Satellite image of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed on September 13, 2011 following Tropical Storm Lee. Image courtesy NASA/GSFC/MODIS.

Advocate for Clean Chesapeake Agenda

The Clean Chesapeake Coalition advocates for an alternative Bay restoration agenda (the "Clean Chesapeake Agenda") to clean and protect the Bay--an agenda that is based upon sound scientific and technological merits, with due consideration for cost-effectiveness.  The Clean Chesapeake Agenda reflects the overall objective of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition--to advocate, raise awareness and take action in order to improve the poor water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in the most effective and fiscally responsible manner possible.

 

For decades, Maryland has led the Chesapeake Bay watershed states (New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, and Virginia) in spending and implementing programs and practices to restore the Bay. Although billions of dollars have been spent by Maryland to improve and restore the Bay since the early 1980s, to date there has been minimal meaningful improvement to the health of the Bay and its tributaries as a result of these expenditures. 

 

The Clean Chesapeake Agenda is rooted in the principal that local public expenditures will make a meaningful (measurable and lasting) improvement to the water quality of the Bay and its tributaries. Keeping this agenda in mind, public funds should be utilized to initially offset the most significant sources impacting the water quality of the Bay, especially when such pollution sources, if not addressed in the most beneficial order, have the effect of adversely impacting the success of other expenditures earmarked for protection of the Bay below the Conowingo Dam.

In a state of sticker shock after being presented their local WIP and on behalf of their local taxpayers, the County Council of Dorchester County reached out to county government officials across the State of Maryland with an appeal to coalesce for purposes of questioning the public costs and efficacy of the myriad policies, programs and practices being mandated by the State and federal government in the name of saving the Chesapeake Bay.  What started in concept as the "WIP Coalition" and then the "TMDL Coalition" evolved into the "Clean Chesapeake Coalition" - when seven Maryland counties agreed in late 2012 to join forces to collectively pursue improvement to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner. 

 

Here is a sampling of the "call to arms" among local elected officials; which continues to resonate:      

 

In the wake of historic State cuts in aid to local governments and the shift of significant financial obligations such as teacher pensions and highway maintenance from the State to the counties, the unrest among local elected officials in 2012 was palpable when confronted with crippling mandated expenditures purported to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay.  Simply put, the costs associated with the Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that all Maryland counties were required by the State to prepare and now implement are simply unaffordable.  Moreover, many of the State's policies, programs and practices that counties are required to fund in furtherance of the EPA's Bay TMDL are of questionable benefit in terms of improving the water quality of the Bay.  Local elected officials are the last line of defense to ensuring the most effective use of taxpayer dollars, and with so much being foisted on the counties' shoulders it is up to local elected officials to prioritize.

 

It is worth highlighting that the State's Phase II WIP (with a $14.5 billion price tag over the next 12 years) explicitly states that their load allocation was based on the concept of equity and fairness, rather than of cost-effectiveness and least funding burden.

 

The costs being imposed on local governments in the name of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay are enormous and frankly unaffordable; particularly with all else that local governments are expected to do in terms of essential public services.  The Coalition believes that these expenses, although well intentioned, are prohibitively too high and inconsequential in regards to improving the water quality of the Bay.  Rather, the Coalition believes that these State requirements will be overwhelmed by the vast amounts of nutrients and sediment traveling from the Susquehanna River, through the Conowingo Dam, and finally into the Bay.  This issue as a whole is one that engages all local officials, with potentially dire economic and environmental consequences.

 

If you are looking for the best bang for your taxpayers' buck, the Coalition is advocating that the following Bay restoration activities, in the order listed, would result in the most meaningful and lasting improvement to the water quality of the Bay in the most cost effective manner; with "cost-effective" defined as the cost of the practice per volume of nutrients and/or sediments prevented from polluting the Bay and its tributaries:

 

1. Dredge or otherwise address the 84 years of sediments accumulated above the Conowingo Dam and other northern dams in the Susquehanna River in order to regain trapping capacity so as to reduce the devastating impact of rapid sediment overload from scour and the pass through of clays and silts.  The Bay is sand deprived and overloaded with nutrient laden clays and silts. The dams trap the sand and allow the clays and silts to wash into the Bay.  Scour from the floor of the reservoirs behind the dams adds sediments and nutrients to the water that flows through the dams (over the Holtwood Dam) during storm events.  Therefore, the character and quality of the water flowing into the reservoirs by the dams is different than the character and quality of the water passing through the dams.  The reservoirs behind the dams in the lower Susquehanna River have no remaining long term trapping capacity.  The EPA must recalibrate the Bay TMDL by adjusting for the flawed assumption of trapping as outlined in Appendix T of the 2010 TMDL.

