Maryland farm plans public - sort of
How "public" are public records if all identifying information is stripped out?
An Anne Arundel County judge has ruled that the Maryland Department of Agriculture must release reports from farmers on how they manage their animals' waste and any chemical fertilizer they use. But the judge ordered that state officials redact all identifying information from any farmers' reports it does release.
The Waterkeeper Alliance, which had sued the state to see how Eastern Shore poultry farmers are managing their chicken manure, issued a press release calling the ruling "an important first step towards bringing transparency to industrial agricultural practice."
But the waterkeepers' announcement failed to mention the judge's caveat about deleting identifying information. Indeed, environmental activists say it's unclear how meaningful the reports will be without being able to know which farms they cover.
Farmers are required to have "nutrient management plans" under a state law meant to protect streams and the Cheapeake Bay from polluted farm runoff. The law requires farmers to submit summaries of their plans to the state, but stipulates that the state must keep those reports in such a manner that protects the farmers' identities.
The environmental group had reached a tentative deal with the state to get redacted versions of the current nutrient management plan summaries on file with the Department of Agriculture, plus - unredacted - any old plans on file. The Maryland Farm Bureau, learning of the pending deal, then went to court to block it. The two sides duked it out in court in December.
Judge William C. Mulford II, who expressed sympathy for farmers' plight during the December hearing, declared that the state must disclose current nutrient management plan summaries, but only after they have had identifying information deleted. He said the state must disclose older plans or summaries without deleting anything, unless - and this is key - having the farmers' info on older plans would allow someone to pair it up with a sanitized current plan.
Michele Merkel, Chesapeake coordinator of the Waterkeeper Alliance, says that despite the exultant tone of the group's press release, it hasn't decided yet if it will appeal the decision.
"We just wanted to make sure people knew there was at least some transparency now," she said.
Val Connelly, legislative director of the Maryland Farm Bureau, said the farm group is satisfied with the ruling because the judge "gave some pretty good protection to farmers." She called the Waterkeepers' press release "disingenuous."
"Everything that identifies the farm would be redacted,'' Connelly said. "The judge said that farmers do have ... an expectation of privacy under the law."
It remains to be seen how state officials will carry out the judge's instructions. Sue duPont, spokeswoman for the state Department of Agriculture, says officials are reviewing the ruling. Connelly maintains that other information about a farm, beyond its address and owner's name, may have to be deleted. Such details as the farm's acreage and number of chickens or chicken houses may be sufficient to identify a particular operation, she said.
The farm bureau may be happy with the court's ruling, but as of last week, Connelly said it hadn't decided whether to pursue failsafe legislation it had introduced that would force the state to destroy or give back nutrient management plans once they expire.
I report on the environment and Chesapeake Bay. A native of West Virginia, I have focused mainly on Maryland's environment since moving here in 1983. Along the way, I've crewed aboard a skipjack in the bay, canoed under city streets up the Jones Fall from the Inner Harbor, and gone deep underground in a western Maryland coal mine. Recently, I have been covering the growth and development transforming the landscape. I love seafood, rambles in the country and good stories. I hope to share some here.
