Has Chesapeake Bay’s Time Finally Come?

After decades of neglect, it appears that a lawsuit settlement and new rules from the Obama Administration could actually start the process of reviving America’s greatest inland sea.
On May 11, a lawsuit spearheaded by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and various Virginia and Maryland watermen’s groups and legislators was settled with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On the next day, the EPA announced a slew of new federal actions that may go far to help resolve pollution issues.
The irony is that the Clean Water Act, a Nixon era law, has been around since 1972 but the EPA has been laggard in enforcing it, especially in the case of the Bay, according to the Bay Foundation. True, point source polluters, such as a Baltimore area steel mill or a Portsmouth chemical plant, have been forced to cut emissions. But the biggest single polluter has so far gone untouched — the big housing subdivision and the storm water runoff it produces. Farms are a problem, especially huge, corporate poultry and hog operations that produce immense amounts of animal waste.
The lawsuit and the new EPA rules will do the following, according to Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the CBF:
  • The EPA will take a “Total Maximum Daily Load” snapshot of what pollutants are actually going into the bay.
  • New federal guidelines will put in place that will restrict storm water runoff from big housing developments. Some sort of trade off or offset might be used as it is for air polluters. According to Epes, if Charles City County approve a 5,000-home subdivision, it will need to cut a like amount of stormwater runoff from another source.
  • New rules for animal waste from farms will be in place by 2014.

The odd thing about the lawsuit and the Obama initiatives is that it basically makes the EPA do the job it is tasked with doing. Despite 38 years of the Clean Water At, the Bay is not discernibly cleaner than before. In fact, new problems have shown up, namely oxygen-starved “dead zones” in the mouths of the York, Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers during the summer not to mention depleted crab, oyster and fish stocks.

To be sure, pollution isn’t the only problem that have reduced tremendously the Bay’s once-rich stocks of oysters. Disease has. Yet programs to introduce new, disease-resistant oyster types haven’t taken off.
Nor have various inter-governmental efforts to do something about the Bay. There have been committees galore among Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania to do something to cut Bay pollution, with little result.
The do-nothing approach reached its high (or low) point with President George W. Bush’s administration. Not only did the EPA get very lazy about the Bay, the Bushies ignored the lawsuit filed by the CBF in 2008. Obama, however, has taken it seriously.
The one unknown factor in the clean-up is how much it will cost. Developers and real estate agents might complain about the extra expensive of dealing with the results of their projects, but many of the mega-subdivisions probably need to be rethought anyway since they create more of a car-centric, sedentary life style with cul-de-sacs that discourage efficient traffic flows and hurt emergency workers trying to get to a person or a house fire.
In any event, it is about time for something to be done with the Bay. The Clean Water Act has done a great deal to restore rivers and streams — something a lot of today’s movers and shakers in their 40s are too young to remember.
Maybe it is the Bay’s turn after all.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

27 responses to “Has Chesapeake Bay’s Time Finally Come?”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    The big "sleeper" on the TMDL approach is UAA – use attainability analysis – yet another govt acronym that basically says if an analysis proves that attainment of a TMDL is economically terrible that the EPA will write a waiver.

    Of course every municipality and their dog (deveopers) is hot on the UAA trail for storm water.

    But the bigger problem is that in order to put a TMDL in place, you have to have actual science – i.e. water quality data – as opposed to a model that says it's so.

    You can count on the municipal and development community to require proof of the actual numbers and to require proof that the specified technologies will produced the target reductions.

    And I agree.

    I do not believe that we can go tell a municipality to do 100 million dollars worth of upgrades without some evidence of need and what that technology will accomplish in terms of reductions.

    so you can pretty much bet that most are going to demand a UAA before the TMDL allocations are made permanent.

    this is all inside baseball to most folks.. even activists who blindly advocate for the reductions and have no clue of the costs or the results.

    here's an article that examples the UAAs:

    " Local governments concerned about funding as TMDLs move forward"

    http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=3816

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We can only hope.

