Resolutions for the bay

By David Berry

12/29/2009

If the Chesapeake Bay could ask us to make a couple of New Year's resolutions on its behalf, what would they be? My feeling is that the bay's list would be short, but difficult to fulfill.

The first resolution would be that each of the roughly 16 to 17 million people who live in the bay watershed would recognize how fortunate we all are to be the stewards of this country's most important estuary and that each of us would commit to doing one bay friendly thing during 2010.

The act could be as simple as fixing the leaking fluids on our car or planting a tree. Boaters would pledge to faithfully use the holding tanks on their vessels and use the pump out stations at their local marinas. Marina owners would realize it's to their advantage to not only invest in more pump outs, but that their goal should be achieving Green Marina status in 2010.

Farmers would stop playing the victim and take the necessary steps toward reducing nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from their fields and feedlots. Developers would recognize that blaming the farmers for all the ills of the Chesapeake is bad business and make the environmentally and financially sound decision to build, or rebuild, their projects with bay friendly surfaces and plantings.

Hard as it may be for all these groups to make and stick to these resolutions, recent history suggests the second item on the Chesapeake Bay's list of New Year resolutions may be far harder.

That resolution would be that the six states in the watershed, the District of Columbia, and the federal government stop pointing fingers at each other and work together toward the common goal they all claim to want, a revitalized Chesapeake Bay.

At least for a while, that seemed to be happening. Last winter, the region's governors sent a letter to President Barack Obama requesting that he issue a presidential executive order declaring the bay a "national treasure" and, among other things, direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to use its authority under the Clean Water Act "to the maximum extent possible" to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

The EPA said it would develop a new, more regulatory cleanup plan known as a Total Maximum Daily Load that would put the Chesapeake on a nutrient diet. Governors volunteered to do their part by setting two-year cleanup goals, or milestones, so they could be held accountable for their actions in the near-term, rather than relying on distant goals set a decade or more in the future when someone else would be sitting in their chairs.

Obama issued the executive order on May 12, pledging to provide new federal leadership on the bay and directing agencies to prepare plans showing how they would step up their activities. This fall, the agencies released draft strategies to comply with that directive, showing how the EPA could exert its muscle and how other agencies could improve public access to the bay and its tributaries, help the region adapt to climate change, protect important landscapes and a host of other activities.

But there's some evidence this new spirit of commitment has begun to fray. When the EPA talked tough about setting new regulations for animal feedlots, a significant source of bay pollution, some states fired back, saying thanks, but no thanks, that they could do a better job themselves. The EPA backed off its tough talk on agriculture. This would not be the first time the federal government talked tough and ultimately failed to act.

And now that the tab is coming due, states are asking for more than federal leadership. They're looking for federal cash. In November, Governors Tim Kaine of Virginia and Martin O'Malley of Maryland fired off a letter to Obama saying federal assistance is "absolutely essential" to carry out the new plans. They asked for $365 million in federal help. Without it, they said, "the bay will continue to face stagnating or deteriorating ecological conditions, decreasing economic value, and increasing restoration costs."

To be fair, the "new era of federal leadership" didn't come with much federal cash. Under a new administration initiative, the EPA is getting $475 million in 2010 to help restore water quality in the Great Lakes. In contrast, EPA's budget for the Chesapeake Bay is increasing from $30 million to $50 million.

The translation; the bay is getting lower on the political priority lists. It's been seven months since President Obama's executive order and we seem, once again, to be drifting away from bay cleanup goals after bold action was promised by all parties involved in the restoration effort.

The New Year's resolution the Chesapeake Bay wants is simple; as much fun as political posturing may be, it's time to work together toward a common goal. Six states, the District of Columbia and the EPA moving in the same direction is strength; eight entities moving in different directions is a waste of time and money.

The Chesapeake Bay can't afford to wait.