And What If We Don't?

Part of my concern with the viability of this project is defining the repercussions for not abiding by the new rules. Who will be responsible for supplying enforcement? When will the ‘higher power’ step in? The EPA, with full initial support from all involved, created an aggressive timeline planning to yield a final document by December 2010 which would define benchmarks by which progress could be measured as early as 2012. This is a huge step towards achieving the goals set forth by the Chesapeake Executive Council to designing and implementing nutrient and sediment controls by 2025 (perhaps an enthusiastic response to new federal legislature due to the failure to achieve goals set out in Chesapeake 2000: A Watershed Partnership).

I found the punitive definitions in an official letter to the Secretary of Natural Resources from the Regional Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from December 2009. According to the letter, the six states involved and Washington, DC (States) will be responsible for formulating and enacting Watershed Implementation Plans which will lead them toward self-defined two-year-goals. If the EPA finds a State lacking in progress, they are prepared to: revamp the current regulation of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits to be more inclusive and under more stringent Federal oversight, pay more attention to all sources of pollutants in the watershed (including air pollution), base future funding on “demonstrated progress” towards reducing nutrient and sediment pollution, and hold localities to federal standards of water quality if the local laws aren’t adequate. If the States do not address their load allocations adequately in the drafts, EPA reserves the right to establish appropriate requirements in the final document. Also, they plan to potentially hold point sources (water treatment facilities, factories, etc.) responsible for more than their “fair” share of pollutants. New facilities or expansions of existing ones may be required to offset more pollutants than they anticipate discharging. EPA also may expect point sources to offset enough to compensate for non-point sources (agriculture, urban run-off, etc.) which will be unable to guarantee a reduction in their load.

Pollution Entering the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Photo: Chesapeake Foundation

Is this fair to the factory owner? Personally, I don’t think so, but I’m sure the dairy farmers of Pennsylvania will be relieved. Point sources are easy targets because they are so well-defined and can be monitored and measured relatively accurately. Non-point sources are where I feel more emphasis should be placed, if only because they pose a greater challenge and will take longer to address due to their nebulous nature.

Amish Dairy Farm
Photo: Ad Meskens