 

2. Agricultural BMPs recommended and proven by farmers to reduce runoff.  Agriculture is one of the largest sources of nutrient and sediment loading.  Subsequent scientific research has called into question the effectiveness of a number of agricultural BMPs promulgated in the past (e.g., no-till farming, NMPs based solely on nitrogen, NMPs on fields underlain with drain tiles, etc.).  We spend billions on de minimis reductions at point sources because regulators will not engage in the innovative thinking and risk taking necessary to find solutions to real problems.  Allow farmers greater flexibility where doing so is likely to have a de minimus adverse consequences and permit, encourage, financially support and undertake verification testing of home grown solutions recommended by farmers.  Propitiate what works.  One size does not fit all and neither do the BMPs created by regulators.

 

3. Oyster and SAV restoration Bay-wide, including power dredging throughout the Chesapeake Bay.  Power dredging is the only way to uncover buried shell beds and to agitate and clean the shells so that spat have a hard clean surface on which they can adhere. Fund waterman to introduce spat back into the power dredged beds.  Conduct research on whether sand has to be reintroduced to areas where several feet of clay and silt sediments now cover the floor of the Bay to provide a soil that will hold the roots of the SAV in turbulence. Everyone points to how well SAV has recovered in the Susquehanna Flats while the studies show that from north of Tolchester to below the Choptank River SAV is devastated by smothering sediments that are repeatedly agitated, cloud the water and choke out light. All the sand in the sediments flushing into the Bay falls out in the Susquehanna Flats. The silts and the clays remain suspended and do not begin to deposit until one reaches the devastated areas just north of Tolchester to below the Choptank.

 

4. WWTP upgrades – focus on plant modernization, and flood and overflow protection, before across the board upgrades to functional WWTP's to ENR at considerable expense.  For example, the Patapsco Wastewater Treatment Plant in Fairfield (south Baltimore) and the pumping station at Patapsco Avenue and Shell Road (nearby in south Baltimore) represent examples of a WWTP system that is failing.  (Click here for an article on such an overflow also, click here for an additional article.)  The problem with sewage overflowing from Baltimore's sewer system into the harbor and Chesapeake Bay is so persistent and severe that in 2002 a consent decree was entered into between Baltimore, MDE and US EPA whereby in return for not being subject to heavy fines for violating the Clean Water Act, the city agreed to rebuild sewer mains and increase the capacity of its tow treatment plants at Fairfield and Back River.  Today, over ten years later significant work still needs to be done to meet the terms of the 2002 decree, even despite the imposition of more stringent rules to treat nutrients (i.e., ENR) going into the Chesapeake Bay. For information on WWTP overflows since 2005 see the following links: MD StateStat or MDE Reported Sewer Overflow.

 

5. Public sewer extensions to connect failing septics; where financially feasible and consistent with local plans.  Allow and encourage switch grass use in drain fields in the coastal plain geology where the water table is less than 10' deep - 10' to 15' septic systems could be restored for the cost of one under currently approved BMPS and O&M will be more affordable where switch grass is used.  Reconsideration of tier mapping due to its adverse impacts on rural counties - there is no peer-reviewed science which supports the regulation of septics (by way of SB 236 in the 2012 Session of the General Assembly) as a means to measurably improve the water quality of the Bay.

 

6. Stormwater retrofits.  Instead of requiring expensive stormwater retrofits and BMPs, allow goals to be met with less expensive, more cost effective projects such as those that promote tributary restoration.  Fallen trees and accumulated debris in tributaries has lead to greater erosion and sedimentation during storm events when flows increase (regardless of the increase or decrease in impervious surfaces) and erode stream banks around such debris and flow impediments.  In tidal areas, flow impediments prevent debris and sediment and nutrient laden water in the Bay from washing into restorative wetlands as the tide rises and falls.  MDE is seeking to do through MS4 permits that which it did (Enhanced Nutrient Removal) through NPDES permits.  Billions will be spent on unproven ineffective stormwater retrofits while low cost, common sense, bang-for-the-buck solutions go unfunded.  Do not require local governments to tax in order to fund stormwater retrofits.  Funding should come through uniform state taxes such as the flush tax. The per capita impact then is uniform.

