What an embarrassment.

The average citizen in Maryland's First Congressional District might be excused for not knowing what hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" is all about. It is taking place mostly a couple of hundred miles away in the mountains of Pennsylvnia. Gas companies are trying like the devil to tap into the Marcellus and Utica Shale Formations, which, taken together cover portions of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia.

A few years back I found myself in Pinedale, Wyoming, which is nowhere near the Eastern Shore. The air was thick with the acrid smell of oil and gas development. I saw with my own two eyes how an intact sage-brush ecosystem could seemingly overnight be converted into an industrial complex. I heard from biologists how the Green River Mule Deer herd had been hammered, with losses at the time estimated at 50%. I heard how the tall oil rigs, located in a valley where the highest natural thing was a hip-high clump of sage, had created artificial perches for hawks and falcons, who were proceeding to have their way with the threatened sage grouse, namely by having them for dinner. There was nothing that the oil and gas development wasn't impacting.


(The picture above, courtesy of the Wyoming Wildlife Council, is of the Jonah oil and gas field in Western Wyoming)

On that same trip to Wyoming, a range biologist with the Bureau of Land Management explained to our group of sportsmen-conservationists that the gas didn't form a giant pool below the ground; it instead occurs in disparate pockets throughout the bedrock (in the case of Pennsylvania, the bedrock is the Marcellus Shale). Drilling into disparate pockets of gas doesn't make much sense from an efficiency standpoint, so gas companies blast massive quantities of sand, water and chemicals into the bedrock. This helps to consolidate the pockets of gas, making them much more efficient to reach.

A few short years ago, not many people in this country knew much about 'fracking." I was fortunate (or unfortunate, as the case may be) to be working on energy issues on public land for a hunting and fishing conservation organization, so I was one of the few people who had heard of this process. While Dick Cheney was living at the Naval Observatory he succeeded in exempting fracking fluid (sand, water, chemicals) from the Safe Drinking Water Act; so all those oil and gas companies were not required to disclose precisely what chemicals were included in the fracking fluid. One of the leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the world is a company you might have heard of: Halliburton. Dick Cheney was Halliburton's CEO prior to being selected, err, selecting himself, to be George Bush's Vice President.

This exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act is critically important to keep in mind, because gas wells are drilled very deep; sometimes, thousands of feet deep. The gas wells almost always intersect with groundwater aquifers, some wells intersect several aquifers before they reach their downward terminus. These aquifers are like rivers of freshwater that run underground; tens of millions of Americans get their water from wells that tap into underground aquifers. As gas wells are 'fracked,' that dubious mix of sand, water and chemicals is blasted through the groundwater flows (and everything else, besides) at an incredibly high pressure, completely changing the geologic makeup of the substrate. It is one of the more destructive processes one can imagine; but since it all happens underground, its fairly easy to ignore.

Until the Academy Award nominated film Gasland was released. Much like Super Size Me before it, Gasland was one of these documentaries that kind of caught fire and became a must-see amongst a significant portion of the general public (at least the portion that is paying any attention at all). One of the more poignant images from the movie was the footage of rural Pennsylvanians lighting their tap water on fire. Methane from the fracked gas wells all around them had leaked into their water supply. A few homes had exploded from the buildup of methane; in 2004, three people were killed in such an explosion. Fracking had essentially provided the methane with new pathways in which to travel, and it was making houses and whole communities unlivable. Gasland was an important contribution to the knowledge base, and put fracking on the radar screen of millions of people.

A few days ago, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, chaired by none other than First District Congressman Andy Harris, held a hearing on fracking. The intention of the hearing was to discredit a three year study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which showed that the drinking water of the town of Pavilion, Wyoming had been made flammable and undrinkable because of fracking. Below is a quote from the testimony of Mr. James B. Martin, Regional Administrator for the EPA:

In the summer of 2010, EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer at and below the depths of drinking water wells. Phases three and four of the investigation involved taking samples from these monitoring wells, as well as from selected domestic and livestock wells. The results, discussed in the draft report issued on December 8, 2011, indicate that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing as conducted in this area. Analysis of samples taken from the deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of benzene, methane, and synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids.

Josh Fox, the guy who directed Gasland had every intention of filming Mr. Martin's testimony, as well as the testimony of the other witnesses, and the statements of the Representatives who comprise the Subcommittee. However, Republican members of the Subcommittee objected to Mr. Fox's filming of the hearing, and Chairman Harris, the First District's own, had Mr. Fox arrested and removed from the premises by the US Capitol Police.

I have now watched the video of the arrest, and I have read many of the press accounts of the arrest and the circumstances surrounding the event. Members of the media are frequently allowed to video tape hearings. Indeed, the hearing in question was being filmed (and broadcast via the Internet) by the Committee itself. You can see an archived webcast of the hearing at the link below. If the filming is done quietly, and does not interrupt the flow of the hearing, it is generally allowed and no questions are asked. Chairman Harris and his Republican committee mates decided that the purpose of the hearing, to pretend that a long-term EPA study that indicated there were all kinds of problems with fracking was bunk, didn't mesh well with having a filmmaker in the room who seemed hellbent on holding Andy Harris and his ilk accountable.

http://science.house.gov/hearing/energy-and-environment-subcommittee-epa-hydraulic-fracturing-research

Andy Harris is the proud product of the Tea Party, a movement that if it is anything, is not afraid to get in the face of decision makers when it thinks something is haywire. Remember the health care town hall meetings from a few summers back? They were about one hundred times more 'disruptive' than anything Josh Fox did earlier this week. Imagine for a second if Matt Drudge wanted to film a hearing on health care chaired by a Democrat. Would Mr. Harris scream with indignation if the chair insisted on having Drudge escorted from the room in handcuffs? I hope the people of the First District are paying attention as their Congressman plays a leading role in a concerted attempt to sweep an important issue right under the rug. There are chemicals in the water, and the good doctor says drink up.

Mr Huntsman's Problem

I am a long time supporter of Jon Huntsman. My career in natural resources gave me reason to appreciate his refreshing work as governor of Utah, and while following his exploits as President Obama's Ambassador to China was a bit tougher, I was sure that with his steady hand and clear head, he would represent himself and his country well in the People's Republic.

Huntsman has for some time now been generally considered presidential timber by political pundits, despite the troubling fact that outside of Utah his name recognition has hovered in the single digits. Leaving Salt Lake City for an extended stay in Beijing certainly didn't seem the best way to ameliorate the name recognition problem, and indeed, some cynics believed that Obama named Huntsman as ambassador to China to eliminate the reelection threat Huntsman was widely assumed to pose in 2012. Whether or not you believe that Obama's pick for arguably one of the most important diplomatic positions in the foreign service was made strictly on political grounds, the fact remains that Huntsman accepted.

And alas, here it is 2012. Almost exactly a year ago Huntsman resigned his post as Ambassador to China to explore a presidential campaign against his old boss. In the intervening year, and now with the Iowa caucuses concluded and the New Hampshire primary staring us in the face, Huntsman remains woefully below 20% in most polls, behind the likes of such wingnuts as Rick Santorum and Ron Paul.

The 2012 Republican presidential primary is admittedly hard to stomach. A host of candidates: a former Massachusetts governor who appears to be made from parafin wax, a Texas governor who apparently was the proud receipient of a full frontal lobotomy, a random Congresswoman from Minnesota, a guy who ran a pizza company, an adulterous former Speaker of the House, all kicking and screaming at one another fighting over footholes in the climb to see who can be the first to reach the stinky summit of a steaming pile of elephant dung. It is terribly unbecoming to think that this is how we choose our candidate for president in the year 2012. Weren't we supposed to be living like The Jetsons by now? I could have sworn that all these Apple products were supposed to make us all smarter; and yet, here we are with a Republican primary that dwells almost exclusively in the intellectual basement.

Save for Govenor Huntsman. In a primary that has become an echo chamber of conspiracy theories and just general weirdness, Jon Huntsman has been, well, quiet. The trouble with elections and candidates is that they are inevitably presented to the vast majority of voters through a media filter that doesn't necessarily pick up on competence. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the 24 hour news cycle is actually the perfect way to select a presidential candidate, although in a sort of reverse logic type of way. Whoever keeps out of the headlines and gets virtually zero news coverage, is likely to be the right guy or gal for the job.

