CBF to Farmers: No, We Don't Hate You...

...But we would really appreciate it if you would quit resisting our efforts to put you out of business:

I have to give CBF credit for walking into the lions den on this one Their vice president of litigation, the guy who sues people the CBF doesn't like, which is their main mode of action, wrote an editorial for the the American Agriculturalist decrying the suit the American Farm Bureau has filed against the EPA regarding the new Chesapeake Bay TMDL (the so called 'Bay Diet'), seeking to 'clarify' their position:

First, CBF and its partners do not oppose farming or farmers. Quite to the contrary, CBF and its partners have worked with farmers for years to help them identify and install cost-effective practices that limit farm runoff that harms tributaries to the Bay.

What we do oppose is the American Farm Bureau Federation's attempt to derail a multi-year, multi-jurisdictional process to clean up the Bay that has been agreed to by all of the Bay states, Washington, D.C., and the federal government.

Second, it is important to be clear about what the AFBF and other national lobbying organizations are trying to achieve in federal court. While Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President Carl Shaffer states in your article that the action is not an effort to stop Chesapeake Bay clean-up efforts. But that is exactly what the lawsuit seeks to do. The complaint asks the court to throw out the clean-up goals set by EPA and to stop the states from implementing the individual plans they wrote to achieve those goals...

Nice, to be granted a voice in you opponents media, so you can call them liars to their face. I think you can say fairly say farmers oppose the TMDL plans without saying that they oppose cleaning up the Bay, motherhood and apple pie. 

Then he complains that farmers aren't doing their fair share, and that current laws aren't being adequately enforced:

Estimates indicate that only half Pennsylvania's farmers are in compliance with current laws and regulations. And, Pennsylvania's clean-up plan relies heavily on bringing farmers into compliance — an effort that would be halted if the Farm Bureau has its way.

State compliance efforts are important. While the NRCS study cited in the article did find that many farmers implement some best management practices, it also found that 80% of cropland in the Chesapeake Bay region did not have sufficient practices in place to reduce polluted runoff.

It seems to me that if only half of Pennsylvania's farmers are in compliance with current laws (a fair sized if), then CBF should be pursuing enforcement of existing law, rather than trying to gin up a new law,for which the future level of enforcement is equally uncertain.  Are the existing laws sufficient, if enforced?

Farm Bureau also argues that the science underlying the pollution limits is flawed. However, leading scientists across the watershed, including Denice H. Wardrop, a Research Scientist at Penn State University, have defended the underlying science, recognizing that it is adequate to determine the amount and distribution of pollution reductions required to achieve clean water in the Bay.

Yes, farmers likely believe that the some of science behind the TMDL is wrong, and not accounting nutrient sources adequately, but I doubt any of them are actively against cleaning up the Bay. At some level, all such science is wrong, the only question is how much, is it enough to effect the outcome, by how much and in which direction?  I don't think those questions are out of bounds when your dollars are on the line.

Farm Bureau also argues that EPA exceeded its authority by setting cleanup goals for the Bay. In fact, EPA was required to set those goals as the result of several court orders entered more than a decade ago and by the settlement of CBF's lawsuit against EPA.

Also, the states and EPA had signed agreements saying the Bay would be cleaned up by 2010. When it was realized that this goal would not be met, the states asked EPA to take the lead in setting the new cleanup standards.

So, your (CBF's) suits against the EPA to get your plans implemented are moral, but attempts by the Farm Bureau to file suit and get the legality of the laws examined with their interests in mind are immoral?  If CBF weren't afraid of the outcome, they'd welcome the suit to clear up the ability of EPA to address these questions.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has long been committed to helping individual farmers, as well as towns and cities, get the technical assistance and resources they need to reduce pollution and maintain economic viability. From placing technicians in farm communities to seeking federal funds in an effort to offset costs, we have worked with farmers, shoulder to shoulder. We will continue to do so.

I'd like to see the numbers on that.  How much money does CBF spend on farmers trying to offset any losses in income.  I'll bet dollars to donuts that their "assistance" to farmers consists largely of propaganda efforts.