MENU

Sections

  • About Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Sponsorship Terms & Conditions
    • Code of Ethics
    • Sign Up for Cambridge Spy Daily Email Blast
  • Arts
  • Commerce
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Food & Garden
  • Health
  • Local Life
  • News
  • Point of View
  • Senior Nation

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
August 11, 2022

Cambridge Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Cambridge Community

  • About Us
    • Editors and Writers
    • Sponsorship Terms & Conditions
    • Code of Ethics
    • Sign Up for Cambridge Spy Daily Email Blast
  • Arts
  • Commerce
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Food & Garden
  • Health
  • Local Life
  • News
  • Point of View
  • Senior Nation
Point of View Op-Ed

Setting The Story Straight With Facts, Not Opinions by Rob Newberry

January 13, 2022 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

Earlier this month, Shore Rivers, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Sierra Club, and other environmental activist advocacy groups met at an Eastern Shore Environmental Legislative Review Summit.

Summit attendees included members of the General Assembly from Prince George’s, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties. In reviewing the summit proceedings, it is clear there is a surge of focus on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

This is welcome news for everyone interested in the health well – being and a bright future for the Bay.

The Delmarva Fisheries Association (DFA) has been raising the alarm on pollution’s devastating impact on the Bay these for an exceptionally long time. DFA has also been researching and proposing ideas on meaningful and measurable ways to help ensure the Bay not only survives but thrives.

That said, it was disheartening that one uninformed summit attendee made statements about the health of the Bay that are, at best, misleading and are, at worst, flat out wrong.

At the Summit, State Senator Sarah Elfreth who represents Annapolis and the southern portion of Anne Arundel County said the wild fishery for oysters is not rebounding. NOT TRUE! According to the most recent reports from the State Department of Natural Resources, the number of oysters harvested over the previous four years increased dramatically, the number of oysters harvested over the previous three years have increased over 200%, the biomass on oysters harvested have increased and the spat set from which full-grown harvestable oysters grow has increased. These numbers are inconvenient truths for doom and gloom story tellers that help in endless fundraising campaigns  by some environmental groups more focused on using incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information to encourage well-intentioned but misinformed members of the public to donate money to their organizations.

Senator Elfreth also expressed her displeasure on how the Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s Oyster Advisory Commission presented their report to members of the General Assembly in December 2021. In her view, development of the report was not conducted in the way that the General Assembly had initially set it up. This observation is misleading. The facts are that industry representatives from DFA on that advisory commission not once, but twice, presented a letter of resolution specifically addressing the fact that the dialogue and deliberation was not working out the way it should have because of covid restrictions on in person meetings. These same representatives expressed their opinion that issuing a final report should be delayed. That view was not shared by a majority of the commission members.

Perhaps Senator Elfreth, who serves as chair of and as one of two Maryland State Senators on the tri state Chesapeake Bay Commission, as Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bay Critical Area, as a member of the Oyster Advisory Commission and was sponsor of the legislation on Fishery Management Plans for Oysters; would have been aware of these facts if she had attended more than a few meetings of the Oyster Advisory Commission over a four year period. Perhaps by attending more meetings and voicing her concerns at those meetings about the process she could have made a difference. By virtue of her serving in all the capacities noted above she also had every opportunity to request, access and review timely and accurate information on such an important issue as oyster restoration challenges and opportunities.

Meeting the still daunting challenges of improving the health of the bay requires every key stakeholder to participate fully in all discussions no matter how these discussions are managed, as well as a commitment to become  fully aware of all the pertinent facts. Those charged with doing what is best for the bay need to be engaged wherever, whenever, and however there is fact-based dialogue and deliberation. The Bay and those who love it as a place to make a living or enjoy using it for a wide range of recreational pursuits deserve nothing less

Rob Newberry is the chairman of the Delmarva Fisheries Association

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Duck Blinds and Abortions by Ross Jones

January 5, 2022 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

A week doesn’t seem to pass without news of another legislature considering action to limit or deny abortions in its state.  And the subject is front and center at the Supreme Court in its current session.  If the Court should decide to overturn Roe V. Wade it has been estimated that some 26 states would enact anti-abortion statues. 

Every time I hear about this issue, read about it or see it discussed on television my mind jumps back more than fifty years to a primitive, dank and musty duck blind on a creek in Talbot County.  It is so long ago that I cannot remember exactly where it was. But a conversation in the blind on that fall day stands firm in my memory.

We had a beautiful view of the creek and a small, secluded, peaceful bay where ducks and geese often gathered. And right in the middle of the bay was a small island—perhaps two acres or so—about a half mile out from the blind.  It was abandoned, overgrown with wild shrubs, reeds and grasses, and mature trees typical to an Eastern Shore landscape.  And, sitting at dead center, was a tumbledown, two-story house with a couple of outbuildings nearby.  None of the weathered clapboards on the property had felt the swipe of a paintbrush for decades. 

It was my first visit to the blind—one of those waterside outlooks that required a good set of boots because, on each rising tide, the moldy plywood floor flooded. My host had invited a local resident to join us. He spoke up in a quiet moment when nothing was flying. 

He pointed out the various characteristics of our site and its pluses and minuses insofar as hunting waterfowl was concerned. And then he pointed to the little island.  He may have called it by name.  If he did, I cannot remember what it was. 

“See that place over there?”, he said. “That’s  where the women went for abortions years ago. They would hire a  fellow to row them out there, at night.  They were afraid to use an outboard.  Too much noise. When they got there someone they called “Doc” would take care of them.”   

“Was he a real doctor?” I asked. “No, just someone who knew how to do that sort of thing,” he said.  

