Chickens or.............

A recent Opinion Editorial in The Daily Times (Nov. 6) bemoaned the fact that the EPA may be unfairly targeting the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore as it begins to finally do its job and regulate pollution sources to the Chesapeake Bay.
You can read the entire OpEd here

A paragraph or two in the editorial piece bothered me:

"The bay needs to be protected. The question is whether Maryland's poultry growers will able to meet the new restrictions and remain competitive with farms across the country."


"While the bay more than merits our concern, we must also not lose sight of the impact of poultry operations on Maryland's economy, particularly on the Lower Shore. If there were no longer a viable poultry industry, the impact would strike far beyond the loss of growers and processing plants."


The editorial piece ended by stating, "The EPA and the state must be prepared to offer whatever assistance growers require to enable them to comply with the new restrictions and remain economically viable."

The EPA is going to regulate the larger CAFO (confined animal feeding operations) facilities in Maryland and require a tighter control on the amount of water discharges from these operations through more stringent permitting, monitoring, and reporting.

The editorial was implying that if the EPA further regulates the industry in Maryland it may over-regulate them out of business.

I felt compelled to post a comment to their on-line editorial. It was posted 11/11/2009 at 10:55:44 AM. Interestingly, I just noticed tonight that my comment is no longer posted, while five other comments still remain on The Daily Times website editorial page.

What I wrote was that it is irresponsible to put this in an 'either-or' context. Wastewater is wastewater, whether it comes from humans, manufacturing, or chickens. Stormwater run-off is stormwater run-off, whether it comes from poultry operations or urban development.

Should we say our county taxes are too high and we should not have to pay for the permits, inspections and enforcement of our wastewater treatment facilities? Let's dump raw human sewage straight into our creeks, rivers and bays because it is simpler, cheaper and less time-consuming? (Gee, that is exactly what USED to happen before this country drafted federal pollution laws!)

Like it or not, the poultry industry on the Eastern Shore is just that - an industry. These corporations are just the same as if they were producing automobiles, furniture, clothing, or paint.

The difference in the state of Maryland is that the poultry corporations are allowed to pass off the cost of environmental pollution on to the backs of the contracted growers who work for them, and on to the communities that surround these industrial facilities.

A great little video from The Sierra Club - fun to watch even though it's a bit dated.

click here to watch it

It is time the State of Maryland requires the corporations that own the chickens to accept responsibility for the waste these chickens produce, and share that responsibility with the growers who contract to work for them.

The industry's excuse that the chicken poop is a valuable commodity to the grower (it's used by the grower to fertilize his own crop fields or sold to another row crop farmer) can no longer be allowed to excuse them from accepting responsibility for the waste.

The fact is, larger and larger facilities are popping up all over the Eastern Shore. They are quickly replacing the small long narrow chicken houses you remember from your drives down Rt. 113. Every time I see a Perdue tractor trailer go down Rt. 113 with the pretty little farm house depicted on the side I have to laugh.

In reality, your chicken dinner is being grown in shiny silver 20,000 - 30,000 square foot buildings, usually 6 - 12 together, and in one case as many as 26 at one facility. These larger buildings can house up to 25,000 birds at one time, and sometimes five flocks can be cycled through in a year.

Mountaire CAFO in Somerset County - 26  30,000 square foot buildings

Here in Worcester County, despite some officials who claim the county's zoning laws will not allow such large CAFOs to be built, we are seeing a dramatic increase in these larger production facilities.

From Berlin, drive out Rt. 374 towards Powellville and just before you get to the little bridge over the Pocomoke River take a look to your right. What was once a scenic little farm (my artist friend painted the scene one year when the crop fields were golden yellow and the sun lit up the classic red barn,) is now a row of alien looking giant silver poultry houses. Where's that idyllic Perdue 'family farm' now??

Or take a back road tour down to Five Bridges Road in lower Worcester County, across the road from Dividing Creek. This huge facility will produce somewhere around a quarter of a million birds, tons of manure, and nearly half a million pounds of nitrates from the ammonia emissions coming out of those buildings.

So this brings us back to the EPA permitting and regulations. Where once there were crop fields, forest and upland wetlands to capture the rain water and infiltrate it back into the ground before it reached Dividing Creek, now we have thousands and thousands of square feet of hardened surface. Roof tops, cement pads, outbuildings, driveways. Stormwater run-off from these surfaces picks up whatever pollutants are on the ground of these facilities and carries it off to the nearest stream.

Manure that is loaded with e.Coli and coliform bacteria, nitrogen, phosphorous, arsenic, other heavy metals - not to mention the pharmaceuticals that are used to keep 25,000 closely confined animals living.

Until the politicians and agency heads in this state develop the political will to require the poultry corporations to accept responsibility for the waste their industry is producing, then the EPA will have to come in and do it for them.  And in this state, that puts the burden on the contracted grower (the family farmer.)

