Archives for November 2014

On March 12, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order intended to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. According to the order, it aims to “protect and restore the health, heritage, natural resources, and social and economic value of the nation’s largest estuarine ecosystem”: the Chesapeake Bay. It also places the federal government (via the Environmental Protection Agency) in charge of developing the development and restoration policies that affect the six states bordering the Chesapeake Bay: Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, as well as Washington D.C.

During the 2014 gubernatorial debates we saw Larry Hogan and Anthony Brown stand on opposite sides when it came to how to address environmental concerns regarding the Chesapeake Bay. Anthony Brown voiced his support for the “storm water management” program that Maryland was forced to adopt, by new EPA regulations. In essence, this involved state legislators forcing county governments to fund a storm water remediation program which ultimately led to counties raising taxes to pay for it. Carroll County was the lone county that had adequate funding set aside for any economic uncertainties. After a brief dispute with state officials, it only raised county taxes by a penny.

On the flipside, Larry Hogan voiced his overwhelming support for federal action, stating that the surrounding states (Pennsylvania and New York) do “their part” in keeping pollution from entering the bay. Hogan’s biggest environmental concern focused on the Conowingo Dam, a dam that spans on the lower Susquehanna River at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Hogan stated that the “[Conowingo Dam] is a sediment trap and traps approximately 3.5 million pounds of phosphorous and dirt behind it each year.” Since the Conowingo Dam has an estimated storage capacity of 204 million tons and sediment travels down the river, to the tune of 3 million tons per year, the crucial question is “When will the Conowingo Dam reach its storage capacity?” If we take the Anthony Brown approach, it’s not an issue and the focus should be on future prevention. If we take the Hogan approach, it is of vital importance to the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay.

Even environmental scientists can’t agree on where the state should spend its money. “If the state implemented better soil management practices further upstream and established regulations that aimed to reduce run-off and other forms of pollution, it could not stop the dam from over filling” (according to a study conducted by the USGS) causing a worst case scenario for Chesapeake Bay inhabitants and those who rely on the Bay for their income. Not even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can give a time table with any certainty for when the Conowingo Dam will reach critical mass. So, if Governor-elect Hogan advances his agenda through the General Assembly or signs an executive order, would the clean-up of the Chesapeake Bay yield a greater return on the investment? The bottom line is no one truly knows the answers to those questions.

The United States government shut down in 2013, because members of Congress couldn’t agree on how much each side wanted to spend for the upcoming fiscal year. This is a common occurrence when debating how state governments should deal with the Chesapeake Bay restoration. Take for example, a recent study by the Maryland Public policy Institute and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Both Independent studies stand on opposite sides of the environmental movement. The Chesapeake Bay is a problem with no clear-cut solution.

The political debate on the environment has never been as contentious as it is today. Both sides claim their ideas can “fix” the problems facing the environment. Both also agree that only the government, whether state or federal, can fix those problems. This involves more spending and almost always more regulations that, in some cases, hurt an economy.

But what about taking a counter position to environmental concerns? A position that can shift certain transaction costs from governments to private industry, allowing the power of the market to explore the possibilities of a cleaner environment without government interference. Since the resolutions to the problems facing the Chesapeake Bay aren’t concrete, what would happen if the state allowed property owners to expand their ownership to the common areas of the Bay?

The idea that state governments should recognize property rights in regards to the Chesapeake Bay, or anything for that matter is not something new. The creative extension of property rights to ecological resources could help address environmental problems because they are a viable means of sustainability when compared to the political alternative. The largest obstacle facing this movement is the fact that no empirical evidence exists in favor of what would be a deregulation of environmental policy that, coupled with the fact that the Chesapeake Bay watershed is home to millions of individuals. Proponents, however, do point to the Common Law principle of enforcing the law based on property ownership. Although tort law would be an adequate way to protect private regulations, the transaction costs involved when dealing with millions of property owners would be enormous.

More importantly, states that do recognize property rights of the commons have been successful when keeping their focus on the local level of governments. Virginia currently allows property owners to plant oyster beds along the waters off of their property, allowing the owners to contribute to their replenishment. Virginia also allows its watermen to lease oyster beds, giving them incentives to preserve their resource. This keeps that part of the bay from being over harvested. Moving from states to international waters, in 2007, Iceland took the “international property rights” approach to local fisheries. The Iceland ITQ (individual transfer quotas) system has contributed to a “regeneration of stock and a strengthening of a number of other marine species stock.”

“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman

Obviously, Maryland will not focus its efforts on privatizing anything related to the Chesapeake Bay, but that doesn’t mean that solutions that are currently on the table will achieve the best results. The fate of the Chesapeake Bay is too economically and environmentally important to be left all to government solutions. County governments should do their part in more of a prevention approach in keeping the Chesapeake Bay preserved. Ultimately, the mitigating factor on the Chesapeake Bay cleanup is the economy. With the Eastern Shore economy not rebounding as fast as the counties on the western shore, and the fact that agriculture is the main revenue generator of the economy, it wouldn’t be in the best interest of county governments imposing new restrictions on our farmers. That is, unless the recovery program was associated with some sort of expansion of property rights.

Kirk French, Jr., is a member of the Republican Central Committee of Talbot county. His views and opinion are not shared by any party members unless stated otherwise. He publishes the blog “Eastern Shore Idealist”