Can Rock 'N Roll Save The Bay?

Williamsport hopes rock music can help pay for its watershed costs

Faced with a large price tag on a government mandate, the town of Williamsport is trying to raise money through an all-day rock concert.

Counties and municipalities across the state are trying to figure out how to pay for a new state Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) to help protect the Chesapeake Bay by reducing nitrogen and phosphorus discharges. The plan is expected to cost Washington County and its municipalities $1.1 billion in the next 13 years in stormwater, wastewater and septic measures. Williamsport’s share is an estimated $11.7 million.

Town Clerk/Treasurer Donnie Stotelmyer said he and Councilman Bill G. Green talked about the possibility of having a concert at River Bottom Park in Williamsport. The idea evolved into a fundraiser for WIP costs, with an educational component about the health of the Potomac River, Stotelmyer said.

The concert, called Rockin’ at River Bottom, will be Sept. 15. Five bands are lined up to play. Tickets cost $10 in advance and $15 at the door. Stotelmyer said 6,000 tickets will be available. If all goes well, Green said, the town could take in $60,000 to $70,000.

Hmmm, $11.7 million divided by $70,000.  So optimistically, 167 concerts (probably over ten year, since that's how most of these costs seem to be estimated), could pay off one small towns 'Bay Diet' bill. So the answer to the question posed in the title is:

Maybe, but it will take a whole lot of Rock 'N Roll.  Hey, I'm game...




and another...

Drop... Bucket

MD Senators Announce $1 Million In Federal Funds To Build Chesapeake Bay Oysters 

U.S. Senators Barbara A. Mikulski and Ben Cardin (both D-Md.) today announced the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released over $1 million to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to help restore the Chesapeake Bay’s oyster population. The funding, secured by Senator Mikulski in the FY2012 Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) funding bill, will allow for targeted oyster restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries, and will help monitor oyster health.

A million bucks is a drop in the budget in the scheme of the resources needed to fix the Chesapeake Bay, when you consider that the overall cost of the 'Bay Diet' is estimated to be $15 billion (with a "b"), which I see as an underestimate. If they consider the oyster to be an important part of that restoration, and I think that's a fair assumption, then that is a trivial expense.

“The Chesapeake Bay is part of who we are as Marylanders – it is part of our heritage and part of our culture – and it’s our greatest natural resource. This funding is a federal investment in the lives and livelihoods that depend on the Bay,” said Senator Mikulski, Chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science which funds NOAA. “I will continue to fight to keep the Bay and Eastern Shore communities priorities in the federal checkbook.”

 However, I'm not convinced that efforts to stock and replenish oysters are the best use of funds.  If oysters can succeed in the bay, they can do it without help, other than to stop mining them.  If they can't, no amount of artificial enrichment of their numbers will succeed.

DNR was awarded $1,080,000 to implement a multi-year oyster population restoration process, which includes reseeding, monitoring, and evaluation of different restoration methods. To make this happen, DNR works directly with the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science to produce the oyster seed, or “spat on shell,” and then with the Oyster Recovery Partnership and local watermen for on-the-water operations to rebuild reefs. When complete, the project will place up to 300 million seeds in targeted Chesapeake Bay tributaries to aid with oyster population recovery.

The current strategy of replenishing oysters and then allowing watermen to fish them "because they'll just get diseased and die anyway" is an admission of failure.  Best to stop the fishing entirely, and find out if conditions in the bay will permit a recovery.

Hancock Doesn't Want to Save the Bay

Or at least they think the bill is too high: Hancock Town Council says it can't afford watershed plan

The Hancock Town Council followed the example of some other Washington County governments, voting Wednesday night to send a letter to the county’s Watershed Implementation Plan Committee stating it cannot afford to spend $31 million to reduce water pollutants entering the Chesapeake Bay.

“These numbers were just so astonishingly ridiculous,” Mayor Daniel Murphy said of the costs of reducing nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in the bay’s watershed.

According to Wikipedia, the population of Hancock was 1725 in 2000 and declining.  A cost of $31 million makes the burden per tax payer $18,000, or if spread over a 10 year period, approximately $1,800 per year.

Seems excessive, given the limited benefits to the people in Hancock.

Earlier this week, Clear Spring’s town council took the same action, sending a letter to the committee acknowledging the problem, but stating it could not pay for $1.3 million in pollution-reducing measures.