Worcester now, and in the future....

This is a beautiful view of the area around Bishopville Prong.  Unfortunately this area was upzoned to rural residential which will allow slightly denser growth, all on septic, outside of the Comp. Plan's recommended growth areas.

Let's hope the county enforces use of 'best technology' septic systems, strong stormwater management, and critical area protections so our waterways will not be severely impacted. 

Critical Area buffers like these help to protect the quality of our water.  When these buffers are illegally cleared we need county compliance staff to not only require mitigation but to assess fines, follow up and make certain the buffer is replanted.

This proposed development in Public Landing (below) illegally cleared several hundred yards of protective buffer along Paw Paw Creek.  The developer was issued a warning, a 'gentleman's agreement' was reached in which he would replant the shoreline and no fines were issued.   According to County officials, the developer was required to mitigate by planting a substantial new buffer of trees and shrubs, which has been done.  According to this official, the new plants are thriving.  I still continue to respectfully disagree with the County on this approach.  Had the County issued a hefty fine AND a firm mandate for mitigation, other developers would not be so quick to strip a shoreline in order to open up water views and hasten the sale of their property.   And our waterways would benefit by not losing mature trees and shrubs, only to be replaced with young plants that won't afford the same protections for many years.

Clean Water is what brings us all to Worcester County.  Healthy water provides safe habitat for fish, crabs, wildlife.  Healthy water provides recreational opportunities.  Healthy water keeps our families healthy.   Let's continue to work together to keep Worcester County a healthy place to live, work and recreate!

3.5 Years to Adopt a Zoning Plan

Nearly four years after the Worcester County Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2006 by the County Commissioners, its implementation has finally been voted upon...well, sort of.

While missing the mark on many aspects of the Comprehensive Plan, (and thus these award winning concepts such as TDRs, Impact fees, alternative energy initiatives, and protection of flood plains from development were not implemented) the County's new zoning code and zoning map was approved on November 3, 2009.

With very few changes to the text of the Zoning Code, and one or two strange (?) changes to the Comprehensive Zoning Maps – the Worcester County Commissioners, in spite of themselves, voted unanimously to adopt the new zoning ordinance. Cowger was the lone dissenting vote to approve the Zoning Maps.

Assateague Coastal Trust's efforts to strengthen the language in the code for protection of our waterways and our natural resources remained as suggested in our public comments and as amended by the Planning Commission and Staff.

Our efforts to better protect our waterways through more protective zoning districts were for the most part incorporated into the new land use zoning maps.
Our efforts to force this Board to deal with the elimination of the Estate (E-1) zoning, as called for in the Comp. Plan,  and place these flood prone areas into more protective zoning did not succeed. Commissioner Gulyas seemed to think the Estate Zoning was some live animal that would (in her words!) ‘die a slow death if we just leave it alone.’

While this means large areas of South Point and the Rt. 611 corridor will not be up-zoned to more dense residential but will remain Estate zoned, some areas of E-1 were indeed given higher density zoning - Gum Point Road and the Bishopville Prong area were both given R-1 zoning.

Commissioners Cowger and Church, obviously uneducated about the zoning and the code, made fools of themselves arguing moot points about how much money a certain developer had paid for a proposed project.  Both Cowger & Church kept loudly arguing, mistakenly,  that the Commissioners were ‘down-zoning’ the man’s property.

Commissioner Bud Church practically shed tears during his plea to the audience that a huge mistake had been made. What these two Commissioners didn't seem to understand is: 1. The parcel started as A-1 and stayed as A-1; and 2. Comprehensive Re-zoning is not determined by how much money a land speculator wants to gamble on future projects.

In another zoning map change, all the Commissioners voted to leave two parcels along Rt. 589 as A-1 zoning, against Planning Commission recommendations to change the agricultural zoning to residential R-1. The Commissioners argument for this was they did not want to add to the traffic congestion on Rt. 589 so they wanted to leave the two parcels at the current zoning.

What they were oblivious to, however, were the several hundreds of acres of  E-1 zoned parcels along Gum Point Road, adjacent to and just behind the two highway fronting parcels. All that area was being recommended to go up to R-1 and they left it that way!

So somehow all this new residential traffic coming off of Gum Point Road onto Rt. 589 is not going to be as detrimental to the highway as that one little parcel of A-1 they fought so hard to keep A-1……..go figure?

They did not support a motion by Commissioner Shockley to add 2 more building lots to the already permitted 5 lots allowed per parcel in the A-1 zoned areas. They did  however, support his text amendment to increase the total square footage allowed ‘by right’ for commercial buildings on an A-1 parcel from 600 sq. ft to 3,000 sq. ft.

Without adequate time to consider all the ramification of this major change, and under pressure by the Commission President to wrap things up, it remains to be seen what impact this will have on types of commercial businesses in our A-1 district throughout the county. At the very least they should have agreed to the 4,400 increase by ‘special exception’ review only.

