Greens press EPA on Bay
Environmental activists pressed again today for the federal government to take a stronger hand in restoring the Chesapeake Bay, delivering appeals with about 19,000 signatures on them to the Environmental Protection Agency's senior advisor on the bay.
With nine days to go before federal agencies unveil their ideas for jump-starting the bay cleanup, leaders of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Environment Maryland staged a media event at the bay program office in Annapolis. They gave stacks of postcards and other documents signed by bay region residents to the EPA's J. Charles "Chuck" Fox Jr. and urged him to relay their message to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.
The bay foundation, meanwhile, piled on with a letter co-signed by other environmental groups to Jackson detailing steps it would like to see the federal government take. They urged federal officials to block permits for any new wastewater discharges into bay tributaries if they will add to the existing pollution. They also called for tougher, enforceable limits on urban and suburban stormwater runoff.
Federal environmental agencies are scheduled to release on Sept. 9 their draft recommendations for accelerating bay cleanup efforts. The agencies are acting in response to an executive order President Obama issued in May directing them to take the lead in what has until now been a multi-state, largely collaborative effort that has yielded only mixed results over the past quarter century. EPA has responsiblity for coordinating the agencies' proposals.
A couple weeks back, you'll recall I wrote that EPA's Fox, in a town hall meeting in Annapolis, said federal officials were looking at "game-changing" policies aimed at achieving signfiicant reductions in the nutrient pollution fouling the bay. He indicated officials were focusing on two of the more troubling sources - runoff of fertilizer and manure from farmland, and runoff of tainted stormwater from new and existing development.
Federal agencies, meanwhile, have set up a couple Web sites where the public can track and comment on new moves to bolster the bay cleanup. One you can find here focuses on the federal agencies' response to the president's executive order.
The other, here. deals with the EPA's previously announced plans to impose a strict pollution "diet" on the bay, with numerical limits to be set by the end of 2010 on how much nitrogen and phosphorus can be discharged into streams and rivers by sewage plants and businesses.
Comments
Tim, why not do a story about how much the foundation pays its President while the Bay continues to die?
TW: CBF President Will Baker got paid $155,449 in 2007, or about 7/10 percent of the foundation's $21.9 million budget, according to Charity Navigator. The information's always a year or so out of date, since it comes from IRS Form 990 tax returns filed by nonprofits.
Are you suggesting that the bay foundation ought to be held accountable somehow for the lack of progress in bay cleanup? Or that CBF's donors ought to question if their contributions are being spent wisely?
CBF, it should be noted, is not an official party to the bay cleanup. Even so, it's been accused by some activists of being soft on farm pollution, for instance. Baker and foundaiton leaders have responded that they believe more can be accomplished working with farmers than fighting them. That rift is less stark now, as it appears the federal government is taking a harder regulatory line toward chicken farmers on the Delmarva Peninsula while also pumping lots of money into paying them to curb runoff from their farms of poultry manure. CBF has supported that.
Posted by: Lucy | September 1, 2009 1:09 PM
We can only wait until next week to see what the Feds come up with. Based on the comments they received from State officials, the drumbeats from the environmental lobbies, and comments from EPA officials it appears they may propose some fairly arcane and counterproductive measures. If they do move in the direction indicated by the previous comments in this space, it appears that they are moving well beyond the letter of the Executive Order at least.
If the proposals are as anti-growth, and frankly as anti-urban, as they appear to be, it is hard to imagine how the housing industry (and therefore tax revenues) in the State could recover. It is also difficult to imagine how the State is going to meet its BRAC commitments either.
Finally there is the question of "Smart Growth", which in Maryland was seen (in 1997) as an agreement to support growth (including regulatory streamlining and infrastructure investment) in urban areas (including municipalities across the State). Depending on how far they go in restricting hookups to WWTPs, which was proposed in this Bay Program context, Smart Growth will take another hit in terms of the credibility of the approach with local government and with the development community.
Posted by: JIm Noonan | September 1, 2009 8:24 PM