Looming restrictions on sediment flow into the Chesapeake Bay - dubbed the "pollution diet" by the federal Environmental Protection Agency - have local farmers worried they'll be regulated out of existence.
"Many farmers could be forced out of business. We need time," Keith Masser, chairman of Sterman Masser Inc. farms near Hegins and a member of the state Department of Environmental Protection's Agricultural Advisory Committee, said last week. "The quality of the Chesapeake Bay has deteriorated over centuries ... to get the limits the feds are requiring will take extensive research, development, time and capital."
The regulations stem from an executive order signed by President Barack Obama last year. That order will empower the EPA to impose heightened controls on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment from farms and other contaminants flowing through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The goal is a 16 percent reduction in sediment pollution in the bay and its waterways in the six-state Bay Watershed.
The watershed also includes the District of Columbia.
U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, D-17, and 20 other members of Congress from watershed states recently sent a letter to Obama urging him to grant a reprieve and give states more time to figure out how they'll comply with the new rules.
The federal government gave each watershed state 45 days to develop a plan to meet the new EPA guidelines. That 45-day period expires in about two weeks, although it is unclear exactly when the new regulations will go into effect.
'Water police'
In the letter, Holden said the EPA regulations - without proper time and funding to make them realistic - mean a "prescription for failure" for local farms.
"Imposing unfunded mandates on states experiencing budget stress and high unemployment is not going to solve the bay problems," the letter reads in part. "This approach is far from innovative, far from efficient and far from changing things for the bay."
The EPA approach establishes a "total maximum daily load," or the total amount of contaminants that can flow into the bay.
The limits are: 187.4 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorous and between 6.1 billion and 6.7 billion pounds of sediment from farms each year.
The EPA claims such reductions are necessary to restore the bay and its tributaries.
Farmers believe the reductions will lead to EPA "water police" writing expensive citations for local farms already struggling to get by.
"The problems we've caused have come over hundreds of years. You can't solve them overnight," said Barron L. "Boots" Hetherington, owner and operator of B&R Farms, Ringtown. "If the EPA doesn't like what's going on, they can step in and start policing. That's what's scary. It almost feels like the EPA is going to be the water police. That puts you out of business. A $30,000 fine - you're done. You'll sell everything and quit."
Hetherington also said he "doesn't know what good enough is" when it comes to what the EPA expects from local farms.
The EPA argues the new guidelines are "necessary to restore the health of the bay's ecosystem," according to a press release last month announcing the so-called "pollution diet."
Watershed states, Masser said, are trying.
"The limits are clear. Pennsylvania submitted a plan and has come within 1 percent of the sedimentation requirements of the plan, but the feds are treating Pennsylvania as if we made no progress and are forcing us to spend over $2 billion to close that 1-percent gap," Masser added. "The feds came up with the limits with no input from us."
The EPA said that plans submitted by Maryland and the District of Columbia "represented a strong start." Plans from the other five watershed states "contained gaps that reduced the EPA's confidence that the state could achieve all the pollutant reductions necessary," the agency said in its press release.
So far, Holden and many others believe there simply has not been enough time to develop a plan of action.
"If we are truly interested in solving problems and not repeating the mistakes of the last three decades, then we must ensure the Chesapeake Bay states and all those affected by the proposal have adequate time to respond," Holden said earlier this month. "We cannot expect to develop a truly integrated and flexible approach that works for all sectors, relies on good science and is economically achievable in such a small window of time."
Measures costly
Hetherington said local farms already take steps to fight pollution on their own, without prodding by federal officials.
The farms have, over a period of decades, begun a variety of projects to curb sedimentation flow.
Earlier this year, for example, Hetherington said he installed two large "stone-centered waterways" - long strips of 3-feet-deep stone along the steep grades of his fields. Those strips trap contaminants during fierce rainstorms, leaving only clean water flowing into Catawissa Creek, which eventually flows into the bay.
The projects were expensive; Hetherington said one stone-centered waterway cost about $15,000, while the other cost even more.
They were funded through a combination of federal dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and money from B&R's bank account.
"It worked," Hetherington said of the project. "We have those heavy storms and there's no dirty water in the creek. This is my answer. But this idea of trying to solve it (pollution in the bay) overnight is not going to work."
Hetherington said he's been able to fund small-scale projects like the waterways because they're relatively inexpensive. He said his farm is about a $200,000-a-year operation.
Fines from the EPA, he said, would put his bottom line in the red.
What's worse, he said the federal government has offered no new cost-sharing programs in order to meet the new pollution standards. The government has also offered no new technology, according to Masser and Hetherington.
"We cannot permit our way to restoration," reads a part of Holden's letter to Obama. "Further, the data being used to develop the TMDL (total maximum daily load) is problematic and may bring into question the credibility of the entire process."
Holden's request for more time represents "a common-sense approach," Hetherington said.
He said many farmers may decide that, in light of new restrictions in the watershed, they should pack up their animals and equipment and head west, outside the scope of the EPA rules governing the Chesapeake Bay area.
However, the EPA has made clear that the new rules will become a model. How the watershed states, federal government and local farms work together is vital for the future of farming across the country.
"Every other watershed is going to follow suit," Hetherington said.
Exactly how far the pollution-fighting effort goes, Hetherington said, is the key question.
