Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Gerald Winegrad)
 
The Maryland Department of Agriculture announced the development of weakened proposed regulations that are well short of the positions advocated by the Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay to address the pollution from millions of tons of chicken and other farm animal manure that is poisoning ground and surface waters.  Some key elements of the proposals don’t even go into effect until 2016, allowing four more years to do just some of what has been required for land application of treated human sludge since 1985!

The reports from the University of Maryland scientists appointed by the Administration were kept from us and the public until just before the announcement of the proposals for regulations. These scientists recommended much more than was incorporated into the regulations and noted that the EPA’s Bay Program found that farm animal manure is responsible for 24 percent of the phosphorus (this is more than all the municipal WWTPs and industrial dischargers) and 15 percent of the nitrogen flowing to and choking the Bay. This does not include the atmospheric contribution of nitrogen from the volatilization of manure and fertilizer, and subsequent atmospheric deposition of the nitrates estimated at 7% of total bay nitrogen. Septic tanks Baywide are somewhere around 3 percent of the nitrogen, near zero of the phosphorus and for Maryland it’s 6 percent of the nitrogen and near zero of the phosphorous.

Please see our letter to the Governor’s Bay Cabinet urging action on new regulations. The new regulations ignore our science-based recommendations to conform chicken manure and other animal waste and nutrients placed on farm fields with the 1985 requirements for treated human sludge including:  prohibition on winter application after November 1, better buffer requirements including a 100′ buffer in the Critical Area, and a prohibition on the application of manure and other nutrients with phosphorus when the soils are already super-saturated with phosphorus. Also rejected was a requirement that there be adequate monitoring and enforcement of the Nutrient Management Regulations, which is currently lacking.

Please see The Sun article on the cozy relationship between Governor O’Malley and Perdue’s General Counsel and the Food and Water watch release on this issue.

It’s hard to win when you are playing against a stacked deck.

Also see the letter from two full-time working farmers on the need for better nutrient management regulations and in support of our positions.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Gerald Winegrad)

Maryland’s 2012 General Assembly Session is now more than halfway over, and while elected officials are currently focused on the state’s budget, several pieces of important Chesapeake Bay legislation that would help clean up our waters await committee votes.

Today the Executive Council of the Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay delivered this letter to key legislators in support of the following legislation that is in line with our 25-step “action plan,”  specifically with respect to science-based recommendations to control agricultural pollution, foster clean development, upgrade septic systems, and improve wastewater treatment plants:

• Reduce pollution from the spreading of animal waste on farm fields (Senate Bill 594)–See my recent Baltimore Sun op-ed and Will Morrow’s letter to the editor on the need for this legislation.
• Finish upgrading the wastewater treatment plants that Maryland has already committed to upgrade with enhanced revenues from the Bay Restoration Fund (Senate Bill 240 / House Bill 446)
• Ensure that local governments have resources to reduce polluted stormwater runoff and that they implement their local clean water plans (Senate Bill 614 / House Bill 987)
• Reduce pollution from poorly planned development by limiting new septic systems (Senate Bill 236 / House Bill 445)
• Require that all wastewater discharges, including septic systems, are treated at the level of best available technology to protect public health and ensure clean water (Through Amendments to Senate Bill 236 / House Bill 445 or by Regulation)

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Gerald Winegrad)

In his continuing efforts to undermine Chesapeake Bay restoration, Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has introduced HR 4153 along with Rep. Tim Holden (D-Penn.). The legislation is another attempt to prevent the EPA from implementing the long-awaited, court-ordered Chesapeake Bay restoration plan known as the Chesapeake TMDL (total maximum daily load). The pollution diet under the TMDL was necessitated by the Bay states’ repeated failures over decades to meet agreed upon reductions for nutrient and sediment pollutants so as to clean-up the 90% of the Bay that is so polluted that the Clean Water Act is violated.

As Doug Siglin, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Congressional affairs guru said in a statement,

“Congressman Goodlatte’s bill would undermine the pollution limits currently in place, derail clean-up efforts, and undercut the federal government’s role in making sure that all Americans have access to clean, swimmable, fishable waters. The federal government has a key role to play in the restoration of local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay, and we urge all members of Congress to steer well clear of this damaging legislation.”

Reps. Goodlatte and Holden appear to be handmaidens of the farm lobby as the legislation raises some of the very issues the American Farm Bureau and national lobbying arms of the grain and poultry industries have used to try and block Bay restoration plans in their federal law suit.

In February 2011, Rep. Goodlatte succeeded in attaching an amendment to the must-pass FY2011 continuing resolution to fund the federal agencies that would have prevented the EPA from implementing the Bay pollution diet under the TMDL. Our Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay interceded and prepared and sent a letter to Congress on behalf of 60 Bay leader signatories opposing this outrageous effort. (See previous post: Goodlatte Amendment Is a Travesty for the Bay.)

These leaders include two former Governors, a former U.S. Senator, a former Congressman, current and former State Senators, a current County Council member, two former secretaries of Natural Resources from Virginia and Maryland, a former Secretary of the Maryland Department of Environment, top senior Bay scientists and conservation leaders. These signatories include Democrats and Republicans.