But just because you haven't heard from Jon Huntsman, doesn't mean he isn't saying anything. The man has practically lived in New Hampshire for the last several months, and the more people hear from him, the more they like him. He has stolen a host of newspaper endorsements from neighbor state favorite Mitt Romney, including most recently the venerable Boston Globe, and has risen farther, faster, than any other candidate in the race.

Victory in New Hampshire remains a long shot. The donations have not materialized. Both votes and dollars in the GOP primary are bound up by the most committed of the partisans. Some think this is how politics is supposed to work, but when extremists come to dominate the Party machinery, that machinery spews out extremist candidates.

When Jon Huntsman was governor of Utah, the state was #1 in job growth according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Utah was named one of the "Top Three States to do Business" during his tenure, and according to the Pew Center for the States, Utah was the "best managed state in the country." He has twice been a US Ambassador, during the George H.W. Bush administration, he was named Ambassador to Singapore, in addition to his service in China under Barack Obama. He was also Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for the first President Bush, and served George W. Bush as a Deputy US Trade Representative. He is the former CEO of a multi-billion dollar chemical corporation who warned the GOP not to become the Party that rejected science and intellect. Huntsman said: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

Crazy indeed; but unfortunately, not crazy enough.

Talking So Much, Saying So Little

Weeks ago here at Kline Online, I made a pretty big stink about John Morony's taking to the pages of the local newspapers to attack a sitting Republican elected official.

Andi Morony, John's wife and (like John) a member of the Queen Anne's County Republican Central Committee joined Mark Newgent as guest host of Red Maryland's delightfully campy Internet radio show "The Broadside," on December 19. Given the subject matter, it is helpful to note that the episode in question was being broadcast from Mrs. Morony's own living room in Northbrook, a Centreville housing development that could serve as the poster child for suburban sprawl.

Newgent gushingly introduces Mrs. Morony as a 'brilliant political strategist.' (Perhaps. But many in local GOP circles (including regular Broadside co-host Andrew Langer) condemned her role in the distasteful Dick Sossi 'asleep on the job' ads on behalf of Steve Hershey in the 2010 election) Based on Newgent's gratuitous introduction, one could be excused for thinking Morony knows something of what she speaks.

Early on in the show, Morony, whose stock in trade as far as I can tell is bitter partisan warfare, comments that "Martin O'Malley couldn't come up with an original idea to save his life." Nevermind that O'Malley managed to get himself elected governor, twice. This statement about O'Malley's unoriginality soon becomes sadly comical in a 'pot meet kettle' type of way as Morony begins to regurgitate the same tired talking points about PlanMaryland.

I could have written Morony's commentary myself before ever hearing it. With ease she slides into a high-level diatribe, skittering like a water bug on the tense surface of an incredibly deep issue. Instead of illustrating any knowledge of PlanMaryland (a 150+ page plan for collaboration between state agencies of varying jurisdiction and local governments that I can virtually guarantee Morony has never laid eyes on), or the very real problems PlanMaryland is attempting to address, Morony prefers to dwell in the relative comfort of the rote and repetitive. Like a marionette she parrots the talking points of her thought proxies, EJ Pipkin and Mike Smigiel, as if ending every statement with a verbal exclamation point makes her more credible.

PlanMaryland is a War on Rural Maryland! PlanMaryland is a state takeover of local government! Newgent himself ventured to new frontiers of hyperbole when he compared PlanMaryland to Mussolini totalitarianism, as if Martin O'Malley was personally preparing to invade Northern Virginia. Newgent seems to forget that Martin O'Malley was duly elected governor of Maryland, an office generally considered to include the Eastern Shore. The arguments against PlanMaryland predictably didn't get any more detailed or specific than the above.

To illustrate both Morony and Newgent's ignorance more directly, neither of them had any previous knowledge of Maryland Department of Planning Secretary Rich Hall. It is not at all clear to me how one can be trotted out in front of an audience, presented to that audience as some kind of resident expert on a given topic, and not be intimately familiar with major players involved in that topic. Purporting to talk about PlanMaryland and not knowing who Rich Hall is isn't much different than calling yourself a mechanic, and having trouble opening the hood of a car. Instant loss of credibility.

What's worse? Andi Morony said "I doubt he(Rich Hall) could find his way around on the Shore if his life depended on it." Uh oh. Hate to inform Mrs. Morony that Rich Hall was born and raised on the Eastern Shore. Unlike, ahem, Mrs. Morony, who according to her Facebook profile hails from the decidedly non-Eastern Shore town of Bowie, Maryland. EJ Pipkin isn't a native Eastern Shoreman, either. And according to the Maryland State Archives website, Mike Smigiel was born in Baltimore, also not on the Eastern Shore. But moreover, this is a popular refrain on the Shore, to shout from the tree tops that people don't, can't, understand the needs of the Eastern Shore unless they pass some kind of litmus test. In the mind of folks like Andi Morony, only those who want to fundamentally destroy the rural character of the Eastern Shore boast "real" Shore credentials.

Rural Maryland is indeed under attack, but not from PlanMaryland. The attack instead comes from the likes of Pipkin, Smigiel, and a host of realtor/developer backed political puppets who think that the Shore must be destroyed to be saved. They do not understand, or worse willfully ignore, that the development they support increases the size and cost of government as surely as night follows the day. In the same breath, Morony objects to a state government takeover of local planning and zoning authority (a chimera) but then bemoans the closure of the (state-run) Upper Shore Mental Health facility. It might be funny if it weren't so galling and hypocritical.

Mrs. Morony isn't a "brilliant political strategist." She lacks the ability to question the assumptions of the elected officials she works for, and serves them in the least valuable way possible, as simply an intellectual rubber stamp, a perpetual nodding head, a yes-woman. The public she indirectly seeks to serve deserves better representation, representation that actually spends time thinking rationally about issues, not simply reacting to popular villains and convenient foils. It is one thing to hand out palm cards and walk in parades come election time, but being involved in the actual governing process requires a different skill set.

Best Book of 2011

It's nearly the end of 2011, a year that for me meant a new job, a record year for hits here at Kline Online, and lots of exciting writing projects that have appeared on the pages of publications from the New York Times to the Delmarva Farmer. The other day at a meeting, the topic of 'what good books have you read lately' came up, which, as an avid reader, is always one of my favorite discussions. I read a lot of good books in 2011, a few great ones, and a few that I likely won't be reading again any time soon. But one book in particular takes home the prize 'Best Book of 2011.'

Now, just to be clear, my 'Best Book of 2011' was not published in 2011. Indeed, it was published in 1972, before I was even born. But it was far and away the best book I read in 2011, and makes the short list for best books I've ever read. Written by the incredible David Halberstam, Steve Kline's best book of 2011 is The Best and the Brightest.

Halberstam cut his journalistic teeth covering the war in Vietnam for the New York Times, but quit the paper in order to focus on telling the compelling story of just how the United States fell headlong into a deadly quagmire that was jeopardizing so much American blood and treasure, not to mention nothing of the impact on the Vietnamese. That project became the The Best and the Brightest, which approaching forty years old is still timely and relevant.

McCarthyism scared the pants off this country in the 1950s in ways that most people, then and now, utterly failed to realize. Not just a time of overzealous red-baiting, Halberstam postulates that American political leaders of all stripes, as a result of McCarthyism, became so obsessed with loyalty and defeating Communists (real and imagined) that as a group they were completely unwilling to put the brakes on what was clearly a fools errand on the shores of the South China Sea.

Developed initially by George Kennan, and so-named by Dwight Eisenhower, the domino theory is an oft-cited justification for US involvement in Vietnam. Halberstam credibly makes the case that the real domino theory was a series of bad decisions, each becoming increasingly inevitable making the opportunity for a fundamental change of course virtually impossible. The weight of those decisions began to create their own deadly momentum. At some point, the choices became less choices and more responses, until ulimtately, saving face became a critical justification for continued American commitment in Southeast Asia.

