The Federal Budget and the Chesapeake Bay TMDL

Living within 60 miles of Washington DC has sparked my interest in civics and made me think much more about how the government is run than I ever did back in my days in California. Under the Constitution of the United States, funding for the federal government is provided by appropriations made by Congress every year without exceptions. Funding for government employees salaries and wages is appropriated by Congress for a fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30th. Congress may pass "continuing resolutions" providing some interim funding. However, when budget appropriations are not enacted and no continuing resolutions are passed the federal government will come to a screeching halt.

Congress failed to pass a budget in 2010, the federal government has been funded through temporary continuing resolutions. In February Congress couldn’t agree on a long-term continuing resolution that would fund the government for the next seven months until the end of the fiscal year. Instead Congress passed an extension that will keep the government running through March 18, 2011. Unless another continuing resolution is passed before March 18th we may be headed to the first government shutdown since 1990. Government employees who provide essential services, the army, air traffic control, Congress, corrections, fire protection, are required to continue working. Non-essential services will be shut down.

Government shutdowns in the past have been short lived, but the impact of some of the budget changes in the wind could have long term implications for us, our children and our communities. I do not pretend to know where this budget should and will end up. I am watching and thinking, but maybe the latest continuing resolution is an indication of things to come. In FY2010, the US EPA received the largest increase in funding since its inception, 34% increase over 2009 funding. However, the continuing resolution passed in February slashed EPA’s budget by $3 billion (almost 30%) and contained a number of environmental policy provisions seemingly intended to stop the expansion of the federal regulatory framework in a rejection of top down command and control environmental regulation.

The recently passed bill states that no funds made available by the continuing resolution may be used by the US EPA to implement, administer or enforce a change to a rule or guidance document in regards to the “waters of the United States.” definition under the Clean Water Act. This ensures the Clean Water Act be limited to the historic federal scope of the navigable waters of the United States and Commerce Clause authority under the Constitution. The goal of this portion of the bill was to prevent the expansion of federal control to include all waters- puddle, moist land area, seasonal stream, man-made waterway, storage facility, conveyance system, holding facility, or ditch, and prevents federal control of non-point source contamination.

The continuing resolution also prohibits its funds from being used to enforce any greenhouse gas emissions regulations effectively nullifying the EPA regulation of carbon dioxide under the April 2009, endangerment and a cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act which was an effort to implement by regulation the framework of the Waxman-Markley energy bill, which was passed by the House but died in the senate.

Several successful amendments to the continuing resolution target environmental regulations are part of the current framework.
• Rep. Kristi Noem’s (Republican from South Dakota) approved amendment stops regulation of particulate matter under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), The EPA had planned to release a draft proposal later this year. There was concern about this proposal from rural local governments that they would be considered in non-attainment due to common events, such as driving down unpaved roads, wildfires and wind storms.
• Rep. Tom Rooney’s (Republican from Florida) approved amendment forbids the EPA from using federal funds to implement new water quality Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards in Florida. New standards were issued by the EPA in November and since then, the state of Florida has filed suit against the EPA.
• Rep. Bob Goodlatte’s (Republican from Virginia.) approved amendment prohibiting federal monies from being used to implement TMDLs or water implementation plans (WIPs) in the Chesapeake Bay.

After Mr. Goodlatte’s amendment was passed he posted a statement on his web site that began with: “For the past two years we have seen the Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take overzealous action in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. These actions have been taken without a cost benefit analysis to determine the overall cost of these mandates or even whether or not they will benefit the Bay. EPA has proposed arbitrary limits on the amounts of nutrients that can enter the Chesapeake Bay, and how these nutrients enter the Bay. At the same time EPA is seeking to expand their regulatory authority by seizing authority granted to the states and converting the Bay Cleanup efforts to a process that is a top down approach with mandatory regulations…”

Mirroring the sentiments of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), as a conservationist, I fully support the common goal of a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay watershed. I also fully support state oversight of non-point source contamination and feel that the conservation districts must continue working with landowners to prevent pollutants from reaching waterways through conservation and best farm practices that enable farmers to responsibly manage nutrients from fertilizer and manure and minimize soil loss from farmland. The Virginia (and the other five states) must fully fund the conservation districts and their programs to fully implement the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act so that we continue to work to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States. It is a treasure, but estuaries are fragile ecosystems that are very susceptible to disturbances both natural and those created by man. Diverting fresh water from tributaries for irrigation and drinking water supplies changes flow and quantity of fresh water entering the estuary, and impacts the balance within the ecology. Excess nutrients and sediment from sewage treatment plants, farm fields and animal pastures, urban and suburban run off from roads and landscaping can cause eutrophication. As the ecosystem of estuaries declines, species die out, coastlines experience excessive erosion by wind, tidal action and ice. The Chesapeake Bay must be protected and restored. State initiatives have brought very slow improvement in the nutrients and sediment levels in the bay despite the huge growth in population and we need to continue and expand these efforts no matter what the happens on Capital Hill. The Chesapeake Bay is our estuary and we need to protect and restore it, starting in our own homes.

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Meets the Wartime Museum

On July 19th, 2010 a public hearing was held in Woodbridge, VA to review the National Museum of Americans in Wartime, commonly known as Wartime Museum, request for an exception under the Chesapeake Bay Act to encroach into the RPA by 4.4 acres and enclose a perennial stream in a pipe under tons of fill as it moves from a wetland area that has formed in what was once a storm water management dry pond at an off site location, the uphill K-Mart parking lot. The storm water management pond was originally built in 1979 in the early days of storm water control, when there were no management agreements in place and only volume of water was controlled. The storm water management pond was allowed to deteriorate to the point that the pond is no longer functioning because there was no management plan or oversight agreement in 1979 ponds and the pond sits on private property. A perennial stream now runs from the wetland area that was once a dry pond, through a 200 linear feet of pipe before it becomes an open unnamed stream that runs to Neabsco Creek. It is unclear if this stream was created by or impacted by the creation of the storm water management pond.

The proposal, which was ultimately approved by the Board, was to fully enclose within a pipe the remaining 650 linear feet of stream and fill the 4.4 acres to allow the land to be used for outdoor activities at the Wartime Museum. The Wartime Museum will feature both indoor and outdoor settings such as WWI trenches, a bombed out WWII European Village and vintage tanks for WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan. It is envisioned that the 300,000 anticipated visitors each year will get to view military equipment up-close and in action. The Wartime Museum views the Outdoor Reenactment Area as the centerpiece of the museum and essential to their philosophy and mission. This area will allow the museum to be truly interactive with re-enactments, demonstrations, and visitor participation opportunities. Apparently the site requires that many of these activities take place in the 4.4 acres that house the perennial stream and adjacent Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Bay Act.

All requests for exceptions to encroach into the Resource Protected Area under the Chesapeake Bay Act are accompanied by proposed mitigation steps. The idea is if you encroach on or disturb and RPA, the water quality protection improvements must be made in other areas to “pay” for the disturbance of the RPA. For the simplest of cases, the rule of thumb is for every 400 square feet of RPA encroachment (say for a deck or patio) you plant 1 canopy tree, 2 understory trees and 3 small shrubs. As part of their request the Wartime Museum proposed replanting in other parts of the RPA to protect woods and vegetation on the site, some debris removal and the retrofit of the failed storm water management pond for the K-Mart parking lot. I believe that the Wartime Museum’s request was approved because Williamsburg Environmental, their consultants, represented that there would be a significant improvement to water quality of Neabsco Creek by the removal of 10 times as much phosphorus runoff between a functioning 1979 era storm water management pond and the voluntary improvement of the pond to 2010 standards. Little or no analysis was performed to determine potential impact from water velocity and any impacts to the water basin are not considered under the Chesapeake Bay Act. Under the current regulatory scheme in Virginia, the most significant improvement to water quality could be obtained by voluntarily improving and maintaining an off site storm water management basin. It appeared that the majority of the Board felt as if approving the request was the lesser of two evils.

Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

The “Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” was developed under President Obama’s Executive Order 13508 issued in May 2009. The Strategy was released in May 2010 and outlines actions that will be taken by each federal agency to control pollution, restore habitat and wildlife, conserve land, and increase public awareness and accountability in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. EPA Administrator Jackson stated in her announcement that the EPA will implement broad conservation and restoration efforts and prevents pollution from the urban, suburban and rural areas that feed into the Bay. The new federal strategy for the Chesapeake Bay region of the 64,000-square-mile watershed includes using federal regulations to restore clean water, implement new conservation practices on four-million acres of farms, conserve an additional two-million acres of undeveloped land, and restore the habitat for key species such as oysters, black ducks, and brook trout. The combined agencies and states will be held accountable to achieve specific milestones every two years to ensure measurable progress.

While there is overlap between the recently announced settlement agreement and Strategy, they are not the same. The settlement agreement resolves the lawsuit brought by former Maryland State Senator Bernard Fowler, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Maryland and Virginia watermen’s associations, and others filed against the EPA in January 2009 alleging the Agency failed to fulfill its duties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. EPA settled the lawsuit with the “settlement agreement,” which requires EPA to:
Establish and implement a Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, TMDL, for nutrients and sediments. This will include reviewing watershed implementation plans (WIPs) by the Chesapeake Bay watershed states and the District of Columbia to ensure those jurisdictions achieve the nutrient and sediment allocations under the TMDL.
Review state-issued permits, including proposed construction general permits and NPDES permits for “significant point source discharges of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment” in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Develop new storm water regulations by 2012 and concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations by 2014.
Issue guidance on permitting for municipal separate storm sewer systems.

The Strategy is far more sweeping in its goals as outlined in the full muti-color 173 page text available at: http://executiveorder.chesapeakebay.net/file.axd?file=2010%2f5%2fChesapeake+EO+Strategy%20.pdf .

The Strategy sets four main goals for Bay restoration and identifies “key environmental outcomes” and “supporting strategies” that are intended to help accomplish these goals and complement the multi agency efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The goals are to: restore clean water; recover habitat; sustain fish and wildlife; and conserve land and increase public access.
Among the federal actions identified in the Strategy, EPA must establish and implement the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and an associated “accountability framework.”

The Executive Order established the Federal Leadership Committee (FLC) for the Chesapeake Bay, which is chaired by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and includes senior representatives from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation. The Executive Order charged the FLC with developing and implementing a new strategy for protection and restoration of the Chesapeake region. The FLC is intended to support and guide the local efforts. The strategy is intended to support the restoration activities of state and local governments, watershed groups, county conservation districts, landowners and citizens.

The FLC is also charged with developing “key environmental outcomes” that include: Expand Citizen Stewardship. Respond to Climate Change. Develop Environmental Markets and Strengthen Science. Apparently, creating environmental markets is the current darling of the regulatory movement. Selling water release rights and creating a market for these rights is will make non-point source reduction possible and quantifiable.
The Executive Order directs the FLC to expand its role beyond just producing the strategy, to: “Oversee development, coordination and implementation of new federal programs and activities for Chesapeake Bay restoration. Collaborate with state partners to ensure that federal actions are closely coordinated with actions by state and local agencies and resources are used efficiently. Consult with stakeholder groups and the general public. Define milestones for meeting goals. Track and report on restoration activities and spending. Publish an annual Action Plan describing how federal funding will be used. Publish an annual Progress Report on environmental health and restoration efforts. Utilize independent evaluation to strengthen accountability. Make all reports available to the public by posting on a web site. Describe and carry out a process for adaptive management. Federal agencies will join the states in establishing two-year milestones with many federal efforts designed to support the states and District in meeting their current and future water quality milestones.” Buried in this mind numbing list of bureaucratic meetings, spending and report writing is an expansion of federal regulatory control of non-point source pollution.

Spring Cleanup and Good Stewardship of my Resource Protected Area

It was a long harsh winter in this part of Virginia. Spring as always seems to arrive suddenly and I was faced will a garden that had been damaged by the severe winter storms and a few misses by the snow plow. The past week and a half have been warm and spring like and that is all it took for the first buds of spring to appear. It was time to assess the garden, the woods and do a spring cleanup. As I walked the few miles surrounding my house I watched homeowners take different approaches to the spring cleanup. There were lots of homes (mine included) where trees were downed by the storms. We maintain woods on most of our property an area larger than the mandated Resource Protected Area (RPA) under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and manage it as one riparian forest buffer. Our spring assessment began with the woods.

The Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act require that a vegetated buffer area of at least 100-feet wide be located adjacent to of all tidal shores, tidal wetlands, certain associated non-tidal wetlands, and along both sides of all water bodies with perennial flow within the Tidewater region. These aquatic features, along with the 100-foot buffer area, are the RPAs and serve to protect water quality by reducing excess sediment, nutrients, and potentially harmful or toxic substances from groundwater and surface water entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. In the RPA the roots of the woody vegetation helps to maintain the stability of the stream bed, minimizing bank erosion to limit sediment. A wooded buffer has porous soils from leaf litter, fungi, twigs, fallen branches and associated bacteria all help to enhance the infiltration of the rain water and snow runoff. The root mass and forest floor also retains nutrients, aids in denitrification and pollution degradation.

As an engineer, I do not truly understand the nuances of the forest ecosystem. It is a complex mix of trees, understory shrubs and groundcover. Over time the process of natural succession occurs. Small saplings develop and will become the next generation of trees as the older ones die out. I take on faith that understory trees are a necessary part of this ecosystem and that insects, disease, ice and wind are a normal part of the succession process. In a forested area the roots, twigs and leaf litter and detrius are important for slowing storm water runoff and trapping debris and sediment. The twigs and roots also trap blown litter. So, our spring clean up of the RPA is to walk the woods collecting plastic bottles, and other litter. We walked the woods to make sure that nothing is amiss, pick up litter and see the river. There is always something magical about flowing water. This year my husband made a little video of the river running.

Several trees had been downed in the woods along with many branches. Pretty much we don’t have to worry about those trees. Benign neglect is the rule for RPAs which appeals to my lazy heart. We did cut off a section of tree that had crushed our fence and fallen into our manicured garden. However, that tree was not in the RPA. We left the two parts of the tree in the woods. I am thinking of expanding the wooded border with some additional tree plantings. Our big cleanup in the RPA this year was finding an old tire and a part of an appliance (I would guess washing machine). We removed the trash from the woods and took a bunch of pictures of the river and called it a day after ensuring we had not picked up any ticks. (Lyme disease is not a joke.) Now we are done, so much for spring cleanup of the riparian buffer zone. Next up the manicured garden.

Living in an RPA under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act

The Regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act require that a vegetated buffer area of at least 100-feet wide be located adjacent to of all tidal shores, tidal wetlands, certain associated non-tidal wetlands, and along both sides of all water bodies with perennial flow within the Tidewater region. These aquatic features, along with the 100-foot buffer area, are the Resource Protection Area (RPA) and serve to protect water quality by reducing excess sediment, nutrients, and potentially harmful or toxic substances from groundwater and surface water entering the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The RPAs are riparian buffers and provide critical habitat to terrestrial and aquatic species and stabilize stream banks. You can determine if you have a RPA area on a property by using the mapping function from the Assessors Department. Generally, RPA is one of the available mapping layers.

Riparian buffers are noted for their ability to protect and enhance water quality. A properly planted and healthy riparian zone can trap sediment, and reduce or remove nutrients and other chemicals from precipitation, surface waters and ground waters. Riparian buffers are especially important on headwater and small streams that have the greatest amount of water-land interaction and, therefore, have the most opportunities for gaining and transporting sediment. Once sediment has entered the system it can be continually re-suspended as it travels downstream and should be prevented from washing into the stream.

Riparian buffers perform many ecological functions. While required by the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act for water quality benefits, the advantages realized by a natural or established forested buffer go well beyond clean water, erosion control and control of runoff. The presence of properly vegetated buffers provides biologically diverse habitats both in the water and on land. Watching the wildlife on the edge of the forested zone has provided hours of peaceful pleasure. The buffers are complex ecological systems that connect the upland areas with surface waters providing a transitional area through which both the surface and ground waters flow. Protecting riparian buffers protects human health and welfare by protecting the watershed, one of our most valuable resources.

According to Helms and Johnson a healthy forest has living trees functioning as part of a balanced and self replacing ecosystem. That ecosystem is a complex mix of trees, understory shrubs and groundcover. Over time the process of natural succession causes a change in species composition and structure. Small saplings are developing into the next generation of trees as the older ones die out, and understory trees add valuable functions between the larger dominant species. A riparian, forested buffer may require some degree of maintenance to retain its health and function. Since a forest is a dynamic ecosystem, change is inevitable as vegetation grows and dies.

I had noticed that some of the trees on the garden potion of our land (the area not part of the RPA) seemed to be dying, chocked to death by what appeared to be wineberry and some unknown vine. As an experiment my husband cut down much of the vines on three trees that appeared to by dying the year we moved into the house. Two years later the trees seem to be once more thriving. As I studied the garden I noticed vines growing over many of the trees and began to think that maybe the invasive vines should be cut back on all the trees. This raised the question of the health of the RPA. Wanting to be a good steward of the RPA entrusted to me, I turned to the Virginia Department of Natural Resources.

According to the “Riparian Buffers Guidance Manual” it is practically always best to allow the RPA to evolve on its own. Removal of noxious weeds or dead, dying and diseased vegetation should only be done as necessary to maintain the health of the forest or to prevent fire fuel buildup problems. So I contacted the Virginia Department of Forestry to assess the health of the woodland. The Forester seemed to think that the woodland appeared healthy, though he did not have time to walk the acres within the woodland. The Forester recommended that in the area not part of the RPA that a section of invasive vines be removed and replanted with native species, a dying tree removed and replaced with a native species and some additional tree suggestions for expanding our plantings. The Riparian Buffers Guidance Manual had a wonderful section on the management of woodlands that essentially stated that leaving the woods alone is the best plan.

