If you could decide how to spend the $50 million Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund, what would you do with it? Would you just target one watershed, such as the Patuxent, where you might see real change, or would you spread it around the state, with some for the Shore and some for Southern Maryland and some for urban areas?

Would you focus on stormwater, a long-neglected problem, or sediment, another issue that doesn't get much attention? Or would you go for the tried-and-true "let's reduce nitrogen and phosphorus from ag," going for the conventional programs like cover crops and stream buffers?

It sounds like a lot of money, but it won't be nearly enough. There is already some jockeying in Annapolis for how to spend it. Last week, Anne Arundel County public works director Ron Bowen said he'd like to see some of it to go toward upgrading septic tanks, most of which do not remove nitrogen before it goes into the bay.

Yesterday, I stopped in to see Bob Parks, executive director of the Chester River Association. He is very concerned about the septic issue, but he thinks the entire $50 million should go into cover crops, which he calls the best bang-for-the-buck investment we have. To prove his point, he pulls out the Chesapeake Bay Commission's report on the most cost-effective strategies to help the bay, which came out a couple of years ago. And, by the way, he wouldn't mind if it ALL went to putting cover crops in his watershed, which includes Kent and Queen Anne's counties.

The House version of the funding bill spelled out where it might go, but what passed was only the authorization for the money. So the General Assembly will likely be spending some time this session figuring out what to do with it. If you have an idea, leave a comment. I think at least a few of the legislators read this blog from time to time.