They Doth Protest Too Much...?

The weakest WIPs were submitted by West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware. Virginia’s WIP requires moderate amounts of adjustments, while Maryland and Washington, DC need only minor modification to attain the standards expected by the EPA. Across the board, the deficits reflect a lack of commitment to enforcement and unwillingness to devise a strategy to promote improvements. The weak states rely heavily on pollution trading (where one factory eliminates more than its share of pollutants and applies its excess ‘credits’ to another factory which cannot meet the minimum requirements) but provide no viable regulation to measure, track or enforce these trades. The language used in the WIPs was also vague and nebulous, with no dates or processes specified. In some instances, the WIP indicates a strategy on which the EPA requires clarification, because the implementation outlined doesn’t jive with the plan as defined according to EPA representatives at the Washington, DC public meeting.

In the slide show presented at the public meetings/webinars, Rich Batiuk, Chesapeake Bay Program Associate Director for Science and Bob Koroncai, Chesapeake Bay TMDL Manager repeatedly emphasize why the EPA is implementing the TMDL and how much they want the DC, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia (the States) to be full contributors to the development of the TMDL. This is not some pet project that they have undertaken on a whim. They are legally obliged to pursue this project by the Clean Water Act, Chesapeake 2000, a consent order from Washington, DC and Virginia, and a lawsuit settlement between EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation as well as the recent Presidential Executive Order. Many people are questioning the timing; why pursue such an aggressive project in such a short time frame during a time of economic uncertainty? As to timing, having the TMDL on the books by December 31, 2010 is simply the starting point. The EPA is trying to create a comprehensive roadmap that will lead the States from the present into a future with less pollution. There are two-year milestones by which progress will be measured, and the document will be reviewed in 2011 to ensure that it is meeting the needs of the States and their constituents. The deadlines in place were agreed upon years ago, and most of the states have been collecting data that is pertinent to formulating the TMDL for decades.

Meeting the requirements is not an unreasonable request, and opponents who say the EPA is bullying them into submission are overlooking the fact they have every opportunity to contribute in order to be represented. Farmers are citing that EPA isn’t taking all the factors into account. They need to get a hold of their state’s DEP to ensure that the ‘missing’ information is being presented to the EPA. One state’s WIP didn’t include a full list of Waste Water Treatment Plants (WWTP), a major point-source contributor to any waterbody. Koroncai defended the need for full disclosure by reminding the attendees that if a WWTP (or other problematic area) is discovered after the TMDL is implemented, that source may be held to stricter regulations because it will be considered “new,” whereas existing structures get a little bit of leniency based on when they were built and what regulations get grandfathered over from previous mitigations. Some responsibility needs to fall on the shoulders of the individuals to ensure that they are not being misrepresented in the official document.



A view of the Atlantic Ocean from Ocean City, MD.
Photographer: S. Kiernan



The basic premise that the EPA is operating under is “The more you impair, the more you repair.” They want to be fair in their regulations, for the benefit of everyone in the watershed. It’s not just about the Chesapeake Bay, though that is the unifying factor. Enjoyment of clean water is a privilege taken for granted by Americans on a daily, if not hourly, basis. Last spring, a local water main broke, leaving me and thousands of my neighbors without running water for over 48 hours. With an infant to care for, I was instantaneously more sympathetic to the millions of people across the world who don’t have running water, or if they do, can’t trust its quality. Clean water sources provide more than sanitation and hydration, however. Swimming, fishing, crabbing, clamming, canoeing, kayaking, sailing, jet skiing, even just sitting on a beach: these are recreational activities which we rely on to improve our quality of life, all of which depend on clean water, and these privileges are enjoyed by average citizens, in whose interest the government is supposed to act.



The National Aquarium in Baltimore, across Baltimore Harbor
from a park in the pleasant Federal Hill neighborhood.
Photographer: S. Kiernan



After attending two public meetings via webinar, I have been surprised by two facts and been supported in my initial supposition that there are factors even more powerful than ignorance and laziness to oppose the TMDL on principle. First off, the impact of air pollution on the Chesapeake Bay was something I had never considered. EPA is currently tightening up the regulations on air pollution as well, and has already factored it into the TMDL. I was also surprised to see what a proportionately massive impact Maryland contributes to pollution in the Bay. Geographically, it’s such a small area; I didn’t take into account the dense population and heavy agricultural use of the remaining open space.

Based on the questions posed by attendees at the webinars, I continue to predict that the greatest opposition to the TMDL will come from representatives of the agriculture industry, and propose the following hard line approach to address several problems simultaneously. The EPA found all the States’ WIPs to be lacking in funding strategy. No one seems to be able to come up with a way to fund new implementation strategies or expand existing programs that are already making a difference. In New Zealand (which has a much more ag-based economy than the US), they did away with government farm subsidies in 1984, against great opposition at first. Farmers adapted, changed their techniques, diversified their crops, created niche markets and are now more profitable than they were before. Well, the USDA hands out $10-30 billion in subsidies to farmers annually in various forms of payments, loans, and insurance.  But who is actually getting this money?

Originally intended to help small farmers and support rural communities in times of hardship, agriculture subsidies have become yet another vehicle to drive money to the banks of the wealthy. It has the same flaws as the welfare system: designed to help out in a pinch, people have discovered how to make a living off it without making any attempt to return to self-sufficiency. Should we do away with the entire system? I don’t think so, as there are people who just need a hand every now and then. But there are certainly loopholes that need to be investigated and closed, or alternatives to explore that are more sustainable and more environmentally friendly, to boot. Reporters from The Washington Post identified $15 billion in wasteful government spending on the agriculture industry. I say we put that money into funding the initiatives in the TMDL. Even if it doesn’t cover everything (as there is currently no cost estimates for the program), it would be a significant contribution to the kitty.