Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Maryland Department of Agriculture

HOTTEN, J. This appeal concerns the Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (“MDA”) decision to exempt nutrient management plans (“NMPs”) 1 from public disclosure in response to a Public Information Act request. An NMP “indicates how essential primary nutrients, that is, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, are to be annually managed on farm fields for crop production and for the protection of water quality.” COMAR 15.20.04.01 (2000). As discussed further, infra, the General Assembly promulgated a law governing the preparation and filing of NMPs and plan summaries. This law provides that “[t]he [MDA] shall maintain a copy of each [NMP] summary for 3 years in a manner that protects the identity of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared.” Md.Code (1974, 2007 RepLVol.), § 8-801.1(b)(2) of the Agriculture Article 2 [hereinafter “Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2)”]. ⁴²⁰ Appellants, Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. (“Waterkeeper Alliance”), Assateague Coastkeeper, Baltimore Harbor Water-keeper, Inc., Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Patuxent Riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc., Severn Riverkeeper, South Riverkeeper, and West/Rhode Riverkeeper, Inc., 3 filed a complaint, pursuant to the Public Information Act, specifically Md.Code (1984, 2009 Repl.Vol., 2012 Supp.), § 10-613(a) of the State Government Article [hereinafter “State Gov’t § 10-613(a)”], 4 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against appellees, the MDA, the Secretary of Agriculture, Roger Richardson, the Assistant Secretary, Royden Powell, and the Chief of the Office of Resource Conservation, Louise Lawrence, alleging that the MDA improperly denied them evaluation of NMPs 5 for the Nest Egg Farm in Princess Anne, Maryland, and for Animal Feeding Operations (“AFOs”) 6 that were located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 7 ⁴²¹ After being notified of a possible disclosure, 8 appellee, the Maryland Farm Bureau, Inc. (“Farm Bureau”) filed a motion for summary judgment, averring that Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) required that the MDA maintain all NMPs in a manner that protected its members’ identities beyond three years.

Thereafter, the MDA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The circuit court granted the MDA’s cross motion for summary judgment, but denied the Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that the MDA disclose NMP summaries that were older than three years “without any redaction of identifying information unless failure to redact identifying information from [NMP] [summaries ... would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared.” Subsequently, the Farm Bureau filed a motion for clarification to which the court further ordered that the MDA “redact any plan information that could be used to create a linkage between a specific individual and a specific [NMP],” and redact “entries for name, address, signature, and unique identification number.” Appellants, the Waterkeepers, noted an appeal, and present the following question for our consideration: Did the [circuit [c]ourt err when it interpreted section 8-801.1(b)(2) of the Agriculture Article (“the Statute”) [9] to ⁴²² include any documents related to nutrient management plans (“NMPs”), when the [sjtatute expressly applies only to NMP summaries maintained by the Maryland Department of Agriculture (“MDA”) for three years or less? For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

STATUTORY BACKGROUND A. Federal Regulatory Framework In 1948, the United States (“U.S.”) Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to promote states to safeguard and restore the country’s bodies of water. National Pork Producers Council v. Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F.3d 738, 742 (5th Cir.2011) [hereinafter “National Pork”]. In 1972, the Clean Water Act 10 replaced the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and encompassed a responsibility to conform to the 1972 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit program. Id.

Although the Clean Water Act forbids the release of pollutants into U.S. waters, under the permit program, the EPA may grant permits to individuals and companies to discharge pollutants, but with significant limitations. Id. at 743 . In 1976, the EPA required Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFOs”) 11 to obtain permits to release pollu ⁴²³ tants, which was predicated on the amount of animals located in the facility. Id.

