Bush Plan Cuts Back Cleanup Of Bay
States Fear Harm To Restoration Effort
"The president is now going in and not only undermining federal regulations, he's now stopping states and local governments who are committed to these projects," said Mike Morrill, a spokesman for Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D). "It's no longer just pro-business. It's now becoming anti-environment."
By Anita Huslin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 11, 2001; Page B04
The Bush administration has proposed cutting spending for Chesapeake Bay cleanup programs by 10 percent in the next fiscal year, a move that state and environmental officials say could severely hamper efforts to restore the estuary.
The administration's proposed fiscal 2002 budget would cut $1.9 million from bay cleanup programs, which have received an average of $20 million a year since 1999. The money has been doled out to a variety of state and federal agencies that perform a range of projects, including the creation of oyster beds, research on blue crabs and other fisheries, and the monitoring of
water quality.
Although it is unclear exactly where spending would be reduced, officials said the budget cut sends the wrong message about a restoration effort strongly supported by the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia and by the mayor of the District of Columbia.
"The president is now going in and not only undermining federal regulations, he's now stopping states and local governments who are committed to these projects," said Mike Morrill, a spokesman for Maryland Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D). "It's no longer just pro-business. It's now becoming anti-environment."
The governors and mayor last summer signed a new cleanup agreement that will require redoubling efforts in the next decade to limit nutrient pollution flows from sewage treatment plants and farms, and will limit the effects of development by curbing stormwater runoff and preserving buffers throughout the watershed.
Although a total price tag has yet to be tallied, officials have estimated that it could cost nearly $2 billion just to meet the land preservation goals of the new pact.
"When you take more than $1 million away, it goes beyond surface-level stuff and into significant programs," said Ann Swanson, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, a consortium of legislators from the states who work to promote bay cleanup initiatives and funding. "It cuts fish passage activities and restoration activities and implementation grants to
farmers, and it can really hurt."
The proposed spending cut comes just months after Congress reauthorized the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, which enables the federal government to spend as much as $40 million a year through 2006 on bay cleanup programs.
Environmentalists in the region are now talking about how to raise the profile of bay efforts before the new administration and in Congress by developing a broad campaign for greater federal funds.
"There's a lot to be done as a result of the new bay agreement," said Michael Hirshfield, vice president for resource protection programs for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the largest regional environmental group in the country. "The bay states and the federal government have set some pretty ambitious goals for themselves. It's apparent to everyone that now is the time for
increasing the resources that are going toward bay restoration, rather than decreasing them."
In the change of presidential administrations, the bay has lost two strong advocates for restoration programs, Swanson noted.
The Environmental Protection Agency's top officials in charge of air and water programs -- Robert Perciasepe and J. Charles Fox -- were well grounded in bay issues and were strong advocates for maintaining funding for programs.
"Now there isn't as much internal knowledge within the EPA and it's going to be very important for us to state our case like never before if we want to compete," Swanson said. "There's too many estuaries facing the same growth and development problems, and they're going to spread the wealth around unless we continually prove we are more special and therefore more
deserving of federal funding."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company |