The book's title comes from the manufactured aura of the Kennedy Administration, the idea held by many (to this day) that Kennedy brought to the White House a team of young dynamos, full of new ideas, the so-called best and brightest. But Halberstam makes clear that to a man, these intellectuals were anything but anti-establishment. They were convinced of their own brilliance, however, even while they rephrased old arguments for losing a new war. Many like to think that Kennedy was preparing a statement on Vietnam that would have ended a US military build-up in that country at the time of his death, but the fact remains that all of Kennedy's advisors managed the war for Lyndon Johnson.

Upwards of 60,000 American men lost their lives in the jungles of Vietnam and Cambodia between 1960 and 1972. The leadership in Washington during this time spanned four presidents and countless aides and advisors at DOD, State, and in the White House. They were no doubt all smart men, but in the final assessment, they were terribly wedded to old assumptions, and the cost couldn't have been dearer. And while The Best and The Brightest is approaching 40 years old, it remains strongly relevant today.

It's Not You, It's Me.

It is unfortunate that John Morony, a member of the Queen Anne's County Republican Central Committee, and Sharon Carrick, a former chairperson of that same committee, found it appropriate recently to personally attack a sitting Republican County Commissioner in the pages of the local newspapers.

Ms. Carrick and Mr. Morony clearly illustrated what so many think is wrong with politics in America today; namely, an obsession with partisanship that mandates jack-booted adherence to the party line, no matter how hypocritical that party line might be. When it suits them, Ms. Carrick and Mr. Morony profess their love for limited government and low taxes, but on the other hand (and often in the same breath) support policies that lead directly and clearly to bigger government and more taxes.

For Ms. Carrick and Mr. Morony, Martin O'Malley is a villain with malicious motivations. Not content to thoughtfully disagree, Carrick and Morony seek to denigrate all of his positions, and anyone who might find some good in his ideas. Instead of debating the merits of an issue, they reflexively resort to personal attack, caring little about the message, aiming only for the messenger. This obsession with partisan purity is the reason why leadership in the United States has been replaced with ambition and brinkmanship.

Continuing to scatter development across the landscape is an unwise use of resources. As a member of the Task Force on Government Sustainability, I saw first hand what our quickly increasing population (Queen Anne's County was the fastest growing county in Maryland from 2000-2010) did to the county's budget. More people demand more government services, which means more government. If you count yourself a small government, low taxes conservative, and you support wanton and unfettered development across the countryside, you are sowing the very seeds with which government and taxes will inevitably and unarguably grow, an untenable dichotomy that doesn't bother party officials like Carrick and Morony.

Commissioner David Dunmyer has put more earnest time, effort and energy into his job as county commissioner than any of his colleagues, without exception. His positions are not arrived at through a partisan filter, but rather by an idealism that seeks to do what is best for our county today and in the future. Like most people that I meet, I do not agree with anyone all of the time, and certainly not a politician. The best we can hope for are elected leaders that keep an open mind and spend time actually thinking about the implications of the policies they champion. On this rubric alone, we in Queen Anne's County would do well to have five David Dunmyers.

Posted: No Funding.

(This piece was first published in The Hill newspaper on November 29, 2011)

Before breaking for Thanksgiving, Congress voted to de-fund the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program (VPA-HIP) as part of the FY2012 agriculture appropriations bill. It is ironic that funding for a program that encourages landowners to make their property accessible to hunters and anglers would be eliminated just as millions of hunters nationwide prepared to hit the woods over the holiday weekend. And whether or not they hunt themselves, all Americans benefit from sportsmen’s dollars and the conservation investments provided by license sales and excise taxes, and therefore, the elimination of VPA-HIP deserves some attention.

The number one reason cited by hunters and anglers for forgoing the sports they love? Access – or rather lack of access – to quality fish and game habitat. Increasingly, sportsmen encounter “hunting prohibited” or “no trespassing” signs as they venture across the countryside.

In response to this very real challenge, the sportsmen’s community developed VPA-HIP, a federal program intended to address the problem of diminished access by sportsmen and others by providing small incentives to landowners to provide public access to their lands for wildlife-dependent activities such as hunting and fishing.

The Voluntary Public Access program was included in the 2008 Farm Bill for the first time. Federal monies were released to implement the program beginning in 2010. In just these first two years, VPA-HIP has succeeded in opening millions of acres of fish and wildlife habitat to hunters and anglers.

The economic impact of programs such as VPA-HIP that facilitate sportsmen’s access is substantial. A decline in license sales – both hunting and fishing – has severe implications for state fish and wildlife agency budgets and the continued funding of fish and wildlife habitat conservation projects that depend on sportsmen’s dollars.

In addition, sportsmen open their wallets at a range of businesses – many located in rural communities and locally owned – including motels, restaurants, sporting good stores, gas stations and guide and outfitting operations. Hunting and angling in this country, each and every year, generate more than $95 billion in economic activity.

In this era of budgetary austerity, a good-faith effort clearly must be made to reduce our nation’s debt and deficit. Sportsmen and women do not presume that they are exempt from shouldering their fair share of this burden. Yet funding for vital conservation programs should be maintained at reasonable levels, and not eliminated entirely.

Hunting and fishing have long been equal-opportunity American traditions enjoyed by anyone with a love of the outdoors. Yet Congress’s decision to eliminate the Voluntary Public Access program will effectively bar sportsmen from accessing many of our increasingly rare and precious open lands and waters. This hunting season, millions of hunters may find themselves on the wrong side of a barbed-wire fence.

In the future, Congress should restore funding to VPA-HIP and ensure the program is reauthorized as part of the next Farm Bill.

Steve Kline is the Director, Center for Agricultural Lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Closing Windows. Opening Doors.

I was born on Thanksgiving morning thirty years ago. I often say that Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday, and some assume that is because of the proximity of my birthday. But I like Thanksgiving because it is a celebration of family, of togetherness and of warm spirits. It also happens to fall during my favorite time of year, autumn, and at the confluence of a variety of hunting seasons that give me good excuse to be outside enjoying brisk weather and good company.

This year was my third year cooking Thanksgiving dinner, and I enjoy it thoroughly. After a morning goose hunting with my dad and my good friend Neal Jackson, it just felt right to be in the kitchen, with some good music and great conversation. I remember yesterday, and every other Thanksgiving with a smile.

Tomorrow I turn 30. I am not the kind of person to wax nostalgic or seek to say something especially profound. I tend not to get overly sentimental about these types of things, and that will remain the case with this blog post, or so I hope.

But Kim's grandfather, who I have come to adore as my own in the six years we've been together is not well. He puts on a brave face, smiles and laughs heartily, and in his company you do not always remember that cancer is eating him alive. But from time to time, just for a second or so, the reality sinks in that life is fleeting, for some of us -known in some cases, unknown in others- more quickly than we might like. We have so much to be thankful for, and we are not always so great about letting others know how we feel. Perhaps if we all made a better effort to carry forth the spirit of Thanksgiving throughout the year, we could improve the quality of our lives. Not end wars or solve the worlds problems mind you, but maybe find the antidote to the comparatively minor things that often stand in the way of meaningful happiness.

I am of course thankful for my wife Kim, who frankly makes life worth living, good days and bad. In a world full of people perfectly willing to let you down and disappoint, Kim is the exception that proves the rule. For her love and company, I count myself among the very luckiest of God's creation. My dad Bill and sister Jenn have long been the solid foundation on which a successful and happy life have been built, in their own separate ways they offer a unique structure of support that is light on sap but heavy on strength, my victories are as much their victories. I hope my dad retires soon, and enjoys good health as he embarks upon filling his days with the things he really likes doing. I hope that I get to spend more time with the both of them over the coming years. Over the coming year, I must also make things right with my own mother, my separation from whom has grown to proportions that I neither expected nor desired; she can expect a phone call from me one soon evening.

Over the past few years, Kim and I have made a concerted effort to reduce the materialism in our lives. We have given up gifts at Christmas and birthdays, and lead the type of life heavy on content, light on fluff. Home is the place we prefer to Black Friday shopping, and books and board games beat out television most nights of the week. We have come to discover that, for us at least, togetherness is what life is all about, not stock markets or elections. It is a simple life, really, a quiet life spent among the few people who I can count on not to let me down; we don't preach about it, we don't encourage others to live the life we live, it is simply what we have found works for us. Good luck to all similar families searching for the right recipe.