However, because of “ ‘changes that ... occurred in the animal production industries,’ ” Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 399 F.3d 486 , 494 (2nd Cir.2005) [hereinafter “Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA ”] (additional citation omitted), the EPA required all CAFOs to “apply for an individual NPDES permit or submit a notice of intent for coverage under an NPDES general permit” in 2003. 12 Id. at 495 (citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.23 (d)(1)) (emphasis added). Additionally, all CAFOs were required to establish and design a site-specified NMP that: (i) Ensure[d] adequate storage of manure, litter, and process wastewater, including procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage facilities; (ii) Ensure[d] proper management of mortalities (i.e. dead animals) to ensure that they [were] not disposed of in a liquid manure, storm water, or process wastewater storage or treatment system that [was] not specifically designed to treat animal mortalities; (iii) Ensure[d] that clean water [was] diverted, as appropriate, from the production area; (iv) Prevented] direct contact of confined animals with waters of the [U.S.]; (v) Ensure[d] that chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site [were] not disposed of in any manure, litter, process wastewater, or storm water storage or treatment ⁴²⁴ system unless specifically designed to treat such chemicals and other contaminants; (vi) Identified] appropriate site specific conservation practices to be implemented, including as appropriate buffers or equivalent practices, to control runoff of pollutants to waters of the [U.S.]; (vii) Identified] protocols for appropriate testing of manure, litter, process wastewater, and soil; (viii) Established] protocols to land apply manure, litter or process wastewater in accordance with site specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter or process wastewater; and (ix) Identified] specific records that [would] be maintained to document the implementation and management of the minimum elements described [above]. Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d at 495-96 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 122.42 (e)(l)(i)-(ix)) (word “above” added in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d at 496). In Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, 399 F.3d at 502, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined whether the requisites of the NMPs constituted “effluent limitations,” and hence, were required in the NPDES permit. 13 The plaintiffs-environmental organizations contended that the 2003 Rule was unlawful because (1) NPDES personnel were permitted to issue permits to Large CAFOs without an extensive evaluation of the NMPs, and (2) the NPDES permits did not include the NMPs’ terms.

Id. at 490. The Second Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, reasoning that the Clean Water Act described an effluent limitation as “ ‘any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which [were] discharged from point sources ...,’” ⁴²⁵ id. at 502 (emphasis in original), and thus, because “the requirement to develop a[NMP] constitute[d] a restriction on land application discharges ...,” the requisites of the NMP should have been included in the permits. Id. In accordance with the Second Circuit’s ruling, on June 30, 2006, the EPA proposed that (1) CAFOs present NMPs with their NPDES permit applications, (2) authorities would review the plan, and (3) the permit would include the NMP terms. 71:126 Fed.Reg. 37744 (June 30, 2006).

On December 4, 2008, the proposal became finalized as a rule. 14 National Pork, 635 F.3d at 747 . Farmers opposed the 2008 Rule, and filed complaints in several federal courts, arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority in requiring all NMPs to submit procedures regarding land application. 15 Id. at 753 . The actions were transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and joined into one case, National Pork. Id. at 747.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the farmers’ arguments were time-barred because they concerned the 2003 Rule, id. at 754 , and ultimately, the Court upheld the 2008 Rule. 16 Id. at 756 . B. Maryland Regulatory Framework The MDA establishes programs regarding “the registration, labeling and application of commercial fertilizers, organic nutrients, organic wastes, soil conditioners and soil amendments.” MDA, Guidelines for Application of Soil Conditioners, Soil Amendments, Waste Materials or Effluent on ⁴²⁶ Agricultural Land (Summary of Existing Guidelines) 1 (2012), http://mda.maryland.gov/resource_conservation/ counties/Supp7% 20(2).pdf (last visited Apr. 11, 2013). “The Maryland Department of the Environment ... develop[s] standards and issues discharge permits for, and oversees the safe permissible uses of, solid and liquid byproducts, including those with heavy metals, trace elements, and other pre-application treatment requirements, for various land treatment and water reuse systems.” Id. Similar to federal law, Maryland forbids the release of pollutants into its waters, 17 unless the Department of the Environment grants a general discharge permit. Assateague Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 677, 28 A.3d 178 (citing Md.Code (1996, 2007 Repl.Vol.), §§ 9-101(l), 9-322, 9-323 of the Environment Article).

