Программа восстановления Чесапикского залива признана провальной: цели по очистке воды не достигнуты

It is with profound and sad regret that I must report to you that formal efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay under the 42-year-old Chesapeake Bay Program have collapsed like a house of cards. After the first Bay Agreement to restore the bay in 1983 (which I witnessed as a state senator), a 1987 agreement pledged the states to reduce nutrients by 40% by 2000. The states failed to do so. In 2000, they agreed again to similar nutrient reductions and also to reduce sediment by a 2010 deadline. They failed again. Then, the EPA was forced by a federal court to impose a mandatory pollution diet. The states were given another 15 years, until 2025, to meet the mandated pollution reductions or face sanctions. They failed again, reducing only 57% of the required nitrogen and supposedly 90% of the phosphorus. No EPA sanctions were imposed for this failure. Instead, a new, weakened 2025 agreement was signed, postponing the pollution reduction deadline until 2040. But another 19 million more pounds of nitrogen were not accounted for — 8 million from increased farm animals, fertilizers and best management practice (BMP) ineffectiveness in addition to more developed lands. Another 5 million comes from global warming and 6 million more from the filled Conowingo Dam reservoir. This greatly increases nitrogen needing elimination. On Aug. 6, the EPA Bay Program issued a fluff PR piece proudly praising the issuance of their annual “progress” report. In reality, it was a “regress” report. I accessed a critical part of their buried factoids documenting that the bay’s water quality had hardly improved over the last 40 years, confirming the tragic status of the Chesapeake if anyone cares to dig into it. In 1985, only 26.5% of bay waters met basic Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements. This means 73.5% of her waters were too polluted to support a healthy bay and its living critters. The new data found it was at 29%, a minuscule 2.5% improvement after more than 40 years and the expenditure of more than $15 billion. Bad waters increased slightly from the most recent survey, confirming that we are headed in the wrong direction in restoration. The CWA requires that 100% of bay water meet the CWA (not just 29%), and this was to be accomplished by 2025 at the latest, with states being required to curb nutrient and sediment pollutants. There is no better, more objective measurement of bay water quality than this — attainment of 100% of the CWA water quality standards is what drives the bay restoration and the EPA Bay Program. Alarmingly, the new data further documents more bad news: All three major bay pollutants impeding bay water quality — nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment — increased in 2025. These nutrients fuel the growth of algae, which depletes oxygen as it decays, affecting bay life while also clouding our waters and preventing the growth of critical bay grasses. These nutrients fuel flesh-eating bacteria in the bay. Sediment smothers benthic organisms such as oysters and blocks sunlight. Agriculture is responsible for 50% of controllable nitrogen and 49% of controllable phosphorus degrading the Chesapeake. The EPA’s August media release allowed the bay state governors to share credit with self-congratulatory claims of great strides in bay restoration. This occurs as the EPA has chosen to distort and hide the real news and block the annual progress reports that have been a touchstone of accountable transparency for years. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is quoted as saying: “Pennsylvania is doing its part. … Together, we have made real progress to improve the Bay. … We will continue making progress towards a restored Chesapeake Bay.” Really? Pennsylvania is responsible for 45% of the nitrogen flowing to the bay and has met only 13% of its 2025 reduction goal after being given 15 years. For phosphorus and sediment, only 47% of its limits have been met. Pennsylvania previously weathered a 2020 federal lawsuit by other bay states and environmental groups against the EPA to force the state to tackle bay pollution. Maryland’s Gov. Wes Moore touts great success in meeting nearly all nutrient and sediment requirements. He leaves out the gross failure to meet Maryland’s commitment under its Watershed Improvement Plan submitted to the EPA to cut agricultural pollutants that impair our waters. Maryland has met only 34% of its farm nitrogen commitment, 43% of its phosphorus and 37% of its sediment. Nor does he mention the commercial fishery disaster he sought funds for from the feds, documenting the disastrous decline of seven of Maryland’s key fisheries from 27% to 91% from 2012 to 2022. EPA officials and bay state governors also ignore the proliferation of bacterial infections from bay water contact, sometimes costing people’s lives and limbs. The science is clear that nutrient and sediment reductions are grossly overstated. United States Geological Survey (USGS) scientists have 123 water monitoring stations around the bay watershed. Their 2025 report documents that for nitrogen, 43% of stations were improving, 39% were degrading and 18% had no change. For phosphorus, only 24% were improving, 47% degrading and 29% had no change. For suspended sediment, 33% had improving trends, with 34% degrading and 33% no change. The USGS found that the most nutrient enriched waters were drained from some of the 83,000 watershed farms covering 25% of land. Several more intensively monitored watersheds also show that nutrients reaching rivers from farms increased or remained steady despite the heavy adoption of various BMPs to curb nutrients. In 2023, more than 50 bay scientists under the Bay Program scientific group (STAC), documented the ineffectiveness of paying farmers to voluntarily install BMPs. There were little discernible reductions in river nutrients. Scientists made forceful arguments for pay-for-performance — no nutrient reductions, no payments. Nothing has changed and farm payments continue to be made after more than $5 billion has been granted without appreciable results. This is the easiest and most politically safe way to go — throw money at farmers for voluntary BMPs. Sadly, some environmental groups prefer this losing proposition, led by the $34-million-a-year Chesapeake Bay Foundation that hauls down millions from agricultural grants. CBF even weighed in with a press release praising the EPA Bay Program after its Aug. 6 release of what I mentioned above as very bad news. Just got to keep the cash flowing. To meet bay restoration goals that were meant to be met by 2025, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia each count on achieving 90% of future nutrient reductions by slashing runoff from agriculture. At last decade’s pace, the region would not reach these goals until after 2100. Difficulty is exacerbated by more intensive cropping, more farm animals and more fertilizer. Some top agriculturalists joined other scientists believing that no significant reductions in agriculture will come until there is a major transformation in farming, likely not until 2100. I believe we need to treat agriculture the same as a point source like a wastewater treatment plant and enforce strict nutrient control plans. No one, whether a farmer or a builder of AI centers, churches or a new coal-fired power plant, should be allowed to pollute. There must be strict regulatory measures. If we do not succeed in greatly reducing agricultural nutrients and sediment and revive our intense fervor for saving our bay, we will never see a Chesapeake as healthy as now. Most likely, it will grow more polluted and dangerous. Do citizens care enough to make a difference? Gerald Winegrad represented the greater Annapolis area as a Democrat in the Maryland House of Delegates and Senate for 16 years. Contact him at [email protected].