EPA: Virginia, other states could face punishments over bay cleanup
Federal officials said yesterday that they could impose severe punishments if Virginia and other states don't do enough to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
Those punishments could include withholding federal grants from bay-region states and placing new limits on sewage-treatment plant discharges -- a potential hindrance to growth.
"We think the accountability system we have here has teeth in it," said Robert A. Koroncai, a manager with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Koroncai spoke during a meeting held in downtown Richmond, and broadcast across Virginia on the Web, to explain the development of a tough new cleanup plan for the bay.
The 26-year restoration effort has resulted in two missed cleanup deadlines but no punishment. The bay remains badly polluted, and President Barack Obama wants to change that.
Ann Jennings, Virginia director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, an environmental group, said she hopes the focus on accountability is real. "It was a lot of good talk, but we want to see it."
Not everyone was so happy.
Restrictions on sewage-plant discharges could mean limits on localities' growth, said Joe Lerch, director of environmental policy for the Virginia Municipal League, which represents cities.
"We don't want to see this process dictate decisions we make" on how to grow, Lerch said.
In interviews, Korancai and Rich Batiuk, another EPA official, said the cleanup shouldn't necessarily hinder growth. If a locality's planned sewage plant were deemed a threat to the bay, that plant could still be built if the locality took offsetting actions such as reducing pollution that runs off land, they said.
Wilmer Stoneman, associate director of governmental relations for the Virginia Farm Bureau, said he was concerned that the re-energized cleanup program could result in new pollution rules for farmers.
Despite common perceptions, many farms -- particularly large ones -- are closely regulated, Stoneman said. "How much more blood are we going to get out of the turnip?"
The bay is contaminated by waste that runs off farms, streets and yards; discharges from sewage plants; and even air pollution.
The EPA is devising a cleanup plan that should be ready by late 2010 or early 2011. The federal officials are allowing the states to devise many of the pollution-cutting ideas.
More than 400 people took in yesterday's meeting in person or via the Web.
Contact Rex Springston at (804) 649-6453 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Who pays for this? It should be part of the EPA’s budget or the Army Corp of Engineers. Private companies are only partially responsible. Cities, Counties, and States have limited funds. Where is our Stimulus money going? Why not here???
Quick question:
What gives business the right to be more important than everything else? Given the current reptilian I mean republican platform of:
Business>Environment
Business>Government
Business>Individuals
Why? Isn’t the government the collective voice of the people? Isn’t the environment something we all must share to live? So why do businesses (comprised of people) need and get so many extra voices?
Answer:
Some, not all, of those businesses are up to no damn good. They know it, we know it, the happy squirrels in park know it. But instead of change, or at least aspire to change, they’d rather spend millions thwarting democracy, lying, and ultimately failing to stop time in order to make marginal profits.
And it’s really getting annoying.
These regulations would be targeting non-point sources (i.e., small farms, shopping malls, vehicles, residential, etc). Point source dischargers (i.e., wastewater/sewage treatment plants both private and municipal) are already under compliance deadlines to meet tighter limits, many that are at the limits of technology. Larger farms (poultry, swine and dairy) are already regulated. This post would be too long to list all applicable state and federal regulations addressing water issues. The federal government has spent $2.5B over 5 years through 9 different agencies and 20 different programs to address Bay water quality. The “experts” who demanded and directed those efforts now tell us that those measures were not adequate in scope, technology and/or budget to meet arbitrary 10 and 20-yr goals (some of which were based on Capt John Smith circa 1604 water quality) which were established. Everyone appreciates clean water and a healthy Bay. However, this “shotgun” approach to try anything and restrict everything is unrealistic. Now we have 2-yr milestones. Not much has changed.
The same folks who are driving the Bay restoration efforts are the same folks driving health care reform, etc. In their eyes, there is no limit on how much should be spent, who should be regulated, and who should be driven out of business to reach these arbitrary goals. I’m in the business 20+ years and fight the battle every day.
“We don’t want to see this process dictate decisions we make” on how to grow, Lerch said.
Hmmm…seems to me that this attitude is the way the Bay became so polluted in the first place.
I love paying taxes! With them I purchase civilization…
Gil… OK. Don’t complain when your property taxes go up 15 percent in Hanover County. Don’t say one frickin word, because I GUARANTEE YOU everyone’s taxes are headed up if this garbage becomes law. GUARANTEED—TAKE IT TO THE BANK
Complaints that it would restrict growth falls on death ears I’m afraid. It’s about time that people realize you cannot just continue to expand without being able to adequately serve those constituents. look at Atlanta and how their lack of planning lead to real water shortages. Think ahead people….
Good. It’s about time.
everybody wants it done—by somebody else
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement