There was a lot of talk at Mount Vernon on Tuesday about "a new day" dawning in the long struggle to restore Chesapeake Bay, with President Obama declaring the bay a national treasure and states agreeing to short-term pollution reduction plans, aka "milestones."  Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, head of the bay Executive Council (pictured at right), called it a "turning point," though he acknowledged there was still a lot of work to do.  The cleanup effort now is being ramped up and is going to be much more accountable, we were told. 

But take a look at those milestones, at least the two-page summaries handed out to the press and now posted online.  They skimp on key details, especially on what the backup plans are in case those measures fall short, and on what the consequences will be if the states blow these new milestones.  We'll have to wait for those information gaps to be filled, we were told.

Next, look at the graphs showing how much nitrogen and phosphorus pollution each state promises to eliminate.  The graphs start at several million or tens of millions of pounds. not at zero.  Had the graphs had a scale that showed how far pollution ultimately has to be reduced by the "end date" of 2025, the divergence between past reductions and future promises would have looked a lot smaller.

Then there's the case of the mysterious missing information on a few of the states' milestone statements. The two-page outlines of cleanup efforts for the entire six-state bay region and for Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia showed graphs with two diverging lines, depicting pollution reductions already in progress and even greater efforts those states were committing to make by 2011.  The graphs projected accelerations of cleanup ranging from 52 to 502 percent. 

But the summaries handed out Tuesday for Delaware, the District of Columbia, New York and West Virginia showed only one line on their graphs.  Each graph depicted the pollution reductions that were being pledged through 2011.   Missing was any line projecting the rate at which pollution would go down based on efforts already under way.

Drafts of the milestone documents circulated only a few days before Tuesday's summit did show current and future rates of cleanup.  The District, New York and West Virginia all were shown  making less progress in the next few years than they had been making up to now.  That's right - negative progress. For New York, the drafts showed a 15 percent backslide on the rate of nitrogen reductions, and for West Virginia a 61 percent slippage in nitrogen and a 45 percent decline in phosphorus removal rates. 

The graph lines and calculations showing negative progress were missing from the final milestone documents handed out Tuesday at Mount Vernon.  What would George Washington think?

Continue reading "Uh, about those milestones ...." »

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 2:36 PM in Politics, legislation, water quality | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

What the Chesapeake Bay cleanup needs is more money, and a more aggressive federal government to hold the states accountable for curbing the pollution fouling the nation's largest estuary.

That's what state officials, scientists and environmental advocates said yesterday in meeting with members of Maryland's congressional delegation in Washington, my colleague Paul West reports in the Maryland Politics blog.

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski said she organized the meeting on Capitol Hill "to proclaim that it’s a new day for the Bay."

"But as speaker after speaker pointed out," Paul writes, "it's same-old, same-old when it comes to identifying the sources of the problem and the solutions. What also hasn't changed is the remedy.

"Turning things around will require breathtaking sums of money and a level of coordination among various arms of government that doesn’t currently exist."

You can read the rest here.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:12 AM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Among the bills that didn't make it in the General Assembly session that ended this week was one that would have re-regulated energy generation in Maryland. While its failure was a major disappointment to consumer advocates, it was not mourned by Gary Skulnik, president of Clean Currents. 

His Rockville-based company sells "green" energy to consumers, and lately it's been able to sell wind-based energy for less than what you'd pay to buy electricity from BGE or Pepco.  Clean Currents offers fixed-price electricity plans with 50 percent or 100 percent generated by wind turbines (elsewhere, not in Maryland).

Skulnik's small company is able to underprice the big utilities because he's been able to take advantage of falling energy prices, while the utilities acquire power in long-term contracts. The firm has signed up almost 1,500 residential customers and about 300 businesses, according to him.

"We're hoping Clean Currents will be the Apple of the clean-energy industry," he said.

Skulnik feared that re-regulating energy would put small entrepreneurial companies like his at a competitive disadvantage.  He said his small firm, with just 10 employees, lacks the legal and lobbying resources to jockey with the big utilities at the Public Service Commission.

