MENU

Sections

More

May 8, 2025

Chestertown Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Chestertown

Ecosystem Eco Homepage Ecosystem Eco Lead

Bay Journal: USDA shuts down ‘climate smart’ program

by Leave a Comment

Share

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in April announced the termination of its $3 billion “climate smart” program, a grantmaking initiative that was supporting hundreds of millions of dollars in conservation work in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

An April 14 USDA press release called the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities, which promoted farm conservation measures with climate benefits, as a “slush fund” with high administrative costs and often low payouts to farmers.

It said some of the projects may continue under a new initiative called Advancing Markets for Producers, but only if 65% or more of the project’s funds were going directly to farmers and the work aligns with Trump administration priorities.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said the Biden administration’s climate smart program was designed to “advance the green new scam” and benefited nongovernmental organizations more than farmers.

“We are correcting these mistakes and redirecting our efforts to set our farmers up for an unprecedented era of prosperity,” Rollins said.

The climate smart program was launched in 2022 as part of a “once-in-a-generation investment” that would enable universities, businesses and nonprofits to work with farmers to promote conservation measures that would help them adapt to climate change and market the products they produced.

Most projects did not begin until 2023 or later because of delays in paperwork, and some had just started up last year.

But the USDA froze funding for the program in January, leaving organizations that had incurred costs unable to recoup their expenses. In its announcement, the department clarified that it would honor eligible expenses incurred prior to April 13, 2025, but would review existing grants to determine whether they could continue.

Some working with the program said it appeared they would be able to successfully reapply under the new program, but others were unsure.

Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, was managing a $59 million climate smart grant that supported work it was carrying out with a dozen other organizations on farms from Maine to South Carolina. With funding stalled, it laid off 60 employees in early April, leaving it with fewer than 10.

“We are honestly not sure what the announcement means for our project,” said Hannah Smith-Brubaker, Pasa’s executive director. “They said we can reapply, but we don’t know if that means for our current project or a completely new project under the new program.”

Smith-Brubaker said Pasa’s project did not meet the 65% farmer payment threshold because the USDA was not counting costs of providing technical assistance to farmers for planning, implementing and maintaining projects.

She said about 45% of the project’s funding went directly to farmers, but if the technical assistance were included, farmer support under the grant would be between 75%-85%.

Richa Patel, a policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, also said it was “disappointing” that the department was not counting technical assistance as part of the farmer support funding.

With the USDA already reducing its own staff, she said, “the administration must take every opportunity going forward to increase access to technical assistance and support the staffing levels necessary to provide efficient and dependable customer service for our farmers — those working directly with USDA and those working with the farmer-serving organizations it partners with.”

Lack of technical support is considered a major impediment to widespread adoption of conservation measures by farmers.

Mike Lavender, the national coalition’s policy director, said he welcomed the ability to continue some projects under the new initiative, but said the USDA did not provide any clarity about whether grant recipients can make modifications to meet the new criteria.

As a result, he said the announcement brings “unnecessary hardship nationwide to farmer-serving organizations and likely farmers as a result of USDA changing program requirements and cancelling projects midstream.”

Nationwide, the climate smart initiative made awards to 140 organizations, businesses and institutions, which were supposed to benefit more than 60,000 farms and cover more than 25 million acres of farmland. The USDA estimated that, if successful, the work would sequester an amount of carbon equivalent to removing more than 12 million gas-powered cars from the road.

Hundreds of millions of dollars of that work was to have taken place in the Chesapeake watershed, managed by nonprofit organizations, universities, agribusinesses and others. The five-year program was one of the largest investments ever made in support of conservation measures on farmland in the Bay region.

It supported many traditional conservation practices such as nutrient and manure management techniques that reduce emissions of nitrous oxides, a powerful greenhouse gas. It also supported measures that curb runoff, such as cover crops, stream fencing and no-till farming. Those measures also help build organic matter in the soil, which allows it to absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Smith-Brubaker noted that just a 1% increase in organic matter in a farm’s soil absorbs 22,000 more gallons of water per acre, keeping it from washing nutrient-laden runoff into local streams.

The climate smart program also promoted monitoring efforts to quantify how well the conservation efforts were working, and it supported marketing efforts to inform consumers about the environmental benefits of that work — which could increase the value of those products and expand markets.

