This letter to the editor is a response in opposition to a recent letter in the Spy authored by Jeffrey Horstman of the Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, posted on December 13, 2014, titled Miles & Wye Riverkeeper on Maryland’s Phosphorous Management Tool.
In the original letter Mr. Horstman makes the statement that “despite what farmers have done thus far, our rivers continue to get worse not better.” Throughout the last several years, farmers have been forced to adopt new regulations that aim to curb pollution. Even after admitting that those efforts have been a failure, Mr. Horstman goes on to say “consequently, more needs to be done.” Basically, it’s not the fault of state government that pollution is still a major problem but the fault of farmers because they feel they have the right to “pollute resources.” Mr. Horstman goes on to say that more needs to done. It must be noted that “more” cannot be quantified and if farmers do not take a stand now, “more” regulations will ensue until the next time “more” will be needed; you get the picture.
Furthermore, one must have a sense of history into why pollution has become such an issue. Prior to the Progressive Era, the United States had a system of tort which punished industrial actors for their pollution. During those years the United States dealt with pollution in the court system which treated pollution as a trespass. This forced companies and people to stop polluting otherwise it was going to cost them money. For the most part, lack of environmental laws was not an issue. Of course, we concede that pollution cannot be completely eliminated. So, what happened? Why did we move away from this system? It’s very simple: industrial actors found that strict property rights regimes were detrimental to their operations. They argued that manufacturing was a public good. The expansion of technology and production brought with it pollution. In conclusion, the government created a one-size-fits-all approach toward dealing with pollution and established the Environmental Protection Agency.
Why do our rivers on the Eastern Shore continue to get worse?
Predictions of “imminent exhaustion” of resources are not something new. In fact, it has been the main driving force for Maryland environmentalists for some time. Now, it is true that some natural resources have been depleted, but it has not been because of too few regulations. On the contrary, it has been largely due to the fact that land use has been labeled “public” domain. Rivers are generally owned by the government. But because governments are able to control our rivers, they are not allowed to reap the capital that it produces. They have no economic incentive to preserve the value of our rivers. It is foolish to think that Maryland Democrats (largely based in the counties surrounding Baltimore) care about the resources that help drive the Eastern Shore economy. Until the land on the Eastern shore can be bought then it remains worthless, leading us to voice our frustration that ultimately is aimed at our farmers.
Mr. Horstman goes on to say that our farmers have done a great deal in reducing pollution, but says nothing about the state’s failure in implementing regulations that actually improve the rivers while maintaining a growing economy. I’m sure he understands that farmers aren’t stagnant owners. They produce a product that people are willing to buy as long as the price of those products remains competitive. Given that the state has granted our farmers some subsidies, Mr. Horstman is advocating the use of taxpayer dollars to incentivize the cleanup. If the state is going to simply hand over money to off-set the cost the farming community is losing, then what kind of incentive will the farmers have in lowering the cost of their product benefitting consumers? If we say we do not want this approach and want to regulate the industry out of business then what is the “consequence” of those actions? Hawaii, which has virtually no farming, has the highest imports of food in the country that cost tax payers $313 million dollars a year.
Thomas Firey of the Cato and Maryland Public Policy Institutes demonstrates what happens in an economy when governments grant unfair advantages to some and not others that are missed by Mr. Horstman. Firey concluded that “competitive markets “do not guarantee low prices – they only guarantee that prices more accurately reflect costs and over time and all things equal, that should push prices down as suppliers compete over price, consumers moderate their consumption and innovators offer alternatives. But, if all things are not equal and there is some problem with supply or demand, markets will signal the problem with higher prices.” Now, Firey was referring to regulation of another industry, but the principle remains the same.
Who has the greatest incentive in making sure that property remains a valuable asset to our community? It sounds outlandish that we want to have the whole of our rivers and water ways owned privately. That doesn’t mean that we want to have Exelon own just a small area of land that is cut into squares; it means is that the interests that are involved in that stream are owned by some group or people who have an interest in maintaining it. With a corporation or small business owning our rivers, you can be sure that stiff penalties and charges would be assessed on industries and municipalities along its banks and the water would be kept clean enough to maximize revenues from lease granted firms seeking rights to drinking water.
I was given the opportunity by the Talbot Spy to post an op-ed regarding property rights and how over-regulation is a formula for failure. The idea that property rights should be recognized by state government isn’t anything new. In fact, Virginia has recently started leasing areas of the Chesapeake Bay to whomever in order to help with the replenishment of the oyster population; a move that has tripled their oysters while Maryland continues to subsidize our industry, leading to a detriment of our side of the bay.
Are we to concede that there’s no problem that regulation creates that can’t be solved with more regulation?
Kirk French Jr.
Carol Voyles says
Surely most of us understand that while our rate of pollution has been slowed by the efforts of our farmers and all of Maryland’s citizens, our waters are still being polluted. We’ve made progress, but work remains.
Likewise, we might do well to recall the state of our rivers and Bay before the EPA was formed. Some of our nation’s waters were even bursting into flames, and the EPA regulations prohibiting the continued use of arsenic-laden fertilizers are now widely regarded by watermen, whose livelihoods are dependent upon a healthy Bay, as having been a major step forward.
Suggesting that ownership solves all problems is also problematic, as profit-seeking does not always coincide with the public interest; and, in any event, we need regulations in order to assess penalties.
While farming may be our single largest source of runoff, we also recognize that farming is Maryland’s single largest industry, and we subsidize the efforts of our farmers to preserve a viable Bay and a prosperous future.
Kirk French Jr. says
Thank you for responding to the letter.
It is important to define “regulation” because it has a few different meanings. For the purpose of my response, I concede that “regulation” is a rule maintained by an authority and that authority is a government body. If you allow someone to own property, that is an example of a regulation because the government has granted that permission for you to own that piece of land.
I did not say that regulations should be scaled back to zero. The main point I was trying to make was the fact that the EPA should not be setting regulatory policy. In doing so, they set standards in which companies are able to meet the bare minimum requirements. The farming industry in Maryland should not fall under the same regulations as those in Wisconsin and vise versa. The EPA was a regulatory response created by the industrial actors of the 1970’s. Those industrial companies found that trying to keep up with state-by-state regulations, cost them money and so, pushed for Federal action. You mentioned that we should have a look at history; well, that means we have to look at all of history.
You mentioned that “watermen are dependent on a healthy bay” and I agree to that however, it must be noted that no one has a more vested interest in protecting a product than the owner of that product. If we continue to subsidize the efforts of our farmers and watermen, the “public” loses out in the form of low supply, higher prices; a fundamental economic truth. It also forces farmers to spend money on what the EPA says they should spend it on instead of investing in their future by focusing on what they are good at; maintaining growth in our food supply.
I want to point out, given the fact that you provided an example of a “successful” EPA regulation, that the percentage of unsuccessful regulations that harm an industry and drive up costs for consumers far outweighs the “successful” ones. Prior to the EPA, what happened when a farmer polluted into another farmers stream? They were subject to penalties, as you mentioned. When the EPA was established they set the bar on how much pollution was acceptable. In conclusion, it is because of our government that pollution has continued to grow. The bar is always moving. So, what does the “public” want? Simple: More of the same.
“The idea that state governments should recognize property rights in regards to the Chesapeake Bay, or anything for that matter is not something new. The creative extension of property rights to ecological resources could help address environmental problems because they are a viable means of sustainability when compared to the political alternative.” – My blog.. “Easternshoreidealist.blogspot.com
Asking the government to fix the problem is not actually fixing the problem. But I get it, what I believe in is not political feasible because everyone hates corporations even though they depend on them for their livelihood.