Chesapeake Bay Action Plan

(Posted by Bob Gallagher)

A group of legislators, following a script conceived by the public relations machine of Perdue and the Maryland Farm Bureau, have joined in Perdue’s unprecedented effort to derail an environmental lawsuit that has singular importance for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The effort is unprecedented in the extent to which Perdue and its enablers are attempting to use the media and the political process to win a case that they have as yet been unable to win in court. Here is the story.

The Waterkeeper Alliance, working with the Assateague Coastkeeper, filed suit against Perdue and one of its contract chickens growers. The suit alleges that Perdue and the contractor, Hudson Farm, polluted the Pocomoke River with chicken waste in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Waterkeeper Alliance is a community supported organization that operates on a tight budget. It has thousands of supporters in Maryland. It makes extensive use of volunteers and public interest lawyers who work without charge. In this case, it is represented by the student lawyers of the University of Maryland School of Law’s highly regarded Environmental Law Clinic. The Alliance has worked with the Clinic in other cases to stop pollution of our rivers, to protect public health and to protect marine-related jobs and economic activity.

Represented by one of the biggest law firms in Baltimore, Perdue asked the court to dismiss the case as flawed at its inception. The distinguished senior judge hearing the case denied the motion. Perdue’s lawyers then unleashed a blizzard of paperwork on WKA and its lawyers apparently hoping to wear them down in the legal “discovery” process. That didn’t work either. It just made the young law students want to work harder.

Next Perdue filed a motion for summary judgment. That means judgment without a trial. They filed with the court thousands of pages of documents and transcripts of testimony of expert and other witnesses. The judge ruled that all they managed to prove was that the case was sufficiently complicated that it could only be decided after a trial.

From the beginning of the case, Perdue has been very uncomfortable with the idea that this case will be decided by an impartial, independent judge applying the rule of law. Recently, Perdue’s preference for trying the case in the court of public opinion became apparent. It launched a slick website called SAVEFARMFAMILIES. The website was created for Perdue by Levick Strategic Communications. Levick specializes in “crisis” and “high stakes” communications. Its website invites potential clients to hire it to “drive the narrative.” Levick has planted articles, spinning the facts to match Perdue’s objectives, in media across the Eastern Shore, rural Maryland and elsewhere.

On March 14, 2012, the Appropriations Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates held a hearing on House Bill 1349. The bill appears to be the latest sortie in the Perdue/Farm Bureau strategy. Introduced by an Eastern Shore delegate with the zeal of a carnival barker, the bill would punish the University of Maryland for the Law Clinic’s participation in the case by requiring the University to reimburse Hudson’s legal expenses, even if the Court finds Hudson guilty of violating pollution laws.

The delegate’s opening gambit in support of the bill was screening a video portraying the case as being about a rich, foreign organization on a subversive campaign to bankrupt family farmers. The video is expensively produced and professionally narrated.

The delegate used the video to incite a handful of other delegates to threaten the Clinic with dire consequences if it does not withdraw from the case. The website and video have created a backlash of public opinion against the Alliance and the Clinic in some segments of the farm community.

One of the reasons that, in a democracy, we entrust resolution of significant disputes to an independent judiciary applying an objective rule of law is that judges are trained and ethically bound to seek the truth and apply the law fairly. The court of public opinion has no such constraints. In the court of public opinion, the person with the most money often wins.

One of the most insidious aspects of the Perdue/Farm Bureau strategy is that it also entices our legislators to make their own judgment on the case based on the “facts” presented by Perdue’s public relations machine. The video, like the website, is a layer cake of deceit – one layer of sticky sweet lies upon another. Many of the lies are apparent from a review of readily available public documents. But, the point of this piece is not to point out each lie. The truth is for the court to determine.

It is apparent from Perdue’s actions that it desperately wants to avoid a court ruling in the case. That might be because a ruling against Perdue could make Perdue responsible not only for its waste from the Hudson farm but from its many other contract growers.

Trial in the case will proceed if the case cannot be settled in mediation. The Law Clinic has made it clear that, even in the face of intense criticism, its fledgling lawyers will continue to meet their ethical responsibility to represent their clients to the best of their ability.

