Maryland Environmental Groups File Notice of Potential Lawsuit Against Valley Proteins for Pollution Violations

On April 13, Maryland environmental groups sent a notice of intent to bring a lawsuit against Valley Proteins for violating its wastewater permit. 

In years when records have been available, the company has exceeded pollution limits when releasing wastewater from its Linkwood plant on Maryland’s Eastern Shore into the nearby Transquaking River. Records indicate Valley Proteins has routinely exceeded its permit limits for pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, phosphorus, and ammonia. In one quarter, from July to September 2020, the company exceeded the ammonia limits by 2,518%, according to EPA’s enforcement and compliance database. In other periods, Valley Proteins has failed to file complete documents detailing what pollutants are being released into the groundwater and river from the plant.

Monitoring and inspection reports have indicated wastewater leaking from two wastewater storage lagoons on the plant property may be causing high nitrate levels in monitoring wells and polluting the groundwater. The company has also failed to properly document the composition of the thousands of tons of sludge being hauled away from the property each year and the quantities of sludge that are land applied or treated at another wastewater treatment facility. These issues are likely contributing to pollution problems in the area and surrounding waterways.

The Transquaking River is a Chesapeake Bay tributary that has been plagued by long-term problems associated with algal blooms, which are fueled by water pollutants such as nitrogen. Algal blooms reduce water clarity and can cause deadly low-oxygen conditions in the water. These water quality impacts impair recreational use of the river by boaters and kayakers, as well as potentially make the river uninhabitable for marine life. The excess amounts of pollutants from this plant may be making it more difficult for Maryland to reach 2025 pollution reduction requirements as part of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint. The notice of intent is being brought by ShoreRivers and Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth (DCPG), and Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF). ShoreRivers and DCPG are represented by Chesapeake Legal Alliance. Industrial polluters can be held accountable through citizen suits under the Clean Water Act for impairing the public’s right to clean, swimmable, and fishable waters. The notice gives Valley Proteins 60 days to potentially settle claims under the Clean Water Act before a formal lawsuit is filed against the company.  

Valley Proteins is an industrial plant in Linkwood that uses a chemical process to render chicken carcasses into protein for animal feed, which it then sells. The plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit expired in 2006, but the state has enabled the company to continue to operate in Linkwood by administratively extending it for 15 years. 

"Valley Proteins is responsible for the waste it produces, like all companies and individuals are,” said Matt Pluta, ShoreRivers Choptank Riverkeeper and Director of Riverkeeper Programs. “But while most of us follow the environmental laws designed to protect our shared environment, Valley Proteins has been discharging its waste at illegally high levels into the Transquaking River. They are polluting this shared resource, which harms the river and our ability to enjoy it. This company must be held accountable for their actions, the same way any of us would be if we violated a law.” 

For more than 10 years, DCPG volunteers have been sampling water quality near the plant and have found higher-than-average levels of E. coli bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus as well as low levels of dissolved oxygen in the river. The Maryland Department of the Environment has also documented significant algal blooms in Higgins Mill Pond, which receives the Plant’s discharges and is part of the Transquaking River. 

“DCPG has been concerned for more than seven years about numerous violations and pollution from the wastewater discharge at the Valley Proteins site,” said Fred Pomeroy, president of Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth. “We’ve voiced our concerns to the Maryland Department of the Environment for years, but they have continued to allow Valley Proteins to operate without a current permit or updated pollution controls. We’ve decided to join with ShoreRivers, Chesapeake Legal Alliance, and Chesapeake Bay Foundation to bring legal action against a company that continues to pollute the Transquaking River.”  

In the past, CBF has called for a more stringent wastewater permit for the plant and more transparency around the pollution being pumped into the Transquaking River. 

“We won’t look the other way when businesses pollute our environment,” said Doug Myers, Maryland senior scientist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. “We’ve had significant questions about how this plant is operated and its impacts on surrounding water quality for years that went unanswered. We heard about potential permit updates that were never completed. At this point, we feel like nothing will change except through litigation. We hope the outcome will result in a cleaner Transquaking River and Chesapeake Bay for those who depend on these waterways for their livelihoods and recreation.” 

