Letter to Editor: A Response to the Midshore Riverkeeper by Kirk French Jr.

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.