
Those are the three legs.
Mr. Stoneman was talking about additional regs. While
poultry producers are regulated now in nutrient management
plans, under the new proposed regulation, most poultry farms
will become CAFOs, and the regulations required for CAFOs are
substantially higher and substantially more expensive for those
farmers.
So it is really going to depend on which leg of the stool
sort of bends the first and breaks. This will be a tremendous
burden--as written, this bill would be a tremendous burden, we
feel, to poultry growers. If poultry growers can't make a
living, there isn't any reason to grow grain. And if grain
farmers aren't around, we have 14 other states or 13 other
states. Not that we want to move out of the Bay, but it is an
economic decision. It is pure economics.
So again, the voluntary things that we are doing, we need
to make sure that they are counted, so then we truly know what
is the effect of poultry. I don't think you can treat a poultry
farm the same way you can treat a point source, and that really
is a little bit about what is coming down the road.
Mr. Ellsworth. Does Perdue have any facilities outside the
United States?
Mr. Schwalb. We do have a China venture, a very small one
in China. But that is the only operation that we have outside
of the United States, and it is limited to producing product
for the Chinese market.
Mr. Ellsworth. Could you foresee it getting to the point
where you opened something, where you import the product to the
United States because it is cheaper to operate in another
country?
Mr. Schwalb. We have a definite concern that is coming down
the road. We have a genuine concern that production of our food
will be outsourced overseas because it is more economical.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The chair thanks the gentleman. The chair
also thanks the witnesses for their testimony.
Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplemental written response from the
witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Energy, and Research is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings, a Representative in
Congress from Maryland
Mr. Chairman:
I thank Chairman Holden for the opportunity to submit a statement
for the record compiled for the hearing entitled ``Regulatory and
Legislative Strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.''
The Chesapeake Bay is America's largest estuary and its biological
productivity was once unparalleled in the world--making its current
degradation all the more stunning. As the Representative of Maryland's
7th Congressional District, I know first-hand what an incomparable
resource the Chesapeake Bay is to the State of Maryland and indeed to
this entire nation.
In the Administration of President Barack Obama, we finally have a
President who has made the restoration of this national treasure among
his top environmental preservation goals.
Earlier this year, the President issued an Executive Order that
created a Federal Leadership Committee on the Bay. A few months ago,
that Federal Leadership Committee released a series of reports on the
Bay--known as the Section 202 Draft Reports.
These reports reaffirm that the Chesapeake Bay is one of the most
studied water bodies in the world. They also reaffirm that there is no
scientific doubt that the flow into the Bay of nitrogen, phosphorus,
and sediment from a variety of sources is the cause of the Bay's
decline. Together, they foster the rapid growth of algae and they lower
dissolved oxygen levels in the water; as oxygen levels fall, so-called
``dead zones'' develop where aquatic life cannot survive.
Controlling the flow of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments into
the Bay is essential to restoring the Bay's ecosystem and enabling the
Bay to thrive again.
The 202 reports also find that thirty years of voluntary agreements
enforced only by good intentions have left the Chesapeake Bay with
water quality that is still rated ``very poor.''
Particularly as the population in the Bay's Watershed increases, it
is evident that we must begin implementing more formal structures to
control pollutant loadings. It is also evident that current law does
not provide all of the authorities necessary to implement and assess
the results of such new control measures.
Responding to these challenges, on October 20, 2009, I introduced
the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, H.R.
3852. This legislation is similar to legislation introduced in the
Senate by Maryland Senator Ben Cardin.
H.R. 3852 will require the Environmental Protection Agency to
complete its determination of judicially ordered and scientifically
derived maximum tolerable levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment
in the Bay. The legislation would then require the Bay's Watershed
states and the District of Columbia to each contribute to the
achievement of reductions in nutrient flows into the Bay until these
levels are reached.
Each jurisdiction would have the flexibility and discretion to
develop its own detailed plan outlining how it would reduce its
pollutant load; however, states that do not develop or implement their
plans will face significant penalties.
I emphasize that to achieve overall nutrient flow reductions, H.R.
3852 would require equitable reductions in pollution from all sources,
including wastewater treatment plants, stormwater run-off, and run-off
generated from agricultural activities.
Importantly, the benefits of H.R. 3852 will accrue to the entire
Chesapeake Bay Watershed--and not just to the Bay itself. New
approaches to nutrient control adopted by the states in the Bay's
Watershed and by the Federal Government itself will improve water
quality in the tributaries that flow into the Bay, including the
Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania, the Rappahannock River in Virginia,
and rivers providing drinking water throughout the Bay's Watershed.
H.R. 3852 also supports what must be a renewed and reinvigorated
partnership among Federal, state, and local governments, and between
public and private interests. For our part, the bill would authorize
more than $5 billion to support efforts to clean up the Bay, including
providing $1.5 billion to support initiatives that will control
stormwater run-off and $500 million for each of Fiscal Years 2010
through 2015 to support the Section 319 programs that help farmers
implement nonpoint source management initiatives.
To provide additional assistance to farmers in the Bay's
Watershed--who I know are struggling in the midst of this prolonged
economic crisis--and to support the adoption of the most cost-effective
nutrient reduction measures, H.R. 3852 would also establish an
innovative interstate nitrogen and phosphorus credit trading program.
Such a program will encourage Bay-wide partnerships between
municipal and agricultural interests for the implementation of cost-
effective, upstream nutrient management controls.
A study issued by the World Resources Institute analyzing the
nutrient trading programs that would be created by H.R. 3852 found
that, ``[p]reliminary analysis indicates that the potential annual
revenue to farmers from selling credits in a Bay-wide nitrogen trading
program could be of a similar scale or greater than current annual
government agriculture conservation funding in the Chesapeake Bay.''
The study estimates that a nitrogen trading program could generate
as much as $300 million in annual revenue to farmers. A copy of the
World Resources Institute study entitled ``How Nutrient Trading Can
Help Restore the Chesapeake Bay'' is attached here as a reference.
I note that the nutrient trading program proposed by H.R. 3852
builds on successful programs already implemented in states such as
Pennsylvania and Virginia.
As Peter Hughes, President of Red Barn Consulting, Inc., testified
during a hearing held by the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources in September of this year,
``Pennsylvania has become a national model for a nutrient cap-and-trade
free market system that the agricultural community has embraced. Due to
low commodity prices, especially milk prices, farmers are more than
ever seeking ecosystem services to bring new revenue streams onto the
farm through the acres they own.''
Under the Administration of President Obama, we have a once-in-a-
lifetime chance to enact legislation that can finally set us on the
path to restoring the Bay--an achievement whose true benefits will
accrue to our children and grandchildren.
I am honored to be working with Senator Cardin as well as 15
bipartisan House cosponsors to develop the legislation that will
finally achieve the Bay restoration we have so long pursued.
I also look forward to working closely with Chairman Holden,
Ranking Member Goodlatte, and the Members of the Committee on
Agriculture--and the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy and
Research--to ensure that this legislation is responsive to the concerns
and needs of the farm community, which will continue to play a central
role in our restoration efforts.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Supplementary Material Submitted by Hon. Tim Holden, a Representative
in Congress from Pennsylvania
prepared statement of judith ``jude'' l. capper, b.s.c., ph.d.,
assistant
professor of dairy science, department of animal sciences, washington
state university, pullman, wa
Before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture hearing, entitled, Hearing To Review
the Potential Economic Impacts of Climate Change on the Farm
Sector, dated Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Summary
The purpose of U.S. animal agriculture is to produce high quality
meat, milk and eggs for human consumption. The environmental impact of
livestock production must therefore be assessed on a whole-system basis
and expressed per unit of food produced. Improving productivity (output
per unit of resource input) is a key factor in reducing the
environmental impact of livestock production. Systems that allow for
increased milk yield per cow, improved growth rate per beef steer or
greater quantities of food product to be moved using a single vehicle
allow for considerable reductions in resource use, greenhouse gas
emissions and economic cost per unit of food produced. Management
practices and systems that intuitively appear to be environmentally and
economically beneficial should therefore be subjected to scientific
assessment in order to correctly assess their potential for mitigating
the environmental impact of livestock production.
Introduction
All food production systems have an impact upon the environment,
regardless of how and where the food is produced. The environmental
impacts of agricultural practices are increasingly well-known, not only
to food producers but also to policy-makers, retailers and consumers.
Increased public awareness of these issues underlines the critical need
to adopt livestock production systems that reduce the environmental
impact of agricultural production. This can be achieved through the use
of management practices and technologies that encourage environmental
stewardship at the farm-level, as well as improving transportation
operations to reduce the eventual environmental and economic cost to
the consumer. In the following testimony I will discuss the potential
for improved productivity to mitigate the environmental impact of
animal agriculture.
Low-Input Production Systems Are, By Definition, Low-Output Production
Systems
The dichotomous challenge of producing more food from a dwindling
resource base often leads to the suggestion that adopting low-input
production systems is the key to sustainable agriculture. However, this
defies a fundamental principle of physics, the First Law of
Thermodynamics which states that `energy can neither be created nor
destroyed, it can only change form'. Carbon is the key unit of currency
of energy use of living organisms. Just as we balance our checkbook
every month, energy (carbon) inputs and outputs must be balanced
against each other. By definition, a low-input production system is a
low-output system. Within livestock production systems, low-output
systems are characterized by reduced productivity over a fixed time
period. The following examples will discuss the effects of improved
productivity manifested as increases in milk yield per day (dairy
production), growth rate (beef production) and transportation carrying
capacity (egg production).