On September 12, 2008, the Department of the Environment amended the general permit to encompass two types of AFOs: “CAFOs, [which] are AFOs that discharge to surface waters, [and] are covered by the [Clean Water Act] and must obtain a NPDES permit issued by [the Department of the Environment] ... [and] ... [t]he second category, an AFO that qualifies as a CAFO under federal regulations, but does not discharge or propose to discharge surface water, [which] is classified as a MAFO [ (Maryland Animal Feeding Operation) ].” Assateague Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 678-79 , 28 A.3d 178 (citing 35: 19 Md. Reg. 1735 , 1737 (September 12, 2008)); General Discharge Permit for Animal Feeding Operations, Part I.A1; COMAR 26.08.03.09B(3) (2009); and COMAR 26.08.03.09B(l)(d). Pur ⁴²⁷ suant to federal law, to obtain a permit, the CAFOs and MAFOs must create and design NMPs to submit with their permit applications. Assateague Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 679 , 28 A.3d 178 . Regarding Maryland’s nutrient management law, in September 1997, the General Assembly and a governor-appointed commission examined events concerning fish contamination in Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore, Dep’t of Legis.

Servs., Revised Fiscal Note, S.B. 178 (1998), which indicated the presence of toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria. 18 Id. After further research, scientists found a causal nexus between Pfiesteria and “the role of the chicken industry and the enormous quantities of chicken litter generated and ultimately applied to local fields as fertilizer for crop production.” Id. As a result, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998 applied to “[a]n agricultural operation with [more] than $2,500 in gross income; or [a] livestock operation with [more] than eight animal units defined as 1,000 pounds of live animal weight per animal unit.” Agrie. § 8-803.1(b). It certified that those farmers and land cultivators, who used chemical fertilizers, sludge, 19 or animal waste, would meet their nutrient needs concerning farm profits, while minimizing nutrient losses to soil, and restoring Maryland’s waterways, specifically the Chesapeake Bay.

See Agric. §§ 8-801.1(a) and 8-803.1(e). The U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture have indicated that NMPs should address “feed management, manure handling and storage, land application of manure, land management record keeping, and other utilization options.” U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. EPA, Unified ⁴²⁸ National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations 5, (1999), http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/fínafost.pdf (last visited Apr. 11, 2013). In Maryland, the NMP process incorporates: [ (i) ] Soil Samples: Soil samples are needed from every management unit on the farm property. Management units should ideally be each field that is used for crops, grazing or hay production.

Pastures are included in fields that should be tested. Sacrifice lots and holding pens do not need to be tested unless there are plans to apply manure or fertilizer to them.... [ (ii) ] Manure Samples: If manure is to be applied to fields, a manure sample to determine nutrient concentrations will be required. [ (iii) ] Property Tax [Identification (“ID”) ] Number: The proper tax ID number for each parcel of land that is farmed must be listed in the NMP.... [ (iv) ] Property Maps: Property maps may be hand drawn or made from a computer application---- The main con- cerns are that the property and field boundaries are identified with acreage, and roads accessing the property are labeled. [ (v) ] Crop Grown: Identify the predominant type of grass grown in the fields .... [ (vi) ] Crop Yields: If hay is grown and harvested from the fields, the amount produced per acre (ton/acre) is required. [ (vii) ] Animals: The total number, type and weight of animals ... is required. [ (vii) ] Bedding: The type and total amount of bedding used is required. [ (viii) ] Turnout Schedule: The number of hours [animals] are kept confined [versus] allowed access to pasture is required.... The amount of time confined relates to the amount of manure that is collected. ⁴²⁹ [ (ix) ] Manure Storage: Method of manure storage and dimensions of the storage structure are needed. [ (x) ] Manure Application Rate: If manure is spread, the spreader must be calibrated to determine the rate of application (tons/acre)____ [ (xi) ] Transported Manure: If manure is transported off the farm, information on where manure is transported must be recorded.... University of Maryland, Nutrient Management Plans for Maryland Horse Farms 1-2, (2011), http://www.ansc.umd.edu/ ERG/doc/EBR-14.pdf (last visited Apr. 11, 2013) (underlines omitted).

