NEWS &VIEWScontinued from page 8


the new calculations, particularly if they are using organic fertilizers such as dairy manure. In meetings with the Farm Bureau and other commodity groups, the Department of Agriculture agreed to provide new resources to help move poultry litter and dairy manure to fi elds where it can still be used under the new PMT (see article “Match.com for Manure” in the October issue). MDA also agreed to undertake several educational eff orts aimed at both the general public and farmers. In the campaign, it is important to emphasize to the general public that poultry litter and dairy manure are good, useful fertilizer sources and stockpiling on fi elds until the spring is an approved and desired conservation practice. Successful implementation of the new


regulations can only happen if the state provides the promised funding and if the public awareness campaign is meaningful. T e new draft of the proposed PMT regulations was published in the Maryland Register on October 18th. For more information about the public briefi ngs, contact the Nutrient Management Program at MDA at 410-841-5959.


Storm Water Fee “Rain Tax” Continues to Move Ahead


by Matt Teff eau for the Maryland Farm Bureau T e new Clean Water Act Fee that appears


on your property tax bill was enacted by the State of Maryland’s HB-987 legislation in the 2012 session. Also known as the “Rain Tax,” HB-987 mandates nine counties and the city of Baltimore to develop a fee system to pay for retrofi tting old storm water management systems, and to build new systems that meet the state’s new guidelines for storm water management. County bills will then authorize a fee to be assessed to all properties in the county based on impervious areas. Each of the nine counties has created its own fee system. T e current status for each of the nine counties mandated to enact a storm water fee under HB-987 is as follows: • Anne Arundel County: Residents will pay $85 per year for most single-family homes, while businesses will pay 25 percent of their property taxes. All of those fees will be phased in over three years. • Baltimore County: Legislation has been passed and enacted; agricultural properties with a single-family residence will have a fee of $39.00. Nonresidential agricultural properties will have no fee at all. •Carroll County: T e county currently has no proposed legislation to address storm water fees, however, an advisory group is working to generate a report with a recommended rate structure for the County Board’s consideration. • Charles County: Following the introduction of two emergency bills, a $43 fl at fee was implemented for all property owners.


56 | THE EQUIERY | NOVEMBER 2013


Frederick County: T e enacted legislation places a $0.01 fee on all properties, expect for government, fi re departments, and properties within municipalities. •Harford County: T e county passed legislation to enact a phase-in stage which sets the fee at $12.50 (10%) for next year’s tax bill. Following the phase-in stage the fee increases to $125.00 but credits will be available to residents. If Harford County residents make use of “remediation projects,” such as making use of rain barrels, or planting trees along a waterway, they may get some money back. •Howard County: As of June 3, 2013 the county set a fee rate of $15.00 per unit of impervious area that exists on the property, regardless of whether the property is residential or commercial. Reimbursements (not credits) are available if property owners install a variety of storm water reduction and management systems (e.g., rain gardens, green roads). • Montgomery County: T e county already has a “water quality protection charge” (WQPC) on residents’ tax bills to address storm water fees. Using a tier system to determine fee amounts, agricultural properties have seven tiers ranging from $29.17 to $265.20 per ERU. T e county has a plan in place to phase in payments for those assessed fees for the fi rst time. Residents who have never received a WQPC bill before or “received a new impervious area increase to their WQPC bill from the 2012-2013 tax year” will pay 33% of what they were estimated to pay during a three-year phase-in. So the second year they will pay 66% of their estimate, and in the third year they will pay the full estimate. • Prince George’s County: T e county decided on a fee system that includes an “administrative” fee of $20.58 per tax account ID and an “impact” fee for impervious areas. T e impact fee ranges from $12.82 to $42.76 per tax account ID and is calculated based on the zoning on the property. With direction from the Prince George’s Soil Conservation District, the county agreed to exempt agriculturally assessed properties from both the “administrative” fee and the “impact” fee. T is does not apply to the principal residence associated with that particular agriculturally assessed parcel. However, many agriculturally assessed parcels are being incorrectly charged the fees. Prince George’s County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is aware of the erroneous charges on farms and is making every eff ort to resolve the issue. If you have any questions about the fee


structure in your county and how it aff ects your horse farm, please contact Matt Teff eau at matt.mdfb@verizon.net


Court Denies AFBF Efforts to Challenge Bay TMDL


In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection


Agency established the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), a historic and


comprehensive “pollution diet” with rigorous accountability measures to initiate sweeping actions to restore clean water in the Chesapeake Bay and the region’s streams, creeks and rivers. In January of 2011, the American Farm


Bureau Federation, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, and the National Homebuilders Association sued the EPA on the basis that it violated states’ rights and objected to the EPA’s use of the Bay Model as unscientifi c, claiming that the EPA failed to meet certain public participation requirements during the issuance of the TMDL. T is fall, Judge Sylvia Rambo of the U.S.


District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled against the plaintiff s. According to the AFBF, the judge concluded that plaintiff s were unable to meet the heavy burden of proving “that EPA’s use of the modeling and data bore no rational relationship to the realities they purport to represent.” T e court further concluded that the procedures established to ensure public participation in the TMDL drafting process were suffi cient to withstand scrutiny under the Administrative Procedures Act. T e judge noted the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay and wrote “EPA did not unlawfully infringe on Bay states’ rights because the Clean Water Act is an ‘all- compassing’ and ‘comprehensive’ statute that envisions a strong federal role for ensuring pollution reduction.”


AFBF Objects to Infl ammatory Attacks in Privacy Suit


AFBF fi led suit in July to stop EPA from


publicly releasing personal information about hundreds of individual farmers and ranchers and their families. T e organization is asking the court to clarify EPA’s obligation to keep personal information about citizens private when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. T e protection of information such as farmers’ and ranchers’ names, home addresses and GPS coordinates, phone numbers and email addresses is at stake. T e co-plaintiff , National Pork Producers Council, joined AFBF in its response to the court. AFBF also fi led legal objections to several


environmental groups’ request to intervene in the case, citing false accusations about poultry and livestock farmers. AFBF also objected to the groups’ eff orts to distract the court’s attention from the important privacy questions presented in the case. “Instead of addressing important issues of whether farmers and ranchers are entitled to the same privacy protections for their homes that other citizens enjoy, these groups are trying to make this case into a referendum on whether livestock and poultry farmers are adequately regulated under the Clean Water Act,” said


continued on page 81 800-244-9580 | www.equiery.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88