Companies hoping to develop wind farms in Maryland had initially expressed concerns about the move to re-regulate, but persuaded lawmakers to amend the proposal to exempt facilities that generated 70 megawatts or less of power - the upper limits for all the projects currently seeking approval.

Supporters of re-regulation, including some environmental activists, argued that alternative energy generation needs a push from the state.   But Skulnik, and some other green advocates, worried that re-regulation might instead delay or even squelch opportunities to win more consumers to green energy, with market forces aligned to make it more competitive.

The O'Malley administration measure passed the Senate, but died in a House committee.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:33 AM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

After decades of ambiguity and controversy, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson thinks it may be time for Congress to review and strengthen federal wetlands protections.

Speaking last week in Washington at a preview of a documentary about pollution in the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, Jackson said because of Supreme Court decisions "there is murkiness" now about whether the EPA or states have any say over filling or draining many wetlands, which filter out pollution naturally.

"I do believe we need a legislative fix to clarify the jurisdiction issue," she said.  The nation is losing wetlands "at an alarming rate" to development, which next to agricultural pollution is one of the biggest threats to the nation's waters, including the Chesapeake, she added.

Jackson made her remarks at the National Press Club, where she and others got a sneak preview of "Poisoned Waters," a two-hour documentary that looks at the Chesapeake and at Puget Sound as examples of how the Clean Water Act has failed after more than 30 years to restore the nation's waters.  The film, by veteran journalist Hedrick Smith, airs on PBS on Frontline April 21.  I'll be reviewing it before it's shown, but you can see a trailer for it now here, and watch a Webcast of the preview last week by going here.

At last week's event, the new EPA chief assured the audience that "EPA is back on the job."  And she defended her agency's recent move to make hundreds of poultry growers on the Delmarva Peninsula apply for federal water-polllution permits.  She said the crackdown, which I wrote about a few weeks ago in The Baltimore Sun, should lead to significant changes in how farmers manage their chicken manure, not just more paperwork.  

"We don't take these lightly," she said, adding that "regulation without enforcement is fairly meaningless."

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 4:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                       

The state Senate passed a slightly modified version of the O'Malley administration's growth "indicators" bill today - after yanking the lone tooth the House had inserted into it.

The bill (SB276/HB295) approved by a vote of 45-2 requires counties and municipalities to report every year on various indicators of where and how development is occurring in their communities.  Gone was the House provision requiring counties to concentrate 80 percent of new construction inside designated growth areas or risk having state permits denied.  That had been stripped out late last week by the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee.

The Senate version requires localities to set goals for curbing sprawl, but doesn't specify what they should be and doesn't  spell out any consequences if they fail to meet them.  The state Department of Planning, in consultation with the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, must also report annually to the governor on what the localities' reports show.

The de-fanged Senate version, which is only slightly more specific than the original O'Malley administration bill, was worked out in negotiations with administration officials and with the Maryland Association of Counties, said Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland.  MACO had opposed the original bill as demanding too much too fast of local officials, but liked the tougher House bill even less.

Schmidt-Perkins, who along with other activists had successfully lobbied the House to put "accountability" in the administration's bill, indicated she was throwing in the towel - at least for this year.  The "tooth" inserted by the House was so minimal, she said, that it was unlikely to survive intact if delegates had to negotiate a compromise with the Senate.

"It is a disappointment, but I think we knew all along that this wasn't a one-year effort," she said. "We'll be back ... We are in desperate need of more efficient growth patterns in this state, and we need to look ahead to how we're going to get them."

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 4:15 PM in growth/land use, legislation | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

The House of Delegates gave preliminary approval tonight to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act, turning aside a "killer" amendment offered by the chamber's Republican leader.

The bill, which would commit the state to reduce its climate-warming emissions of carbon dioxide 25 percent by 2020, is now poised for a final House vote.  Given the lopsided margins by which opponents' amendments were defeated tonight, it seems likely to pass easily.  A parallel measure already has passed the Senate, all but assuring it will become law after being blocked two years in a row.

Key to the measure's apparent success this year was the sponsors' decision to exempt the state's manufacturers from any requirement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the first few years. Manufacturers and labor leaders concerned about factory job losses teamed up to kill a similar measure in a House committee last year, after it had passed the Senate. 