See also Nutrient Management Plan Reporting Form, Parts B and C. After the information is collected, the permit applicant must file a summary of each NMP with the MDA, and it shall retain a copy for three years in a manner that safeguards the applicant’s identity. See Agrie. § 8-801.1(b). Pursuant to the Public Information Act, the public “may request to inspect or copy public records of the [MDA],” COMAR 15.01.04.03 (1988), including NMP summaries, and “[i]t is the policy of the [MDA] to facilitate public access to the records ..., when access is allowed by law, by minimizing costs and time delays to persons requesting information.” COMAR 15.01.04.01 (1988). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 14, 2007, Waterkeeper Alliance submitted a Public Information Act request to the MDA regarding several agricultural records.

However, pertinent to the case at bar are the inspections relating to (1) NMPs for the Nest Egg Farm in Princess Anne, Maryland, and (2) NMPs for AFOs with approximately 125,000 broiler chickens that conducted waste management practices and were located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. On July 17, 2007, the MDA denied access to the Waterkeeper Alliance, alleging that disclosure would be contrary to the Water Quality Improvement Act. Waterkeeper Alliance presented an additional request on July 30, 2007, ⁴³⁰ regarding “the owner name, facility name, address, county, phone number, longitude, latitude, and type of operation, of all poultry farms in ... Maryland.” On August 27, 2007, the MDA again denied the Waterkeeper Alliance access to the records.

Subsequently, on February 5, 2008, appellants filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County against the MDA and its administrators, alleging that “Maryland law keeps confidential a summary of an NMP only to the extent that the identity of the individual for whom the NMP was prepared would be revealed,” but the MDA “broadly and inappropriately refused to disclose any and all portions of NMPs.” (emphasis in original). On May 16, 2008, appellants submitted a third request, relating to enforcement records and NMPs that were filed within and over the previous three years for AFOs in several counties, including Dorchester County. The MDA surmised that these records could be disclosed, but indicated that the requested enforcement records were still under evaluation. After being notified of possible disclosure, on July 18, 2008, the Farm Bureau brought an action in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County against the MDA to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, averring that Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) required that the MDA protect its members’ identifies beyond three years.

On July 25, 2008, the MDA filed a motion to transfer the Farm Bureau’s action to the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. On August 8, 2008, the Farm Bureau filed an opposition to the motion, a motion to proceed anonymously, and a motion for protective order, avowing that (1) the cases involved different parties, (2) its members would be unduly inconvenienced, and that (3) the request interfered with the members’ rights to privacy. On August 13 and August 22, 2008, the MDA filed its respective reply and opposition, as well as a motion to strike and to dismiss the Farm Bureau’s complaint. On September 2, 2008, the Circuit Court for Dorchester County granted the MDA’s motion to transfer. ⁴³¹ On September 15, 2008, the MDA filed a motion to consolidate the Farm Bureau’s case with appellants’ action.

The Farm Bureau filed a motion for summary judgment on September 29, 2008. Thereafter, the MDA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and an opposition to the Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment. On October 30, 2008, appellants filed their opposition to the Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment and their motion in support of the MDA’s motion for summary judgment. On November 7, 2008, the Farm Bureau filed a motion for preliminary injunction, requesting that the court prevent the MDA from disclosing the farmers’ information.