It is possible that this is a defense mechanism on my part, against a world that has gone, in my view, incredibly awry. I do not want to close my eyes to the goings on of the world, but I have increasingly found that what is most important is what happens within the four walls of my own home. I don't imagine that the state of things will much improve in my lifetime, at least not without a Renaissance of the human spirit and a collective dulling of the razor-sharp blades of partisanship, so I will seek to make a difference where I can, starting with my own friends and family.

But especially important this Thanksgiving to Bill Fales, 'Poppy' as he is affectionately called around our place, thanks for sharing some very special moments with me over the past six years. Never before have I been welcomed into a family with such open arms as yours, and I fully anticipate returning the favor in your own hours of need, whenever they arrive.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. God bless you all.

Danner Boots and Iowa Pheasants

This past weekend I had the chance to hunt wild Iowa pheasants with some good friends in the conservation field, including Howard Vincent, CEO and Dave Nomsen, VP of Government Affairs, both with Pheasants Forever. Also joining us on the trip was Ron Regan, Executive Director of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Steve Williams, CEO of the Wildlife Management Institute, and a former chief of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. It was a great chance to talk fish and wildlife habitat conservation with some of the leaders in conservation policy. It was also a fantastic opportunity to walk literally hundreds of acres of unbroken prairie with great dogs in search of crafty ring-necked roosters.

I got advance knowledge of the rigorous terrain from a colleague, who said the miles long walks through head-high cover was tough on gear and tough on bodies. Knowing full well that my hunting experience, which consists mostly of short walks through harvested corn fields to goose blinds or deer stands, had sorely prepared me for long dusty days in the tall grass prairie. So a few weeks before I left, I started going to the gym in the evenings; and I ordered a pair of Danner Sierra boots. I thought at least this half-hearted attempt to prepare would pay off somehow.

The boots weren't cheap. At more than $300, they were purchased from www.danner.com after a lot of research. The customer reviews for the Danner Sierras is almost unbelievably good. Customers boast about owning these boots for a decade or more, wearing them for every sort of outdoor activity, from hunting and fishing to farm work. The impression one gets from reading the reviews is that these boots aren't so much expensive, but are rather an investment in your feet. I figured that if the boots lasted for ten years, I would come out ahead: like just about every hunter I know, I spend way more than $300 on boots over a ten year period.

The Sierras are made in the USA, are waterproof, and are the Thinsulated cousin of the uninsulated Danner Grouse boots. Since I do most of my hunting in weather that one wouldn't call balmy, I decided to opt for the warmer shoe. Available in regular, wide, and extra wide, as well as in half sizes, it is easy to find a Danner boot that fits, and the 9.5 wides fit my feet very well.

I wore the boots as much as possible in the two weeks prior to the hunt in order to break them in a bit. The first day I wore them they were understandably stiff, and there was some slight discomfort. Day two, the boots were sufficiently broken in that any discomfort disappeared, and from there on out they were a pleasure to wear.

Fast forward to Veterans Day morning, when I laced up my Danners for their first trip into pheasant country at the Hole N The Wall Lodge in Akron, Iowa. Early morning conditions were chilly and in the 20 degree range, but the day warmed up to the high 50s by lunch. Despite this nearly forty degree variation in temperature, my feet were never cold or hot, but those temperatures probably aren't extreme enough to measure the boots' performance, a January day in the goose pit might be a better judge than a day spent walking.

The real test of these boots was walking for two full days through tall grasses and uneven terrain dotted with badger and gopher holes. They performed very well. After hunting each day, my feet weren't in any pain, I had no 'hot spots' or blisters, and there was no pinching at all. My ankles felt great despite hitting a few of those aforementioned badger holes with precision accuracy. I also inadvertendly put my right foot up to the mid-calf into a small creek while chasing some roosters, and my foot never got wet, a real victory when the boot has essentially been submersed. A wet foot with much walking left to do would be a losing proposition.

Generally speaking, when I spend a day in boots I can't wait to get out of them at the end of the day, eager to trade them in for lighter, more casual shoes (or if it has been a particularly tough day, bedroom slippers). But there was no such feeling at the end of the day with the Danners. Now to be sure, at the end of the hunting days in Iowa I was dog tired, perhaps more tired than I have been in a long time. I was dusty (it was so dry that despite 20 degree temps at night, there wasn't a lick of frost on the ground, and you couldn't even see your breath in the morning because of the lack of moisture), my legs were sore and my feet felt as heavy as lead weights, but that wasn't the fault of my Danners, it was more the result of a tough but memorable day of Pheasant hunting with great dogs, good company, and the nicest pair of boots I've ever owned.

Chesapeake Bay and the Farm Bill

About every five years, Congress passes comprehensive agricultural legislation, popularly referred to as “the farm bill.” The last farm bill was passed in 2008 and at more than 1700 pages, included policies related to crop insurance and crop subsidies, food stamps, school lunches, renewable energy, and the conservation of our natural resources. The policy initiatives passed as part of the 2008 farm bill are set to expire in 2012, and Congress is now faced with passing a new farm bill, while at the same time dealing with one of the worst budget climates in history.

Farmers are often criticized for getting too much in the way of government payments, and as such, federal farm programs of all kinds have been cast as easy targets for deep spending reductions. As policymakers work to determine funding priorities, it is important to remember the essential role farmers play producing the food and fiber on which our very way of life depends. Helping to ensure that American farmers can remain on the land and make a living has long been a priority in the United States, and while there is certainly room for reform, it must remain a priority in the future.

Farmland conservation must also remain a priority for the next farm bill, because crops and livestock are not the only important things that a farmer produces for the benefit of the broader public. For along with corn and chickens, farmers are producing cleaner air, cleaner water and quality fish and wildlife habitat that improve the well-being of all Americans. And while as of yet there is no market for the environmental benefits farmers produce, federal farm conservation programs prevent farmers from having to bear the cost of conservation alone. While farmers have long been good stewards of the land and water, voluntary farm bill conservation programs add critical capacity to their desire to do what’s right.

As we struggle to make progress on cleaning up the Chesapeake, it can sometimes be easy to place the burden on the region’s farmers. While farmers share some of the responsibility for the plight of the Bay, it bears remembering that perhaps no other group has done more, more effectively, for the cleanup of the Bay than the watershed’s farmers.

Since 2003, utilizing farm bill conservation programs, farmers in the region have reduced sediment loss by 55 percent and phosphorous loss by 40 percent. One of the major drivers of toxic algae blooms in the Bay, nitrogen, has been reduced in subsurface flows by 31 percent and in surface flows by 42 percent. Conservation programs have also led to a reduction in pesticide loss from fields by 24 percent. What do all this numbers mean? Put simply, they mean that nutrients and soil are staying where they belong and not becoming the fuel on which the next Chesapeake catastrophe will feed.

There is not a one-size-fits-all formula for achieving the types of results outlined above. On a farm in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, stabilizing a stream bank and implementing delayed grazing practices for dairy cattle could help to form the basis of a runoff reduction plan. On the Eastern Shore of Maryland, a successful strategy might combine a permanent wetland restoration with the establishment of a forested buffer and the adoption of a conservation crop rotation. With assistance provided by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) farmers get the financial and technical support they need to develop and implement the right plan for their farm.

Yet while agriculture has already done much, it is likely that with the ongoing development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans, the so-called Chesapeake pollution diet, farmers will be looked upon to do even more to ensure a healthy future for the Bay. Provided that the farm bill once again contains a robust suite of conservation programs, including the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI), then the tools are there for farmers to meet the pollution diet head on; a win for farmers and a win for the Chesapeake.

On 3.4 million farmland acres across the Bay region, there is still much work to be done. According to a report released by the NRCS in early 2011, the potential upside for treatment of these acres of “high to moderate treatment need” is extraordinary. A subset of those 3.4 million acres, 810,000 acres which have been identified as eroding more quickly and subject to more nutrient runoff than average are in the most critical need of treatment. If targeted with conservation practices successfully, NRCS estimates that sediment loss due to water could be reduced by 2.3 tons per acre each and every year, keeping nearly 2 million tons of silt out of the Chesapeake Bay annually.

