Maryland Planning Blog

Agricultural land on the Eastern Shore is disappearing to development built next to or upon what was previously farmland. / Daily Times file photo

Farmers have come a long way toward meeting water quality standards

In the last 15 years, there has been unprecedented scrutiny of the chicken industry and locally produced organic fertilizer produced by the birds used by farmers. This largely is the result of misguided state policies following the alleged discovery of Pfiesteria in the Pocomoke River in late 1997.

The lack of science about that previously unknown creature and later discrediting of the original research on Pfiesteria did not stop the rush to have a political solution to a scientific issue.

Caught by surprise and swept into new requirements by a vastly larger political and environmental community, the chicken industry nonetheless went to work to improve its environmental practices. After initial grumbling about the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 and all the changes it required of farmers in application of fertilizers and chicken manure to the soil (things not required of homeowners), chicken growers and crop farmers went to work and adjusted to the new requirements.

New data show some improvements in local water quality.

All along, we argued that policies should be based on good science. We meant biology, chemistry, agronomy, not political science. Too often political science was the basis for decisions. We worked with government agencies to make sure the new regulations were sensible, fact-based and not designed to put our members out of business. Once the new procedures were in place, folks in the agricultural community intensified their land and water stewardship programs.

In the early days of these discussions about the role farmers played in Chesapeake Bay pollution, we constantly were on the defensive. Our members’ expertise was producing feed ingredients, raising chickens and preparing products for consumers. We were not experts on water quality. All sorts of studies were undertaken and we had to play catch-up. on the data produced.

However, I can remember no time when we expressed opposition to clean water. We just said let’s make sure the data are accurate and that new policies are science-based and balanced.

Over the years, some in the environmental community have recognized the positive achievements of the chicken industry and crop farmers. Early on, they would have preferred to see farms go out of business. Some then realized properly managed farmland is a better use of land than housing developments and commercial proliferation. Now some of our early critics are supporters. Other groups remain hostile and more than willing to put out misinformation — partly to justify their existence and to create a crisis to fight. But we’ve noticed changes in attitudes.

I believe this is the result of a better understanding of the business of farming. We are more than happy to work with reasonable organizations that seek to work with us. We may not agree to everything, but at least there is greater cooperation with reasonable groups. Airplane flyovers and federal lawsuits do not result in cooperation. They result in hostility that does not achieve improved water quality.

We have come a long way since 1997. We have a long way to go to meet water quality standards. But the work is under way and our members are increasing their pollution prevention programs.

Bill Satterfield is executive director of Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc. in Georgetown.

Zoning and commitment to conservation are agriculture’s protection

Keeping agriculture viable on the Eastern Shore over the long term mostly revolves around two things — zoning and commitment to land conservation.

Often lost in the legitimate discussion about state and federal farming regulations is the amount of agricultural land converted annually from crops and forest to strip malls and housing developments.

While rhetoric focuses on how regulations might drive farming out of Maryland or Delaware, few things have chipped away faster at agriculture than poorly planned growth. Witness, for example, the western shore, which as little as 60 years ago, had as much farmland per county as Eastern Shore counties. Not surprisingly, counties with stronger zoning to protect agriculture have remained more balanced; those with a laissez-faire approach seemed to accept their fate as if they had no choice.

But the reality is counties do have a choice. For example, in Sussex County they have so far chosen to trade farming for development. With no real zoning for agriculture, the county’s two-dwelling-units-per-acre AR zoning, spread across most of Sussex, will consume more than 400,000 acres of land and could add 1.1 million residential units. Contrast that with Worcester County adjacent and to the south, where foresight to create and keep 5-acre lot zoning on agricultural parcels has kept agriculture viable and allowed farmers to compete with farmers rather than developers. At build-out, the county expects less than 70,000 more units consuming about 6,000 more acres.

Like some Maryland counties, Sussex could institute zoning to protect farming, cluster growth and ultimately lower taxes, but the county lacks the wherewithal.

While better than Sussex, Wicomico County has also instituted zoning policies that mostly benefit development over farming. The new aptly named state “Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act” will help move the county forward, but instead of seizing opportunities to preserve farmland and struggling wildlife populations, Wicomico has not only pooh-poohed the law but also taken steps to liberalize existing zoning.

In doing so, counties in effect turn farmers into developers by making vinyl trump corn, soybeans and trees as the prime commodity. Farmers grow crops, not houses.

Counties should stop pretending lax zoning saves farming. According to the 2010 Census, about 1.8 percent of Lower Shore residents describe themselves as farmers. Many rent the land they farm. Zoning may have a short-term, one-time benefit to wealthy landowners and a few farmers, but there’s no real benefit to farming. There is nothing wrong with developing existing commercial or residential land, but stop pretending such development everywhere will save agriculture.

Farmers need simple, comprehensible laws that are not financially burdensome. Taxpayers should continue to pay farmers for agricultural preservation, wetlands, buffers and even commodity payments which help preserve this tradition.

At the same time, elected officials should not act as though an appeal to property rights activists is the same as an appeal to save farming. Each has wildly different aims and will yield wildly different results.

Zoning for crops and trees saves farming. Zoning for subdivisions does not.

is executive director of the Maryland Coastal Bays Program where he has worked for the past 12 years. The former journalist is on the board of Delmarva Low Impact Tourism (DLITE), a coalition of The Nature Conservancy, National Park Service, and tourism professionals who have joined to promote nature tourism on the Eastern Shore. An avid fisherman, birder, cyclist and kayaker, Wilson is a naturalist and frequent lecturer on growth and wildlife-related topics. He recently co-authored the book “Shifting Sands; Environmental and Cultural Change in Maryland’s Coastal Bays.” He holds BS from Penn State University and an MA from Boston College.