I was a tomato farmer on the Eastern Shore of Virginia in Accomack County for 25 years. In 1996 I was the recipient of the Eastern Shore Soil and Water Conservation District’s, “Conservation Farmer of the Year” Award. I have had the unfortunate experience of being a defendant in a law suit regarding run off from my tomato farms.  From this I learned that personal opinion, non science based conjecture, and lack of vision can inflict great misfortune and cost a lot of money.  I also learned that never dismiss any threat no matter how idle it may seem.  Always look over your shoulder for agriculture is inherently vulnerable to this type of threat.  Our environment functions in many ways.  It is adaptable in some and not others.   Discerning this is in many ways beyond science.  I have talked to those that believe after a rain event the water should be clear and not soil stained, that any cloudiness is unacceptable.  I have had water samples taken from run off from my farms that claimed the residues of an agrichemical I had not used.  I have seen countless (dated) pictures of water running off from my farms when I knew that on the same date I had seen similar situations on other non tomato fields.

I have implemented numerous run off abatement measures costing tens of thousands of dollars totally out of pocket, not subsidized.  Much of this work is not highly engineered but as I say, “Eye balled and dead reckoning”.  It works.  I have farmed many years with aquaculture operations immediately under tomato farm outfalls.

Getting the water off of the fields is paramount for all field activities and crop production practices to occur.  Some times it is not pretty but is necessary.  Many times not pretty works and is acceptable.  Some time it is not. It can be achieved in many ways.  Site specific is always the operative word.

Years ago I opposed the Ag. Stewardship Act designed to deal with “Bad Actors”.  Just who is going to look over agricultural operations based on complaints? Is this really necessary? What kind of funding is this going to require?  Yet it passed and it is here as a tool for just what Mr. Terry’s petition addresses.  As I see it this petition is by an individual, not a group or organization.  It is a complaint against all large agricultural operations and has implications state wide. Yes, we are concerned. Yes, someone discovered the big hammer.  Where did the direction come from to activate this process?  Who prepared the document?  Why was the Ag Stewardship process not used?

Discussions repeatedly focus on tomato production, “Plasticulture”, and bad actor(s).  If this truly is the intent of the petition then state it.  If the Ag Stewardship process is not effective then make it so.  The regulatory processes are there, then use them.

Several years ago Mr. Terry told me that, “Tomato companies need to be careful how they farm”.  I did not dismiss this as an idle comment.  I made sure that the necessary precautions were taken and runoff abatement measures implemented.  Other tomato operations have also heeded the warning bells.  The Eastern Shore Soil and Water Conservation district has also communicated with and conducted tours with the tomato operations to resolve the runoff issue.  This is ongoing.

Both sides of this issue have demonstrated complete lack of vision.  The petition is an exercise in how outlandish our government can be.  How can a petition by an individual create so much disruption and promulgate regulatory action by a citizen board, on which an aquiculuturalist is a member and acquaintance of the petitioner.  Also, how can this occur without the legislative process?