Perhaps even more astounding are the potential reductions in nitrogen pollution, which could be reduced by 53 pounds per acre annually on the most sensitive lands. Through good nitrogen management practices, including proper rate and timing of fertilizer application, farmers could keep 21,000 tons of nitrogen in the fields feeding crops, not in the Bay feeding algae; all the while saving farmers significant money in input costs.

With a full complement of conservation programs in the next farm bill, those numbers may very well become reality: the second half of an already successful story of voluntary conservation on the cropland of the Chesapeake. And while the Chesapeake pollution diet is subject to further development, review and, unfortunately, litigation, farm bill conservation programs will continue to quietly make big progress on reducing pollution in the Bay.

However, despite demonstrable results and the promise of an even brighter future, these programs are at risk of drastic reductions as the 2012 farm bill moves through Congress on a vastly accelerated timeline. Gaining control of our nation’s deficit is important; but an ounce of prevention is still worth a pound of the cure. Chesapeake farmers and conservationists alike couldn’t pick a better time to sing the praises of farm bill conservation programs than right this minute.

Steve Kline is the Director of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s Center for Agricultural Lands. He lives on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The following commentary is scheduled to be published in the October 25 issue of The Delmarva Farmer.

Pollution is expensive, and that’s not just the obvious costs associated with clean-up. Before nitrogen or phosphorous ever jump start an algae bloom in the Chesapeake Bay, much of it starts as a purchase a farmer makes at his local agriculture supply store. Fertilizer comprises a significant portion of a farmer’s overhead, so when it runs off of a corn field and begins its journey to the Bay, it’s like a stream of dollar bills disappearing into the creeks and streams of the Chesapeake watershed.

Same goes for topsoil, which can be blown away with the wind or carried away by the rain. Topsoil comprises the foundation of any farmer’s business plan; without it a farm operation is doomed to fail. And unlike fertilizer, topsoil cannot be easily replaced next growing season. When topsoil enters the water it chokes out sunlight from submerged grasses essential for the health of the Bay. Oysters are also wiped out by the silt, unable to escape being buried by mud.

Losing fertilizer and soil is a costly proposition for farmers and the Chesapeake; as such, making investments in programs that help farmers to apply only the fertilizers their crops require and that reduce runoff and erosion is a compelling way to make progress on long-standing problems. Thankfully, such programs already exist and are achieving results. Since 2003, federal farm conservation programs have reduced sediment loss on Chesapeake cropland by 55 percent, surface runoff of nitrogen by 42 percent, and loss of phosphorous by 41 percent; a few bright spots on an otherwise dim track record of Bay restoration.

Farmers have done more than any other sector to clean up their act on behalf of the Chesapeake. But as the newly created Chesapeake pollution diet is implemented, it is likely that farmers will have to do even more or possibly face the specter of increased regulation. Regulation is a four letter word in agriculture, strongly opposed by most industry groups as something just as threatening to farmers as floods or droughts. But unlike the weather, farmers have the ability to control how they meet new requirements.

Yet, troublingly, some of those same industry groups have recommended cutting voluntary farm conservation programs in favor of propping up crop insurance and farm subsidy budgets, which are often referred to as the farm safety net. The programs they suggest cutting are the same programs that will help farmers comply with new and existing regulations. Conservation has now become part of the farm safety net and the alternative to these incentive-based programs is likely a shift to a penalty-based paradigm that few farmers would support.

Conservation programs have proven incredibly popular with farmers over the years; helping them to do the right thing for the environment while making a living producing food and fiber for the world. With additional regulations potentially on the horizon, it may be time for agriculture industry groups to consider what a future without voluntary conservation program might look like for farmers.

Steve Kline is the Director of the Center for Agricultural Lands at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. He lives on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

The Case Against Question 5

You may have noticed over on Facebook or in comment forums across the interwebs that a select few of the most partisan operators around are baying like cur dogs about the inequity! the unfairness! of Governor Martin O' Malley's recently released redistricting plan for Maryland's 8 Congressional districts. According to the Governor's commission on redistricting, 70% of Marylanders remain in their current district under the proposed plan, but that hasn't stopped the most rabidly partisan amongst us (and mostly Republicans at that) from screaming about the sheer partisanship reflected in the new redistricting plan.

It's been a long time since I've agreed with Republicans in Maryland about much of anything, but I agree with them about the purely partisan motivation of the redistricting plan. In an attempt to win seven of eight Congressional seats in 2012, the Democrats running the state have brought Roscoe Bartlett's Western Maryland district far down into that hotbed of liberal thinking, Montgomery County. The new 6th now includes Gaithersburg, Germantown, and portions of Rockville and its environs. The Washington suburbs are full of new immigrants of varying levels of legality, but are also chock full of well compensated and well educated DC commuters who, by and large, tend to vote for Democrats. These same voters have sent Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen to the House for the past five terms.

But truth be told, the changes in the 6th also create a much more competitive 8th district in which Van Hollen will likely have to compete against a credible challenger, and will actually have to campaign. More personally dismaying from my standpoint is that the new 1st district now extends further west than ever before, and some of the newly encompassed ground includes portions of Carroll County, northern Baltimore County, and a majority of Harford County. Carroll County citizens don't have a ton in common with Somerset County citizens, but that was not foremost on the minds of the Governor's Redistricting Task Force. They were willing to sacrifice ten years of inevitable Republican representation in the 1st for the sake of knocking off Roscoe out west.

Much as I don't support anything Andy Harris says or does, I don't necessarily want him to be summarily kicked from office because of a redistricting effort led largely by the other party. What I want are fair election districts, where a diverse array of candidates and ideas can be heard and where the election results are not preordained. This is where I differ from the GOP.

Maryland GOP leaders, which is something of an oxymoron given their permanent minority status, are calling the governor's plan unfair. Which implies that if they were in office, they would not be attempting the same type of shenanigans, which put the interests of partisan politics ahead of the interests of the people of Maryland. Of course, this is not the case. All over the country, Republican led states are doing precisely the same things, trying to finagle Congressional boundary lines for the sake of GOP advantage at the ballot box. There is no question that if the Republicans were in charge in Maryland, they would be doing exactly what they decry the Democrats for doing. No wonder 89% of Americans think that Congress is dysfunctional, we are represented by politicians who think first of personal ambition, then Party, and then the people, and always in that order.

Gerrymandering, the practice of altering Congressional district boundary lines in creative ways for partisan ends got its start by Elbridge Gerry (and as a side note, he pronoounced his last name similar to Gary not Jerry, so I am always sure to pronounce the word properly as garymandering, and not jerrymandering)who started this tradition as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812.

However, the lack of competition in our House seats is eroding the quality of our elected officials, and as such, is eroding the quality of our political debate. The vast majority of Congressional seats are now held firmly by one Party or the other, with incumbents virtually assured a safe seat as long as they care to serve. This only serves to create a House of Representatives full of the most partisan champions imaginable, whose commitment to ensuring gridlock is generally applauded at home, at the expense of progress and problem solving.

Some states have started to dabble with fair election rules, but only when the electorate clamors for genuine good government. As long as partisans rewrite the election rules every ten years, we will only ever have partisan driven redistricting. It is time to implement a truly fair system for holding elections, one where boundary lines are computer generated, with only population and regional equity as part of the determining formula. No more legislative districts that are only the width of a road in order to get to some select conservative or liberal neighborhood. The people should demand that their representation not be selected for them, if elections no longer matter, what else does?

I hope you will consider joining me in voting AGAINST Question 5 on the statewide ballot.

The Old Switcharoo

Much, much more on this issue in a later blog post, but I wanted to post to this Des Moines Register article before I added my own commentary.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110902/OPINION03/309020049/Farm-subsidy-switch-disheartening

Iowa Farm Bureau members cast a historic vote in Des Moines Tuesday urging Congress to tie federal farm subsidies to compliance with land conservation programs.

Alas, the members brought the resolution back for another vote the next day and killed it. For a brief moment, though, it looked like the Iowa Farm Bureau was serious about countering its reputation as an organization that cares more about making money with the taxpayers’ assistance than the environmental consequences of unsustainable farming practices.

We can only hope Congress does not listen to the Iowa Farm Bureau on this issue: If American taxpayers are going to subsidize farmers, the least they should expect in return is that farmers will be required to practice sensible land use so waters are not fouled and soil is preserved for future generations.

That expectation is met now. Farmers who accept direct support payments from the government are required to comply with federal conservation rules that prevent soil erosion and protect water quality. But Congress’ budget-cutters are poised to end direct payments, which set a floor under commodity prices. Iowa farmers aren’t likely to fight the cut because, with corn prices nearing historic record highs, they don’t need the direct payments.

There is another way to enforce conservation, however: The federal government subsidizes about 60 percent of the cost of crop insurance, which protects commodity growers from weather-related losses. But there is no link between federal crop insurance and conservation programs. The historic – though brief – proposal by the Iowa Farm Bureau delegates would have put the group on record as supporting such a link.

Iowa Farm Bureau Federation President Craig Lang deserves enormous credit for pushing the idea of enforcing conservation rules. In a meeting with the Register earlier this summer, Lang said two key elements of the farm bill should be preserved: Crop insurance and conservation programs, which he likened to vital national infrastructure, such as locks on the Mississippi River and dams on the Missouri River. He and others urged the Iowa delegates to take a stand for conservation by tying it to insurance subsidies.

It’s not clear why the Farm Bureau members reversed themselves. The notion was expressed by some members that while direct payments are expendable, crop insurance is not. Marion County farmer Corwin Fee said he was all for improving the organization’s public relations, but he said “this is my livelihood. Crop insurance is a necessity to farming.” Which can be read only one way: Conservation is not a necessity to farming.

The carefully cultivated image of farmers as noble men and women who feed the world is tarnished by the fact that, unlike other business owners, farmers have a direct pipeline into the federal treasury that helps protect them from risk and market gyrations. Especially galling is the attitude of farmers who expect those subsidies without interference from the government. “We’re for conservation,” David Wrage of Benton County told the Farm Bureau delegates Wednesday. “But my membership back home just doesn’t want the government coming onto their land and telling them what to do.”

Iowa Farm Bureau members this week were close to taking a principled stand against that attitude. It is a shame they changed their minds.

The Lessons of Irene

This past weekend, my wife and I survived our first hurricane on the Delmarva Peninsula. Hurricane Irene brought tropical storm force winds and a drenching 20 hours of rain to Centreville and most other Eastern Shore environs. Thankfully our communities were mostly spared from the catastrophe that some had predicted; but as the sun dawns bright, and the skies a clear blue, maybe its time to reflect on the past week of weather.

-While I suppose an earthquake isn't technically weather, last Tuesday I felt my first earthquake while on the phone at my Washington office. It was over by the time I figured out just what was happening, and thinking that the novelty had quickly come and gone, kept on with my conversation with a colleague from Montana. After the phone call ended, however, I went into the street to find a Diet Coke, and what met me in the building lobby was pandamonium. Crowds milled around the streets with no purpose and certainly no direction. I wouldn't go so far as to call it chaos; but if this truly had been an emergency of any magnitude, well, lets just say that the ingredients for chaos were all there in the right quanitities. Federal and state governments spend a ton of taxpayer dollars on "homeland security," but incidences like this one prove that after all those billions, there is no workable plan to get people information.

-Which brings me to my next point, communications. There were none in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. Both cell phones and land lines were essentially useless in the couple hours after the event. Again, if this were a real emergency, those of us in downtown DC would be shutoff from the rest of the world in a way that would almost certainly be dangerous. It is somewhat frightening to know that the best method for staying informed during a low-level emergency were social media sites like Facebook.

-Fast forward a few days to Hurricane Irene. Both national and local news outlets were sold on the idea that Irene was going to be a catastrophe of the highest order; they then sought to sell that same idea to a general public all too willing to buy. Even the generally staid Weather Channel wasn't immune from the hyperbole, no longer simply forecasting weather but evoking a sort of doomsday expectation, a morbid and perverse attempt at higher ratings. Generally, the sensationalism of the news is something we can switch off and disregard, perhaps even chuckle at. But in this instance, when real information was needed, it was difficult to find the helpful amidst the high-pitched.

-As a result of this obsession with catastrophe (indeed seemingly encouraging it), my neck of the woods was ignored almost entirely. The Weather Channel, CNN, and every other national news outlet seemed to forget that a 500 mile wide hurricane cannot get to New York City from the Outer Banks without passing through Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. I suppose that the potential for catastrophe just wasn't high enough on the Delmarva Peninsula for any meaningful coverage. But come to think of it, if the coverage is nothing more than vapid doomsaying, best to leave us out.

-We shouldn't cut every tree in every neighborhood down because occasionally a branch falls and breaks a window. Trees add to the quality of our lives, add to the livability of neighborhoods (if you don't believe that, go take a drive through treeless Northbrook). Sometimes they are dangerous (what isn't?) but let's not let a momentary passion possess us to do something we will regret for a long time.

-People can't drive. Generally speaking, we don't need bad weather to bear this out, but it becomes especially obvious in bad weather. If a red light is out at an intersection, it becomes a four way stop. It is not a license to barrel through as if you've never laid eyes on a drivers ed manual.

-The best lesson of Irene is that the Eastern Shore, and our small town of Centreville is a great place to call home. On Sunday, people came out to gossip and help each other clean up. I hear a lot about what is wrong with Queen Anne's County, but Irene helped us see a few things that are just right.

Thinking Outside the Big Box

My wife Kim and I sent the following email to our County Commissioners prior to the vote on Text Amendment 11-06, to permit 'big box' retail in suburban commerical zoned properties. Thanks to Commissioners David Dunmyer and Bob Simmons for their courageous vote against this damaging amendment.

Gentlemen,
Good morning. As citizens of Centreville, my wife and I would like to write in strong opposition to Text Amendment 11-06, which would eliminate the square footage cap for retail establishments in Suburban Commercial areas. It is our belief that the reasons for opposing this ordinance far outweigh any possible reasons for supporting the measure, and we would urge you to vote against the 11-06 on Tuesday morning.

1. The main property in question, near the corner of 544/213, is in a part of the county that, unlike Kent Island, maintains a strong rural character. However, if a big box retail store were to be located in this area, it would set off a chain of events that would be difficult to avoid: namely, the large-scale development of the 213 corridor in northern Queen Anne’s County, quickly altering the landscape from one of working farmland and centrally located small businesses, to one of vast parking lots and diffuse, unorganized large retail businesses that will undermine the viability of existing Kingstown, Centreville, Sudlersville and Chestertown businesses. It is also highly probable that this would kick-start many attempts by landowners to get their land rezoned, and if the commissioners have established a strict rationale that “any growth is good growth,” at what point will you be politically able to stop granting landowner requests for rezoning? It will get very tricky; best to take a reasoned approach to growth by voting down 11-06.

2. It is false to say that “big box” retailers will keep money in Queen Anne’s County. In fact, the opposite is true, since the vast majority of big box retail profits will be sent to corporate headquarters in far off locations (in the case of Wal-Mart, Bentonville, Arkansas; in the case of Home Depot, Atlanta Georgia). This as opposed to buying products from locally owned vendors, who keep all profits local, and generally employ local people at higher wages. Since altering the APFO is also reportedly on your agenda, it is likely that any positive property tax revenue (since ALL sales tax receipts are sent to Annapolis, and not kept in the County) created by a large retailer will be spent upgrading associated infrastructure such as roadways, storm and wastewater capacity, and the added cost of increased police and fire service requirements in a part of the county where police and fire costs are currently quite low.