Environmental Assessment Must Be Assessed Per Unit of Food Produced
The purpose of any livestock production system is to provide
sufficient safe, nutritious, affordable meat, milk or eggs to fulfill
market demand. In contrast to more uniform manufacturing industries,
livestock production occurs within myriad different systems that range
from extensive to intensive; small-scale to large-scale and
independently owned and managed to contracted production. Environmental
impact has previously been assessed per acre, per animal or per
facility. Although this may provide an indication of the impact of
animal production on a specific geographic region, this fails to
consider the true aim of the system--to produce food.
When assessing environmental impact, it is therefore essential to
express impact per functional unit of food, e.g., resource use and
waste output per lb, kg or gallon of product (Schau and Fet, 2008).
Thus, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions should not be simply assessed as
per animal or per facility but based on system productivity using a
lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach. Prescribed by the EPA, LCA
incorporates all inputs and outputs within food production and allows
valid comparisons to be made between systems. For example, it is
intuitively obvious that a 50 cow dairy will have lower annual methane
emissions compared to a 500 cow dairy. However, the 500 cow dairy will
produce more milk both per facility (as a consequence of the increased
number of animals) but also, according to a recent USDA-NAHMS report
(USDA, 2007) an extra 1,152 kg milk per cow annually. Greater
productivity is associated with both physical and financial economies
of scale, but also with a reduction in environmental impact through the
`dilution of maintenance' effect (Bauman et al., 1985).
The `Dilution of Maintenance' Effect
All animals require a daily amount of maintenance nutrients to
maintain weight, bodily functions and health. This `fixed cost' must be
met before production (growth, pregnancy or lactation) can occur and is
fulfilled by primary (feed, water) and secondary (cropland, fertilizer,
fossil fuels) resource inputs. It is also associated with a proportion
of the animal's daily waste and GHG output. To use dairy cows as an
example, `dilution of maintenance' occurs when output (milk yield per
cow) is increased, thus diluting the maintenance cost over more units
of production and improving efficiency. This effect is not simply
confined to lactating cows: the national herd also contains a
considerable number of non-productive animals (non-lactating cows,
replacement heifers and bulls) that serve to maintain the dairy herd
infrastructure and require maintenance nutrients. Improving
productivity thus improves efficiency and reduces the total population
size required to produce a set amount of milk. Consequently it reduces
both resource use and GHG emissions per unit of milk produced.
Improving Productivity (Milk Yield) Reduces the Dairy Industry's
Environmental Impact
The effect of improved productivity on the environmental impact of
producing a set quantity of milk is perhaps best illustrated by
comparing U.S. dairy production in 1944 compared to 2007 (Capper et
al., 2009b). The agrarian vision of U.S. dairy farming involves cows
grazing on pasture with a gable-roofed red barn in the background--a
traditional low-input system. By contrast, the image of modern dairy
production propounded by anti-animal agriculture activists is
synonymous with ``filthy and disease-ridden conditions'' and
``industrialized warehouse-like facilities that significantly increase
GHG emissions per animal'' (Koneswaran and Nierenberg, 2008). It is
indeed true that modern dairy cows produce more GHG emissions than
their historical counterparts. Figure 1 shows that daily GHG emissions
per cow (expressed in CO2-equivalents, the standard measure
for expressing carbon emissions) have increased considerably over the
past 65 years. The average dairy cow now produces 27.8 kg of
CO2-equivalents per day compared to 13.5 kg CO2-
equivalents per day in 1944 (Capper et al., 2009b). However, expressing
results on a `per cow' basis fails to consider system productivity.
When analyzed using LCA on a whole-system basis, GHG emissions per kg
of milk produced have declined from 3.7 kg in 1944 to 1.4 kg in 2007, a
63% reduction. This has been achieved through considerable improvements
in productivity conferred by advances in animal nutrition, genetics,
welfare and management. Annual milk yield per cow more than quadrupled
between 1944 (2,074 kg) and 2007 (9,193 kg), allowing 59% more milk
(84.2 billion kg vs. 53.0 billion kg) to be produced using 64% fewer
lactating cows (9.2 million versus 25.6 million).
The resource use and waste output per unit of milk for 1944 and
2007 production systems are shown in Figure 2. The 4.4-fold increase in
productivity (milk yield per cow) drove a 79% decrease in total animals
(lactating and dry cows, heifers, mature and adolescent bulls) required
to produce 1 billion kg of milk. Feed and water use were reduced by 77%
and 65% respectively. The total land required for milk production in
2007 was reduced by 90% compared to 1944, due to both improved crop
yields and the shift from feeding pasture to nutritionally-balanced
diets based on silage, hay and concentrate feeds. Manure output from
the modern system was 76% lower than from the 1944 system, contributing
to the aforementioned 63% decrease in the carbon footprint per unit of
milk. In consequence, the carbon footprint of the entire dairy industry
was reduced by 41% by the adoption of technologies and modern
management practices that improved productivity between 1944 and 2007.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Carbon Footprint per Cow and per Kilogram of Milk for
1944 and 2007 U.S. Dairy Production Systems (Capper et al.,
2009).
The U.S. dairy industry has led the major global dairy regions in
terms of productivity since 1960 (FAO, 2009). The average U.S. dairy
cow produced 9,219 kg milk per year in 2007. By contrast, the average
annual yield for the top six milk-producing counties in Europe was
6,362 kg milk per year, while annual production in New Zealand and
Canada averaged 3,801 kg milk/cow and 8,188 kg milk/cow respectively
(FAO, 2009). On a comparative basis, this meant that for every one
dairy animal in the USA in 2007, Canada required 1.1 animals, Europe
required 1.4 animals and New Zealand required 2.4 animals to maintain a
similar milk supply (Figure 3, Capper et al., 2009a). This clearly
demonstrates the important of improving productivity in reducing the
number of dairy animals required to produce a set amount of milk,
therefore reducing total resources and GHG emissions associated with
milk production.
Within any milk production system, a relatively minor increase in
productivity will have a major environmental mitigation effect. Simply
increasing the average U.S. dairy cow's daily milk yield from 29.5 kg
to 34 kg would reduce the dairy population required to fulfill the
market demand for milk by 12% (Capper et al., 2008). This would reduce
the GHG emissions per billion kg of cheese by 1,173,000 metric tonnes--
equivalent to taking 246,900 cars off the road or planting 184 million
trees. This improvement in productivity would also equate to a
significant improvement in economic sustainability for the producer.
Fetrow (1999) discusses a similar improvement in productivity conferred
by the use of the technology recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) and
concludes that a 50% return on investment can be gained. Furthermore,
as noted by Alvarez et al. (2008), improvements in productivity are
intrinsically linked to economic and labor efficiencies.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2. 2007 U.S. Milk Production, Resource Use and Emissions
Expressed as a Percentage of the 1944 Production System
(Adapted from Capper et al., 2009).
Improving Productivity (Growth Rate) Reduces the Environmental Impact
of Beef Production
Mirroring improvements in dairy productivity over time, the average
beef-carcass yield per animal has increased over the past 30 years from
266 kg in 1975 compared to 351 kg in 2007 (USDA, 1976; USDA/NASS,
2008). It appears that slaughter weight has reached a plateau beyond
which the processor is unwilling to venture. However, improving
productivity by increasing growth rate confers considerable potential
as a mechanism to reduce the environmental impact of beef production.
As previously described, all animals have a basic requirement for daily
maintenance nutrients to maintain health and body tissues. As growth
rate increases, fewer days are required to grow the animal to slaughter
weight, thus saving maintenance nutrients and associated resource
inputs.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3. Dairy Animals (Cows, Heifers and Bulls) Required to
Produce One Billion kg of Milk in 2007 (Capper et al., 2009a).
According to Capper et al. (2009a) finishing beef steers on pasture
takes 438 days, compared to 237 days to finish identical animals on
corn-based diets. This is due to the lower growth rate conferred by
pasture-based diets. In combination with increased daily GHG emissions
and energy use by animals fed pasture-based diets, the extra 201 days
of maintenance nutrients results in a threefold increase in total
energy use and methane emissions to finish the pasture-fed steer. To
supply the extra maintenance nutrients required, 13 more land is
required to finish a pasture-fed beef steer than a corn-fed steer.
These results are in agreement with modeling simulations of beef
production systems published by researchers at Iowa State University
(Lawrence and Ibarburu, 2007), and with the suggestion by Avery and
Avery (2007) that pharmaceutical technologies used to improve growth
rate in beef animals have positive environmental and economic effects.
Furthermore, Acevedo et al. (2006) analyzed the economic implications
of differing productivity in conventional (grain-fed), grass-fed and
organic beef production systems and concluded that the conventional
system, with its high growth rate, was the most economically-beneficial
to the producer.
