The Etownian >> News
Pennsylvania lacks resources to help Chesapeake Bay
Thursday April 22 2010
A sunset view of the Susquehanna River from Chickies Rock. The Susquehanna River is a large tributary of the Chesapeake Bay. Three Mile Island and an ethanol power plant grace the banks of the river.
In 1983, the governors of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania met to finalize details regarding an interstate Chesapeake Bay Agreement. By 1986, Pennsylvania had established an office in Harrisburg and became an official partner of the cleanup.
However, in order for the CBF to preserve the bay’s inherent beauty and natural water filtration (specifically by preserving the “forests, wetlands underwater grasses, and oysters”) it is necessary to have the cooperation of all the states in the agreement.
On March 18, 2010, a statement was released regarding the efforts that Pennsylvania has made to aid in the cleanup.
The CBF acknowledged that in the past, Pennsylvania has “had much success in reducing nutrient and sediment pollution (in) rivers and streams.” A great deal more can be done, but, unfortunately, Pennsylvania has not been able to do as much due to the economic climate.
Based on the commitments that Pennsylvania has agreed to meet by 2011, additional funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is necessary.
Some of the goals for the coming year include managing nutrients, buffering forests, conserving land and planting trees. Based on a review of these goals, however, the amount allocated by the DEP must be at least doubled to achieve them.
In 2005, the DEP acknowledged that it was falling short by about $174 million in regard to the funding that Pennsylvania needs to meet its obligations. Additional funding ($400 million) was put into the “water bond infrastructure issued” program, but this amount proves to be minute when it is revealed that the project costs a total of $1.4 billion.
It is not reasonable to place all the blame on the DEP, which is dealing with costs of its own. In 2002, the DEP lost 19 percent of its staff and 26 percent of its General Fund budget. However, these cuts have had a disproportionately large effect on the budget of water-related issues.
On January 19, 2010, a letter was sent acknowledging that Pennsylvania had fallen short of fulfilling its expected obligations. Secretary John Hanger and the Department of Agriculture Secretary, Russell Redding, advocated that an increase in funding should be provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and by the EPA, but there was no mention of an increase from the state government.
The impact of a cleaner bay can be best understood by those who live in the area and are directly impacted by its state. Sophomore Emily Ulrich, who is from Baltimore, explained how increased pollution in the bay has affected many fishers, especially those who rely on selling crabs. As the bay has become more polluted, the crab population has declined, which has made it necessary to limit the amount that can be caught and sold.
These limits have caused a spike in prices, which makes it harder for those in restaurants and individuals to afford them, especially in an economy where a tight budget is necessary. Overall, Ulrich stated, it is a cycle that keeps repeating and can only be resolved with increased concern for the bay’s conditions.
A simple answer does not seem possible, but it is an issue which must be addressed. The impact of a cleaner bay is not merely an issue of aesthetic appeal, but also a factor in the livelihood of many bay area fishers and watermen. Therefore, a solution to the funding issue must be discovered soon.
The Etownian >> News