Don't give farmers 10-year pass on pollution

In response to the recent article, "Bill would give farmers 10-year reprieve on new regs" (March 27) I wish to add more detail on why this bill, Senate Bill 1029, will be detrimental for Marylanders and the Chesapeake Bay.

Agriculture is the single largest source of nutrient pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. That fact alone means that farms must be closely watched to ensure they are following state and federal regulations. The proposal contradicts this important idea by providing the possibility for farms to have a 10-year exemption from new pollution regulations. This means our new laws over the next decade meant to save the bay will not actually have to be followed by some farmers. Additionally, the bill will prevent transparency by hiding how much pollution farms generate, what they must do to prevent and manage pollution, and whether or not they are in compliance with the law.

This bill, though well intended, is not what Maryland needs. Our state has worked hard to determine how to protect the bay from nutrient pollution damage, and this bill would allow farms to stagnate at the current regulatory level rather than adhere to new laws that are more informed and address new concerns. Additionally, granting agriculture an exemption when other polluting sources are not offered the same option is simply unfair because these other industries will end up having to make up for the lack of progress by exempted farms over the next decade. We must work to prevent this bill from passing in our state legislature.

This bill will soon be voted on in the House of Delegates, and I would urge every delegate to vote against it.

Erika Burns, Baltimore

The writer is a student at Loyola University Maryland.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Support Clean Water Act

    Support Clean Water Act

    On the 42nd anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a new report from Environment America, "Waterways Restored," highlights the success the law has meant for the Anacostia River, taking it from a state of horrific pollution to giving some hope that it will be safe for swimming and fishing in little...

  • Damming the bay's pollution

    Damming the bay's pollution

    Here's the gist of the recent report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Conowingo Dam: Don't confuse a red herring with a red tide. The notion that all the pollution woes of the Chesapeake Bay could be heaped on one 86-year-old hydroelectric facility on the Lower Susquehanna River was ludicrous...

  • How about aerators to clean up the bay?

    How about aerators to clean up the bay?

    I just read the article about dredging the Susquehanna River, and I couldn't help thinking back to the Seoul Olympics where they used aerators to clean up their filthy water and they got it clean enough that all of the rowing events were held in very safe water ("Study: Dredging little help to...

  • All Maryland's waterways deserve protection

    All Maryland's waterways deserve protection

    The Clean Water Act has brought progress to the Chesapeake Bay, but in order to continue the bay on the path to success we must protect all the waterways in Maryland, including the Anacostia River ("Close Clean Water Act loophole," Nov. 12).

  • 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...

  • Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules

    Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules

    In what will be seen as one of soon-to-be ex-Gov. Martin O'Malley's parting shots to the incoming Hogan administration, Mr. O'Malley is pushing through new regulations controlling how farmers fertilize their land ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 15). Never mind the fact that...

Comments
Loading

69°