Tonight, Del. Anthony O'Donnell, the House minority leader from Southern Maryland, offered what he acknowledged was a killer amendment to strip the exemption in the bill for the state's manufacturers.

"What's good for the goose should be good for the gander," O'Donnell argued, saying that other segments of society and the economy would be forced to pay for manufacturers' exemption if greenhouse gas regulations raise electricity costs.  It was his way, he said, of making the point that the bill was going to drive up energy costs for everyone.

But Del. Brian McHale, a Baltimore Democrat supporting the bill, disputed O'Donnell's assertions that energy costs would rise.  He said manufacturers produced only a small share of the greenhouse gases, and they were exempted to spare them from being put at a competitive disadvantage with factories in other states lacking greenhouse gas regulations. 

The amendment failed, 32-103. A second amendment also failed that would have required annual reporting on how efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are affecting energy costs, jobs and property rights.

Continue reading "Climate bill nears passage, other green bills inch forward" »

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 9:36 PM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

The growing prospect that there may be federal action on climate change apparently has spawned a wave of lobbyists in Washington.  The Center for Public Integrity reports that in the past year, as climate legislation finally came to a vote on Capitol Hill, more than 770 companies and interest groups hired an estimated 2,340 lobbyists to influence federal policy.

That's a lot of buttonholing - as the center noted, that comes to more than four lobbyists for every member of Congress.  Environmental advocacy groups have ramped up their Washington presence, but so have all the industries that see themselve being affected.  The center's put together an analysis of the lobbying corps, profiled some of the more prominent ones and provides a listing. Check it out here.

Advocates of curbing greenhouse gases have argued that the push will generate "green" jobs and actually boost rather than kill the economy, as skeptics contend.  Looks like the job growth is already happening, though maybe not the kind of jobs environmentalists had in mind, and certainly not the kind of green they were thinking of.

(Photo by Brendan Hoffman, Getty Images)

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 6:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Maryland's Senate gave preliminary approval today to a bill calling for a 25 percent reduction in climate-warming pollution in the state by 2020.

Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, a co-sponsor along with Gov. Martin O'Malley, accepted two minor amendments to the bill, SB278.  One would require gender, geographical and racial balance on a task force overseeing a study of the impact of the state's greenhouse gas reduction plan.  The other would require that the study include consideration of the impacts on rural communities of any transportation measures aimed at reducing carbon emissions.

Senators turned down two other amendments, which Pinsky, a Prince Geroge's County Democrat, warned would hurt or even sink the effort.  Sen. Alex Mooney tried to strip an exemption written into the bill for the state's manufacturers, arguing that no sector of society should be exempt.  "We should do it right if we do it at all," said the Frederick County Republican, who's not been known previously as an advocate for doing anything about climate change.

But Pinsky warned that accepting Mooney's amendment would unravel the coalition of labor and manufacturers now supporting the bill.  Their opposition to a similar measure last year led to its defeat, so proponents agreed to spare manufacturing this time, reasoning that it is only responsible for about 4 percent of  the state's overall greenhouse gas emissions.  The bill would exempt them from doing anything until 2016, unless federal or multi-state mandates came along before that.  Mooney's amendment failed, 1 to 44.

Sen. Nancy Jacobs drew more support for her amendment, which would have guaranteed that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions wouldn't increase consumers' electricity bills.  Jacobs, a Republican representing Harford and Cecil counties, noted that many utility customers are complaining bitterly now about increases in their heating and electricity bills.  She said she wanted to assure them that this effort would "hold consumers harmless."

Pinsky countered that her amendment would "disarm" and hurt the bill.   Officials expect to reduce greenhouse gas emission by promoting energy conservation and efficiency, Pinsky said, so using less electricity should reduce consumers' bills rather than raise them.  But he noted that electricity rates have shot up since deregulation several years ago, and he argued that it would be wrong to hold the climate bill hostage to factors beyond its control.   Jacobs' bid failed, 17 to 29.