By Karl Blankenship, Bay Journal

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Solar Land Rush—A farmer’s perspective with Judy Gifford

by 2 Comments

Share

 

" target="_blank">http://

Over the past 50 years, the pursuit of renewable energy has been driven by advocates who see large solar arrays as a crucial step toward reducing dependence on fossil fuels..

Critics, however, argue that the land available for solar arrays is limited, and the large-scale expansion of solar farms could compete with agricultural use, potentially reducing the amount of land available for crops and livestock. This concern is especially pressing for small farms, which may struggle to retain their land amid increasing demand for solar installations.

Judy Gifford, a small farm owner near Kennedyville has been watching the proliferation of solar on the Eastern Shore for a decade.

“Several years ago, the American Farmland Trust estimated that we were losing about 2,000 acres of farmland a day nationwide. I’m sure that number is even higher now. The problem is, people just assume we have endless land—it’s this attitude of, “Oh, we can build here, we can build there.” But the cumulative effect is reaching a tipping point,” she says.

Gifford and other small farmers on the Eastern Shore feel the pressure of allowing solar fields on farmland. The State’s renewable portfolio standard requires that 14% of its energy —whether consumed or purchased—must come from solar.

“14% is an arbitrary number, not based on science, and the consultants they’ve relied on have had some questionable figures. But regardless, the state is pushing ahead, even though our energy policy is a mess and this won’t solve it.”

Gifford sees a broader impact on the Easter Shore with the proliferation of solar fields: Less farmland means less grain production, and the Shore already imports grain for the $5 billion poultry industry. If rising costs drive chicken farms out of Maryland, it could devastate the Eastern Shore economy.

“Here in Kent County, we’ve worked hard to preserve our farmland. We respect and protect it. But now, developers are circling because they see open space as an opportunity to make money. Solar companies are offering outrageous sums for leases, which makes it harder for local farmers to compete,” Gifford says.

The Spy recently interviewed Judy Gifford to talk about how solar arrays imapct rural land use on the Eastern Shore.

Judy Gifford owns and operates St. Brigid’s Farm in Kennedyville and is a board member of Kent Conservation and Preservation alliance, treasurer and board member Colchester Farm CSA, and former member Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Administrative Council.

This video is approximately nine minutes in length.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Eastern Shore Land Conservancy Forever Protects 106 Acres in Quaker Neck

by

Share

Doug and Sue West

When Doug West’s father bought a 106-acre grain farm almost thirty years ago, his hope was that the farm would be preserved. Today, Doug and his wife Sue, the Maryland Environmental Trust, and Eastern Shore Land Conservancy are thrilled to announce that the entire West Farm is under a conservation easement thanks to the West family’s generous donation. “The best part is keeping it as such,” says Sue. “I like the psychology of saying: ‘What is it that you honor and love and would miss?’” For the Wests, the answer to that question is the peaceful grain fields and woodlands of their Kent County farm, now protected forever.

Bridging two other ESLC easements in Quaker Neck, a Chestertown area with rich Quaker history, the new easement protects both working cropland and non-tidal forested wetlands which are now part of a contiguous habitat for forest interior dwelling species of birds (FIDS). These bird species require large connected blocks of forest in order to breed safely and successfully after their long migration from South and Central America. According to the Maryland DNR, “The key to maintaining suitable breeding habitat for FIDS, and halting or reversing their declines, is the protection of extensive, unbroken forested areas throughout the region.”

default

This newly connected stretch of protected land also ensures that the lush rural scenery of Quaker Neck Road will remain the same for centuries. Although, there is one recent addition. In amongst old storybook cedars, mighty oaks, and poplars, the West Farm is home to a young peach tree from the family home where Sue was raised, also in Kent County. After processing a few bushels of family peaches one year, Sue noticed 30 peach tree saplings coming up in the West Farm compost pile. Most were given away, and one was planted on the farm, where it’s already begun to bear fruit—a testament to Kent County’s long history of orchard production and a fitting image of how the West’s conservation easement will continue to benefit their community, not only through tree saplings, but through mindful safekeeping of wildlife habitat, local agriculture, Quaker Neck’s historic and peaceful sense of place, and the local waterways which Doug has personally spent 25 years stewarding through his work planting oysters with Horn Point and the Oyster Recovery Partnership. “Kent County is not going to preserve itself,” Doug shared. “You’ve got to fight for it to happen. If you don’t work to keep it preserved, it will go the other way.”

