By: John McTarnaghan
The Kent County Commissioners joined with six other counties and the law firm of Funk & Bolton to challenge Maryland’s federally mandated pollution reduction plan for the Chesapeake Bay–on the grounds it does not adequately address a chronic history of nutrient and sediment discharges from the Conowingo Dam.
“I don’t know how we could continue to…ignore something that caused so many problems to Kent County,” Fithian said, shortly before a 2-1 vote to pay Funk & Bolton $25,000 in legal fees to challenge the state’s Watershed Implementation Plan. He said Kent’s seafood industry has probably suffered more than any other county because of its proximity to the Conowingo Dam.
Maryland’s WIP plan was the result of a lawsuit won by Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 2010 that compelled the EPA to enforce the 1972 Clean Water Act. Under a consent decree, states in the Chesapeake Watershed, from New York to Virginia, were required to submit a WIP plan to the EPA that brought the Bay into compliance with the Clean Water Act by 2020.
Maryland was unique in drafting its WIP by requiring all the counties to enact their own plan to reduce local nutrient runoff into the Bay, also referred to as Total Maximum Daily Load.
The bottom-up approach centered around the idea that local communities have a better understanding of their impaired rivers and streams and know best how to mitigate nutrient runoff.
All the counties submitted TMDL plans that were adopted by the state and written into the WIP plan that was submitted to the EPA this spring.
“Maryland knew that involving local communities at the county level in developing the state’s clean water blueprint was important because local communities play such an important role in implementing the plan,” said CBF Eastern Shore Director Alan Girard in an email just a few hours before the vote. “Counties usually know what’s best for them and the blueprint is responsive to that.”
CBF, along with other environmental groups and local river keepers, fear that problems at the Conowing Dam could be used as a distraction to delay local funding of TMDL plans. They worry that a rebellion could spread throughout the watershed because of the sticker shock associated with the plan.
Speaking before the commissioners Tuesday, Chester River Keeper David Foster said he hoped Kent’s decision to join the new TMDL Coalition was not an attempt to undercut the local responsibility for TMDL reductions–and he questioned the motives of counties in the coalition that are not impacted by the Conowingo.
“As you go through the list of counties that have signed on…these are not places that are impacted directly by the Conowingo Dam,” Foster told the commissioners, referring to Allegany, Frederick, and Carroll counties. “I hope if you sign onto this that you use your influence to make sure this is really focused on the problems of the Conowingo Dam and not something that will undercut the TMDL process, which all of us are counting on to hold Pennsylvania and New York responsible.”
Foster restated his commitment to work with the Kent Commissioners and recognized the high cost of implementing the TMDL plan.
“We look forward to working with the TMDL and WIP teams and doing everything possible to reduce the cost of reducing pollution,” Foster said.
Fithian assured Foster and members of the audience on several occasions that he was not backing away from implementing local TMDL plans.
“I’m not in this to turn my back on all the things we’ve done,” Fithian said. “[But] if we’re really sincere about cleaning up the Bay, then we have to address it from every angle. I think we’ve proven that we’re trying to do the right thing for the environment.”
Fithian pointed to a recent agreement to connect Georgetown to the municipal water system in Galena, and Kent’s lead in solar field development on the Shore, as testaments to the commissioners’ commitment to the environment.
“I think our track record shows that we are mindful of the environment,” Fithian said. “This is in no way a time where I’m going to turn my back on the environment and use the Conowing Dam as a scapegoat.”
But Chip Macleod, lead attorney for Funk & Bolton representing the TMDL Coalition, said the state WIP plan requires huge local expenditures without adequately addressing what is already documented about the Conowing Dam.
“The pollution coming from the Susquehanna through the Conowingo Dam is the largest source of [nutrient and sediment] loading into the Chesapeake Bay…that’s a fact,” Macleod said in a phone interview with the Spy on Wednesday. “The purpose of the coalition is to ensure that local governments commit taxpayer money to water quality programs that are prudent and fiscally responsible.”
