In response to a 1997 toxic bloom of Pfiesteria piscicida and concerns over farm nutrient runoff in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, the State of Maryland passed the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998.  Implementation of the act required the development of new nutrient management regulations, administered by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.  Public hearings on the nutrient management regulations were held in Maryland farm communities.  As expected, farmers were strongly opposed to the regulations, preferring to continue existing voluntary programs.  Also not unexpected was the high level of emotion and anger displayed by farmers in their comments on the proposed regulations.  In this paper, we analyze farmer responses to the regulations to identify underlying cultural schemas that help explain the high emotive content of farmer opposition to the regulations.  Our findings suggest that the regulations conflicted with farmersâ sense of identity and morality.  Drawing in part on comparative insights from other studies of farmer morality and environmental change, we use verbatim statements to illustrate how Maryland farmers express their own moral outrage at the proposition of being regulated for environmental problems for which the specific causes and consequences remain the focus of scientific and public debate.  The paper concludes with a call for greater consideration of underlying cultural values and beliefs in the development of programs to reduce farm nutrient runoff.

Keywords:  nutrient management regulations, farmers, morality, Pfiesteria, Maryland