MD General Assembly Scorecard: Wins on Lawn Pollution, Poaching and Bay Cleanup Fund. Losses on Drilling, Wind Power, Septics, Plastic Bags and Arsenic.
Name the Critter Contest

Federal Budget Deal Dumps Dirty-Water Amendment, But Rips EPA

Goodlatte Good night, Goodlatte? The recent Congressional budget deal to avert a federal government shutdown contained a bit of good news about the Chesapeake Bay:

Not included in the budget agreement was Virginia Congressman Robert Goodlatte’s amendment that would have stripped out all funding to implement new federal pollution limits for the Chesapeake.

Goodlatte’s dirty-water amendment passed the House by a vote of 230-195 on February 18, 2001, drawing the support of (shamefully) a majority of the Pennsylvania and Virginia delegations, and two of six members of the House from Maryland.

It was a significant victory for the Bay that the Goodlatte legislation was killed by Senate negotiators.   Led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Senate refused to accept any of the 16 proposed riders to the budget bill that would have undermined EPA’s powers (including one amendment that would have stripped the agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases).

But before you start cheering, consider this:  The budget deal also slashed EPA’s budget by 16 percent, which will hamper pollution control efforts across the country. “These federal cuts make our job to provide a clean environment that much harder,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States.

Roughly $1 billion in upgrades to sewage treatment and drinking water plants will be put on hold (including improvements to the Washington DC sewage system that feeds into the Bay).  Agricultural assistance programs that help reduce runoff pollution from farms were slashed.  The President’s special advisor on climate change will be axed.  And, oddly enough, the gray wolf will be taken off the endangered species list as part of the budget agreement.

This last item sets a terrible precedent for mixing science and politics and endangered species protections.  What did the  wolf ever do to run up a budget deficit? Nothing, obviously, but Little Red Riding Hood apparently has some friends on K Street.

And speaking of imaginary characters, I think it's fair to say the whole federal budget drama became a fable. The anti-regulatory story-tellers in the House trotted out EPA as the Beast that was threatening the Beauty of the capitalist system. The Beast is out of control! Congressman Goodlatte and his allies claimed.  The Beast will strangle the recovery!

Never mind that EPA is nothing if not cautious and slow moving, and had absolutely zero role in causing the nation’s economic crisis. The anti-regulatory fabulists should look in the mirror during that part of their narrative. Never mind that, in reality, environmental regulation often boosts the economy. For example, crab harvests for watermen in the Chesapeake Bay rose after the Maryland Department of Natural Resources imposed limits on catching female crabs, which boosted the entire crab population.

The important thing to keep an eye on is this:  This fictional story line ain’t over. Congressman Goodlatte and others may well resurrect their assaults on the EPA during the next budget negotiations.

So advocates for the Chesapeake Bay need to remain vigilant, and sound an alarm if the anti-regulatory fanatics try to animate their Boogeyman once again.

By Tom Pelton

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

(Note: To see how your Congressional representative voted on the Goodlatte amendment, click here.


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

I'm glad the amendment was killed. I'm still confused by Rep. Goodlatte's reasoning. Given the tremendous decline in the Chesapeake's seafood industry (watermen, packing houses, etc), haven't we already found that a lack of environmental regulation reduces the number of jobs on the bay?

As for the gray wolf: perhaps removing it from the endangered species list will open its habitat to more commercial endeavors--a terrible precedent indeed.

You are dead-on right, CJ. It's the tragedy of the commons. If there are no regulations to place limits on pollution or harvest of life from the Bay -- everyone acts for his or her own self-interest, and as a result everyone suffers. Reasonable limits create an economy that is sustainable and can flourish over the long haul.

Hi our names are Kaitlynn Hochstetler and Abby Showers and we are completing a say the bay project for life science. Everyone at our school in 8th grade at Eagle View Middle School in Mechanicsburg are trying to save the Chesapeake Bay. We are delighted to let you know that this site and this report will be used to help save the Bay. We are very concerned about the water and the animals. We are afraid there might not be enough habitats to sustain a lot of river life. Our school is thanking Mr. Irvin at our school to help you guys make the world a better place to live in.

Hi its us again. I have one question why does it matter how much money it takes to help save the bay. The bay is really important and isn't it worth saving the animals. Think about the animals and the bay......everyone is making it worse unless everyone pitches in together to help stop and prevent it from happening. I love you Chesapeake Bay........ You will get better soooooon

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. 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.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)