It won’t surprise many readers that a number of the people involved in the effort to stop the Perdue litigation are also behind the effort to delegitimize proposals to reign in sprawl and pollution from septic systems as a “war on rural Maryland.” I suggest that some of those people could learn something about civic duty from the law students.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Chris Trumbauer,  Anne Arundel County Councilman) 

(This is fifth in an ongoing series of posts on What’s It Going to Take?: A look at how the environmental community can regain the initiative and build the political will necessary to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.)

If your family is like mine, the struggling economy is making every household economical decision a critical one. I cringed when I got my latest fuel oil bill and turned the thermostat down a couple of degrees to try and lessen the pain of the next bill. My wife and I both own fuel-efficient cars, but we still restrict driving as much as possible to delay filling up our tank as long as we can. Like many families, we are putting off important purchases, hoping to get a little more time out of a pair of shoes or a winter coat.

None of this, however, dampens my strong desire for clean water and healthy air. Pollution is pollution whether it contaminates our environment in a recession, or in an economic boom. My lungs don’t care what the return on my 401k is, and my kids don’t think about what the price of gasoline is before they jump into the Chesapeake Bay. Why are we all suddenly on the defensive in our fight for our environment? From the federal battles over the EPA to land-use decisions on the local level, we are seeing our environmental protections threatened, when they should be strengthened. Government’s overarching goal is to protect its people, and that includes protecting them from the threat of pollution.

Right now, far too often, the economy is being used as an excuse not to meet our obligations to provide the basic security of fishable, swimable waterways. This year marks the 40th anniversary of the landmark Clean Water Act. Now is not the time for us to walk away from our commitment to clean water – it’s time to double down. The health of the Chesapeake Bay and our local waterways is intertwined with a healthy economy. So is the quality of life of our communities. Investing in cleaning up our environment will create jobs, not kill them, as some would have you believe. For too long, we have been fed this false choice of jobs versus the environment. Enough is enough.

Think back to the last election cycle and all the robocalls and political mailers you received. Do you remember any candidates who claimed they did not support cleaning up our environment? Probably not. Now that those candidates (including me) are in office, think about whether their actions match their stated commitment to our waterways and our environment. Broad, non-specific support for “the Bay” does not always translate to having the political will to achieve policy.

In Anne Arundel County, I sponsored a bipartisan bill to establish dedicated funding for in-the-ground restoration projects to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff. At the public hearing, nearly 30 people offered compelling testimony in favor of the bill, including community leaders, health officials, boaters, and grassroots advocates. Only a handful of people testified in opposition. Despite the broad show of support, and general acknowledgment of the problem, the measure was withdrawn because there were not enough votes for passage. A case study in the lack of political will to clean up our waterways.

What will it take to turn the corner on restoring the environmental (and economical) treasure that is the Chesapeake Bay?

• Realistic expectations. We cannot “wish” the Bay better with positive thoughts and feel-good measures alone. Serious problems require serious solutions and those solutions can and will cost money. We need to consider the long-term impacts of an impaired Bay when we consider the current investments needed to secure our fisheries, recreational activities, maritime industry, and other benefits of a restored Bay. What will it cost us if we fail to act?
• Willingness to try new things. While acknowledging the progress we have made, we must also realize it has not been enough. The tactics of voluntary measures and loose enforcement of environmental laws is not working. Regulation of pollution and strong management actions have successfully restored other waterways and they can work on the Bay, too.
• A renewed sense of accountability. We cannot keep failing to meet deadlines and goals with no consequence. If we are asking our citizens to change their behavior or share in the responsibility to clean up our waterways, our leaders need to hold up their end of the bargain by making sure the right policies are in place to reduce pollution enough to make a difference.

We are making real progress in the fight to clean up our waterways. A recent report found that we were about halfway to our Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort goals. That progress represents an investment of decades of work and millions of dollars. The progress has been slow but we’ve come too far to give up now and jeopardize all the work that we have done up to now.

It’s time to put up or shut up. This is our opportunity to finish the job, not come up with more excuses. We absolutely must focus and control growth, regulate and reduce pollution from all sources, and change our behavior. None of these things are simple, and some are expensive, but they are all necessary if we want our future to include a restored Chesapeake Bay and a healthy local economy.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Kathy Phillips.)