Productivity Plays a Key Role in Reducing the Environmental Impact of
Food Transportation
Transportation represents a relatively minor component of the total
environmental impact of food animal production with the major component
occurring during the on-farm production phase (Berlin, 2002; Steinfeld
et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the productivity (in this situation defined
as the quantity of food product moved over a specific distance) of the
transport system has a major effect upon the total environmental impact
attributed to transportation. In response to the current tendency to
use `food miles' as an indicator of environmental impact, three
scenarios were developed by Capper et al. (2009a) to model the
transport of a dozen eggs from the point of production to the
consumers' home. The three scenarios were as follows: (1) the local
chain grocery store supplied by a production facility with eggs
traveling a total distance of 805 mi; (2) a farmer's market supplied by
a source much closer than the grocery store's source; (total distance
traveled 186 mi) or (3) directly from a local poultry farm (total
distance traveled 54 mi). Intuitively it would seem that buying eggs
directly from a local poultry farm would be the situation with the
lowest environmental impact. However, the grocery store eggs, which
traveled the furthest distance, were shown to have lowest fuel
consumption per dozen eggs (0.56 liters), buying eggs from the local
farm had the highest fuel use (9.12 liters per dozen eggs) and the
farmer's market eggs were intermediate between the other two scenarios.
The high energy efficiency of the grocery store system can be
attributed to its reliance on tractor-trailers that have a capacity of
23,400 dozen eggs--a huge increase in productivity compared to the
other two scenarios. Again, it is clear that productivity has a
significant impact, not simply upon resource use and consequent
environmental impact; but, given the current financial situation, on
the economic sustainability of the food transport system.
Conclusion
The global population is predicted to increase to 9.5 billion
people in the year 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Total food
requirements will increase by 100% (Tilman et al., 2002) as a function
of both the 50% increase in population and the additional global demand
for animal protein as people in developing countries become more
affluent (Keyzer et al., 2005). The resources available for
agricultural production are likely to decrease concurrently with
population growth due to competition for land and water and depletion
of fossil fuel reserves. To continue to produce sufficient milk, meat
and eggs for future domestic and export markets in an environmentally
and economically sustainable manner it is essential to examine the
entire food production system and to make judgments based on
productivity, expressed per unit of food. There can be no doubt that
improving productivity, whether as part of on-farm production or
further down the transportation chain has a considerable effect upon
total environmental and economic impact.
References Cited
Acevedo, N., J.D. Lawrence, and M. Smith. 2006. Organic, Natural
and Grass-Fed Beef: Profitability and constraints to Production in the
Midwestern U.S., Iowa Beef Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Alvarez, A., J. del Corral, D. Solis, and J.A. Perez. 2008. Does
intensification improve the economic efficiency of dairy farms? Journal
of Dairy Science 91: 3693-3698.
Avery, A., and D. Avery. 2007. The Environmental Safety and
Benefits of Pharmaceutical Technologies in Beef Production, Hudson
Institute, Center for Global Food Issues, Washington, D.C.
Bauman, D.E., S.N. McCutcheon, W.D. Steinhour, P.J. Eppard, and
S.J. Sechen. 1985. Sources of variation and prospects for improvement
of productive efficiency in the dairy cow: a review. Journal of Animal
Science 60: 583-592.
Berlin, J. 2002. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of
Swedish hard cheese. International Dairy Journal 12: 939-953.
Capper, J.L., R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009a. Demystifying the
environmental sustainability of food production. In: Proceedings of the
Cornell Nutrition Conference, Syracuse, NY.
Capper, J.L., R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman. 2009b. The environmental
impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal
Science 87: 2160-2167.
Capper, J.L., E. Castaneda-Gutierrez, R.A. Cady, and D.E. Bauman.
2008. The environmental impact of recombinant bovine somatotropin
(rbST) use in dairy production. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 105: 9668-9673.
FAO. 2009. FAOSTAT. http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed: 09/04/2009.
Fetrow, J. 1999. Economics of recombinant bovine somatoptropin use
on U.S. dairy farms. AgBioForum 2: 103-110.
Keyzer, M.A., M.D. Merbis, I.F.P.W. Pavel, and C.F.A. van
Wesenbeeck. 2005. Diet shifts towards meat and the effects on cereal
use: can we feed the animals in 2030? Ecological Economics 55: 187-202.
Koneswaran, G., and D. Nierenberg. 2008. Global farm animal
production and global warming: impacting and mitigating climate change.
Environmental Health Perspectives 116: 578-582.
Lawrence, J.D., and M. Ibarburu. 2007. Economic Analysis of
Pharmaceutical Technologies in Modern Beef Production in a Bioeconomy
Era, Iowa State University.
Schau, E.M., and A.M. Fet. 2008. LCA studies of food products as
background for environmental product declarations. International
Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 13: 255-264.
Steinfeld, H. et al. 2006. Livestock's Long Shadow--Environmental
Issues and Options, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
Tilman, D., K.G. Cassman, P.A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polasky.
2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices.
Nature 418: 671-677.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008. Total Midyear Population for the World:
1950-2050. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpop.html. Accessed:
July 2009.
USDA. 1976. Livestock Slaughter Annual Summary 1975, USDA,
Washington, D.C.
USDA. 2007. Dairy 2007, Part I: Reference of Dairy Cattle Health
and Management Practices in the United States, 2007, USDA-APHIS-VS,
Fort Collins, CO.
USDA/NASS. 2008. Livestock Slaughter 2007 Summary, USDA,
Washington, D.C.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Submitted Letter by Hon. Bob Goodlatte; on Behalf of Maryland Grain
Producers Association, et al.
December 7, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte,
We write today in regards to H.R. 3852 and as part of the December
9, 2009 Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research
hearing, ``To review the regulatory and legislative strategies in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.'' We thank you for your leadership in
convening this hearing. We also thank you in advance for carefully
considering the broad implications of this legislation for production
agriculture and the important role our industry plays in water quality.
This legislation subjugates state and local actions to the approval
of Federal authority through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Our producers and members are concerned about the requirements
established by this legislation with' little or no consideration to
economic impact or future growth. By codifying the May 2009 Executive
Order, H.R. 3852 would establish broad and undefined new authorities
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other Federal
agencies. Many of the reports required by the Executive Order are still
being drafted and not yet publicly released. Language in this bill
significantly expands EPA authority to include withholding state funds,
withholding current and new permits, superseding state and local
programs and other measures. We believe codifying the Executive Order
cedes the legislative process to the Executive Branch and establishes
questionable authority, particularly since the Administration's
proposals are still being developed.
This proposed legislation also codifies already court-ordered Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) while shortening the process for TMDL
completion. The TMDL process, which includes 92 TMDL's throughout the
watershed, is the most complicated TMDL process ever undertaken by EPA
and is only given 8 months to complete according to H.R. 3852. In
addition, the current nutrient trading or offset program would be
rendered worthless. Because of the strenuous baseline cap established
by EPA through the TMDLs, less than 10% of the agricultural acres in
the watershed would be eligible to participate in offsets.
Additionally, certain agriculture sectors will mostly likely need to
buy offsets to update or expand their operations. Without adequate time
and science to effectively evaluate the TMDL process, H.R. 3852 will
impose burdensome regulations and penalties before procedures and
practices for efficiently achieving desired water quality goals are
defined.
Along with the Executive Order, the Chesapeake Bay Program
announced 2 year milestones with which to track TMDL progress through
2025--the estimated duration of full Chesapeake Bay restoration.
Currently, milestones have only been drafted through December 31, 2011
which leaves approximately 14 years of unknown regulations that would
be codified by H.R. 3852. In addition, this legislation carries strong
penalties such as a 90 day period to correct any missed 2 year
milestones. In the case of production agriculture, this penalty leaves
no room for weather problems or delayed harvest which is a common
challenge. This lack of flexibility demonstrates the absence of
economic impact evaluation for the agricultural sector.
In addition, this language also exposes family farmers to potential
citizen action lawsuits both through the permit process and by
establishing mandatory regulations. In respect to water quality,
agriculture is the Chesapeake Bay Watershed's most effective and
efficient land use; however, farmers would bear such significant
economic hardship from S. 1816 that many farms would be sold into less
desirable, detrimental land uses. We believe this type of approach will
not achieve desired water quality benefits because it seeks to penalize
production agriculture--the very industry that stands to provide the
most benefit to the Bay. Agriculture is the watershed's top economic
industry and the only nonpoint sector that has consistently made
progress toward water quality goals over the past decade.
While efforts to improve the Chesapeake Bay are critically
important, achieving water quality must be a cooperative partnership
instead of cumbersome regulations. With extremely diverse agriculture
inside the Bay Watershed, no ``one size fits all'' approach will work.
Flexibility and voluntary measures are key to successful water quality
programs.
While many changes could be made to improve this legislation, we
believe sufficient scientific information is not in place to support
its passage. It has been acknowledged and proven that the Chesapeake
Bay Model operates from incomplete information, and production
agriculture has produced numerous examples of currently implemented
farm conservation practices that have not been counted or included in
the Chesapeake Bay Model's current process. Without complete
information or current science, this current proposal is unwise for Bay
health and economic growth.
