The Virginian-Pilot
©
Virginia has "serious deficiencies" in its plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and must cut more pollution or face federal mandates to do so, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Friday.
The criticism of Virginia, as well as other states, was part of a larger EPA announcement that the Bay is about to undergo a "pollution diet" over the next 15 years so the troubled estuary can recover from decades of abuse.
The diet is called a TMDL, short for Total Maximum Daily Load - basically the levels of pollutants the Bay can tolerate and still attain clean, healthy water quality. It calls for 25 percent reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus and 16 percent less sediment, compared with levels in 2009.
In excess, the three substances become contaminants that conspire to rob oxygen from water, smother underwater habitats and create red tides and "dead zones" where plants, fish and shellfish struggle to survive.
EPA Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin said the proposed diet "will not be easy, cheap or quick." It could cost billions of dollars to implement, coming at a time of economic downturn and fragile state budgets.
Still, Garvin said, the EPA had no choice: It agreed to take a tougher stance to settle lawsuits with conservation groups about lingering pollution and missed cleanup deadlines dating to the 1980s.
In addition, the Obama administration has made the Bay cleanup an environmental priority, pledging to hasten the 30-year-old campaign to "save the Bay."
"If the EPA follows through on this, we think this is a new day for the Chesapeake Bay," said Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an advocacy group that sued the federal government over inaction.
Baker said the foundation is "fully prepared to go back to court" if the EPA does not press states such as Virginia to do more.
Like five other states that influence the Bay, as well as the District of Columbia, Virginia turned in its own reduction plan last month. Environmental groups immediately blasted it for lacking specifics and containing vague language of past blueprints.
EPA officials said Friday that Virginia's plan not only fell short of meeting pollution targets but also did not say how or when they would be implemented.
The officials said Virginia, as well as other states, will have to crack down harder on farms, especially those that raise livestock; on sewage plants, including those in the James River; and on stormwater that washes off development sites or carries pollutants through urban storm drains.
Doug Domenech, Gov. Bob McDonnell's secretary of natural resources, said the administration was "deeply disappointed" in the EPA's findings and predicted they could "lead to delays in achieving our clean water goals."
Still, Domenech added in a statement, the state remains "committed to a restored Chesapeake Bay, but we also remain committed to achieving our goals in the most sensible and cost-effective manner."
Chiefly, Virginia wants to expand its nutrient-trading program, in which businesses, cities, developers and farmers could buy, sell or barter pollution credits to comply with pollution goals.
The EPA is fine with the idea, officials said, but only if Virginia better defines how it will run the program. The officials also questioned whether such trading can succeed on a broader scale without further incentives and clarity.
The release of the Bay's proposed diet Friday sets off a flurry of 18 public hearings across the mid-Atlantic, as the EPA listens to comments for and against the plan. In Hampton Roads, a hearing is slated for Oct. 7 in Hampton.
Domenech pointed out that the state plan and the diet as a whole are both draft documents that will be amended in the months ahead. A final diet is due to be announced by Dec. 31, and the EPA wants all clean-water programs installed by 2025.
Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340, scott.harper@pilotonline.com Reduction in phosphorous levels Reduction in sediment Reduction in nitrogen levels
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
I agree with other posters the problems of the Bay are the
result of neglect and a lack of will across decades of Governors and Presidents. Part of the problem has been a lack of scientific information that is agreed upon by scientists about what are the "best" ways to make a significant difference. The Bay is a complex estuary and we need to come to an agreement of what will bring the largest bang for the buck. What is the number one problem, is it runoff or is pollution from water treatment or is it dredging destroying habitat and stirring up the bottom silt? Or are all of these problems so great they need to be attacked at the same time with the same vigor? As I see it so many different problems have been identified we are left with a scatter gun approach taken by many different agencies and interpreted and applied inconsistently by the many localities such that we only make a small dent towards improvement.
We need to agree on what is the largest problem for the Bay and concentrate on attacking that.
How long has the EPA been
How long has the EPA been doing the same dog and pony show ?????? 30 years ?????? they are all talk and no action
Business vs environment
This has been an ongoing controversy ever since any business has a procedure which contaminates or destroys the environment. I think I read that one proposal is for polluting industries to "buy" credits from non-polluting industries, Cap and Trade, I think it is?
What they need to do is cap ALL the pollution and trade the current pols for new ones.