In an extremely disappointing move, the Worcester County Commissioners have failed to take some very simple steps to protect our local waterways while contributing to state-wide efforts to save the Chesapeake Bay.

At the Worcester County Commissioners December 6th regular meeting, the County Commissioners threw out the Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan documents that county staff had spent months preparing and voted 6-1 not to submit their plan to MDE by the December deadline. In fact, they intend to bury the document and “take their time’”cooperating.

Despite the State offering counties and municipalities flexibility, and the ability to show initiative and make their own plans to protect the environment how they see fit, it’s clear that “do-nothing” local elected officials like Worcester’s will use the opportunity to kick the can down the road, shirk their responsibility, and then complain the state is forcing mandates upon them.

The sad thing is, Worcester’s Chesapeake watershed is such a small piece, load reductions could have been addressed easily with available grants and other available resources.

We hope EPA and MDE will use the resources available to them to force compliance by Worcester County – and Worcester County voters should not hesitate to let our county commissioners know we expect better.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Chris Trumbauer) 

Last month, I introduced, along with County Council Chairman Dick Ladd, bipartisan legislation (Bill 79-11) to create a dedicated funding source to reduce polluted stormwater runoff in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

Our county has a strong attachment to our local waterways, as we have a large and vibrant recreation community, a robust maritime industry and over 500 miles of shoreline. I introduced this bill not just because I want clean rivers and streams and a healthy Chesapeake Bay – but because I care about where my family lives, works and plays. Cleaning up our polluted runoff will help make our waterways safer, and building this infrastructure to reduce pollution also greatly improves our communities.

The funding mechanism in this bill would charge a modest fee on residential properties ($35 for single family homes and $25 for townhomes and condos) and would assess non-residential property based on how much impervious, or hard, surface is on the property. Money from this dedicated fund will go directly back into creating local projects. Designing and building projects to reduce stormwater pollution will put County residents to work – in management, planning and engineering type jobs, as well as much-needed construction work.

In Anne Arundel County, because of the potential for polluted runoff, our Department of Health has a blanket 48 hour advisory warning against water contact following any significant rainfall event.  As county residents, we deserve better. Reducing polluted stormwater runoff will protect public health by keeping harmful bacteria, trash and toxins out of our waterways.

Due to years of inaction, eroded stream banks and ditches can threaten private property and public infrastructure. Reducing polluted stormwater runoff also prevents costly flooding and erosion problems, and it creates more common green spaces filled with trees and gardens, which are a common-sense and often inexpensive way to reduce pollution that has so many other benefits for our kids and our neighborhoods.

The bill has broad support among many stakeholders, including the Annapolis Capital. The need for addressing our stormwater problem is clear, but the political path to succeed is not. If you believe, like me, that clean and safe waterways are critical to our communities, and that it is long past time for the County to address its responsibilities, let your county representatives know.

The public hearing is scheduled for Monday December 5. If you live in Anne Arundel County, please let your county councilmember and County Executive Leopold know you support this important bill.

Share on Facebook

(Posted by Jeanne McCann.)

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s attempt to get the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic to drop its water pollution case against Hudson Farm  has drawn criticism from a long list of environmental, legal and news organizations. Joining the list is a somewhat unexpected institution – the Town Creek Foundation.

Foundations don’t regularly take public stands on policy, but in this case Town Creek has sent a letter to Dean Phoebe Haddon of the University of Maryland Law School expressing thanks for the Dean’s strong response to the governor and the foundation’s continued support for the law clinic’s work. It’s important to note that while Town Creek funds a variety of conservation organizations, it has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the state of Maryland over many years for environmental efforts on everything from climate change to offshore wind to the Bay TMDL Watershed Implementation Plan.

The Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers applaud Town Creek for making its views known publicly on this important issue.

At a meeting on November 22nd, the Senior Bay Scientists and Policymakers also voiced their opposition to the Governor’s actions and said “Interfering with ongoing civil litigation against one of the largest polluting sources in the Chesapeake Bay – the poultry industry – sends the wrong signal to all concerned with the restoration of this abused, but great body of water.”

Share on Facebook