Bay's restoration makes environmental, economic sense

The Chesapeake Bay still is a treasured asset even after years of enduring the mistaken notion that dilution is the solution to pollution — as municipal sewage, factory wastes, agricultural and stormwater runoff poured "freely" into its waters.

"Freely" became costly as algal blooms sucked oxygen from its waters, and toxins fostered disease and death to its inhabitants. Oysters, fish, clams and crabs — once in abundance and the pride of our Chesapeake — were decimated. The loss in oyster production alone exceeds $4 billion. Bay watermen declined in numbers from 14,000 to 1,500 in less than 10 years, and the crabbing industry lost 4,500 jobs between 1998 and 2006.

Still, even after decades of Bay degradation and pollution, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel in 2004 estimated the annual economic value of the Bay watershed — including tourism, agriculture, forestry and fisheries — to be in excess of $1 trillion per year.

Yet, while the public consistently has voiced support for restoring the Chesapeake Bay, political will has been lacking.

In the dozen or so years since establishment of the Virginia Water Quality Improvement Act to fund restoration of our waters, Virginia has allocated on average about $68 million per year to this effort. Make no mistake, that investment of more than $816 million is big money; but enough to protect an investment of the Bay's significance to the region's economy? Stated another way, Virginia consistently spends less than 1 percent of general fund dollars on environmental programs. That won't save the Bay and won't protect one of Virginia's greatest ecological and economic resources.

After many failed promises and following exhaustive negotiation and angst, Virginia developed under Gov. Bob McDonnell's leadership a Watershed Improvement Plan (WIP), accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to restore the Bay's water quality by 2025 (now 14 years away). The WIP identifies in detail the steps Virginia will take to address the Bay's problems — and may cost as much as $8 billion.

The compact with EPA has been developed, and Virginia has "hit the ground running" to implement several initiatives from the WIP to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution. However, there's pushback from various stakeholders, including many that long contributed to the problem and now balk at appropriate participation in restoration.

Cleanup will be costly, but, as noted, is long-term and long overdue. The investment must be measured against the economic importance of the Bay and against the greater costs of inaction. Currently, the primary funding source, the Water Quality Improvement Fund, is supported when there are surplus dollars. A percentage of the $20 surcharge on the state recordation tax (approximately $9 million annually) is the only dedicated revenue and is allocated for agriculture best-management practices. Grossly inadequate!

Maryland lawmakers are considering an increase in that state's so-called flush tax — a $2.50 monthly levy on all households, enacted in 2004, that has yielded tens of millions of dollars to modernize sewage treatment plants. Virginia has not levied a similar tax for that purpose, yet a dedicated fund is needed.

Much of the success of Virginia's cleanup plan as submitted to EPA relies on expanding the concept of nutrient credit exchange, through which entities that reduce pollution more than required may obtain credits that can be traded to others unable to reach their goals.

The issue is complicated. The commonwealth has a duty promptly to establish criteria for such an expanded exchange program for septic systems, urban/suburban stormwater controls, agricultural practices and discharges from wastewater treatment plants. It must be transparent and enforceable. Credits that look good on paper could fail to manifest real improvements to the Bay.

Virginia could establish a coordinating council, chaired by the secretary of natural resources and composed of representatives of state agencies. Included should be the departments of Environmental Quality, Conservation and Recreation, Health, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science; the Virginia director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; officials of local governments and soil and water conservation districts. Such a council would ensure balance and equity in managing this complicated task.

To remain fair and cost-effective, there must be legitimate and aggressive participation by all that contribute to pollution. Failure to include stormwater, agriculture and septic systems will result in greater responsibility being focused on fewer sources, including wastewater treatment plants, many of which already have been or are in the process of being upgraded. An imbalance could result in a significant hike in sewage bills for some, while others continue to avoid responsibility.

Transparent and accurate evaluation by state and local governments of pollution reduction efforts will require measurements of each program's performance in responding to the WIP responsibilities. Coordination and collaboration between agencies will be essential for success, and citizens must do their part to hold governmental agencies accountable to honor their commitments.

McDonnell has made restoring the Bay a top natural resource priority for his administration. He has the opportunity to lay a strong foundation for Virginia to succeed in restoring the Bay by 2025. I call upon the governor, my personal friend in whom I have confidence, to use his considerable influence to move forward with the WIP, identify the necessary funding and make this federal-state-local cleanup effort a success.

We're in this together. State and local governments and every interest group must heed the call to action. It's time to summon the political will and do the right thing — for our Bay and for ourselves!