The goal of this action is to bring Valley Proteins into compliance with its wastewater permit and protect water quality, the environment, and public health. 

New License for Conowingo Dam Threatens Bay Health; Exelon Not Held Accountable

Despite years of lawsuits, court battles, and public outcry, FERC has issued a new operating license to Exelon Corportion, owner and operator of the Conowingo Dam hydroelectric power plant.
photo credit: Cecil Whig

On March 18, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a new operating license for the Conowingo Dam after eight years of lawsuits, court battles, and public outcry. Exelon Corporation, owner and operator of the Conowingo Dam hydroelectric power plant, will hold the new license for the next 50 years. Unfortunately, this license fails to meaningfully address the pollution behind the dam or to hold Exelon accountable for its fair share of mitigating this major threat to the Bay. This is a tragedy for the health of the Chesapeake Bay and our rivers here on Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

In addition to generating hydroelectricity, Conowingo Dam acts as a catchment for everything that flows downriver from New York and Pennsylvania. When the floodgates open, water carries all that trash, debris, nutrient-laden sediment, and toxic substances into the Bay and onto our shorelines. The Eastern Shore bears the brunt of this flow, suffering navigational hazards, shorelines choked with debris, and oyster bars and underwater grass beds smothered with sediment. All of this pollution sets back our progress to achieving a healthier Bay.

Trash and other debris, including these tractor tires, frequently clog the shoreline of northern Kent County and other Eastern Shore regions. Pollutants piled up behind the Conowingo Dam end up being flushed into the Chesapeake Bay when the floodgates open during large rain events, significantly impacting the recovery of the Bay’s health.
photo by Sassafras Riverkeeper Zack Kelleher

 The solution to this problem should be twofold: hold New York and Pennsylvania accountable for reducing pollution that flows down the Susquehanna River; and require Exelon to contribute to the cleanup costs made necessary by the dam from which they profit. No one should be allowed to profit from a public natural resource without having to contribute meaningfully to the protection and restoration of that resource. However, that is now exactly what FERC is allowing to happen.

 The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) determined that Exelon, the most profitable utility company in the country, should be held accountable for $172 million annually for its share of the costs to clean up the pollution behind the dam. Then, MDE inexplicably agreed to the terms of this new operating license, which only require Exelon to contribute $1.22 million per year, or less than 1% of what is needed, from the company to protect the Bay’s health. The brunt of the cleanup costs will now have to be shouldered by Maryland taxpayers.

It is inexcusable that Maryland watermen, boaters, homeowners, and taxpayers have to suffer the consequences of pollution flowing down the Susquehanna, and are now responsible for paying for the cleanup resulting from the dam. MDE and FERC have put the interests of a for-profit company before the welfare of their citizens and the health of a public resource. MDE claimed this was the best they could do, and that “something is better than nothing.” But less than 1% of something is essentially nothing. The March 18 ruling codifies MDE’s dereliction of duty to meaningfully address the issues at Conowingo and adequately protect Maryland’s waterways and communities.

This issue is of utmost importance to Eastern Shore communities. Over the past few years, ShoreRivers has become a leading voice on this issue in the region. The organization has hosted town hall meetings, designed billboards to raise awareness, and worked on legislation at the state and federal levels. This outreach generated thousands of comments and phone calls imploring local, state, and federal agencies to protect citizens’ interests.

ShoreRivers will continue to fight this flawed re-licensing through every avenue at its disposal. The pollution behind the Conowingo Dam poses one of the most significant threats to the Bay’s recovery, to our maritime communities and economy, and to all of the restoration work that Marylanders have worked so hard to implement.