 

Public attention and resources should be prioritized accordingly.  Our fiscal responsibilities dictate that programs and expenses are prioritized so that the limited public and private resources available to improve the water quality of the Bay are first expended on programs that will achieve the most significant and lasting results.  Such an opportunity is provided by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) re-licensing of the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam, which presents the most significant opportunity to save the Bay in a generation, and ensure that all we do and spend below the Dam in the name of improving the Bay is not wasted.  That is why Coalition counties intend to intervene in those proceedings.

 

The Coalition is clamoring for the State's recognition of the fiscal issues we've raised and get them serious about the FERC re-licensing now underway, and in that process exercise the important tools available under federal and State law to fight for environmental protection, fish and wildlife protection, and meaningful action with respect to the 84 years of sediments accumulated above the Dam.  Coalition members feel it simply makes no sense to spend millions of dollars to remove a fraction of a percent of nutrient or sediment loading while very little is spent to address the largest source of loading.

 

Not only are the sediments flushed into the Bay from the Susquehanna River and scoured from the Conowingo Dam reservoir harmful the Bay's health, they are detrimental to the State's fiscal health by requiring the expenditure of hundreds of millions of tax dollars to maintenance dredge sediments from the Port of Baltimore, the shipping channels leading to the harbor, marinas and public access facilities.  All the while, not one penny has been spent to dredge the sediments that have accumulated above the Conowingo Dam (before being dumped into the Bay).  Open water dumping of dredge spoil is bad for the Bay, and is illegal. 

 

The overall objective of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition is to pursue improvement to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in the most prudent and fiscally responsible manner.  We believe that this collective purpose is consistent with the responsibilities of Maryland citizens and reflective of the feelings of most local elected officials. Our research, analysis and advocacy thus far could be of great use and benefit to everyone concerned with a healthy Bay.  There is no doubt that we have raised attention in the flaws of the Bay clean-up agenda and the disproportionate fiscal impacts on Maryland local governments (read taxpayers).  There is sufficient momentum now it seems for Marylanders to embrace the cause; using these significant fiscal and environmental issues for reason to support the Coalition.

 

To learn more about our brief history; the satellite image that has served as our calling card; our organizational structure and our logo, please use the menu on the left.

Bay Pollution Loading

Since the inception of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition we have been using and widely disseminating a NASA satellite image of the Chesapeake Bay taken a few days after Topical Storm Lee in 2011 showing a 100-mile sediment plume emanating from Conowingo Dam, and have demonstratively referred to it as the CCC’s “calling card."  We obtained this compelling image directly from a U.S. Geological Survey report published in August 2012, and only added Maryland county jurisdictional boundaries for context.

 

Earlier this month (3/12/15), the U.S. Geological Survey published a new report focused on nitrogen and phosphorus loading attributable to the Eastern Shore of Maryland (“Understanding Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Implications for Management and Restoration – The Eastern Shore”) and included a “modified” version of the same NASA satellite image of the Chesapeake Bay taken a few days after Topical Storm Lee in 2011.

 

Aside from being slightly enlarged, the recently published “modified” image is strikingly different in another respect.  See the above comparison.

Oyster Restoration

How Maryland is restoring its oyster population.  January 11, 2015. Nick DiMarco, WMAR ABC 2 Baltimore.

Carroll County Demands Coordination
Dated October 23, 2014. Carroll County Commissioners demand coordination from Federal and State agencies regarding oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay.
CCCommissioners_signed_Coordination_ltr_[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.3 MB]
Carroll County Joins Sister Clean Chesapeake Coalition Counties, Dorchester and Kent, in Coordination Request
Dated October 23, 2014.
Carroll County Joins CCC Press Release.p[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [180.1 KB]
DNR Response Letter to CCC Comment on Proposed Oyster Power Dredging Regulations
Dated October 27, 2014. Letter from DNR to CCC regarding comments on proposed regulations from September 5 Md. Register. The proposed regulations are expected to be published as final in the Md. Register on October 31, 2014.
Power Dredge Regulations.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [319.2 KB]
Agency Response to Kent and Dorchester Counties Oyster Coordination Letter
Dated October 23, 2014.
Agency response to Dorchester County Oys[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [3.5 MB]
Caroline County Demands Coordination
Dated October 21, 2014. Caroline County Commissioners demand coordination from Federal and State agencies regarding oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay.
Coordination Request Oyster Restoration_[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [270.7 KB]
Kent County Demands Coordination
Dated September 23, 2014. Kent County Commissioners demand coordination from Federal and State agencies regarding oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay.
Kent County Coordination Letter to USACE[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [10.8 MB]
Dorchester County Demands Coordination
Dated September 16, 2014. Dorchester County Council demands coordination from Federal and State agencies regarding oyster restoration in the Chesapeake Bay.
Dorchester County Coordination Letter to[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [11.0 MB]
Clean Chesapeake Coalition Comments on Proposed Regulations re Oyster Dredging
Dated October 6, 2014.
CCC Comments to Oyster Dredging.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [170.7 KB]
Oysters. Courtesy Chesapeake Bay Program

