Chesapeake restoration derailed after 37 years
As a state senator still inmy 30s, Iwas one of 700 optimistic participants gathered in Virginia on Dec. 9, 1983 for a conference leading to the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
Bay state governors and the EPA signed the one-page agreement solemnly committing to begin the restoration of the bay.
This commitment was driven by sharp declines in the bay’s water quality and living resources linked to excessive nutrients and sediment. Reducing their flows has been at the core of restoration efforts.
Those attending would not have thought it possible that 37 years later the Chesapeake would still be degraded and critical living resources in decline. It is depressing we are at such a low ebb for this great estuary in which I grewup swimming and fishing.
In1984, PresidentRonaldReagan pledged to “begin the long, necessary effort to clean up … a special national resource — the Chesapeake Bay.”
He allocated $10 million to establish the EPA Bay Program headquartered in Annapolis.
Subsequent bay agreements required 40% nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reductions for each state. When the states repeatedly failed to meet these voluntary reductions, a lawsuit forced the EPA to establish mandatory nutrient and sediment caps for bay states in 2010 with 60% of reductions to be met by 2017 and 100% by 2025.
When most all states failed to meet these reductions in 2017, EPAagain refused to take action to enforce the Clean Water Act as President Donald Trump’s administration tried to defund/collapse the entire Bay Program. Several states sued EPA and Pennsylvania and New York for failure to meet CleanWaterAct requirements.
OnNov. 20, the EPA’s attorneys sought to dismiss the lawsuit claiming Bay cleanup plans are only planning documents and not legally binding.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a plaintiff, noted that if EPA succeeds, the bay and its rivers will never be saved. With the house of cards collapsing, we could revert to the failed voluntary system.
Failure to meet pollutant reductions has consequences: flesh-eating infections in humans from Bay water contact; half of the Bay’s waters remain severely degraded; collapsed fisheries — oysters, shad, and soft clams; rockfish numbers in serious decline; bay grasses, an essential living resource, declining by 38% in 2019 and at only 36% of the 185,000 acres pledged by the states in 2000; and many toxic hot spots remaining. So, whatwent wrong? The EPA refused and continues to refuse to impose sanctions on states for failure to meet pollution limits. This is like establishing speed limits and never enforcing them.
The states failed miserably to rein in pollutants from increasingly intensive agricultural operations responsible for 59% of nitrogen, 45% of phosphorus, and 48% of sediment. The states also failed to substantially reduce pollutants from developed areas and septic tanks and to control forest loss.
The cooperative bi-partisanship that fueled clean-up efforts by Democrats and Republicans has evaporated leading to a
leadership void paralyzing needed changes.
A stasis has set in with environmental groups and even some scientists where money seems to dominate, preventing science-based advocacy as policy-makers refuse to take the tough but necessary steps to restore the bay.
The restoration proved more difficult than anticipated with the population growing from 13 million to 18 million in the bay watershed.
Decision-makers and some environmental groups resort to Green Washing where half-measures of little impact are lauded, and successes claimed to satisfy voters or donors. Gov. LarryHogan claimed his effort “resulted in a ChesapeakeBay that is cleaner than it has been in recorded history.” This deserves 4 Pinocchios. Maryland and Virginia failed to accomplish the pledged 10-fold increase in the Bay cleansing oyster population, abandoning this goal while continuing to allow harvesting of wild oysters as the population has collapsed. Whatwent right? The original 1983 bay study and subsequent science-based updates documented what needs to be done to restore the bay. The bay program and its $73 million in funding have brought bay states together to reduce pollutants.
Massive nutrient reductions from sewerage treatment and industrial discharges are the greatest success. Remarkably, from1985 to2018, wastewater nitrogenwas reducedby 61% despite five millionmore residents! This took billions of dollars — $1.6 billion alone from Maryland’s Flush Tax. In watersheds dominated by wastewater flows, water quality has improved.
Air emissions were significantly reduced, the source of 30% of nitrogen pollution. Tightened Clean Air Act requirements for motor vehiclesandpower plants are responsible.
The Bay Program and collective efforts of the states has resulted in a cleaner Bay than if we had not acted. But does the political will exist to turn the tide and take the requisite actions to restore the Chesapeake Bay or will it die a death of a thousand cuts?