ShoreRivers Challenges MDE's Trappe East Discharge Permit

In late January, ShoreRivers formally challenged the issuance of the Trappe East Groundwater Discharge Permit for failing to adequately protect local groundwater and surface waters from the spray irrigation of wastewater. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) issued a final determination to issue the permit on January 1 for a wastewater treatment facility that will serve the proposed 2,500-building development known as Trappe East (since renamed Lakeside at Trappe), which is said by its investors to be the largest proposed mixed-use development on the East Coast of the United States. Under the MDE permit, treated sewage from this massive development will be sprayed on 87 acres of farmland that surround the headwaters of Miles Creek, a Choptank River tributary. However, according to ShoreRivers’ review, the final permit fails to verify that nutrients in the wastewater will be fully taken up by the vegetation, and therefore could end up polluting groundwater or the nearby river.

map of the wastewater treatment complex and spray irrigation fields pulled from the permit issued by MDE

“The permit requires the wastewater treatment system to use what is called enhanced nutrient removal technology, but that will not ensure that all nutrient pollution is taken up by crops, not discharged into the Choptank,” says ShoreRivers Choptank Riverkeeper Matt Pluta. “We are not satisfied that the language in the final permit issued by MDE ensures that the system will actually meet the standards required by state and federal law. The Choptank River is already designated by MDE as impaired by nutrient pollution,” he emphasizes. “This permit, as it’s written, will further degrade the river’s water quality.”

ShoreRivers conducted a close review of the final permit with numerous experts, including hydrologists, agricultural professionals, and an environmental legal team headed up by the Chesapeake Legal Alliance, a nonprofit organization working for the Chesapeake Bay watershed and its communities. The team concluded that there are numerous deficiencies in the draft permit and several instances where the water quality protections were weakened between the draft permit and the final permit. In addition, the nutrient management plan that is critical to ensuring the safe disposal of sewage sprayed onto nearby fields was not released to the public until after MDE closed the comment period, thus depriving ShoreRivers and the public of the right to comment on the full permit.

As a result, ShoreRivers has filed a petition for judicial review in the Talbot County Circuit Court. ShoreRivers hopes the permit will be remanded back to MDE with a requirement to reopen the comment period. It is imperative the permit fully complies with state and federal law to ensure no increase in pollution for the Choptank.

Groundwater discharge permits (which are required when wastewater is spray-irrigated onto farmland) are becoming a more popular choice for managing wastewater from municipal and industrial sources on the Eastern Shore. ShoreRivers has monitored the compliance record of these discharge permits in the region for the past several years; very few of them are in full compliance with their permit conditions. “If the water quality protection deficits and the procedural issues with this permit are not addressed, it will set a damaging precedent for these permits moving forward,” says Pluta. “If the practices in this permit are allowed, we can expect our groundwater and surface waters to get more polluted.”

Another oversight in the permit noted by ShoreRivers is the lack of consideration for impacts from the climate crisis. The years 2018 and 2019 were two of the wettest on record on the Eastern Shore, but the permit fails to consider the impact of increased intensity and volume of storms. “We are setting these permits up for failure from the start if they don’t consider how rainfall and weather patterns will be different in the future. The uphill battle to meet water quality standards will undoubtedly get steeper if we continue to ignore how climate change is affecting precipitation patterns,” says Pluta.

 The permit challenge was submitted prior to the February 1 deadline and will be reviewed by the local circuit court.

ShoreRivers – the Eastern Shore voice for clean water and, with your help, limitless impact

In just three years, ShoreRivers has brought nearly $10 million of taxpayer money back to the Delmarva to reduce pollution in our waterways. ShoreRivers works for cleaner rivers by stopping pollution at the source—before it enters the water—and by engaging individuals to make small, compounding changes to create a landscape of collective action for a healthier environment.

At this pivotal moment in our nation’s history, we can clearly see the power an individual can add to a movement through their vote. At ShoreRivers, it is evident that we—and you—are part of something greater: each Riverkeeper is a member of the global Waterkeeper Alliance; your single home yard is part of a conservation corridor creating climate resilience; your sustainable farm is a piece of the two million farmed acres in Maryland; each child is part of the next generation of professionals prioritizing green choices across all sectors; and your gift is one of thousands for cleaner, more accessible water. With your help, ShoreRivers has grown its impact from limited to limitless.