3. While the population center of Queen Anne’s County is Kent Island, the 544/213 intersection is 38 miles from Kent Island. It is unlikely that any Kent Island citizen will choose Kingstown (38 miles) over Easton (30 miles) or Annapolis (20 miles) for its large retail needs. Indeed, I would like to see the County Commissioners focus on increasing Kent Island visitation to existing Centreville businesses and our plethora of existing retail and commercial space. Since it is true that so many people in the county cross the bridge to get to work, what reason would they have for driving nearly forty miles from Kent Island to Kingstown, when they likely work or drive in very close proximity to a large retail location four to five days a week?

4. For a variety of reasons, downtown Centreville is dying. From high rents to low foot traffic, the solution is likely complicated and will require the cooperation of both town and county officials, but as of right now, nothing is being done to ameliorate the problems of downtown Centreville. I can assure you that a large retailer located in Kingstown will be the final blow for Centreville; the county seat will continue its downward spiral into a ghost town. If Centreville continues on its current path, I believe that you will see a further loss in property values, and a decrease in tax revenue that will largely offset any gains a large retailer may bring to the County. I urge you to drop the idea of big box in suburban commercial, and instead focus on breathing life into our towns and communities. If you take this approach, you will have the complete support of all of your constituents. Comparisons to downtown Easton are simply naïve. Easton’s historic downtown was already a viable economic location prior to big box retail coming to greater Easton, which meant that there was some insulation against the pressures of big box retail, (although someone should tell that to the now defunct Legal Spirits, Thai food restaurant, and others that have since gone under). Easton also has place-appropriate anchors (Avalon Theatre, Tidewater Inn) that fit the identity of the town. Centreville lacks these anchors, but with the commitment of the commissioners to work on this problem, I believe new life could be breathed into Centreville, I will support your efforts to do this. But it cannot be done with a big box retail location ten miles up 213/301.

5. A big box retail location dropped in to 544/213 is the definition of sprawl. You absolutely cannot say that you are anti-sprawl if you vote for this measure. It may be true that Queen Anne’s County and Kent County are the only counties left in Maryland that do not have a Wal-Mart. I don’t think the people of Queen Anne’s County want, nor do I think the commissioners should be trying, to turn our county into a homogenous extension of the rest of Maryland. The fact that we do not have large retail blight sets us apart from the rest of the state in a good way, not in a bad way! Many other counties have Wal-Marts, Targets, Home Depots, and Lowes, but those counties are currently in precisely the same state of budget deficits that Queen Anne’s County is in; in fact, some counties with big box retail have it much, much worse. There is not one single example of a big box retail location solving a local (short term) budget crunch. Big box retail solves no problems, and creates many. Talbot County, which has a Wal-Mart, Target, Lowes and soon to have a Kohl’s currently has an unemployment rate fully one percentage point higher than Queen Anne’s County, and just went through a similar cut to their school budget as our County was forced to go through; the costs simply are not worth the benefits.

6. It deserves mentioning that the predatory nature of big box retail, which is a fundamental part of their very business model, is damaging to nearly all it touches. For every low-paying retail job that Walmart or Target creates, they likely kill two high-paying US manufacturing jobs, by forcing manufacturers to produce at rock bottom prices and shoestring profit margins, they essentially force through volume purchases the migration of US manufacturing overseas. So while cheaper back to school gear sounds great, cheap retail jumpstarts an endless race to the bottom that leaves middle class America holding a very large bill.

Please oppose 11-06.

Steven and Kimberly Kline
Centreville

The Race to Rock Bottom

Frank owns a factory that makes winter hats. He is the fourth generation of his family to run the factory, located in a small town in Middle America. Forty percent of the town has a steady, well-paying job in the factory. For years, the company's hats have been in local sporting goods stores, hardward stores and general stores across the country. They had a reputation for being made of the finest quality wool and leather, assembled in America, long-lasting, and good at keeping hard working Americans warm all winter long.

A large retail corporation with plans for global price and sales domination comes along, let's call this company Sprawl-Mart. The executives of Sprawl-Mart like Frank's hats, and while they find his company's family history, local roots, and quality product touching, they think his prices are too high. Too high by half, in fact. But they really want to sell Frank's hats, so the product development director of Sprawl-Mart calls Frank one crisp autumn morning, and offers to buy one million of Frank's hats. Frank's jaw drops! That is more hats than Frank's company has made in the last ten years. Frank will be able to expand his shop, hire more local people, and offer everyone a bonus come Christmas time. But Sprawl-Mart has one condition...the price of his hats needs to be cut by 75%.

Frank is speechless. He sputters into the phone: "But! I can't increase my production by 500% AND reduce my costs by 75%! It cannot be done!" Sprawl-Mart disagrees. They tell Frank that they will be ordering one million hats from someone, whether it be him, or his biggest competitor. Sprawl-Mart tells Frank that once they start selling his competitor's hats in large quanities across the globe, at rock bottom prices, it will put Frank's fourth generation company right out of business. "Find a way to make these hats 75% cheaper," Sprawl-Mart hisses into the phone.

Frank has no choice but to meet Sprawl-Mart's demands, because if he doesn't, it will likely mean the end of his family's business. So Frank calls a factory meeting, and tells the workers, some of whom he grew up with, that the company will be moving it's operations to Vietnam, and that the factory where four generations of locals have worked will be closing down. They already have a buyer for the factory, in fact. A Sprawl-Mart subsidiary, Concrete Jungle Developers will be bulldozing the place to put up high-dollar condos.

One day, Frank walks into a new Sprawl-Mart location just outside of town. He sees Helen, who used to be a foreman at the factory, now she is working for minimum wages and no benefits; she doesn't say hello. Frank see's Marty, who was a talented shop mechanic, fixing a light fixture high up in the Sprawl-Mart ceiling. He shouts a "hello" up to Frank; Marty shouts back down, "No time to talk, gotta wrap up here so I can head to my second job." Then he gets to the aisle where Sprawl-Mart stocks their hats. And there he sees it, the new version of his family's legacy, made out of foreign cotton, foreign imitation leather, and all put together in Vietnam.

This story is fictional in the strictest sense of the word, but many of the products hanging on the shelves at big box retailers across the country have a similar story to tell, stories that are all too real. For every one low-paying retail job that big box retailers create, there is no telling how many good paying American manufacturing jobs they put out of business forever; the kind of jobs that America was built on. This is the cost of the American obsession with low-priced goods. Your cheap back to school supplies and snacks for the big game have a low price, but an incredibly high cost.

Does this photo make my eyes look crazy?

This image of Michele Bachmann on the cover of Newsweek has caused a lot of heartburn lately. While markets tumble, and confidence in the American political system is deeply shaken both at home and across the globe, some people have decided that what's important is an "unflattering" picture of Bachmann on the cover of a magazine.

I'll be honest, the picture shows pretty clearly that Bachmann has crazy in her eyes. But it is obviously a picture that Bachmann willingly posed for, as opposed to some sort of candid, frozen in the moment snarl or expressive frown.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that this picture doesn't make Michele Bachman look any crazier than she actually is. She is a proud member of what Theodore Roosevelt one hundred years ago called 'the Lunatic Fringe.' The fact that Newsweek has a picture on their cover that makes Michele Bachmann look crazy doesn't bother me. Now the fact that she IS crazy is a whole other story.

Western Native Trout Adventures

I hope you all will check out this cool video put together by the Director of TRCP's Center for Western Lands, my friend Joel Webster. All across the nation, indicator species are serving as the proverbial canaries in the coalmine for our conservation efforts. Here in Maryland, species like the eastern brook trout and native oyster are telling us we have to do more. Check out the video!

Izaak Walton League * National Wildlife Federation
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership * Trout Unlimited

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 12, 2011

House of Representatives Strikes Double Blow Against Clean Water Protections

Washington, DC – The U.S. House of Representatives today struck a double blow against efforts to restore Clean Water Act protections for streams that supply drinking water to 117 million Americans and wetlands that provide flood protection and critical fish and wildlife habitat. The full House rejected an amendment to allow the Army Corps to proceed with Clean Water Act guidance and rulemaking, while the Appropriations Committee approved a fiscal year (FY) 2012 Interior Appropriations bill that bars EPA from taking similar action.

