Groups appeal Chesapeake Bay court ruling
The American Farm Bureau Federation took action Monday to appeal a recent court decision that upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s “pollution diet” for the 64,000-square-mile Chesapeake Bay watershed. AFBF filed a notice to appeal the Sept. 13 federal district court ruling, seeking reversal of a decision that gives EPA wide latitude to dictate local land-use and development decisions.
“This is a wrongly decided case that has dangerous implications for farmers and many others in the Chesapeake Bay area and nationwide,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “This case isn’t about whether or not to protect the Chesapeake Bay; we all share that goal. This case is about whether EPA can dictate where farming will be allowed, where homes can be built and where businesses can be established. By taking over decisions like that, EPA has turned the whole concept of cooperative federalism out the barn door.”
AFBF seeks an appeal to preserve the primary role of states in setting land use policy and determining how to achieve water quality goals. According to AFBF, the Clean Water Act puts states in the drivers’ seat to determine how farmers, builders, homeowners and towns will share the responsibility of achieving clean water. EPA’s framework puts EPA in control of those decisions.
“Win or lose on appeal, farmers and ranchers will continue their dedicated efforts on the farm to improve water quality and the natural environment,” said Stallman. “In the meantime, AFBF will continue to oppose what we see as a remarkable power grab.”
The National Corn Growers Association President Martin Barbre released a statement saying that the NCGA is going along with the AFBF in filing an appeal to the Sept. 13 ruling, which he noted upheld the EPA’s determination of Total Maximum Daily Load for the Chesapeake Bay:
“NCGA feels it is in the best interest of farmers to appeal the district court’s decision which upheld the TMDL for the Chesapeake Bay. Our organization understands and supports the need to protect water quality, but we don’t support a wrongfully decided case when it has a profoundly negative impact on agricultural production and innovation,” Barbre said.
He said, “We continue to believe the policies and science behind Chesapeake Bay TMDL are wrong and that it goes beyond the scope of Clean Water Act authority. We hope the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will reconsider these arguments and ultimately provide state and local jurisdiction more flexibility to work with agriculture in meeting water quality goals.”