Issues: Water

MARYLAND

• Dramatic growth over the past 20 years in the size of chicken farms on Maryland's Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay is generating massive quantities of chicken manure, contributing to the decline in the health of the Chesapeake Bay.
  
  
• Until the state legislature passed a new law this year, poultry operations were not regulated for environmental protection purposes. (The new regulations, however, will not come into full effect for seven years.)
  
  
• The new state law will not require involvement of the large poultry companies in the regulatory scheme, thereby leaving the full responsibility for compliance on the contract poultry growers.
  
  
• The state has exercised its permit authority over swine and cattle factories only recently and allows little public participation in the process.

The poultry industry has operated in Maryland for more than fifty years. During that time, the industry has developed into a major component of Maryland's Eastern Shore economy.

The runoff from manure applications poses a significant threat to Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay,¹ which suffers from a serious nutrient pollution problem.² A major source of this pollution is animal manure, which is rich in nitrogen and phosphorus. In natural bodies of water such as the Bay, a glut of these substances fuels the runaway growth of algae, ultimately leading to the death of fish, shellfish and other aquatic life. In the Chesapeake Bay, the excessive quantities of nitrogen and phophorus have dramatically degraded water quality and fostered the growth of the toxic microbe Pfiesteria piscicida, which has been responsible for major fish kills. People exposed to water or water vapor containing Pfiesteria have experienced symptoms ranging from skin irritation and gastrointestinal problems to short-term memory loss.³

In 1991, there were 1,901 chicken farms in Maryland with an average farm size of 50 acres.⁴ A typical chicken farm raises 200,000 chickens each year, supplying more than enough nitrogen and phosphorus in chicken droppings to fertilize more than 100 acres of crops -- twice as much acreage as the average farm.⁵

Maryland has agreed with other states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to reduce the level of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients entering the Bay by 40 percent by the year 2000 under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.⁶ Unfortunately, the problem of nutrient pollution in the Bay persists and it is unlikely that the goal will be reached within the next two years.⁷

Pollution Problems

In 1996 the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) reported that approximately 93 percent of Maryland waters that are known to be failing to meet state water quality standards fall short of these standards because of excessive nutrient pollution.⁸ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program estimates that 326 million pounds of nitrogen and 19 million pounds of phosphorus enter the Bay every year.⁹ While there are numerous sources of this pollution to the Bay and its tributaries, the Chesapeake Bay Program Model reveals that agriculture is the largest source.¹⁰ Agriculture is responsible for some 127 million pounds of nitrogen and nine million pounds of phosphorus entering the Bay each year.¹¹

A chief component of this agricultural pollution is found on Maryland's Eastern Shore, where hundreds of chicken houses produce about 300 million chickens each year.¹² The industry's annual production of 720 million pounds of chicken manure¹³ contains twice as much phosphorus as the human waste generated by Maryland's entire population annually.¹⁴ Manure contributes an estimated 40 percent of the nitrogen and 48 percent of the phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay from Maryland's Eastern Shore.¹⁵

The shallow groundwater table on the Eastern Shore makes the area extremely vulnerable to nitrogen pollution.¹⁶ Consequently, in areas where feedlots are concentrated, drinking water can be contaminated with nitrates, which have been linked to a potentially fatal inability to carry oxygen in blood in infants and miscarriages among women.

Furthermore, the land areas being fertilized with the highest concentrations of manure are the least capable of assimilating the nutrients, due to the existing content of phosphorus in the soil -- whether from past applications of manure, the soil's natural make-up or a combination of both. As much as 90 percent of the soils in the heavily farmed © lower four Eastern Shore counties -- Somerset, Dorchester, Wicomico, and Worcester -- already have phosphorus levels rated as "high" or "very high," indicating that no additional phosphorus is needed for plant growth.¹⁷ Because the soil phosphorus levels are high, there is far greater potential for phosphorus runoff into waterways and subsequent water pollution should additional manure be applied.

Regulatory Climate

Maryland, home to the headquarters of the Perdue Corporation, does not require environmental permits for poultry-growing operations. With regard to protecting water quality, the state regulates swine and cattle CAFOs only through the use of general permits, which allow little public input prior to the permitting of specific facilities and do not set environmental protection conditions based on individual farm sites. These general permits have been in use for less than two years.¹⁸

For more than ten years, Maryland has had a voluntary nutrient management program, which provides guidance to farms, including poultry operations, on the handling and land application of manure. The management program bases its manure application recommendations on nitrogen and largely ignores phosphorus, a nutrient that accumulates in the soil. The total farm acreage in Maryland, including pasture land, is 2.1 million acres. Approximately 996,000 acres have nutrient management plans.¹⁹ However, because these plans are completely voluntary, there is no information concerning their implementation.

