Tell us what you think

August 12. 2009 07:52

This is not rocket science, stop waste going into the bay. On one hand you spend hundreds of millions of our tax dollors on clean up and keeping issueing permits to discharge into to the bay. STOP issueing discharging permits. Then set a dropdead date for permits that are out there now. These should be no more than 5 years out from the dropdead date. Land discharge, drip,or other systems could handle after the waste is processed and cleaned. Force all discharge into the bay to STOP.

ray

August 12. 2009 07:59

Does the Eastern Shore of Virginia Count in this? Seems like the Bay is all about Maryland. I live in Northampton County on The Eastern Shore of Virginia on the Bay. I do not see any meetings for the Eastern Shore.

Thank You

Troy

August 12. 2009 13:07

PBS stations in the Washington D. C. area ran, within the last quarter, a program that talked about the poisoning of our nation's waters on two coasts: Puget Sound and the Chesapeake Bay. Here, on the bay, a large amount of pollution comes from farmers on the Eastern shore who raise chickens for Perdue and other large growers.

The program pointed out something that is so egregious that I am at a loss as to why Maryland and the federal government don't do something. According to the program, if you are a small farmer raising chickens for Perdue, the chickens belong to perdue, also the feed, and everything else except one thing: the chicken manure. That, Perdue makes sure, belongs to the farmer. Thus, the Big Corporation is sheltered from the results of its externality (that is the action that it deliberately allows to go and makes sure that someone else pays for).

I have seen no local news organizations speak about this situation, no local radio or TV, and most certainly nobody from the state or federal government. It should be the job of the EPA and Justice to make sure that our laws are enforced and not left to self-regulation by parties who have no desire to do what they should. Please RESPOND TO THIS COMPLAINT PUBLICLY.

Ted Shepherd

August 12. 2009 14:16

The problems facing Maryland and the entire Chesapeake Bay watershed -- sediment control from stormwater runoff and nutrient containment -- are in fact rampant throughout many parts of the United States. It is difficult to find a lake or watershed that is not somehow impaired by sediment, phosphorous or nitrogen. So, what can the federal government now do to address this problem?

I. Stop Phosphorus Pollution at the Source

Phosphorus transported in rainwater runoff (from fertilizer, agriculture, urban pavement and other numerous sources) is poisoning our drinking reservoirs, recreational areas, rivers and tidal basins . Pollution in the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay has reached a critical level and phosphorous is the main culprit.

Large portions of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed are severely impaired due, in large measure, to the amount of phosphorus contained in stormwater runoff that is directly attributable to the increasing amount of impervious surfaces within the six-state watershed boundary. Like it or not, we have brought this on ourselves as a result of the way we live and it will become a bigger challenge as the population increases. We are now at the point of no return; having looked into the abyss we need to step back and reverse course.

If we do not take dramatic action soon, phosphorus runoff will create and expand “dead zones” that cannot support aquatic life, and that threaten major drinking water and recreational water sources. If we are to reverse the current state of these phosphorus-impaired waters, enforcement needs to be straightforward and direct.

From agriculture treatment standards and phosphorous-free lawn care to comprehensive septic system upgrades, adequately treating stormwater runoff, prevention – not remediation – is the real solution.

II. Capture Fine Particles from Runoff

A full 80 percent of our nation’s non-point source pollution comes from rainwater runoff. A significant portion of hydrocarbons, heavy metals and nutrients – the most deadly elements that poison our downstream water bodies – adhere to fine sediment particles in stormwater runoff. The smaller,
finer particles represent the highest surface area by mass and carry the largest portion of these pollutants. It is critical to remove and capture contaminated sediment from stormwater runoff before it is discharged
to a downstream water resource.

The design of all stormwater practices should be optimized for capturing fine sediment, and preventive measures should be required to eliminate the potential for re-suspension and wash-out of previously captured pollutants. Removing coarse particles from stormwater was an important breakthrough development in the 1990s, but after 15 years it is time raise the bar and require that stormwater control devices capture and contain fine particles and the associated pollutants, not just in new developments, but also in redevelopment and in-fill of urban areas.

III. Drive Research and Development

History has shown that when the EPA raises its standards, the scientific community responds with innovative technologies. I believe that if the stormwater standard for Total Phosphorous (TP) removal were 70 percent as opposed to the current 40 percent here in Maryland, for example, companies would rise to the competitive challenge. We know also that we need to make it easier for water technology companies to bring their innovative products to market, and to create programs and incentives for enhanced treatment practices on urban redevelopment sites.