    I rather doubt that we have a true systemwide approach in place to do the job, or the will to spend the money it will really take. As EMR points out, that money is likely to be increasingly expensive to get.

    As you point out, a new development will have to find offsets. Under this plan, whether it is eventually built or not, no improvement is made. The older developments continue to run off their merry way.

    The Bay is a tremendous resource, and unfortunately one of its values is as a receptacle for silt, and a cauldron for bioreaction of waste. That has always been so and isn't going to change until we repeal gravity, and thermodynamics.

    The Bay is a dynamic system,and it is going to change shape, shoreline and depth. We are foolish to think we can somehow preserve it in an unchanged condition forever, so we need to find a way to concede gracefully to what we call (alarmingly) erosion.

    What can we do that makes sense? I'm sure I don't know, but I'd like to live long enough to sail on the Bay and get a face full of spray that doesn't taste like a chemical factory.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    another govt acronym that basically says if an analysis proves that attainment of a TMDL is economically terrible that the EPA will write a waiver.

    You can't afford to spend more to fix the problem than the problem costs. Not unless you want to steal value from someone else whose problem you CAN fix, and for less money.

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    It's always struck me that the Chesapeake Bay is not the only Bay and it's not the only Bay with development and it's not the only bay with the kinds of development that occur in other watersheds.

    Yet – we treat the Bay as if it's problem are Unique in the Nation and I'm not at all convinced that the Chesapeake Bay is THAT unique unless someone can provide the data that demonstrates it's uniqueness.

    TMDLs are not just with respect to the Chesapeake Bay.

    TMDLs are being implemented nation-wide on a variety of rivers and bays – quite a few of them ALSO at risk from nitrogen and phosphorous as well as other things – like e. coli (yes there is a TMDL for e coli as well as other substances).

    The nitrogen and phosphorous, apparently IS a candidate for pollution credits although it is beyond me how if the total load already exceeds what is considered healthy.

    The assumption seems to be that some places will do such a good job of reducing the concentrations that they'll have enough left over to sell credits.

    Good luck with that as I've yet to see a single example of it.

    In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a river segment with a Before and After data set.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    TMDL in place, you have to have actual science – i.e. water quality data – as opposed to a model that says it's so.

    Only partly true. You take some samples and compare it to a model. Aircraft engines manage their overhaul schedule this way. You
    take an oil sample and compare it to a model that predicts when the engine will fail.

    You just have to have a validated model. the saying goes that all models are wrong, but some are useful.

    You do not have to monitor a stream for a hundred years before you can make pretty good predictions based on rainfall and other events.

    Larry is right though, it would be better if we started sooner.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "TMDLs are being implemented nation-wide on a variety of rivers and bays "

    Yep. Expect a new kind of property right to develop wherein people buy and sell TMDL rights.

    The sooner you establish these the sooner people willget serious about protecting their TMDL's

    RH

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You can't afford to spend more to fix the problem than the problem costs. Not unless you want to steal value from someone else whose problem you CAN fix, and for less money. "

    how much does the pollution cost at a given point?

    isn't it the totality of the concentrations in the Bay from all sources that is the problem?

    Isn't that what the EPA intends to do – to figure out each river's contribution an then to cut the amount that the river can put into the bay and then go upstream and allocate on that basis?

    The UAAs will essentially do what you are saying.

    They will determine what the nitrogen/phosphorous levels are for a given segment.. and then how much it will cost to reduce those levels to the target level and somewhere in the middle of that, someone will conclude that the costs to meet the allocated numbers is or is not too much but on what basis?

    how much is too much for a given segment if the goal is to reduce each segment so that the aggregate contributions do not exceed the Bay TMDL?

    this will not be easy.

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    although it is beyond me how if the total load already exceeds what is considered healthy.

    Establish a cap and then gradually lower it to acceptable levels.