A motions hearing was held on December 8, 2008, and on February 19, 2009, the court filed a memorandum opinion and order [hereinafter “2009 order”], which granted the MDA’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and denied the Farm Bureau’s motion for summary judgment. The court: DECLARED, that the [MDA] must disclose [NMP] [s]ummaries that have been maintained by the [MDA] for 3 years or less pursuant to the Public Information Act with the limitation that the [MDA] must redact any and all information from the [NMP] [s]ummaries that may allow for the identification of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared; and it is further DECLARED, that the [MDA] must disclose [NMP] [s]ummaries that have been maintained by the [MDA] for more than three years without any redaction of identifying information unless failure to redact identifying information from [NMP] [summaries that have been held for more than three years would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared with respect to those [NMP] [s]ummaries that have been maintained by the [MDA] for three years or less; and it is further DECLARED, that the [MDA] must redact any information from any documents subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act that are related to [NMPs] if such ⁴³² information would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared with respect to those [NMP] [summaries that have been maintained by the [MDA] for three years or less. On April 2, 2010, one of the appellants, Assateague Coast-keeper, filed a request concerning NMPs and reports regarding any Worcester County farm that violated the provisions of the Water Quality Improvement Act during 2007 through 2010. In response, the MDA “proposed that, instead of providing hard-copies of such records, it could search its database and provide this information more efficiently in a spreadsheet but, to comply with [Agrie.] § 8-801.1(b)(2) and the court’s order, it would be required to redact any plan information.” On September 6, 2010, the Farm Bureau sent a letter to the MDA, stating, “[c]learly, the excel spreadsheets [20] that have been created to respond to the [Public Information Act] request fall into the “any document” category cited by [the] judge....

Clearly, the document is related to nutrient management plans. And clearly, the name, address, zip code, party id [sic], and operator voucher id [sic] number would allow for the identification of the individual for whom a nutrient management plan was prepared.” As a result, the Farm Bureau requested that all identifying information from the spreadsheets be redacted. On September 13, 2010, the Farm Bureau filed a new action against the MDA in the Circuit Court for Worcester County. On September 22, 2010, Assateague Coastkeeper filed a petition for contempt in Anne Arundel County, avowing that the MDA did not permit it to inspect and copy public records in accordance with the court’s 2009 order.

It requested that the court compel the MDA to disclose the NMPs. Thereafter, the MDA filed a motion to transfer the Farm Bureau’s action to Anne Arundel County, and on September 24, 2010, the Circuit Court for Worcester County granted the MDA’s motion to transfer. ⁴³³ On May 2, 2011, the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County dismissed the Farm Bureau’s action, and instructed the MDA not to release any of the contested records. On May 9, 2011, the Farm Bureau filed a motion for clarification of the court’s 2009 order, requesting that “the [c]ourt issue an [o]rder clarifying its February 10, 2009 Memorandum [o]pinion and [o]rder and declar[e] that the [MDA] must redact any fields of information from its [e]xcel spreadsheet that would identify the farmers for whom the nutrient management plans were prepared.” 21 On June 14, 2011, Assateague Coastkeeper and the MDA filed their respective oppositions to the motion for clarification. On July 14, 2011, the court issued its second order [hereinafter “2011 order”], granting the Farm Bureau’s motion for clarification, stating: ORDERED and DECLARED that the [MDA] must redact any information from any documents subject to disclosure under the Public Information Act that are related to [NMPs] if such information would allow for the identification of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared with respect to those [NMP] [summaries that have been maintained by the [MDA] for three years or less.

In applying this standard, the [MDA] must redact only that information ... with a specific [NMP]; and it is further: ORDERED and DECLARED that, as applied to the spreadsheet of enforcement information that the [MDA] will provide to the Assateague Coastkeeper, the [MDA] must redact the following fields of information in their entirety H ...—Visit Type[s], Operation Type[s] I ...—Total Farmed Acres ⁴³⁴ In addition, the [MDA] must review the following fields of information and redact any plan information that could be used to create a linkage between a specific individual and a specific [NMP]: I ...—Compliance Comments * * * and it is further: ORDERED and DECLARED that, in redacting identifying information from [NMP] summaries or annual implementation reports, the [MDA] must redact the entries for name, address, signature, and unique identification number .... IT IS SO ORDERED. (signature omitted) Appellants noted a timely appeal. 22 DISCUSSION Whether The Circuit Court Erred In Permitting Disclosure of NMPs That Were Beyond Three Years While Ordering That The MDA Redact Specific Information. The Water Quality Improvement Act, specifically Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2), provides: (b) Filing with [the MDA],—(1) A summary of each [NMP] shall be filed and updated with the [MDA] at a time and in a form that the [MDA] requires by regulation.

