Join us.

We’re working to create a just society and preserve a healthy environment for future generations. Donate today to help.

Donate

Timid Bay Agreement Falls Short

Maryland faces an important deadline in its long-running effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. By 2017, the state is required to implement specific measures to reduce the massive quantities of nutrient pollution that now flow into the Bay from agriculture, sewage treatment plants, power plants, factories, golf courses, and lawns. Gov. Martin O’Malley and the other Bay State governors know we’re going to have to make some demands on polluters to get the job done. But if the new Bay Watershed Agreement is any indication, the politicians lack the stomach for it.

For years, the Bay states have collaborated their way to nowhere, inking joint agreements that resulted in very little actual progress. Then the Obama EPA stepped up to the plate, issuing a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), or pollution diet for the Bay. Under its terms, by 2017, the six Bay states (Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia and New York) and the District of Columbia must have in place 60 percent of all the measures needed to reduce nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment deposition in the Bay and its tidal rivers. By 2025, 100 percent of those measures are due.

The interstate agreement recently announced by the Chesapeake Executive Council, now chaired by Gov. O’Malley, was a chance for the governors to make sure they were holding each of the various polluting sectors to roughly the same standards across state lines. That way, the big chicken companies in the region won’t be able to play one state off against another. It was also the states’ chance to address some of the issues unaddressed by the TMDL, most notably toxic chemicals in the Bay and the problems resulting from climate change.

The governors whiffed on all of that, unfortunately. The agreement is silent on climate change and toxics. And it makes no effort to hold agriculture accountable. Like so many past Chesapeake Bay agreements, this one’s little more than a show pony.

Most Maryland pollution sources—sewage treatment plants, county stormwater systems, even homeowners—are required to contribute to Bay cleanup in a transparent and verifiable way. Sewage treatment plants and other stationary sources of pollution must apply for a permit to operate and are subject to fees, regular inspections, and record-keeping requirements. To upgrade sewage treatment plant pollution controls, homeowners pay a “flush tax” of $60 per year.

In addition, Maryland’s nine largest counties and Baltimore City have started collecting annual fees from property owners to help manage polluted stormwater runoff.

Such measures make sense. Maryland derives billions of tourism dollars from the Bay each year. To restore this vital economic and recreational engine, it’s only fair that each sector takes responsibility for its share of pollution. 

Agricultural operations are responsible for nearly half of the nutrients now choking the Chesapeake. But efforts to hold agriculture responsible for its share have fallen flat.

Large industrial animal farms have operated for years without paying modest fees meant to cover the costs of minimal regulation and inspection requirements. Although these farms are considered “point sources,” just like sewage treatment plants, Maryland refuses to collect fees, leaving over $400,000 on the table in 2013. 

A bill introduced this past session proposed a 5-cent tax on every chicken produced in Maryland, to be paid by the large poultry companies that contract with farmers to raise the birds. Governor O’Malley threatened a veto before it even had a hearing. The $15 million annual revenue would have been used to pay farmers to plant cover crops that prevent excess fertilizer from their fields from washing off into rivers and streams.

Getting serious about cleaning up the Bay means sharing the responsibility among all the actors. The failure to hold agriculture accountable for its share of the pollution unfairly shifts the burden to taxpayers and other polluting sectors. Maryland has made some important strides toward cleaning up the Bay but it will never finish the job if it ignores the source of half the estuary’s pollution.  

This tepid don’t-rock-the-boat agreement harks back to yesteryear, when Bay states spent two full decades blowing each other air kisses without getting much done. Thousands of groups and individuals, including CPR, submitted comments on the draft agreement, which Gov. O’Malley and the rest of the Executive Council are now reviewing. We urge Gov. O’Malley to revise the agreement so it reflects the true value Bay restoration represents to Maryland.

Showing 2,819 results

Rena Steinzor | April 1, 2014

Timid Bay Agreement Falls Short

Maryland faces an important deadline in its long-running effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. By 2017, the state is required to implement specific measures to reduce the massive quantities of nutrient pollution that now flow into the Bay from agriculture, sewage treatment plants, power plants, factories, golf courses, and lawns. Gov. Martin O’Malley and […]

Frank Ackerman | March 26, 2014

How the Koch Brothers are Hacking Science

Rhode Island has recently learned that its renewable energy standards could be ruinously expensive. But they’re in good company: more than a dozen states have “learned” the same thing, from reports from the same economists at the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI). Housed at Boston’s Suffolk University, BHI turns out study after study for right-wing, anti-government […]

| March 26, 2014

Greening the Idol Industry in India

I’ve been in Bangalore, India for about two months on a Fulbright fellowship to study Indian environmental law.  While I knew India has major problems with air pollution and sanitation, I didn’t expect that one of the major environmental controversies here would be about greening the idol industry.  Apparently, the gods in India can wreak […]

James Goodwin | March 19, 2014

The “Best” Regulatory System Money Can Buy: Lessons from North Carolina’s “Regulatory Reform” Movement

For years, Duke Energy has enjoyed virtual free rein to contaminate North Carolina’s surface and ground waters with arsenic, lead, selenium, and all of the other toxic ingredients in its coal ash waste in clear violation of the Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws.  And it seems that both North Carolina’s regulators and […]

Wendy Wagner | March 18, 2014

Conflict Disclosures for Regulatory Science: Slow but Steady Progress at Last

Basic disclosures of conflicts of interest have been required by the top science journals for decades. Yet most regulatory agencies – despite strong urging from a variety of bipartisan sources – have failed to require these disclosures for private research submitted to inform regulatory decisions. This omission is particularly alarming since, unlike journals, agencies used this […]

Anne Havemann | March 17, 2014

CPR Submits Comments on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement

Maryland faces an important deadline in its long-running effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.  By 2017, the state will be legally required to have put in place a number of specific measures to reduce the massive quantities of pollution that now flow into the Bay from a range of pollution sources in the state.  […]

Rena Steinzor | March 13, 2014

EPA Declares BP a ‘Responsible Contractor’ Makes It Eligible Again for Federal Contracts in the Gulf

A scant five days before the Department of Interior opens a new round of bids for oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico, the EPA has blinked, pronouncing BP, the incorrigible corporate scofflaw of the new millennium, once again fit to do business with the government. To get right to the point, the federal government’s […]

James Goodwin | March 10, 2014

CPR Submits Comments on FDA’s Proposed Generics Labeling Rule

If you’re harmed by an improperly labeled prescription drug you’ve taken, should your ability to hold the manufacturer accountable in court depend on whether that drug was “name brand” or “generic”? Strangely, it does matter, thanks to the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Pilva v. Mensing. There, the Court held that because of a […]

Anne Havemann | March 10, 2014

Enforcement of Environmental Laws a Victim of Obama’s Budget Proposal

EPA’s budget is in free-fall.  Members of Congress brag that they have slashed it 20 percent since 2010.  President Obama’s proposed budget for 2015, released on Tuesday, continues the downward trend.  The budget proposal would provide $7.9 billion for EPA, about $300 million, or 3.7 percent, less than the $8.2 billion enacted in fiscal year […]