“The coalition believes that the TMDL programs are flawed because they do not accurately take into account the nutrient loading from the Susquehanna River through the Conowingo,” Macleod said. “Attention needs to be brought to that before we commit local tax dollars.”
But a recent statement from CBF disputed Macleod’s assertions that the Conowingo Dam was not adequately addressed in the state’s TMDL plan.
“The EPA explicitly included the dam and pollution removal capacity in the TMDL and considered it throughout TMDL’s development,” said a recent fact sheet published by CBF to specifically dispute Macleod’s claims.
The CBF fact sheet also said the dam has acted as a safety net for most of the sediment coming from the Susquehanna River.
“The dam is not the largest contribution source, the Susquehanna River is. The dam historically has been the Bay’s best management practice, removing what would have flowed down stream, particularly phosphorus and sediment.”
Girard wrote in late October that nutrient discharges from the Conowingo were significant but did not flow up into the tributaries of the Eastern Shore where a significant amount of nutrient runoff originates.
“While the Susquehanna discharges significant pollution into the central stem of the Bay, virtually no pollution flows up into the tidal tributaries of the Eastern Shore,” Girard said in a statement published on Oct. 24. “Our local creeks and rivers are polluted almost entirely by local sources—farms, sewage plants, and other sources.”
Foster agreed that nutrient pollution comes from local sources and must be tackled at the local level.
The dissenting vote on the measure came from Commissioner William Pickrum, who voiced concerns over the agenda of the newly formed coalition.
“I am really bothered by what the charter for this coalition states,” Pickrum said. “I am adamant in my opposition from stopping the TMDL process period. If Kent County joins this coalition, I cannot…be assured the coalition won’t proceed in a direction that will be detrimental to all of us.”
But in his opposition to joining the coalition, Pickrum said he understood Fithian’s holistic approach to addressing every source of pollution.
“Yes the dam has been there since 1918 and no one has done…a damn thing about it,” Pickrum said.
Fithian said he would make his feelings clear to Funk & Bolton that Kent did not want to go in the direction of stopping local TMDL plans.
“We’re not just looking at one direction of pollution,” Fithian said. “We want to attack this thing from many different angles, and we should relay that message to Funk & Bolton and the coalition. And if we see it going in the wrong direction, we’ll have to make an adjustment.”
Girard said in an email before the vote that threatening the progress of the state’s WIP program could cost the coalition members a lot more than $25,000.
“The choice to use taxpayer money to challenge the blueprint really puts the state in a bind,” Girard said. “Maryland must demonstrate progress is being made or face consequences of reduced federal funding and permitting that most Maryland communities depend on. Choosing to point fingers at Pennsylvania and other pollution sources, rather than taking local action, could really make things worse at the local level in the long run.”
Keith Thompson says
It seems that two different issues are at work here…cleaning up the bay and keeping the rivers clean and both goals really have different sets of liabilities and responsibilities. The potential problem I see with the WIP plan is that it doesn’t seem to address exactly what it wants the counties to do; keep the rivers clean or to clean up the bay. When you consider that the best laid plans to keep the rivers clean are wiped out whenever the Conowingo Dam opens most of its floodgates, I think its fair to say that bay cleanup isn’t something that Maryland’s rural counties should shoulder most of the load of doing. It’s hard to convince me that, even if the Chester and Sassafras rivers don’t meet federal clean water standards, that the pollutants from those rivers do as much damage to the bay as what flows in from the Susquehanna, the Patapsco, the Potomac, the James, etc. I think as long as the coalition that is brought together via the efforts of Funk & Bolton clarifies the proper liabilities and responsibilities of the coaltion counties, I think a common cause can be found by all parties here. Hopefully the understanding that comes out of this is that the counties are largely responsible for keeping the tributaries (within and on the boundaries of their counties) clean and only be liable and responsible for the pollutants those tributaries cause to the bay. The aim of the WIP plan for the rural counties should be focused mostly on keeping the rivers clean (as clean rivers aren’t going to contribute to bay pollution); but if the WIP plan is aimed at putting the responsiblity of bay cleanup on the counties, then it will be an unfair burden that will be much too costly for the counties to do. It seems that this is what the Funk & Bolton led coalition is attemping, or should be attempting to do.
