The Under Armour slogan, “Protect This House,” aptly characterizes the current campaign to fight the Trump Administration’s proposed cut of $73 million for continued cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay is the beating heart of Maryland. It requires constant attention. Keeping it alive despite relentless pollution warrants critical, if not acute care.
The bay, the largest estuary in the United States, provides measurable commercial and invaluable recreation opportunities for millions of residents in the Maryland-Pennsylvania-Virginia-Delaware region. Its upkeep is impossible without federal dollars.
It daily undergoes a stress test. In recent years, due largely to an expansive—and, yes, controversial cleanup based upon an oft-distasteful “pollution diet”—the bay has experienced a steady reduction in nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment that rob it of oxygen and destroy recreation and industry.
Ignoring slightly the emotional and cultural impact of a body of water that runs through the veins of those of us fortunate enough to live so closely to this generous force of nature, we residents of the Eastern Shore absolutely must fight hard to ensure that the Trump Administration’s intention to strike the $73 million from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget is a silly figment of a bean-counter’s mean-spirited imagination.
An argument that the state of Maryland, along with five other states and the District of Columbia in the 64,000-square-mile watershed, should shoulder the cost of improving and preserving the Bay’s fragile health ignores the federal government’s important role in forcing cooperation among independent-minded states lacking the financial means to fix a complex ecosystem.
EPA’s compulsory pollution diet, prescribed in 2010–and including the requirement of updated stormwater systems–upset local municipalities. It seemed unfair. It required local expenditures. It set deadlines. EPA understood that the Chesapeake Bay’s health could not survive on questionable and half-hearted life support. Immediate action was the cure.
While it’s true that a President’s budget document is merely a blueprint typically shunted aside by Congress, it nonetheless provides unmistakable insight into the thinking and priorities of an administration. Therefore, it cannot be ignored.
It calls for action.
I feel confident that Maryland’s congressional delegate will coalesce to oppose destruction of the embattled Chesapeake Bay. I feel confident that the argument for preservation and restoration of the Chesapeake Bay resonates in the halls of Congress, resulting in bi-partisan support of, and commitment to a future marked by abundant harvest of Blue crabs and the increasing health of long-endangered oysters. I trust my optimism is justified.
As stated in a March 22, 2017 editorial in The Washington Post, “It (Bay revival) will take a concerted political effort and public pressure to recover the funds eliminated in the administration’s proposed budget. It is critical that they succeed.”
The future of our Eastern Shore and the Chesapeake Bay are inextricably connected. As they must be.
If we care about the bay, then we must speak up. We must “Protect This House”(substitute “Bay”), to echo the assertive Under Armour slogan.
Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.
Alan Girard says
Members of Congress who represent the Bay states have indeed been coalescing, including 10 Democrats and 7 Republicans who have called on the Trump Administration to fully fund Chesapeake Bay restoration in the upcoming fiscal year. Eastern Shore representative Andy Harris is one of those callers, saying in a statement that, “the Chesapeake Bay is a treasure, and as a member of the Appropriations Committee, I am committed to working with the administration to prioritize programs within the Environmental Protection Agency that would preserve Bay cleanup efforts.” Congressman Harris should be thanked for this statement, and urged to stay strong during upcoming budget negotiations. A great opportunity to do that is at the Town Hall Meeting being hosted by Congressman Harris at Chesapeake College, 6:00 p.m. Friday, March 31, 2017. Now more than ever, Congressman Harris’ leadership and support are needed to make sure that Bay restoration progress continues.
Kenneth Miller says
Arguably, Howard’s perceptions are correct, albeit the false assumption that the Feds…rather than the states who have contributed to the Bay’s pollution… shlould be the one’s held accountable. We ALL cherish the Bay; however, we simply cannot expect that Fed Tax revenues generated from 50 states should all shoulder the cost of the requisite remediation. Those states that are accountable for the gradual demise of our cherished Bay are the ones that must and should be accountable; as Marylanders, we simply cannot expect Wash to bail us out, when the Fed deficit now exceeds $20 billion +. If Our nat’l governing body cannot get its’ act together…in the long run we’re all dead!
John Malin says
While not in anyway wishing to minimize the potential impact of any reduction in environmental protection for our beloved Chesapeake I would like to know more about what the $73 million was actually earmarked for. The devil is usually in the details and in today’s highly combustible political environment, any change in fiscal policy is met with a doomsday scenario irrespective of the facts. Words like “the destruction of the embattled Chesapeake Bay” are designed to strike fear into the hearts of local folks and are irresponsible and frankly unhelpful. $73 million is a very large sum of money but when considering the vast geographic area and the towns and cities that are impacted by the Chesapeake it is a very small resource. I am aware for example that a local Easton cultural group is raising $7 million for investment in new facilities…I wonder what people of the “Chesapeake States” would be prepared to donate to support this wonderful water system ? We have a $20 Trillion US debt and difficult and unpopular fiscal decisions need to be made….people will say that $73 million is “just a drop in the ocean” if you will excuse the pun. As my grandmother used to say “look after your pennies and the pounds will look after themselves”
Tom Zolper says
About $59 million of the $73 million is distributed to state and local governments in the Bay region, as well as colleges, community groups, non-profits, etc. for various sorts of projects: restoring and protecting oysters reefs, helping create habitat for animals, reducing pollution, creating jobs in the seafood industry, etc. You can check for yourself at USAspending.gov to get a detailed accounting of the money, and the programs. In Talbot County, for instance, about $152,000 was provided in grant money to the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy to help farmers and homeowners along Harris Creek, Broad Creek and the Tred Avon River reduce runoff. About $199,800 was provided to Ducks Unlimited to protect 300 acres of habitat on the Eastern Shore that is used by black ducks. About $200,000 was provided to establish a public-private partnership to help the long-term economic interests of watermen. The State of Maryland gets a reported $9 million of the funds to use for various scientific, monitoring and other purposes. The list goes on. Technically, the entire $73 million goes to the Chesapeake Bay Program – the arms of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that helps organize the Bay clean-up, but the majority of the money really just is distributed. If you visited the CBP office in Annapolis you’d see it’s just a few rooms in an office building. I wrote a blog summarizing what the CBP does. It can be found at https://cbf.typepad.com/
By the way, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation is completely different than the Chesapeake Bay Program. The Foundation is a non-profit. It is nearly entirely funded by donations, although it receives some EPA grant money each year, mostly to help livestock farmers on the Western Shore switch to pasture operations. The Program is the government.
Sarah K. Porter says
Thanks to Spy and Howard Freedlander for addressing this very, very important issue for all of us not just on the Eastern Shore but the Mid-Atlantic region. Here is more:
https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/fed/2017/03/16/cbf-issues-statement-on-elimination-of-funding-for-the-chesapeake-bay-program.