Last year around this time, I happily deleted this headline, "A Dark Day for the Bay," which I was preparing to use for a blog post in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal of the American Farm Bureau Federation and other plaintiffs in their challenge to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort known as the Bay TMDL. Ultimately, the Court denied that appeal, leaving in place the decision of a federal appeals court that upheld the Bay TMDL and solidified the Bay restoration effort at a critical time – the midpoint assessment period. I once again considered dusting off this ominous headline last fall when Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) successfully added a provision known as a "rider" to a budget bill, which would have blocked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from imposing any "backstop actions" to ensure the TMDL remained on track.
Ultimately, that effort also failed as it faced the threat of a White House veto. In fact, the Goodlatte amendment provoked an overwhelming bipartisan backlash from senators and representatives from around the Chesapeake Bay watershed who sided with the Bay restoration effort over ideological attacks. But the enemies of the Chesapeake Bay know that there are many ways to skin a cat, or, in this case, gut the Bay TMDL. If you can't overturn it in court, or gut the accountability framework through budget gimmickry, you can always zero out funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program, which has been the centerpiece of the Bay restoration effort for decades. Some extreme elements within the White House are hoping the third time is a charm with the budget proposal released on March 16. And it is fair to label those behind this latest effort to defund the Bay Program as "extreme." Consider, for example, that some of the most conservative members of Congress publicly denounced the Goodlatte rider mentioned above. Also consider the reaction of a number of Republicans, who declared Trump's budget "dead on arrival" and vowed to restore some or all of the proposed cuts. The cuts included in yesterday's federal fiscal year 2018 budget plan would be every bit as devastating for the future of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed as the previous efforts to overturn the Bay TMDL in court or statutorily prohibit EPA from instituting backstop actions to keep states moving forward in meeting their cleanup goals under the TMDL.
Eliminating EPA funding for the Chesapeake Bay would cut all support for Bay Program operations and scientific data management, as well as tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure development, water quality monitoring, pollution reduction efforts, and grants to assist states with implementation of the Bay TMDL. The public, clean water advocates, and lawmakers across the region and from both sides of the aisle were up in arms last week following reports that the Office of Management and Budget had proposed cutting Bay spending from $73 million to $5 million. Instead of backing off, the White House doubled down by proposing to eliminate federal funding for the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. So, sadly, the headline I'd hoped to avoid is all too appropriate. It truly is "A Dark Day for the Bay."
CPR will be working alongside our allies in the fight against this disastrous proposal, but we need your help. Please contact your representatives and senators and make your voice heard.
Showing 2,833 results
Evan Isaacson | March 17, 2017
Last year around this time, I happily deleted this headline, "A Dark Day for the Bay," which I was preparing to use for a blog post in the event that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the appeal of the American Farm Bureau Federation and other plaintiffs in their challenge to the Chesapeake Bay […]
Matt Shudtz | March 16, 2017
As part of a coalition of public interest organizations working toward a responsible federal budget that protects people and the planet, I released the following statement on President Trump’s reckless budget proposal that guts the EPA, eliminates federal funding for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort, and more. “The president’s ‘skinny budget’ is a particularly apt […]
John Echeverria | March 15, 2017
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a seemingly minor zoning case, Murr v. State of Wisconsin. In reality, the case involves a fundamental challenge to public authority to protect our communities and private property. In particular, if the Court were to rule in favor of petitioners, it would make it vastly […]
Joseph Tomain | March 13, 2017
The Trump administration’s fundamental hostility to government is by now plainly apparent. The President issued an executive order requiring agencies to get rid of two regulations for each new one that is adopted. He appointed administrators who have been extraordinarily hostile to the missions of the departments and agencies that they now head, such as […]
David Driesen | March 7, 2017
This op-ed originally ran in The Hill. The Feb. 28 executive order overturning a Clean Water Act rule clarifying EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands furnishes but the latest example of President Trump’s propensity to rule by almost daily fiat. Trump has ruled by decree ever since he assumed office. He has not proposed a single bill […]
Dave Owen | March 6, 2017
Originally published on Environmental Law Prof Blog by CPR Member Scholar Dave Owen. Last Tuesday, President Trump signed an executive order directing EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to begin work on a new rule defining the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The rule, if and when it is finalized, would replace the […]
Matthew Freeman | March 6, 2017
Unless you regularly read newspapers from markets ranging from Baltimore to Houston to the San Francisco Bay area, chances are that you missed some of the op-eds that CPR’s scholars and staff published in the nation’s newspapers in February. We post links on our website, of course; you can find them on the various issue […]
James Goodwin | March 3, 2017
The first rule of reading anti-regulatory bills, executive orders, and other policy prescriptions is: Sweat the hyper-technical, anodyne-sounding stuff. And President Donald Trump’s February 24 executive order on “Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda” demonstrates why this rule exists. One of the order’s provisions – which no doubt caused glaze to form over many an eye […]
Robert L. Glicksman | March 2, 2017
In his first speech upon assuming his duties as EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt informed the agency’s employees that “regulators exist to give certainty to those that they regulate.” No, Mr. Pruitt, they do not. Regulators and the regulations they are responsible for adopting and enforcing exist to protect the public interest. In particular, they exist […]