From the Bay Journal, A new take on Chesapeake Bay cleanup goals: What’s in, what’s out?
Leaders of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup are touting a back-to-basics approach in the restoration blueprint set to be finalized by the end of this year.
The Chesapeake Bay Program, the state-federal partnership that leads the regionwide effort, released the proposed revisions to the 2014 Bay cleanup agreement for public comment on July 1.
. . .
The revised agreement groups priority goals into four broad categories: habitat and wildlife, water quality, healthy landscapes and engaged communities. Twenty-one more specific outcomes are nested within them.
A Bay Program analysis suggests that the amount of resources needed to achieve 14 of the outcomes will likely remain the same. More resources could be required for four, related to fish habitat, forests and trees, changing environmental conditions, and a robust workforce. The amount of resources needed for three others — wetland restoration, land protection and water quality — is unknown.
The 18-page proposed revision to the 2014 Bay Agreement puts forward modest changes. Mostly, it calls for continued progress toward meeting water-quality goals and making the region a more habitable place for humans and wildlife alike. But it’s also notable for what it doesn’t include. In the wake of executive orders from the Trump administration, direct references to climate change and diversity efforts have been deleted.
While I'm happy to see the climate BS elided (for now), what this really sounds like to me is "Give us another $25 billion, and we'll really do it this time. At the Annapolis Cap Gazette, Gerald Winegard gets the same vibe: Bay restoration sinks to new low with farcical agreement
Last week, the Chesapeake Bay Program released a new draft voluntary Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement to guide restoration in place of the 2014 agreement. This occurred after the abject failure of the bay states to meet the most critical terms of the current agreement. The new agreement egregiously fails to address failed commitments to meet reductions by 2025 in the major bay pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment ordered by the EPA in 2010.
These reductions were at the heart of the 2014 agreement and yet this failure is unacknowledged as the new plan mostly weakens or omits previous commitments. This illustrates how badly formal efforts to restore the Chesapeake have sunk. This hollow new plan is supposed to take us beyond 2025 and finally restore the bay. It follows failed agreements signed by the bay states and EPA in 1983, 1987, 2000 and 2014.
The latter three pacts solemnly committed the states to meet specific reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus; sediment was added in the latter two. These pollutant cuts were necessary to restore the bay’s waters to meet basic federal Clean Water Act requirements. The voluntary accords detailed specific actions that states needed to take to meet pollutant reductions. The states repeatedly failed to meet these commitments.
After 27 years of failure, the EPA was forced by a 2010 federal lawsuit settlement to impose a mandatory Clean Water Act pollution reduction order on the bay states. The “pollution diet,” known as a TMDL, required each bay state to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment by specified amounts. The states were given until 2017 to achieve 60% of reductions and until 2025 to achieve 100%. Despite a failure of most states to meet their reductions by 2017, no sanctions were imposed.
When in 2022 the states again were failing to meet their restoration requirements and knowing they would not by the 2025 deadline, the EPA abdicated its responsibilities and allowed the states several years to “recalibrate” and draft another plan. The states, including Maryland, took no new bold steps to achieve restoration. Again, the EPA imposed no penalties.
This recalibration is taking seven years, until 2030. The new agreement fails to set any specific reductions or timelines to achieve them. The sad reality is this kick-the-can-down-the-road approach has turned the formal bay restoration into a tragi-farcical charade of political expediency. States avoid the urgency of curbing bay-choking pollutants from agricultural and developed land responsible for poor bay water quality.
I disagree with Gerald on any number of issues on the Bay, but I agree that doing the same thing again, and expecting better results is insane.
No comments:
Post a Comment