Why EPA Needs to Take Charge of Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay

Why EPA Needs to Take Charge of Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Tip O'Neill (D-MA), the former Speaker of The House (1977-1987), used to say: "All politics is local." This quote screams out as a cacophony when one looks at the inaction of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay (the Bay). Farming, chickens, cattle, and suburban sprawl are killing the bay and a way of life for Eastern Shore Watermen.

The Chesapeake Bay Program collects data on progress towards agreed upon goals among the ,states that make up the Chesapeake Bay's watershed. These data offer a clear picture of the inaction. The slides below use Chesapeake Bay Program data to show progress in reducing the two main metrics of pollution: nitrogen and phosphorus. As these slides show, with the present pace of reductions we will NEVER reach urban pollution reduction goals, and it will take somewhere between 25 and 50 years to reach the goals for agriculture. As is the usual case, point source industrial controls are at or better than the agreed upon goals because these sources have been historically the target of most regulations.

These data demonstrate in stark terms the priorities of the contributing States to support agriculture, cattle, milk, chickens, and suburban growth at the expense of the Bay. Given the long history of trying to use non-regulatory mechanisms to clean up the Bay, it is no wonder that EPA needs to step in and take firmer control. It should surprise no one that the Farm Bureau is fighting EPA's authority in court. The data clearly show that agriculture is a major source of nutrients and that reductions are stalled.

I don't know if we would be at this impasse if this were the Columbia River Basin or the Great Lakes. We wouldn't want to destroy the Grand Canyon. Yet, for reasons, other than economics, that escape me, we have little problem destroying the Bay. The following quote from Beautiful Swimmers: Watermen, Crabs and the Chesapeake Bay (http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Swimmers-Watermen-Crabs-Chesapeake/dp/0316923354) sums up everything the Bay is to our National heritage and to our future sustainability:

It is known through the length and breadth of its watershed. The Bay. There is no possible confusion with any other body of water, no need for more precise description. It is, after all, the continent's largest estuary. Its waters were rich, the main supply of oysters, clams, crabs and other seafoods for much of the Atlantic seaboard. Its shorelines cradled our first settlements. It is the Chesapeake.

(My apologies to the author for replacing "are" with "were," but "were" describes the current impasse.)

The Bay is Seafood as much as the Grand Canyon is the Colorado River. As the above quote implies, the Bay if not dead is already on life support. It no longer is the main source of seafood for much of the Atlantic seaboard. The States have proven their inability to make tough decisions among strong special interest groups. If EPA doesn't find a way to reduce the nutrients entering the Bay, the end is just a matter of time.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot