Cotton Farming Peanut Grower Rice Farming CornSouth Soybean South  
In This Issue
It Was A Year Unlike Any Other
Despite Volatile Season, Outlook Is Optimistic
After Record Drought, Texas Hopeful About 2012
Can We Do Anything About The Weather?
South Georgia Crop – Rough Start, Great Finish
Research Priorities Are Changing
Labor Issues Remain Crucial For Industry
Residual Herbicides Effective On N.C. Pigweed
Another Option For Producers – Conventional Cotton
Commodity Groups Want Fairness In Bill
Farm Bureau Unhappy With EPA
Asia Pacific Region – Key Market For U.S. Ag
BWCC Ginning Conference Features High-Tech Applications
California Producers Hurry To Finish Harvest
USDA Seeks Help For Arizona Rural Areas
FSA Begins Task Of County Committee Elections
California County Farm Bureaus Honored
CFBF Adds Field Rep To Staff
Web Poll: Conventional Back In The Mix
Cotton's Agenda
What Customers Want
Editor's Note
Industry Comments
Specialists Speaking
Industry News
Cotton Ginners Marketplace
My Turn: The Changing Landscape

Farm Bureau Unhappy With EPA

  print email

The Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to take the time to improve its Chesapeake Bay Watershed nutrient management model may be undermining the public’s confidence. This refusal also could cause farmers and other stakeholders in the watershed to spend scarce resources on conservation measures directed to the wrong sources or the wrong areas, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Testifying recently on behalf of AFBF before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy and Forestry, Carl Shaffer, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, says EPA’s questionable modeling in the Chesapeake Bay fails to provide any comfort that the restrictions demanded by EPA will allow states to come even close to EPA’s pollution reduction goals.

“As taxpayers, Farm Bureau members across the nation are concerned that millions of dollars can be potentially spent to chase paper compliance with a model that uses faulty assumptions rather than valid and readily available data,” Shaffer testified.

Agency Involvement

Shaffer owns and operates a wheat, corn and green bean farm in Columbia County, Pa., located in the Chesa-peake Bay Watershed. In his testimony, Shaffer says at least two state agencies in Pennsylvania – Agricul-ture and Environmental Protection – are working to develop the Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) demanded by EPA for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Pennsyl-vania Farm Bureau has been actively involved in the WIP process since it began more than two years ago, according to Shaffer.

“Unfortunately, in our view, recent regulatory actions by EPA to micromanage and dictate environmental performance in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed have needlessly and unlawfully usurped the responsibilities that the Clean Water Act intended to be reserved and addressed by the states,” Shaffer says.

Shaffer emphasizes that in the implementation of the Phase II WIP, “EPA is driving a hurried process on the part of the states while offering little guidance of value. What’s most disturbing is that EPA is still asking state, and now local governments, to develop plans based on poor and inadequate data.”

EPA’s Plans Criticized

Shaffer says EPA’s demands for the Phase II WIP further cripple the states’ abilities to devise a program that will encourage meaningful and effective long-term benefits in the Chesapeake Bay. He says EPA’s excessive Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations already are creating problems for farmers and other stakeholders in the bay.

“Under EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL, all the pollutant loadings to the bay and the reductions in those loadings take place in a ‘model world,’” Shaffer says. “The ‘model world’ appears to have no basis in reality and very little to do with the real conservation efforts of farmers.”

American Farm Bureau contributed information for this article. For more details, go to or call (202) 406-3600.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tell a friend:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .