Tell Congress to protect the Chesapeake Bay

The U.S. Congress is debating a new farm bill and looking for ways to cut dollars that could impact the health of our streams, rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay. Funding for conservation programs to reduce harmful nitrogen runoff is threatened. Since 39% of this pollution comes from agricultural sources, cutting these programs could have a devastating impact.

As you can see in the graphic there are many sources of pollution affecting our waters. Reducing urban/suburban runoff is critical. But since the largest chunk of nitrogen pollution comes from agricultural runoff, keeping these conservation programs in place is critical to the health of our beautiful rivers and majestic Chesapeake Bay.

Tell Congress to protect the Chesapeake Bay by fully funding conservation programs in the new farm bill.

Frack U III

I have previously posted about fracking in the Shenandoah Valley and about the George Washington National Forest Management Plan. Like some of you, I've attended meetings and contacted decision-makers to urge fracking caution on both public and private lands. In recent months the issue seems to have fallen off the media radar, but that doesn't mean it has gone away.

Fortunately, the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors (most of the proposed wells are in the Bergton area, but other locations could eventually be impacted) is being just that - cautious - and insisting on local self-determination for setting regulations that will protect the local quality of life. They have set a good example for other jurisdictions.

The George Washington National Forest Management Plan, which will guide activities on nearly 1.1 million acres for the next 15 years, is nearing completion. Although public comments (53,000) on the plan were overwhelmingly (95%) in support of a ban on natural gas fracking and horizontal drilling in the Forest, and 10 local governments in the region support it, it seems the final version of the plan may yet weaken or eliminate the proposed ban - as Ken Landgraf a National Forest planning officer said, "we're evaluating that very carefully to see if we can put together a package of mitigation factors that would allow us to make portions of the forest available." Might be a fox in the henhouse - could oil and gas campaign contributions to key congressmen and high powered D.C. lobbyists be hijacking the process from citizens and local governments?

We could talk about the million plus visitors to the GWNF each year, or the impact to wildlife, or the heavy truck and equipment traffic that would shatter the tranquility of not only the forest but also of the communities along roads accessing this treasure. However the most compelling reason to keep the ban on hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling is the protection of a huge watershed (headwaters of both James and Potomac rivers) that provides drinking water for local residents of the Shenandoah Valley, and also for millions in NOVA, Washington, D.C., and Richmond.

Below is a proposed letter drafted by the Shenandoah Valley Network for you to copy/paste/edit and email directly to Secretary of Agriculture (the Forest Service is part of that Department) Tom Vilsack at agsec@usda.gov. Time is of the essence as the Management Plan is expected to be finalized in the next few months.

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

I support the US Forest Service’s sensible proposal to protect forest resources and drinking water on the George Washington National Forest by prohibiting horizontal drilling on any future federal oil and gas leases in the new Forest Plan. 

The Forest Service should stand firm. The well-considered ban, which is intended to limit or prevent high-volume hydraulic fracturing, was supported by the great majority (95 percent) of more than 53,000 public comments, as well as by many local governments adjacent to the Forest. 

The proposed ban on horizontal drilling will protect the direct drinking water source for 260,000 local residents and the headwaters of the James and Potomac Rivers which supply water to millions in cities in Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, DC, and Maryland, safeguard fish and wildlife habitat, and preserve the forest recreation experience for the more than 1 million people who visit the George Washington National Forest each year. 

The draft forest plan also proposed to make nearly the entire GW Forest available for vertical gas drilling. The potential impacts of vertical gas drilling on the GW should be more thoroughly studied, with public input, before a decision is made. At a minimum, local drinking water supply watersheds, priority watersheds, and other sensitive natural, scenic and recreation areas should be made unavailable to drilling. 

Thank you for your support on this critical issue.

More information on Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling, the George Washington National Forest Management Plan, and water quality.

Chesapeake Bay Cleanup - voluntary won't get the job done

Always drink upstream from the herd.
                                                ~Will Rogers

Earlier this week, Governor Bob McDonnell's administration released its plans for the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. To a large extent the plan relies on voluntary actions to clean up the bay. It also provides for a system of buying and selling the right to pollute in certain watersheds - a plan that sounds much like cap and trade, a concept lambasted by many Republicans who care more about protecting business than protecting the environment.

Representative Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) joined Virginia farm organizations in calling for a more "flexible collaborative Bay cleanup effort." In other words the congressman and farmers want a largely voluntary plan with a few economic incentives but without deadlines or meaningful enforcement.

Voluntary always sounds good and sometimes results in meaningful positive steps, but in this case (and in many others) the problem is too big, the number and sources of the pollution to great, and the consequences of inaction too dire for this great natural resource to be restored simply by flexible and collaborative efforts. Action is needed and all (not just those with a conscience) need to be part of the solution.

How well does voluntary action work to end human behaviors that negatively impacts others? Suppose we had a voluntary program to end to drunk driving - think that would be effective? Even mandatory programs, where some find ways to get around the law, eventually find the problem rearing its nasty head after we thought it to be ancient history. For example, some parents figure that if all other kids get their childhood vaccinations, their darlings will be safe even without them. When enough think that way disease can make a quick comeback. Pertussis (whooping cough) cases are on the increase all across the country including cases recently in Orange County, Virginia.

Cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay will require action from all involved - not just farmers, but also households with leaky septic tanks and overzealous lawn fertilization, municipalities with out-of-date sewage treatment plants, and factories and processors who use our waterways to flush away their waste products. With all due respect to Will Rogers, in today's world, there is no place that is upstream from from herd (or bad septic tank).

Having been involved in stream monitoring for the past several years I have come to the conclusion that responsible farmers who are doing the right thing by building livestock buffers, planting vegetation, and restoring steam banks should be saluted but the reality is those efforts are only minimally affecting water quality. Water laden with e-coli and other pollutants may improve but will not magically become clean because it passes through a mile or so of properly managed stream. Bad water in = bad water out. Plus, in our karst limestone region bad surface water can find it way into groundwater affecting private wells and municipal water sources. In short, a few farms (or homes or old sewage plants) can muck up the whole creek.

One impediment to farmers taking the steps to manage streams crossing their fields is cost of fencing and providing water to their livestock. Cost is even more prohibitive and there are economic disincentives if the land is leased. Many landowners wouldn't go through the hassle of getting a grant or putting up the bucks to pay for the fence - it isn't their cows in the stream and the costs probably couldn't be recouped in the rent. The farmer running the livestock on the land may want to keep cows out of streams to reduce hoof problems and keep them grazing, but he'll unlikely to pay for fencing and watering on land he doesn't own.

Nope Rep. Goodlatte, this is one of those cases where voluntary won't get the job done. Too many incentives to not volunteer. And just a few farmers, homeowners, or factories not cooperating for the common good will have a dramatic impact on all of us. I'm all in favor of grants, expert advice, and other assistance to farmers. Those incentives should be designed to move cleanup of our streams, our rivers, and the Chesapeake Bay along faster. There might even be a bit of economic stimulus in doing just that. But at the end of the day, if we are really serious about restoring the Bay, we'll need deadlines, mandates, enforcement, and a common set of rules for all who use (and will potentially abuse) our precious water resources.

Clean water and green jobs

Governor Tim Kaine announced that loan agreements and contracts for 35 water quality projects are in place to use some $77.7 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The projects, which are found all across the state, will improve facilities treating wastewater thereby helping to clean up Virginia's streams and rivers. Of course, building and renovating these facilities will create jobs and help stimulate local economies, too. Good news on several fronts. Among the projects:

• Wastewater reuse projects in Fairfax will reduce nasty discharges into the Chesapeake Bay by 580 million gallons per day.
• Projects in Lynchburg will move forward several projects eliminating raw sewage discharges at two points into the James River. How is such dumping allowed?
• Richmond will get funding to help move forward on a sewer overflow project.
• Communities in southwest Virginia will get funding to provide sewer service to areas with failing septic systems/drainfields.

The best managed state in the nation was very efficient at moving the paperwork forward so these projects can begin sooner rather than later - only Minnesota finished the process quicker. That is good news for cleaning up our waters and for desperately needed jobs. To the Department of Environmental Quality - Great Job!

Troubled waters

A new report (PDF file) entitled "Wasting Our Waterways: Toxic Industrial Pollution and the Unfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act" by Environment America says Virginia's waterways are the second dirtiest in the United States. The report says Virginia had more than 18 million pounds of toxic chemicals released into its waterways, second only to Indiana. The New River (NC, VA, WV) is the worst in the Commonwealth and second worst in the entire nation with 14,090,633 pounds of total discharges. Ranking second in the state (31st in the nation) is the James River with 1,686,939 pounds. The Roanoke River also made the nation's top dirty 50 in total discharges. The discharge numbers are from 2007 when Environment America says more than 232 million pounds of toxic chemicals were dumped into 1,900 waterways.

Here at CCC I've previously posted about water quality issues with Shenandoah Valley rivers, most notably trash and animal/human wastes in our streams. When you consider the trash, the mostly unseen mix of chemicals, the bacteria, the nutrients, and the sediment/run-off that goes into our waterways it is pretty scary for anybody who wants to swim, canoe, fish, or use our precious water resources. W.C. Fields only touched on one irrelevant aspect of water quality in his famous quote about why he doesn't drink water. W.C., there are lots of other reasons!

Tom Toles' cartoon in the Washington Post November 13, 2009 sums it up pretty well.

Putting teeth in bay cleanup

Senator Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) has introduced legislation to put some teeth into cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. Among the provisions:

• Reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program which is run by EPA;
• States in the 64,000 square mile watershed would have to devise more specific plans to reduce pollution;
• States would have to write stormwater permitting rules that protect the natural hydrology of an area under development
• States would have to abide with a watershed-wide "total maximum daily load" limit on nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment.

The legislation also provides $1.5 billion in grants to help states achieve these goals. Starting in 2014, the states would have to issue progress reports every other year. A failure to make adequate progress could result in loss of those funds. There's the teeth!

More about the legislation and cleaning up the bay at the Washington Post and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.