Furthermore, testing protocols need to be nationally standardized and extend beyond evaluating only sediment as the current outdated standards are established for stormwater treatment.

Consider also combinations of technologies for treatment train practices within Low Impact Development (LID) applications with treatment and pollutant removal, prior to infiltration to protect both groundwater and drinking water and ensuring long-term sustainability. A next step would be to turn our nation’s private research laboratories and major universities into incubators for environmental testing and change on water quality. Not only will we protect our water resources, this initiative will create new “green” jobs at the research level and ultimately in the field.

As you take on the challenges of this new post within EPA, the expectations are high – because the stakes are high. But this presents a unique opportunity to harness public attention, think creatively and take bold action.

Dan Wilson

August 14. 2009 08:37

Currently the Washington DC metro area's combined sewer/stormwater collection system overflows over 3 billion gallons of raw sewage per year into the Anacostia and Potomoc Rivers. This accounts for over 5 million pounds of nitrogen yearly into the Chesapeake Bay and is the largest point source of pollution.

The estimate to separate the combined sewer is 1 billion dollars. According to USA TODAY there exists 10 billion dollars of unused environmental stimulus money. Use a billion of that money to make an immediate impact on the Potomoc/Anacostia Rivers and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay!

Paul Galanek

August 14. 2009 13:13

A small example:

As part of our business we do pond management for HOAs. All of these ponds have an algae problem because of the high levels of nutrients (P) running off into the ponds. We alsways suggest a wholistic approach that includes looking at lawn fertilization and using "No-P" fertilizer (following soil tests).

Only one community has taken us up on this suggestion...why?

No-P fertilizer is $16 per bag vs. $8 per bag for high P and it is not readily available (we pick it up and deliver it to the community). If each of 100 lots needs 4 bags 2x per year, the cost difference is $6400. Our costs to manage their ponds is less than $3000 for everything with algae control costing around $1000 per year.

They would be crazy to use 0-P fertilizer. Cheaper to kill the algae with chemicals and release the nutrients into the system.

If the public was aware and demanded low cost 0-P fertilizer be readily available and the high P cost more (surcharges to fund pollution reduction programs) then the economics would make sense and we would get closer to the goal.

As long as there is such a large disconnect on pricing we will get nowhere!

Jim M

August 14. 2009 13:17

It is possible to acheive nutrient reduction in a new community.

We have worked as the environmental consultants for a successful commity in Delaware right on the Indian River Bay. The developer deed restricted the community so that no lot owner could cut their own grass, plant their own flowers or trees, or put down any fertilizer. This is all handled by a knowledgeable environmental management firm to minimize pollutant run-off into the bay.

Additionally, all of the stormwater passes through a variety of BMPs before being discharged into the bay.

Our surface and groundwater testing prior to and during construction have shown vast improvements in water quality leaving the site.

Jim M

August 14. 2009 13:58

A mass balance equation must be developed to look at all of the nutrients entering the watershed and leaving the watershed in order to develop a plan to reduce pollutants. As long as there are people and animals eating, there will be nutrient discharges. If the waste is used for fertilizer for food crops it will circulate in the system. If food crops or cover crops are harvested and removed from the watershed, nutrients leave the watershed. If nutrients are sequestered in woody vegetation, they stay in the watershed but out of the bay (until the tree dies and breaks down).

If we don't take a hard look at the nutrients entering the watershed, cycling in the watershed, being sequestered in the watershed, leaving the watershed and being discharged into the groundwater and surface water we will not have a plan to effectively reduce pollution in the bay.

Jim M

August 14. 2009 14:08

If the economic burden on farmers to provide nutrient reduction becomes too large, the farm may get converted to suburban development. This may or may not have an effect on pollution in the bay but it has a large effect on the economy and food producing farmers.

Why not add value to the nutrient reduction practices for the farmer. For example, if the farmer agrees to provide certified best available technology for the next X years, he can sell x% of the development rights from his farm. If the development rights go outside of the bay watershed maybe he gets a density increase (For example he could have built 100 homes on his property but if he goes outside the bay watershed he can sell 200 lots worth of development rights).

These development rights would allow developers to increase density on suitable development sites which has also been shown to be a benefit for water quality. The public will have to accept higher density development in their neighborhood as the price for cleaning up the bay.