There are some positive aspects included in H.R. 3852 such as data
protection and technical assistance. However, these measures are pale
in comparison to the unintended consequences and broad implications of
this bill. We ask the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research to support reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program
without substantive changes in order devote adequate time and science
to develop creative ways for economic recovery and growth to coexist
with water quality goals and initiatives. We welcome any opportunity to
continue working with the Subcommittee to achieve improved water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay and thriving farming operations
throughout the region.
Once again, thank you for your leadership on this issue on behalf
of production agriculture. We look forward to continuing our work with
you.
Sincerely,
Maryland Grain Producers Association;
Missouri Corn Growers Association;
National Association of Wheat Growers;
National Corn Growers Association;
New York Corn Growers Association;
Virginia Grain Producers Association
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Bob Goodlatte; on Behalf of Agri-Mark, Inc.,
et al.
December 9, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte,
We write today in regards to H.R. 3852 and the efforts to expand
and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. We ask that these comments
be entered into the Congressional record as part of the December 9,
2009 hearing to review legislative and regulatory strategies in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed before the House Agriculture Committee,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research.
Across the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and nation, our agricultural
producers and organization members are very concerned about the
implications of H.R. 3852 and believe it does not soundly or
efficiently achieve the goal of improved water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay. In effect, the legislation places a cap on the
watershed's economic growth--impacting jobs, development, and food
production. This bill will impose severe economic hardship to our
industry and further increase pressure to the Chesapeake Bay's most
effective and efficient land use, production agriculture, to move out
of the watershed.
Through codifying executive and regulatory authorities, H.R. 3852
will hamper innovative solutions in areas such as nutrient trading,
economic growth, farm adaptive management and overall water quality
restoration. Without adequate time and science to effectively work
through processes such as the drafting of the Chesapeake Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), H.R. 3852 will impose burdensome regulations
and penalties before defining procedures and practices that are proven
to efficiently achieve desired water quality goals. This accelerated
course of action is expensive and damaging to the watershed's economy,
viability of our agriculture sector, and overall water quality
objectives.
The agriculture sector in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has a strong
history of being a responsible and proactive environmental steward,
both through compliance with existing regulations and through
implementation of voluntary conservation practices. However, a
significant amount of conservation practices implemented by
agricultural producers have not been given accurate credit in decision
making models. H.R. 3852 will create a system of burdensome regulations
without understanding the full impact of water quality improvements
from implementing additional requirements on agriculture.
Reauthorization of the Bay Program should enhance the current
Chesapeake Bay Model to ensure it is based on comprehensive and
accurate data.
We ask the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and
Research to support reauthorization of the existing Chesapeake Bay
Program without dramatically expanding Federal authorities. We believe
adequate time should be given to develop creative ways for economic
recovery and growth to partner with water quality goals, as well as to
refine the science and modeling in the watershed. We are committed to
developing strategies to protect all resources within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, including family farmers and other agribusinesses. Our
organizations look forward to continuing discussions with you regarding
this critical issue and thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Agri-Mark, Inc.;
American Farm Bureau Federation;
Association of Virginia Potato & Vegetable Growers;
Central Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association;
Cooperative Milk Producers Association;
Dairy Farmers of America, Northeast Council;
Dairylea Cooperative Inc.;
Delaware Maryland Agribusiness Association;
Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.;
Environmental Resources Coalition;
Maryland Association of Soil Conservation Districts;
Maryland Cattlemen's Association;
Maryland Farm Bureau;
Maryland Grain Producers Association;
Maryland Pork Producers Association;
Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc.;
Missouri Corn Growers Association;
National Association of Wheat Growers;
National Cattlemen's Beef Association;
National Chicken Council;
National Corn Growers Association;
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;
National Milk Producers Federation;
National Pork Producers Council;
National Turkey Federation;
New York Corn Growers Association;
Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association;
PennAg Industries Association;
Pennsylvania Cattlemen's Association;
Pennsylvania Center for Beef Excellence;
Pennsylvania Farm Bureau;
Pennsylvania Pork Producers Association;
Pennsylvania State Grange;
South East Dairy Farmers Association;
Southwest Virginia Agricultural Association;
St. Albans Cooperative Creamery;
The Fertilizer Institute;
United Egg Producers;
United States Poultry and Egg Association;
Upstate-Niagara Cooperative;
Virginia Agribusiness Council;
Virginia Cattlemen's Association;
Virginia Christmas Tree Growers Association;
Virginia Cotton Growers Association;
Virginia Crop Production Association;
Virginia Farm Bureau Federation;
Virginia Forage & Grasslands Council;
Virginia Forest Products Association;
Virginia Golf Course Superintendents Association;
Virginia Grain Producers Association;
Virginia Green Industry Council;
Virginia Horse Council;
Virginia Nursery & Landscape Association;
Virginia Peanut Growers Association;
Virginia Pork Industry Association;
Virginia Poultry Federation;
Virginia Sheep Producers Association;
Virginia Soybean Association;
Virginia State Dairymen's Association;
Virginia State Horticultural Society;
Virginia Turfgrass Council;
Virginia Wineries Association;
West Virginia Poultry Association.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Bob Goodlatte; on Behalf of Donna Pugh
Johnson, President, Virginia Agribusiness Council
December 9, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte,
On behalf of the members of the Virginia Agribusiness Council, we
respectfully submit the following comments in regards to H.R. 3852 and
the efforts to expand and reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program. We
ask that these comments be entered into the Congressional record as
part of the December 9, 2009 hearing to review legislative and
regulatory strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed before the House
Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy,
and Research. The Virginia Agribusiness Council represents farmers,
foresters, processors, manufacturers, and suppliers of agricultural and
forestal products, as well as approximately 40 commodity associations.
Over the past month, our members have reviewed the provisions of
H.R. 3852 and remain extremely concerned about the implications of the
legislation. While our industry is committed to taking steps to improve
water quality across the Commonwealth including the Chesapeake Bay, we
are concerned that this legislation does not soundly or efficiently
achieve goals for improving water quality. Agribusinesses across the
Bay Watershed have implemented best management practices, complied with
permit requirements, and made innovative and environmentally friendly
changes in their production systems over the past 2 decades. According
to the Chesapeake Bay Program, as of 2008 approximately 50% of the
goals for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions from
agriculture have been achieved. This progress will continue in the
future with innovations in agricultural production, increased
participation in best-management programs, and farmer education.
The provisions of this legislation are most troubling to us and
threaten Virginia's number one industry of agriculture and forestry--a
$79 billion economic engine. In effect, the legislation places a cap on
the watershed's economic growth, impacting jobs, development, and food
production. This bill will impose severe economic hardship to our
industry and further increase pressure for the Chesapeake Bay's most
effective and efficient land use, production agriculture, to move out
of the watershed. Inclusion into law of the specific caps for Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Bay is premature, as is the
accelerated timetable for TMDL development set forth in the
legislation. Court-ordered TMDL development must be in place by May
2011, however this legislation sets a deadline of December 2010. On
November 4, 2009, EPA communicated to each Bay state and Washington,
D.C. expectations in setting TMDL implementation plans. This process
has just barely gotten underway. Codification of deadlines, severe
limits, and expanded EPA authority at this point is premature and
troubling. Agribusinesses in Virginia will be participating in the
development of the TMDL. However, we are unsure of the specific
requirements for implementation and, most importantly, the true
implications to agriculture and forestry at this time.
By setting a hard cap on the amount of nutrients and sediments in
the Bay through codifying the TMDL we believe any economic activity
will also be effectively capped under this legislation. Young farmers
or those who would like to expand their existing businesses will be
forced to do so at significant costs for purchasing offsets, if they
are able to do so at all. We are unsure as to the fate of already
permitted ``point source'' discharges from agriculture. Will animal and
livestock operations be required to comply with costly permit
requirements or retire out of business? Will they be authorized to
expand their business capacity beyond their current animal numbers
without purchasing the right to do so from another agricultural
producer? Most importantly, what will be the fate of a viable,
sustainable, and growing farm economy in the Bay region under these cap
limits?
Our members are supportive of offset or trading programs as market-
based solutions to environmental issues. However, in light of the
heavily regulated environment that agriculture could be operating
under, the ability to generate offsets from our industry is
questionable at best. In Virginia, compliance with the TMDL may mean as
much as 92% implementation of practices, leaving a mere 8% for offset
generation to go beyond TMDL requirements. Under these circumstances,
retirement or loss of agricultural land will be the only available
offset for use by any expanded or new economic development. The loss of
this land in profitable agricultural production leads to loss of food
production in the Bay Watershed. If instead, few offsets are available
for purchase, it leads to loss of economic growth within the watershed.
In either scenario, the outcome is concerning at best.
Technical assistance and cost-share funds to help agriculture
implement the best management practices that will be required for
Chesapeake Bay clean-up remain a priority for our membership. We
appreciate the provisions in the legislation that set aside Federal
funds for these purposes, and continue to support efforts at the state
and Federal levels to increase cost-share and technical assistance for
best management practices. However, there is no assurance that cost-
share funding through the farm bill, new funds authorized in this
legislation for technical assistance, or state cost-share funding will
continue to exist. As more regulatory measures are placed upon
agriculture over the next 10 to 15 years, we cannot guarantee to
producers that cost-share funding will be appropriated to offset the
costs of compliance.