Today, more than a half century after that encounter, the recollection of my hunting companion’s story and the memory of that long-abandoned island come rushing back to me as I learn of legislators considering laws that would make it impossible for legitimate, trained health practitioners to provide abortions for women whose personal circumstances are such that they feel compelled to choose such treatments. 

For more reasons than anyone can imagine, and for more years than anyone can count, women have sought abortion assistance.  The question before us today is this:  Will we, as a nation, allow those women to terminate pregnancies openly, legally and safely, or will those who need such care have to return to the darkened shoreline, looking for the rowboat, that will take them to the island for a procedure performed by “Doc?”

We are likely to have some answers before the end of this new year.   

Ross Jones is a former vice president and secretary emeritus of The Johns Hopkins University. He joined the University in 1961 as assistant to President Milton S. Eisenhower. A 1953 Johns Hopkins graduate, he later earned a Master’s Degree at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Are We Alone? By Bob Moores

December 19, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

Barring last minute glitches, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST or Webb), successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, will be launched from the European Space Agency’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, next Friday. 

James Webb Space Telescope

The Webb was developed by NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Canadian Space Agency. Its 21-foot-diameter primary mirror has more than six times the light gathering power of Hubble’s 7-foot 10-inch mirror. That, plus Its enhanced sensitivity to lower frequency light, will allow it to observe galaxies much more distant (and therefore farther back in time), perhaps near to the birth of our universe 13.5 billion years ago. 

Webb is also capable of detecting many more exoplanets within our own Milky Way galaxy, and in more detail, than the 5000 or so already discovered. It will look for biochemical signatures, molecules associated with life, on planets that lie within habitable zones (where liquid water can exist) of the stars they orbit.

The 25-year development of the Webb has accrued a cost of 10 billion dollars. That sounds like a lot of money. Is it worth it? I most emphatically answer yes. Here’s why:

First, for perspective, we have spent 400 billion dollars on a single USAF fighter program, the F-35, over the last nineteen years. Our US defense budget for next year is $753 billion.

Second, I have always wondered, as you may have, if we are alone in the universe. Webb could help answer that question, not by looking for messages as in the SETI program, but by analysis of exoplanet composition. Can we find indications of even primitive life, or at least another Earthlike planet? Doesn’t that excite your curiosity? 

Third, this project is a testament to how human beings can overcome the toughest technical challenges in accomplishing something positive. With all the bad stuff going on (divisive politics, Covid, pollution, climate change, mass murders) the Webb should be uplifting, a bright island in a sea of dark news. 

Launch of the Webb is not the nervous part. The Ariane 5 booster has a great record for reliability. The nail-biting comes with the sequence of unfolding Webb’s 18-segment primary mirror, its secondary mirror, and its multilayered sun shield. The telescope will be sent to the L2 Lagrange point, in sun orbit a million miles from Earth, so if anything goes wrong in the deployment sequence, we have no capability to send astronauts to fix it, as we did five times with Hubble. 

There are folks who have invested their entire careers working on the Webb. If it fails to deploy it will be a crushing blow. If it succeeds it will be an achievement to rival our moon landings. If all goes well, it will still be six months of deployment steps and instrument calibration before we start getting science results. Something to look forward to next year!

See the NASA Webb Space Telescope fact sheet for more detail.

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Opinion: Shore Farmers Should Be Priority Partners in Combating Climate Crisis By Heather Mizeur

December 10, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

For far too long, prevailing conventional wisdom has been that environmentalists and farmers will always be at odds over the impact of government policies, oversight, and regulation. It’s time to change that. We need a strategy that supports our farmers as they deal with the negative effects of climate change and one that also supports the agricultural practices that will help address the severe, immediate climate crisis that we all face.

Maryland—and especially the Eastern Shore—is highly vulnerable to the current and future effects of climate change. When it comes to rising sea levels, our region has the dual misfortune of the threat of rising waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as well as sinking land. Our farmers stand to lose the most if we fail to act on the threats of saltwater intrusion, coastal flooding, and severe weather events—but our vibrant agricultural community also stands to benefit the most when we think creatively about how to partner for success.

I come from a long line of family farmers, and agriculture runs deep in my DNA. It’s one of the reasons I’m running for Congress here in Maryland’s First District—our farmers need a true advocate and leader who is willing to stand up for them in Washington, and that’s something we haven’t had for the past decade.

My spouse and I own a small 34-acre organic farm in Kent County that is our forever home. We see ourselves as stewards and work to always be in right relationship to the land and its habitats and ecosystems. It is in the spirit of a farmer-conservationist that I sponsored a roundtable discussion which gathered local stakeholders ranging from farmers and environmentalists to academics, non-profit leaders, and industry entrepreneurs to discuss ideas for how agricultural policies can partner to help solve our climate crisis.

Out of that collaboration came a specific policy platform that I call “Agri-Climate Solutions for Maryland’s Eastern Shore,” which can be read in full on my campaign website. These ideas are just a few of many ways that our agricultural communities can be a part of our climate solutions and how farmers can benefit from these practices.

Creating a National Soil Health Initiative

Successful agricultural communities depend on the quality and health of the soil that is feeding their crops. As the effects of climate change are dramatically impacting soil conditions, we must get ahead of the curve on mitigating these challenges by supporting a robust and visionary plan to create a new project called the National Soil Health Initiative (NSHI) through the USDA that would address the problems of saltwater intrusion, reform key conservation programs, and leverage greater use of carbon farming which can boost soil health and store carbon in the soil, positively impact the climate crisis, and contribute to agricultural resilience. This project could begin as a pilot program for the Delmarva / Chesapeake Bay region to prove its benefits before rolling it out as a national program.

