Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Op-Eds
News Opinion Op-Eds

To restore the bay, restore the bay partnership

When the Chesapeake Bay restoration program began in earnest in 1983, with the signing of the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement, it was hailed as the beginning of a new era of interjurisdictional partnering to save a national treasure. And so it was.

With the recognition that a "cooperative approach" was needed "to fully address the extent, complexity, and sources of pollutants entering the Bay," Pennsylvania Gov. Richard Thornburgh, Maryland Gov. Harry Hughes, Virginia Gov. Chuck Robb, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Ruckelshaus created the Chesapeake Executive Council with a commitment to "assess and oversee implementation of coordinated plans to improve and protect the water quality and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay."

This unique partnership of federal, state and city governments, of Republican and Democratic leadership, grew to be recognized internationally as one of the most successful multijurisdictional restoration efforts in the world. Led by officials who acted from a place of collaboration and restoration, with a vision that extended beyond their own jurisdictional lines or federal responsibilities, the partnership matured, establishing ambitious goals, forging unprecedented science and creating a culture of exploration, sharing and dialogue. The supporting restoration bureaucracy the agreement generated reflected a diversity of interests and expertise, where stakeholders dealt with complex problems from a unified commitment to accomplish progressive change.

That was then, this is now.

Today, the partnership is in a state of disarray. Longtime players within the Chesapeake Bay restoration community quietly lament the loss of cooperative commitment. The partnership, once so vibrant, so bipartisan, so full of ambition, hope and ideals, is now a partnership in name only.

Case in point: The last meeting of the Executive Council took place in August in Virginia. But Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell did not attend, and he was not alone in disregarding the meeting. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, following in the footsteps of his predecessor — former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, an Executive Council member who repeatedly failed to participate in its meetings — also decided to forgo attending.

With lackluster commitment to attendance, as well as to dialogue and discussion, what was the outcome of this recent Executive Council meeting? Nothing. Not a single new interjurisdictional goal, policy or initiative.

When one attends the current meetings of the bureaucracy, one inevitably experiences stakeholders pursuing their own narrow agendas, protecting their particular parochial interests, their state borders or their governmental authorities.

Perhaps this devolution is but a reflection of what we have seen happen across our nation at both the state and federal level. Officials from differing parties and perspectives no longer cross the aisle with the same commitment to accomplishing a common goal or change. Rather, they repeatedly retreat to their corners, in preparation for another round of clobbering each other in the ring.

The Chesapeake Bay can ill afford the ongoing lack of commitment to regional partnering and solutions. While we have stayed the precipitous decline that plagued the Chesapeake in 1983, it remains far from healthy. Perhaps we need our current Executive Council members to revisit the history of the Chesapeake Bay restoration partnership and determine how it was that an EPA administrator originally appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon could forge with a Democratic Virginia governor who was the son-in-law of former President Lyndon Johnson a collaborative commitment to and vision of a restored Chesapeake that crossed state and federal lines of geography and authority.

"What's past is prologue," wrote Shakespeare. In this case, let's hope so.

Roy A. Hoagland has worked on Chesapeake Bay issues for more than 25 years, including several as a member and chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council's Citizens Advisory Committee. He is the principal for HOPE Impacts, an environmental consulting firm partnering with nonprofits, governmental agencies, and foundations on Chesapeake Bay restoration matters. This article is distributed by the Bay Journal News Service.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • What about Pa. manure?

    What about Pa. manure?

    On an almost recurring basis lately, The Sun has devoted itself to bringing to everyone's attention the Eastern Shore poultry industry's polluted runoff flowing into the Chesapeake Bay ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13). Attention should be directed to the Amish farmers...

  • Hogan can protect farms and open space

    Hogan can protect farms and open space

    Congratulations to Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on his inauguration. Mr. Hogan ran a terrific campaign, and we all look forward to his leadership on one of the most important roles, safeguarding the lands and waters of this beautiful state.

  • Cleaning up the Bay

    Cleaning up the Bay

    I was pleased to read that the EPA finds Maryland is making progress toward our clean water goals for the Chesapeake Bay and that we're on course to reduce phosphorus pollution ("EPA finds Maryland mostly on track in Bay cleanup, but Pennsylvania lagging badly," June 12).

  • New rules needed to protect Eastern Shore waterways

    New rules needed to protect Eastern Shore waterways

    After talking about it for years, Maryland finally has proposed long-overdue regulations on phosphorous pollution from animal manure in the Chesapeake Bay ("Hogan vows to fight farm pollution rules," Dec. 8).

  • Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution

    Big Ag must be held to account for bay pollution

    Dan Rodricks' arguments for protecting the Chesapeake Bay from pollution from chicken farms could have been even stronger ("Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor," Dec. 13).

  • Kamenetz is pandering on stormwater fees

    Kamenetz is pandering on stormwater fees

    Thank your for your recent article, "Reduced stormwater fees sought," (Jan. 17) and the editorial covering the same topics ("Backtracking on the bay," Jan. 22). Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz seems to be pandering to special interests and positioning himself for higher office. His ideas...

  • Md. leaders protect funds for bay cleanup

    Md. leaders protect funds for bay cleanup

    Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, along with Rep. Steny Hoyer, deserve our thanks for securing funding in the recent omnibus appropriations bill to keep Maryland on track to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers and streams ("For better or worse, spending bill passes," Dec. 15).

  • Excess phosphorous is killing the bay

    Excess phosphorous is killing the bay

    In the days following Dan Rodricks' column "Larry Hogan has a chance to be a green governor" (Dec. 13), your paper has been flooded with letters opposing the phosphorus management tool (PMT) regulations and opposing Mr. Rodricks position. On the surface it would seem that both letters in support...

Comments
Loading
74°