The news-grabbing harmful algal bloom that closed the harvest of some fisheries from California to Washington State
reminds us that threats to water quality also
threaten our own human health.
Too much nitrogen and phosphorus pollution causes algae to explode, resulting in dangerous blooms.
In the Chesapeake Bay region, scientists have
known for years how much pollution must be
reduced to restore the health of our waterways. Unfortunately, all of the voluntary
agreements signed by the Bay states since
1983 have missed the mark. And not by an
inch but by a mile.
Today, we have a new, science-based clean-up
plan that has all the ingredients of success. It
will protect the environment and human
health. It is called the Chesapeake Clean
Water Blueprint, and it is a true win-win.
In December 2010, the Bay jurisdictions and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
announced this new initiative. There are pollution limits that will restore water quality in
local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay.
The states developed individual plans to
achieve those limits. In addition, the states
committed to take specific actions in two-year
increments called milestones. Together, the
limits, plans, milestones, and accountability
constitute what many consider the best hope
for clean water in the nation today.
The state plans require pollution reduction
from all sources—sewage treatment plants,
And yet the Blueprint is opposed by the Amer-
ican Farm Bureau Federation, the National
Pork Producers Council, the National
Association of Homebuilders, and others.
They have repeatedly litigated to try to stop
it, and now they want the U.S. Supreme
Court to kill it, having lost in federal district
court and again on appeal (see page 7). They
are spending their money on lawsuits, not
cleanup, and forcing the tax payer to contin-
ue to fund the government’s defense of the
Clean Water Act. A true lose-lose.
The Farm Bureau and other plaintiffs contend that the Clean Water Blueprint is an EPA
over-reach which micromanages state and
local land-use decisions. The facts are different. Each state has assessed its pollution
sources and control methods and put in
place plans that make the most sense for that
state’s needs and resources. It is a true
Maryland and Virginia are largely on target,
but Pennsylvania is lagging far behind. With
more freshwater entering the Bay from the
Commonwealth than any other state, it is
critical for Pennsylvania to accelerate efforts.
The benefits will be cleaner streams and
rivers in Pennsylvania, and improved water
quality downstream. Another win-win.
Perhaps equally important, a 2014 peer-reviewed economic analysis commissioned
by CBF found that fully implementing the
Blueprint will create $22 billion in benefits
to the region annually. Yes, another win-win.
The national lobbying associations suing
to kill the Blueprint claim that if we succeed
in achieving clean water here in the Bay
states, similar efforts may spring up in
other parts of the country. Farm Bureau
General Counsel Ellen Steen actually said,
“From the beginning, this was designed as
a model that would be followed around
We reject that argument. To us, it sounds a
lot like lose-lose. Save the legal fee expenditures, and work with us and so many of your
farmer members in Chesapeake Country to
achieve a healthy environmental and economic legacy for all.
History will call that win-win.
Win-win, or Lose-lose?
CBF President Will Baker
With more fresh water entering the Bay from
the Commonwealth than any other state, it is critical
for Pennsylvania to accelerate efforts. “ ”