Farming Carbon: Soil-Based Sequestration

While certain agricultural practices can release net carbon emissions, others do the opposite by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere into the soil. Scientists estimate that each year, soils could sequester over a billion extra tons of carbon. However, we must support the implementation and continuation of carbon storing practices to achieve maximum soil carbon outcomes.

There is a growing carbon credit market providing an opportunity for farmers to get paid for mitigating the effects of climate change through soil-based carbon sequestration.

Large corporations who want to offset their carbon footprint are in the market to buy carbon credits. Farmers generate carbon credits they can sell in this marketplace when they go through the process of certifying and calculating the carbon they store in the soil through practices using cover crops, diversified crop rotation, use of natural inputs such as compost, conversion to perennial grasses and other conservation cover, reducing chemical inputs, and pastured rotational animal production, to name a few.

To address this potential, the NSHI will invest in research to test and identify optimal carbon storage practices and will facilitate the tracking and measurement of organic matter and soil carbon to help drive best practices and maximize participation in carbon markets. The program will assist with the transition to and continuation of practices which achieve optimal per-acre carbon storage.

Reforming Conservation Programs

The USDA has an alphabet soup of programs that collectively work to conserve land by compensating farmers and landowners who voluntarily engage in conservation practices. The NSHI will advance some key reforms to these programs by:

Increasing rental payments under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for projects tied to climate-conscious practices that focus on increasing organic matter, soil carbon, and soil health as well as better management of nutrient runoff into waterways. CRP will also add educational and technical assistance programs to inform landowners of available programs and assist with participation and enrollment;

Updating the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to give weighted priority to projects devoted to soil-boosting practices which provide optimal per-acre carbon storage outcomes;

Using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to provide federal bonus payments to farmers enrolled in state cover crop programs, effectively leveraging additional state funds for this purpose and maximizing enrollment in existing state cover crop programs. CREP will also authorize incentive payments for rewarding best practices in measured outcomes for soil carbon storage;

Amending conservation programs to put an increased emphasis on helping farmers create individualized soil health plans, including plans for soil carbon storage;

and Amending conservation programs to allow farmers to receive rental payments for land that is no longer suitable for agriculture because of saltwater intrusion if they install some form of alternative and sustainable energy source on that marginal land.

Boosting Technical Assistance and Decreasing Administrative Burdens

USDA programs supporting soil health and soil carbon storage, education, and assistance are underfunded and oversubscribed. There is a significant need for more federal investment in technical assistance and support throughout all USDA programs to meet the growing demand. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and its Soil Conservation Districts is just one example of where we must invest in more technical assistance offerings to help farmers implement robust soil health plans that are envisioned under the NSHI. In addition to program expansion, the NSHI is dedicated to decreasing administrative burdens that can limit access and engagement in these programs.

Addressing Saltwater Intrusion

In addition to severe weather events, rising sea levels also pose a significant threat to our farming traditions as saltwater intrusion dramatically impacts growing conditions. As saltwater leaches from the Bay onto our fields and into our aquifers, the rising salinity level in the soil makes it challenging to grow an array of cash crops that have become staples for our region.

To address these challenges, the NSHI will invest in research to test and determine which cash crops are most capable of withstanding salty soils and periodic flooding; track salinity changes over time in groundwater wells and surface water; and map these areas as a way to highlight where it will be most cost-effective to implement adaptation measures such as planting salt-tolerant crops. The NSHI will also make changes to existing conservation programs to inform landowners of available programs and ease transition of impacted farmland to marsh fields that will protect biodiversity and improve carbon storage.

Crop Insurance: Keeping it Affordable and Rewarding Good Climate Practices

The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) protects farmers from the impacts of unpredictable weather but as insurance claims increase because of severe weather events, farmers may be faced with higher premiums to keep the program solvent. The USDA projects that the severity of predicted climate change could cause FCIP costs to increase by up to 22 percent. We must ensure that farmers are not bearing the burden of these increased costs through higher premiums for their crop insurance. A better approach is to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate mitigation and devote a portion of that funding towards FCIP solvency.

In addition to keeping crop insurance premiums from rising, the USDA should reward farmers with lower FCIP premiums if they are using best practices to make crops more resilient against severe weather.

Farmers who increase organic matter and carbon in the soil can produce more climate resilient crops, which withstand the extreme and unpredictable swings between drought and heavy rains. These practices contribute to more resilient yields and reduced federal crop insurance claims; however, the USDA gives no consideration to whether a farmer deploys these practices when determining crop insurance premiums. By modernizing this program to give farmers credit for good climate practices through lowered FCIP premiums, the USDA would create an incentive that is good for the farmer as well as the land.

Transforming Poultry Litter Into Biofuel and Potting Soil
The Eastern Shore is home to some of the highest concentrations of broilers in the country with the poultry industry employing thousands of Marylanders in our region. For decades, excessive chicken litter was applied directly to agricultural fields, resulting in high nutrient levels in the Bay, algae blooms, and dead zones. How to properly manage excess poultry litter has been an ongoing challenge for our region, but an innovative public-private partnership may offer a sustainable solution to this problem.

Planet Found Energy Development is a Maryland-based company of scientists, farmers, and business leaders dedicated to developing manure management technologies that will safeguard the environment as well as the economic viability of our agricultural communities in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Planet Found has built a patent-pending system for treating poultry litter and converting it into renewable energy, potting soils, and fertilizers while eliminating liquid discharge. In the process, the majority of phosphorus introduced to the system is captured as a phosphorus-based fertilizer, removing it from the nutrient cycle in sensitive agricultural and ecological environments.