The bill is now expected to come up for a final vote in the Senate early next week.   The House version of the legislation, HB315, is scheduled for a hearing tomorrow at 1 p.m. in the Environmental Matters Committee.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Despite Maryland's forest conservation law, the state continues to lose upwards of 3,000 acres of woodlands a year, most of it to development, a new task force has reported.  That's bad news for the bay, since trees are among our best pollution controls.

In a report released last week, the task force set up by Gov. Martin O'Malley called for the state to close loopholes in the 17-year-old forest law and take other steps to achieve "no net loss" of woodlands.  You can read a release about the report and download a copy of it here.

The task force, created at the urging of the General Assembly, concluded that tighter regulation alone would not be enough to stem the loss of state forestland.  It called for offering greater incentives to landowners as well as stepping up tree-planting efforts.

"We know that forestland is the single best use for protecting our waters and air," said Eric Schwaab, deputy state natural resources secretary, who was chairman of the task force.  "It would be nice to slow the loss, but it's better to erase the loss or reverse it."

(Photo above is of Green Ridge State Forest, not threatened by development, but an illustration of the woodsy abundance still in Maryland.  The forest law slowed the loss of forests, and the state remains 41 percent forested, according to the task force.)

Lawmakers have wasted no time in acting on its recommendations.  The Senate will hold hearings today on two bills inspired by it. 

"I would like to get to the point where we can say in 2020 we have the same number and quality of trees as in 2010," said Sen. Paul G. Pinsky, a Prince George's Democrat who is chief sponsor of one bill, SB666, that would tighten the state's forest law and set no net loss as the state's forest policy.

The other bill, the Sustainable Forestry Act, SB549, would change how existing state funds are used to increase incentives for private landowners to maintain forests on their property.  Sen. Roy Dyson, a St. Mary's County Democrat, is its chief sponsor.

The measures are likely to face opposition, however, particularly from energy interests.  One of the biggest loopholes that would be closed under Pinsky's bill is the one that now exempts utilities from having to replace trees cut down to build power plants and electric transmission lines.  The amount of woods that could be cleared for development without replacement would be tightened as well, and fees developers could pay in lieu of replanting trees would be increased.

The Maryland Farm Bureau is also on record against Pinsky's bill, and has "serious concerns" about the other bill.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:57 AM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

Legislation that would commit Maryland to reducing climate-warming pollution 25 percent by 2020 is expected to be voted on by the state Senate this week. 

The "Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act" sponsored by Prince George's Sen. Paul G. Pinsky and Gov. Martin O'Malley cleared the Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee late last week with only minor amendment.  It is to be presented to the full Senate tonight, at which time senators not on the committee can propose changes they'd like to see.

It's rare for any legislation to sail through the General Assembly virtually unchanged.  But any major changes to this bill could unravel the unusual coalition of environmentalists, unions and manufacturers supporting it.  Labor and business leaders torpedoed a more ambitious measure last year.  They only climbed on board this time after lengthy negotiations resulted in language essentially giving manufacturers a pass on doing anything unless and until required to do so by the federal government or some multi-state regional entity.

Still, it wouldn't be surprising if at least a couple senators don't seek to tinker with the bill, most likely to weaken it.  Last year, the more grandly named "Global Warming Solutions Act" got watered down in the Senate, where members amended it so that the state Department of the Environment would have had to get legislative approval of any steps it would take to reduce greenhouse gases.  The bill ultimately died in a House committee.

This bill also gives lawmakers a chance for buyer's remorse, but one that doesn't tie regulators' hands the way last year's amendment would have.  The Department of the Environment is required to develop a plan by 2011 for reducing greenhouse gases, and to adopt it by the next year after receiving public comment.   The department would have to report by 2016 on progress and costs and benefits, at which time the General Assembly would decide whether to continue, adjust or eliminate the 25 percent reduction goal.

The measure also requires the administration to show that curbing carbon dioxide will improve the state's economy, protecting manufacturing jobs and creating new "green" jobs.   A state-funded study in 2006 predicted that transitioning to a low-carbon economy could produce 144,000 to 326,000 jobs by 2020, with a net infusion of $2 billion.