This easement would not have been possible without both the West family’s priceless donation to conservation and Maryland Environmental Trust’s long-term partnership and technical expertise.

To learn more about conservation easement programs please contact ESLC’s director of land conservation, David Satterfield, at [email protected]. And to learn more about funding for restoration of non-tidal wetlands, please contact ESLC’s enhanced stewardship manager, Larisa Prezioso, at [email protected].

###

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

A Fresh Wave of Research: A Chat with Horn Point Labs’ New Director Mike Sieracki

by

Share

.

There might be no better way to celebrate Earth Day than to introduce our readers to Mike Sieracki, the new director of Horn Point Laboratory in Cambridge, one of the country’s leading research institutions for interdisciplinary programs in oceanography, water quality, restoration of seagrasses, marshes and shellfish and for expertise in ecosystem modeling

As the son of a psychologist working with veterans, Sieracki grew up near Perry Point, Maryland, where he developed an affinity for water and exploration. This fascination continued as he studied at the University of Delaware and the University of Rhode Island, eventually earning a PhD in oceanography.

Sieracki’s early career saw him building automated microscope systems to better understand the ocean’s ecology, working at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and eventually moving to Maine’s Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Science. After 20 years of research and exploration, Sieracki took his expertise to the National Science Foundation, where he oversaw a wide range of marine science programs.

Now, as Horn Point Labs’ new director, Sieracki brings his wealth of experience and passion for collaboration to the institution. With a focus on Cambridge and Dorchester County, he aims to contribute to the community and continue Horn Point’s legacy of groundbreaking research.

In his first interview with the Spy, Mike talks about the challenge and the necessity of having scientific research move at a more rapid speed from the laboratory to policy makers as the Shore and our world prepares for a warmer planet and higher sea levels.

This video is approximately six minutes in length.  For more information about the University of Maryland’s Horn Point Laboratory please go here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Hogan Pausing MD Participation in Multi-state Alliance for Strict Vehicle Emissions Standards

by

Share

The Hogan administration is pausing the state’s participation in a multi-state alliance that requires new vehicles sold in Maryland to meet the same emissions standards as those sold in California, a state official said Monday.

The administration’s decision was revealed Monday morning at a meeting of the Air Quality Control Advisory Council, which advises the Maryland Department of the Environment on proposed air quality rules and regulations and evaluates legislation proposed by the General Assembly and state agencies.

Although the emissions standards weren’t on the agenda, an environmentalist asked an official of MDE during the online meeting whether the Hogan administration planned to follow California’s newly-adopted, more stringent emissions standards. The official, Chris Hoagland, director of Air and Radiation at MDE, said Gov. Larry Hogan (R) did not plan to sign an order adopting the so-called Advanced Clean Cars II regulation.

Lindsey Mendelson, the transportation policy specialist at the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club who raised the question at the air quality council meeting, said she was “very disappointed” by the administration’s decision.

“It’s low-hanging fruit,” she said. “There’s absolutely no reason that the governor shouldn’t follow the law.”

Maryland has followed California’s emissions guidelines for new cars and light trucks since 2007 — an arrangement that began for 2011 model year cars and trucks. In all, 14 states have been using California regulations, rather than weaker federal rules, as a yardstick for vehicle emissions for several years.

But the original agreement is expiring, and states have been weighing whether to re-up for California’s new, tougher standards, which require vehicle manufacturers to sell an increasing percentage of new zero-emission passenger cars and light-duty trucks in model years 2026 through 2035. The current arrangement runs through the model 2025 year.

The regulation — which aligns with legislation passed by the Maryland General Assembly earlier this year — requires states to allow only new zero-emissions vehicles to be sold after 2035.

The Hogan administration had to decide by the end of this year whether to follow California’s new Advanced Clean Cars II regulation, which was adopted by California’s powerful Air Quality Board in August. Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state have already signed on.

