Let's clean up the Chesapeake

Ross · Jan 14, 2010

What clean water bill? You make reference but provide no link.

Ron McCoy · Jan 14, 2010

Don't forget about the problems with the numerous sewage treatment plants that aren't up to standards. We need to put pressure on our cities and county government to clean up their act. For instance, I've read the Newport News sewage treatment plant (off I-664) has "accidently" dumped over 30.0000 gallons of untreated sewer directly into the James River this year. How does that compare to someone dumping their 25 gal. holding tank into the bay? Additionally, this doesn't count the numerous overflows from the plant when it experiences storm water run-off that exceeds capacity. There's also the problem with septic tanks that have been allow to be installed near low lying water front property. Un-checked development of shorelines has allowed these septic tanks to leach nastiness into the bay. Check the DEQ report on Gloucester county and in regard to Sarah's Creek. Too much development and the county is too poor or relucant to put in public sewer systems. The list of problems go on and on. If we're going to clean up the bay, it'll take more than a Saturday picking up floatsom off the beach. The good work of the CBF is critical and we need to support its efforts at every turn.

Don S/V ILLusion · Jan 14, 2010

The Bill seems to include some commonly accepted practices to establishing and enforcing TMDLs but it is essentially a grant program. Not be be argumentative but there are a few other Bays and big lakes in the U.S. which might benefit equally if not more.
If folks outside the C bay area are equally interested, they might consider citing this Bill as an example while asking their Congressional rep to initiate similar Bills for their regional waterbody.

Ron - there is a provision in this Bill specifically addressing combined sewer overflows but we all know that takes lots more money to really fix than most taxpayers and their reps are willing to pay.

kendall · Jan 15, 2010

My view is that 'laws' contain wording that either limit enforcement, fines and fees to private people, or provide an 'act of God' clause for municipalities, Having no teeth at all when it comes to cities and states.

Last year Holland had a sewage overflow, (Macatowa was covered with green 'slime' and smelled so bad I went up to Muskegon to sail) Yet patrols were there to check holding tanks.

Here in GR, several years ago they took the storm drains and plumbed them into the treatment plant, so every spring, and with every rainstorm you get predictable results, and notices to stay out of the Grand.

Cities -need- to be held responsible the same way as a private party would be, or the problem will never go away.

Ken.

Don S/V ILLusion · Jan 15, 2010

kendall said:
Cities -need- to be held responsible the same way as a private party would be, or the problem will never go away.

Ken.

I think you might be best to be more introspective regarding the real responsibility here. If you want your muni STP to segregate and treat all storm water as well as sewage, just suggest how the muni can successfully obtain full funding and you win the gold medal. It's not any governmental entity which bears responsibility; it's you/me/us for not being willing to have our already high taxes increase(drastically).

Shooter II · Jan 16, 2010

Here on the bay, it has been found that Anne Arundel County itself is a prime contributor of pollution in the bay. They have failed to maintain the sediment ponds on their lands.

But govt is us. We elect and pay for our govts. We are the "deciders". We would like to believe it is "them" but it is "us" and we need to man-up.

Cultural mores are the least expensive way of addressing the issue. We need to heighten awareness of the issue. Make it "uncool" to dump. Make clean water, like a clean car, desirable. But the people seem to feel a disconnect with the water. Like its not theirs. Pride of ownership would go a long way.

Paul Mermelstein · Jan 16, 2010

Shooter II said:
But govt is us. We elect and pay for our govts. We are the "deciders". We would like to believe it is "them" but it is "us" and we need to man-up.

This is it in a nutshell. WE, the people, need to put pressure on local, state, and federal governments that, in turn, need to do their part and enforce the laws.

I am a member/supporter of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and have heard speakers from that organization prevent some very compelling statistics. Clearly, commercial and municipal entities are the largest polluters. We need government entities to do their part, both directly, and in enforcing laws to regulate commercial/agricultural pollution.

kendall · Jan 17, 2010

That is pretty much what I said, government has to be held accountable.

ken.