The farmers would be fairly compensated for implementing pollution control strategies and farming would continue on suitable sites.

Unless we all want to stop having babies and living longer our population will continue to increase. We will need more housing, food, jobs, etc. Lets grow smart!

Jim M

August 16. 2009 23:07

Listening sessions in Annapolis are fine, but Bay staff can get those opinions on their way to work. How about coming down here to Hampton Roads, or up to Cooperstown and listening???

skipstiles

August 31. 2009 12:12

As cited on your website, there are several stressors that contribute to bay degradation, including overdevelopment (runoff, deforestation), products of highway vehicles (air and runoff), agriculture (runoff, emissions), and fallout from western power plants.

To focus on one of these factors, overdevelopment: In just the last 20 years since moving to the area, I've noticed a significant amount of overdevelopment. In the counties that straddle the Bay, without exception, thousands of acres have been lost to new housing, highways, and retail/office buildlings.

For example, the construction of new superhighways, like I-97 and Rt.100, resulted in significant deforestation and massive runoff into the Bay. Both highways alone ate up a total of over a thousand acres of forested land. Further, these new highways promote "parasitic" adjacent growth, such as the so-called "BWI Business District" and Arundel Mills (which was pushed-through by the former Anne Arundel County councelperson Janet Owens).

Yet, after all the decades of talk, strategic plans and initiatives, the overdevelopment in the Bay area continues with no end in site, usually justified for the sake of "economic development." Meanwhile, at the same time, overharvesting of fish, oysters, and crabs continues. In the case of the latter, little has been done to discourage catching of females and "all-you-can-eat" feasts. Indeed, we can not "have our Bay and eat it, too."

Maybe, with the EPA finally involved, something will be done to improve the Bay, not simply reduce the annual decline. But, given the number of vested interests providing feedback to this proposed action, this seems doubtful . . .

M. Wright

MIchael Wright

September 3. 2009 06:37

These comments are submitted by Delmarva Poultry Industry, Inc. (DPI), the non- profit trade association for the broiler chicken industry in Delaware, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia and by Virginia Poultry Federation, the trade association for the poultry industry throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our members include farm families that grow poultry, poultry companies, poultry company employees, and suppliers of products and services to our members.

Our comments are in response to the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order establishing a Federal Leadership Committee that will oversee the development and coordination of reporting, data management and other activities by agencies involved in Bay restoration.

- The Clean Water Act mandates that the states have the lead responsibility for water quality. The federal government is supposed to be playing a supporting role. The Executive Order seeks to put the central government in charge of the Bay’s cleanup. According to the executive order, “The Federal Government should lead this effort.” Unless and until the Congress amends the Clean Water Act, the executive order does not trump the law.

- The executive order says progress in restoring the Bay will depend on state and local governments, the private sector and stewardship by all who live in the region. That is correct. A sustainable cleanup effort will happen only when there is a bottom-up approach that promotes buy-in, not a top-down, command-and-control approach.

- The executive order references the use of sound science and scientific support for decision-making. We expect this directive will, indeed, be followed. The fact that there are nutrients in the Bay does not automatically speak to all the possible mechanisms from whence they came – atmospheric deposition, wastewater treatment plants, lawn runoff, wildlife, or agriculture. If from agricultural sources, how much came from which source in which state and when? The science needs to be developed to determine and track nutrients so that fair and effective measures can be developed to address the issue. This can only be accomplished by compiling valid data, not models, on which to make decisions.

- Often times, farmers not participating in government programs do not have their nutrient management and environmental practices counted. All farmers need to be included; not just those in government programs.

- The executive order calls for the application of “innovative and cost-effective pollution control measures.” That is key. If policies do not provide a reasonable return on the investment of time and money and if they do not address the largest issues first, they will not provide the biggest bang for the buck and by definition will not be cost-effective.

- The EPA claims there is not enough money to properly fund programs to help landowners with environmental stewardship. Surely the money can be found, if Chesapeake Bay improvements are such a national priority. After all, the central government found money to repave roads not needing repaving, the rescue of banks and individuals who made bad business decisions, and the purchase of automobiles to help auto manufacturers and unions that made bad decisions.

- Water quality goals will not be met by making farmers and poultry growers the major source of improvements. The agricultural base in the watershed is shrinking while the human population is increasing dramatically. Poultry growers and thousands of farmers in our states are required to have government sanctioned nutrient management plans while homeowners are not. State laws and regulations affecting poultry growers have been supplanted this year by strict federal regulations. Over-regulating an already heavily regulated poultry industry could lead to more farms going out of business with that land being converted to unregulated residential and business areas.

