Less Theory, More Action Items, Please!

On review of the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) drafts submitted earlier this month, the general consensus thus far indicates a lack of concrete goals forming actual plans, little to no consideration of implementation funding, and an overall lack of commitment to the project on behalf of the states involved. The documents contain good theories and lists of existing programs, but no one seems to have really stepped up to the plate and aggressively addressed the issue of mandated pollution reduction aiming at achieving consistency with the Federal Clean Water Act which has been more or less ignored when convenient since 1972 when it was organized into its current incarnation.

Organizations and individual states have been trying to improve the Chesapeake Bay for decades, but making slow, irregular progress. A study by the USGS released September 15th proves that a unified effort is needed to make true positive headway towards clean water. New methods of analysis show that improvement in some rivers is negated by decline in others. If all the parties responsible are regularly informed of their neighbors’ processes and all parties are held to the same standards by a higher authority, then and only then will Bay water become substantially less of a risk and more of a resource.

In press releases, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) offers some criticism of the existing WIPs and encourages the public to take part in the open comment period, which will last from September 24 to November 8. There is a definite theme in the comments. In her review of the MD WIP, Jenn Aiosa, Senior Scientist at the CBF Maryland Office praises strengthening requirements for stormwater permits, but cites “lack of clear delineation of the changes in practices and programs necessary to guarantee that pollution reductions will occur.” From the CBF Pennsylvania Office, Matthew Ehrhart, Executive Director, chastises the PA WIP as “largely a summary of programs and initiatives that already exist.” He continues to exhort PA (and the rest of the involved parties) to work together in an attempt to remedy the damage civilization has inflicted on the Bay. Ehrhart reminds the states of their responsibility to contribute to a solution and of the potential consequences to be faced by those who shirk their duty.

The Virginia Office of CBF says some good theories are presented in the VA WIP, but calls the plan “stunningly deficient” in offering up any practical applications to execute said theories. Even before the Bay TMDL is finalized, laws are being proposed and debated that will impact the effectiveness of the document. The VA Farm Bureau is even now planning to send representatives to protest Senate Bill 1816, proposed modifications to the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009, legislation that obviously relates to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. According to WTVR CBS 6 out of Richmond, VA, although they plan to protest "heavy handed" restoration initiatives "the Farm Bureau says Virginia farmers are committed to doing their share to clean the bay." They are supporting an alternative, House Resolution 5509, the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization and Improvement Act. The Bay TMDL is supposed to equitably address the concerns and define the responsibilities of vastly conflicting interests; I don't see how it's going to manage, especially without fully vested involvement by the state governments involved.
Despite the convictions of groups like the CBF or the VA Farm Bureau, who are "in the know" as it were, I fear that there isn't enough force propelling the necessary changes into being.  I am amazed by the lack of general media coverage pertaining to this issue, considering how many millions of people will be impacted by legislature that regulates the Chesapeake Bay watershed. There needs to be a much stronger public outcry to draw attention to this project now, while it's in the early stages, so that no one can say later that they didn't know.  There are multiple public meetings planned in locations throughout the watershed. I can only hope that enough regular people attend to attract some media coverage. Then maybe the political machine will realize that people do care about their water and are willing to make changes to improve it.