The legislation establishes an elevated level of Clean Water Act
regulation on agriculture in the Bay Watershed greater than is in place
in any other area in the nation. This unprecedented expansion of EPA
authority to take any action deemed necessary to meet Bay goals will
result in severe economic hardship for Bay-region producers, who must
compete not only with their counterparts across the country but also
worldwide. Expanding EPA's authority over any pollution that affects
water quality effectively eliminates existing Clean Water Act
provisions, such as agricultural stormwater exemptions placed into
Federal law due to the specific nature of agricultural production.
Current data utilized to make decisions on Chesapeake Bay loading
limits, regulations, and permits must be based on accurate, scientific
data. The basis for many of these decisions rests with the Chesapeake
Bay Model, however, this model does not currently contain accurate data
as to all best management practices implemented by farmers. For
example, the Model does not account for agricultural best management
practices voluntarily (without cost-share assistance) implemented by
farmers or for those who continue to utilize a practice after the
``life-span'' of the cost-share agreement has ended. While the
legislation speaks to an accounting system for practices that have been
implemented, this must be the first action to be undertaken.
Our members are committed to water quality, not only in the Bay,
but in their local streams and rivers. In light of our commitment to
these goals, we ask you to support reauthorization of the existing
Chesapeake Bay Program without dramatically expanding Federal
authorities. Adequate time should be given to develop creative ways to
economically achieve water quality goals, expand economic development,
and refine the science and modeling in the Bay Watershed. Thank you for
this opportunity to comment and we look forward to continuing
discussions with you regarding this critical issue.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Donna Pugh Johnson,
President.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Bob Goodlatte; on Behalf of Stewart Schwartz,
Coalition for Smarter Growth, et al.
December 8, 2009
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
RE: The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act (S. 1816/
H.R. 3852)
Dear Representative Goodlatte:
Many family farms throughout the Commonwealth have made significant
progress on their land to address their impact on local streams and
rivers. Farmers have spent a great deal of time and money, sometimes
with Federal or state assistance, to be good stewards. A wide variety
of conservation practices have been implemented and tailored to
particular needs and problems--farm by farm, and there is still much
work to be done.
The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act,
legislation recently introduced by Senator Ben Cardin and Congressman
Elijah Cummings of Maryland, establishes for the first time a firm
deadline for implementing Bay restoration activities. Notably there are
significant benefits to Virginia farmers.
Importantly, the legislation provides the funding and the guidance
to reach the 2025 goal. The bill significantly expands the amount of
Federal support available for restoration activities throughout the
region, specifically targeting grants and technical assistance for both
farmers and local governments.
In addition to efforts by farmers, local governments and homeowners
have made commendable progress toward cleaning up. Many local
governments have installed state-of-the-art technology at their sewage
treatment facilities, and these costs are borne by citizens. And many
homeowners throughout the Commonwealth have implemented low impact
development practices on their properties to reduce stormwater
pollution that devastates local streams. The bill makes a strong effort
to enable, encourage, and enforce expanded efforts to improve water
quality from all sectors including Federal facilities, new development
and existing pollution sources.
All of these efforts on behalf of clean water in the Chesapeake
region should be applauded and rewarded. Passage of the bill goes a
step further by making good sound practices commonplace on the land and
in our communities.
Through the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act,
we have a real opportunity to clean up degraded waters and protect
healthy waters throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia and ultimately
save the Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
Stewart Schwartz, Coalition for Smarter Growth;
J.R. Tolbert, Environment Virginia;
Don Sims, Float Fisherman of Virginia;
Jane Pratt, Friends of the Blue Ridge;
Bill Tanger, Friends of the Rivers of Virginia;
Karen Forget, Lynnhaven River NOW;
Sheila Sheppard, Partnership for Smarter Growth;
Chris Miller, Piedmont Environmental Council;
Chris Lyons, Restore America's Estuaries;
Kate Wofford, Shenandoah Valley Network;
Nathan Lott, Virginia Conservation Network;
Lisa Guthrie, Virginia League of Conservation Voters;
David Hannah, Wild Virginia.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Glenn Thompson; on Behalf of Carl Shaffer,
President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
SENT VIA E-MAIL
October 12, 2009
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative Thompson:
The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau (PFB), the Commonwealth's largest farm
organization with more than 46,000 farm and rural member families, has
major concerns with proposed legislation regarding the Chesapeake Bay.
As the nations' first environmentalists, farmers have committed to do
our part in the improvement of the nation's largest estuary. However,
agricultural producers--who make our living off the land--have much at
stake in the intricate details of the national strategy and plan
regarding the Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Cardin, of Maryland, has developed a legislative proposal
that will reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program and
significantly expand Federal authority with nationwide impacts. It
appears that Representative Cummings, of Maryland, will introduce a
similar House version. Both bills, in their current form, codify the
provisions of President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, sets an
enforceable deadline for Bay restoration, sets deadlines for Bay Total
Maximum Daily Load development and implementation and establishes
citizen right of action. We are asking you to reauthorize the
Chesapeake Bay Program without codifying the Presidential Executive
Order, setting deadlines for TMDL development and implementation, and
establishment of citizen right of action.
We believe that reauthorization of section 117 of the Clean Water
Act is important to the continued progress toward the restoration of
the Chesapeake Bay; however, we oppose expansion of Federal authority
by codification of: President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order,
deadlines for Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load development and
implementation, and authorization of citizen suits.
As you know, on May 12, 2009, President Barrack Obama signed an
Executive Order that recognizes the Chesapeake Bay as a national
treasure and calls for the Federal Government to lead renewed effort to
restore and protect the Bay and its watershed. The Order calls for a
multi agency report to be prepared with a draft deadline of September
2009, a draft for public comment released in November 2009, and a final
report with recommendations and strategies completed by May 12, 2010.
The report, in its current form, places a significant share of the
responsibility for Bay pollution on agriculture; over 50%. It calls for
increased and expanded regulation of agriculture, increased
prioritization and targeting of conservation incentives, and improved
credit for voluntary measure implemented by farmers. The Executive
Order should not be codified because it will not become final until
2010; and it is a precedent setting document with questionable
authority. We also believe it blurs the line of separation of power
between the Legislative and Executive Branch.
Proposed bill language also codifies deadlines for development and
implementation of a Total Maximum Daily Load for the Bay itself and its
tributaries. It establishes the maximum load or ``cap'' of nutrients
and sediments that can be discharged to the Bay from any source and
sets enforceable or otherwise binding load allocations for all nonpoint
sources, including atmospheric deposition and other sources for which a
permit is not required. No growth will be allowed ``from construction
of new development, increased impervious surfaces, transportation
systems and septic systems'' that causes loadings beyond the cap. This
will significantly limit new or beginning agricultural operations and
place similar limits on expansion. It also effectively expands the Bay
regulatory programs throughout the watershed without the Pennsylvania
General Assembly action. In Pennsylvania, this watershed includes 50%
of the land mass. While the TMDL development is court ordered, it
should not be codified because it is under development with unknown
outcomes and bypasses the authority of the Pennsylvania General
Assembly. To date, a TMDL of this magnitude has never attempted. Local
governments throughout the watershed will be saddled with implanting
these plans with diminishing budgets.
The proposed bill also codifies the ``Chesapeake Bay Milestones''
or 2 year goal or initiatives to achieve Bay restoration in 2 year
increments. Virginia's Governor Kaine, with the other Governors from
Chesapeake Bay states, has committed to impose these milestones. The
immediate list of measures include continued and expanded cost share
funding, phytase additives in feed, mandatory nutrient management
plans, mandatory fencing of streams, and a number of other measures.
The Milestones, as established through the Executive Order and
Memorandum of Agreement between the Bay states and EPA, should not be
codified because they are state specific and unknown beyond the current
2 year cycle.
Establishment of ``citizen right of action'' is also included in
the proposed legislation. Whether intended to keep EPA engaged in the
restoration of the Bay or to hold up permits, both general and
individual permits, this is a tool that will bring economic growth to a
halt. This will allow a legal tool to be used by any group against
farmers and other permitted projects from getting renewed or
established. Each farmer will have to fight the regulatory system as
well as the legal system if they are required to get a permit for their
operations. Citizen right of action or citizen suits cannot be codified
because they will generate unnecessary legal actions that are simply
intended to stop a project or prolong the issuance of permits.
We believe that reauthorization of the program is in the long term
best interest of the Chesapeake Bay but codification of these
initiatives or concepts will have disastrous effects on agriculture and
our economy. If you have any questions regarding PFB's position, please
contact Sam Kieffer, National Governmental Relations Director, at
[Redacted].
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Carl Shaffer,
President.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
Congress from Virginia; on Behalf of Malcolm F. Baldwin, Co-Owner,
Weather Lea Farm
December 7, 2009
Hon. Collin C. Peterson,
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Frank D. Lucas,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Dear Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Lucas, Chairman Holden, and
Ranking Member Goodlatte,
I am writing in support of H.R. 3852, the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Act. My wife and I own and manage a small farm just a half
mile above the Potomac River in Lovettsville, Virginia, where we raise
wool sheep and have a vineyard for wine grapes we sell to a nearby
winery. We have been heavily investing in our land, now in a
conservation easement, as an agricultural operation, and we have no
interest in a future greenfield development site. Contribution to the
protection of the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay resource is one
of the benefits we believe that suburban and rural and owners have an
obligation to provide, because restoration of the Bay and its watershed
will enhance the economic and heritage value of this entire region.