We set a goal to become the clean water voice for the Eastern Shore, and we have done it.

We are a multistate technical provider with the expertise and passion to design, fund, and execute pollution-reducing projects on the micro and macro scale. We are not only “boots on the ground” specialists meeting with farmers to find ways to reduce pollution and increase yield; we are also influencing federal farm policy on behalf of clean water. We are not only teaching in the classroom; we are at the table with the superintendent. We are not only on patrol as Riverkeepers; we are leveraging our credibility to bring in well over $250,000 in pro bono legal and expert support to defend our waterways from polluters. We are not only committed to greater inclusion, access, and justice for diverse communities in the environmental movement; we are emerging as a leader on the Eastern Shore in this work.

With federal, state, local, and individual support, ShoreRivers has taken action against this area’s most destructive pollutants by installing 162 projects—the majority on farmland—that prevent 110,000 pounds of nitrogen, 14,600 pounds of phosphorus, and more than 4 tons of sediment from washing into our waterways every single year.

But the work is not over. On the contrary, in many ways, it is just beginning. This year marks my retirement as well as the retirement of two influential ShoreRivers board members. John Vail and Tim Junkin founded two of our legacy organizations and planted the seeds for ShoreRivers’ success today. To nourish and sustain this momentum, we look forward to fresh, talented, and energetic leadership with Isabel Hardesty at the helm. 

I will enthusiastically continue to support ShoreRivers and I truly hope you will as well. Our communities deserve it. And remember: We will clean these rivers.

Jeff Horstman
Executive Director (retiring)

SHORERIVERS AND CBF SUE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

(WASHINGTON, D.C.)—The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and ShoreRivers plan to sue the Trump administration for repealing the Obama-era Clean Water Rule, which provided robust protections for wetlands and seasonal streams under the Clean Water Act, and replacing it with the dangerously weaker version published in the Federal Register today.   

The new definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) ignores the scientific underpinnings of the 2015 Clean Water Rule and jettisons vital protections for wetlands and streams across the Bay’s 64,000 square-mile watershed. It will do the most damage in Delaware, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia, which rely entirely on federal law to protect their local waters. In Delaware alone, it would allow the destruction of nearly 200,000 acres of wetlands.  

The new WOTUS rule will also be harmful in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia, despite those states’ additional state water protection programs, because their programs all have gaps the new rule will exacerbate. In Maryland, nontidal wetlands could lose protections, as could Pennsylvania streams that flow only in response to precipitation, known as seasonal streams. Thousands of Delmarva Bays, wetlands unique to the Delmarva Peninsula, are directly at risk as well.

As natural filters, wetlands play a crucial role helping the six watershed states and the District meet their targets for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution entering the Bay and its tributaries by the 2025 deadline set by the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.   

Wetlands soak up excess water from the more frequent and intense storms and floods caused by climate change, which regularly batter the watershed’s farms, low-lying coastal communities, and rapidly disappearing Bay islands. Wetlands also protect and recharge drinking water supplies. By providing irreplaceable habitat for fish, native wildlife, and migratory birds, wetlands support the region’s $65 billion outdoor recreation industry and the more than half a million jobs it provides.  

In response to publication of the new WOTUS rule, Jon Mueller, CBF’s Vice President of Litigation, said:  

 “The Trump administration’s new WOTUS rule is an astounding attack on the Clean Water Act and another egregious example of its destructive disregard for science. By slashing the number of waterways in the watershed protected from pollution under the Clean Water Act, this damaging rule puts the entire cleanup effort in jeopardy.  

“Wetlands are vital to the health and resilience of the Chesapeake Bay and the 111,000 miles of local creeks, streams, and rivers from Cooperstown, NY, to Virginia Beach that feed into it. They are also critical to the region’s $65 billion outdoor recreation industry and the more than half a million jobs it supports.  