Most disturbing about yesterday’s meeting was the total lack of assistance by the County Attorney to guide the Commissioners through this process, keep them focused and help them not make mistakes like they did on Rt. 589 and possibly to the A-1 district allowable uses. In my opinion he has proven himself, once again, to be lacking in the skills to adequately advise our Commissioners and this county.

The icing on the cake was the vote. Commission President Gulyas insisted on raising hands to signify yea or nay. She had to continually ask for people to keep their hands up for an official count, sometimes questioning if someone’s hand had been raised or not, they were all talking at once, Cowger wanted to continue his rant about the Sea Hawk Road property…..it was embarrassing.

What the heck happened to taking a roll call voice vote, right down the line, and make each Commissioner speak his/her vote? Very unprofessional behavior yesterday, but then that is what we have come to expect.

The Arm Chair Lawyer

As the TV commercial says, "I'm not really a lawyer, but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night!"


I wish I had pursued an education in studying law. I find it fascinating. As a Waterkeeper I absolutely believe in enforcing the law. A wise friend once said, "If there's a law that is not enforced, then there is no law."


I served on Worcester County's Ethics Board in the 90's. This Board was advised by a former county attorney and I learned a lot from him. I didn't always agree with him but I respected his knowledge of the law, of the county laws, and admired his sense of what was right and what was wrong.


In my previous life (before Waterkeepers) and in this life, I've worked with and have been advised by lawyers regarding all sorts of issues - corporate law, environmental law, non-profit law, tax law, civil laws, ethical laws. All boards I've ever served on included attorneys certified in many different areas of law, always there to give us sage advice.


As a result I feel I have a fairly solid sense of understanding when something is right and when something is just plain wrong.


And so in May 2009 when the County Commissioners held their now infamous closed door meeting and four Commissioners voted behind closed doors to dismantle a nationally admired Planning Department and emasculate one of the most educated and talented planners this county had ever had the privilege to employ, and humiliate one of the most knowledgeable zoning administrators in county history, just because one south county commissioner desired to help his buddies get their permits faster, easier and without as much scrutiny, I clearly knew something was WRONG. So did three other Commissioners. So did the public who were in attendance at that May meeting.


Yet four Commissioners and one County attorney had no qualms putting lipstick on this pig and contemptuously tried to dupe the citizens into believing this was being done for the good of the citizens and the county, as a cost cutting effort and nothing more.


Assateague Coastal Trust questioned the County Attorney, who arrogantly replied we didn't know what we were talking about. ACT could not stand by without some attempt to substantiate our outrage. Under guidance of our capable attorneys, ACT drafted an appeal to the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board to right this wrong.


I was scoffed at by the County's attorney as being an 'arm chair lawyer'. He advised the Commissioners not to worry. He wrote a lengthy rebuttal to the Compliance Board and defended his advice to the Commissioners.


On October 27, 2009 the Maryland Open Meetings Act Compliance Board, advised by the State Attorney General's Office, agreed what had happened was wrong. And not just a little bit wrong, on October 27, 2009 the Compliance Board issued a finding that the County violated the Open Meetings Act on every single count.


I found it most satisfying that the AG's office used the County Attorney's legal argument, in which he states the County's actions were an 'Administrative' prerogative versus a 'Legislative' responsibility,  to substantiate their opinion that indeed the action of consolidating the government departments was 'legislative' and therefore in violation of the Act.

The Compliance Board, in their ruling, stated: "The County Commissioners’ focused on the executive nature of the consolidation and that no county services were changed. The complaint, however, focused on the potential impact of the consolidation on land use decisions and environmental consequences that flow from such decisions, and argued that the decision was a policy matter subject to the Act. We accept as a truism that a consolidation or reorganization of departments at any level of government may well impact the manner that decisions are made and what priorities might be established.....Based on the information offered by the Council, we find that the Council’s action failed to qualify as an administrative function."

 What I find less satisfying is that our County Attorney continues to publicly use his  excuse about "protecting the privacy of our 'soon to be fired' employees," when within hours desks were being packed up and these folks were out on the street, and everyone knew about it. 

Indeed, the Open Meetings Act Compliance Board stated the following: " In response to our request, the County Commissioners provided us with a copy of its minutes for the closed session. In fact, part of the closed session qualified as a personnel matter in that it concerned the ability of a particular employee to retire. However, other matters were discussed, such as a suggested severance package, when the decision affecting the employees should be implemented, available alternatives such as furloughs, and the merits of reorganization in general. To the extent discussion extended beyond the status of a single identifiable employee, we find that the Commissioners exceeded the permissible bounds of the personnel exception, thus, violating the Act."

 While none of this will bring back an independent Planning Department to our County Government until hopefully after the next election, for a few hours this weekend I plan to sink down into my overstuffed armchair and soak up some of the warm sunshine.