Joe Diamond says
IF you removed all the names from the tidewater part of the bay chart you would be left with one huge body of water you could name the Susquehanna River. This river drains parts MD, VA, DE,PA, & NY. The Susquehanna reaches the Atlantic Ocean. It carries all the rain water that doesn’t evaporate from the land within its’ basin. It also carries everything that is pumped, thrown or that erodes from the banks of its’ tributaries.
Above the waterfalls at Conowingo four damns have been constructed to harness the upper part of the Susquehanna. There are fish ladders and hydroelectric plants. Upriver from each of these dams huge deposits of silt and debris have accumulated. Soon these damn will not stop any more silt. The load will just flow through. Eventually the nutriant and silt load that enters the Susquahanna above these dams is indistinguishable from other runoff from farm fields lawns, the streets of large and small cities and industrial sites. You don’t want to know what washed or was thrown from military bases over the last centuries.
It all has to be controlled. There have been many successes around the Bay and there is much left to do. My point is that Chesapeake Bay is a huge dynamic system. Any cure for the various symptoms must be comprehensive. It seems any response that can be reduced to ” I fixed mine and I’m done” has to be counterproductive.
Joe
Jack Offett says
Unfortunately, New York and Pennsylvania have not. That is the big problem. You have to start at the source and work out from that.
Joe Diamond says
Jack,
You are correct!
I once had a conversation with a guy near Wilks Barrie, Pa. If you look around up there you can find painted symbols on the sewers & drains about Chesapeake tributary……..but this guy was on another planet. We looked out on a feed lot with bulls on a hillside. On the downhill edge was a concrete curb and pipe down to the Susquehanna. Every time it rained the manure vanished. He responded to my comments about the drainage with, “…we like to stay independent here…………… cities and towns can do what we want…we live off the land by ourselves…”
I would advocate nuking those Amish crap dumpers except for the fact I can find fields around the upper Chester River that make the river (looks like a creek up there) brown for about a week after they spread unknown stuff on their fields. That is followed by white bubbles from detergent sticker ( I think) that did not grow on trees.
Joe
Joe Diamond says
Here is a link I have been reading around.
From the Chesapeake Bay Journal a search for Squehannaq River produced:
https://www.bayjournal.com/search/result/search&keywords=susquehanna%20river&menu1=All%20of%20the%20Words&searchButton_x=44&searchButton_y=6&searchButton=search/
There are several articles on large tracts along the river being deeded to conservation entities. There is also mention of tracts being clear cut like in the bad old days, being sold for housing & being abandoned. The list shows what is and has been going on up river of the Conowingo damn.
Joe
Jack Offett says
Good job Commissioners. Let’s deal with the disaster that is Maryland’s long term bow and scrape policy towards New York and PA that pollutes our Bay everyday. Funny that the CBF is balking. Like all environmental group leadership in America, Will Baker and his hench-persons thrive on an ongoing polluted Bay. That is the main reason they are fighting this law suit, instead of embracing it. Just more non-profit fraud. ♠
Gren Whitman says
Though our Bay’s a nutrient stew
Those TDMLs cost counties, it’s true
So Funk & Bolton says bingo!
Let’s dredge Conowingo
And knock all that science askew
Jack Offett says
The problem is that we have never dealt with the ongoing pollution problem from the North. Instead of standing up to our Northern pollution invaders, we continue self-flagellation. Let’s deal with the Susquehanna pollution problem and then we can properly asses the home-grown pollution problem. Don’t be suckered into the CBF or the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. crowd. Take a hard look behind the curtain.
Gren Whitman says
@ Jack Offett: Clearly, as Commissioner Fithian so eloquently stated on Wednesday, we must deal with Chesapeake Bay pollution from EVERY source and location.
