Citizens are hot about more than health care
It was standing room only last night at the town hall meeting in Annapolis, and the crowd was hot. Feelings ran high.
This forum wasn't about health insurance reform, but about restoring the Chesapeake Bay. People attending were concerned, worried, even upset. Voices were raised at times, but no one got shouted down, not even the representative of the Obama administration who spoke. Not even when he suggested that more regulations, not fewer, may be needed to bring the bay back to vitality.
"We have to look at game-changing solutions,'' said J. Charles Fox, pictured at right, special advisor to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator for the bay.
Fox drew applause. The crowd of about 350 there weren't demanding that the federal government keep its hands off their bay. They wanted more, not less, federal muscle to stem a rising tide of pollution from population growth and development. Speakers complained of lack of local and state enforcement of laws and regulations to prevent sediment and stormwater pollution. and an unwillingness to crack down on illegal waterfront building and clearing.
"Where are you guys?" demanded Paul Spadaro of the Magothy River Association, which has waged a long-running and so-far fruitless legal battle over a home built on Little Dobbin Island in the river. Though environmentalists contend the development is counter to the state's Critical Area law meant to protect the bay from harmful waterfront building, Anne Arundel County has allowed the residence, in some cases issuing after-the-fact approvals for work already done.
Others complained about waterfront housing development in Annapolis, which they say has stripped all the vegetation to the water's edge on a tributary of the Severn River.
"Every time it rains, streams of sediment pour into Saltworks Creek," complained Fred Kelly, the Severn Riverkeeper. He complained that Anne Arundel County improperly approved the development with inadequate runoff pollution controls, and now won't come inspect the damage. The Severn, he noted, flows through the state's capital on its way to the bay.
"If we can't clean up the capital river of the state of Maryland, what the hell are we doing here?" he challenged.
Voices were raised from elsewhere around the state, too. One speaker warned about pollution-laden sediment building up behind Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River, waiting for the next big storm to flush it into the bay and kill the rebounding underwater grasses there.
Another warned about a proposal to lay power lines under the bay to furnish enough electricity to the Delmarva Peninsula for hundreds of thousands of more homes than are currently there. Others voiced concerns over the state's approval of a new nuclear reactor proposed at Calvert Cliffs, and over the state's policy of killing mute swans to protect bay grasses and other waterfowl.
But the recurring concerns were about development.
"The folks who are in charge of local land use and zoning are not listening," said Vernice Miller-Travis, vice chair of the Maryland Commission on Environmental Justice and Sustainable Communities. She contended that Prince George's County is approving virtually any development proposed in a "diabolical quest to get a freaking Nordstroms," the upscale department store.
"If the bay is going to be saved, the federal government has got to be willing to draw a line in the sand," said William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, one of the meeting's organizers, who spoke before the crowd got its chance.
Baker, whose Annapolis-based environmental group has sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to do more to restore the bay, argued that the federal government needs to block any new growth around the bay until the pollution already fouling the water has been cleaned up. At the least, the federal government needs to threaten a moratorium to get states to act, he said.
The meeting at St. Philips Episcopal Church in Annapolis was called by environmental groups to give the public a chance to tell the federal government what it ought to be doing to restore the bay. President Obama issued an executive order in May directing federal agencies to take a greater role in leading the cleanup effort, and he gave them until Sept. 9 to come up with ideas for doing that. He and Brad Heavner of Environment Maryland urged the public to makes its wishes known, to give regulators "backbone,'' as another speaker put it.
Fox, EPA's representative, didn't spell out what federal officials have in mind. But he pointed out that only about 40 percent of all sources of pollution fouling the bay are regulated by any level of government.
'We have to find a way to build in more accountability," he said. Runoff of fertilizer and manure from farmland still produces about half of all the nutrient pollution fouling the bay, he noted, and there isn't enough money especially in the curent economic crisis to pay farmers to take steps to control it. He suggested more regulation of agriculture may be needed.
But the more worrisome threat, he said, is development, which continues to grow as a source of bay pollution. He said "very stringent'' new development and redevelopment standards are needed, and ways must be found to reduce stormwater pollution from existing development.
A Web site has just been set up, Fox, noted, to take public comment on the federal role in the bay restoration. You can find it here. The agencies' draft recommendations will be posted there as well when submitted on Sept. 9.
Rev. Rick Edmund, Methodist pastor for Smith Island, who was among the panel of invited speakers, reminded the audience that the stakes are high. He said, only half-jokingly, that the perspiring crowd jammed into the church, overwhelming its air conditioning, was bigger than the population of the traditional watermen's community he ministers to in the middle of the bay. Its population is a fraction of what it used to be, and only about 100 of the islanders still fish for a living.
"We need to do something if we're going to preserve someting for those that come after us,'' Edmund said. "We've tried the voluntary part - that doesn't seem to be working,'' he added, referring to the 26-year cleanup effort begun as a largely volutnary partnership between the states, the federal and local governments.
"What is going to be our legacy?" the minister asked. "What are people (in succeeding generations) going to think of what we did or didn't do for the health of the Chesapeake Bay?"
Comments
What are the names of the homeowners? Who got them the permits? If houses are being built in sensitive areas, somebody's working the system to make that happen, and it ain't cheap.
Posted by: Don | August 12, 2009 5:26 PM
OK, ignore my last comment. Found an article on Mr. Wagner.
More power to him.
