Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay

Saving a National Treasure: Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay A Report to the Chesapeake Executive Council From the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel The Formation of the Blue Ribbon Finance Panel he Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel was formed pursuant to T Chesapeake Executive Council Directive No. 03-02, approved in December 2003. The Panel was established to identify funding sources sufficient to implement basinwide clean-up plans so that the Bay and its tidal tributaries would be restored sufficiently by 2010 to remove them from the list of impaired waters under TABLE OF CONTENTS ii the Clean Water Act. The Chesapeake 2000 agreement, signed on June 28, 2000, by the Chesapeake Executive Council, recognizes ii The Formation of the that “improving water quality is the most critical element Blue Ribbon Panel in the overall protection and restoration of the 1 Chairman’s Summary Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.” To that end, the Why We Must Act Now Executive Council committed to a partnership effort that would correct the nutrient- and sediment-related 5 A Statement of the Problem problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries The Challenge Facing the Chesapeake by 2010. In December 2003, the Executive Council endorsed 8 Investing in a Restored Chesapeake Bay new ecologically based water quality criteria and 8 A Brief History of the Chesapeake Bay stringent new loading allocations for the Bay’s primary pollutants: nutrients and sediment. The Bay Program’s 12 What We Have Learned About the leadership also committed to completing Tributary Sources of the Bay’s Decline Strategies in 2004 that would meet these water quality 12 AGRICULTURE goals and load allocations. Finally, the Executive Council directed the Chesapeake Bay Program “to establish and 15 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL convene a Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Panel WASTEWATER to consider funding sources to implement the Tributary 17 DEVELOPMENT Strategies basin-wide and to make recommendations regarding other actions at the federal, state and local level 20 FORESTS to the Executive Council.” The Directive called for a 22 SEPTIC SYSTEMS detailed report of recommendations from the Panel in 23 AIR DEPOSITION October of 2004. The Panel is composed of fifteen distinguished leaders 24 Recommendations from the private sector, government and the A Bold Approach environmental community. Members were appointed by the governors of the states in the Bay watershed — 26 Supplementary Recommendations Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia 34 Members of the Panel and West Virginia — as well as by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Chair of the Chesapeake Bay 36 Directive Commission and the Administrator of the U.S. 37 Agendas Environmental Protection Agency. Additional members were appointed to provide the full range of financial and 40 Acknowledgments stakeholder expertise. Chairman’s Summary Why We Must Act Now The Chesapeake oday the Chesapeake Bay THE RESTORATION The lack of adequate funding is at a turning point. A EFFORT and implementation has left the Bay is America’s T key part of the region’s Bay effort far short of its goals. largest and most heritage and economy, agriculture, Responding to a public outcry, in In its current state, the Bay is also the largest single source of 1983 the states of Maryland, supports less than half the biologically diverse pollution into the Bay, and Virginia and Pennsylvania, the underwater grasses that were here estuary, home to current efforts to correct these District of Columbia, the in 1950, and the estuary’s primary more than 3,600 problems are underfunded and Chesapeake Bay Commission and filter feeder, the oyster, has fallen poorly coordinated. Forests, the U.S. Environmental to two percent of mid-20th species of plants, nature’s own pollution control Protection Agency committed to century levels. a historic Bay Agreement, fish and shellfish. system, are disappearing at the The plight of the Bay has not 1 rate of 100 acres a day. creating the regionwide gone unnoticed. Lawsuits have The United States Meanwhile, population in the partnership known as the been filed calling for full Congress calls it watershed has grown to 16 million Chesapeake Bay Program. enforcement of the Clean Water residents, increasing nutrients For twenty years the Act, and a 1999 consent decree “a national treasure from wastewater treatment Chesapeake Bay Program has executed in federal court in and a resource facilities and adding new shopping coordinated Bay restoration Virginia has led the Bay of worldwide centers, highways and housing efforts. Through a remarkable Program to commit to a 2010 developments. The resulting state-federal partnership, the deadline for removing the significance.” runoff of nutrients and sediment program has developed the most Chesapeake Bay from the federal has polluted the Bay’s waters and sophisticated estuarine science in list of impaired