Exploring the oyster debate

July 31, 2014, Josh Bollinger, The Star Democrat

 

The health and vitality of the Chesapeake Bay oyster population is key to cleaning up the Bay. Oysters naturally filter nutrients and sediment, but cannot survive the onslaught of sedimentation at the present rate.  The Clean Chesapeake Coalition supported HB 1244 and SB 795 during the 2013 Session of the Maryland General Assembly, which would have permitted power dredging for oysters in the upper Chesapeake Bay.  The process of power dredging cultivates once healthy oyster beds, uncovering the beds from smothering sediments and making available clean and natural shell substrate upon which spat can attach. Representatives of the Coalition testified before the Senate Education, Health,and Environmental Affairs Committee on March 5, 2013 and before the House Environmental Matters Committee on March 6, 2013 to support the passage of these bills. 

 

Interestingly, while the legislation to permit commercial watermen to power dredge in the upper Bay received an unfavorable report from both the Senate and House committees under united opposition from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, House Bill 1505 (which increases the maximum number of days, from two to three, per week during which a dredge boat - sailboats known as skipjacks - may operate under the power of an auxiliary motorized yawl boat while dredging for oysters) received favorable reports from the same Committees.  A skipjack operating under the power of a yawl boat is permitted by DNR to harvest 150 bushels of oysters per day anywhere in the Bay.  Meanwhile, the catch limit for the other form of power dredging (in the limited areas of the Bay where it is permitted) is 12 bushels per person/day up to 24 bushels per boat.  This glaring policy inconsistency by the General Assembly and DNR underscores the lack a coherent comprehensive Bay-wide strategy to give the oyster a fighting chance - for its unparalleled ecological value as a filter feeder and a natural resource critical to many local waterside economies.    

SB 795 Testimony Supporting Documents
Documents supporting Coalition testimony to the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on March 5, 2013
SB 795 Packet.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [1.0 MB]
Follow-up to 3/5/13 SB 765 Testimony
Follow up SB795 3-11-2013.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [754.7 KB]
HB 1244 Testimony Supporting Documents
Documents supporting Coalition testimony to the House Environmental Matters Committee on March 6, 2013
HB 1244 Packet.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [1.0 MB]
Follow-up to 3/6/13 HB 1244 Testimony
Follow up HB1244 3-11-2013.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [773.4 KB]

DNR's Current Stance on Power Dredging

DNR's Response to Sen. Colburn/Dorchester County Council re Power Dredging
Newly appointed DNR Secretary Joseph Gill denies the useful benefits of power dredging as a tool for saving the oyster.
DNR response to power dredging 10Jun2013[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [209.3 KB]

MSBA Leadership Academy Fellows 2012-13 - "Heroes on the Half Shell"

Oyster Information

Visit the MDNR website to see the annual fall survey on Maryland's oyster population status.

 

The most recent report (Fall 2012) is not available yet; however, click here to view MDNR's news release regarding Governor O'Malley's announcement on the results of Maryland's 2012 Fall Oyster Survey.

 

Click here to view the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers website on their recent Native Oyster Restoration Master Plan report.

 

Quantifying Nutrient Removal Through Native Oyster Aquaculture in Chesapeake Bay
Every 10 million oysters removes ~ 1,000 to 6,000 lbs of nitrogen at harvest, depending on size. See this scientific presentation on the influence of the oyster.
Higgins_Application of Oyster Aquacultur[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [680.9 KB]

Virginia's Approach to Oyster Restoration

Oyster beds get re-shelled in the Great Wicomico River

June 9, 2013, Tamara Dietrich, Daily Press

 

Virginia involved in record $2 million oyster-replenishment project

July 9, 2013, Rex Springston, Richmond Times-Dispatch

Repeal Septics Bill (SB236)

Click the chart to view the sources

 