(2) The [MDA] shall maintain a copy of each summary for 3 years in a manner that protects the identity of the individual for whom the [NMP] was prepared. The issue in the case at bar is whether the MDA must maintain NMP documents that are beyond three years to safeguard the general permit applicant’s identity in response to a Public Information Act request regarding disclosure of those NMPs. ⁴³⁵ Pursuant to the Public Information Act, specifically State Gov’t § 10-615, A custodian shall deny inspection of a public record [23] or any part of a public record if: (1) by law, the public record is privileged or confidential; or (2) the inspection would be contrary to: (i) a State statute; (ii) a federal statute or regulation that is issued under the statute and has the force of law; (iii) the rules adopted by the Court of Appeals; or (iv) an order of a court of record. A.) Whether The General Assembly Only Intended To Protect NMP Summaries. It is undisputed that the NMPs in the instant case fell within the purview of a “public record,” so we examine the parties’ contentions.

Appellants maintain that the court erroneously held that any information relating to NMPs were protected because the statute only safeguards identifying information contained in NMP summaries. The MDA avers that nutrient management records are given the same protection as plan summaries. ⁴³⁶ A question regarding statutory interpretation is a legal question, which we review de novo. Harvey v. Marshall, 389 Md. 243, 257 , 884 A.2d 1171 (2005) (citing Mohan v. Norris, 386 Md. 63, 66-67 , 871 A.2d 575 (2005)); see also Davis v. Slater, 383 Md. 599, 604 , 861 A.2d 78 (2004) (Maryland appellate courts review issues de novo to decide if the circuit court was legally correct in its interpretations of the Maryland Code.). “The fundamental goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the [legislature,” Witt v. Ristaino, 118 Md.App. 155, 162 , 701 A.2d 1227 (1997) (citing Oaks v. Connors, 339 Md. 24, 35 , 660 A.2d 423 (1995)), as well as “the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision!)]’ ” Whitley III, et al. v. Maryland State Bd. of Elections, et al., 429 Md. 132, 149 , 55 A.3d 37 (2012) (citing Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172 , 935 A.2d 699 (2007)). To construe the intent, we start by observing the plain meaning of the statutory terminology, Bornemann v. Bornemann, 175 Md.App. 716, 724 , 931 A.2d 1154 (2007) (citing Reier v. State Dept. of Assessments and Taxation, 397 Md. 2, 26 , 915 A.2d 970 (2007)), so that “ ‘no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory!)]’ ” Whitley, 429 Md. at 149 , 55 A.3d 37 . “...

When the plain meaning is clear and unambiguous, and consistent with both the broad purposes ... of the provision being interpreted ...,” we end our search, Assateague Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 709 , 28 A.3d 178 (quoting Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346, 359 , 7 A.3d 13 (2010)) (quoting Schlosser v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 414 Md. 195, 203-04 , 994 A.2d 956 (2010)), except in the “interest of completeness.” See Whitley, 429 Md. at 155 , 55 A.3d 37 . If the language is ambiguous and susceptible to more than one meaning, we examine intent from the legislative history, as well as “case law, purpose, structure, and overarching statutory scheme in aid of searching for the intention of the legislature.” Id. at 149 , 55 A.3d 37 . See also Bornemann, 175 Md.App. at 724 , 931 A.2d 1154 (citing Evans v. State, 396 Md. 256, 341 , 914 A.2d 25 (2006); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kim, 376 Md. ⁴³⁷ 276, 290 , 829 A.2d 611 (2003)).