MoonSailer · Jan 17, 2010

Our elected leaders respond to money!!!! Look at menhaden. All over the atlantic coast responsible governments are reducing the commericial take except for Virginia. Someone has bought virginia's menhaden via elected representatives. Menhaden will help clean up the bay if they are allowed to live . Menhaden will also feed game fish,birds and marine mammals if allowed. Money talks we in america have the best government money can buy. http://www.ccavirginia.org/cca_va_html/menhaden.html

Shooter II · Jan 18, 2010

Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Here is a picture of the Philip Merrill Environmental Center
it is the headquarters of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
www.smithgroup.com/articles/637/media/349.jpg

The governor, O'Malley, just announced the introduction of a bill in the Maryland legislature to restrict develop to no nearer than 300'. He is shown in a video announcing it while standing on the beach at the PMEC.

CBF spent 7.4 million to build right on the water while actively working to deny homeowners the right to build at the water's edge.

What a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites!

MoonSailer · Jan 19, 2010

I hope that the CBF building is hooked to a sewer!!! There is a difference between home owners building on the shore and CBF building on the shore. CBF might be trying to showcase for the public what they are trying to save. But I agree that they should have built away from the water and maybe had a boardwalk out to the water. The average person rarely sees the bay. Public access is a mixed blessing . But it is hard to get people interested in protecting something that they never experience. Kind of like keeping dolphins captive. It is awful to keep such intelligent creatures prisoner for their entire lives. But many people become interested in protecting dolphins because they see them in such places.http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=389 They say it is an educational center.

Ross · Jan 19, 2010

And now the rest of the story:
http://www.smithgroup.com/index.aspx?id=637&section=34

Shooter II · Jan 19, 2010

Ross,

That is the builder's "brochure".
The CBF would have fought hard against anyone doing what they did.
The CBF has spent decades preaching how others should behave and then they pull a stunt like this.
The nuance is too fine. The obvious damage is done.
I give them money and have for years but this makes it really hard to plead their case.
IMHO they cut me off at the knees.
I don't much care for them.
Moonsailor, the Chesapeake is accessible to many/all.
The bay is just another body of water that busy people have to contend with.
Like the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, it's a "inconvenience" they would rather fill-in.

Shooter II · Jan 19, 2010

Ross,

The CBF spent over 7 million dollars to build there. That building is not better than an undeveloped site for the bay. They have offices in DC and Upper Marlboro. Office space in Annapolis is available for rent.
The CBF used donated funds to build that impressive edifice. How many bags of spat would 7 million buy? After 30 years, what does CBF have to show for all the money they've spent? We get an annual report that says we're losing ground. I thought the bay would get better by giving the CBF my money and encouraging others to do the same. All we've gotten is sermons and reports.
At least the River Keepers seem to actually be doing something with much less money and attention. They also haven't yet built on the water.
correction
it's been 40 years

Shooter II · Jan 19, 2010

Consequently, in 1989 a purpose built vessel,the 'Thames Bubbler' came into operation. It injects up to 30 tonnes of oxygen per day directly into the River at the appropriate time and place. It is 50.5 metres long and 10 metres wide. It cost £3.5 million to build and costs around a £0.25 million a year to operate. A new oxygenation vessel, the 'Thames Vitality' with the same capacity as the 'Thames Bubbler' was launched in 1997. Both these vessels are owned and operated by Thames Water Utilities as part of an operating agreement with the Environment Agency and can be deployed within a few hours notice if it appears likely that oxygen levels will fall to critical levels. The vessels were deployed on 24 days in 2000, 30 days in 2001, 48 days in 2002, 25 days in 2003 and 29 days in 2004.
What might that 7+ million spent on that building have bought?

Ross · Jan 19, 2010

Shooter ll, I don't send money to any group that pays a staff. The last time I did that they spent the money on postage asking for more money.

Shooter II · Jan 19, 2010

Ross,
I don't know you but I have come to respect your wisdom.
You are uncommonly so.