 Members of the Coalition testified before the Maryland Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee and the House Environmental Matters Committee on bills supporting the repeal of the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act (SB 236), passed in 2012.  The Coalition believes that there exists no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that pollution attributable to individual septic systems statewide is a significant threat to the water quality of the Bay, and that the costs associated with reducing nitrogen by regulating septics are extraordinarily high in comparison to any real proposed environmental benefit.  In lieu of repeal, the Coalition has advocated for delayed or phased implementation of SB236 pending further meaningful study to (i) weigh local government/taxpayer costs versus water quality improvement benefits; (ii) account for regional differences of scientific import (Western Maryland Piedmont geology compared to Coastal Plain jurisdictions); (iii) promote more cost effective BMP alternatives, and (iv) recognize the role of county governments in land use planning and the legality of local plans.

 

The "septics bill" was submitted to the Maryland General Assembly and the general public as a necessary element for Maryland's WIP in order to meet the Bay TMDL goals, purporting to prevent 1.1 million pounds of nitrogen (550 tons) from reaching the waters of the Bay through 2035, or about 50,000 pounds per year. It was touted by the Administration as a means for a "significant reduction" in nutrient loads to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Meanwhile, 131 million pounds of nitrogen (65,500 tons) are dumped into the Bay annually by the Susquehanna River. In the polluted reservoir above the Conowingo Dam looms 670,000 tons of legacy nitrogen, as well as 174 million tons of sediment and 130,000 tons of phosphorus. It is beyond alarming that all of these pollutants are now at real risk of being scoured and eventually flushed into the Bay during a severe weather event.     

 

The Bay TMDL "pollution diet" upon which the State of Maryland publicly justified SB236 does not consider individual septic systems to be a significant source of pollution to the Bay.  Indeed, the U.S. EPA (source of the Bay TMDL) estimates that septic systems throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed accounted for no more than 6% of the nitrogen loading in 2009, along with de minimus amounts of phosphorus loading, with no sediment loading to the Bay or its tributaries. There is little, if any, scientific support for that estimate. According to the EPA, septic systems only have "the potential to deliver nitrogen and phosphorus to surface waters directly because of system failure and malfunction and indirectly through groundwater... functioning systems do not contribute nitrogen and phosphorus loads to the surface waters directly." [see Bay TMDL  § 4.6.4]

 

In actuality, it is now apparent that the "septics bill" was a growth management initiative directed at certain portions of the State and a centralization of land use planning at the State level, being disguised as a scientifically based, TMDL driven measure to save the Bay.  The Coalition queries why the Maryland Department of Planning (not MDE) spearheaded the Administration's centerpiece environmental legislation during the 2012 Maryland General Assembly Session.  For the most transparent and cost effective public policy, environmental arguments for limiting septics must be decoupled from the State's growth management agenda.

 

Furthering the complete folly of focusing on septic systems to save the Bay, MDE's Phase II WIP commits Maryland taxpayers to spend $3.7 billion for septic system upgrades, connections and pumping, regardless of functionality. More specifically, $2,357,758,000 is committed for 181,366 septic system upgrades; $1,272,260,000 is committed for the connection of 42,442 septic systems to WWTPs; and $87,744,000 is for increased maintenance of septic systems (i.e., the pumping of about 58,496 septic systems approximately three times).  Those activities and expenditures will reportedly remove approximately 50,000 lbs/yr of nitrogen loading to the Bay and its tributaries or between 1 - 1.24 million pounds in the next 22 years.  It presently costs in excess of $2,984 to remove a single pound of nitrogen from the Bay. Regulating individual septic systems as mandated by the State involves exorbitant expenditures for a de minimus and scientifically uncertain or very weak return on taxpayer investment.

  

SB 391 Testimony Supporting Documents
Documents supporting testimony to the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on February 12, 2013.
SB 391 Final Testimony 2-12-13.pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [2.3 MB]
Follow-up to 2/12/13 SB 391 Testimony
CCC Follow up Letter to EHEA re SB391.pd[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [389.7 KB]
HB 106 Testimony Supporting Documents
Documents supporting testimony to the House Environmental Matters Committee on February 6, 2013.
CCC Testimony HB106 (Final).pdf
Adobe Acrobat document [1.2 MB]
Follow-up to 2/6/13 HB 106 Testimony
CCC Follow up Letter to Environmental Ma[...]
Adobe Acrobat document [438.8 KB]
Back to top of page
Print Print | Sitemap
© 2017 Clean Chesapeake Coalition