The overall purpose, legislative history, and the statute’s language is analyzed in its entirety to elucidate the inconsistencies and ambiguities. Assateagus Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 709 , 28 A.3d 178 (quoting Wal Mart Stores, Inc. v. Holmes, 416 Md. 346, 359 , 7 A.3d 13 (2010)) (quoting Schlosser v. Uninsured Employers’ Fund, 414 Md. 195, 203-04 , 994 A.2d 956 (2010)). Furthermore, “‘[w]hen faced with a problem of statutory construction, [the Court of Appeals] [has] show[n] great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration.’ ” Jordan Towing, Inc. v. Hebbville Auto Repair, Inc., 369 Md. 439, 459 , 800 A.2d 768 (2002) (quoting Udall v. Tollman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965)). The Court of Appeals has stated: [A] court’s task on review is not to substitute its judgment for the expertise of those persons who constitute the administrative agency.

Even with regard to some legal issues, a degree of deference should often be accorded the position of the administrative agency. Thus, an administrative agency’s interpretation and application of the statute which the agency administers should ordinarily be given considerable weight by reviewing courts. Assateague Coastkeeper, 200 Md.App. at 709 , 28 A.3d 178 (quoting Headen v. Motor Vehicle Admin., 418 Md. 559, 570 , 16 A.3d 196 (2011)) (quoting Bd. of Physician Quality Assurance v. Banks, 354 Md. 59, 68 , 729 A.2d 376 (1999)) (quotations omitted). We first examine the plain language of Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2), which states that the MDA “shall maintain a copy of each summary for 3 years.... ” Appellants maintain that the statute only pertains to NMP summaries.

The MDA avows that nutrient management records are given the same protection as plan summaries. As Judge Glenn Harrell for the Court of Appeals recently asserted in Whitley, 429 Md. at 155 , 55 A.3d 37 “ ‘[e]ven when the language of a statute is free from ambiguity, in the interest of completeness^] we may ... explore the legislative history of the statute under review ⁴³⁸ ...[.] [T]he resort to legislative history is a confirmatory process; it is not undertaken to contradict the plain meaning of the statute.’ ” (quoting Mayor & City Council of Balt. v. Chase, 360 Md. 121, 131 , 756 A.2d 987 (2000)). As a result, in the case at bar, we examine the legislative history. The origin of Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) is found in the Water Quality Improvement Act.

This landmark legislation offered guidance to other states regarding the control of nutrient levels in waterways. U.S. EPA, Special Focus Issue: Controlling Nutrients [T]hrough State-Based Authorities, Non-point Source News-Notes, May 2012, at 7, available at http:// water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/outreach/upload/91issue.pdf (last visited Apr. 11, 2013). Senate Bill 178 of the 1998 General Assembly was introduced because of the contaminated fish occurrences in Maryland’s Lower Eastern Shore. Dep’t of Legis.

Servs., Revised Fiscal Note, S.B. 178 (1998). This new bill gained opposition from agriculturalists because its purpose was to “replace [the] voluntary, nitrogen-based, agricultural nutrient management program with a phosphorus and nitrogen-based program.” Id. Rural legislators introduced a counter bill, the “Nutrient Management Practices Improvement Act of 1998.” See Amendments to H.B. 599 (Third Reading File Bill), 412th Gen. Assem., Reg.

Sess. (Md.1998). After several compromises regarding both bills, the Water Quality Improvement Act was passed and enacted in May 1998. Dep’t of Legis.

Servs., Revised Fiscal Note, S.B. 178 (1998). When originally enacted, Agrie. § 8-801.1 stated “each nutrient management plan shall be filed with the [MDA] when it is developed; and each time it is updated.” See Amendments to H.B. 599 (Third Reading File Bill), 412th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess.

