Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Op-Eds

Nutrient trading a dirty deal for the bay

I imagine that most people have positive associations with the word "nutrient," and in my years as a physician, I did, too. After all, nutrients, like protein and vitamin A, are the cornerstone of human nutrition. But when we talk about the Chesapeake Bay, or any body of water, the word takes on another meaning entirely.

In the bay, nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus are major culprits in the pollution that creates dead zones, algal blooms, and higher levels of bacteria that are harmful to people. And lately there's been quite a bit of attention paid to an Environmental Protection Agency proposal that Maryland adopt a "nutrient trading" program as a solution to nutrient pollution in the bay.

Under this program, entities that release nutrients to the bay would be able to generate "credits" by reducing their discharges below what the law requires. They could sell these credits to other sources that would purchase them in place of reducing their own releases.

In a perfect world, nutrient trading would reduce pollution while providing flexibility to governments and businesses. Unfortunately, our world is far from perfect, and nutrient trading is riddled with problems.

My first objection to this kind of program is semantics. Let's call it what it is: pollution trading. Excess nutrient pollutants in the bay lead to public health problems, just as other pollutants do. Human exposure to nitrites from excess nitrogen in drinking water can lead to "blue baby syndrome," which can cause illness and death in babies and has been related to spontaneous abortions and increased cancer risk.

Elevated nutrient levels can also lead to the proliferation of harmful algae and pathogenic microorganisms like Vibrio bacteria, cryptosporidium and giardia. Infection by these microbes can lead to gastrointestinal illness and severe diarrhea.

Who's discharging these pollutants into the water? Some are energy companies, some are factories and some are wastewater treatment plants. In Maryland, however, agriculture accounts for 37 percent of the nitrogen and 48 percent of the phosphorus released into the bay.

Most nutrient output from agriculture comes from animal waste. In 2011, Maryland produced more than 311 million chickens — and that means lots of chicken manure and lots of nutrients.

The vast majority of Maryland chickens are produced at mammoth "concentrated animal feeding operations" (CAFOs) on the Delmarva Peninsula. Exactly how CAFOs might participate in nutrient trading remains rather murky; the rules have not been written yet. Different scenarios are possible, and each is troubling.

Under the Clean Water Act, CAFOs may not release nutrients or other pollutants into the bay or its tributaries. If CAFOs comply with the law, as they always claim they do, CAFOs should not be able to generate credits. After all, they cannot reduce their pollution to less than nothing.

If they are not in compliance, as numerous studies suggest, then they should not be paid for violating the law. The better approach is more active enforcement by the EPA and state government, which should tell industries to straighten up and fly right. The Clean Water Act is an example of a tried-and-true regulatory strategy. Old-fashioned? Perhaps. Proven effective when enforced? Definitely.

Perhaps CAFOs will not be allowed to participate in nutrient trading. That would make the most sense. On the other hand, it would mean that the centerpiece of bay restoration efforts (nutrient trading) does nothing to address a primary source of the bay's problems.

Regardless of CAFOs' involvement, allowing industries to buy credits rather than reduce releases could result in local "hotspots" of pollution in areas dominated by these industries. Most likely, these hotspots would appear in low-income communities, where residents don't have the means to move or to fight the stockpiling of pollution in their backyards.

Nutrients and other agricultural pollutants pose a serious public health problem. A nutrient trading (or pollution trading) scheme is not an effective response. Policymakers should instead focus their energy on better enforcement of existing regulations that address the discharge of waste into our bay.

Dr. Robert S. Lawrence (rlawrenc@jhsph.edu) is the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Humans need affordable protein [Letter]
      Humans need affordable protein [Letter]

      Ann Roberts wrote about how upset she was with confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and wondered "how humans can ignore and accept" the animal cruelty practiced on chickens and other feed animals ("Pollution is just the beginning of the problem with CAFOs," Dec. 30).

    • The Hogan environmental agenda
      The Hogan environmental agenda

      In appointing former Harford County Executive David Craig to head Maryland's planning department last week, Gov.-elect Larry Hogan acknowledged he's sensitive to criticism of anti-sprawl policies collectively known as "smart growth." He promised to "take a look at" the complaints of local...

    • Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?
      Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?

      Gov. Martin O'Malley's green agenda really is green ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 14). Green as the goose waste that pours directly into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, mostly during the waterfowl season. And, it's primarily fed by Mr. O'Malley's very own cover...

    • O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door
      O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door

      On behalf of 36,000 Maryland Farm Bureau families, I have to disagree with your editorial on the issue of the new phosphorus rules ("Phosphorus rules, finally," Nov. 18). Gov. Martin O'Malley did not get it right. In fact, this is effectively just one last tax increase he is trying to force...

    • Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay
      Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay

      While I understand the concern about accumulated nutrient buildup in the sediment upstream of the Conowingo Dam posing a hazard to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as an engineer I do not see what the operation of the dam's power station has anything to do with it ("Maryland can enforce dam...

    • Dam cleanup too costly
      Dam cleanup too costly

      Regarding the recent commentary about the Conowingo Dam ("Maryland can enforce dam cleanup," Nov. 19), Bob Irvin is correct for the most part. However, let's keep in mind that the Conowingo is a man-made obstruction to sediment, leaves and tree logs that Mother Nature really intended to go to...

    • What about Pa. manure?
      What about Pa. manure?

      On an almost recurring basis lately, The Sun has devoted itself to bringing to everyone's attention the Eastern Shore poultry industry's polluted runoff flowing into the Chesapeake Bay ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13). Attention should be directed to the Amish...

    • Hogan can protect farms and open space
      Hogan can protect farms and open space

      Congratulations to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on his inauguration. Mr. Hogan ran a terrific campaign, and we all look forward to his leadership on one of the most important roles, safeguarding the lands and waters of this beautiful state.

    Comments
    Loading