This bipartisan legislation has been well-crafted to reduce
pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay with fair-minded provisions that
recognize the extent to which farmers can reduce nutrient pollutants.
We all know that the Chesapeake Bay is in very poor health, which has
become steadily worse over the decades since I first came to Northern
Virginia. The crabs, fishing and oysters that I and others once
enjoyed, and that allowed employment by thousands, have now become
memories. Unless we act resolutely and quickly, our children and
grandchildren will only know to regret the economic and cultural values
that we squandered and lost.
Taking the steps that this bill provides will have immense
importance not simply for the Bay but for all the streams and rivers
entering the Bay in its vast watershed. Suburban development have
caused significant runoff and pollution problems that, to a significant
degree, threaten to counteract progress that this bill recognizes
farmers have made to protect the Chesapeake Watershed.
Successful protection of the Chesapeake Bay requires firm and
consistent regulatory measures throughout the watershed that are based
on clearly established quantitative limits. Farmers need certainty
around which to plan their operations and suburban developers need
certainty to establish their new enterprises. The outstanding feature
of the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act is that it would, at
long last, reduce pollution in the watershed by creating a Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for watersheds within the Bay. Moreover, it
will empower states to reduce pollution within those watersheds and
require new greenfield development to prevent increased pollution
loading. As I farmer I applaud this greenfield provision as an
essential requirement to reduce pollution entering the Bay and to make
certain that developers, who have the capacity to plan and invest ahead
based on clear targets, contribute fairly to the Bay's restoration.
The development here in Loudoun County that has caused our
population to multiply 14 fold since 1960 has irrevocably destroyed
thousands of acres of our best agricultural soils, including those
exceptionally fertile lands lying in my area that is known as Loudoun
Valley. Denuded forests and paved roads with no stream buffers now
cause storm water runoff and floods unknown in our history, with Goose
Creek being among the most notorious example. Ground water pollution
and irrevocably altered hydrologic structures have harmed suburban and
rural dwellers alike. All this suburban and commercial development
directly and immeasurably contributes to rapid degradation of the
Chesapeake, but its adverse impacts could have been, and can still be,
economically avoided so as not cause such havoc. Protection of viable
agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic requires that this notorious
development problem be addressed effectively and reasonably.
I believe that the standards set by the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem
Restoration Act will provide the necessary balance between constraints
on pollution from new development and reduction of pollution from
agriculture. Farmers regularly face difficult and often unpredictable
economic pressures that this bill and its enforcement framework
recognize. We also understand that we have our obligations to pursue
long-term measures that will help return the Bay and its watershed to
good health.
I appreciate your work in behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and the
agricultural community.
Sincerely,
Malcolm F. Baldwin.
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in
Congress from Virginia; on Behalf of David Blake, Buckland Farm
Dear Chairman Peterson and Committee Members,
I am a Virginia farmer from a family who has been farming in this
country for fifteen generations. We also had farms in the state of
Maryland during my youth, so I have spent much of my life hunting,
sailing and acquainting myself intimately with the Chesapeake Bay much
of my forty odd years.
This bay was important to me even when in college during the 1980's
and I testified as a farmer before the Maryland Legislature concerning
the Chesapeake Bay Act. Several of us in my college communicated
directly with consultants at Rutger's University who had conducted much
study and had recommendations included within this first legislation
designed to improve/protect conditions in the Bay. Rutgers told us then
that there would be much more required to improve the health of the Bay
and that the Chesapeake Bay Act which ultimately passed would not bring
success.
Those words have surely come true as I have watched many vast areas
I knew well transformed by suburban development and tributaries we
hunted/fished have died as poultry/agri-businesses changed farming
practices. These changes brought with them devastation to the small
farmer, the once thriving seafood industry, water-men and the small
towns we all supported have nearly disappeared.
Although there have been some successes with the Chesapeake Bay
Act, including improved technology for the treatment of sewerage, much
conservation and protection of natural resources, it is damned clear
that we must do more now. I find it offensive to read that organized
farm groups have written H.R. 3852 ``has the potential to put some
farmers out of business.'' Surely you must recognize which farmers
people who are writing such are representing and I can only imagine
what the big developers will be writing to you as this bill moves
forward.
The fact is that twenty five years of laxed enforcement of
pollution standards associated with the practices of a few have nearly
destroyed one of the largest estuaries in the world however, citizens
are now better informed about these matters. There are documentary
films like ``Food Incorporated'' which show how agri-business is
operating today (please see this is you haven't) and it is encouraging
that people are finally beginning to understand the consequences of
non-impervious surfaces associated with urban sprawl the people at
Rutgers warned us about 25 years ago.
H.R. 3852 is the first effort I've seen that takes a balanced
approach to what has now become a shameful circumstance for this nation
and we all have some responsibility in this. Please do not let people
misinform you about the position of farmers on these issues. Every
farmer I know is very much in support of this bill and would ask that
you all please do the same. We must not let another generation, as has
my own, watch the environmental health of this remarkable asset
continue to decline. I hope and pray that future generations will say
that it was you who finally stood up to do what is right.
Truly,
David Blake,
Buckland Farm,
Warrenton, Virginia.
______
Submitted Letter by W. Michael Phipps, President, Maryland Farm Bureau,
Inc.
December 9, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Re: Regulatory & Legislative Strategies in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Dear Chairman Holden and Ranking Member Goodlatte:
On behalf of 33,000 Farm Bureau families across the State of
Maryland, I would like to thank you for considering the accomplishments
and the concerns of the farm community during discussions of the
Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. Please add our written comments to
the official record for today's hearing. As you may know, Maryland
farmers have been longstanding partners in the effort to protect the
Bay. In fact, our farmers lead the nation in the use of conservation
best management practices and have committed more personal funds to
this effort than any sector in the watershed.
Over the last several weeks we have had the opportunity to review
H.R. 3852, The Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act. It
is with sincere concern that I inform you that the bill as drafted
threatens the very existence of family farms in Maryland.
H.R. 3852 sets an unlevel playing field for farms in the Chesapeake
Bay region by establishing a higher level of EPA Clean Water Act
regulation than is required of farmers in the rest of the country.
Maryland farmers are competing against producers in other states and
around the world, with minimal opportunity to add additional costs into
the price we are paid for our products. The bill gives EPA
unprecedented authority to take any and all action the agency deems
necessary to reach Bay restoration goals. This includes requiring all
livestock operations, regardless of size, and possibly any producer
that fertilizes a field to operate under a Clean Water Act permit. This
will be cost prohibitive for small and medium size farm operations,
particularly since the bill authorizes citizen suits against all
permittees.
The bill also puts into law specific caps for the Total Maximum
Daily Load for the Chesapeake Bay and gives EPA ultimate authority to
implement the program. EPA may promulgate any regulation and issue any
permit necessary, notwithstanding any other provision of the Clean
Water Act--effectively repealing the stormwater exemption for farms in
the watershed. Unfortunately, Maryland farmers still have very little
information on the TMDL, what it means at the farm level and how they
are expected to measure the nonpoint sources attributed to their farms.
If the Tributary Strategy program is any indication, Maryland farms
could be required to install every conservation practice available on
every acre of farmland, regardless of the economic or agronomic value.
We believe the bill is premature in this area and should not mandate a
program and establish onerous penalties before we have a chance to
consider the actual farm implications.
We applaud the general goal of the bill to engage all nutrient
contributors in all six watershed states--particularly those in the
urban and suburban areas that are sliding backwards in the effort to
reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution. However, we oppose
penalty provisions that allow EPA to force only permitted businesses to
make further reductions in the event that the rest of society misses
the mark every 2 years.
As we read it, EPA would have authority to order all permitted
entities to reduce discharges--meaning livestock and poultry operations
could be told to reduce herd sizes. Through the permit, EPA could
dictate farming practices such as fertilization, harvest and cover crop
planting dates. The agency would also have the authority to deny
permits--meaning new or young farmers may be denied the opportunity to
farm in Maryland.
We appreciate the provisions in the bill to set aside Federal funds
for technical support in NRCS and Soil Conservation District offices to
help farmers develop conservation plans and install BMPs. We also
support the $500 million in BMP funding in the bill. We continue to
believe that the best way to protect the Chesapeake Bay from a farm
perspective is to encourage farmers to use the BMPs that fit their
specific operations and economic circumstances. Technical assistance by
planners in local offices and cost share funding for farmers are
critical to implementing BMPs.
Unfortunately, there can be no assurance that new funding
authorized in the bill will be appropriated annually, even though the
expensive mandates will continue to exist. It appears that a good
portion of the new funding authorized is targeted to local governments.
While we agree that stormwater management and waste water treatment
upgrades are necessary and will require Federal assistance, we are
concerned that if Congress fails to make the annual appropriation,
farmers will bear the brunt of nutrient reduction when local
governments cannot afford the investment.