waters. In its damaged its ecosystem. the world. The partners have built landmark agreement, Chesapeake Simply put, restoration efforts unparalleled cooperative efforts 2000, the Chesapeake Bay Program are being overtaken by current and pioneered clean-up strategies has produced a roadmap for the trends. that have resulted in measurable recovery of the Bay, outlining a To save the Chesapeake, we gains in reducing the flow of range of programs meant to cut must act now and act boldly. A pollutants into the Bay. the flow of pollutants and restore major financial investment is In spite of its commendable the Bay’s living resources needed, coupled with improved work, the Chesapeake Bay by 2010. coordination of the restoration Program is not fully equipped to As described in this report, effort on a watershedwide meet the future challenges of excess nutrients and sediment scale. Finally, we must secure a restoring the Bay. The reason is have identifiable sources — permanent source of funding simple. It lacks a permanent farms and feedlots, municipal for the restoration to be funding base that is sufficiently and industrial wastewater successful over time. large to do the job. treatment plants, air deposition, The Chesapeake is the largest estuary in the U.S. It has seen massive increases in the amount of nutrients and sediment entering its waters, and massive declines in oysters and underwater 2 grasses. Nitrogen Loads to the Bay and runoff from cities and for the Panel by Chesapeake through innovative initiatives 400 suburbs. The difficulty has Bay Program partners that such as trading and through 350 Nitrogen been in dedicating adequate examine the sources of water new, more cost-effective goal 300 funds to implement much- quality impairment, including technologies. At the same 250 needed programs to control information about the major time, we face continual cost 200 this pollution and reverse the sources themselves and increases in our efforts to 150 Bay’s decline. projections of future growth. reduce nutrients and 100 We were informed about the sediment, especially since 50 THE WORK OF types of technologies that will more than 100,000 people Nitrogen Loads (millions lbs/yr) Nitrogen 0 1985 2000 2002 THE BLUE RIBBON need to be employed, about move to the Chesapeake FINANCE PANEL projected costs of achieving watershed every year, and necessary reductions by each day development in the Phosphorus Loads to the Bay In an effort to identify the pollutant source, and about basin adds to urban and 30 financial resources essential current funding for nutrient suburban stormwater runoff Phosphorus for cleaning up the nation’s and sediment control. and the disruption of natural 25 goal largest estuary, the Chesapeake hydrology. 20 Executive Council in We have drawn some The restoration of the Bay 15 December 2003 called for the conclusions. will only become more 10 creation of a Blue Ribbon First, we have concluded that expensive over time. 5 Finance Panel to make while it is difficult to A second conclusion is that recommendations for the determine the full costs of it will be difficult to achieve a 0 Phosphorus Loads (millions lbs/yr) Phosphorus 1985 2000 2002 effective funding and restoring Bay water quality, it fully integrated approach for financing of the Bay clean-up is clear that current funding funding and implementation, effort. does not begin to meet given the number of Sediment Loads to the Bay We have, during the past financing needs for restoring jurisdictions — six states and seven months, been briefed on Bay water quality by 2010. the District of Columbia — 8 Sediment goal 7 the results of studies detailing What funding is available along with the large presence 6 the causes of the Bay’s remains insufficiently of federal facilities and 5 degradation, and the level of prioritized and directed. operations in the watershed. 4 nutrient and sediment control The state Tributary While the Chesapeake Bay 3 required to restore the Bay’s Strategies — the jurisdictions’ Program has repeatedly 2 water quality and to remove plans for achieving nutrient shown what can be 1 the Bay from the Clean Water and sediment reductions — accomplished through a Sediment Loads (million tons/yr) 0 1985 2000 2002 Act list of impaired waters. are still being completed. strong federal-state We have also received Possibilities for reducing costs partnership, the Tributary Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model background reports prepared are also still being explored, Strategies for achieving the 2010 water quality commitment — with the commitment the ■ Cooperation and upon whose implementation the Chesapeake Executive Council Inclusiveness — For the The Panel’s deliberations have state of the Bay will depend — made in Chesapeake 2000. Chesapeake Bay cleanup to been guided by a set of principles. are state-specific and do not It is also important from the succeed, high-level cooperation These guiding principles are incorporate the benefits of standpoint of the court-established must occur among a range of fundamental to our approach interstate or collective action.

Load more