As eight companies race to build Maryland's first ethanol plant, some environmentalists are questioning whether the alternative fuel boom could end up fouling our air and water. 

But it's not a simple issue. Even if growing more corn for ethanol creates more fertilizer runoff into the Chesapeake Bay, it might mean less air pollution -- because alcohol burns more cleanly than petroleum. 

Also, there's a national security question.  Some might argue that slightly worse water pollution from expanded corn production would be an acceptable tradeoff for making our country less tied to the war-torn Middle East.

No blood for oil, however, might mean more cash for food.  The Washington Post has an article today on how much the rising price of corn, driven by the ethanol boom, is pushing up the price of everthing from cubed steak to milk. (Because cows and pigs eat corn which is in rising demand for car fuel).

See  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061402008.html 

Meanwhile, the Des Moines Register conducted an investigation of the pollution from Iowa's booming ethanol industry and found 394 violations of air, water and solid waste pollution laws.  Among the problems were 276 sewage pollution violations, often involving the release of water with excessive amounts of iron.  See http://www.agobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refid=98856 

Iowa farmers responded furiously to the Register's stories, suggesting the articles exaggerated the problem. See http://thesouthofiowa.blogspot.com/2007/06/dm-registers-attack-on-biofuels.html 

In Maryland, the O'Malley administration's transition committee report on environmental issues this winter suggested that the corn liquor fuel boom could hurt the bay.  Ethanol plants are proposed on Baltimore's industrial waterfront and in Somerset County, among other locations.

 The Bay Journal, a publication of the EPA-funded Alliance for the Chespeake Bay, wrote: "The Environment and Natural Resources Transition Work Group for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, warned in its report that 'recent initiatives to produce ethanol from feed grains such as corn may adversely affect Chesapeake Bay restoration” as it could 'drive an increase in acreage planted in corn, which typically requires heavy fertilization with nitrogen, a key Bay pollutant.''

"If 1 million additional acres of agricultural land in the Bay watershed were converted into corn production, it could increase nitrogen runoff by roughly 15 million pounds a year, especially if farmers choose to convert idle land, hay fields, and pastures—all low-runoff uses—to corn, according to rough estimates."

More nitrogen runoff is bad.  But on the other hand, more money for these Eastern shore corn farmers could keep them in business -- and keep their land out of the hands of developers. More construction of strip malls and cul-de-sacs on farmland would certainly lead to more water pollution, as more pavement flushes stormwater into bay tributaries.

If you had to vote, would you give a thumbs up or down to ethanol plant construction in Maryland? For example, along Baltimore's gritty Curtis Bay waterfront?