A new assessment has found fatal flaws in an agriculture industry report calling for a halt in the new federally led bay restoration strategy.Notice how the EPA and it's allies in CBF resort to calling the Department of Agriculture "the Ag industry". It would be just as fair to call any study by the EPA to be by "the Enviro Industry", because the environmental business has many people depending on money funneling through the need to do environmental work.
The report said the strategy should be delayed until differences can be resolved between models developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The assessment released Monday by the Chesapeake Bay Program, the regional, federal-state partnership coordinating restoration efforts, says the models were developed for different purposes and differences are unavoidable.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation scientist Beth McGee says the report was an effort to mislead the public. The federal Environmental Protection Agency, which developed the tough, new strategy in response to a presidential order, says it is pleased an independent panel supports its position.
Yes, there are two models, both built by governmental bureaucracies whose objectivity is suspect. You can reasonably suspect both models of favoring the outcome preferred by it's funders and advocates. All Models Are Wrong! (Maybe this should be Fritz's Second Law), the only questions are the mechanism by which they are wrong, how much they are wrong, and in which direction. When the models are funded and built by advocates, you can be nearly 100% certain that they favor the advocates preferred out comes, and by nearly as much as they can get away with.