This article was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料’s news partners at .听Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from 海角精品黑料鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for听听迟辞诲补测.
Maryland is on track toward reaching its Chesapeake Bay pollution reduction goals by 2025, but advocates say the state needs to plant more trees to address stormwater runoff from farms and land development.听
The majority of the state鈥檚 pollution reduction has come from modifying wastewater treatment plants, while pollution from agriculture and听听remain relatively high, Alison Prost, vice president of environmental protection & restoration for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, told members of the House of Delegates Environment & Transportation Committee Thursday. Sixty-four of 67 wastewater treatment plants in Maryland have been upgraded already, she said.
鈥淚n the future, we really don鈥檛 have a lot more to gain from wastewater treatment. Where the lion share of the opportunity is in agriculture,鈥� Ann Pesiri Swanson, executive director of Chesapeake Bay Commission, told state lawmakers. 鈥淎griculture is very, very challenging, requires a lot of technical assistance and a lot of cost-share as well.鈥�
Agriculture cost-share programs provide federal and state funding to help pay farmers鈥� costs for installing conservation practices, such as planting forested buffers or fencing livestock out of streams.
In 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) pollutant reduction target, which requires six Bay states and the District of Columbia to implement plans that would reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution into the Bay by 2025. The goal is not to have clean water by 2025, but to have all the proper practices that will deliver clean water by 2025.
Between 1985 and 2018, total nutrient pollution in the Bay declined by 83 million pounds. But to reach pollutant reduction goals by 2025, an additional 52 million pounds of pollution must be eliminated, according to Swanson.
Although the Conowingo Dam, a 90-year old hydroelectric dam in the lower Susquehanna River in Maryland, was expected to continue trapping nutrients and sediment behind the dam until 2025, water has been running over the dam and into the Chesapeake Bay, even in low-flow storms, Swanson explained.
That adds 6 million pounds of pollutants. And climate change has added another 5 million pounds.
鈥淭his is like new calories coming into the body and you鈥檝e got to incorporate them into your diet,鈥� Swanson said, causing Maryland鈥檚 share to reach the 2025听pollutant reduction goal to rise from 6.2 million pounds to 7.5 million pounds.
鈥淭he place you鈥檙e going to find those additional pounds remain [in] agriculture, storm water, [and] septic because for the most part, we鈥檝e addressed wastewater,鈥� Swanson said.
Sixty percent of future nitrogen reductions planned will come from best management practices,听tools that farmers use to reduce soil and fertilizer runoff, such as animal waste management systems and planting more trees as buffers, Swanson said.
Since the Bay states began working toward their own pollution reduction goals, Pennsylvania 鈥� home to most of the Susquehanna, which empties into the the Chesapeake at the top of the Bay 鈥� has consistently lagged in meeting its goals. That led the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other organizations to file a complaint in September against the EPA for failing to require Pennsylvania, as well as New York, to develop plans that sufficiently reduce pollution as required by the听.
鈥淯nless Pennsylvania gets on track, we鈥檙e going to have a tough time meeting 2025,鈥� Prost said.
Only 30% of Pennsylvania鈥檚 state legislators represent jurisdictions in the Bay watershed, and Pennsylvania鈥檚 political and philanthropic 鈥減ower centers鈥� are outside the Bay watershed, said Marel King, Pennsylvania director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, told state lawmakers. The lack of support in Pennsylvania鈥檚 legislature explains the consistent lack of funding from that state to restore the Bay鈥檚 health.
Advocates also talked about the realities of climate change and impacts it will have on Maryland鈥檚 2025 pollution reduction goals. Warmer water temperatures cause oxygen levels decrease which could expand the Bay鈥檚 dead zone areas, Prost said.
To start addressing that impact, Maryland鈥檚 legislature听could push the Maryland Department of the Environment to update its permits to account for climate change. Currently, MDE鈥檚 calculations for storm water runoff are based on numbers from 15 years ago, Prost said. As storms are expected to get stronger and cause more flash flooding in the near future, there need to be stronger controls to prevent runoff from construction, Prost said.
It is important that the state have a multi-pronged approach and invest in strategies that address climate change, flooding and water quality together, rather than focus on water quality alone, advocates said.
The state should focus on planting trees as part of the climate solutions bill, Prost said. Not only can trees slow and strain storm water runoff into the Chesapeake Bay, but they can also capture and store carbon dioxide, reducing it in the air.
鈥淭he reality is for water quality, for climate, for community resilience, trees is where the investment needs to go,鈥� Prost said. 鈥淚t鈥檒l help us meet our watershed improvement plan goals, and if we invest more in trees it鈥檚 going to help us with those additional pounds that Maryland now needs to find related to climate change.鈥�
