There is no other organization in the state of Maryland, nor the Mid-Atlantic region for that matter, that has put more of its reputation on the line than the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) to protect the Chesapeake Bay. The 40 years old nonprofit conservation group, which now has an operating budget of over $20 million, has deployed its significant resources to advocate for, as well as set public policy, to ensure the Bay’s survival, earning the respect and support of many in the multistate Bay region.
And yet despite this extraordinary nongovernmental effort, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has sometimes been accused as being too soft on both regulation and mitigation solutions for special constituencies. This concern has also included the Exelon Corporation, (owner of the Conowingo Dam and a CBF corporate donor), and the company’s renewal process of the dam’s operating license in September of this year.
But as CBF’s Senior Water Quality Scientist Dr. Beth McGee points out in her interview with the Spy, it is ultimately science that drives the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s water protection policies, including the Conowingo Dam relicensing process and permitting. And that science data, including the preliminary assessment by the Corps of Engineers study on water quality of the Lower Susquehanna River and the Dam during catastrophic storms, is providing new answers on its long-term risk to the Bay and how this best to mitigate that danger over the next decade.
This video is approximately ten minutes in length
Michael Johnson says
I don’t think I ever heard Clean Chesapeake Coalition say dredge behind the damn instead of anything. My understanding is dredge behind the damn and see what else we need to do, but I am only speaking to my understanding. Next all the studies cited in the above interview were conducted by the same entity that would pay for the dredging so I think there is potential for bias and it flies in the face of empirical evidence. I know CBF hasn’t spent 20 million/yr for all forty years but they have spent a lot of money for what results ? Did we advise people not to let the water of the bay contact their skin 40 years ago ? The bay is sicker than ever. Here is my challenge. Dredge behind the damn and give the Maryland Waterman’s Association $20 million one time and see if there isn’t marked improvement in water quality and oyster production in five years, not forty ! None of that 20 million will end up in an offshore bank account either.
Michael Johnson says
In the spirit of full disclosure did CBF receive any donations from Exelon ?
Editor says
It was noted in our introduction to the interview.
Roger Forsythe says
This is such an incomplete report of what has happened in the last few years. McGee’s marginalization of the dam’s impact is in direct conflict with her VP Kim Coble, who authored a press release last August on why CBF was intervening in the relicensing process of the dam’s operator, Exelon. She said problems at the dam could cause “damage to the downstream Bay and rivers.”
But CBF had sat in silence for almost two years and suddenly became concerned? CBF no doubt jumped on the intervention bandwagon because nearly 20 riverkeepers, NGS, the Chesapeake Bay Trust and many other learned environmental organizations said a solution at the dam was critical to the Bay’s survival.
The interviewer in this story also failed to ask McGee about CBF’s detractors on the dam and why the sudden about face last year in the decision to intervene.
Obviously, CBF has been struggling to find its position on the dam — and taking money from THE player in the relicensing process creates serious conflicts. No wonder CBF was silent for so long.
CBF is no stranger to taking money from polluters in the last few years. It’s an affront to the legacy Philip Merrill, CBF’s founder.
Gren Whitman says
Please keep in mind that the “Clean Chesapeake Coalition” was originally named—by its originators, no less—the “Anti-TMDL Coalition.”
That is a matter of public record.
I believe Ron Fithian, its chair, when he states he does not want to weaken any current laws and regulations that are designed to protect and restore the Bay.
Considering that the “coalition” originated among industrial agriculturalists in Dorchester County, however, Mr. Fithian’s position may not shared by others within the “coalition.”
Chip MacLeod says
For the record, here is a brief evolutionary history of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition, reprinted from the Coalition’s website:
“In a state of sticker shock after being presented their local WIP and on behalf of their local taxpayers, the County Council of Dorchester County reached out to county government officials across the State of Maryland with an appeal to coalesce for purposes of questioning the public costs and efficacy of the myriad policies, programs and practices being mandated by the State and federal government in the name of saving the Chesapeake Bay. What started in concept as the “WIP Coalition” and then the “TMDL Coalition” evolved into the “Clean Chesapeake Coalition” – when seven Maryland counties agreed in late 2012 to join forces to collectively pursue improvement to the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay in a prudent and fiscally responsible manner.”
County governments represent and support a wide range of economic, social, cultural and environmental interests that make up the human environment, with a balancing of limited resources. I suppose among the 10 Maryland counties that now comprise the Clean Chesapeake Coalition there are constituencies akin to so-called “industrial agriculturalists” – just as there are constituencies such as public school systems, law enforcement agencies, social services agencies, businesses and residents reliant on public infrastructure, family farms, watermen and of course “industrial environmentalists”. Mischaracterizing the objective of the Clean Chesapeake Coalition makes it easier for some to discount the message and efforts; but shooting the messenger (in this case local elected officials) only amplifies the importance of the reasonable and prudent questions being raised about all that Marylanders are doing and spending in the name of Bay restoration and the order in which we are being mandated to do it (e.g., we must regulate septic tanks in every county in the same manner and then quibble over whether Conowingo Pond scour is harmful to the Bay and undermines our downstream restoration efforts).
Robert Kramer says
Chip… thanks for explaining what the CCC is all about. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other environmental river groups would lead folks to believe that our Kent County Commissioners are trying to avoid moving the needle on our TMDL and WIP commitments. Yet… no one has come forward with any example of what they haven’t done towards meeting these goals. Because they can’t. And I know, because I’m one of the few folks who actually show up at the meetings.
I’m dreaming of a restored Bay. Folks have been spending billions on trying to ‘save’ the Bay. Why not spend smart and restore the Bay? IF we were a county in a western state, every environmental group like the Sierra Club, the American Rivers organization, etc., would be screaming to tear down our dams and free our rivers. Perhaps our environmental groups ought to pay attention to what’s happening out West before they close off their minds to the ultimate solution… Free the Susquehanna… and Restore the Bay… and enjoy the oysters.