Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Editorial

State of the Chesapeake [Editorial]

To view the latest measure of the state of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, the Chesapeake Bay Program's "Bay Barometer," is not unlike receiving the interim report card of a chronically underachieving student. Whatever modest progress is reported, it's difficult to get past the miserably low overall grades.

This sort of science-based snapshot may be useful, but it's also a bit bracing — or "sobering" as some environmentalists have described it. Less than one-third of the Chesapeake Bay's tidal areas meet federally-approved water quality standards while three-quarters of 92 tidal areas tested positive for chemical contaminants, and underwater grasses continue to decline.

Not to sugarcoat the reality, but the report finds that the Chesapeake Bay of 2013 is a long way from meeting 2025 goals to reduce the major pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments. The only difference between these circumstances and those of that borderline student is that most parents haven't spent the billions of dollars and years of effort that have gone into the Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

Ouch.

Yet that would be the foolish and woefully shortsighted way of looking at the data. Just as the pollution problem didn't arrive overnight, the process of reversing the damage is by its very nature slow and irregular with two steps forward often followed by one step back. Nor is the report completely devoid of good news.

The reality is that the amount of those major pollutants flowing into the bay has continued to be in steady decline since 1985. American shad are rebounding in places like the Potomac and Susquehanna rivers, albeit modestly. The number of female blue crabs increased in 2012 and appears to have remained stable this year, which is welcome news for seafood-lovers everywhere. Rockfish are relatively plentiful, a circumstance that seemed highly unlikely 28 years ago when authorities had to close the fishery rather than risk losing the species entirely.

This is not the time to be discouraged but to stay the course and continue to look for ways to fine-tune pollution controls. The real value of the EPA-sanctioned barometer and similar reports is that they reveal the complexity of the ecosystem. The pollution in some rivers and streams comes from storm water runoff from city and suburban streets and parking lots. In others it comes from farm fields or failing septic systems, or perhaps municipal sewage treatment plants.

Those chemical contaminants that have so proliferated around the Chesapeake Bay might be prescription drugs flushed down the toilet, pesticides used on lawns or legacy chemicals from Sparrows Point. Mercury that comes from coal-fired power plants but eventually gets swept into creeks and rivers is another source of pollution.

Weather can affect any one year's results, too. That's why it's most important to look at the long-term view and not the data from any single year or even a few years. As scientists have observed, there's a lag time to any pollution controls — a reduction in phosphorus or sediments might take a decade or two or three to be noticeable in water samples in some cases.

This business of improving the Chesapeake Bay is neither easy nor without personal sacrifice. It takes a broad approach and one that is coordinated with all six states in the watershed as well as the District of Columbia. Indeed, it's probably as useful to mark the progress made in controlling pollution as to look at the contaminants contained in any particular water sample.

As the Bay Barometer notes, the past year has produced 285 more miles of forested buffers near the bay and its tributaries, 2,231 acres of wetlands created or re-established and 34 more miles of streams opened for migratory fish to spawn. Those are investments that will yield considerable dividends, not necessarily measurable tomorrow, but surely by the next generation.

The greatest mistake states like Maryland could make right now would be to get discouraged and retreat — to give up on fighting pollution from storm water runoff, for instance, because the means to finance the needed remedies has been ridiculed as a "rain tax." We can't deny the bay is polluted, but there is cause for optimism overall.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules
    Big ships on the Chesapeake Bay follow strict environmental safety rules

    Please allow me to correct some of the points letter writer Bernard Helinski recently made regarding ships' ballast water polluting the Chesapeake Bay ("Ship ballast a major source of pollution," Jan. 7).

  • Phosphorus rules, finally
    Phosphorus rules, finally

    As we have chided Gov. Martin O'Malley more than once on this page for dragging his feet on regulations intended to reduce the amount of polluting phosphorus pouring into the Chesapeake Bay from farms, it's only fair to herald his decision to move forward with the rules. That he chose to...

  • A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management
    A farmer's perspective on phosphorous management

    From the time I graduated from college and returned to the farm, I have been dealing with government regulations, environmental extremists and animal rights activists.

  • Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?
    Could O'Malley's cover crop program be increasing animal waste in the bay?

    Gov. Martin O'Malley's green agenda really is green ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 14). Green as the goose waste that pours directly into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, mostly during the waterfowl season. And, it's primarily fed by Mr. O'Malley's very own cover...

  • O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door
    O'Malley sticks it to farmers on his way out the door

    On behalf of 36,000 Maryland Farm Bureau families, I have to disagree with your editorial on the issue of the new phosphorus rules ("Phosphorus rules, finally," Nov. 18). Gov. Martin O'Malley did not get it right. In fact, this is effectively just one last tax increase he is trying to force...

  • Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay
    Denying Conowingo permit won't clean bay

    While I understand the concern about accumulated nutrient buildup in the sediment upstream of the Conowingo Dam posing a hazard to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, as an engineer I do not see what the operation of the dam's power station has anything to do with it ("Maryland can enforce dam...

  • Dam cleanup too costly
    Dam cleanup too costly

    Regarding the recent commentary about the Conowingo Dam ("Maryland can enforce dam cleanup," Nov. 19), Bob Irvin is correct for the most part. However, let's keep in mind that the Conowingo is a man-made obstruction to sediment, leaves and tree logs that Mother Nature really intended to go to...

  • Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules
    Hogan needs to reverse O'Malley's onerous farm rules

    In what will be seen as one of soon-to-be ex-Gov. Martin O'Malley's parting shots to the incoming Hogan administration, Mr. O'Malley is pushing through new regulations controlling how farmers fertilize their land ("O'Malley rushes to propose new pollution rules," Nov. 15). Never mind the fact...

Comments
Loading