Even with labor and manufacturers on board, the bill still has its critics - including the retail and petroleum industries, taxpayer watchdogs and Constellation Energy, which urged lawmakers to leave climate legislation to Congress.

Here's a summary: http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Air/ClimateChange/GreenHouse_Gas_Reduction_Act_Bill_2009_Summary.pdf 

And here's the fiscal impact analysis, prepared by legislative analysts: http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0008/sb0278.pdf

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 10:04 AM in global warming, legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Environmentalists are urging politicians to green up the wish lists of "shovel-ready" projects they're giving the incoming Obama administration for inclusion in its plan to jump-start the slumping economy by boosting public works spending.

As reported today in The Baltimore Sun, mayors across the land have toted up more than 15,000 projects, estimated to cost $96 billion, that they say could create more than 1 million jobs.  Baltimore and Annapolis chipped in more than 50 projects in our area alone, costing a total of $380 million.

Environment Maryland, meanwhile, held a press conference in Hunt Valley yesterday to make its case that investing a big chunk of that stimulus money in renewable energy, energy efficiency and "cleaner" transportation would fight climate change while also providing work for more than 3 million people.  Among the ideas touted by the group: install a two-megawatt solar farm at Baltimore's Back River sewage treatment plant, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions while also saving the region's ratepayers on the costs of treating their waste.

In a similar vein, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, which represents legislators in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, adopted a resolution last week urging Congress and the new administration to be sure the stimulus goodie bag directs some billions to clean up the beleagured bay.  They urge spending on upgrading sewage plants, retrofitting stormwater controls, upgrading transit systems and rebuilding oyster reefs.  The Blue Plains sewage treatment plant in Washington, D.C., the commission notes, needs something like $3.2 billion alone to improve its ability to keep harmful nutrients out of the Potomac River.

While greenies argue that economic recovery and environmental cleanup go hand in hand, some economists are warning that massive public works spending is not such a good idea.  John Whitehead, an economist at Appalachian State University and author of the Environmental Economics blog, argues in Salon.com that mixing the two goals is misguided.

What do you think? Can we help the planet while also helping ourselves? Or should we take care of putting bread on the table first, and save for later figuring out how to bake it from organic grain?

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:55 AM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (2)
                       

In a year when the state's fiscal woes seem likely to dominate, the Maryland General Assembly still could tackle a few significant environmental issues when it convenes tomorrow in Annapolis.  What makes it into law at the end of the 90-day session is anyone's guess.

As I reported in The Baltimore Sun earlier this week, Gov. Martin O'Malley wants to tweak the state's growth management laws.  He faces pressure from environmentalists to put some teeth in his bills, while local officials are arguing that it's premature to legislate tracking of growth trends, as one of the administration bills would do.  He's also pressing to reauthorize and possibly expand the state tax credit for rehabilitating historic buildings, which could boost redevelopment in Baltimore.

Beyond that, O'Malley said at a press conference in Annapolis Monday that he plans to introduce legislation aimed at boosting aquaculture, including an overhaul of laws governing leasing of the bay bottom for raising oysters and clams.  I've reported on this before in The Baltimore Sun here and here.

It's apparently not soup yet, but the governor also said he was optimistic about introducing a bill that would commit the state to reducing its climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.  A climate-change bill backed by the administration passed the Senate but died in the House on the final day of last year's legislative session.  Administration officials have been negotiating with manufacturing and labor representatives who killed last year's bill to craft a compromise they can support, or at least won't oppose.

As for the budget, O'Malley said he would try to avoid cutting his environmental priorities, like the Bay Trust Fund passed in 2007 to underwrite efforts to control farm and stormwater runoff. Its first-year funding was slashed in half to $25 million last year, even before the state's revenue outlook tanked.   In their preview of the legislative session in today's Baltimore Sun, my colleagues Laura Smitherman and Gadi Dechter, though, report that lawmakers and aides say the fund's likely to get cut further.

The governor also repeated his pledge not to raid the Program Open Space funds set aside for buying and fixing up parks and nature preserves.  Whether he can stick to that in the face of a nearly $2 billion spending gap remains to be seen - at least some lawmakers are saying nothing should be exempt from cuts.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 8:54 AM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Listen up, all you city dwellers who care about recycling, green jobs and transit.  The city's "sustainability" plan is available for review and comment online.

