Published: Friday, February 20, 2009 8:53 AM CST

There have been several offerings in this newspaper recently concerning the shoreline buffer issue, which have been comprised mostly of misinformation and misdirection. Having worked on this issue for more than seven years, I will try to set the record straight.

By now I would hope that most readers are aware that both the Miles and Choptank rivers continue their long death spiral. They are dying because there is too much nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment being dumped into them. The empirical data on all these substances, as well as dissolved oxygen, and "chlorophyll a" (a measure of algae) are not getting better, and in most instances are getting worse. Concentrations of these substances generally get worse as one goes up our rivers, so we can't blame all our pollution problems on others.

The worsening condition of these rivers is not just some esoteric environmental issue, but a real economic and public health problem. The loss of our seafood resource is considerable, and the health threat from various organisms in the water is real. There is credible data for all these statements. So where is most of the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment coming from? According to the state's own "Baystat" Web site, which is endorsed by every major state agency including the Department of Agriculture, more nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment is put into the Choptank by agriculture than by all other sources combined. The difference in scale between the various sources is staggering. For example, Easton's newly improved wastewater plant is now putting about 22,000 pounds of nitrogen a year into the Choptank watershed. Oxford, which is considering upgrading its system, is putting about 1,600 pounds a year into the Choptank watershed (via Town Creek).

Meanwhile, according to the state's Web site, agriculture is contributing 2,694,261 pounds of nitrogen a year to the Choptank.

During the process that produced Talbot County's award-winning comprehensive plan there was much discussion about the environment, and what the county can do to protect and improve it. These discussions occurred because state law mandates a chapter in all comprehensive plans on "Natural Resource Conservation and Sensitive Area Protection."

After rigorous discussion on many levels, one of the policies adopted says that the county is to, "Adopt legislation improving the effectiveness of all shoreline buffers for all land uses when research and science indicate such action can improve buffer functions."

There are no directives in the plan about cover crops, no-till, nutrient management plans, conservation plans, GPS-based equipment guidance or other farm practices. All of that is completely beside the point of how one can make a shoreline buffer more effective and what science tells us about buffers.

Numerous scientific studies tell us that one can make a shoreline buffer more effective by widening it. Studies have determined that the effectiveness of widening the buffer is very substantial for the first 50-60 feet, and then begins to level out as the width increases. Even the U.S.D.A. acknowledges this point, since under their "Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program" they pay top dollar for the first 50 feet (not 25) of shoreline buffer established under this program.

Several expert local scientists have testified publicly that a shoreline agricultural buffer wider than the current 25 feet would be more effective. The agricultural community has offered no science on the subject, and having no credible rebuttal on point, quickly change the subject.

Some way needs to be found to widen all shoreline buffers for all land uses. Science and research tell us that wider shoreline buffers would help clean up our rivers. Residential property owners should not be excused from any new buffer regulation as lawn fertilizer can be just as damaging to the bay.

This community has spent millions on upgrading its sewer systems. Public advocacy has resulted in much-improved storm water design for new construction projects. The ancient septic system technology still widely employed in this county needs to be upgraded and improved. Since agriculture is the largest local contributor of pollution, they need to do more as well. If we are ever to reverse our rivers' continuing decline we ALL need to do more.

Tom Hughes is a long time conservationist and habitue of the upper Miles River watershed