With the Hogan administration opting out, Gov.-elect Wes Moore (D) will have to decide next year whether to bring the state back into the consortium. But even if he does, model year 2027 vehicles sold in the state will have weaker emissions standards than those sold in the states that agree to abide by the California model, because auto manufacturers require a two-year notice of a state’s emissions rules. States that follow the California plan will be required to ensure that at least 43% of the new cars and light-duty trucks sold in model year 2027 are zero emissions or plugged-in hybrids.

The Hogan administration offered no public explanation for why the state won’t follow California’s more stringent standards. The decision contradicts a recommendation from the Maryland Climate Change Commission, which Hogan’s Environment secretary, Horacio Tablada, co-chairs.

Earlier this fall, House Environment and Transportation Committee Chair Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery), along with the chair of that panel’s Motor Vehicle and Transportation subcommittee, Del. David Fraser-Hidalgo (D-Montgomery), and Del. Marc Korman (D-Montgomery), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation and the Environment, wrote to Hogan, calling the adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars II regulation “our best opportunity to date to significantly mitigate the nation’s leading source of dangerous air and climate pollutants and reduce the State’s reliance on costly, volatile fossil fuels.”

“The ACC II rule in Maryland will further incentivize car manufacturers to accelerate production of pollution-free cars and, ultimately, get more of them into frontline communities,” the lawmakers wrote. “This will be an important step in reducing the costly health impacts of noxious emissions.”

Peter Kitzmiller, president of the Maryland Auto Dealers Association, said Monday that auto manufacturers and dealers are already preparing for the transition to zero-emissions vehicles, regardless of the state’s emissions rules for new cars and light trucks. Currently, about 3.5% of the vehicles on the road in Maryland emit zero emissions, he said.

“The manufactures are spending tens of billions of dollars and the dealers are spending millions of dollars in infrastructure to get ready for this,” Kitzmiller said. “This is obviously the way the market is going to go. Are we going to get there as quickly as some of the regulations require us to? I don’t know.”

This summer, when California announced its latest stringent regulations for emissions of new vehicles, several auto manufacturers applauded them, saying they provided certainty and stability for the industry. A Ford Motor Company executive called it “a landmark standard,” and reiterated the company’s commitment to building zero-emissions vehicles.

The Hogan administration’s plan not to adopt the new California regulation is reminiscent of its decision two years ago to decline to formally join the Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI), a collaborative effort of mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states to set up a carbon “cap-and-invest” model to transportation emissions — even though Maryland officials had been part of the initial planning for the regional alliance.

Moore, who takes office on Jan. 18, has promised a robust climate agenda, but has offered few specifics. His transition team’s climate policy committee is holding a virtual town hall meeting on Tuesday evening. Leaders of the Air Quality Control Advisory Council have promised to put the California emissions regulations on the agenda for its next meeting in March.

By Josh Kurtz

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

It Actually Might Happen: Jim Lighthizer on a Chesapeake Bay National Recreation Area

by

Share

Almost five decades ago, Jim Lighthizer, who ran for the Maryland House of Delegates in 1978, began pitching the idea that the Chesapeake Bay region needed to be considered a national recreational area. As the land and water conservation movement took off in the 1970s and 80s, smart politicians, agency heads, and NGO leaders began to advocate for these special designations for environmental reasons but also to help the cause of economic development. Lighthizer thought Maryland should get on that train.

According to Wikipedia, these unique sites would be “a protected area in the United States established by an Act of Congress to preserve enhanced recreational opportunities in places with significant natural and scenic resources.” and that the designation of a “Recreation Area” had roots as far back as the 1920s. But the first significant one came in 1947 when the Boulder Dam Recreation Area was renamed Lake Mead National Recreation Area in southeastern Nevada and northwestern Arizona. And since that time, some 40 areas have been approved by Congress.

Sometimes, the grim reality of government legislation is that things move slowly on this kind of initiative. Still, to Jim Lighhizer’s great joy and relief, Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. John Sarbanes have just announced they would be introducing legislation in the next Congress to incorporate the Bay into the nation’s park system of national recreation areas. Beyond the prestige that comes with this voluntary status, it is easing the way for steady federal funding to conserve the body of water, promote tourism, and expand public access within its 64,000 square miles of watershed.

Last week, the Spy’s Dave Wheelan and WHCP’s Kevin Diaz sat down with Jim, (who know lives in Dorchester County) who continued to lead this charge as Anne Arundel County Executive, to learn more about its history and what this might mean for our unique region.