    The danger is that as the cap goes down government revenues go up. combine that with some people's inane insistence on zero pollution and you have a recipe for setting "acceptable limits" too low, with the result that the price of discharge rights (and everything that depends on them) are too high.

    Total Cost goes up.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " an then to cut the amount that the river can put into the bay and then go upstream and allocate on that basis?"

    I hope so. They can start tomorrow.

    I'm at the very tip top of the watrershed. I contribute nothing in BOD or chemical runoff, and only naturally occurring sediment load.

    They can give me my fair allocation of costs (benefits) based on area and I'll sell it to help stay in business.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    someone will conclude that the costs to meet the allocated numbers is or is not too much but on what basis?

    You don't listen to anything, do you?

    It is like any other market. If you can "buy" a reduction in one area for less than the same reduction will cost you in another segment (store), where will you spend your money first?

    It isn't that the reduction won't occur, it is where can you get it cheapest?

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "how much does the pollution cost at a given point?"

    There are two prices. One is how much it costs to fix, and the other is how much damage does it really do.

    We know hopw much the Bay used to produce. Call that pristine conditions, even if it actually wasn't.

    We know what it produces now, and what the conditions are.

    Divide the delta in conditions by the delta in production to get a gross number = cost of problem.

    Clost of cleanu is an engineering problem, we know how to do that.

    You act as if the cost of pollution is infinite or that we can never know the cost, and it isn't true.

    On the other hand, youcan ignore that issue. Once you make a decision to accept a cleanup cost, then you have DECLARED a coresponding cost for whaever amount you cleaned up.

    Now all you have to do is decide which areas get you the most bang for your buck. If you run out of money before you get to the desired result, well guess what?

    You can't afford what you really want, and you have to live with the results.

    But you REALLY can never expect to get close to affording what you want, or the best overall result, if you insist on spending "whatever it takes" every time a problem is discovered.

    RH

  12. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    BEFORE you can have a market, you have to decide how much the actual reductions will cost or else you'll be selling the credits for less than the actual cost of the cleanup and the whole thing will fail at it's avowed purpose.

    It's not the market that's the point – it's the targets.

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you're ASSUMING that the upstream locations are not already overloaded with nitrogen and phosphorous – what if they are and you are included in those that must reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the runoff from your property?

    then what?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The assumption seems to be that some places will do such a good job of reducing the concentrations that they'll have enough left over to sell credits.

    That's a problem isn't it?

    What about those that did such a good job of reducing pollution that they never had any?

    Runoff credits are going to have to be fairly allocated as EMR would say. That's going to mean using a model to figure the hypothetical natural runoff for a parcel. Total allowable pollution load for the bay would then be allocated to each parcel.

    Under that plan I would get an allowance, that I have never used, and could sell.

    But those that built badly would get an allowance that is insufficient, and and they would have to buy.

    Like I said, as a SYSTEM problem we haven't scratched the surface yet.

    A similar problem happens with land use. Those old families that were most successful at conserving the longest now get cut out of the equation and suffer the most.

    This is where I part company with EMR on what he calls fair allocation of costs.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you're ASSUMING that the upstream locations are not already overloaded with nitrogen and phosphorous "

    It doesn't matter; you still only want to spend money where you can get reduction the cheapest.

    I'm not assuming anything.

    Except maybe that we already know the system as a whole is overloaded.

    ===============================

    What's going to happen is that I won't get any credits, because there is no "reduction" to be had.

    That is a really lousy and unfair argument when it comes to fair allocation of costs (benefits).

    RH

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    – what if they are and you are included in those that must reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the runoff from your property?

    I have no runoff except naturally occuring. I basically have no one up stream. Some of tha actual source for wate in the bay originates from springs here.

    But assume you are right, you measure waterf below me and find it is contaminataed. You run the water model on my property and practices and comnpare it with the water model for the hog farm above me and his practices, and allocate accordingly.