The plan focuses on seven basic "themes," including cleanliness, pollution prevention, resource conservation, environmental education and awareness.  Specifics are still to come in some cases, but it calls for an anti-litter campaign, reducing the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2015, doubling the number of trees planted and making Baltimore a green business mecca. Officials say they intend to make these part of the city's comprehensive plan, which guides all development in Baltimore.

To read and comment on the plan, go here.  You have until Jan. 30.  For instructions on commenting online, go here.

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 6:08 PM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

Marylanders have an opportunity this week to be heard on two different but related issues of critical importance to the Chesapeake Bay.

The federal and state governments are seeking feedback from the public on whether to introduce an Asian oyster into the bay, to revive the Chesapeake's flagging oyster industry and restore its depleted population of bivalves capable of filtering the water. 

Last month, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers released an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating the pros and cons of sticking with the native oyster (shown at right) in the face of parasitic diseases that have decimated the bay's oyster stock, or trying an Asian oyster that appears resistant to the diseases. 

Three meetings in Virginia drew dozens of speakers, with environmentalists warning against the risks of introducing a non-native species into the bay, while a number of watermen and seafood business owners said there are so few native oysters left their livelihood is in jeopardy without trying something new.

The meetings, which all run form 6 to 9 p.m. are Wednesday Nov. 12 at Calvert Marine Museum, 14200 HG Truman Road in Solomons, Thursday at the Miller Senate Office Building, 11 Bladen Street in Annapolis and Friday at St. Mary’s Catholic Church, 2000 Hambrooks Blvd. in Cambridge.  The report, jointly produced with Maryland and Virginia, can be downloaded or viewed at certain libraries.  Go here for a list.

Meanwhile, the state Department of the Environment is seeking public comment on its proposed rules for controlling water pollution from large-scale animal farming.  Agency officials say the new rules, if adopted as proposed, would cover more than 200 poultry farms and regulate the handling of more than half of all the manure that the state's chicken farms produce. Polluted farm runoff is still the leading source of nutrients fouling the bay's water quality.  Some environmentalists have praised the state's actions, while others say it still doesn't go far enough.

About 100 farmers, including chicken growers and crop cultivators, turned out for a public hearing on the rules Monday night in Salisbury, according to an MDE spokesman.  About 15 spoke, with some objecting that requiring buffers along streams and drainage ditches to keep manure out of the water would take valuable land out of production.  Others disputed that their farms were causing any problems for the bay.  Still others, though, thanked agency officials for listening to their concerns, according to the MDE spokesman.

Two more hearings are scheduled, tomorrow (Wednesday Nov. 12) at 6 pm, Chesapeake College at Wye Mills, First Floor Theatre in the Todd Performing Arts Center, and Thursday at 11 am in Frederick,  City Hall Board Room, 101 N. Court St.  (Photo above by Baltimore Sun photographer Jed Kirschbaum)

Posted by Tim Wheeler at 4:53 PM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (0)
                       

First there was a ban on phosphates in laundry detergent, then there was a ban on phosphates in dishwasher detergent. And now, Sen. Brian Frosh of Montgomery County is suggesting we reduce the polluting substance in our fertilizer. It's not an outright ban, according to the description of the bill; more of a reducing. Here's the synopsis:

"Requiring specified fertilizer to be labeled in a specified manner; prohibiting a person from using, selling, manufacturing, or distributing specified fertilizer after a specified date unless it is low phosphate fertilizer; requiring specified manufacturers to reduce phosphorus levels from lawn care products by a specified amount, by a specified date; requiring specified manufacturers to report annually to the Department of the Environment; and authorizing the Department of the Environment to adopt regulations."

Phosphorus becomes a pollutant when too much of it seeps into the waterways from fertilizer and sewage plants. Along with nitrogen, it is responsible for much of the problems in the bay. The bill had its first reading today.

Posted by Rona Kobell at 3:57 PM in legislation | Permalink | Comments (1)