This video is approximately six minutes in length. For more information about the proposed Chesapeake Bay National Recreation Area please go here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Our Debt to Naturalist Jan Reese by Matt LaMotte

by

Share

“Man must be forever be on the alert and looking always at what is to be seen,” wrote one of America’s most famous naturalists, Henry David Thoreau, more than a century ago. But these words still hold true for today’s naturalists, conservationists and environmental scientists. And, certainly they apply to Jan Reese, a lifetime student of the Chesapeake Bay’s natural resources. 

Born and raised on Tilghman Island, Maryland, in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Reese, who now lives in nearby St. Michaels, became interested in the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay at an early age. He spent his youth observing, cataloging and preserving all kinds of Bay area plants, animals, and numerous other forms of wildlife. Inspired and mentored by St. Michael’s High School teacher Richard Kleen, he eventually focused his interests on birds. 

This was the early 1950’s and the environmental movement had yet to take hold. Non-profit organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and government bureaus like the Environmental Protection Agency had yet to be established. During the early 1960s, Reese expanded a project he’d begun on his own that focused on monitoring and cataloging the reproductive success of ospreys, aiding in national studies of these migratory birds. He spent two decades on the Chesapeake Bay researching and contributing to national and international studies on the causes of the decline of these fish-eating birds.

“From declining fish populations to the effects of the pesticide DDT on their breeding and nesting success, ospreys, in many ways, reflected the environmental malaise on the Bay,” Reese said. Expanding his efforts beyond preserving osprey nests on channel markers and buoys, he and Donald Merritt installed over 200 osprey platforms in local Bay tributaries. His research and field work helped to preserve and expand protection for the species. His dogged, selfless pursuit of preserving natural habitat inspired those who worked with him on this ground-breaking fieldwork. Several of his associates later pursued their own environmental passions and became leading researchers involved with plants, marine invertebrates, habitat preservation, environmental education, birds and other biological organisms. 

Reese studied many other species incidentally encountered while carrying out Osprey studies (e.g., Mallard ducks, Snowy and Cattle Egrets, Great Blue and Green Herons, Common and Forester’s Terns, Barn Owls, Barn Swallows, Red-wing Blackbirds). Included among this menagerie were European Mute Swans. While attractive to humans, these large birds are a non-native, feral species in the Chesapeake Bay region, and they were interfering with native species like breeding ducks and wintering swans and geese, as well as some species of shorebirds, especially in their nesting habitats on the Bay. By the early 21st century, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, in part by using Reese’s research data, instituted a plan to manage and reduce the Mute Swan population on the Chesapeake and its tributaries.

The election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 brought about a sea-change in the United States Government’s funding for environmental issues. Many programs of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and other parts of the U.S. Interior Department – whose prior focus had been on determining the cause of decline in habitat quality and wildlife — were diminished and/or defunded. In the course of this downsizing, Reese’s cooperation and collaboration with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service came to an end. The balance of the 1980’s was spent without much field research or any supportive agency affiliation, so he mostly worked in construction. 

Volunteering to lead plant and wildlife outings during this decade also played an important role In Reese’s life. This included organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Sierra Club, The Smithsonian Associates, Maryland Ornithological Society, regional bird clubs, and other scholarly venues.  According to friend and life-long birder, Jeff Effinger, early morning or sunset bird walk with Reese was not to be missed. “Jan brought so much joy and enthusiasm to our birding trips,” said Effinger. “We always finished these trips knowing a lot more than when we started.”

During this time, Reese also was befriended during this time by a local farming family. Ed and Esther Burns, well-known plant and bird carvers who exhibited their painted wooden craft at the annual Waterfowl Festival in Easton, Maryland, and similar venues around the country. The Burns encouraged him to join them in their former turkey house, which they had converted into a studio for working, marketing, and teaching others how to carve and paint.. Reese said “his knowledge of many bird species form, structure and anatomical proportions aided his carving education from Ed while it was more a matter of learning from Ester how to accurately paint the carvings”.  Making swift progress, he began entering his carvings in various competitions, where he garnered praise and success and quickly moved up to compete in the professional class where annually during the late-1980s – early-1990s he won blue ribbons at the World Competition held each April at the Ocean City Convention Center in Maryland and was subsequently invited to exhibit his carvings at prestigious venues like The Southeast Wildlife Exposition in Charleston, South Carolina, as well as the Easton Waterfowl Festival.  

