210 SOUTH CROSS STREET, SUITE 101
CHESTERTOWN, MARYLAND 21620
PHONE: (410) 810-1381
FAX: (410) 810-1383
WWW.CLEANCHESAPEAKECOALITION.COM
September 18, 2015
Dear Editor and Publisher:
Please consider for publication and/or follow up reporting the following commentary on behalf of the
Clean Chesapeake Coalition:
More Hysteria, Less Science
Maryland county officials involved in the Clean Chesapeake Coalition have read with keen interest
your recent reporting on the latest crusade by a cadre of environmental organizations to single out
and demonize the poultry industry as the greatest threat de jure to the Chesapeake Bay. Once again
these advocacy groups claim to have sound science behind all of their proposals. In the context of
the larger Bay restoration picture and major threats to Bay water quality, the obsession with
phosphorus loading attributable to Maryland agriculture, and particularly Eastern Shore poultry
farming, is folly peppered with hysteria.
First consider the state of two keystone fisheries in proximity to chicken houses. In the lower parts
of the Bay where poultry operations are said to be concentrated (113 in Wicomico County and 87 in
Somerset County), the crab and oyster harvests have been the highest in recent years. In the upper
Bay where poultry operations are more sparse (10 in Kent County and 40 in Queen Anne’s County),
there is no oyster fishery to speak of and crabs are scarce. As goes the oyster goes the Bay. So ask
all the environmental groups blaming poultry operations for the Bay’s poor health how it is that
oysters are thriving in parts of the Bay nearest to most of the chicken houses while in the upper Bay
where we have a relative few chicken houses oysters are non-existent. Perhaps it’s because chicken
houses (and while we’re at it, septic tanks) are not major sources of pollution loading to the Bay.
Where phosphorus loading to the Bay is the concern, context is essential if we hope to achieve
meaningful and measurable improvement to overall Bay water quality. According to a 2012
Chesapeake Bay Program report, Maryland’s annual average phosphorus loading to the Bay from
agriculture is 985 tons (1,970,000 lbs.). Meanwhile, the average annual phosphorus loading from the
Susquehanna River (the largest tributary feeding the Bay) is no less than 3,300 tons (6,600,000 lbs.),
not including what is scoured from behind Conowingo Dam and the other reservoirs in the lower
Susquehanna River during storm events and now on a more regular basis because of lost trapping
capacity. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with the reservoirs for the dams in the
lower Susquehanna River now being full, the amount of annual phosphorus loading from the
Susquehanna River to the Bay is increased by 70% to 5,600 tons (11,200,000 lbs.). So from
upstream pollution sources - including less regulated Pennsylvania farms - the Susquehanna River
dumps nearly 600% more phosphorus each year into the Bay than the phosphorus loading attributed
to all Maryland agriculture. Making matters worse, and magnifying the absurdity of finger pointing
at chickens, is the estimated 130,000 tons (260,000,000 lbs.) of phosphorus accumulated behind
Conowingo Dam waiting to be scoured into the Bay in shock loading proportions during the next
storm event.
Letter to The Daily Times Editorial Board
September 18, 2015
Page 2 of 2
From the filing of Freedom of Information Act requests, we know for a fact that a March 2015 report
titled “Understanding Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Implications for Management
and Restoration – the Eastern Shore” by the U.S. Geological Survey included photo-shopped satellite
imagery and erroneous data. The gist of this USGS report, also known as Circular 1406, is that
agriculture on the Eastern Shore of Maryland (which constitutes only 7% of the 64,000 square mile
Bay watershed) is the leading culprit of the “ecological and economic degradation of the bay in
recent decades.” However disingenuous, it was no surprise to Coalition county officials that USGS
timed the release of Circular 1406 to coincide with the General Assembly session while the
phosphorus management tool (PMT) legislation and regulations were being debated. In fact, records
obtained by the Coalition reveal that USGS rushed Circular 1406 in order for a high ranking USGS
official to testify in support of PMT legislation and, most curiously, when the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation and like organizations testified in support of the same PMT legislation they cited to
USGS Circular 1406 before its completion and release to the general public.
Now, to further exaggerate the “phosphorus problem” linked to Eastern Shore agriculture, comes
the latest report by the Environmental Integrity Project (“More Phosphorus, Less Monitoring”) citing
multiple times to USGS Circular 1406 – which we now know was rushed and manipulated to fit a
false narrative targeting relatively minor sources of water pollution at significant expense to our
economic and cultural environments.
The moral of this story is that the purported “science” justifying sweeping measures such as one-sizefits-all septic regulations, inflexible stormwater management mandates and now a moratorium on the
poultry industry warrant scrutiny and in many cases challenge.
All of the organizations currently advocating for a moratorium on chicken houses in the name of
saving the Bay, especially those using federal and State grants funds to carry on their latest crusade,
should be challenged to explain how and why dredging and maintaining the reservoir above
Conowingo Dam would not be more ecologically and economically beneficial to the overall health of
the Bay and to Maryland’s efforts and expenditures to restore the Bay. We are wasting time, money
and the public’s attention focusing on marginal pollution sources, while common sense and the best
science tell us to be looking upstream at the single largest source of concentrated sediments, nutrients
and other contaminants threatening the Bay.
The Clean Chesapeake Coalition is an evolving association of Maryland local governments whose
elected officials have coalesced to pursue improvement to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in
the most prudent and fiscally responsible manner possible – through research, coordination and
advocacy.
Sincerely,
CLEAN CHESAPEAKE COALITION
Ronald H. Fithian
Chairman and Kent County Commissioner