 “The stakes are too high to allow this dangerous rule to stand. CBF has worked tirelessly for years to protect the Clean Water Rule and prevent a weaker version from replacing it. We will be just as relentless as we take our fight to protect the Clean Water Act and the watershed’s wetlands to court.”   

  Jeff Horstman, Executive Director of ShoreRivers, said:

 “Vast areas of streams and wetlands on the Delmarva will lose vital protections if this irresponsible regulatory roll back is permitted. By repealing the Clean Water Rule, the current administration is allowing more pollution to enter our iconic rivers and Bay, which are beginning to show signs of improvement after decades of work.  We cannot allow this progress to be reversed, we must stand up for science and challenge this assault on our right to have clean water.

 “It is a fact that polluted rivers will cost us more in the end than any short-term economic gain garnered from allowing industries to pollute. We must stop the cycle of allowing short term economic interests and corporate greed to destroy our natural resources.” 

Tragedy of the Soft Shell and Razor Clam

I read Tragedy of the Commons many times in my undergraduate career. We are all familiar with the premise: overuse of a common resource for personal benefit ultimately eliminates that resource, spoiling it for everyone. To ensure that our common resources do not become depleted in Maryland or the Chesapeake Bay, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) works to “preserve, protect, restore, and enhance our environment for this and future generations.” Specifically, DNR strives to create balance between our economy and our environment, which we at ShoreRivers commend and support. 

Consider the eastern oyster, for example, a filter feeder that improves water quality and habitat, and is an iconic menu item for locals and tourists alike. A DNR Fishery Management Plan is needed for this species to ensure that we continue to see both ecological and economic benefits for generations to come. This is an example of a state agency regulating a natural resource so that all can benefit.

Two lesser known bivalve species in the Bay provide similar ecological value. Soft shell clams and razor clams filter the same volume of gallons in one day as the oyster. Numerous studies have found that these species once played an integral role in the Chesapeake’s food web, as a primary food source for multiple predators. Unfortunately, also similar to the eastern oyster, these clam species are on the brink of extinction in the Chesapeake Bay.

The soft shell clam fishery has been “boom and bust” since the invention of the hydraulic dredge in the 1950’s. “Boom” times with high harvest rates and high numbers of clamming licenses are followed by “bust” times with significant drops in clam populations, which result in lower harvest rates and fewer licenses. 

Considering the high ecological value these species provide and their current low populations, ShoreRivers believes they are in need of conservation. Without a DNR Fishery Management Plan, there is currently no balance between the economic and ecological value of these clams. To ensure this balance is established and that there are clams in our Maryland waterways in the future, ShoreRivers fought for a Fishery Management Plan for the clam fishery during the 2019 Maryland Legislative General Assembly. This bill would have initiated relatively low-cost studies of current clam populations and habitats, impacts to the population from climate change, and economic and ecological values of clams.  

Unfortunately, the Department of Natural Resources was not supportive of this bill and was unwilling to compromise. DNR’s main argument was that these species are too transient and difficult to study. However, considering that there have been studies of these species in the past (although none that inform regulation), and the fact that these species continue to be harvested, we feel that this decision clearly states that DNR is supportive of the economic value of these species, more so than the ecological value. If we are unable to study a species, consider the ecological value, or make regulation recommendations that promote sustainability, then we should not have that commercial fishery.

Yes, we are all familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, but it seems as though our current administration is choosing to ignore the warning signs of resource depletion. To be clear, I am in support of sustainable fisheries – fisheries that provide economic value, support our local watermen, and ensure that species continue to provide ecological benefits to our ecosystems.

However, if, according to DNR, it is not possible to find balance between economy and ecology, then which side should we choose? What repercussions might we see if we lose the soft shell and razor clams? As Miles-Wye Riverkeeper, I have the privilege of giving a voice to the river; I have no doubt the river would choose the side of ecological benefits.

Elle Bassett
Miles-Wye Riverkeeper
ebassett@shorerivers.org
443.385.0511 ext 213