FEDERAL ISSUE
Chesapeake Bay and Water Quality
The Council calls for strong Congressional oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure
decisions reflect the legislative intent of the law; are scientifically responsible; are risk-based; consider
the effects on the agribusiness community’s ability to provide a safe, abundant, and affordable supply of
food; and do not require management practices unsupported by modern science, technology, and
economic feasibility. Congress should ensure that full economic impact studies are used in the decision
making process.
CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL
 The Council urges Congress to acknowledge the significant reduction in runoff to the Chesapeake Bay that has
occurred through actions of the agriculture and forest communities and to recognize the substantial cost to
landowners associated with those actions.
 The Council supports federal and state support of adequately funded federal programs to assist in implementation
of agriculture and forest best management practices (BMPs), and efforts to identify and accurately account for all
BMPs that are implemented both through voluntary efforts and in cooperation with federal programs. These
programs will assist in efforts to meet nutrient and sediment reduction goals through the utilization of unbiased,
accurate, complete, and scientific data.
 The Council supports utilization of agricultural best management practices in order to meet Chesapeake Bay
goals that: 1) are scientifically developed, 2) are properly interpreted, 3) consider current agricultural practices,
and 4) do not require actions unsupported by modern science, technology and economic feasibility.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
 As required by court-order, EPA issued the Chesapeake Bay TMDL (bay-wide “pollution diet”) on December 29,
2010. The size, scope, and implications of this action are unprecedented, and in some cases, unknown as EPA did
not conduct any cost analysis prior to approval of the TMDL. EPA continues to require States comply with EPA’s
expectations for the Bay TMDL, with threats for noncompliance including loss of federal funding, permit
issuance, and program authorities.
 In addition, the Bay TMDL load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are based upon output from
the Chesapeake Bay Model, which relies on incomplete data regarding certain agricultural best management
practices that have been implemented but not counted towards progress. The model also incorrectly indicates
negative impacts from the implementation of Nutrient Management Plans, which reduce the level of nutrients
applied to land. EPA’s data conflicts with recently released data from USDA-NRCS regarding agriculture’s share
of loads into the Bay, particularly for sediment.
IMPACT ON AGRIBUSINESS
 With no current cost-benefit analysis of the Bay TMDL, the costs for all economic sectors within the Bay region,
farms, forests, urban landscapes, development, local governments, and municipal water plants, have not been
determined even though it is expected to be sizeable. Federal funding is a key to making progress in meeting
TMDL goals, but cannot be guaranteed by EPA.
 Future TMDL actions and EPA “consequences” to states that are not based upon complete data and science, are
unachievable when utilizing current technology, and are cost-prohibitive will be detrimental to the continued
growth of the Bay-region economy and preservation of farms within the watershed.
ACTIONS REQUESTED
 Provide oversight hearings and guidance for EPA to ensure that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL results in
economically achievable water quality goals and does not limit expanded economic development.
 Ensure that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is based on refined and improved science, real data, and accurate
computer modeling in the Bay watershed.
 Require that EPA conduct an economic impact analysis of the Bay TMDL before proceeding with any further
actions. Require EPA to allow Virginia, and other Bay States, to have the flexibility within their states to achieve
their own plans and water quality progress.
OVER
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT
Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program (Section 117 of the Clean Water Act) is important to continuing
Chesapeake Bay restoration activities.
 The Council supports reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program to improve the health of the Chesapeake
Bay and its tributaries with these provisions:
o Policies, programs, and incentives implemented to achieve Chesapeake Bay water quality benefits that are
balanced with the world’s need for food, feed, fiber, and fuel.
o Requirements for non-biased economic impact analyses for all sectors impacted by water quality programs
prior to implementation of plans or actions
o Retention of current state authority to develop and implement water quality implementation plans that best
meet the needs of each states’ citizens, economy, and the environment
o Flexible solutions, tiered approaches based upon business differences and certainty for agribusiness
owners in meeting water quality goals.
 However, the Council opposes these expansions of federal authority for the Chesapeake Bay program:
o Codification of President Obama’s May 12, 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order,
o Inclusion of dates certain for Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load development and
implementation
o Authorization of citizen suits, and
o Removal of the exemptions for agricultural and nonpoint source stormwater runoff provided previously in
the Clean Water Act.