- The new federal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations rule that is being rigorously enforced in our states needs to be applied with equal vigor throughout the republic. Unequal enforcement could destroy animal agriculture in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by making our farms less competitive with CAFOs in other states. The elimination of farms will lead to more and higher polluting urban and suburban areas.

- Whatever is developed should be done in concert with current EPA and state initiatives.

- There should be cost-sharing for any new initiatives to keep growers and farmers whole.

- Look to independent evaluators for recommendations (such as the nation’s land grant universities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the U.S. Geological Survey) to maintain credibility, integrity and acceptance.

- We would expect to see a balanced and even-handed approach across all sectors. If this is an all-hands-on-deck effort, then everyone should share in the burdens and responsibilities.

- Don’t fall into the trap of thinking nutrient reduction alone will accomplish the task. For example, the scientific consensus is that filter-feeders such as oysters will be a critical piece of Bay restoration. There needs to be a greater emphasis on restoring filter-feeders to the Bay.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and hope that they will be helpful and favorably considered.

Hobey Bauhan
President
Virginia Poultry Federation
P.O. Box 2277
Harrisonburg, VA 22801

Bill Satterfield
Executive Director
Delmarva Poultry Industry,Inc.
16686 County Seat Highway
Georgetown, DE 19947

Delmarva Poultry Industry Inc. & Virginia Poultry Federation

September 7. 2009 09:59

Letter from Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Re: Video Testimony

Comment on Executive Order

Dear Administrator Jackson:

On behalf of CBF, our members, and the people of Tangier Island, Virginia, we ask you to watch the following video with statements from residents of Tangier which explain how poor water quality in the Chesapeake Bay is harming our natural resources and destroying a culture. We urge you to submit the strongest Executive Order report possible with the quickest timeline for implementation with enforceable goals.

Thank you,

Roy Hoagland
Vice President
Environmental Protection and Restoration Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Roy Hoagland

September 8. 2009 08:40

Dear EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:

We, at the Audubon Naturalist Society, applaud the Administration’s commitment to science-based support of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. Like you, we hope that President Obama’s Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration will bring about the change needed to cure our ailing, yet still magnificent, estuary.

But that change won’t come unless EPA strengthens enforcement of the Clean Water Act and the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Allocations in all NPDES permits. More stringent TMDL Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) with clear pollution reduction requirements and enforceable deadlines need to be applied to all permits for pollution discharges to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, including stormwater NPDES permits. Also, the regulation of agricultural runoff must be mandatory. The voluntary approach has simply not achieved the Clean Water Act objectives.

We urge you to craft new federal mandates aimed at protecting sensitive habitats that contribute to the aquatic health of the Bay. Effective federal policies aimed at managing the location of development are essential. In our view, the first priorities for federal agencies involved with the Bay's restoration should be:

Protecting existing healthy forests and wetlands through tougher enforcement of federal and state laws; Leveraging federal investments in Smart Growth programs and improved mass transit, and; Removing federal subsidies for sprawl-inducing projects and programs.

EPA needs to reinstate its role as the ecological leader in reviewing, and in some cases rejecting, expensive federal projects that come under NEPA review. An excellent example of the need for an expanded EPA project veto role is the 1950s idea to encircle the Washington metro area with an outer beltway. Despite Governor O’Malley’s and the Maryland State Highway Administration’s extensive efforts to “greenwash” the Intercounty Connector (ICC) presently under construction, the ICC will be an ecological disaster for the Rock Creek and Anacostia River tributaries flowing into the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. EPA’s willingness to oppose the proposed ICC by declaring it “Environmentally Unacceptable” was the chief reason the ICC was not built in the 1980s and 1990s. Other segments of the outer beltway, including the Cross County Connector in Charles County and the so-called Techway crossing of the Potomac River, cannot go forward if the Bay goals are to be achieved. The direct ecological impacts plus the secondary impacts of "induced" sprawl developments simply cannot be sustained. Without an EPA to truly defend it, the Chesapeake Bay stands little chance to recover.