The town could take some measures to help reduce pollution — swail repair, riparian buffers and planting trees — but the town does not have the money to implement any large plans to reduce nutrient pollution, Town Manager David Smith said.

Among municipalities, only Hagerstown ($210 million) and Boonsboro ($36 million) had larger estimates for reducing stormwater runoff into the watershed than Hancock. The cost for the county government to control runoff was estimated at more than $500 million.

The total cost to the county and local governments is estimated in excess of $1.1 billion over a 13-year period. That includes $230 million to reduce septic system discharges.

The population of Washington County wass ~147,000 in 2000, so the per capita costs for the county are somewhat less, only about $7500 each.  I wonder why Hancock is twice as costly?

MD Septic Upgrades Meet Resistance

New septic system requirements fire up opponents at hearing

More than two dozen witnesses testified before a joint legislative committee Tuesday on proposed regulation for upgraded septic systems across the state, most of them opposing the rule change.

State Department of the Environment officials who wrote the regulations –– the only proponents aside from environmentalists –– told the Administrative, Executive and Legislative Review joint committee that applying best available septic technology statewide is the way to reduce nutrient sediment load in the Chesapeake Bay.

 "Nutrient sediment load"?  I think that's a typo and they meant nutrient alone.  Septic tanks don't contribute to sediment pollution, at least after the initial installation.

Environment Secretary Robert Summers based his department’s authority to impose a statewide best practices mandate on the state’s code of regulation. Carroll County Board of Commissioners vice-president Richard Rothschild, R, however, said the Department was overstepping its boundaries and should be called the “Maryland Department of Everything.”

Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, R-Cecil, blasted the State Environment Department for using its regulatory authority to end-run the legislature and Gov. Martin O’Malley for allowing it.

I can't speak to the legalities here, because I won't pretend to understand them, but it's seems likely that O'Malley is doing an end run around the legislature here, much like the current administration in Washington has stepped around the Congress on such matters as immigration, etc.

Maryland’s estimated 420,000 septic systems each introduce 24 pounds of nitrogen per year into state waters, Summers said. That compares to about 2 pounds per household connected to sewer systems with enhanced nutrient management systems.

If the proposed regulation is approved and the projected 2,200 new septic systems across the state are required to implement the best available technology, the nitrogen output into the Bay would be roughly equivalent to 31,000 pounds of nitrogen, or the amount produced by the city of Cambridge. Summers noted that the number of new homes is a conservative estimate following the housing collapse. If the market picks up, as many as 5,000 new septic systems could come online.

Septic systems currently make up an estimated 7% of the nitrogen entering Chesapeake Bay.  To cut down most of the nutrients from new systems is a relatively small change.  It does prevent the contribution from growing much in the future, though.  But will it prove to be worth the costs, or are there changes that can be made elsewhere (sewage, agriculture, or air pollution), that can get the same or greater impact at lower cost?

Carroll County’s Rothschild said $1,000 to remove 3-4 pounds of nitrogen with less than one-tenth of 1% impact is “a dog that doesn’t hunt and doesn’t get us to where we need to be.”

That is pretty expensive nitrogen...

Back Pats All Around on the Bay

Chesapeake Bay cleanup on track, officials say

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said Maryland and the other five states that drain into the bay, as well as the District of Columbia and the federal government, have all made "extraordinary progress" the past two years in accelerating their cleanup efforts.

"Most, if not all, the signs are pointing in the right direction," Jackson said at a meeting to review bay restoration work, held this year at Gunston Hall in Northern Virginia. "If this were a race, we would hit the accelerator because we know we're on the right path."

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley agreed that "the degree and the movement that we've made over the past five years … is really remarkable."

Most of the last two years have been planning, not implementation.  The big thrust of the effort, and the vast majority of the cost is yet to come.   Nice of them to pat each other on the back before they get down to business.

Rich Marylanders Flee High Taxes

In Maryland, Higher Taxes Chase Out Rich: Study

A new report says wealthy Maryland residents may be moving out due to recent tax hikes – a finding that is sure to escalate the battle over taxing the American rich.

The study, by the anti-tax group Change Maryland, says that a net 31,000 residents left the state between 2007 and 2010, the tenure of a "millionaire's tax" pushed through by Gov. Martin O'Malley. The tax, which expired in 2010, in imposed a rate of 6.25 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year.

