New Report: Maryland’s $15M Animal Waste Fund Fails to Deliver

Report finds failed and stalled projects, weak oversight, and persistent manure pollution, with 10 of 13 funded projects sited in overburdened communities

WASHINGTON — Maryland has committed more than $15 million in taxpayer money to animal waste technologies without publicly demonstrating that the investments have meaningfully reduced nutrient pollution, improved water quality, or benefitted public health, according to a new report released today by Friends of the Earth U.S., Sentinels of Eastern Shore Health, Concerned Citizens Against Industrial CAFOs, and Wicomico County NAACP. 

The report, The High Cost of Manure: Why Maryland Should End Its Animal Waste Technology Fund, examines more than a decade of investments through Maryland’s Animal Waste Technology Fund (AWTF), which subsidizes technologies intended to address manure pollution from animal feeding operations. The report finds a troubling pattern of failed and significantly delayed projects, weak oversight of taxpayer investments, and little publicly available evidence that funded projects have delivered their promised environmental and public health benefits. 

The report also raises significant environmental justice concerns. Of 13 projects that received AWTF funding, 10 were sited in census tracts Maryland identifies as overburdened, including three in communities considered both overburdened and underserved. Some animal waste technologies can introduce additional truck traffic, air pollution, industrial infrastructure, and other environmental risks into communities already facing disproportionate pollution burdens.

“Maryland created this fund to protect public health and the Chesapeake Bay, but more than a decade and $15 million in commitments later, the state still cannot show taxpayers that these investments are delivering the pollution reductions they were promised,” said Chloe Waterman, deputy director at Friends of the Earth U.S. “Worse, Maryland is subsidizing private waste-technology ventures in communities that are already carrying an unfair share of the state’s pollution burden and do not want these projects in their backyards.”

The AWTF was established in 2013 to address the growing manure problem created by animal feeding operations. Yet the technologies do not eliminate the nitrogen and phosphorus contained in manure. Instead, they produce fertilizer, digestate, biochar, or other products and residuals whose nutrients must still be managed, transported, or applied to land. This leaves largely untouched the underlying problem: concentrated animal production in Maryland is generating more nutrients than surrounding cropland can productively absorb. 

Key findings include:

• Taxpayer dollars with little demonstrated return. The Maryland Department of Agriculture does not publish required final project reports online, making it difficult for taxpayers to determine whether projects remain operational or have delivered measurable nutrient reductions, water-quality improvements, or public health benefits.
• Failed and stalled projects. At least one-quarter of funded projects have failed or remained “in progress” for years after receiving awards, raising questions about project vetting, oversight, and continued public investment.
• Funds going to businesses, not farms. At least half of awards went to corporations or entrepreneurs rather than Maryland farmers. These public dollars could instead support proven conservation practices that directly benefit Maryland farmers while delivering measurable reductions in agricultural pollution.
• Technologies that manage rather than eliminate the nutrient problem. Waste-conversion technologies change the form of animal waste but do not make its nutrients disappear. Nutrient-dense residuals and products still require responsible management and, when applied to already nutrient-saturated land, can perpetuate the pollution problem the fund is intended to address.
• Disproportionate impacts on overburdened communities. Ten of 13 projects that received funding were sited in communities Maryland identifies as overburdened, including three that are both overburdened and underserved. Yet the AWTF does not appear to require a formal environmental justice assessment or meaningful community-engagement process as a condition of funding.
• Technologies dependent on continued public support. A 2023 University of Maryland assessment identified substantial economic barriers to animal waste technologies, including high capital, operating, and maintenance costs. Maryland officials have similarly acknowledged that some technologies are not economical for private vendors without government support.

The report highlights three projects: CleanBay Renewables, which received a $1.4 million AWTF grant and a $22 million USDA grant, though its Somerset County facility never reached commercial production and the company was subject to a forced asset sale following loan defaults in 2025; EarthCare LLC, which was awarded $2.2 million in 2021, though the Maryland Department of Agriculture withdrew the award a year later; International BioRefineries, which received $1.9 million in 2020 and after received an additional $500,000 despite years of delays and has yet to begin operating. 

“These aren’t abstract numbers. They represent public dollars that Maryland could be investing directly in farmers, clean water, pollution prevention, and communities,” said Gabby Ross, Concerned Citizens Against Industrial CAFOs. “Instead of continually paying to manage enormous quantities of manure after they are produced, Maryland should invest in proven conservation, enforce pollution requirements, and help farmers who want to transition toward less pollution-intensive forms of agriculture.” 

“Communities already burdened by factory farm pollution should not have to fight another round of industrial development in the name of environmental protection,” said Maria Payan, Sentinels for Eastern Shore Health. “The fact that 10 of 13 projects funded through this program were sited in overburdened communities raises serious questions about whose interests Maryland is prioritizing. Public investments intended to protect the environment should reduce pollution in these communities, not introduce new risks without demonstrating meaningful benefits.”

“Black communities on the Eastern Shore have carried the burden of industrial agriculture for generations,” said Monica Brooks, President, Wicomico County NAACP. “Public money meant to protect the environment should not bring more trucks, more emissions, and more risk to the same frontline and fenceline neighborhoods. But yet it has happened repeatedly. It’s a pattern. Maryland needs to prioritize environmental justice and community consent first, before another dollar is spent.” 

The report calls on Maryland to repeal the Animal Waste Technology Fund, prohibit state subsidies for anaerobic digesters and manure-to-energy systems, and redirect public resources toward proven agricultural conservation practices and support for farmers seeking to transition away from AFO-scale animal production. It also calls for greater investment in AFO monitoring, oversight, and enforcement to ensure that operations generating pollution are held accountable for complying with environmental requirements.

The full report is available here.

Media contact: Lindsay Tice, [email protected]