Best Management
     The process of obtaining a permit from the appropriate government agencies to do any type of work in or along the small streams that flow through our farmland has become extremely burdensome and time consuming. We urge these government agencies to approve general permits to install approved best management practices. ‘06
     We encourage agricultural landowners and tenant operators to study, develop and implement long-term programs or lease arrangements with conservation practice systems, including voluntary nutrient management plans that will achieve the desired water quality benefits.’07
     We support the development of a means to record all Best Management Practices (BMPs) whether privately or publicly funded. ’06
     Interpretation and definition of Best Management Practices (BMPs) must recognize the economic impact and cost to the farmer. ’07
     If accepted best management practices are implemented in good faith and later determined to have a negative impact on the environment or natural resources, the landowner should not be held legally or financially responsible.’07

Conservation Practices
     We support the reclassification of Class 3 trout streams, which contain no native trout to Class 4 streams. ’06
     We recommend the Maryland Department of Agricultural include a bunker-type structure to be covered with a tarp for the storage of solid animal waste in the Maryland Agriculture Cost-share (MACS) program. Any contract poultry grower in Maryland, regardless of capacity, should be eligible for cost share funds for both manure sheds and composters.’07
     We support landowner wildlife plantings, but encourage the restriction of tree and shrub plantings within 25 feet of any right-of-way in order to reduce the cost of trimming at taxpayer expense and to enhance public safety. '04
     We urge the state to assure that adequate funds be available to provide sufficient cost sharing of approved soil conservation practices. We also urge the state to provide an adequate number of trained personnel in local Soil Conservation District to assist farmers and property owners in the development and implementation of their conservation plans, making sure the plans not only provide the needed environmental protection but are practical and economical as well. ’06

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
     We strongly recommend that public agencies should not be eligible for funding under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). ’07
     We believe that programs that offer incentives for conservation, wildlife habitat creation and preservation should minimize the loss of prime farmland while maintaining our natural resources. '03
     We propose changes to the CREP that are intended to keep prime land available for production, reduce the economic incentive to take whole farms or major portions thereof out of production, to remove the government as a primary cash rent competitor for valuable agricultural land and to provide for more effective maintenance of land under CREP contract. ’07
     Our proposed changes include the following:
     (1) CREP contracts should be issued only on land that has a scientifically supported impact
          on water quality. CREP should not be used to create wildlife habitat where water
          quality benefit is negligible. ’07
     (2) Buffers should be variable, with a maximum width of 100 feet, based on topographical
          and soil conditions to ensure water quality benefits and minimize loss of productive
          cropland.’07
     (3) Buffers established adjacent to ditches should have a maximum width of 50 feet and
          should be smaller if prime and productive soils are impacted. Buffers should not include
          trees within 35 feet of a ditch in order to facilitate maintenance of the ditch. The practice
          of digging ditches just to enroll the entire acreage on farms should be prohibited. '03
     (4) Regulations should be developed to require weed control on all land subject to a CREP
          contract. The maintenance and control rules should be enforced. '07
     (5) Mowing of CREP lands should be required annually if weeds cannot be controlled by
          other means. Weeds of primary concern to adjacent farmers include, but are not limited
          to: giant ragweed, multiflora rose, burr cucumber, phragmites, autumn olive, mile-a
          minute, and kudzu, scrub trees and noxious grasses. '04
     (6) Rental rates for future CREP contracts should be adjusted to provide for a sliding-scale
          that pays more for land immediately adjacent to water and less for land closer to prime
          and productive soils. Rates should be in line with local rental rates. '03
     USDA landlord/tenant rules should be strictly enforced to prevent losses to farmers who have already invested resources into land being considered for a CREP contract. '02