This project is currently being piloted on the Lower Shore in Pocomoke City. As innovations like this one come to market, there is an opportunity to use agricultural technology to solve some of the most stubborn environmental challenges created by certain farming practices. Reducing agricultural runoff into our waterways and lowering our phosphorus nutrient loads will dramatically improve the health of our Chesapeake Bay. Doing so by investing in and scaling up technologies that transform poultry litter into value-added products for commercial sale is a win-win-win.

This Agri-Climate plan envisions a world where Eastern Shore- and Maryland-based companies with next generation solutions to agricultural and environmental challenges benefit from strong public sector support and advocacy. The agricultural community is in many cases the most affected by the climate crisis, and farmers should be our priority partners in combating it.

Heather Mizeur is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 1st Congressional District race in 2022. She previously served as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates representing the 20th district in Montgomery County. She now resides is Kent County with her spouse Deborah Mizeur.

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Opinion: Transformation Continues at Shore Medical Center in Chestertown by Dennis Welsh

November 30, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

As many in the communities that we serve know, Shore Medical Center in Chestertown is in the process of dramatic transformation and revitalization for the future of healthcare delivery. With the support of our parent organization, the University of Maryland Medical System, and University of Maryland Shore Regional Health leadership, Chestertown’s Rural Health Care Transformation Team has identified several goals and strategies to deliver this transformation. Today, I am happy to announce an important milestone: the hospital’s designation as a Level 1 Age Friendly Health System (AFHS). 

As an initiative of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), designation as an Age-Friendly Health System is a national movement of hundreds of health care organizations committed to ensuring that older adults receive evidence-based care. To achieve Level 1 AFHS designation for our Chestertown hospital, we submitted a detailed application that documented how our care protocols adhere to AFHS’ “4 Ms” – What Matters, Medication, Mentation and Mobility. In the coming months, we will provide further reporting and analysis of patient care data to IHI in support of our application for full AFHS designation.

Achieving AFHS designation will help us implement transformation that will keep high-quality, efficient, appropriate and compassionate care close to home for residents of Kent and northern Queen Anne’s counties. 

Effective transformation requires the adoption of strategies that clearly reflect the needs of the community and are driven by what is described as “best practice.”  At Shore Medical Center at Chestertown, we have taken many of these best practices from what has been learned already within the U.S. healthcare industry, and we are aligning these strategies to meet the present and future health care needs of Kent and Northern Queen Anne’s counties. Much of the work in progress focuses on helping families and individuals manage their health conditions outside the walls of the hospital, for example, mobile wellness, health education, and transportation projects. However, a full range of hospital services — including a 24/7 full service emergency department and acute inpatient beds, outpatient surgery and infusion, as well as therapeutic and diagnostic services — is the nucleus of the transformation effort. 

Shore Regional Health’s Rural Health Care Transformation team appreciates the sense of investment that our local community members have shown toward the hospital and the many concerns expressed about its future. We also know that change can bring confusion, with misinformation following close behind. Valid and reasonable questions from community members warrant clear answers, and my fellow team members and I are committed to enhancing our communications efforts. Additionally, we’ll be highlighting more of our hospital-based service lines that are such important part of the continuum of care and the overall delivery model that will make Shore Medical Center at Chestertown the healthcare provider of choice in the region.

Dennis Welsh is Vice President, Rural Health Care Transformation and Executive Director, UM Shore Medical Center at Chestertown.

Filed Under: Op-Ed, Opinion

A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand by Dave Harden

November 29, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

We’re all familiar with that statement, uttered by Abraham Lincoln as the United States hurtled toward civil war, a statement that Lincoln himself took from the New Testament.

There’s no denying that the United States is again a nation divided. It’s not just major public policy matters that are politicized, it’s everything. Even a worldwide health crisis has become a cause of division, with the simple acts of wearing a mask or getting a vaccine becoming hotly contested polarizing causes.

It’s bad enough that some of these divisions stem from some of the same issues that have divided the United States since its founding: Race, disagreements over the role of government, and regulation of individual rights.

But what makes today’s divisiveness even more dangerous is that many leaders of the Republican Party, including and especially Donald Trump and his most fervent supporters like Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland’s First Congressional District, have embraced division as a political strategy. They cynically seek every opportunity to pit their “us” against a multitude of “thems,” to brand those who question them as “enemies of the people,” to label honest disagreements as “war,” and to attack, belittle, bully, and destroy. They want us to be divided, because division makes their supporters feel threatened and motivated to vote for them. If Wall Street tycoons believed in the creed that “greed is good” because it helped them make money, then many of today’s Republican politicians and their high-paid strategists operate by the principle that “division is better” because it helps to keep them in power.

And that brings us to Steve Bannon.

Bannon is the Republican political and media operative who, before he became Trump’s top political adviser, ran Breitbart, one of the most contentious, provocative, and divisive of the alt-right media. Bannon has said that “[a]nger and fear is what gets people to the polls.” He has pushed extreme nationalist and anti-immigrant policies. His Twitter account was permanently suspended after he suggested that Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray should be beheaded. His has remained in close connection with some of the same alt-right groups that organized the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Indeed, on the eve of the attack, Bannon broadcast that “all hell is going to break loose” at the Jan. 6 protests. And as we now know, it did. But how did Bannon know what would happen in advance?

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack wants to talk with Bannon. They want to know what he knew, when he knew it, and who else he was talking to, including Trump. These are all legitimate grounds of inquiry for an attack that claimed lives, saw our seat of government overrun by mob rule, and threatened one of our most important democratic institutions – the election process.

