Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 6 · column 3 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
Jane Naramore of Amissville, chairman of the Rappahannock Farmers Association, noted that the RFA “has been a thorn in (Commissioner J. Carlton) Courter’s side. If the state is going to beat their chests about environmental law, they should be more learned about it.”
Gray Armistead of Sperryville and Dr. Werner Krebser, Flint Hill, also members of the RFA, said that the vagueness of the definitions and the capriciousness by which the law could be applied made it a dangerous tool. Complaints may be made by anyone, even anonymously.
“I’m not against clean water,” Armistead-added, “but this is a bad law. Some fellow riding by can report you to somebody in Richmond (and that) can result in a $5,000 a day penalty. An aggrieved neighbor or someone you fired could complain every month.” Armistead emphasized, however, that some kind of regulation was necessary to force farmers to be more conscientious in their management practices. “The government has to keep pressure on farmers,” he said, “but nobody can live with this law.”
Harris pointed out that the law could also be used by large agri-industries to discourage stronger federal control and tougher environmental standards. Savage agreed.
Savage “recognizes that farmers are a major force in economic development,” and that everyone shares a concern for water quality.
Added Naramore, “I truly believe that farmers try very hard. They have too much time, money and effort in it." She reported that the state was considering amending the ASA: The RFA “has been contacted by (Commissioner Courter’s office) and we will be given a voice” in making changes to the law.
90.7%