The amendment was rejected in the Senate and did not become law. (See previous post: Congressman Goodlatte and You.)

Now, we must fight yet another attempt to destroy ongoing efforts to once and for all clean-up the Bay and meet federal Clean Water Act requirements. We need to let Congress know that it is well past the time to face up to the reality of the need for ramped-up efforts to restore this great estuary.

If you disagree with this harmful legislation, tell Rep. Goodlatte how you feel by leaving him a message on his Facebook page, or
sending him a Tweet, to @repgoodlatte.

Let him know how you feel.

Gerald Winegrad is a former Maryland state senator and chairman of Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Sen. Gerald Winegrad. This op-ed originally appeared in The Baltimore Sun on February 20, 2012.)

Millions of tons of one of the Chesapeake Bay‘s largest sources of pollution continue to be dumped onto farm lands without proper regulation. Farm animals produce 44 million tons of manure annually in the bay watershed, and most of it is collected and disposed of on farmland — or left where it falls.

This ranks the bay region in the top 10 percent in the nation for manure-related nitrogen runoff, and the problem of proper management of this waste is exacerbated by the fact that three highly concentrated animal feeding operation areas contribute more than 90 percent of the manure. The Delmarva Peninsula, one of these three areas, has some of the greatest concentrations of chicken farms in the country.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bay Program, in 2009 agricultural manure contributed more than 20 percent of all nitrogen and 26 percent of the phosphorus flowing to the bay system. This exceeds the combined levels of nutrients flowing from all wastewater treatment plants handling the waste from 13 million people and all industrial dischargers. Human waste disposal is strictly regulated, and we have made great strides in meeting requirements at wastewater plants at great public costs exceeding several billion dollars. Unfortunately, the agricultural lobby continues to block efforts to sensibly regulate animal manure.

The costs of this failure are high both in the destruction of bay water quality and the contamination of groundwater: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) concluded that 15 percent of all Delmarva drinking water wells contained nitrates exceeding EPA maximum-contaminant levels. More than 70 percent of all wells tested had nitrate. A USGS study concluded that “Concentrations of nitrate and herbicide concentrations in ground water of the Delmarva Peninsula are among the highest in the Nation.” The major source of this excessive nitrogen is chicken and other animal manure, as well as chemical fertilizers.

Soil surveys document that much of the soil on the Delmarva Peninsula already tests “optimum” or higher for phosphorus and therefore should not have any animal manure applied to it. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2005 reported that about two-thirds of soils in the watershed test “optimum” or higher for phosphorus and should receive no phosphorus fertilizer, and certainly no phosphorus-rich animal waste (poultry litter, municipal sewage sludge or manure).

Many federal and state programs provide significant funding for farms to better manage animal excrement, such as the Maryland Agricultural Cost Share Program, which I helped develop and gain passage of in 1982. This program has provided more than $140 million in taxpayer-funded grants to farmers, including up to 87.5 percent of the cost of manure handling structures as well as subsidies to transport manure off the farm.

Unlike the millions of tons of animal excrement, the land application of treated biosolids from advanced human wastewater treatment systems, called human sludge, has been strictly regulated since the mid-1980s. The Maryland Department of Environment adopted these regulations at the urging of the farm community. Our group of Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay has consistently proposed that the state adopt parallel measures for animal manure applied to land. After all, human sludge is treated in advanced wastewater systems meeting stringent federal and state requirements, while animal excrement is land-applied just as it comes out of the animals.

On Oct. 27, the Maryland Department of Agriculture proposed changes to its nutrient management regulations to deal with the problem — although the changes were far short of what was necessary. When both the farm lobby and the environmental community objected, the regulations were withdrawn and have not been reissued.

The MDA stated that one of the key purposes of the withdrawn regulations was “to achieve consistency in how all nutrient sources are managed and applied to agricultural land. … That consistency is important if the State of Maryland is to meet its Total Daily Maximum Load requirements, as set forth in EPA’s Watershed Implementation Plan for restoring the Chesapeake Bay.” The MDA proposals were far short of attaining that consistency with the sludge regulations.

Wastewater treatment plants have met or are nearing their required reductions, while agriculture lags far behind. Gov.Martin O’Malley’s proposed doubling of the flush tax to complete the $1.4 billion nutrient removal job at sewerage treatment plants is before the legislature, as is septic tank legislation. These tanks contribute about 6 percent of the nitrogen and close to zero of the phosphorus. The much larger problem of farm animal manure from concentrated feeding operations seems to go unchallenged.

Legislation to deal with this problem is scheduled for a hearing Tuesday in Annapolis. The bill would require much better management of animal manure and all biosolids disposed on farm land. We wouldn’t let a town of 25,000 people dump human manure untreated on open lands; why should we allow the dumping of the equivalent amount of manure from 150,000 chickens without meaningful regulation?