But Bannon refuses. So the House, including with the support of several Republicans, has voted to hold him in contempt of Congress, and last week he was indicted on charges of criminal contempt. Was Bannon contrite? No. On the contrary, he paraded into court defiant, bringing his own camera crew to record the event, which he will no doubt post all over his media sites to rile his audience and raise money for himself and his extremist causes. Controversy, anger, and division are good business for Bannon, which he cynically exploits for himself and his Republican allies.

Jan. 6 was an example of how divisiveness can lead to violence that can destroy a nation. Bannon and anyone else who may have encouraged, fomented, and even supported that kind of violent action need to be held accountable.

Lincoln predicted what would happen when a house remained divided.

We need to stop those who for the sake of political gain would recklessly promote division to the point of violence before it happens again.

Dave Harden is a candidate for Congress in MD First District

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Joint Op-Ed: Wastewater Disposal Plans for Proposed Lakeside Project Raises Significant Environmental Concerns

October 23, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

The precedent setting Lakeside at Trappe wastewater permit deserves additional public scrutiny. That’s what we hope the permit receives at an in-person hearing hosted by the Maryland Department of the Environment at 5 p.m., Thursday, Oct. 28, at the Talbot County Community Center in Easton. We urge all who are concerned about adding pollution to local waterways to speak up at the hearing.

Residents of Trappe, population 1,000, are staring down a behemoth described as one of the largest mixed-use development proposals on the East Coast. If fully built, Lakeside at Trappe (or Trappe East) would include 2,500 homes and apartments, a shopping center, and a 30-acre lake. The development could increase the local population by more than 500 percent.

To handle the human waste generated by this massive project, the developers—Rauch Inc., Trappe East Holdings Business Trust, and others—are proposing to build a new wastewater plant to treat the sewage. The treated wastewater would then be sprayed onto about 90 acres of fields near hundreds of existing and proposed homes. 

If this plan worries you, we share your concern. It’s why two of our organizations—ShoreRivers and Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF)—filed lawsuits challenging the permit earlier this year. 

The wastewater spray would be applied to fields next to the headwaters of Miles Creek, which drains into the Choptank River. The Choptank is already impaired due to excessive pollutants, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, which the state, environmental organizations, and local governments are working to mitigate. These pollutants fuel harmful algal blooms that cause dead zones, or areas of the Bay devoid of the dissolved oxygen necessary to sustain marine life. MDE officials, in drafting the permit, found that the proposed method of wastewater disposal for this project wouldn’t result in an increase of Choptank River pollutants.

We’re not convinced. While the developers have maintained that the wastewater will be treated to high standards before being applied to fields, the track record for facilities using spray irrigation in Maryland is dismal. 

A Chesapeake Legal Alliance report found only about 25 percent of facilities with groundwater discharge permits were in full compliance when inspected. Nearly half of all such facilities on the Eastern Shore failed to meet groundwater permit conditions between fiscal year 2017 and the first half of fiscal 2020, according to the report.

Even using the best methods to soak up pollutants there’s still a risk of nitrogen and phosphorus entering groundwater and nearby waterways. If MDE approves this permit the agency must prove that the spray irrigation system won’t increase river and Bay pollutants.

This leads to the next issue. The project could set a precedent that would enable Maryland to approve large new developments without fully accounting for the pollution they generate. Currently, the state requires treated sewage discharged to waterways to not exceed nutrient pollution limits regulators set to achieve Bay restoration targets. This helps restoration officials understand the level of pollution reaching the Bay and as needed put in place methods such as tree plantings, stormwater controls, or enhanced farm management to reduce pollution elsewhere. 

But at Lakeside, the state has effectively concluded that the proposed wastewater plant’s spray irrigation system won’t pollute at all. Therefore, there’s no need for new environmental mitigation practices to offset potential wastewater impacts in local waterways caused by this proposed development.

We see this as an end-run around state requirements to account for and mitigate pollution from new developments, if developments use spray irrigation to dispose of treated wastewater. The reality is that due to climate change we’re seeing more rainfall, more severe storms, and, as a result, more runoff carrying pollutants to the Chesapeake Bay. MDE must fully account for the influence of these factors when permitting the application of treated sewage to farmland. 

We can’t backslide on the commitment to build responsibly in Maryland. Anyone concerned with the impacts of Lakeside at Trappe on water quality should have their voices heard at the in-person hearing at 5 p.m., Oct. 28, at the Talbot County Community Center.

  • Alan Girard, Eastern Shore Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
  • Matt Pluta, Choptank Riverkeeper, ShoreRivers
  • Pat Comella, Co-Convener, League of Women Voters of the Mid-Shore
  • Jay Corvan, Coordinator, Downstream Alliance
  • Eileen A. Deymier, President, Talbot Preservation Alliance, Inc.
  • Rob Etgen, President, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
  • Patrick Firth, President, Talbot Democratic Forum
  • Julie Susman, Coordinator, Royal Oak’s Citizens for Managed Growth

 

Filed Under: Op-Ed, Opinion

Opinion: Half-Earth Day ’21 and Delmarva Oasis by Rob Etgen

October 21, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

Wow – these past few months have brought some tough news for the Eastern Shore – and for the planet.

In August, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (234 scientists from 66 countries) released a new report which has been called “code red for humanity.” The report noted that the internationally agreed upon threshold of 1.5 degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels is not 30 years away but rather is perilously close and requires immediate action. For Delmarva, this means that catastrophic sea level rise is getting closer to reality.

