Bay Triggers Internecine Fight Within Federal Government

USDA calls EPA Bay model flawed:

The chief of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) says the EPA used flawed agricultural data in formulating its TMDL rule for the Chesapeake Bay region... According to an NCBA report on that meeting, White confirmed there are big differences between NRCS’ data on the effects of conservation practices on cropland and the data used by EPA.

“Where we have a problem is we think this Bay model is not 100 percent accurate when it comes to agriculture,” White said. “There is just some erroneous stuff in there. We believe 88 percent of cropland (in the Bay areas) is under no-till. EPA is saying 50 percent. That’s a big, big difference.”

Ashley Lyon, NCBA deputy environmental counsel, said it was reassuring to hear White reinforce the need for an accurate study.  “Given the seriousness of this issue and potential regulatory consequences to agriculture, it is absolutely imperative that a more accurate study is conducted. The regulations that will likely be derived from EPA’s flawed model will put farmers and ranchers out of business,” Lyon said. “This regulation not only impacts agricultural producers living on the Chesapeake Bay watershed but lays the foundation for all watersheds. Sound science must be the basis for any regulations.”...

In the Federal Government, the EPA represents the interests of the environmental community, a special interest just like many, while the USDA represents it's constituents, largely the agriculture industry and it's dependent industries.  What we are seeing here is the opening shots in a conflict within the government over how stringently the TMDLs affect the farmers.  EPA, who's constituency definitely does not include farmers, don't care how much it affects them. USDA, whose constituency is largely farmers cares a great deal.  Who wins?  Who knows?  Probably the guy the with cabinet secretary who actually gets to see the President.

And the model?  Flawed?  No doubt.  Models by definition are simplifications of reality, and always "wrong" in some absolute sense.  The only question is"How Wrong?"  I'd like to see the origin of the figures in dispute.  That sounds like a pretty major difference to me.