Dear Editor:
State and federal environmental plans to “save” the Chesapeake Bay unjustly focus on regulations, prohibitions and policies that cripple our farming communities, challenge the productivity of our watermen and seafood industry, and heavily tax business properties while attempting to limit a miniscule percentage of the overall sediment runoff that could potentially reach the Bay’s tributaries. Yet, both levels of government continually choose to discredit the elephant in the room – the Conowingo Dam – and the massive tonnage of sediment and toxins released by the dam after large storm events.
The EPA multi-state commitment to restoring the Bay shows a frightening lack of focus on the Conowingo Dam. In fact, the current model for Bay cleanup assumes that there is catching capacity behind the Conowingo until 2025, but according to the U.S. Geological Survey there is no available capacity. Therefore, protecting the Bay from dam sediment is not a major part of the EPA plan. Such a miscalculation must call into question plans and practices mandated by the EPA.
At a U.S. Senate subcommittee field hearing held by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) at the Conowingo Dam Visitors Center, the Baltimore District of the Army Corps of Engineers Colonel J. Richard Jordan, said a recent 3-year, $1.4 million federal-state study minimized the buildup of silt behind the dam over the past 8 decades as a significant threat to the health of the Bay or a major factor in Bay pollution. This study refutes every study done over the past 35 years.
For more than 80 years, the Conowingo’s reservoir has captured sediment, amassing 185 million tons which sits precariously behind the dam. The reservoir was designed to trap two-thirds of the Susquehanna’s sediment. The rest – approximately one million tons – creeps through in the approximately 18 million gallons of water per minute flowing into the Chesapeake. A study by the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed more sediment than ever from behind the dam was getting into the Chesapeake. The study found that as the reservoirs fill, an additional half million or more tons of sediment has been going through the dam’s opened gates in recent years.
If ignored, the annual amount of sediment could increase to as much as 3 million tons. This potential huge amount of new sediment would cancel out any benefits of the pollution diet plan engineered by the EPA and the six bay watershed states.
Ten years ago, a study by the Susquehanna River Basin Commission Sediment Task Force recommended dredging the reservoir. At the Senate field hearing, Col. Jordan estimated the cost of dredging only 15% of the accumulated sediment would cost between $500 million to $3 billion, but would deliver “little bang for the buck downstream.” Col. Jordan, did speak of the increasing necessity to dredge the Bay’s shipping channels that lead into the Baltimore Harbor and though the C&D Canal. However, he could not bear to correlate the Susquehanna sediment coming through the dam with the need to dredge more frequently and with more intensity.
In 2011, Tropical Storm Lee, sent a record 4 million tons of sediment surging into the Bay. It is now clear, it will no longer take a storm the size of Lee to pump tons of sediment into the Bay, threatening rockfish spawns and smothering the important Bay grasses, which produce life-giving oxygen all marine animals depend on. And, there is no telling what impact last week’s heavy rains will have on the annual Rockfish spawning season.
Exelon Corporation, which now holds the license to use the Conowingo Hydro-electric Dam, is going through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – FERC – permitting process for license renewal. If renewed, when the license expires in September 2014, Exelon will be permitted to operate the dam for another 46 years. Although many believe it is Exelon’s responsibility to manage the pollution flushed from the dam during storms, Exelon appears to want to do little more than spend $2 million for more study of the dam’s impact on Bay water quality.
When asked to expand and upgrade a fish lift at Conowingo to help restore eel and shad population cut off from their spawning areas, Exelon said it believed the existing fish lifts were sufficient. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife representative said bigger lifts are needed to reach the goal of restoring 2 million American Shad to the river. It was emphasized that issues like fish passage get addressed only when licenses are up for renewal – every 30 to 40 years.
The Chesapeake Bay is at a cross-road. Unless the sediment pollution from the Susquehanna Watershed can be controlled and reduced by dredging the reservoir or other means, it is sheer insanity to believe that the Bay can be saved. With the exception of an increase in bay grasses in areas beyond the Susquehanna’s current, the entire Upper Bay is essentially dead.
I add my voice to the many environment groups, county and state officials in calling on FERC to make it a condition of a new license that Exelon and Pennsylvania develop an effective plan to mitigate the sediment that will ultimately doom the Bay.
John Fiastro Jr.
Chief of Staff
Office of Senator Stephen S. Hershey, Jr.
Fred Patt says
Editor,
Mr. Fiastro rightly identifies the Susquehanna River as a major source of sediment and pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. His portrayal of the Conowingo Dam as the culprit is misguided at best, and portrays a clear lack of understanding. The real problem is the size and composition of the Susquehanna River watershed upstream from the dam, which includes parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New York. Huge amounts of sediment and chemical (e.g., fertilizer and pesticide) runoff from this region now flow the bay as a result of the dam being filled to capacity. In essence, from a runoff control standpoint, the dam no longer exists, as the volume of material entering the bay over time equals that flowing downriver.
The solution, of course, is to develop effective measures to control runoff in the watershed. However, I’m sure Mr. Fiastro (and his like-minded counterparts throughout the watershed region) would respond that such measures would “focus on regulations, prohibitions and policies that cripple our farming communities, and heavily tax business properties”.
John East says
Dear Editor,
I believe both Mr. Fiastro and Mr. Patt have a point, but would certainly err on the side of Mr. Fiastro. It is true that we should be more judicious in our employment of cover crops, buffer areas, and the application of pesticides and fertilizers. I believe that most farmers are willing to do just that. It is also true that many farmers struggle financially–millions of family farms have been lost over the last three decades–and to the extent that corporations with deep pockets can in one fell swoop dredge what their industry has collected, they should, even with government help if need be. At this point, not to dredge behind the Conowingo Dam–even if all farming ceased tomorrow–would only serve to endanger the Bay for decades to come.
Michael Bitting says
I have attempted to contact Senator Hershey about this article previously and received no response. Let me first say that we both agree that the Conowingo Dam is a large problem that needs to be addressed. I do however think that this article is obfuscating the true issue here. You are proposing we ignore other efforts to implement clean water initiatives as a protest in response to the relative inaction over the Conowingo Dam.
There are a multitude of other tributaries that flow into the Chesapeake Bay, including the Chester River, where I reside. The Chester River currently has been assessed with a grade of C- by local monitoring agencies. To break it down, the river as a whole received this grade based on the following graded factors: Clarity (D), Dissolved Oxygen (C+), Total Nitrogen (C), Total Phosphorous (D), and Chlorophyll-a (C-). Approximately 90% of the nutrient pollution and sediment loads in the river originate from the Chester River watershed itself, with approximately 10% originating from outside the watershed (ie: The Susquehanna River).
With these figures, and given the state of my local watershed it seems irrational to ignore local sources of pollution. This to me is threatening inaction with more inaction. We should lead by example, working to improve our watersheds as best we can. This can only serve to strengthen the argument that more has to be done in areas which are out of our control.
I pose this question to you:
What actions would you, Steve Hershey, as our elected representative take to improve the water quality of the Chester River?