Push-Back by the Commonwealth
The macman selected some real winners to lead (not), errr, manage secretariates and departments of the Commonwealth. When faced with new or necessary environmental controls/constraints, stuck-in-the-sediment ndustries exercise the option of push-back on those lawfully appling existing regulations to reduce/eliminate well known and documented eco-problems. This occurs regularly and often in the Commonwealth both in the past and continuing to this very day via lobbiests. It is all too often the case that neglegent industries and individuals exercise the push-back without true merit or justification. Those in charge of eco-programs in the state seem all to eager to readily accept those lame arguments and disregard the best programs, permits, and recommendations by skilled staff to improve water quality and LEAD restoration efforts. You see, it is simple, Va. managers are just doing what they have been trained to do and have readily accepted in the past and to date. Just PUSH-BACK and EPA will fold like a deck of cards. Let us hope and pray, for the Bay and future, the Va. plan gets held to the higher standard because push-back is for the ignorant, neglegent and disinterested.
When it comes to the Bay, Virginia always sides with Business
This is no different than the way the state treats the marine life in the Bay. They allow Omega to take unsustainable quantities of menhaden from the Bay, and they allow commercial fisherman to net unsustainable quantities of other fish. Is it a surprise that the state is allowing farmers and developers to pollute the Bay to the point of killing most of the marine life in it?
Heavy handed government
This is just more of the Obama administration's efforts to limit business development. It will of course lead to higher taxes/fees. Even though these fees seem small to the average consumer, they can make the difference for some business deciding to locate a factory here or elsewhere. The EPA will always find new ways to justify their own existence.
The Bay Problem Spans Decades, Many Govs, POTUS
It ain't about the current POTUS or the EPA, it is all about you and your careless attitude about our surrounding environment and our past and ongoing contributions to the greater problem. You got dogs, pick up their droppings for disposal. You smoke ciggies, keep your butt in the car. You get a storm water management bill, do what you can to ensure a clean runoff, especially if you are a near-shore industry or developer ripping apart the earth for un-needed encrochment into set-backs. You are a farmer, keep the cows, their droppings and liquids out of the streams; manage chicken wastes responsibly and prevent exposure to the storm. A homeowner, get your soil tested before applying anything but water for irrigation; get over turf grasses and join one of our struggling local golf courses; plant suitable trees and shrubs. Cities must enact standards, some retroactive, that hold all development to site features that retain storm water for reuse for non-potable uses, have green roofing/even walls. You a citizen of this state, read/understand/learn of problems you contribute to, but ignore. It is time to act on a problem a century old and across many POTUS.
Another increase coming for Stormwater fees
Clean Water Act, Water Quality Act, Chesapeake 2000, Chesapeake Bay Program and the resulting fees apparently had no impact. The money simply goes into the general revenue coffers of states and localities. DC Water and Sewage was and still is under this plan allowed to pump sewage overflow into the Anacostia, Potomac, and the bay. They still get to release nitrogen into the bay from the Blue Plains water treatment plant under this new plan albeit under a reduced rate. But we'll pay more fees for the EPA to do as good a job as it did under the other laws. And for all the idiotic rants against current politicians; it didn't get polluted over the course of a few months - its been going on for decades- no matter who the president, governor or mayor happened to be or even who ran Congress. Get a grip, because it didn't get done, and neither will this new effort.
Thanks Bob,
for just not getting it.
McDonnell has shown a total lack of vision and a complete detachement for the Bay's plight that will not serve him well politically or otherwise. Chesapeake Bay restoration is one of the most most sensitive and important issues with a vast majority of Virginians, and this man simply does not represent us. He thinks his narrow minded capital interests should trump our very health and viability while hiding behind pretenses.
THE TIME FOR STUMBLING ON THIS MATTER ENDED YESTERDAY !! THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW !! GET OFF THE HIGH HORSE, SHOW SOME COMMON SENSE DECISION MAKING AND GET BEHIIND THIS CAMPAIGN BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE !!
Sensible weight loss programs
include both calorie restriction AND exercise to burn more calories.
A sensible nutrient reduction plan for the bay should include both reducing the nutrients entering the bay AND increasing the capacity of the bay to convert excess nutrients into useful protein.
Nutrients in the bay cause excess algae growth, but that excess algae can be removed by increased populations of filter feeders, primarily oysters and menhaden.
It is very likely the least expensive means Virginia has at its disposal to reduce the impact of nutrients on the bay is to protect and increase the population of menhaden in the bay by drastically reducing, or perhaps eliminating, the overharvest of menhaden.