As the Chesapeake Bay region states near a critical 2017 mid-point in a federal effort to reduce pollution in the nation’s largest estuary, the evidence is increasingly clear that pollution from Pennsylvania farms is the largest single roadblock to cleaning up the bay.
Jeff Corbin is the Chesapeake Bay “czar” (top advisor) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA is trying to cut pollution into the bay by about 25 percent by the year 2025 through a set of pollution limits called the Total Maximum Daily Load.
“We acknowledge in our own assessments that we are behind. And a lot of that – about 80 percent of that gap – belongs to Pennsylvania,” Corbin said. “And because they are relying so heavily on agriculture, about 80 percent of their own gap has to come from agriculture. So it’s a significant shortfall.”
Pennsylvania's failure to control its pollution is a subject that many Maryland elected officials and environmentalists are afraid to talk about, because skeptics in this state often point to Pennsylvania’s foot-dragging as an excuse for why Maryland should not impose more regulations or taxes to clean up the bay.
The argument goes: If Pennsylvania dumps twice as much pollution into the bay as Maryland does, and Pennsylvania gets away with doing little or nothing -- why should Maryland taxpayers and businesses be forced to do more?
Specifically, Maryland Republicans often point to the Conowingo Dam on the Susquehanna River just south of Pennsylvania. The dam catches much of the sediment and pollution from Pennsylvania’s farms, then, during storms, disgorges the muck into the bay.
But blaming the dam for pollution in Maryland is a fallacy, because Maryland rivers are polluted mostly by local Maryland sources. And it is really the farms behind the dam that are the source of most of Pennsylvania’s pollution.
“This isn’t a question of what the dam is doing,” Corbin said. “It’s a question of what we are doing to reduce the sediment coming off the lands upstream in Pennsylvania.”
Here are some facts that illustrate how little Pennsylvania has done to clean up its Susquehanna River, which provides roughly half the fresh water and half the pollution in the bay.
At least 11,000 livestock farms in the section of Pennsylvania that drains into the Chesapeake do not have or follow manure management plans that were required by state law more than a decade ago, according to an EPA assessment.
In 1980, the Pennsylvania General Assembly actually made it illegal for state officials to require farmers to fence their cows out of streams, although cattle defecating in waterways and eroding streambanks are major sources of pollution.
Forty cities and towns in Pennsylvania still have antiquated sewer and stormwater pipes that are combined, so they dump raw human waste into Chesapeake Bay tributaries whenever it rains, according to EPA. That’s four times the number in Maryland or any other bay state.
Pennsylvania has upgraded only 4 percent of its 189 larger sewage treatment plants in the bay watershed, compared to Maryland’s 64 percent and Virginia’s 44 percent. (This means upgraded to a state-of-the-art level, which includes “Enhanced Nutrient Removal” technology).
I called the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection to ask them about these discrepancies. Julie Lalo, director of communications for the state agency -- which goes by the acronym DEP – would not answer questions, but offered this brief statement.
“Here at DEP, Secretary John Quigley is developing plans to expand on our bay restoration program,” Lalo said. “Our focus will be on four strategies: Modelling at a regional watershed level. Developing stronger partnerships. Increasing compliance through enforcement. And modernizing record keeping and data collection.”
When I asked specifically whether the state would enforce its laws that require farmers to have manure management plans, the agency replied ambiguously – but essentially suggested that it would not. “Pennsylvania prefers to work with the farmers to achieve voluntary compliance,” Lalo wrote in an email.
This voluntary approach to bay cleanup has failed twice in the past – in the years 2000 and 2010, when the bay states failed to keep previous agreements to reduce pollution. And all evidence suggests that the voluntary approach is likely to fail again, in 2025.
EPA has little legal authority over farm pollution. But the only solution available is for the agency to step up and take action on what it does have power over, by forcing Pennsylvania to upgrade its sewage treatment plants. Perhaps a crackdown could scare Pennsylvania into also enforcing its manure management laws.
I asked Jeff Corbin, the EPA Bay “Czar,” whether the agency will require Pennsylvania to upgrade its sewage treatment plants to the level that Maryland taxpayers are already paying for.
“We haven’t flipped the switch and told them that it’s time to do that,” Corbin said. “All kinds of stuff is on the table for discussion right now. But what I would prefer is for Pennsylvania to come forward with a plan that shows us that they can achieve these reductions. And whether that is going to require more financial resources, more people, more regulations or more laws to address agricultural runoff, I don’t know. It’s up to them to figure out how they are going to do that” and meet EPA pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay.
Corbin suggested that “the ball is in Pennsylvania’s court.” But really, the ball is in EPA’s court, in terms of whether the agency will crack down on Pennsylvania for its years of foot-dragging. The fate of the Chesapeake Bay hinges on whether EPA will do its job.