Is the Chesapeake Bay Program trying to put lipstick on a pig?

That's the impression one could be left with from this headline: "Chesapeake Bay Summer Oxygen Conditions Significantly Better Than Predicted." This came to my inbox a little while ago.

It has long been well-established that dissolved oxygen conditions are poor in the summer, particularly in the deep water of the bay. Conditions in summer largely have to do with the kind of winter and spring it was.  Lots of rain = bad conditions. Drought = better conditions. So, because we can't predict the weather, we plan on what we're going to see in the water figuring it will be an average year.

As we all know, there was a pretty significant drought this year- - good for the few oysters remaining and the grassbeds, not so much for the farmers and for my new landscaping efforts. And there was a big wind event in July, which helped mix things up and get some oxygen to the bottom.

There are two problems with the headline, in my opinion. One, the full report, which is available here on the University of Maryland's eco-check web site, is far less rosy and emphasizes that we had continuous harmful algal blooms and numerous fish kills. And two, if weather is the reason for any improvement, however slight, then what is the Bay Program really doing to improve pollution problems?

I am on deadline, and I didn't read every word of it, but it doesn't appear that our government is attributing any of the success, limited as it is, to anything we have done, such as stormwater permit rules, sewage treatment upgrades, controls on development or power plant emissions, successful tributary management, etc.

Are we really trying to manage an estuary by determining which way the wind blows?