 The Council opposes using a significantly flawed Chesapeake Bay Model for decision making. Decisions based on
inaccurate modeling will adversely impact the agribusiness industry’s efforts to address water quality.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
 While similar legislation has yet to be introduced in the 113th Congress, Senator Cardin and Representative
Cummings introduced the “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act” in 2010 that would have
made sweeping changes to the Chesapeake Bay Program, including expanded federal authority and far-reaching
enforcement power for EPA over farms, businesses, development, and state water quality programs in the Bay
region.
 In support of the farming community, Representatives Holden and Goodlatte introduced “The Chesapeake Bay
Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act” (H.R. 4153) during the 112th Congress to address water quality
measures to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries by providing necessary tools and
certainty to the agribusiness industry to implement additional conservation practices, and establishing flexibility in
meeting regulatory requirements of the Clean Water Act. Similar legislation has not yet been introduced in the
113th Congress.
IMPACT ON AGRIBUSINESS
 Reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program with some necessary improvements is important to continue the
coordinated efforts to addressing the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay. However, the broad expansion of federal
authority and far-reaching enforcement power by the EPA, as was proposed in the “Chesapeake Clean Water and
Ecosystem Restoration Act” in 2010, sets a dangerous precedent for similar actions in other watersheds
nationwide.
 This expanded power would potentially create economic “cap and trade” for the Bay region, a lack of sufficient
“credits” from agriculture and others when they are heavily regulated, and require dedicated, consistent, and
sufficient cost-share and technical assistance which has not been appropriated to date.
ACTIONS REQUESTED
 Support legislation similar to the “Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act” [H.R. 4153
(Holden & Goodlatte)] introduced in the 112th Congress as a means to make water quality improvements while
providing certainty to farmers and foresters in meeting federal Clean Water Act mandates, and creating a viable
inter-state trading program necessary to allow for growth within the Bay watershed.
 Likewise, oppose measures similar to the “Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act” [S. 1816
(Cardin) & H.R. 3852 (Cummings)] introduced in the 111 th Congress.
NEXT
CLEAN WATER ACT
 The Council supports limiting the authority of the Clean Water Act to navigable streams and waterways that have
continuous flow, and opposes efforts to broaden the original intent of the Act which would result in broadening its
authority over non-navigable waters of the United States. Changes to the Clean Water Act must maintain existing
exemptions for normal agricultural or silvicultural uses.
 The Council supports the development of and subsequent evaluation of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans
and Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) regulations to ensure they are properly applied, do not cause
adverse economic impacts on producers, and are based on current science.
 The Council opposes any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs that
expand EPA authority over agricultural and forestry operations that do not discharge or intend to discharge to
waters of the United States through a discernible, man-made conveyance.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
 EPA entered into two court settlement agreement with environmental organizations that may have serious impacts
for future amendments to their CAFO regulations. Both settlement agreements bind EPA to consider increasing
the amount of farms covered by CAFO permits by decreasing the number of animals that will require a CAFO
permit in the future. EPA has also targeted inspections of animal feeding operations, primarily small dairies and
poultry operations on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, the Shenandoah Valley, and Pennsylvania, utilizing aerial
surveillance at times to select the inspected properties.
IMPACT ON AGRIBUSINESS
 Requiring additional animal operations to comply with CAFO permit rules may result in smaller operations (as
few as one cow has been suggested by some at EPA) having to make costly upgrades to manure management
systems, for example, or leaving production agriculture all together.
 Expanding EPA’s authority in the NPDES permit programs would allow EPA to designate certain agriculture and
silviculture operations, i.e. forest roads used for timber harvest, as point sources requiring NPDES permits and
supplant current state programs. The EPA should recognize that Virginia’s existing programs are sufficient to
address non-point source pollution controls.
ACTIONS REQUESTED
 Provide oversight hearings and guidance for EPA to ensure that additional regulatory burdens on businesses,
individuals, and states are limited to the intent of the law, based on sound science, and balance economic
considerations with water quality improvements.
 Support legislation similar to the “Preserving Rural Resources Act of 2013” (H.R. 2581) introduced in the 113th
Congress by Representatives Hurt, Costa, and Michaud, which reinforced agricultural exemptions granted to
farmers by Congress in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
For more information, contact the Virginia Agribusiness Council at (804) 643-3555 or VAC@va-agribusiness.org.
July, 2013