The House rejected an amendment by Representative Jim Moran (D-VA) to the FY 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that would have allowed the Army Corps of Engineers to revise guidance and proceed with a rulemaking to clarify the waters protected by the Clean Water Act. The bill includes a provision (Section 109) barring the Corps from taking any steps next year or in future years to revise the proposed guidance or regulations. By voting against this amendment, the House would maintain the status quo of wetlands loss, stream impairment, and regulatory confusion.

“The vote today represented a clear choice between restoring Clean Water Act protections to important streams and wetlands and postponing those protections indefinitely,” said Scott Kovarovics, Conservation Programs Director for the Izaak Walton League of America. “Congressman Moran’s amendment provided a balanced path forward for clean water. Unfortunately, opponents of the amendment chose not to take that path.”

“Clean water must be a bipartisan national priority,” said Steve Kline, Director of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s Center for Agricultural and Private Lands. “Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has made significant progress in restoring our nation’s rivers, lakes, and wetlands. The job is not done, but votes like today’s are an ill-advised step in exactly the wrong direction.”

The Interior Appropriations bill includes a nearly identical provision (Section 435) blocking EPA action on Clean Water Act guidance or future rulemaking. It blocks such actions not only in FY 2012 but in future years as well.

“These provisions leave us with an intolerable status quo that threatens wetlands and tributaries that provide clean water for iconic systems like the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes, recharge aquifers, help retain floodwaters, and provide important fish and wildlife habitat,” said Jan Goldman-Carter, National Wildlife Federation Wetlands and Water Resources Counsel.

Loss of Clean Water Act protections for small streams and wetlands could affect more than our drinking water supplies and wildlife habitat – it could hurt the nation’s economy. Hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation contribute billions to the economy, but these activities could be sharply curtailed by water pollution and loss of wetland habitat critical for ducks, trout, and other wildlife.

“American sportsmen greatly appreciate the efforts of Representative Moran and others as they reminded the House what it seems to have forgotten: You can’t have fishable and swimable waters if substantial amounts of wetlands and headwater streams go unprotected by the Clean Water Act,” said Steve Moyer, Vice President for Government Affairs for Trout Unlimited. “Sportsmen will not forget these votes and will continue to do all in our power to defeat similar provisions that threaten clean water.”

For more information please contact:
Scott Kovarovics, Izaak Walton League, 301-548-0150 x 223, skovarovics@iwla.org
Jan Goldman-Carter, National Wildlife Federation, 202-797-6894, goldmancarterj@nwf.org
Steve Kline, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 202-639-8727, skline@trcp.org
Steve Moyer, Trout Unlimited, 703-284-9406, smoyer@tu.org

BACKGROUND
The damaging House provisions would prevent the Corps of Engineers and EPA from finalizing administrative guidance that has been developed with an unprecedented level of public input. The Corps and EPA are collecting public comments on the proposed guidance for 90 days, through July 31. As written, the guidance increases clarity and efficiency for agencies, farmers, and businesses without expanding the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Exemptions already in the Clean Water Act for common farming, ranching, forestry, and other land use activities would not be affected by the proposed guidance. As an administrative document, the guidance cannot – and does not – limit provisions of the Clean Water Act that specifically exempt these activities from the law’s wetland and pollution discharge permit requirements. It is ironic that these provisions also prohibit a formal rulemaking process. Stakeholders on all sides seem to agree on the need for a formal rulemaking as part of a long-term solution, yet the bills prohibit rulemaking not only in fiscal year 2012, but indefinitely.

Queen Anne's Cronies

Last week, the Queen Anne's County Board of Commissioners appointed Jim Moran to the county's Planning Commission. The vote was 3-2. Commissioners Arentz, Dumenil and Olds voted to appoint Mr. Moran. Commissioners Dunmyer and Simmons opposed the appointment.

Jim Moran is the owner of Increte of Maryland (you can check them out here: http://www.increteofmaryland.com/index.html). Increte is a decorative concrete company out of Crofton. Jim and I served together on the Task Force on Government Sustainability this Winter and early Spring; he was always professional, thorough and well-prepared. He also had a clear agenda: the promotion of growth as the solution to the county's problems. It was by no means a secret that Jim Moran saw more roads, more houses, and more business parks as the solution to what ails Queen Anne's County. But we'll come back to that.

The County Commissioners had received several applications for appointment to the Planning Commission. This is where the problems start. Included in the packet of applications, was a professional architect with experience working in Queen Anne's County. Another application for appointment was from a professional planner, that's right, a professional planner, with an impeccable resume.

But neither of those two candidates, qualified as they might have been, were going to do much good for the likes of Arentz, Dumenil and Olds. No, they needed a known quantity, someone they could count on to be a solid vote for growth on the Planning Commission. So they turned down a certified planner, for Jim Moran.

This is a fairly predictable state of affairs; Arentz and his followers on the Board vote blindly for their friends without considering what's best for Queen Anne's County. They make no attempt to get Jim Moran's opinions on the Comprehensive Plan (which as a member of the Planning Commission he will be expected to implement) nor did they ask any questions of Jim about his vision for the county. At least not that the public knows of. In fact, the public doesn't know what the county commissioners asked any of the applicants, because over the objection of Commissioners Dunmyer and Simmons, the board's deliberation over the Planning Commission appointment was done in closed session.

Public appointments to public commissions should be made in public. But Arentz, Dumenil and Olds wanted to be able to discuss the applicants "candidly," without the glare of the public. It seems likely that Arentz knew the public would never stand for such an obvious and odious case of cronyism, so he made the anointment, err, appointment, behind closed doors. As far as I am concerned, this is a blatant abuse of powers, I prefer that a real estate agent, an insurance salesman and a retired firefighter not have the right to determine which discussions the public can be a part of, and which they should be excluded from. This is an outrage. Who are Steve Arentz, Phil Dumenil and Dave Olds to decide what the public needs to know?

Of course, Arentz and his cohorts are well aware of Moran's vision for the County, he couldn't have been any more clear about that during the Task Force. They also likely know that Moran shares their dim view of the comprehensive plan. This is the whole purpose for his appointment, he will be a rubber stamp for growth in any form.

If this keeps up, this appointing cronies to various commissions, it won't be long before these commissions cease to function properly. The Planning Commission serves an important role in Queen Anne's County, namely to make sure that proposed development meets the needs of all of our citizens, both now and in the future. The Planning Commission must serve as a backstop for landowner and developer desires, can Jim Moran be expected to fill this role?

All through the campaign of last summer, I had to sit through candidate forums and listen to Steve Arentz, Phil Dumenil, and Dave Olds say that they didn't want to pave the county. When a website called Pave Our County cropped up, Arentz, Dumenil and Olds were indignant that anyone would claim that was indeed their intention. Yet what better way to pave the county, than to appoint a paver to the Planning Commission?

A Board of One

This statement was prepared and delivered today (June 14, 2011) by Commissioner David Dunmyer during a round table meeting of the Queen Anne's County Board of Commissioners. It is re-posted below without edit or commentary:

"Almost two weeks ago a meeting took place between Commissioners Arentz, Dumenil, County Administrator Todd and members of the governor's staff. The purpose of this meeting was to find areas of common ground, where we could work together. This meeting was requested by the governor's staff through contact with Administrator Todd. "

"Sounds great, right? I would have thought so too, had I known about it."

"Commissioner Arentz chose to hijack the process for his own political agenda by instructing Administrator Todd to withhold this meeting request from the other commissioners, namely Commissioners Simmons, myself, and maybe Commissioner Olds. I'm not certain if he knew of this, or played a part."

"I consider this action serious misconduct on the part of Commissioner Arentz and Administrator Todd. Are these actions of a commission working together to come up with solutions to move the county forward or are they sneaky, backhanded ways of push a developer-driven agenda?"

"When the state government contacts the County Administrator and requests a meeting with the commission, the commissioners who attend the meeting are now bound to represent the commission as a whole. Commissioner Simmons and I, and maybe Commissioner Olds, were deliberately left out of this process. Two commissioner representing the entire board illegally."

"I request that we have our county attorney come in at a future meeting and instruct the commission, in public, on the do's and don'ts of commissioner conduct and also to address the duties of the president of the commission versus the rest of the commissioners. I will not stand for being marginalized as a commissioner."