« Meeting Tuesday to "Chart a New Course" for Chesapeake | Main | Presidential Order Calls for "Renewed Commitment" to Bay Cleanup »

05/11/2009

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BC Wilson

Bravo to the Sun for scooping this story, but I suggest we wait until the actual plan is unveiled, including the specific two-year targets, before we start criticizing it. I heard Tim Kaine speak at the Blue Planet Forum last week, and I remain optimistic that he and the other board members will propose a progressive cleanup plan.

Wade

Sixteen years into the future? That is laughable. It seems as that deadlines are actually "dead"-lines. As you said, the "goal" was pushed back to 2025 from 2010.. wait, no.. from 2000. I think I see a pattern happening here, but maybe we should wait and see what happens in 2025?

I'd like to think that states would develop aggressive goals, but how can that happen with everyone gushing over the Marcellus Shale...

What about the natural gas companies withdrawing so much water that they could negatively affect the proper wastewater stream dilution that is necessary (i.e. planned for in design)?

SeanB

For my entire life they've been talking about "cleaning up the Bay." Now, they are saying it won't be clean until I am in my 50's. I fully agree that short term cleanup plans are better. I say a bevy of small scale plans including farm and urban run off reduction, phasing out of phosphorus and nitrogen from consumable goods, wetland and aquatic vegetation restoration, and other be implemented for 2 years, with a 3rd year for analysis to determine what works, then focus on those areas and set a final deadline.

Bill Wilson

I wrote to CBF (not on this blog) a few weeks ago saying, okay, you met with Lisa Jackson and you successfully sued the EPA, all the right things; but urging that the Obama administration and Lisa Jackson be given a chance to act. Now Lisa Jackson and the EPA have acted and we need to see what that means. But I still think, at least in the short term, that those of us who love and care about the Bay need to assume good faith on the part of the new administration and not jump into what might appear to be an adversarial position.

If, for example, the plans don't call for dealing with the chicken industry (not talking about small farmers here) on the Eastern Shore, then I think it will be time to take up signs again on the steps of the EPA.

I'll be on the water tomorrow morning with a small group of volunteers from the West/Rhode Riverkeeper taking water samples.

Peter

Let's see...

You have a ten-year goal and you want to now have two-year goals. Ten divided by two equals five. So the first two-year goal is one fifth of the ten-year goal. Rocket science for politicians and bureaucrats!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by TypePad