    You think this is magic or undoable but it isn't. I worked on a model to predict the movement of toxic plumes in an urban canyon environment.

    Then we went to a city and actually released chemicals we could trace and collected samples all over the city.

    We got good results.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    what if they are and you are included

    How could they expect me to reduce? I'm not doing anything.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    OK, maybe nitrogen is falling on my property from trucks on 66 and power plants in Ohio.

    They shouild be paying me for that privilege.

    Hey, fair allocation of costs and benefits.

    RH

  19. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It's not the market that's the point – it's the targets.

    You are putting the cart before th horse.

    This is EXACTLY like saying that you can afford to spend whatever it takes, an infinite amount even, to meet the targets.

    That is obviously impossible.

    Youmay not be able to meet the targets, but you still want to do the most you can for the least amount.

    You ALSO want the best production for whatever pollution you get. That way you can afford to spend more.

    Monsanto produces a lot more money per acre than I do, and they can afford to pay me a high price for runoff credits: more than the corner grocery.

    Markets solve both those problems.

    RH

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    My wife feeds the birds, and they get premium food.

    There is a goldfinch outside my window that is so brilliantly colored he is blinding to look at.

    You can bill me for the goldfinch nitrogen that gets to the Bay.

    RH

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I think right now there are more questions than answers and that you and I might well be premium topsoil by the time they get it figured ot.

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Exactly.

    I'm like the old guy on the bench at the beach. I like to watch and I'm amused by all the random activity, but I don't get too excited.

    One thing will never change. Until the day I am topsoil I will look any Fauquier official in the eye and tell them that I think they helped steal from my wife (and others like her) for no good reason.

    It is really pretty simple as I see it. If you want me to be here doing things you like to see done, then you need to find some way to help me prosper, instead of the opposite.

    RH

  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    your rant is as moribund as you will be when you are topsoil, eh?

    someone done you wrong when instead they should have "helped" you prosper?

    how's that?

    how about "helping" me to prosper?

    😉

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    They (county government) made promises they welched on. Written promises.

    Gentlemen don't do that.

    They claim they want to save "our" farms. One reason is to help save the Bay. Another reason is basically free money to them.

    I don't expect anything more, or anything less than what is fair, and by their own statements, I'm not getting it.

    If they want something they should do something in that regard, other than merely saying what they want. Instead they simply lied to my wife (and others like her), and stole from them.

    My life and my fortune is separate. I got what I earned and built and kept, so I have no complaints.

    But what happened to her and others I know is simply wrong. No amount of EMRish spin on the facts or elaborate rationalization will convince me otherwise. Ever.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    From the New York Times. "U.S. Said to Allow Drilling Without Needed Permits" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14agency.html

    TMT

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And now we find the leak is ten times worse than originally estimated.

    So far, it has only killed eleven people, unlike the plane crash in Libya.

    Which one is worse, and which onw is more likely to be fixed?

    I'm pretty certainn that theyeill dig into the Libyan disaster until they find the ROOT CAUSE.

    It might be inadequate nav sytems and mornig haze, but I doubt it.

    Given the A300's prvevipous problems I would bet on a suddden catastrophic failure of some composite. However, truly catastrophic failure would have prevented the pilots Mayday.

    The Gulf oil rig had no Mayday.

    That is why I'm betting the airplane disater gets solved first, and that therfe willbe nothing [exactly] like it again.

    Just like the Long Island fuel tank disaster, and a long string of previous disasters leading all the way back to the Comet.

    Ever wonder why airplane windows are oval?

    RH

    RH

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why should I help you to prosper?

    I'm not the one telling you that youhave to apay twice as much taxes as you cost me.

    I'm not asking you to landscape 180of your acres to my specifications.

    I'm not the one borrowing $900 per acre, AT ZERO INTEREST, from you while limiting your gain to $50 PER ACRE.

    Get real, for once.

    RH

Leave a Reply