Yours for a Restored Bay,

Neal Fitzpatrick

Neal Fitzpatrick
Executive Director
Audubon Naturalist Society
8940 Jones Mill Road
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
301-652-9188 X 34
neal@audubonnaturalist.org<mailto:neal@audubonnaturalist.org>

Neal Fitzpatrick

September 10. 2009 21:10

Dear EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson:

Thank you for your efforts to restore the Bay. Many of the 9/9/09 EPA plans are needed programs. All will take a while to implement. In the meantime your team, the President and the Govenors can make a bigger and more effective near term impact by a major PR campaign that tells the 17 million people in the watershed what they can do now. Most of them would take steps if they thought we were all behind it. We all have to hear the plan about 7 times for it to sink it, but we are the ones who can make a difference in the short term, allowing time for these other plans to develop.

Ned Tillman
Author of The Chesapeake Watershed: A sense of place and a call to action

Ned Tillman

September 14. 2009 09:25

This discussion is central to the future of sustainable, high production, agriculture for generations to come. Responsible Nutrient Management® is a project sponsored by Agro-Culture Liquid Fertilizers and No-Till Farmer Magazine to educate farmers across the country that products and practices exist that allow farmers to reduce application rates of fertilizers, reduce nutrient loss to leaching and volatilization, preserve and improve soil structure and biological health, and sustain the high production agriculture needed to meet the worlds ever increasing food and fiber needs. We’ve been fighting this battle for years- fertilizer efficiency is the key- what you use is just as important as how much you apply. If more of the applied fertilizer gets into the plant and not into the Chesapeake Bay or any other water source for that matter, producing a positive response to yield and food quality we all win. Environmental responsibility is vital; but just as important is a plentiful, healthy food supply. We can have both through Responsible Nutrient Management®.

Lonny Smith
Director of Marketing
Agro-Culture Liquid Fertilizers

lonny.smith@agroliquid.com

Lonny Smith

September 16. 2009 06:44

When will EPA get serious with those state with limited nutrient managment planning programs? Maryland requires just about every farm to have a NMP but PA and NY only require one for farms with 2AU/acre or greater. PA's requirement for a manure management plan needs to be greatly improved if it is to be used. There is a lot of talk about the large ag operations. I can tell you the there is a greater problem with the many, many small operations where animal concentration areas are either right next to a stream or has a stream running through them. What is happening on the couple of acres in and around the farmstead is much more serious then what is happening out on the cropland. Also what is happening on the pastures (especailly with those with streams) is also more serious than the cropland. CAFO's to me are well regulated but the smaller ones (less then 200 cows) seem to get a pass. Soil conservation and water quality planning must be improved to be of any value to the program. I would hope the plans will have more details when re-submitted in November.

Doug Valentine
Ag Specialist
FCCD

Doug Valentine

September 18. 2009 09:58

For sure, this is only the beginning of what could be one of the largest public works project in our Nation's history.

This is a huge mess to clean up, but we can do it.
If people know its really affecting their health and day-to-day lives.

I found this list on NY times, that shows how little EPA has done to enforce Violation of its existing laws, much less new legislation.
projects.nytimes.com/.../maryland

What we also need to do is make sure that Bogus "green" companies are not allowed to get contracts through back channel/ closed door deals.

I will be energizing the local ASCE (Amer Society of Civil Engineers) to raise awareness, and work with the Anne Arundel County Public School to show high school students that their future is in danger, with no action.

We will be creating an ASCE blog, that I will link to this site and others regarding the bay and changes to Maryland's stormwater management regulations.

Let's not let this long-standing failure continue.

Chris Gorman
Stormwater Design Engineer
chris.l.gorman@gmail.com

Chris Gorman

October 19. 2009 18:39

I've been recreating and living on the Chesapeake Bay for 38 of my 41 years and it is such a major part of my life that I can't imagine my days without it. While the rest of my and my wife's family has relocated to Florida, California, and Hawaii, I cling to the desire to live the rest of my days on the Chesapeake.

My memories of the Bay play back like an old 8mm film of weekends fishing for my first fish as a 4-year old, netting crabs off the pier pilings, and weekends of powerboat flotillas, cruising alongside the best friends we ever had - those that enjoyed the Bay as much as we did.

Twenty-five years later as an adult on the Bay, I've always said that the stresses of my work week fall completely away when the first view of the Miles River appear from the bridge on my way to my home in Talbot County, MD.

But for the past few years I've begun to think of the impossible - that I should just pick up and leave the Chesapeake Watershed and find another body of water somewhere where I won't be watching the life being snuffed out of it year after year.

