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

Waterkeepers: Both urban and agricultural pollution are a problem

Bill Satterfield, in his June 11 letter to the editor ("Urban waste, not chicken manure, is the bay's biggest threat") was right when he said "everyone has a role in protecting the Chesapeake Bay." What he forgot is that "everyone" includes both the agricultural and urban sectors.

Instead of shifting blame from one polluter to the next, we should focus on addressing all the major contributors of pollution. Instead of focusing on which kid on the block is polluting more, we should focus on the glaring similarity between agricultural and urban sources: both contribute dangerous levels of nutrient, bacterial, and toxic pollution into our local waterways and the bay.

Another similarity between animal waste and human waste is that the public is outraged about both entering our waterways. Mr. Satterfield must have missed the coverage of this topic by The Sun. If he had, he would know that the Baltimore Harbor waterkeeper spoke out about the recent sewage spill and fish kills in the harbor and invested her time and resources in sampling and advocating for more aggressive action by state and local government, and in responding to a diverse set of citizen complaints on this issue. He obviously missed Baltimore Harbor waterkeeper's own letter to the editor, published only days before his, entitled "Harbor fish kills, odor not the norm" and one submitted by enraged Baltimore resident Gary Moyer entitled "Something stinks in cover-up of Inner Harbor odor."

Waterkeepers are not a single, top-down organization housed in New York, as erroneously portrayed by Mr. Satterfield. Rather, we are local, grassroots non-profit programs and organizations with nearly 200 individual advocates housed in watersheds throughout the United States and world. Those located in urban watersheds have consistently advocated against sewage and other urban waste. Those located in more agricultural watersheds consistently advocate for reduction of agricultural pollution.

Lastly, in his rush to point out the "stark contrast" between urban sewage pollution and agricultural waste, he forgot to mention the most obvious of contrasts: that the most recent EPA stats peg agricultural waste in Maryland with 41 percent of phosphorus pollution to the bay, compared to 26 percent from urban wastewater; and ag is responsible for 36 percent of nitrogen pollution, compared to 29 percent from urban wastewater. Both are huge problems, but if we're going to point out differences, we should at least get them right.

Kathy Phillips, Assateague Coastkeeper

Tina Meyers, Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper

Mike Bolinder, Anacostia Riverkeeper

David Foster, Chester Riverkeeper

Drew Koslow, Choptank Riverkeeper

Theaux LeGardeur, Gunpowder Riverkeeper

Michael Helfrich, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper

Tom Leigh, Miles-Wye Riverkeeper

Fred Tutman, Patuxent Riverkeeper

Ed Merrifield, Potomac Riverkeeper

Pam Duke, executive director of Sassafras Riverkeeper

Fred Kelly, Severn Riverkeeper

Diana Muller, South Riverkeeper

Dave Burden, Virginia Eastern Shorekeeper

Chris Trumbauer, West/Rhode Riverkeeper

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • 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...

  • Support Clean Water Act
    Support Clean Water Act

    On the 42nd anniversary of the Clean Water Act, a new report from Environment America, "Waterways Restored," highlights the success the law has meant for the Anacostia River, taking it from a state of horrific pollution to giving some hope that it will be safe for swimming and fishing in little...

Comments
Loading