Those thinking the Conowingo Dam and associated Lower Susquehanna River sediment issues would be lost during the fall election season are starting to second guess themselves.
With gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan making political waves with demands for dredging the dam at the same time that a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers preliminary assessment indicates that dredging would have little impact on the Chesapeake Bay in the event of a catastrophic storm, things are heating up.
And adding fuel to that fire is a new op-ed piece by conservationists in the New York Times this week advocating that the dam (a major source of electric power for the region) be removed entirely to improve fish migration.
Given the renewed interest in Conowingo debate, the Spy sought out the response of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition, representing the interests of ten county governments in Maryland, that is pushing for mediation with the dam’s upstream sediment problems before counties begin spending on high cost conservation programs as part of the State’s overall Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).
in his interview with the Spy, Chip MacLeod, the Clean Chesapeake Coalition’s general counsel, discusses in detail his organization’s response to the Corp of Engineers assessment, the importance of focusing on the Lower Susquehanna River as the top priority of any long term solution for protecting the Bay.
This video is approximately eleven minutes in length
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
A thank you to Chip MacLeod for bringing up the local autonomy aspects of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition and why it is worth it for the investment of county dollars to the effort.
Kudos to the Spy for their coverage of what I feel is the most important issue facing the Eastern Shore right now.
Gren Whitman says
Pleased to see others agree that CCC’s focus is on avoiding costs of TMDL and WIP environmental regulations. After all, CCC originated amongst industrial agriculturalists in Dorchester County. Chip MacLeod hates that description of his base, but it’s 100 percent accurate!
Michael Johnson says
We are lucky to have Chip articulating the crux of the biscuit so well. If I was Anthony Brown I’d be getting on board with the coalition.
A tip of the hat from me also to the Spy for covering what counts.
David Moore says
The Spy already covered all of Macleod’s talking points last year in a few articles and an interview, and the Coalition’s stance has still not changed, even with the recent declarations made by the Army’s engineer, who says dredging is essentially pointless. The only thing we can really count on is that the arguments will wage into eternity and everyone will be able to escape the financial obligations to cleanup the damn dam AND the tributaries in their own localities. This is a carefully constructed stalemate by the CCC.
https://chestertownspy.org/2013/06/07/conowingo/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgFDcm0JK2g
https://chestertownspy.org/2013/06/25/clean-chesapeake-coalition-files-to-intervene-on-conowingo/
Mike Johnson says
Watch Chip then watch the Colonel and tell me who you would buy a used car from.
Pete Buxtun says
Seriously? That is NOT an argument. The welfare of the Chesapeake is not a used car and the ability to articulate (or lack thereof) opinions or science does not make one right and the other wrong.
While I laud the CCC in their efforts to direct scrutiny and dialogue of and about the dam, doing so at the expense of local initiatives which are working to clean up the waterways literally in your backyards is absolutely “a carefully constructed stalemate by the CCC”. A stalemate whose goal is to not have to pay the abhorrent “rain tax” or for counties to implement their WIPs. Rather than trying to force our heads back into the sand with regards to the state of the Chesapeake, the CCC would rather the focus of the public be on the Bogeyman behind the dam, a spectre that has at this point been pretty thoroughly debunked.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
Pete Buxtin’s response has one crucial logical flaw…the local bay cleanup initiatives imposed by the state aren’t cleaning up the waterways in our backyards. Whatever positive results are generated gets silted over the next time the Conowingo Dam opens all its floodgates. You have to clean up what’s upstream to allow the downstream efforts to be effective.
Andrew McCown says
There is only some truth to what you say Keith, sediment from the Conowingo doesn’t make its way up the Chester River to Chestertown or Crumpton, and this is true in most of the other tributaries as well. Undermining the work that needs to be done all over the watershed, in the headwaters of all of the tributaries, will not help. Regardless of what problems may exist because of the present condition of the Conowingo, we still must turn our attention to water quality in the headwaters and middle sections of our rivers.
I invite anyone to come with me to see what conditions exist right know in the upper bay, and then I would challenge you to show me a similar experience anywhere in the upper or lower Chester River and then seriously try to tell me that the Conowingo is a significant threat to the upper Chester.
This is all about science, but most of it is not rocket science. We have serious problems right here at home and undermining the TMDL’s and WIP’s simply will not help.
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
This is directed to Andrew McCown.
I think we need to be clear on defining Bay cleanup efforts and river cleanup efforts. I think we need to be clear that the WIP and TDML guidelines need to be applied to the health of the rivers flowing into the bay and very little to do with the actual health of the bay. The WIP and TDML guidelines don’t have much of an overall effect on bay cleanup efforts if clean tributaries are still flowing into a dirty bay.
Pete Buxtun says
Keith,
If you had a five gallon bucket half full of dirty water, would you rather add clean water to it; or would you rather add more dirty water? Which would make it easier to see the bottom of the bucket? The bay is the sum of it’s tributaries. You say that “we need to be clear that the WIP and TDML guidelines need to be applied to the health of the rivers flowing into the bay and very little to do with the actual health of the bay”. I say that river cleanup IS bay cleanup. Bay “cleanup” by the fallacious and scientifically unsound methods advocated by the CCC is certainly not river cleanup. I live on the river, not the Bay. Let’s work together to try to solve the major issues that the bay faces as well as trying to clean up our own tributaries so we (and our kids) can swim in the Chester. Heck, maybe one day they will be able to see their toes again!
Keith Thompson says
Editor,
To address Pete…yes, bay cleanup efforts are a joint effort and requires everyone to work together. If you’re going to put all of the emphasis on the rural counties to clean up the bay, and have little interest in tackling the biggest contributor to bay pollution (over half comes from the Susquehanna alone), then you have no interest in working together to solve the problem. If you’re making the accusation that the rural counties don’t want to do their part, I’ll counter that folks who downplay the Conowingo Dam aren’t interested in doing their part either (probably because they get no political or financial benefit from doing so). This is all buck passing. WIP and TMDL regulations that don’t take into account what’s coming from the Susquehanna and through the dam are simply efforts to pass the buck.
To understand what the rural counties are saying…imagine being a commissioner in a cash-strapped rural county and you’re forced to spend the citizen’s tax money on implementing WIP and TDML programs that are going to send slightly cleaner water into a dirty bay instead of on things for county residents like recreational facilities, or increased law enforcement, or fixing potholes, or trash collection and/or recycling programs, or water and sewer improvements, or more money for public schools, etc.; then it’s not hard to imagine the commissioners in these rural counties are going to want the state, other states, and the feds to make their own financial commitments and demand results. Bay cleanup efforts right now are little more than a political football that keeps getting punted to the rural counties and I commend the counties who are punting that football back.