In September, the USFWS declared 23 species officially extinct – including the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and several other US birds. The most recent United Nations assessment (145 scientists from 50 countries) of biodiversity predicts that one in four species will be extinct within decades unless dramatic action is taken.

And in October, lawmakers in Queen Anne’s and Anne Arundel Counties adopted resolutions in support of a new third bridge over of the Chesapeake Bay to Kent Island providing critical political support for moving this project forward. The new bridge, coupled with improvements to Rt. 301 on northern Delmarva and new twin tunnels at the southern tip, will quickly make Delmarva an Eastern bypass of the congested I-95 mid Atlantic corridor bringing even more traffic and SPRAWL!

Whew – deep breath – but all is not lost. In October and November of this year, the United Nations will be holding global conventions on species extinction and climate change with new data, new treaties, new leadership from the US, and new momentum all working towards stronger actions at the global level. In the private sector, October 22 has been declared “Half-Earth Day” to accelerate the effort to protect half the Earth and secure 85% of our species. A global meeting will be hosted by EO Wilson and Sir David Attenborough to bring attention to the global species extinction crisis, while also highlighting tremendous progress and optimism – especially among businesses.

Locally, our Delmarva Oasis initiative is similarly accelerating towards a goal of protecting half of Delmarva by 2030. Like the Half-Earth effort, Delmarva Oasis focuses on protecting and restoring a network of habitat corridors that will enable species to evolve safely in a changing climate, and at the same time boost the resilience of Delmarva to the impacts of sea level rise. Protecting our prime farmland is also a priority given our unique bounty of good soils in the midst of the Eastern megalopolis.

Is it too late for the planet – and our region? There are some who say yes. Not me. As a kid I saw Bay water so foul that the crabs crawled ashore and the rockfish were gone. In the 90’s the Eastern Shore was on a fast track to becoming the western shore. In the last 50 years we have made incredible progress on the Bay, on our lands, and with our wildlife. Yes, the challenges ahead are sobering, but we have the passion and ingenuity to accelerate progress and meet our goals.

We need your help. Please tune in to the Half-Earth Day free online events, and monitor the United Nations conventions and make your voice heard wherever possible. Closer to home, we need your support for the Delmarva Oasis – please go to our website to learn more and make a contribution.

Rob Etgen is the president of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy 

 

Filed Under: Opinion

Opinion: Recognizing the Complexities and Hard Edges of History by David Montgomery

October 13, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

As recorded by John Griep in the Tuesday Spy, the Easton Historic District Commission gave its approval to removing the Talbot Boys statue from the Courthouse grounds. I am disappointed that a commission intended to preserve Easton’s historic character would make that decision.

A very clear and compelling statement of the case for preserving every single Civil War monument is made by one of the most distinguished historians of the Civil War, Gary Gallagher, the John Nau Professor of Civil War History at the University of Virginia. He recounts how he uses Confederate monuments to teach about the Civil War, and he makes the equally important point that Confederate memorials like the Talbot Boys are artifacts that record not only memories about a war fought 160 years ago, but also the points of view of those who put them in place roughly 110 years ago.

Professor Gallagher writes in an article about proposals to remove Confederate monuments from the Gettysburg battlefield: “The presence of Confederate monuments at Gettysburg will upset some visitors, but that is a price worth paying to protect a valuable and instructive memorial landscape.” Later in the same article he writes:

I will acknowledge that some critics have questioned the educational value of monuments. Education cannot reach everyone, they insist, and in the meantime monuments can offend some people—so we should take them down to make everyone feel safe. These arguments are misguided. Education is not just a convenient rationalization in support of retaining some elements of the memorial landscape; it is the only hope for a serious, productive engagement with our past—warts and all. And no education of any value depends on selective erasure of troubling dimensions of America’s story.

History should not be turned into a simplistic morality play juxtaposing good and evil, heroes and villains, and contrived to serve current political goals.

In another paper he writes about how he uses historical monuments as primary sources in teaching history. In it, he debunks every argument that has been made for removing the Talbot Boys monument:

The question of how best to deal with Confederate monuments inspires honest disagreement among well-intentioned, well-informed people, while also eliciting—from both ends of the political spectrum–vitriolic cant that has little to do with monuments, the Confederacy, or the Civil War. I see memorial landscapes as similar in nature and value to literary and graphic sources—all compose part of the historical record and should be interpreted as such. I favor adding text to situate monuments within the full sweep of how Americans have remembered the Civil War. I also support erecting new monuments devoted to previously slighted groups or events. But eliminating monuments is tantamount to destroying records or images, potentially inhibiting a real understanding of our past, warts and all, and obscuring important themes, movements, and eras. I readily concede that elements of the Civil War’s memorial landscape offend some people, which is a useful reminder that history has hard and sometimes unpleasant edges. I will add, lastly, that local communities should have the final say, after an open process of discussion and evaluation such as that followed by Charlottesville with the statue of Lee, about whether to keep monuments in place.

Then Professor Gallagher introduces the difference between “history” and “memory.” I take it that by “history” he means an effort to recreate what actually happened, who did and thought what, and by “memory” the narrative that has been adopted by different groups about the past.

With both students and teachers, I discuss the difference between history and memory and argue that memory often trumps history in shaping how Americans understand the past. … however complicated we think some historical episode might have been, it almost certainly was far more complicated. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to achieving some degree of historical understanding is the strong inclination… to find simple answers or reduce the past to stark black-and-white alternatives.

Following up on his professional opinion that history itself has “themes, movements, and eras,” Professor Gallagher makes the key point that understanding how history was remembered at different points in time is also an important task of the historian. Taken in this light, the Talbot Boys convey not only information about the Civil War – the names of those who fought – but also information about the period when it was erected – the motivations and intentions of those who lived here in the early twentieth Century.

