| Editoral by Craig Zinter, District Manager |
In response to Tom Hughes' Letter to the Editor, 2005
<< Back to Archives
The Talbot Soil Conservation District (SCD) has an obligation to respond to Mr. Tom Hughes' letter to the editor dated July 8, 2005 in which he places the blame for the poor water quality of Talbot County's Rivers on agriculture. There is no disputing the fact that agriculture is the predominant land use in Talbot County. Who doesn't enjoy the rural character, open spaces, and wildlife that agricultural land provides and supports? It is that very reason that people have decided to locate here in increasing numbers over the years.
 Talbot SCD wonders if Mr. Hughes took into consideration, the fact that this continual increase in population is just as much, if not more, of a contributor to the water quality problem? Consider the infrastructure required to support an ever-increasing population. Many more areas are covered in impervious surfaces. New streets, parking lots, and rooftops all contribute to increased runoff that goes untreated to storm drains and ultimately the County's waterways. Those same areas were most probably previous agricultural lands that had a crop growing on them, or at the very least, vegetative cover that acted as a natural filter.
Most people don't understand the fact that farmers were the first stewards of the land. If farmers don't take care of their land, it won't produce enough crops to meet their monetary obligations that not only include paying for the farm, but the inputs of seed, fertilizer, and pesticides and the necessary tools of the trade, equipment, computers, etc. It's usually at this point that everyone jumps to their feet and points their finger at agriculture because "they put all that fertilizer on the land". Let's make it perfectly clear that farmers can't afford to indiscriminately use fertilizer and pesticides on their crops. There is a fine line (and it's getter finer every year) where there is an economic threshold that determines if a farmer can afford further inputs to protect and/or enhance the crop and still make a profit on the crop. Their wallet, pocketbook, and/or the bank generally figure into the farmer's decision of crop inputs.
The idea of economics also figures into the part about stewardship and conservation. Not only do farmers operate on a tighter budget than most households, but they are also willing to invest in conservation best management practices (BMP's) that will provide long-term productivity of their land while providing water quality benefits as well. Every time one of these BMP's is installed or implemented there are measurable benefits that the agricultural agencies can track and report. Part of the BMP menu is mandated nutrient management plans. Farmers are required to have both nitrogen and phosphorus based nutrient management plans for their farms. It's the law. This, along with pest scouting help farmers identify the above mentioned economic threshold and ecologically sound limits for crop inputs.
An effective partnership between the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension (UMCE), and the Talbot Soil Conservation District provides a long and distinguished history of science based research, education, tracking, and implementation of conservation BMP's that not only conserve the soil, but provide water quality benefits and wildlife habitat. Since 1984, when the Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts escalated to the forefront, Maryland farmers have implemented over 18,000 BMP's at a cost of approximately $101 million. It must be noted that farmers spent in excess of $10 million of their own money to install these BMP's.
Agriculture was a founding partner of Maryland's Tributary Strategy efforts dating to back to 1991. They took part and were a major contributor early on, not waiting until it was "fashionable". Identifying a benchmark and being able to track progress was an integral part of the strategy. As a result, the nitrogen and phosphorus loads statewide are broken down as follows:
Agriculture - Nitrogen 39%, Phosphorus 43%
Urban - Nitrogen 42%, Phosphorus 44%
Mixed Use Areas - Nitrogen 19%, Phosphorus 13%
Mr. Hughes stated correctly that agriculture contributes roughly 40% of the nitrogen and phosphorus, however all one needs to do is add the urban and mixed land use areas to see that their contribution is in excess of 60%. Unlike the other sectors, agriculture has been proactive in actual implementation that is science based, proven, and can be tracked for it's effectiveness.
Between 1985 - 2002 the agricultural BMP's installed and reported statewide had an associated reduction of 10 million pounds of nitrogen and 1.04 million pounds of phosphorus. (Note: for those that don't know, or may need a reminder, a majority of the phosphorus reductions were realized through the ban of phosphorus in laundry detergents in the early 1980's, hence the smaller amounts of phosphorus reductions stated here). As part of the State's Tributary Strategy efforts, the State was divided into ten tributaries. Talbot's creeks, streams, and rivers are part of two of these identified statewide tributaries, the Upper Eastern Shore and the Choptank tributaries. Nutrient reduction tracking for the Upper Eastern Shore, shows a reduction of 1.68 million pounds of nitrogen and .12 million pounds of phosphorus. The Choptank had reductions of 2.07 million pounds of nitrogen and .2 million pounds of phosphorus.
We were glad to see in Mr. Hughes' letter that he acknowledged the benefit of cover crops and made a plea for increased funding for this BMP. We have been making those recommendations through our involvement on the Tributary teams for over five year. We are proud to announce here that Talbot County led the State last year in cost shared acres of cover crops implemented.
Implementation of agricultural BMP's will continue to make significant contribution to nutrient reductions in those areas of the State where agriculture is the dominant land use.
Agriculture as a whole should not have to make apologies for the accomplishments made by voluntary efforts that out paced other identified pollution source sectors.
Instead of calling out and blaming one sector of our population (agriculture), wouldn't it be more fair and productive to educate the rest of the population of the conditions and seek their collective efforts toward a remedy? Instead of placing blame without offering solutions, one should take the lead from agriculture, who doesn't just complain and point fingers, but quietly goes about the business of providing tangible, visible, physical evidence on the land of conservation BMP's that are proven to reduce nutrient pollution, maintain our natural resources, and even enhance or replace those in jeopardy.
We suggest that next time someone sees a farmer, instead of placing blame on them, thank them.
<< Back to Archives
|