Finally, the bill mandates an offset program that proponents
believe will facilitate the purchase of BMPs on farms in exchange for
development activities in other areas of the state. Under the bill, any
development or redevelopment activity in the watershed must restore the
land to the pre-development hydrology. This applies to the building of
schools, hospitals and roads as well as homes and businesses. If the
restoration cannot be accomplished on site, an offset must be purchased
and a nutrient reducing BMP must be installed elsewhere in the state.
Proponents believe that the offsets will be supplied by farmers.
The problem with this concept is that there will be no offsets
available on Maryland farms. The bill mandates that offsets may only be
sold after a farm reaches its individual nutrient reduction obligation.
Under the TMDL program mandated in the bill, the expectation is that
every farm will have to install every BMP available on every acre just
to reach the goal. Experts in this area agree that there will be no
offsets left to sell on farms. Unfortunately, most farms will not be
able to install the plethora of costly BMPs needed to meet the TMDL
without financial assistance. We believe the offset provision will
leave local governments and developers with no other option than to
purchase whole farms and take them out of production in order to
achieve the offset. The alternative is all economic development in the
watershed must end.
We know that efforts to improve the condition of the Chesapeake Bay
must be a priority as the watershed states move towards the 2025 goals.
This will be a substantial challenge in light of exploding population
expectations in the region. We know that all citizens in Maryland
treasure the Chesapeake Bay. We also know that Marylanders want family
farms to remain economically viable in order to provide fresh, locally
produced farm products. Unfortunately, H.R. 3852 takes the decision
making authority on critical lifestyle issues away from state and local
governments and the citizens they represent and gives the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency ultimate control over our communities.
For the sake of our family farmers and the hope for a future
generation of producers in Maryland, we request that you not pass H.R.
3852 in its current form.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W. Michael Phipps,
President.
______
Submitted Statement by Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc.
December 8, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Frank Kratovil, Jr.,
Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
H.R. 3852, Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of
2009, December 8, 2009
Gentlemen:
We are writing to you regarding H.R. 3852 and ask that these
comments be entered into the Congressional Record as part of the
December 9, 2009 hearing before the House Agriculture Committee's
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research.
Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc, (DPI) is the 61 year old, 2,000
member nonprofit trade association working for the broiler chicken
industry on the Delmarva Peninsula that includes the State of Delaware,
the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia, This
region produces about seven percent of the meat-chickens grown in the
United States, The chicken industry is one of the largest employers in
the region, with more than 14,000 direct poultry company jobs, nearly
1,800 farm families growing chickens for the four chicken companies,
thousands of local farmers supplying corn and soybeans to feed the
chickens, and tens of thousands of other people who are employed
because chicken industry dollars are flowing through the economy.
In the last 10 years, most of our organization's work has been
related to on-the-farm environmental issues. Thanks to state nutrient
management laws enacted in 1998 and 1999, our farm families growing
chickens have led the nation in environmental stewardship and have had
tougher regulations than other chicken growers and other farmers in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed and throughout the republic. Environmental
protection has become an expected part of growing chickens on Delmarva.
Thanks in part to Federal Government financial support, our members
have made tremendous strides in minimizing their contributions to water
quality impairments. We are convinced that if other segments of society
had been as aggressive in environmental protection, we would not face
the Bay Watershed water quality problems that we do. The Federal farm
bill has provided hundreds of millions of dollars to assist farmers
through technical support and financial aid. The work by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service is
invaluable and must continue.
Our position on the Chesapeake Bay reauthorization legislation is
clear. DPI supports the reauthorization of the program, Section 117 of
the Clean Water Act. It should be extended as the Gulf States program
has been extended, without imposing new laws and regulations that
negatively will affect agriculture in the watershed. The broad
expansion of Federal authority for the Chesapeake Bay region sets a
dangerous precedent for similar actions in other watersheds nationwide.
We believe adequate time should be given to develop more creative ways
for agriculture to partner with water quality goals, as well as to
refine the science and modeling in the watershed.
H.R. 3852 sets an unlevel playing field for farms in the Chesapeake
Bay region by establishing a higher level of EPA Clean Water Act
regulation than is required of farmers in the rest of the country.
Watershed farmers are competing against producers in other states and
around the world, with minimal opportunity to add higher operating
costs into the prices they are paid for their products.
The bill gives EPA unprecedented authority to take any and all
action the agency deems necessary to reach Bay restoration goals. This
includes the possibility of requiring all livestock operations,
regardless of size, and possibly any producer that fertilizes a field,
to operate under a Clean Water Act permit. This will be cost
prohibitive for small and medium size farm operations, particularly
since the bill authorizes citizen suits against all permit holders.
President Obama's Executive Order (EO 13508) and the subsequent
Executive Order Section 202 reports focus on a centralized, Federal
oversight approach to Bay restoration activities that emphasize
regulatory mandates rather than cooperative approaches. Before Congress
codifies the Federal oversight and enforcement of the Bay restoration,
the voluntary approach in the agricultural arena should continue and be
accelerated. EPA data show that agriculture is making progress in
achieving Chesapeake Bay water quality goals. Other segments of society
are getting worse. If agriculture's record of achievement was as dismal
as urban and suburban pollution sources, then stricter requirements
might be in order. But we've proven that the voluntary approach is
working and it should be continued with Federal Government assistance.
Many of the concepts and regulations included in this bill are
codification of proposals in EO 13508. This Executive Order is not yet
promulgated into regulation, but now without the opportunity to see if
the regulation has value or testing its impact, it would be set in
stone as law. Such action is premature.
As for specific areas of concern, first, H.R. 3852 will create an
uneven playing field for the chicken industry on the Delmarva Peninsula
and throughout the watershed by establishing a higher level of EPA
Clean Water Act regulation than is required for farmers throughout the
rest of the country. Today, Delmarva is one of the least cost effective
locations for the agricultural community and, in particular, for the
poultry industry. This reauthorization would put our operations and our
growers at a significant competitive disadvantage and would threaten
the very existence of the local chicken industry.
Second, the bill puts into law specific caps for the Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) for the Chesapeake Bay, sets deadlines to achieve
these TMDLs and gives EPA ultimate authority to implement the program.
Unfortunately, the agricultural community still has very little
information on the TMDL, what it means at the farm level and how
farmers are expected to measure the nonpoint sources attributed to
their farms. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is still
gathering information to determine what agricultural BMPs are included
in the Bay Model, the basis for the TMDL program. We know that many
voluntary, non-cost shared practices are not included in the Bay Model,
and therefore, the baseline on which the initial TMDLs have been
developed is not an accurate representation of agriculture's positive
environmental impact on the Bay. This baseline effort needs to be
completed, and the outcomes better understood, before the TMDL program
is mandated through codification by this legislation.
Through codifying executive and regulatory authorities, H.R. 3852
will hamper innovative solutions in areas such as nutrient trading,
farm adaptive management, and overall water quality restoration.
Without adequate time and science to effectively work through processes
such as the drafting of the TMDL, the bill will impose burdensome
regulations and penalties before procedures and practices that are
proven to efficiently achieve desired water quality goals are
identified. This accelerated course of action is expensive and damaging
to the watershed's economy, viability of our agriculture sector, and
overall water quality objectives.
The bill also puts into law specific caps for the Total Maximum
Daily Load for the Chesapeake Bay and gives EPA ultimate authority to
implement the program. EPA may promulgate any regulation and issue any
permit necessary, notwithstanding any other provision of the Clean
Water Act--effectively repealing the stormwater exemption for farms in
the watershed. If the Tributary Strategy program is any indication,
Maryland farms could be required to install every conservation practice
available on every acre of farmland, regardless of the economic or
agronomic value. We believe the bill is premature in this area and
should not mandate a program and establish onerous penalties before our
members have a chance to consider the actual farm implications.
By codifying specific pollutant caps in law, the bill may be
freezing both science and policy. Codifying the pollutant caps could
preclude EPA and the states from using their evolving understanding of
the Bay and improved modeling to achieve water quality goals. Under
current law, water quality standards can be made less stringent if
meeting those standards ``would result in substantial and widespread
economic and social impact.'' 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). It appears that, by
codifying specific load allocations, H.R. 3852 would eliminate the
ability of states to later make changes to the loads based on changed
water quality standards that may be needed to account for substantial
and widespread economic and social impacts. Codifying the load
allocations is contrary to the principles of adaptive management, a
tool that allows flexibility in reaching desired goals.
Third, citizen rights of action or citizen suits must not be
codified as they will generate unnecessary legal actions that are
intended to stop a project or prolong the issuance of permits. This
will provide a legal tool to be used by any group against farmers and
other permitted projects from getting established, and will become a
huge financial burden to farm families targeted by special interest
groups.
Fourth, while we appreciate the provisions in the bill to set aside
Federal funds for technical support in NRCS and Soil Conservation
District offices to help farmers develop conservation plans and install
BMPs, this authorization of legislation does not ensure that such
funding will be made available through an appropriation. Thus farmers
are left with ``the stick'' of enforcement and merely the promise of a
``carrot'' without a guarantee of the funds. We are concerned that if
Congress fails to make the annual appropriation, farmers will bear the
brunt of nutrient reduction when local governments cannot afford the
investment.