Soil and Water Conservation District Impact to Waters of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

A large portion of both Prince William County and Fauquier County is within the Culpeper groundwater basin. In Prince William County the Culpeper basin consists of an interbedded sequence of sedimentary and basaltic rocks with a lack of overburden that limits natural protection to the aquifer, which is one of the most productive aquifers in the state. The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act does not address the importance of groundwater to the watershed nor address the interconnected nature of groundwater and surface water. Under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act 2001 amendment, all the perennial flow surface water, connected and contiguous to tidal wetlands and buffer lands or within 100 feet of any of those features were made Resource Protection Areas of the Act. Virginia has not yet determined what percentage of the land area and population are subject to the act, but hopes to do so in the future. The “Tidewater” area as defined under the Act covers some of the most populous areas of Virginia. Portions of my land fall within the Resource Protection Areas of the Act, though according to the old geography books I live within the Piedmont of the Commonwealth. Nonetheless, I take my stewardship of this resource and my responsibilities under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act seriously.

I was very dismayed to read recently, that the Act was a “quasi-regulatory requirement” and is “likely only voluntary in nature because it does not require farmers or landowner to pay for the (soil and water quality conservation) assessments.” The September 2009 report from the Environmental Working Group “Facing the Facts in the Chesapeake Bay,” is the source of that statement. The EWG identifies non-point source agricultural sources as the producers of a significant portion of the pollution in the watershed. This is an undisputed fact. The EWG points out that to achieve the target nutrient reduction in the Chesapeake Bay the six states have assigned two thirds or the nutrient reductions to agriculture. These are really the low lying fruit and can be obtained with agricultural “best management practices.” To achieve that end, the EWG argues that the six Chesapeake Bay states and the federal government must develop and effective regulatory framework to specifically implement the necessary farm best management practices by expanding federally regulatory authority over agricultural non-point source pollution. I do not believe that expansion of federal regulation and control are either cost effective or desirable. Self regulation is a proven and effective model. The resources available to educate and assist property owners should be more widely dispersed.

Virginia's Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) coordinates and directs programs and services to prevent degradation of the Commonwealth's water quality and quantity, though it is unclear if that mandate extends to groundwater. Most DCR soil and water conservation efforts are devoted to controlling nonpoint source pollution. Statewide nonpoint source pollution control programs support natural resource stewardship and assist local governments with resource management. These programs include technical assistance, education and research efforts are provided by the Soil and Water Conservation Districts which are funded through state agency budgets, through programs such as the sale of Chesapeake Bay license plates and by funds available from the federal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program under the Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs) were established in the 1930s to take ownership of the dams within the state. Across the United States, nearly 3000 conservation districts almost one in every county are helping local people to conserve land, water, forests, wildlife and related natural resources. In Virginia, the SWCDs work to develop comprehensive programs and plans to conserve soil resources, control and prevent soil erosion, prevent floods and conserve, develop, utilize and dispose water. Today, forty-seven districts serve as local resources for citizens in nearly all Virginia localities except Arlington. Virginia's Conservation Districts take an ecosystem approach to conservation and protection. Their vision is to help all citizens of their District to have livable communities in harmony with the environment. The SWCDs offer free technical assistance and resources for many sustainable and environmentally-friendly projects from managing storm water, to technical assistance to farmers with specific nutrient management to protect our waterways. The SWCDs provide technical assistance for natural resource conservation best management practices and offer tax credits and financial incentives, when appropriate.
I plan to work with my local SWCD in the coming months to add my skills to their programs and to see how this great resource contributes to moving towards a sustainable Virginia and healthier Chesapeake Watershed.

Preserving the Chesapeake Bay and the Bay Act

In 1988, Virginia's General Assembly enacted the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Bay Act) to improve the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributary streams. The Bay Act created a cooperative program between the Commonwealth of Virginia and Tidewater local governments to protect and enhance water quality through environmentally responsible land use management. Each local government in Tidewater Virginia (generally those localities that are east of the Interstate 95) help to protect the water quality in the Chesapeake Bay through local land use requirements which seek to minimize the non-point sources of pollution into the Bay. The original pollution reduction goals of the Act have not been met. The Act did not include any quantitative measurements or goals.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest and most productive estuary in the United States, supporting over 2,500 species of animals and plants. The Bay has played an important role in the history of the region by providing valuable economic, environmental and recreational resources. However, pollution has caused the Bay's water quality to decline over the last several decades impacting the crabbing and fishing, the recharge of the estuaries and recreational use of the water. Despite the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, the Tidewater communities in Virginia and the Chesapeake Bay communities in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and DC have failed to enforce the targets of the original multistate agreement; reduce two key pollutants, nitrogen and phosphorus, 40 percent by 2000. When these goals were not met the governors and the EPA in 2000 set definitive new goals to be met in 2010. It is now seems unlikely that these goals will be met.

The Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act in Virginia was amended in 2001 to expand the Resource Protection Areas of the Act to all tidal wetlands, tidal shore, perennial flow bodies of water, non-tidal wetlands connected and contiguous to tidal wetlands and buffer lands within 100 feet of any of those features. All other areas of the Tidewater were named Resource Management Areas. Education and regulations are necessary to effectively improve the condition of Resource Protected Areas. Sensible and rational septic, sewage, and agricultural regulations need to be fully developed in many instances and then enforced. Public outreach and education is essential.

The natural beauty, limited areas of environmental progress and scars of the Bay were spelled out in the Sunday Washington Post article by David Fahrenthold and illustrated by the photographs of Cameron Davidson. The health of the Bay began to decline in the 1950s, when underwater grasses started to disappear, and fish and shellfish populations decreased. The deteriorating water quality of the Bay is caused by pollution, which can be divided into two categories: point source pollution and non-point source pollution. Point source pollution results from discharge at a specific point or pipe into surface water, and includes such sources as sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges. (Think municipal waste plants, Sparrows Point steel mill, etc.)

During the past several decades, point source pollution into the Bay has been greatly reduced, due to enforcement of the Clean Water Act. Underwater grasses in the Bay have started to make a comeback, and several species, such as the striped bass, have recovered enough to be commercially viable. However, nonpoint source pollution is a major problem facing the Bay. Oyster and blue crab catches have continued to shrink, and some shellfish populations have declined. The non-point source pollution is difficult to regulate and enforce because it comes down to individuals managing their properties and natural resources for the greater good. However, it can be done.

All localities in the Bay Watershed have identified and mapped Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPAs) as part of their local Bay Act programs. CBPAs are defined as lands that, if improperly developed, may result in substantial damage to the water quality of the Bay and its tributaries. The zoning maps of each locality show the general boundaries of the CBPAs. Whenever land inside a CBPA is developed or redeveloped, certain standards, or requirements, apply to the development in order to prevent a net increase in nonpoint source pollution. These standards are known as Bay Act performance criteria, and are specified in each locality's zoning ordinances. CBPAs consist of two categories: Resource Protection Areas and Resource Management Areas. As of the last reiteration of the Act, all areas within the Tidewater region are CBPAs. Management of existing non-point source pollution maybe by far more powerful than development restrictions. Actions towards managing and reducing existing non-point source pollution during a period of growth have been limited.

Current regulations prevent further development of RPA lands beyond minor additions to existing residences and structures and impose broad standards for septic regulations. A Water Quality Impact Assessment (WQIA) is required for any development or redevelopment proposed within an RPA, or for modification (clearing, grading, etc.) of any portion of the 100-foot RPA buffer. The Bay Act also requires that all septic systems within a CBPA be pumped out at least once every five years. This applies to all existing homes and businesses, as well as new development. Though this limited requirement may be inadequate to properly maintain a septic system. In addition, a reserve septic drain field is required for all new development. Requirements for maintenance of existing septic systems are necessary to protect ground water quality, and also protect the water quality of the Bay. Though portions of the CBPA are within the Piedmont and overly clay, throughout the Eastern Shore, water moves quickly through the sandy soils, reaches the ground water table, and moves into creeks and then into the Bay. The high water table and sandy soils within shore areas result in a considerable amount of ground water inflow into surface waters. Consequently, ground water contamination from failing septic systems can threaten the water quality of the Bay.

The first steps to protect the Bay were the regulation and reduction of point source pollution, the next steps were to develop a plan to better manage growth and reduce future non-point source pollution. We have arrived at the time necessary to control and improve existing uses of the area to reduce non-point source pollution. Decentralized waste treatment options are cost effective and can be effective if properly understood and maintained. The time to develop and track a septic best practices program for the communities of the Chesapeake Bay watershed has arrived. This is management of homeowners, outreach to HOA’s, work that is best addressed on the local level rather than on the federal level.