(Md.1998) (emphasis added) (capital letters and roman numerals omitted). However, in 2004, the General Assembly amended the statute to read “a summary of each nutrient management plan shall be filed and updated with the [MDA] ...” at a time and in a form that the MDA requires by regulation. S.B. 182, 418th Gen. Assem., Reg.

Sess. (Md.2004) (emphasis added) (capital letters omitted). ⁴³⁹ Maryland is not the only state that requires a summary to be filed. Delaware’s regulation concerning pollution from private lands into its watersheds provides that “[t]he homeowner’s association must retain the [NMP] on file and maintain records of nutrient applications. A summary of nutrient application records must be submitted to the Delaware Department of Agriculture, Nutrient Management Program on an annual basis.” Delaware Dep’t of Natural Res. & Envtl.

Control v. Sussex County, 34 A.3d 1087, 1094 (Del.2011). We perceive that the General Assembly may have amended the statute because agricultural plans are voluminous, expensive, and time-consuming. For example, in Goldschmidt v. U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture, 557 F.Supp. 274, 275 (D.D.C.1983), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined whether inspection reports were “investigatory reports compiled for law enforcement purposes” concerning the inspection of meat and poultry, and thereby, exempt from public disclosure when a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request was submitted. Regarding the inspection reports and the summaries, the court stated: Prior to May of 1982, the [Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) ] Review Staff routinely wrote up [inspection location reports] for every establishment reviewed irrespective of whether any serious violations of regulations were found.

The [inspection location report] contained a list of all deficiencies noted by the reviewer, no matter how minor. In May[ ] 1982, that policy was changed. Instead of preparing an [inspection location report] for each establishment reviewed, FSIS Review Staff prepared circuit reports which summarized general conditions in an FSIS circuit. However, if the reviewer noted conditions in a particular plant that posed a “serious” violation of regulations, an individual [inspection location report] would also be prepared and attached to the circuit summary report. ⁴⁴⁰ Id. at 275 .

Hence, it is logical to require “summations or compilations of what the records contain ...” as opposed to extensive documents. Chapman v. State, 331 Md. 448, 461 , 628 A.2d 676 (1993) (citation omitted). More importantly, the authority that the General Assembly delegated to the MDA includes “a broad power to promulgate legislative-type rules or regulations in order to implement the statute.” Adventist Health Care, Inc. v. Maryland Health Care Comm’n, 392 Md. 103, 119 , 896 A.2d 320 (2006) (quoting Christ v. Department of Natural Resources, 335 Md. 427, 445 , 644 A.2d 34 (1994)). The MDA promulgated COMAR 15.20.07.06(A)(4), which states that the MDA “shall keep, and shall protect the confidentiality of, all nutrient management plan information submitted, so as to protect the identity of the person for whom the plan was developed.” (emphasis added).

The MDA asserts that it has applied this regulation to NMP information associated with summaries, but also plan information relating to conducting an on-farm audit. Because our Courts have “frequently give[n] weight to an agency’s experience in interpretation of a statute that it administers,” Cosby v. Dep’t of Human Res., 425 Md. 629, 638 , 42 A.3d 596 (2012), we respect the MDA’s expertise, and defer to its interpretation that nutrient management records must also be safeguarded. B.) Whether The General Assembly Only Intended To Protect Applicant’s Identification For “Three Years.” Concerning the “three years” requirement, appellants maintain that the circuit court erred because Agrie. § 8-801.1(b) “clearly and unambiguously limits its scope to NMP summaries maintained by [the] MDA for three years or less and protects only the identifying information.” The MDA asserts that Agrie. § 8-801.1(b)(2) is silent on the issue, and that disclosing the NMP summaries that are more than three years old is consistent with the Public Information Act. The Farm Bureau argues that “... because many NMPs do not change significantly from one year to the next and if NMP ⁴⁴¹ information were [sic] released to the public after three years, it would be very easy for someone to figure out the identity of the farmers who have current NMPs.” As previously indicated, we explore other sources “ ‘[e]ven when