Recently passed legislation mandates nutrient management plans for many agricultural operations. The legislation addresses the application of manure based not only on its nitrogen content but also on its content of phosphorus,²⁰ a controversial move favored by environmentalists and opposed by some in the industry as too burdensome. However, implementation of these more comprehensive plans for managing animal manure will not take full effect for seven years.²¹

Furthermore, liability for compliance has been placed squarely on the contract growers,²² those least capable of bearing the burden, while the large poultry companies have avoided financial liability and public accountability for the adverse environmental impacts associated with the growing of their chickens. Legislation that would have held the large poultry companies liable for manure management and disposal was introduced in the state general assembly but failed to pass out of committee.

The new legislation also extends a cost-share program for construction of manure storage sheds to chicken farmers and to farmers receiving manure. Under the state's voluntary cost-share program, the state can finance up to 87.5 percent of the cost of building manure storage if the farmer follows the state's recommended manure management practices. The state is also establishing a voluntary program to match farmers who have excess manure with the people who need it. Additionally, the state has established a fund to promote the development of alternative uses for animal manure.²³

Citizen Involvement

Citizen input in the permitting process for CAFOs is minimal, and use of general permits do not require public notification. Without notification and information, citizens lack the tools to participate in animal factory siting and pollution decisions.

Primary interviewee for this chapter:

George A. Chmael
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
111 Annapolis Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: 410-268-8833
Fax: 410-268-6687

Notes

1. Scott W. Ator and Matthew J. Ferrari, U.S. Geological Survey, "Nitrate and Selected Pesticides in Ground Water of the Mid-Atlantic Region" (1997), p. 2.

2. U.S. Geological Survey, "Overview of the U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Program" (1997), p. 1.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., "What You Should Know About Pfiesteria Piscicida," Fact Sheet (June 1998), p. 2.

4. U.S. Department of Agriculture Census, 1992, pp. 25, 233.

5. Herbert Brodie, University of Maryland and Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of the Environment, "Nutrient Sources on Agricultural Lands in Maryland," Final Report of Project NPS#6 for the Chesapeake Research Consortium (September 3, 1996), p. 18 and Table IX; U.S. Department of Agriculture Census (1992), pp. 25, 233.

6. 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, p. 2; 1992 Amendments, p. 1.

7. U.S. Geological Survey, "Overview of the U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Program" (1997), p. 1.

8. .Letter from Maryland Department of the Environment to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (9-26-96) containing Maryland's CWA §303(d) submission.

9. Personal communication between Chesapeake Bay Foundation staff and Louis Linker, Modeler at the Chesapeake Bay Program (September 11, 1998).

10. Chesapeake Bay Program Website: www.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram.

11. Chesapeake Bay Program Website: www.chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram.

12. Maryland Department of Agriculture, "Maryland Agriculture Statistics, Summary for 1996," p. 27.

13. Herbert Brodie, University of Maryland and Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture, "Nutrient Sources on Agricultural Lands in Maryland," Final Report of Project NPS#6 for the Chesapeake Research Consortium (September 3, 1996), p. 18 and Table IX; Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Agriculture Statistics, Summary for 1996, p. 27.

14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook; Maryland Office of Planning, Planning Data Services, "Demographic and Socio_Economic Outlook," revised August 1997, p. 1.

15. Maryland Department of the Environment, 1997 Bay Model Re-evaluation.

16. Scott W. Ator and Matthew J. Ferrari, U. S. Geological Survey, "Nitrate and Selected Pesticides in Ground Water of the Mid-Atlantic Region" (1997), pp. 4-5, Figure 2 (p. 3).

17. Data from University of Maryland Soil Testing Laboratory (1996).

18. Correspondence from Robert Daniel, Project Manager, Environmental Permits Service Center, Maryland Department of the Environment (May 8, 1997); General NPDES Permit No. MDR000010.

19. Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Agricultural Statistics, Summary for 1996, p. 1; Maryland Nutrient Management Program, 1997 Annual Report, p. 1.

20. Maryland General Assembly, SB178/HB399, signed May 12, 1998.

21. Maryland General Assembly, SB178/HB399, signed May 12, 1998.

22. Maryland General Assembly, SB178/HB399, signed May 12, 1998.

23. Maryland General Assembly, SB178/HB399, signed May 12, 1998.