Fifth, the bill requires state implementation plans to include
enforceable or otherwise binding measures to reduce pollution loads to
meet the desired targets. Although programs to achieve voluntary
reductions through funding commitments may be included in the
implementation plan, H.R. 3852 makes it clear that states must have
enforcement mechanisms to employ if an entity does not achieve its
assigned pollutant reductions. The bill provides Federal authority for
binding measures and enforcement mechanisms in new section 117(i)(2)
that authorizes states to issue permits under Section 402 of the Clean
Water Act to any pollution source the state determines to be necessary
to achieve the nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions in the
implementation plan. These permits are authorized for any source of
pollution, whether or not that source currently is excluded from
regulation under current law. The permits are then fully enforceable by
EPA and by citizen lawsuits.
This provision greatly expands the scope of Federal water pollution
control law. Under current law, the Clean Water Act controls point
sources of pollutants. ``Point sources'' are defined in Section 502 of
the CWA as any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, such as
pipes, ditches, channels, etc. Diffuse runoff of water is not a point
source. The CWA specifically excludes agricultural stormwater
discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture from the
definition of point sources, so they are not regulated under Federal
law. Agricultural stormwater runoff could be subject to permits and all
the liabilities and lawsuits associated with permits under H.R. 3852.
Pollutants are defined in Section 502 of the CWA as specific,
measurable materials that are discharged into water, such as solid
waste, sewage, chemicals, biological materials, radioactive materials,
heat, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. In contrast,
``pollution'' is defined as the man-made or man-induced alteration of
the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of
water. Pollution includes increased water flows and habitat
alternation. Under H.R. 3852, any activity that causes increased flow
or habitat alteration, no matter how distant from a body of water,
could be required to obtain a permit.
Finally, the bill mandates an offset program that proponents
believe will facilitate the purchase of BMPs on farms in exchange for
development activities in other areas of the watershed. Under the bill,
any development or redevelopment activity in the watershed must restore
the land to the pre-development hydrology. If the restoration cannot be
accomplished on site, an offset must be purchased and a nutrient
reducing BMP must be installed elsewhere. Proponents believe that the
offsets will be supplied by farmers.
The problem with this concept is that there will be no offsets
available on many watershed farms. The bill mandates that offsets may
only be sold after a farm reaches its individual nutrient reduction
obligation. Under the TMDL program mandated in the bill, the
expectation is that every farm will have to install every BMP available
on every acre just to reach the goal. Experts in this area agree that
there will be no offsets left to sell on farms. Unfortunately, most
farms will not be able to install the plethora of costly BMPs needed to
meet the TMDL without financial assistance. We believe the offset
provision will leave local governments and developers with no other
option than to purchase whole farms and take them out of production to
achieve the offset. Farm sales may be good for the farmers selling the
land, but further development of farmland is contrary to the goal of
water quality improvement. According to Chesapeake Bay Program data
cited by a Chesapeake Bay Foundation report (A Guide to Preserving
Agricultural Lands in the Chesapeake Bay Region: Keeping Stewards on
the Land), ``urban/suburban development delivers the greatest amount of
nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to local waterways and the Bay per
acre: 30 lb/acre/year of nitrogen, compared with 17 lb/acre/year for
agriculture . . .''
Summary
We know that efforts to improve the condition of the Chesapeake Bay
must be a priority as the watershed states move towards the 2025 goals.
This will be a substantial challenge in light of exploding population
expectations in the region. Population growth in the Bay Watershed has
skyrocketed. In 2000, the total population stood at roughly 15.7
million. Today's population is approximately 16.8 million and it may
reach 20 million by 2030. Unfortunately, H.R. 3852 takes the decision-
making authority on critical lifestyle issues away from state and local
governments and the citizens they represent and gives the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency ultimate control over our communities.
So we have exploding population growth with more and more
impervious surfaces and a shrinking base of less-impacting farmland.
This is not the time to burden farmers with more regulations. It would
be counterproductive toward restoration of the Bay.
Yet this is exactly what appears to be coming out of Washington.
The President's Executive Order and related reports point to
centralized, Federal oversight of Bay restoration activities and
greater emphasis on regulatory mandates than the voluntary, cooperative
approaches of the past. Some say the voluntary approaches have not
worked. However, one would not know by just looking at the Bay Model
because it does not account for significant numbers of farm BMPs. Only
practices implemented with cost-share or by government regulations are
factored in the model, yet we know that farmers have implemented
numerous BMPs outside of any government program. Thus, a big priority
in reauthorization of the Bay Program should be to ensure that the Bay
Model is based on comprehensive data and valid assumptions. Before any
more mandates are created, the best possible data must be used in the
modeling and assignment of Bay restoration responsibilities.
The bill would codify the President's Executive Order with its
command and control approach; establish punitive consequences for
states that fail to meet benchmarks, no matter how economically
crippling; and open private enterprises, including farms, to citizen
suits. We are opposed to this. We must not forego science and economic
analysis in the rush to implement a new Bay restoration program.
EPA would have authority to order all permitted entities to reduce
discharges--meaning poultry farms could be told to reduce flock sizes.
EPA could dictate farming practices such as fertilization, harvest, and
cover crop planting dates. EPA would have the authority to deny
permits--meaning new or young farmers may be denied the opportunity to
farm.
We support reauthorization of Section 117 of the Clean Water Act
and recognize it as a logical step to continue the progress toward
restoring the Chesapeake Bay and improving water quality. However, we
strongly oppose bills that expand Federal authority by codification of
President Obama's Chesapeake Bay Executive Order, deadlines for
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load development and implementation,
and the authorization of citizen suits. Each of these initiatives calls
for increased and expanded regulation of agriculture.
As Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe said during a recent public
hearing, ``A top-down, heavy handed Federal approach will not lead to
the kind of real-world changes that are necessary to ensure the health
of the Bay.'' H.R. 3852 features exactly that top-down, heavy handed
Federal approach.
We support a reauthorization of the current Chesapeake Bay program.
However, we cannot support a massive Federal expansion of EPA's
authority that poses serious consequences for agriculture and local
governments.
______
Submitted Letter by The Nature Conservancy
December 18, 2009
Hon. Tim Holden,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Bob Goodlatte,
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit, Energy, and Research,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Dear Congressmen Holden and Goodlatte:
We are writing to thank you for holding the December 9 hearing to
review the regulatory and legislative strategies in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. While many details of these strategies still need to be
refined, The Nature Conservancy submits that this enhanced focus on the
Chesapeake Bay, coupled with increased investments and new
accountability measures, is essential. We also appreciate that this
enhanced focus and the associated new requirements create both
uncertainty and concern among a number of key stakeholders, most
notably the agricultural sector. As such, The Nature Conservancy is
committed to trying to advance many of these new strategies to restore
the Chesapeake Bay, while at the same time seeking common ground with
those interests that approach this issue from different perspectives.
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, providing us with
outstanding ecological, economic, recreational, and cultural resources.
For too long, however, pollution from a variety of sources has harmed
the Bay and diminished the value of those resources. Despite years of
public and private efforts to clean up the Bay, and despite progress in
reducing nutrient pollution from agriculture and wastewater, the Bay's
pollution problem persists. It is clear that current efforts are not
enough. Many of the new approaches your Subcommittee examined would
take the difficult but necessary steps of requiring the additional
pollution reductions essential for a healthy and sustainable Bay.
The Nature Conservancy believes that enforceable standards
necessitate that the states have sufficient implementation flexibility
to meet those standards, and we support these complementary measures,
including those proposed in the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem
Restoration Act of 2009 (S. 1816 and H.R. 3852). We also support the
creation of a mechanism that allows the trading of nutrient credits and
enables farmers and others to benefit from their successes in reducing
harmful emissions to the Bay.
We strongly support the proposed new authorizations for new
implementation funding in this legislation and commend this Committee
for the additional funding that it created in the most recent farm
bill. The Nature Conservancy partners with the agricultural community
on a number of fronts throughout the Bay Watershed and we recognize
that farmers understand the role they need to play in a healthy Bay.
Clearly, even more funding, along with outreach to ensure that it is
put to the best use, is needed. Accordingly, The Nature Conservancy
calls on Congress and the Obama Administration to provide the needed
technical assistance and financial support to implement the changes and
new practices at the local level at the scale that will be required for
Bay-wide success.
These are just a few elements of the various regulatory and
legislative strategies that ultimately ask all sectors to take the
actions necessary to restore the Chesapeake Bay. We recognize that this
new focus on the Chesapeake Bay is ambitious, but believe an ambitious
and innovative approach is called for it we are to restore the Bay so
that it delivers a wide range of ecological and economic benefits. We
are eager to continue working with you, others in Congress, the
Administration, farmers, developers, and other key stakeholders to
refine these efforts they move forward.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Nat Williams, Bill Ulfelder,
Maryland/DC State Director; New York State Director,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Michael Lipford, Roger Jones,
Virginia State Director; Delaware State Director;
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Bill Kunze, Rodney Bartgis,
Pennsylvania State Director; West Virginia State Director.