Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Editorial

News Opinion Editorial

The pro-pollution AGs [Editorial]

The cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay has posed an extraordinary challenge. It has taken decades of effort, cost billions of dollars and required shared sacrifice from setting aside shoreline "buffer" strips to banning phosphate detergents. Now comes word that the fight will not only be against pollution but also against nearly half the country, too.

That's because the attorneys general from 21 states have joined a lawsuit brought by the American Farm Bureau Federation that seeks to toss out the so-called "pollution diet" or "Total Maximum Daily Load," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-led effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. The four-year-old campaign has already had a positive impact on the estuary and has raised hopes that real progress is at hand.

We have railed against the Farm Bureau's legal maneuverings before. Theirs is a misguided and selfish effort to protect farmers against water pollution controls — new standards that might, for instance, hold large poultry companies liable for the harmful runoff that can be traced to the millions of pounds of chicken manure spread on farm fields.

Such accountability is only possible if the EPA has the ability to enforce Clean Water Act standards on states, which nevertheless retain the flexibility to decide how they will achieve specific water quality goals. It is a partnership that protects the broad public interest — making sure the Chesapeake Bay watershed's six states and the District of Columbia are doing their fair share.

It is shocking, however, to see so many attorneys general attack that effort in what amounts to a declaration of environmental war. How else to describe the decision by the attorneys general of Alabama, Texas, South Carolina and the rest to endorse a lawsuit that, if successful, would so threaten the future of the nation's largest estuary?

Why interfere with an environmental campaign that is working — and in a cooperative manner at that? Simply put, it's because they fear the EPA will use the successful Chesapeake Bay program as a model for cleaning up other badly-polluted bodies of water from the Mississippi River to the Great Lakes.

But it's also likely because there are parts of this country where it's become politically advantageous to be against whatever the Obama administration's EPA is for. The Republican Party has so vilified the federal agency that it is simply assumed that every regulation it promulgates is anti-jobs, anti-free market and anti-American — as if countries with lax environmental regulations such as China and Russia posed an opportunity for anything other than cancer clusters.

Even so, let's all be embarrassed for West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who is one of the rogue attorneys general despite his state's past commitments to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup. Clearly, Mr. Morrisey ought to spend a bit more time safeguarding his own drinking water supply in the wake of the devastating chemical spill in Charleston last month and less on undermining efforts to reduce water pollution in neighboring states.

The farm bureau has already lost this argument once, having been rejected at the U.S. District Court level last fall. It is likely to lose again on appeal because the arguments against the program — that the science is flawed or that EPA has insufficient regulatory authority — don't hold water. Manure is manure, and no amount of legal-tussling is going to safeguard a river or stream unless somebody is required to dispose of it properly.

This is a process that, as Judge Sylvia Rambo noted last September when she ruled against the farm bureau, can be "messy and cumbersome." But here's something else that's cumbersome (at least to taxpayers) — passage of a nearly $1 trillion farm bill that provides billions of dollars for the benefit of farmers, including $250 million specifically earmarked for those trying to meet the obligations imposed by the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. You can bet you won't see similar appeasements offered to developers, manufacturers or sewage plant operators.

So let's not cry too big a river for the agricultural community either in the bay watershed or in Alabama, Texas or the other states represented by the pro-pollution attorneys general. All that's being asked is that they be held responsible for their share of the nitrogen, phosphorus, sediments and toxics that are killing fish and shellfish in our waterways. Such accountability ought not only to be allowed in Maryland but ought to be welcomed everywhere else, too.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Commercial fishing is regulated
    Commercial fishing is regulated

    Here's some things readers of The Sun should know about commercial fishing ("Rockfish poaching: It's more than just a few fish," Feb. 24). It is against the law to use gill nets in seven states: Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Florida. It is also against...

  • Don't subsidize polluting coal plants
    Don't subsidize polluting coal plants

    Gov. Larry Hogan's backtracking on improving air quality for Marylanders means more unnecessary suffering and premature death for citizens and taxpayers through continued corporate welfare for coal plants ("Hogan issues new smog-fighting rule with 'flexibility' for coal plants," April 18).

  • A Maryland-style Earth Day pledge
    A Maryland-style Earth Day pledge

    Since 1970, Americans have set aside one day per year, April 22, to rally and make noise on behalf of the environment. First inspired by a California oil spill, Earth Day has always been about calling attention to problems and advocating for action. Much of it has been directed at government —...

  • Phosphorus rules, finally
    Phosphorus rules, finally

    As we have chided Gov. Martin O'Malley more than once on this page for dragging his feet on regulations intended to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorus pouring into the Chesapeake Bay from farms, it's only fair to herald his decision to move forward with the rules. That he chose to release...

  • Md. farmers are helping protect the bay
    Md. farmers are helping protect the bay

    The farmers in Baltimore County are more than agronomic professionals. Yes, we grow local fruits and vegetables, raise animals and tend to crops that provide the food, fuel and fiber to our community and the world. But did you know we also work every day to protect our waterways, soil and environment?...

  • A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management
    A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management

    From the time I graduated from college and returned to the farm, I have been dealing with government regulations, environmental extremists and animal rights activists.

  • Chesapeake Bay's surprising wins
    Chesapeake Bay's surprising wins

    Here's a sentence that nobody expected to be written this week: The 2015 legislative session turned out pretty well for the Chesapeake Bay and some other environmental causes. How that happened almost defies logic.

  • Larry Hogan's big fish story
    Larry Hogan's big fish story

    One expects a certain amount of bluster and prevarication from politicians. It's all part of telling an audience whatever they want to hear. As H.L. Mencken once noted, "if a politician observed he had cannibals among his constituents, he'd promise them missionaries for dinner."

Comments
Loading

46°