Maryland officials released their latest plan Friday for accelerating cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay, calling for a series of ambitious pollution reduction measures affecting farmers, city dwellers and suburbanites that would cost $10 billion or more — about twice what's now being spent to restore the troubled estuary.
The 234-page document, presented four days after a federal deadline for bay states to submit final cleanup plans, spells out steps state officials pledge to take over the next seven years to achieve 70 percent of the pollution reductions needed. And, for the first time, it projects the added costs and options for financing the effort, including federal aid and fees.
Among the plan's more ambitious and potentially controversial measures:
•Mandating retrofits of storm drains, pavement removal and other projects in the state's cities and suburbs to curb polluted rainwater washing off streets, parking lots and lawns, an effort projected to cost $2.6 billion;
•Requiring nearly 28,000 households near the bay and its river tributaries to upgrade their septic systems, at an estimated cost of $358 million;
•Revising fertilizer guidelines to curtail Eastern Shore farmers' widespread use of poultry manure on croplands, while also getting growers to plant thousands of acres more in pollution-absorbing trees and grass instead of crops near water.
Environment Secretary Shari T. Wilson called the plan "by far the most specific" of any that state officials have ever drawn up in the protracted 27-year history of the multistate bay cleanup effort.
"It's literally a road map we can use to get where we need to be," she said.
The plan lays out dozens of steps state officials propose to take over the next decade to reduce Maryland's share of the pollution fouling the bay. The EPA had ordered all six bay states and the District of Columbia to produce final cleanup plans by Monday so that federal regulators could use them to put the finishing touches on a "pollution diet" that will legally obligate the states to act. EPA officials have pledged to complete their work by year's end.
State officials said they needed a few extra days to fine-tune Maryland's plan in response to hundreds of comments received since the first draft was unveiled Sept. 1.
Analysts with the Center for Progressive Reform, a regulatory think tank in Washington, called Maryland's the "strongest blueprint" for boosting bay cleanup efforts of any of the plans submitted by the states.
New York, the only other state that failed to meet the Monday deadline, is still looking at new computer estimates from EPA of pollution in the upper reaches of the bay watershed. Officials there have questioned the federal government's scientific basis and legal authority for ordering New York to participate in the bay cleanup effort.
"We're still reviewing the data, so we won't be filing it today," Lori Severino, spokeswoman for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, said Friday. She wouldn't predict when the state's plan would be ready.
Too many nutrients
The Chesapeake's water is overdosing on nitrogen and phosphorus from sewage treatment plants, septic systems, air pollution fallout and runoff of fertilizer and animal waste from farms, cities and suburbs. The glut of nutrients spurs growth of massive algae blooms in the bay every spring, which help to create a "dead zone" in the water where fish and shellfish can't get enough oxygen to survive. Additionally, sediment washing off land clouds the water, killing aquatic grasses, and smothering fish eggs and shellfish beds.
In a cover letter accompanying Maryland's plan, the O'Malley administration's top four environmental officials say the plan gives them "cautious optimism" that after nearly three decades of effort "a restored Chesapeake Bay is finally within our sights."
They say the plan "strikes a balance" in proposing equal pollution-reduction efforts from the state's rural and urban areas — a critical political calculation, as farmers frequently complain city dwellers and suburbanites are not asked to do as much as they are.
The officials say the O'Malley administration will "explore every option" for finding the fairest and most cost-effective way of reducing pollution, but preliminary estimates peg the cost at up to $10 billion over the next seven years alone. The plan stresses that federal financial help will be needed to cover the gap.
One area where the plan seeks federal funds is to help pay the $2.6 billion estimated to be needed to curb polluted storm water from cities and suburbs. Only five Maryland localities, most of them near Washington, levy fees dedicated to reducing polluted runoff. State officials vow to press local officials to find ways to finance these efforts, and if they don't, to seek legislation in 2012 mandating storm water fees statewide.
Similarly, state officials say they'll figure out in the next year how to cover a $500 million-plus shortfall in the fund paying for upgrades of 68 of Maryland's largest wastewater treatment plants. The fund is financed through a $2.50 monthly "flush fee" paid by every Maryland household on its utility or property tax bill. During his re-election campaign, Gov. Martin O'Malley shied away from saying whether he would seek to raise that fee to cover the deficit.
The same "flush fee" also pays for upgrading septic systems at homes not served by sewer. Under a 2009 law, the state now requires — and helps pay for — less polluting but more costly treatment systems for all new homes being built in the Critical Area near the bay, or for any existing homes that must replace failing systems. But the new plan calls for requiring upgrades of an estimated 27,552 systems close to the water, with suggestions the added $358 million cost might be defrayed by offering homeowners tax credits or other indirect ways of paying for it.
Farmland curbs
The plan proposes new and expanded conservation efforts on farmland, to curb runoff of chemical fertilizer, animal waste and sediment. The most significant might be a pledge to revise fertilizer guidelines in a way likely to curtail the widespread use on the Eastern Shore of poultry manure for raising corn and other crops, which studies indicate "leak" more nutrient pollution into local waterways.
Officials said they could not estimate how much of a reduction would be required, but the plan suggests developing or expanding alternative uses of the vast quantities of manure generated by the Shore's chicken farms, including shipping it out of the region or burning it to produce energy.
While many of the farm conservation measures rely on farmers' voluntary participation — often with state or federal subsidies — state officials did say that if those do not appear to be reducing pollution fast enough, they'll move to mandates, such as requiring farmers to plant nutrient-absorbing "cover crops" on fields that have been fertilized with animal manure or sewage sludge.
Initial reaction to the plan was muted, though agricultural and real estate interests have repeatedly voiced concerns about the economic impact of tighter environmental regulations or added fees to pay for bay cleanup.
Valerie Connelly, legislative director for the Maryland Farm Bureau, said the state's farmers "will work with the state to meet the goals," though she stressed that farmers would need financial and technical help from the government.
Environmentalists, many of whom had criticized Maryland and especially the other states for not being specific enough in their draft plans in September, were more charitable on Friday.
Kim Coble, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said Maryland's revised plan now contains many of the details on timetables and costs that its draft had lacked.
But she said the Annapolis-based environmental group still has concerns, particularly about the delay of a year or more the plan foresees before state officials tackle difficult financial or regulatory steps.
"We still remain concerned about whether or not what needs to be done in terms of nutrient reductions is going to be accomplished," Coble said.
Wilson, the environment secretary whose last day was Friday, acknowledged that more work is needed to ensure that the cleanup is cost-effective and can be paid for. But she stressed that restoring the bay will bring economic benefits as well.
"What's the value of the bay restoration to the state?" she asked "Its orders of magnitude are higher than the cost of this plan."
Some highlights of state plans
Maryland: Retrofits of storm drains in cities and suburbs, septic system upgrades and revised guidelines to curtail Eastern Shore farmers' use of poultry manure on crops.
Virginia: Reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus from sewage treatment plants. Relies heavily on voluntary incentives for farmers to curb pollution washing off fields.
Pennsylvania: Promoting new technology, including projects that digest manure and produce electricity, reducing nutrients that reach bay tributaries.
District of Columbia: Wastewater treatment upgrades to reduce pollution in storm water.
New York: Has not submitted report.
Source: staff and wire reports