EPA Threatens States to Cut Pollution in Chesapeake Bay

In what is being described as the biggest shake-up in the 27-year history of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, the EPA has threatened five mid-Atlantic states to cut their pollution by 2025.

According to The Washington Post, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, and New York together account for more than 70 percent of the pollution that causes dead zones in the bay.

Dead zones are areas with low oxygen, making it impossible for most organisms to survive.

They are caused by excess nutrients — the most problematic of which are nitrogen and phosphorus — that are washed downstream in treated sewage, fertilizer, and animal manure.

These states have failed to meet the EPA’s previous deadlines to cut pollution by 2000 and 2010 and their plans contain “serious deficiencies.”

The agency has given these states until November 29 to fix these deficiencies in their plans.

“If they don’t [meet the goals], the EPA already demonstrated that they’re prepared to write the plans for them and to impose an improved plan on those states,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation President William C. Baker.

Since 1983, more than $5 billion has been spent on cleaning up the bay.

But without a punishment for those states that failed to deliver on promises, the EPA has found minimal success.

Then last May, President Obama signed an executive order that gives the EPA the power to punish.

It is hard to say at this time what these punishments would look like — perhaps higher taxes? — but things are going to change.

Maryland and DC, it seems, are more on point when it comes to their pollution plans. Their plans merely contain “deficiencies,” which should only require minor corrections.

Coinciding with the EPA’s announcement, over two hundred people attended Environment Maryland’s rally for a clean Chesapeake Bay at the National Aquarium in Baltimore’s Inner Harbor.

“We’re looking to Maryland state agencies to make the best of this opportunity, and we want the EPA to keep pushing the states,” said Halle Van der Gaag, deputy director of the Baltimore Water Alliance.

“Beyond strong, detailed plans, we need the will for implementation. In Baltimore and across Maryland, this will mean creating cleaner and greener neighborhoods, repairing aging infrastructure, and creating green jobs. If we get this right, we’ll finally be on track to having water that’s clean, healthy for our kids, and safe for our communities.”

While there have been many positive reactions — like the one above — there are just as many negative ones, particularly from the farming community.

“It’s basically going to mean that the EPA is a full partner in that farming operation” because rules will be so intrusive, said Wilmer Stoneman of the Farm Bureau. “I’m not sure why that farmer would want to continue.”

Brad Rosenberger from Virginia, who operates one of the largest farms in the county, just wants to see a level playing field.

“If they’re going to be testing [for nitrogen] on farms, they need to be testing in [housing] developments and golf courses,” he said. “That’s where the majority of fertilizer is used. “Fairfax is the largest user of fertilizer in the state and there is not a farm in that county.”

But most of the negativity stems around how much cleanup will cost the states…

Virginia’s plan states:

Full implementation of this plan will likely cost billions of new dollars. In these austere times, we cannot guarantee such significant additional funding will be provided by our General Assembly.

This might be true, Virginia, but I think it’s safe to say you have brought this upon yourself…

You should have been working toward cutting your pollution back in the 80s.

Until next time,

Angela Guss

Stock Investing Guide

Start Trading Like a Profesional