By Alex Dombinguez
BALTIMORE
The Environmental Protection Agency gave Chesapeake Bay states its "rigorous expectations" for restoring the nation's largest estuary, agency officials said Wednesday.
In letters sent this week to the six states in the bay watershed, the federal agency said it detailed expectations needed to fulfill President Barack Obama's executive order calling for the development of a bay restoration strategy. The EPA is expected to release a draft strategy Monday.
Bay states must identify gaps in current programs by next December, and the EPA said it expects controls to be in place by 2017 that will meet about 60 percent of pollution reduction goals. States must meet the goal by 2025 as well as two-year benchmarks along the way.
Chuck Fox, the EPA's lead official on the bay restoration effort, said Wednesday's announcement was the first installment in "establishing a new era of federal leadership for Chesapeake Bay," a process that will be marked by new accountability and performance.
Fox said the federal environmental agency was trying to improve and strengthen efforts to "secure a much higher degree of performance and accountability."
Beth McGee, senior water quality scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which had sued the EPA over the slow pace of restoration efforts, said the foundation was pleased with the announcement. However, McGee said foundation officials were awaiting another letter expected from the agency by the end of the month that would detail what actions would be used to enforce compliance with restoration plans.
"The linchpin is how severe are those consequences and will EPA, at the time they need to invoke them, have the backbone needed to do so," McGee said.
Katherine Antos, coordinator for water quality at the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program, said consequences could include more stringent requirements for pollution sources such as sewage treatment plants, prohibitions on new or expanded discharge permits, or withholding federal funds.
Antos said the EPA also realized that the level of detail it was asking for was unprecedented, including discharge plans at the local level, and would allow states to implement their plans in phases.
When asked about possible limits on development, Fox said states would have flexibility in meeting reduction targets and the focus of the agency would be on establishing performance standards, but pollution from urban and suburban development is increasing.
"We simply have to reduce pollution coming from urban and suburban runoff if we are to be successful in saving the Chesapeake Bay," Fox said.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
More out of touch rhetoric
Don't know which is worse the Obama dreamers or the Chesapeake bay Foundation with their outrageous expectations. No explanation of how they are going to pay for all this. What about reimbursement for the taking of private property? This is much like eminent domain stealing. If the environmentalists want to fix the environment they should be promoting population control. Anyone having more that 2 children should be heavily taxed would do it.
Don't know which is worse
Don't know which is worse the anti-science and anti-environment Republicans/Libertarians and/or the private property zealots with their absurd idea that they can do whatever they want to their land even if it pollutes the Bay for others. And by doing so, they should be the ones to pay for the clean-up. The world does not revolve around you. You pollute, you pay either by cleaning up your pollution or taxes/penalties. Period!
Lawns need to go
"We simply have to reduce pollution coming from urban and suburban runoff"
We need to get over the golf course lawn mentality, use natural landscaping or just let indigenous ground cover grow without pouring on the chemicals. My subdivision is along a tributary, we all back up to a marsh that flows into the Nansemond and James. Yet we are expected to keep lawns dark green and looking good all spring and summer (the newsletter from the HOA folks, Chesapeake Bay Management, tells us how to do it too), or the neighbors (and HOA) get upset. The neighbors are all pouring the chemicals, and TrueGreen comes to all the houses dumping this stuff that is running right into the creek. This has got to stop. Give me blue crabs and brown grass.
Well said
It wouldn't be that hard, and might actually be cheaper, to go with natural, native ground cover on our properties, rather than lawns.
Changing our mindset
Well said...
...is right on. I've seen some really beautiful naturally "bay-scaped" or "natural" yards. With some careful choices, it really is NOT that hard to replace grass lawns with native flowering plants and shrubs (I eliminate lawn every chance I get!), and most times, I've found the replacements even easier to maintain than a lawn, AND birds love it. It's a small change that we all can make, or at least contribute to. If we did, it would add up to a huge change in the Bay status.