I personally know several people who have abandoned Maryland in favor of lower tax states.

The Change Maryland study found that the tax cost Maryland $1.7 billion in lost tax revenues. A county-by-county analysis by Change Maryland also found that the state’s wealthiest counties also had some of the largest population outflows.

In total, Maryland has added 24 new taxes or fees in recent years, Change Maryland says. Florida, which has no income-tax, has been a large recipient of Maryland's exiled wealthy.

Many of those new taxes and fees are required for the Chespapeake Bay 'diet'.  Sadly, one of the outcomes will be less people to pay those taxes and to enjoy that recovered Bay. 

“Maryland has reached the point of diminishing returns. We're taxing people too much and people are voting with their feet," said Change Maryland Chairman Larry Hogan. “Until we change our focus from tax increases to increasing the tax base, more people are simply going to leave, leading to a downward spiral of raising revenues on fewer citizens."

And liberals laughed at Laffer.

EPA: "Virginia is the Biggest Loser"

Virginia is exceeding its commitments under the Chesapeake Bay Program to reduce nutrients in the bay from wastewater treatment plants, Gov. Bob McDonnell announced Friday.

In making the announcement, McDonnell announced four important accomplishments:

• Virginia major wastewater facilities in 2011 exceeded pollution reduction goals by more than 2,000 percent for nitrogen and more than 450 percent for phosphorus.
• The U.S. EPA’s Region 3 has awarded Virginia their “Biggest Loser” for ranking first in the region and second in the nation for reducing nitrogen pollution as reported through the Clean Water Act nonpoint source program. In 2011, Virginia’s activities prevented 2.5 million pounds of nitrogen from entering streams and lakes.
•  Virginia reported more phosphorus and bacteria load reductions than any other state in EPA’s Region 3, an area that includes Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Phosphorus loads were reduced by 216,000 pounds.
• Virginia’s state budget will allocate $92 million toward point and non-point water quality programs the highest general fund appropriations to the WQIF in the past five fiscal years.

“We are seeing a major rebound in populations of blue crabs, oysters, osprey, eagles, Atlantic striped bass, and flounder,” said Anthony Moore, Deputy Secretary for Chesapeake Bay Restoration.

Let me just say that it's easy to lose a lot, when you have a lot to lose.  The Bay Foundation shares my gimlet eye:

"The Bay is still far from being restored," said Chuck Epes, a spokesman for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Epes said the Bay pollution still must be cut an additional 50 percent by 2025.

"With these milestones, we're seeing new and important ways to measure progress toward that," he said.

The foundation will release its own analysis of the state's progress on the two-year milestones Monday as well.

Frederick Co. Bay Diet Cost Half; Still "Astronomical"

Bay cleanup costs less than estimated, but still ‘astronomical,’ commissioner says

Frederick County might be on the hook for $1.5 billion for its share in reducing stormwater pollutants as part of the state’s plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.

That number is well above the $200 million the state estimated it would cost, but under the $2.3 billion the county initially projected. The new estimate is based on numbers and scenarios from the Maryland Department of the Environment, said Shannon Moore, the county’s manager of sustainability and environmental resources.

What?  They were almost a factor of ten different in their estimates of cost?  Does anyone here know how to estimate them?  (Don't ask me, I'm a Ph.D.; we're notoriously awful about estimating how much something is going to cost).  Still, it looks like the country knows better about their costs than the state did.

Moore and staff recalculated the cost to the county using best management practices developed for the county by MDE, cost estimates prepared by MDE analyst Dennis King, and a scenario assessment developed by MDE. The $1.5 billion cost includes all stormwater retrofits within Frederick County, including municipal, state, federal, county-owned and unregulated urban land. The estimated cost to Frederick County government, based on the pollution reduction target for the county’s stormwater permits, is 43 percent, or $644 million. Municipalities have their own permits, but are not required to submit WIP plans. MDE has stated in its Draft Phase II WIP that the permit renewals are expected to have a goal to reduce 20 percent of their untreated urban impervious areas built prior to 2002, and that these permit renewals will take place in December.

The reduction goals will be written into upcoming stormwater permits as conditions of the permits.

“At the end of the day, these are [MDE’s] numbers,” Moore said.

It's still $1.5 billion for about 233,000 people, about $6,500 per person.  That's not chump change.

