Va. to E. Shore tomato farmers: Sit down and negotiate

RICHMOND

Virginia is running out of patience with a major industry on the Eastern Shore: tomato farming.

Specifically, the state is concerned about the environmental consequences of a popular tomato-growing technique known as plasticulture. Fields are covered with sheets of plastic to deter pests and weeds and to maximize output.

The method has upset another group of farmers - those who raise clams and oysters in the maze of pristine creeks, marshes and coves that dominate the Eastern Shore landscape.

These farmers say plasticulture threatens their livelihoods - and the ecological health of the Shore - by increasing soil erosion and introducing fertilizers, chemicals, dirt and hot runoff to the waterways.

Chip Dodson, an Eastville resident who lives near a 200-acre tomato operation, wrote to state regulators that a nearby cove has become "a nitrogen choked algae pond" in recent years and that the farm resembles "a nuclear fallout zone."

Like most agriculture in Virginia, plasticulture has gone largely unregulated by state environmental rules. Although concerns about its effects on the Eastern Shore date to the 1990s, little has changed despite years of hearings, studies and investigations.

Until now.

On Thursday in Richmond, the State Water Control Board voted unanimously to set an October deadline for the tomato industry to sit down and negotiate an agreement for more environmental protections - or face strict regulations.

Most board members said they have waited long enough to act, noting that earlier this year they gave the industry six months to discuss the issue with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Those discussions have not gone well.

"Let's just say they got off to a slow and difficult start," said Melanie Davenport, a DEQ administrator involved in the talks.

The board did not welcome that news; nor did it appreciate that no one from the tomato industry showed up Thursday.

Board Chairman Shelton Miles, who said he typically dislikes any talk about regulating agriculture, commented sternly: "We need concrete improvements on the ground. And I am extremely frustrated at the time they have squandered at making progress."

Tomatoes netted $66.3 million in cash receipts last year, making them the 11th richest agricultural commodity in Virginia, just behind tobacco, according to state statistics.

About 77 percent of the tomato crop was grown on the Eastern Shore, most of it using plasticulture, statistics show.

The Eastern Shore trade today is controlled by three companies: Kuzzens Inc., East Coast Brokers and Packers, and Pacific Tomato Growers. All are based outside of Virginia - Kuzzens and East Coast in Florida, and Pacific in California, officials said.

While no company officials were present Thursday, they have offered written comments against regulations before.

They argue that existing state "bad actor" laws should be enforced to crack down on tomato farms that do not filter pollutants adequately, and that the vast majority of plasticulture operations are working to minimize impacts.

Their views are shared by other farm advocates, though the state Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services recommends that negotiations continue between the state and industry.

"By applying this regulation only to Eastern Shore large agricultural producers, it is an arbitrary and capricious use of state authority and may be deemed unconstitutional," wrote Richard Davis, a farm manager for Kuzzens.

Much of the current debate stems from a petition for regulatory action from an Eastern Shore clam farmer, Pete Terry. In response, the state Department of Environmental Quality announced that it would soon begin the long process of drafting a rule to control runoff associated with plasticulture.

That announcement stirred controversy, so the DEQ said in April that it would try to negotiate "a memorandum of agreement" with the industry.

Such an agreement would not likely include any penalty provisions, officials said Thursday - a point that irked some board members.

"So the best we can say is that if you do not comply with this agreement, we may impose regulations on you?" asked member John Thompson. "I'm not sure that's going to get us anywhere."

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com