Obama Proposal for Bay Cleanup Falls Short

What a let-down.

Bay cleanup advocates had been eagerly anticipating the release today of the Obama Administration’s new draft strategy for restoring the Bay. I had hoped that it would be a strong example of new federal leadership.

Unfortunately, the proposal released during a teleconference today was disappointing because it lacks specific goals, deadlines, programs and strategies.

The vagueness of this new federal draft plan really underscores the need for Congress to pass a new law that would make the requirements for Bay cleanup clear and indisputable.

Senator Ben Cardin and U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings, among many other co-sponsors, recently introduced a bill called the Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act that would impose legally-binding pollution reduction targets on Bay area states.

The draft strategy (available by clicking here) says EPA will set pollution limits for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the Bay and require area governments to meet goals every two years.

EPA will initiate the process of writing new federal regulations to strengthen pollution controls for animal-intensive agriculture and municipal runoff. But if the Bay area states and the District of Columbia are able to achieve water quality standards with their own programs, “EPA does not expect it would promulgate new Chesapeake Bay-specific regulations,” the federal proposal says.

During a teleconference with reporters this afternoon, the EPA Administrator’s top advisor for the Bay, J. Charles Fox, said that Bay area states sent feedback to EPA, suggesting that the states do not want the federal government to simply impose new federal regulations for animal-intensive agriculture and municipal stormwater runoff.

Instead, the states want a chance to create regulations themselves to address these problems, Fox said. If the states fail to act, then federal pollution control regulations will be imposed, Fox said.

“The states believe they have a lot of local knowledge,” Fox said.  “And they would like the first shot at meeting the new regulatory regimes, and we are willing to work with them.”

That makes sense, as long as in the end, someone imposes meaningful regulations that cut down on major sources of pollution.  After decades of waiting for states to act strongly to clean up the Bay, more waiting by the federal government is not in the Chesapeake’s best interests.

The public has 60 days to comment on the Obama Administration’s draft strategy.

 

Comments

[John Koontz]

The states have failed to take enforcement act in the past why should we believe that in these times of hard budget choices that they will put any more inspectors on the street and enforce current laws much less new regulations (which will take years to even put on the books).

[JB]

Really? You are actually shocked this administration does not have a solid plan? Look at everything this administration has done, none has a plan from the administration. Everything is left to other agencies to do, which in lies the problem we already have.

Change....hahaha

[Peter Maier]

When a quarter of the people living on the Eastern seaboard are still allowed to use the Chesapeake Bay as a giant urinal, nobody should be surprised that all the programs to control pollution have failed. Most people think (are misinformed) that when you flush your toilet their waste is treated, but what people do not know is, that their sewage is only treated to prevent odors and that most sewage treatment plants do not treat the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste, since that is not required by EPA. (www.petermaier.net)
This waste with carbon dioxide the real waste products of human bodies, besides exerting an oxygen demand (like fecal waste) is also a fertilizer for algae, mostly responsible for eutrophication and eventually dead zones. Since all this is caused by a faulty test, acknowledged but never corrected by EPA in 1984, it is extremely discouraging that correcting this essential test is impossible and that nobody is willing to hold the EPA or members of Congress accountable. One also has to wonder why the media is not interested? Or is this too difficult to understand?

[sf]

I almost always agree with CBF's stances, but I do expect the stance to be supported by analysis.

What was vague? What was missing? How did this fall short?

I appreciate the CBF might prefer direct federal regulation over state-by-state implementation. But as you state, it's all fine if tough standards are imposed.

Your headline makes a bold statement. The article backs it up with nothing but a procedural gripe that you admit may not matter substantively.

I'd love to see a follow-up post (or a link to other articles if I've overlooked them) on what is missing, and what substantive measures you want imposed--whether by feds, states, or localities.