In the late 1980’s, with passage of Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas, Federal and State Wetland, and Forest Conservation Legislation Reese’s career took an unexpected turn when a regional engineering firm approached him about a job as an environmental consultant on their team. Since no one on their staff was familiar with the particulars about tidal lines, what was wetland and what was upland, or one tree species from another, all the while having to comply with the new environmental regulations in designing their customers’ proposed projects, it was a logical hire. 

Thanks to his knowledge of plants, wildlife and environmental issues in and around the Chesapeake Bay, Reese was hired in 1990 as a staff environmentalist. “Working in the field fit well with my qualifications and passion,” he recalls. “Completing field work and writing up evaluation reports came naturally to me.” However, an economic recession in 1992 hit the construction and civil engineering industries very hard and Reese was out of a job with no other prospects for employment. 

Now in his late 50’s, with little hope of being hired by anyone for any skilled position, he struck out on his own as an independent environmental consultant. The economy turned around by 1994 and Reese’ former employer became his best customer for over a decade. 

Another economic recession hit in 2008, with the construction/civil engineering professions being hard hit again, leaving Reese with only contracts outside those industries, like The Nature Conservancy, and various municipal, county, state and federal government agencies, which were not dramatically impacted by the recession. One of those contracts was with the Maryland Department of Transportation, Maryland Port Authority and the 5th District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers restoration project at Poplar Island in Chesapeake Bay a few miles northwest of Tilghman’s Island where he had been working since 2001. He found this a particularly interesting contract since, nearly 50 years ago, when it was a natural island before eroding away into the Chesapeake Bay, he had studied Ospreys there and was very familiar with its natural ecology.

Reese has had an affiliation with the Maryland Ornithological Society and its local Talbot County Chapter for over 60 years. Through decades the relationship has been beneficial to each party with financial compensation for expendable equipment of some research projects in exchange for volunteer lectures, leader of various types of wildlife outings, physical labor, professional consultation, advice and lead on some organization sanctuary projects. The state organization has recognized him with various awards through the decades while the local chapter recently awarded Reese a Lifetime Achievement Award for his invaluable leadership and service. 

Unfortunately, in 2014, a change in his health resulted in Reese no longer being able to do field work, forcing him to give up employment. He continues to cooperate and consult with other researchers on many scientific research projects, compile and analyze decades of collected data, and write scientific papers for publication. 

Researcher, habitat and wildlife preservationist, naturalist and environmentalist, Jan Reese has proven himself to be a dedicated advocate for the protection and preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. “There are few places around the world with as much natural beauty and diversity as the Bay,” he said. “I hope that, in some small way, I’ve helped preserve that legacy.”   

Matt LaMotte is is member of the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center in Queenstown, MD. The author wishes to thank Terry Allen,Wayne Bell, Jeff Effinger, George Fenwick, Steve Hamblin, Donald “Mutt” Merritt and others, named and unnamed, who supported Jan along the way on his journey.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Mid-Shore Stewardship: ShoreRivers and Galena Elementary School 

by

Share

The preservation and revitalization of the Eastern Shore’s vast system of waterways requires a commitment to environmental stewardship and an effort to teach future generations to care for the world that sustains us.

Since 2017 and the merging of the Chester River Association, (CRA), Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy (MRC), and Sassafras River Association (SRA) into ShoreRivers, the organization has worked to protect and restore the quality of our unique and interlaced river networks while collaborating with farmers to help reduce the agricultural runoff that pollutes waterways.

Another of ShoreRivers’ forward-planning initiatives is its Environmental Education program serving over 2,500 3rd grade and high school biology students every year in Dorchester, Talbot, Queen Anne’s, and Kent county schools.

Recently, ShoreRivers continued their long-term partnership with Galena Elementary School to introduce Pre-K through 5th graders to environmental stewardship by planting 26 trees along a walking path behind the school. The walking path was a previous ShoreRivers and Galena Elementary School project. Eventually the area will also be used for outdoor classes.

Galena Elementary School Principal Becky Yoder and ShoreRivers Education Director Gutierrez Finley met with the Spy to talk about the event and their ongoing collaboration.