This includes, of necessity, storm runoff and nutrient loads from agricultural fields, Perdue-type fowl factories, impervious surfaces in built-up areas, etc., for starters, in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, i.e., the full Bay watershed.
Sure, that decades-long sediment build-up behind Conowingo Dam is part of the problem, but only part. It needs to be dealt with, but as a point source (not non-point runoff) AND BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — not the Funk & Bolton law firm! — because the Conowingo sediment’s a multi-state problem.
Those peskily persistent and scientifically valid TDMLs are the only means by which we in Maryland can be assured that VA, PA and NY’s feet will be held to the fire with respect to their runoff.
Please, don’t drink the “But-It’s-Too-Expensive-Kool-Aid”; yes, the TDML regs are expensive, but it’s time to pay the piper, and the cost will be lots more expensive and the Bay a lot more polluted if we don’t enforce them now.
Keep the TDMLs in full force AND deal with Conowingo; that’s what Ron Fithian is so forcefully advocating. Anything less is malarkey.
Ron Fithian says
This issue with the Conowimgo Damn is extremely puzzling to me for a few reasons. First and foremost I can’t for the life of me understand why the Chesapeake Bay Foundation whose motto is “Save The Bay’ is fighting the coalition instead of joining it!. They have an operating budget of approx. $21,000,000.00 a year. They have approx. 185 paid employees and a mission to save the bay. I would think that they would surely find $25,000.00 to join the coalition and welcome the help! Anyone who has seen that infamous satellite photo of the chocolate colored bay during the time the Conomingo had 40 some gates open must be able to see the problem. Has there mission changed? Are we now more interested in big money, which is used to pay big salaries and buy lots of land? Have they gotten away from the real reason they were formed? The CBF was chartered in 1967 at which time the upper bay was harvesting approx. 2-3 million bushels of oysters a year. Today after 45 years of the CBF spending 10’s of million’s of dollars on things that they think are important, we now have no oyster OR clam harvest left north of Tilghman’s Island. Where is the success? If we keep watching this closely, I bet there is something going on here that we don’t know about. Is the CBF afraid that this coalition may uncover something? Stay tuned!!
Joe Diamond says
Ron,
The Conowingo situation is as the lips of the camel. As the camel would stick its’ lips under the tent flap the wise men tried to reason what such an animal could be. Clearly is was fast. It seemed fearless because only the lion would come so close to camp. It had teeth but the camp dogs could scare it away from the tent. What could this be?
The Conowingo dam is one of four that were build up the Susquehanna River. There is a hydroelectric operation (for profit corp.) and most of eastern PA contributes to what goes into the river. Try to reason to the number of special interest groups per acre up there that have the power to stop sediment control & commercial fertilization. The debris that comes down river came from river front properties. The chemicals came from roads and factories (fewer factories these days). I bet they want to do good but do not seek guidance from MD.
Yet the crap still flows.
Joe
Ben Ford says
Hey! There is a guy in College Heights who has not mown his lawn in weeks! I’m not going to mow mine until he mows his.
Hey! There is a woman in PA who hasn’t paid taxes in five years! I’m not paying any more taxes until she pays hers.
Hey! A coworker didn’t show up for work today! I’m not going to work until they are back at their desk.
Just because someone may have more responsibility for a problem does not excuse your personal responsibility. Personally I am furious my tax dollars went to this frivolous, ill-advised and ridiculous (and ultimately doomed) legal suit. “Their river is dirtier than MY river so I shouldn’t have to clean mine up” makes you sound like a pre-schooler.
Ben Ford says
So I realize that may have been a little harsh, but look at the title of the article! I just wish this money had been used to actually make positive change rather than to try to shirk responsibility.