Professor Gallagher then writes that he uses Civil War monuments to point out four very different ways in which Americans have remembered and written about the Civil War (my emphasis below):

Charlottesville’s Confederate … monuments and tablets highlight the Lost Cause, one of four major memory traditions created by the wartime generation. Together with the Union Cause (which celebrated saving the democratic republic fashioned by the founding generation as the war’s most important outcome), the Emancipation Cause (which pronounced killing slavery the most notable result of four years of slaughter), and the Reconciliation Cause (which sought a middle ground celebrating American–as opposed to northern or southern–virtues highlighted during the conflict)…..Charlottesville also provides excellent evidence of the commemorative landscape’s complexity, revealing the danger of flattening out Lost Cause memorialization to fit a single template of intention and impact.

On the latter point, it mattered when monuments went up, who took the lead in creating them, and how they fit into larger trends. A widely held view attributes all Confederate monuments to a white supremacist desire, especially during the Jim Crow era, to intimidate African Americans. I make clear on my tours of Charlottesville that almost everyone who supported erecting the monuments held what we would deem white supremacist racial views—as did almost all white Americans from the 19th or early 20th centuries….

But white supremacy as a sole motivating factor does not convey an adequate understanding of Charlottesville’s memorials.

Professor Gallagher goes on to describe how Charlottesville’s five sites include “two monuments to common soldiers (1893 and 1909), a pair of tablets on the Rotunda at the University of Virginia listing students who died in Confederate service (1906–removed in September 2017), and equestrian statues of “Stonewall” Jackson and Lee (1921, 1924).”

He then comments that “The first three of the five, in substantial measure at least, sought to recognize human loss on a scale unmatched by any other white segment of American society.” He cites the fact that the Confederacy lost about 5% of its population in the war, far surpassing Northern losses, U.S. losses in World War II and even the losses of France, Germany, Great Britain, and Russia in World War I.

The two equestrian statues, he writes “in addition to singling out the most famous Confederate military commanders, also bring into play a powerful national impulse toward reconciliation in the 1920s.”

This is a lesson being taught by a distinguished historian, whose knowledge of Civil War and American society in 19th and early 20th century is not only unsurpassed, but calm and objective. He dismisses the simplistic and historically unfounded accusation that this statue was a product of the Jim Crow era intended to intimidate African Americans. He puts in perspective the Lost Cause memory tradition, as he calls it, as an effort to retain collective identity among a population that had lost not only a war but its social structure. He recognizes monuments to common soldiers as an expression of grief that the South lost a greater percentage of its total population than did any of the major combatants in World War I — a carnage that historians recognize affected every aspect of 20th intellectual and social history, as the Civil War did the South.

Most important, Professor Gallagher teaches that to get to the truth about history, we must grapple with how events were perceived by subsequent generations, both ordinary people and historians. The Talbot Boys is an artifact of the time when it was built, and of historical significance for that reason. It records thoughts about the Civil War that were current in the early 1900s. Just like photographs, oral histories, and family diaries, it is a primary source of information about Talbot County in 1911, a product of its times that tells about its times. It is a record of early 20th century life and thought in Talbot County as well as a memorial to local men. Like it or not, that is history.

Let me try to make Professor Gallagher’s point in debate style. If someone is convinced that white residents of Talbot County in 1910 were all racists, and she also believes the Talbot Boys to be an assertion of white supremacy, should she not want to keep it where it stands to prove the existence of racism in 1910?

Many other points made by Professor Gallagher apply directly to the Talbot Boys. He observed that “it mattered when monuments went up, who took the lead in creating them, and how they fit into larger trends.” The impetus to erect the Talbot Boys memorial came from local veterans, after the few remaining ones returned from the 50th anniversary reunion of the Battle of Gettysburg. Men from Talbot County had fought on both sides in that battle, and the 1st Maryland CSA was decimated by the Union 1st Maryland at Culp’s Hill. Union and Confederate veterans returned from the reunion with a desire to create a memorial while some of them still lived. It was decided to create two monuments, one to commemorate Union soldiers and one to commemorate Confederate. Local organizations raised funds for the memorials and came up short for the Union memorial. That in itself is an interesting piece of evidence about how the Civil War was remembered in Talbot County at the time, and about how completely reconciliation between Confederate and far more numerous Union veterans had been achieved.

The statue atop the pedestal bearing names has been particularly controversial. Its resemblance to other statues erected at the same time led to allegations that it was put in place by outsiders promoting the Lost Cause version of history and Jim Crow practices. In fact, the sponsors of the statue had planned to put in place a statue of Admiral Buchanan, the Talbot County resident who achieved the greatest distinction in the Civil War. Another evidence of Professor Gallagher’s point that recognition of leaders such as Admiral Buchanan among the Talbot Boys serves to “bring into play a powerful national impulse toward reconciliation in the 1920s.”

But there were insufficient funds for a made-to order-statue of the Admiral, and a more generic statue was ordered from the foundry supplying other locations. Thus the boy carries the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and not the battle colors of the 1st Maryland under which the Talbot Boys actually fought.

But this nuanced and complex story about the memorial itself is being ignored. Instead, its detractors have been doing exactly what Professor Gallagher decries: “flattening out Lost Cause memorialization to fit a single template of intention and impact” and turning history into a “simplistic morality play juxtaposing good and evil, heroes and villains, and contrived to serve current political goals.” I expect better of us.

David Montgomery is the President of Preserve Talbot History. 