This video is approximately three minutes in length. More about ShoreRivers may be found here.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Climate Funding could Suffer in the Farm bill under GOP Control of Congress

by

Share

Republicans who may take control of Congress in this election have not been very specific about many policy goals — but the farm bill is an exception.

Members of the GOP in the U.S. House and Senate are sending strong signals they want to strip climate funding from the massive legislation in 2023 if they take control. That would thwart farmland conservation advocates, who had hoped to make it one of the most significant investments ever made for climate-smart practices on American farmland.

Both House and Senate GOP members of the agriculture panels sent letters to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in late October asking for justification for the administration’s recent investment in “climate-smart agriculture,” and protesting what they said was a lack of consultation with Congress.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack had announced in September $2.8 billion for research and pilot projects to support climate-friendly food production. The agency plans to announce a second group of “climate-smart commodities” projects later this year.

Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, asked Vilsack on Oct. 27 for a report on the department’s rationale for its spending.

And a group of House Republicans said Congress should have been consulted before launching the climate program “in this difficult farm economy when so many are struggling with rising input costs, drought, and an ongoing supply chain crisis.”

“We are dismayed at the lack of transparency and congressional consultation throughout the development of this process,” Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., and Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., wrote in an Oct. 28 letter along with eight other Republicans from the Congressional Western Caucus, a group of lawmakers that purports to be a “voice for rural America.”

If Republicans take control of the House, and Harris is re-elected, he is in line to become chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies — a prominent post that would make him one of the House’s powerful appropriations “cardinals.”

Every five years

Lawmakers must rewrite the sweeping farm bill every five years to set both policy and funding levels for farm, food and conservation programs. The next farm bill needs to be authorized by September 2023.

Both agriculture and environmental advocacy groups have geared up for this next farm bill to potentially have a significant section for “climate-smart” farm practices, such as funding for farmers to plant trees and cover crops, use less water or leave soil un-tilled.

If so, it could be the first farm bill in more than 30 years to explicitly address climate change. The Biden administration has come out in support of such practices — notably using a general fund designated for farm support to finance new research on farmland climate mitigation.

Agriculture Committee members tout the bipartisan process they use to write the farm bill, but the question of how much focus to put on climate change is one that clearly already is dividing on party lines.

The Republican Study Committee, whose members make up 80 percent of all Republican members of Congress, proposed drastic cuts for the farm bill in the draft budget it released as a “Blueprint to Save America.” It rejects investment in a “radical climate agenda’ and outlines a plan to defund farm bill conservation programs that pay farmers to retire environmentally sensitive croplands.

And a major dispute centers around the Inflation Reduction Act that Congress passed in August. It has a slate of programs to address climate change, including more than $20 billion for climate investments on farmland. Congress could fold that into the next farm bill for unprecedented farmland conservation spending.

The Inflation Reduction Act would provide about a 47 percent increase over previous farm bill levels, according to an analysis from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

But the top Republicans on both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have said they may forego additional investment in climate provisions.

Boozman categorized the funding for agriculture climate programs as “misplaced priorities” and has said it could undermine the farm bill process.

“It unilaterally creates a multi-billion-dollar slush fund for farm bill priorities shared by the president and his allies,” Boozman said in remarks on the Senate floor in August.

“We have a storied history of working together at the Agriculture Committee… unfortunately with this decision the majority has changed that dynamic…they have undermined one of the last successful bipartisan processes remaining in the Senate,” Boozman said.

Similarly, on the House side, Pennsylvania Republican Glenn Thompson, the top Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, said at a hearing last month that the IRA funding “endangered the bipartisan support” for the farm bill conservation title. Thompson could take over as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee if Republicans win a majority in the House.

“I will not sit idly by as we let decades of real bipartisan progress be turned on its head to satisfy people that at their core think agriculture is a blight on the landscape,” Thompson told other members of the committee. “I have been leaning into the climate discussion, but I will not have us suddenly incorporate buzzwords like regenerative agriculture into the Farm Bill or overemphasize climate.”

“I don’t feel bound by the amount of funding or the specific program allocation passed in the partisan IRA bill. I am especially worried about earmarking all the new money just for climate, rather than letting the locally led process work,” Thompson said.