Jack Offett says
Mr. Ford, you need to get perspective. Let’s focus on cleaning up the huge mess that rains down on us (literally) every day, and then assess just how much more needs to be done. We can’t afford to be afraid of New York and PA anymore. I thought Doug Gansler promised to sue those states if they did not change their ways when he ran for AG the first time. Instead he started drinking Water/Riverkeeper tea and is poised to put 40,000 low wage workers on the street in the name of Kennedy-style values.
Ben Ford says
Jack, I must disagree with you. Do you think suing Excelon will make them clean it up? Do you think suing PA will make them clean it up? Excelon will argue successfully that it came from PA, PA will argue that it came not JUST from PA but NY too. A small, ill-prepared lawsuit attacking a Federal Mandate will at best (depending on which side of this argument you are on) delay the inevitable. The inevitable being that Kent taxpayers spend money funding a poorly framed lawsuit which fails, and we end up footing the bill for what we should have been doing in the first place, looking at what WE can do to better our local environment.
Jack Offett says
I am talking about our elected state and federal leaders standing up and doing their job. In the end, even if Exelon rate payers foot the cost of the dredging, PA and New York need to provide the dredge disposal sites and to curb their pollution diet. I am not convinced that the environmental advocates even appreciate the disaster that awaits us. Too much rocking and praying in the hold instead of taking the helm of leadership in the storm.
Keith Thompson says
Yes, and all the money and effort into doing what we can to keep our local environment clean goes down a big rathole when a large storm causes the Cononwingo Dam to open all their gates and wipes out all the work we have done. If the money we’re spending is ultimately wasted, it can be better spent on other things.
Keith Thompson says
“Hey! There is a woman in PA who hasn’t paid taxes in five years! I’m not paying any more taxes until she pays hers.”
Of course, if the Conowingo Dam issue isn’t dealt with it’s the equivalent of you being forced to pay your taxes PLUS the taxes that the woman in PA is refusing to pay.
Sam Owings says
Let’s not forget there is a system of dams up the Susquenhanna River, Conowingo (the largest), Safe Harbor and Holtwood dam and some 15 or more, all of which are completely silted in, according to the USGS web site, which are non effective in regards to removing sediments, and nutrient pollution from entering the bay waters.
If this system was working properly there would be a huge reduction in the pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, this should be the first and foremost focus of the Bay clean up effort, yet the organizations involved want to ignore efforts that will have a high positive impact on the Bay clean up.
Joe Diamond says
Hey Sam,
I never knew there were 15 dams up there. That river is a candidate for what is called dam remediation. That is engineer talk for knock that sucker down.
I recently read a piece on the silting issue and the experts there agree with you. They went the other way however. They proposed dredging the silt rather than fixing the run off issues.
I’ll see if I can find the link.
Joe
Paula Ruckelshaus says
The River Keeper’s admonitions are sure to be proven correct and this this coalition and associated appropriation is sure to be proven a misguided instance of ” pissing in the wind”. The $25K would have been better spent on more pressing county needs and projects with more promising projected results. Hopefully, the County is not obligated to spend more than what has, regretably, been committed to to date to this junket.
Tom Dignam says
We all agree on the need to manage nutrient runoff from our rivers and their tributaries. That the health of the Chesapeake Bay is important to Marylanders is evidenced by the numerous and various funds, projects and coalitions all trading on behalf of Chesapeake Bay Cleanup. Indeed, year after year, Maryland politicians trade on the same issue. And Marylanders have responded, as the concerned citizens they are, by contributing hundreds of millions of dollars in effort to mitigate the problem. From the Chesapeake Bay Trust to the Chesapeake Bay Fund, from the Sassafras River Association to the Patuxent River Keeper, all trading on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay and it’s rivers. These organization have been hugely successful in raising awareness of the of the current health of the bay and the need to protect it and Marylanders have responded, with treasure and volunteer efforts.
During the 2011 session, Gov. Martin O’Malley’s budget transferred $290 million from the Bay Restoration Fund and the Chesapeake & Atlantic Coastal Bays 2010 Trust Fund into the general fund. I don’t believe it was the first time these funds has been raided, arguably for projects not associated with bay cleanup. The argument can be made that Maryland politicians have taken advantage of its citizens good will. The have traded and politicked in the name of Bay Restoration and when Marylanders responded, these politicians decided their own special interests were more important than bay cleanup.