The inaction and apathy with which the Bay has been attended to by those that are responsible for it makes me raging mad.

Profits, lobbying, costs, new construction, inertia, and complacency will always interfere and I don't see anything to change that. Regardless of the current activity underway, I have personally viewed 38 years of continual degradation of the Bay to know what to expect is to come.

The Oysters are at TWO - TWO! percent of their historical population. We're now talking about introducing an Asian oyster since ours is gone, as if we can just change species in the Bay like a burned out light bulb. 75 percent of the Rockfish population has mycobacteriosis which produces internal tumors and hideous external lesions. We better start looking for an Asian Rockfish species to replace them too.

In August of this year, the MDE's Statewide Fish Consumption Guidelines for Bluefish and Rockfish were updated -- it is now recommended that I, as a male, only eat six - SIX!! bluefish meals per YEAR! or 12 rockfish meals per YEAR due to PCBs and methylmercury! Women and children are advised to eat NONE of either per year - NONE!

Areas of the shoreline of the Bay are routinely closed to swimming due to the health risks, robbing us and especially our children of valuable life experiences we took for granted years ago. We should take swimming in the Bay for granted.

What good is a body of water that you can't eat from, swim in, and wince at the sight of, as I do when I see unprocessed sewage pass by my pier.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like game over for the Bay to me. I think we've waited until the night before to do our homework and there's no time left before the exam - we've failed the test and there is no retaking it.

Please give me hope that I have a reason to cling to the thought of living out my life on a vibrant Bay. Heck, give me more than hope - I demand action, change, accountability, rabid enforcement, and penalties when progress isn't made or violations occur.

John Werry

October 20. 2009 06:53

for all th reasons stated above,. the Chesapeake bay is a precious, nonrefundable resource. the time to act in any effective way is long overdue. there is no time to wait or study It is essential that we support solar and wind energy and get away from coal which now supplies much of our electricity and polutes teribly. The EPA has failed to enforce current laws. Much can be done . Let coordinate our efforts, volunteer lobby and reverse the damage
Merry danaceau

merry Danaceau

October 20. 2009 07:16

As a resident of Tilghman Island, I walk along a small section of the Bay every day with my two dogs. The beach is often littered with dead fish, blue crabs and horseshoe crabs, mixed with plastic trash in large variety. These are the items that I can see but are by no means the extent of the polution. Part of the solution is very low-tech and simple: wire baskets lowered into the Bay from the end of resident docks, seeded with oyster spat (eggs) which mature and create an oxygenated and cleaner water area, which is what the blue crabs need to recover. Cleaner and oxygenated water helps the oysters fight off the bacteria in the water. Cheap, easy, effective. Is it widespread? Of course not! Do we need an expensive ad hoc panel of "experts" to study it? Of course not! Will an ad hoc panel (and how many of THOSE have we had?) be seated. probably.

Let's hope this time we don't get typical "government" action, but rather the government many of us hoped for when we voted for change last November.

Jill Johnson

October 20. 2009 10:46

Please clean up Chesapeake Bay. It is vital to our environment to preserve this water.

marsha Dorman

October 28. 2009 22:51

Regulations for environmental changes are needed to protect this area, but they must consider the small farmers who are involved. Merely legislating one part of the problem will not help. Legislation needs to be changed and created to protect small farmers and punish vast corporations who create these problems in the first place. For example, I just attended Powershift Pennsylvania, a youth movement conference, at which we discussed food sustainability. People from the area informed me (the first I had heard) of the problems in the area and how much pollution in the Bay was coming from the massive corporate chicken factory "farms". These are the entities that legislation should be directed against, with more leeway granted to the small farmer, who does not produce nearly as much pollution, proportionally or exactly.

I hope that the government can step away from its bedmate, corporate agriculture, and do what is best for everyone. Without places like the Chesapeake Bay, and without small farmers, we will have neither home, nor water, nor nourishing food. I urge our government representatives to remember their constituents, especially those who feed them and their families, and turn away from the corporate succubi.

Zoey Alderman-Tuttle

November 6. 2009 17:01

Thanks for the excellent executive order. My wife grew up a few hundred feet from the bay. Every Friday her family ate crabs or fish they had caught from its waters. The degradation of the bay must be reversed, and a credible restoration implemented immediately. Standards should be set, and violations should not be tolerated. Federal leadership is essential to compel laggard states to join forces with those that are ready to do the job.

George Alderson