"At what cost? Do you just stop all farming?" he asked
http://republicanherald.com/news/at-what-cost-farmers-fear-new-federal-guidelines-on-pollution-1.1053430
"Many farmers could be forced out of business. We need time," Keith Masser, chairman of Sterman Masser Inc. farms near Hegins and a member of the state Department of Environmental Protection's Agricultural Advisory Committee, said last week. "The quality of the Chesapeake Bay has deteriorated over centuries ... to get the limits the feds are requiring will take extensive research, development, time and capital."
The regulations stem from an executive order signed by President Barack Obama last year. That order will empower the EPA to impose heightened controls on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, sediment from farms and other contaminants flowing through the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The goal is a 16 percent reduction in sediment pollution in the bay and its waterways in the six-state Bay Watershed.
The watershed also includes the District of Columbia.
U.S. Rep. Tim Holden, D-17, and 20 other members of Congress from watershed states recently sent a letter to Obama urging him to grant a reprieve and give states more time to figure out how they'll comply with the new rules.
The federal government gave each watershed state 45 days to develop a plan to meet the new EPA guidelines. That 45-day period expires in about two weeks, although it is unclear exactly when the new regulations will go into effect.
'Water police'
In the letter, Holden said the EPA regulations - without proper time and funding to make them realistic - mean a "prescription for failure" for local farms.
"Imposing unfunded mandates on states experiencing budget stress and high unemployment is not going to solve the bay problems," the letter reads in part. "This approach is far from innovative, far from efficient and far from changing things for the bay."
The EPA approach establishes a "total maximum daily load," or the total amount of contaminants that can flow into the bay.
The limits are: 187.4 million pounds of nitrogen, 12.5 million pounds of phosphorous and between 6.1 billion and 6.7 billion pounds of sediment from farms each year.
The EPA claims such reductions are necessary to restore the bay and its tributaries.
Farmers believe the reductions will lead to EPA "water police" writing expensive citations for local farms already struggling to get by.
"The problems we've caused have come over hundreds of years. You can't solve them overnight," said Barron L. "Boots" Hetherington, owner and operator of B&R Farms, Ringtown. "If the EPA doesn't like what's going on, they can step in and start policing. That's what's scary. It almost feels like the EPA is going to be the water police. That puts you out of business. A $30,000 fine - you're done. You'll sell everything and quit."
Hetherington also said he "doesn't know what good enough is" when it comes to what the EPA expects from local farms.
The EPA argues the new guidelines are "necessary to restore the health of the bay's ecosystem," according to a press release last month announcing the so-called "pollution diet."
Watershed states, Masser said, are trying.
"The limits are clear. Pennsylvania submitted a plan and has come within 1 percent of the sedimentation requirements of the plan, but the feds are treating Pennsylvania as if we made no progress and are forcing us to spend over $2 billion to close that 1-percent gap," Masser added. "The feds came up with the limits with no input from us."
The EPA said that plans submitted by Maryland and the District of Columbia "represented a strong start." Plans from the other five watershed states "contained gaps that reduced the EPA's confidence that the state could achieve all the pollutant reductions necessary," the agency said in its press release.
So far, Holden and many others believe there simply has not been enough time to develop a plan of action.
"If we are truly interested in solving problems and not repeating the mistakes of the last three decades, then we must ensure the Chesapeake Bay states and all those affected by the proposal have adequate time to respond," Holden said earlier this month. "We cannot expect to develop a truly integrated and flexible approach that works for all sectors, relies on good science and is economically achievable in such a small window of time."
Measures costly
Hetherington said local farms already take steps to fight pollution on their own, without prodding by federal officials.
The farms have, over a period of decades, begun a variety of projects to curb sedimentation flow.
Earlier this year, for example, Hetherington said he installed two large "stone-centered waterways" - long strips of 3-feet-deep stone along the steep grades of his fields. Those strips trap contaminants during fierce rainstorms, leaving only clean water flowing into Catawissa Creek, which eventually flows into the bay.
The projects were expensive; Hetherington said one stone-centered waterway cost about $15,000, while the other cost even more.
They were funded through a combination of federal dollars through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and money from B&R's bank account.
"It worked," Hetherington said of the project. "We have those heavy storms and there's no dirty water in the creek. This is my answer. But this idea of trying to solve it (pollution in the bay) overnight is not going to work."
Hetherington said he's been able to fund small-scale projects like the waterways because they're relatively inexpensive. He said his farm is about a $200,000-a-year operation.
Fines from the EPA, he said, would put his bottom line in the red.
What's worse, he said the federal government has offered no new cost-sharing programs in order to meet the new pollution standards. The government has also offered no new technology, according to Masser and Hetherington.
"We cannot permit our way to restoration," reads a part of Holden's letter to Obama. "Further, the data being used to develop the TMDL (total maximum daily load) is problematic and may bring into question the credibility of the entire process."
Holden's request for more time represents "a common-sense approach," Hetherington said.
He said many farmers may decide that, in light of new restrictions in the watershed, they should pack up their animals and equipment and head west, outside the scope of the EPA rules governing the Chesapeake Bay area.
However, the EPA has made clear that the new rules will become a model. How the watershed states, federal government and local farms work together is vital for the future of farming across the country.
"Every other watershed is going to follow suit," Hetherington said.
Exactly how far the pollution-fighting effort goes, Hetherington said, is the key question.
"At what cost? Do you just stop all farming?" he asked
http://republicanherald.com/news/at-what-cost-farmers-fear-new-federal-guidelines-on-pollution-1.1053430