The coalition of counties, represented by Funk and Bolton and supported by the Kent County Board of Commissioners hopefully will refocus the effort on bay cleanup. Conowingo Dam is the elephant in the room and that will take a Federal effort to address given it’s multi state aspect.
What I would like to see is a coalition of environmental groups, including our own Chester River Keeper and the Sassafras River Association, aligned to specifically lobby Annapolis to keep Chesapeake Bay Funds in a lockbox, away from the hands of special interests not associated with bay cleanup. That will require a political will which goes beyond the easy task of bait and switch and trading on the good will of Marylanders.
https://times-news.com/local/x1451003954/Chesapeake-Bay-fund-lockbox-legislation-dies-in-House-committee
Tom Dignam says
Thank you Gren Whitman. I appreciate your acknowledgement that Marylanders have contributed and are concerned with the health of the bay. I wonder, are you, as a Democrat activist, prepared to lobby on behalf of the citizens of Maryland and Kent County to insure funds, ostensibly set aside for bay restoration, are used for that specific purpose and not for the special interests of those in power in Annapolis?
Joe Diamond says
And another thing,
Baltimore Harbor, Norfolk Harbor, the C&D Canal & the Delaware River have identical deeds for maintenance dredging. Where is the Army Corp of Engineers? The silt has to come out and go somewhere. Does not the upper Susquehanna go across their desk.?
Where are the feds when you need them?
Joe
Sam Owings says
People keep talking about Conowingo Dam, fixing the Conowingo would be a band-aid, the entire dam system of the Susquehanna needs to be maintained, not torn down, if the system were working as intended a majority of the bay pollution problem would be solved. This system maintenance should be paramount in the Bay clean up effort along with efforts to contain stormwater on the land, when it comes to non point sources of pollution “it’s in the stormwater.” .
Joe Diamond says
Sam,
I did a little more study on this over the weekend. I found a USGS study. Much of it was a survey of other surveys. And much was an analysis of why current measurements may not be accurate. But it shows a bigger story and suggests some things to consider.
They treat the upper Susquehanna and the dams as a loaded gun that only goes off during some storms. While the sediment load is a significant aspect of the issue there is also a load moving around since 1880 – 1900 when the major farm clearing took place around the Bay. They mention “resedimentation” from passing boats, weather conditions and shoreline conditions; the stuff gets stirred up and moves. Some sediment can be used elsewhere and much comes from the ocean. The characteristics of Potomac. James, Patapsco and Susquehanna rivers create different problems. It goes on like that.
Anyhow, each aspect of the water quality situation has a different fix. Some can be done cheaply……….slow down big boats. Some will take time….plant more trees on river banks. Some are going to take awhile and be expensive….dredge out the Conowingo dam.
Anyone who thinks they have all the answers…doesn”t.
Joe
William Short says
To all concerned:
Just to clear up the Headline ‘Kent Approves $25,000 to Join Coalition Against Bay Cleanup Plan.’ This was not a vote against the Bay clean up. This was a vote however to CLEAN up the bay. The Conowingo Dam has been overlooked by all of those who show great concern, and to put simply; it’s not being overlooked any longer.
I would suggest that we all work as a team to hold all parties accountable and force the clean up of the Conowingo Dam for our future and our childrens future of our great watershed. I personally look forward to this commitment.
Commissioner Short
Daniel Menefee says
Reporter note:
The headline says “Against Bay Cleanup Plan.” The operative word being “Plan.”
“Bay and Cleanup” are only used as adjectives here.
For instance, one can be against a “tax reduction plan” but not against reducing taxes.
I hope this makes things more clear.
I think the article makes apparent that the county’s leadership supports cleaning up the Bay.
Daniel Menefee
Chestertown Spy