Maryland Pulls Plug On Chesapeake Phosphorus Tool

Maryland's P Management Tool for the Chesapeake Bay clean-up goes back to the drawing board again after substantially critical public comment.

Published on: Nov 18, 2013

On Friday, Maryland Department of Agriculture pulled its proposed regulations to implement the new Maryland Phosphorus Management Tool. The controversial PMT aimed to be more sensitive to the potential for phosphorus to move from farmland, but drew substantial criticism principally, not entirely, from the agricultural community.

There were many unanswered questions and concerns about the regulation that many believe would have destroyed the business model of the largest economic sector on the Eastern Shore, says Patricia Langenfelder, president of Maryland Farm Bureau. "We're pleased that MDA and the Governor recognize the impact of the proposed change on farmers and withdrew the proposal. We especially want to thank all of the farmers who took time from their busy fall harvest to attend the briefings and file comments."

SCIENCE NOT IN SYNC WITH AG REALITY? Maryland Farm Bureau President Pat Langenfelder disputes that EPAs model and the science of managing phosphorus is out of date and not in-sync with the progress farmers have already made.
SCIENCE NOT IN SYNC WITH AG REALITY? Maryland Farm Bureau President Pat Langenfelder disputes that EPA's model and the science of managing phosphorus is out of date and not in-sync with the progress farmers have already made.

'Sound science' debatable

"MDA is confident that the PMT science is sound," contends Maryland Ag Secretary Buddy Hance, based on 20 years of evolving federal and state research to better understand soil phosphorus and managing risk of loss to our rivers and streams."

Langenfelder disagrees. "The science is simply not ready, and the cost-benefit analysis has not been conducted," she argues. The Maryland Farm Bureau Board of Directors unanimously opposed PMT's adoption, noting that the restrictions would dramatically limit the use of locally-produced organic fertilizer to much of the land on the lower Eastern Shore and in many other areas of the state. This limitation will have far reaching negative economic impacts on individual poultry growers, dairymen, grain operators, support businesses and local communities.

"Our members," adds Langenfelder, "strongly believe that it makes no sense to impose this burden on farmers when at 130% we are the only sector to reach our Bay cleanup goals in the most recent analysis and are, in fact, doing more than our fair share."

Farm Bureau is also concerned that replacing organic slow-release fertilizer with water-soluble chemical nitrogen will have a much greater impact on the Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation agrees with this concern in their October 2013 Pennsylvania Fact Sheet entitled, Manure: Not the Leading Cause of Nitrogen Pollution to the Chesapeake Bay.

In it, they emphasize that "in the case of nitrogen pollution, manure is not the leading source; rather, chemical fertilizers applied onto agricultural lands are the leading source of nitrogen pollution…"