The Cost of $#!* Goes Up in Baltimore

Baltimore water, sewer rates set to jump 9% in fifth yearly increase

The typical Baltimore area household will see their water and sewer bills rise to nearly $1,200 a year following today’s approval by the Board of Estimates of a 9% rate hike for fiscal 2013.

The jump will increase the annual water and sewer charges for a family of four from $1,073 to $1,170, according to the city Department of Finance.

This does not include the separate Chesapeake Bay Restoration fee, or “flush tax,” that was passed by the General Assembly this year and will double from $30 to $60 a year beginning on July 1.

This fee is designed to make improvements to the state’s 67 major sewer treatment plants that discharge into Bay waters.

The Baltimore rate increases – scheduled to go into effect tomorrow (June 28) – will affect residents of both Baltimore city and county under an intergovernmental agreement. A 9% rate increase is also expected for consumers using “city water” in Anne Arundel, Howard and Carroll counties.

The hike in city fees will be the fifth in the last five years, which have pushed up residential water and sewer bills by nearly 50% since 2008. (Rates were increased 4% in 2008, 9% in 2009, 9% in 2010 and 9% in 2011.)

I guess $1230 is worthwhile if the other choice is a giant pile of $#!* in your backyard.

Carroll County Stiff Arms State, EPA on Bay Diet

 OK, three Chesapeake Bay posts in one day might seem excessive, but this one seems significant:

Carroll County Refuses to send the state its local Watershed Implementation Plan

Unhappy with how the state has estimated the county’s nutrient reduction requirements, Carroll County planning staff will not submit the county’s local Watershed Implementation Plan to the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Counties are required to develop a local plan with strategies that help the state reach its pollution mitigation goals to clean up the Chesapeake Bay and state waterways. The goal is to lower the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus getting into the state’s waterways. Counties must submit their plans to the MDE by July 2.

The Maryland Department of the Environment wants to work with the county so that the state can meet its water quality goals.  “If the county does not submit a plan, MDE will assume Carroll County will implement standard strategies from the state plan that will meet our statewide water quality goals,” said MDE spokeswoman Samantha Kappalman. “If no progress is made to implement the strategies, then MDE can begin to look at some of the permits under its legal authority for ways to encourage the county to implement those strategies.”

I'm curious what sort of leverage the State would have over a County to force it to go along.  It's probably a good thing to have one or two counties resist the state to find out what their "or else" really is.  At some point, the state gets into the business of punishing the people who vote them into office and pay their bills; I'm curious to see how that will work out in the long run.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said that if the state does not meet its water quality goals, it would impose consequences which will affect federal permits that the state issues, such as wastewater, stormwater and animal feeding operations, Kappalman said.

That's the EPA's stick; "if you don't work it out, we'll decide, and frankly, we don't give a $#!* about you, so you better do it yourself."

St. Marys County Doubts 'Bay Diet' Plans

Commissioners reject bay health plan, Paperwork being submitted, but without support

St. Mary’s County government is reluctantly submitting its plan to meet federal goals to reduce the amount of nitrogen and sediment flowing into the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

While local plans are due to the Maryland Department of the Environment by the end of June, the St. Mary’s County commissioners made it clear they don’t have the money to meet intended goals and do not completely believe in the science driving the goals.

“This is not a tenable plan for any of the counties to consider,” said Commission President Jack Russell (D) on Tuesday. “We’re in a no-win situation. We can’t pay for it,” he said.
...
As part of the county’s Watershed Implementation Plan, St. Mary’s County government staff wrote, “The funds necessary to address septic sector loads does not exist.” By 2030, St. Mary’s is expected to reduce its nitrogen load from septic systems by 85,882 pounds a year, either by connecting the systems to sewage treatment plants or by upgrading the septic systems.

“The least expensive combination is well over $176 million,” staff wrote, “and the costs to individual sewer service customers and to individual [septic] owners is unaffordable, will be politically difficult to fund through cost sharing among all [septic] owners and beyond the ability of the county to fund without significant funding assistance from state or federal sources.”

The projected costs of the 'Bay Diet' have come as a shock to local governments all over the Maryland and the whole Bay drainage area.  Most want to help the Bay, but can't imagine being able to raise the kind of funds that are being proposed, and maintain the kind of services their constituents have become accustomed to getting for their tax money.  And that's basically true; tax levels will have to increase to pay for the Bay Diet plan, or services will need to be trimmed, probably both.  And people won't be happy