Properly regulating the disposal of raw animal excrement can be achieved at a very small fraction of the cost of other measures to restore the bay, but unless policymakers aggressively address the problem and overcome “big chicken” and the rest of the farm lobby, the bay will only continue to decline as the manure is piled on.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Sen. Gerald Winegrad.)

Everyone knows that human excrement must be sanitarily and environmentally treated before discharge into our waterways or when taken from septic tanks. What most people don’t know is that millions of tons of farm animal excrement are put into the environment totally raw and untreated. Much of the polluting nutrients and bacteria wind up in the Chesapeake Bay’s creeks and streams or in groundwater destroying water quality.

When 13 million people in the Bay watershed flush their toilets, the wastewater flows through miles of pipes and many pumping stations to the nearest treatment plant. These plants must meet stringent federal and state standards for destroying disease-causing organisms and for removing environmentally harmful chemicals and nutrients. The plants must keep comprehensive records and are repeatedly inspected for Clean Water Act compliance. The public has full access to all such records and can even sue should any plant violate its strict permit limits.

Costly upgrades have been required to better treat human waste at such plants. For example, the Maryland Flush Tax when expanded this year will cumulatively have raised $1.4 billion to upgrade the 69 largest sewage treatment plants to state-of-the-art standards to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus flows to the Bay. This will cover 95 percent of the wastewater flows in Maryland. If there is any singular success in Bay restoration over the last 28 years since the first Bay Agreement was signed, it is in the significant reductions of nutrients from these plants, some from the phosphate detergent bans but most from costly upgrades to remove Bay-choking nutrients.

The other 4.2 million people in the bay region are on septic tanks which Maryland has been regulating for many years and, more recently, requiring better systems to remove nitrogen. The Governor is trying again this year to reduce septic tanks use.

But when it comes to raw, untreated farm animal excrement (an estimated 44 million tons of it each year), most all of it stays on or is centrally collected and applied onto farm fields and there is zero public accountability and little inspection done.

Data from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Studies on the Eastern Shore show that the nitrogen in the chicken manure produced annually on the Delmarva Peninsula has the equivalent nitrogen content of 8 million people. There are about 1.3 million people on the Delmarva Peninsula and 5.8 million people in all of Maryland. How this raw excrement is managed profoundly affects the Chesapeake and its fish, crabs, and oysters, and affects the health of people who come in contact with Bay water. Does anyone remember the outbreak of disease believed to be pfiesteria in 1997?

The disposal of raw waste from hundreds of millions of chickens raised on the shore plus the manure from cows, pigs, cattle, and other farm animals presents a formidable obstacle to Bay recovery. One report indicates that two-thirds of the farm land on the Shore is already saturated with phosphorus meaning there should be no manure whatsoever, or any fertilizer with phosphorus, put on them. But the practice continues as does winter application of manure when much of the manure will runoff into nearby streams.

Pressed by the agricultural community, the Maryland Department of Environment adopted stringent regulations for the land disposal of well-treated human sludge from sewage treatment plants. But neither MDE nor the Department of Agriculture has adopted parallel regulations for equally stringent regulation of raw animal manure.

Consider that 43 percent of the nitrogen and 56 percent of the phosphorus Bay-wide comes from agricultural sources, and roughly half of that is from animal manure. The amount of nitrogen from all sewage treatment plants is 20 percent and 19 percent for phosphorus. Add another 3 percent of the nitrogen from septic tanks and you can see that untreated, poorly regulated disposal of animal manure exceeds the nutrient pollution loads from the 17.2 million inhabitants of the Bay watershed!

Because state agencies have failed to act to properly regulate animal manure, Senators Pinsky and Frosh have introduced SB 594. See our letter to Governor O’Malley urging action on this issue. The bill generally parallels the MDE regulations for treated human wastewater sludge/biosolids and applies some of the key requirements to untreated raw animal manure when it is applied to farm land. Our Senior Scientists and Policymakers for the Bay group is joining with state environmental leaders in urging passage of this legislation.

SB 594 would require much better management of the millions of tons of animal manure placed on farm fields by:

• effectively dealing with winter application of all manure/biosolids on ag land by prohibiting such applications from Nov 1-March 1 unless they were injected into the soil;
• requiring that all manure/biosolids applied the rest of the year be injected or otherwise incorporated into the soil within 24 hours of application;
• on or after July 1, 2017, prohibiting the application of all fertilizer to agricultural land that already has sufficient phosphorus); and
• on or after July 1, 2020, prohibiting the application of manure/biosolids to agricultural land between September 10 and November 15, inclusive, even if there is a lack of storage capacity for animal manure as biosolids.

This bill conforms with our scientists and policymakers’ conclusions that all land application of animal manure should be treated the same as treated human sludge/biosolids under the MDE sludge regulations.

The bill will be heard on Tuesday, February 21, 1:00 p.m., in the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee, (2 West Miller Senate Building, 11 Bladen Street, Annapolis). It deserves all readers support.

We wouldn’t let a town of 25,000 people dump human manure untreated on open lands; why should we allow the dumping of the equivalent amount of manure from 150,000 chickens without meaningful regulation?

Share on Facebook