‘Climate-smart’ agriculture

The pushback from Republicans comes as support for “climate-smart” practices has gained unprecedented momentum in the agriculture community.

“There’s a lot of opportunity for making the next farm bill into a climate farm bill. There’s a lot of momentum,” said Anne Schechinger, Midwest director for the Environmental Working Group.

A group of over 150 progressive, agriculture and environmental groups are pushing for the next farm bill to invest in research, technical assistance and financial incentives to help farmers and ranchers reduce emissions. In a letter to President Joe Biden in September they called on the administration to “meet the climate crisis head on” in the next farm bill.

Supporters include state farm cooperatives, community farm groups and environmental groups, including Environmental Working Group.

But it’s not only environmental groups that are pushing for new research and investment in climate-smart practices.

Major farm groups have also come out in support of investment in voluntary climate initiatives for farmers — part of a gradual shift over the years. In previous farm bill or climate debates, some farming and agribusiness groups resisted climate programs for fear it would lead to too many regulations on farmland.

But in the past two years, major farm groups formed a “food and agriculture climate alliance” to make recommendations for climate policy.

It includes the National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau Federation, Environmental Defense Fund and trade groups representing sugar, cotton, corn and rice growers.

The National Farmers Union included climate change programs in its “days of advocacy” last year, when farmers came to Washington, D.C. to ask lawmakers for support. And the more conservative American Farm Bureau Federation has come full force behind climate-smart solutions for farmers.

Because of this momentum, some experts think the next farm bill will move toward more investment in climate programs regardless of the party with the gavel — they just might not do so as explicitly if Republicans take control.

“Who knows what phrase the farm bill might ultimately decide to use, but I think it is inevitable, regardless of who is in charge, that this farm bill will tackle climate change more directly,” said Ferd Hoefner,  a Washington, D.C.-based consultant on farm and food policy who has worked on nine previous farm bills.

1990 farm bill

The only farm bill to previously explicitly fund “climate change” was the 1990 farm bill, which had a “Global Climate Change” title drafted in response to the devastating 1988 droughts.

While other farm bills have not mentioned climate change, the conservation title includes billions of dollars for programs that pay farmers to rest sensitive acreage, preserve wildlife habitat or make environmental improvements to working lands.

“We might not necessarily see the word ‘climate’ show up as much in the farm bill if Republicans do take over, but a lot of these conservation programs are really supported by both parties,” said Schechinger.

But Schechinger says USDA needs to do a better job of investing conservation money in practices that are good for the climate. Some programs, like cover crops, have a beneficial effect.

But other practices that the farm bill pays for, like lagoons for animal manure, can actually increase carbon emissions from farms. Nationwide, USDA spent $174 million on animal waste storage facilities since 2017, as part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, according to EWG’s analysis of federal data.

“We are spending millions of dollars on some of these practices that are actually bad for climate change, that actually increase emissions,” said Schechinger.

The group wants the next farm bill to increase cost share and prioritization for climate-smart practices to encourage more farmers to take on practices that reduce emissions.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

MDE Gives Lakeside in Trappe a Limited Permit to Move Forward

by

Share

The Maryland Department of the Environment released its decision regarding the Lakeside housing development discharge permit on Friday afternoon. The MDE ruling considerably limits the project to 100,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The developer had asked for 540,000 gallons per day.

The dramatic reduction by the MDE was a result of the agency’s review of recent data and public comments opposed to the original request.

Organizations such as ShoreRivers and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation expressed mixed responses to the MDE’s permit approval.

CBG’s Eastern Shore Director Alan Girard commented that the “MDE should be given credit for significantly scaling back this permit that posed tremendous risk to water quality on the Eastern Shore.” He added however that the CBF,  “remain concerned about the potential precedent this could set by allowing a development to bypass Bay cleanup requirements through spray irrigation on farm fields.”

ShoreRivers’ Matt Pluta added, “as we told MDE in our initial comments, spray irrigation is not an adequate means of disposing wastewater without polluting the river. The intention of these permits is for wastewater sprayed onto fields to be absorbed by crops, but much of the nutrients end up percolating into our groundwater instead.”

At the time of this article, the Lakeside project’s attorney, Ryan D. Showalter, has not issued the developer’s reaction to the MDE decision.

The decision can be read here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.