Posted by: Don | August 12, 2009 5:33 PM
Tim, thanks for your article - I think you've captured the sense of frustration and emotion that I also witnessed.
My take-away from this meeting: there's a lot of folks out there with a very passionate belief that Bay remains in serious trouble. Furthermore, there was also a widespread sense of frustration at the lack of backbone at *all* levels of government in addressing the true issues behind the decline.
It struck me as an honest-to-goodness "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" moment... I think our politicians would be wise to take note.
Posted by: Johnny Oyster Seed | August 13, 2009 8:50 PM
Why is new development the only target of environmentalists? What about pollution contributions from older developed areas such as Baltimore City, and what about contributions from agriculture? Those contributions are huge, you know. Why are they never mentioned to the public by these groups and regulators? Why?????
TW: A good question, David. Because we notice what's new more often than what's always been there? Maybe also because muddy runoff from construction sites is glaring, while the stormwater runoff from existing pavement is less visibly polluted. EPA's Chuck Fox didn't spare any sources in his remarks, noting that retrofitting existing communities and curbing farm runoff also are priorities.
Posted by: David | August 14, 2009 11:51 AM
But, what about my question: Why do we never hear the interest groups publicly clamoring for the retrofitting or the agricultural reforms, but they are INCESSANTLY attacking ONLY new development? If one considers the huge land masses of agricultural fields and farms, as well as the massive area of pre-storm water management development, the pollution contributions to the Bay are obviously huge, so the answer to my question cannot be: "Well, new development is the overwhelming contributor."
So, then what is the answer to my question? Why do they not publicly attack these other contributors with equal zeal and frequency?
TW: While it may seem environmentalists only squawk about new development, that's not true of all. The Waterkeepers in Maryland, for instance, have pushed for stricter oversight of agriculture. While farming's share of the nutrient pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay is not growing, officials say it's still responsible for about half the problem, and they say reducing farm runoff is arguably more cost-effective than any other controls. The issue is whether the government, aka taxpayers, ought to pay farmers to put in the necessary runoff controls, or whether they should be required to, through regulation - or possibly some combination of the two.
Posted by: david | August 14, 2009 1:21 PM
Riverkeepers in Maryland do an honest job in a diffficult environment. They are advocates for a position and should be respected for that.
My concern is with State and federal officials who seem to be advocating for a no growth position. This meeting is directly related to Secretary Griffith's comments as reported in the Sun last week. So, does this mean there will actually BE an initiative from the Obama Administration? Will this be another initiative in the coming General Assembly session?
This whole no growth push is counterproductive for the State's economy, local government, smart growth, and even the Bay.
Read these comments in these posts. On the one hand Will Baker and Chuck Fox admit that farm runoff hasn't been regulated and that voluntary measures to control farm runoff have not worked. Instead after they argue for restrictions on municipal WWTP hookups when the concept of voluntary measures hasn't been applied to municipal WWTPs in several decades.
So let's tally those things the State has authority to address and have not. No farm pollution regulation (and no arguements in favor of doing so), no requirement for nitrogen removal in new septic systems outside of the critical area, even though it is within State authority to do so. Instead we have nutrient caps and hookup restrictions on municipal WWTPs... and TMDL restrictions (potentially) on other development, even though WWTP's must meet stringent nutrient standards and new development must meet stormwater regulations developed by the State.
Do they really want to improve water quality in the Bay? Let me suggest a different strategy: 1) Regulate agricultural pollutants, especially from large ag-industry operations in the watershed; 2) Remove nutrient caps on municipal WWTPs (since we don't have the infrastructure $$ to build ENR in those locations, but even without that a municipal WWTP does a better job of removing nutrients than even the best septic system. 3) Require nitrogen removal on all new septic systems in the watershed, not just in the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area.
It is no surprise to see Will Baker make these proposals, and no surprise to see Chuck Fox and John Griffin do so either. Still the proposals work against cleaning the Bay and work against Smart Growth and Maryland's economy (largely driven by the homebuilding industry) as well...
Where in this discussion is the voice of the Secretaries of DBED (responsible for economic growth), DHCD (responsible for housing and downtown redevelopment), Budget and Management (budget responsibilities), or Planning responsible for Smart Growth). Are they out there? Are they listening? Do they have a voice?
Where is MACO and MML??
Posted by: Jiim Noonan | August 14, 2009 9:07 PM
David - Maybe all runoff and other pollution stats should be reported on a per capita basis and/or vs. per sf productivity. I live in a city rowhouse with a totally concrete backyard (ie 100% impervious), all built pre-SWM regs, so every drop of rainfall on my property is "runoff" - but I live on a 12'x70' parcel, and so do all of my neighbors: considering city densities, what is my percentage contribution to the problem?
Posted by: jen | August 15, 2009 9:02 PM
My frustration is that too many of us in the environmental community make no distinction between well-planned, walkable, dense, transit-oriented development projects and suburban, auto-oriented, sprawl development. We can't just be against everything, we need to craft the regs and zoning to support the kinds of projects that will build on and improve the places where we already have impervious surface.
Posted by: Patrick | September 9, 2009 3:48 PM
Good afternoon
As for Extenze, investigations revealed that Extenze’s lead content was beyond the legal limits, causing some of those who used it complain against the product. buy cheapest online
Pa!!!
________________________________
:) cheap pill
Posted by: oaks6 | September 22, 2009 1:11 AM