 

 

Filed Under: Op-Ed

Maryland’s Rural Future by Dave Harden

September 11, 2021 by Opinion
Leave a Comment

The rural-urban divide in Maryland has gotten worse in the last decade according to the 2020 census.  Overall, Maryland saw a 7% population increase over the last decade – with fast growth along the Washington-Baltimore corridor, particularly in Frederick and Howard Counties.  There has, of course, been substantial commentary about Baltimore City’s population exodus.  The underreported story, however, is that Allegany and Garrett Counties in Western Maryland along with Dorchester, Kent, Somerset, and Talbot on the Eastern Shore all experienced population declines over the last decade.

Rapid growth in the Baltimore-Washington metro coupled with substantial population loss in rural counties is bad for all of us.  Rural communities are systematically left behind and have increasingly less political and economic power.  When people move away from rural areas, home values decline, the tax base erodes, and isolation increases.  Population loss in rural areas also affects access to health, education, and economic opportunity.  These trends propel a despairing cycle of economic, political, and social decline in rural communities.  The result is grievance and disenchantment.  Ultimately, this rural-urban divide fosters polarization, undermines governing institutions, and breaks any hope for national unity and bipartisanship. 

Congress and the State of Maryland can blunt the decline of our rural communities by embracing a more visionary future.  Here is how.

Install broadband with a priority for the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland as soon as President Biden’s infrastructure bill is passed.  Folks who live along the I-95 corridor have not experienced the cost of poor connectivity.  Without fast internet, rural schools cannot compete with Chevy Chase and Columbia schools.  Without predictable connectivity, small businesses in rural economies cannot sell to regional, national, and international markets.  Just like rural electrification during President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s time, last mile broadband is essential infrastructure for the next-generation economy.

Leverage public-private capital to jump start agricultural accelerators so farmers can sell value-added products to high-end buyers in the Mid-Atlantic.  Progress is happening; Harford County, for instance, has piloted an agri-business incubator.  The Grove, as the venture is called, is an outlet for local area farmers, artists, and food processors to sell their products directly to consumers and to promote agriculture commerce and sustainability.  Maryland’s rural communities have the competitive advantage of being within driving distance to some of the richest cities on earth.  Wineries and farm breweries were break-out agribusinesses for rural communities decades ago.  This model can be expanded so local farms and fishing piers serve as a point of sale for a wide variety of other value-added, experiential products.  The goal is to create sustainable jobs, drive local income, and grow regional trade for the benefit of our rural neighbors.

Incubate climate technologies.  The debate about climate change is over.  Capital markets and technology have already determined that our economy will move to climate solutions.  The only issue before Maryland is whether we will design, develop, build, and sell climate solutions – or buy from those who do.  The U.S. has gotten it right in the past when President Eisenhower established the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to incubate research and development projects to expand the frontiers of technology and science.   DARPA helped shape the modern world; the Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine sits alongside weather satellites, GPS, drones, stealth technology, voice interfaces, the personal computer, and the internet on the list of innovations for which DARPA can claim at least partial credit.  The Federal Government should set up a similar Advanced Research Projects Agency for the Climate (ARAPA-C) to help fund the technology advances for the next several decades.  Given its proximity to Washington and the heightened risk of climate impact, Maryland’s Eastern Shore is ideally situated to research, test, and pilot these climate solutions.

Embrace Artificial Intelligence.  AI will change economics in a way which may favor rural America over China.  For the past 50 years, labor costs drove manufacturing and production offshore.  AI will likely reduce China’s comparative advantage of low-skilled, repetitive task labor.  Rural American manufacturers have an opportunity to gain global market share as low-skilled labor will no longer be the determinative cost for production.  In addition to manufacturing, AI will help Maryland farmers reduce production costs by targeting fertilizer and pesticides to plant health and soil conditions to maximize harvest yields.  Maryland’s rural communities have close access to some of the best talent in the world.  Embracing new technologies like AI could be a net win for our people.

The Maryland State seal is inscribed with a farmer and a fisherman, symbols of our culture and legacy.  Maryland – and America – will not succeed if the economy systematically leaves rural communities behind.  Technology solutions coupled with public and private financing can close the prosperity gap.  Maryland just needs the political leadership to drive a better future for our rural communities.

Dave Harden is a Democrat running in Maryland’s 1st District congressional race. Follow his campaign at www.hardenforcongress.com.

Filed Under: Op-Ed

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next Page »

Recent Posts

  • Election 2022: Cambridge Mayor Forum
  • From and Fuller: Will America’s Rule of Law Become a Midterm Election Issue?
  • The Spy Weather Report with Cecile Storm
  • Two Train Wrecks by Angela Rieck
  • Looking at the Masters: The Gardens at Schoenbrunn Palace

Recent Comments

  • Robbie Hanson on Letter to Editor: I’m Supporting Steve Rideout for Mayor
  • Stan Davis on The Spy Weather Report with Cecile Storm
  • Cyndi Slacum on Life Along the Edges: The Chesapeake Artistry of Photographer Dave Harp
  • JoAnne Wingate Nabb on Book Talk, Dorchester Farmers and Their Roots: August 24, 3 p.m.
  • Eugene Lauer on Letter to Editor: I’m Supporting Steve Rideout for Mayor

Copyright © 2022

Affiliated News

  • Spy Community Media
  • The Cambridge Spy
  • The Chestertown Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Cambridge
  • Commerce
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Food & Garden
  • Health
  • Local Life
  • News
  • Point of View
  • Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • Subscribe for Free
  • Contact Us
  • COVID-19: Resources and Data

© 2022 Spy Community Media. | Log in