Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Niidae Wiki
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Chesapeake Bay
(section)
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Regulatory actions === [[File:Chesapeake Bay TSS sources.jpg|thumb|Sediment sources in the Chesapeake Bay]] In 2009 the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) filed suit against EPA for its failure to finalize a [[total maximum daily load]] (TMDL) ruling for the bay, pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The TMDL would restrict [[water pollution]] from farms, land development, power plants and sewage treatment plants.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fahrenthold |first=David A. |title=Bay Advocates Sue EPA |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/05/AR2009010501175.html |date=2009-01-06 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> EPA, which had been working with the states on various components of the TMDL since the 1980s (e.g. water quality criteria, standards for individual tributaries, improvements in data gathering and modeling techniques),<ref name="EPA TMDL 2010, sec. 3"/> agreed to settle the lawsuit and issued its TMDL for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution on December 29, 2010. This was the largest, most complex TMDL document that EPA had issued to date.<ref>{{cite report |title=Chesapeake Bay TMDL Executive Summary |url=https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-12/documents/bay_tmdl_executive_summary_final_12.29.10_final_1.pdf |date=2010-12-29 |publisher=EPA}}</ref> The TMDL was challenged in litigation by the agriculture and construction industries, but EPA's document was upheld by the courts.<ref>{{cite news |last=Fears |first=Darryl |title=Supreme Court ends challenge to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/01/supreme-court-ends-challenge-to-the-chesapeake-bay-cleanup-plan/ |date=2016-03-01 |newspaper=The Washington Post}}</ref> In 2020 the CBF filed another lawsuit against EPA for its failure to require the states of New York and Pennsylvania to comply with their TMDL goals and reduce pollution in the bay.<ref>{{cite news |last=Finley |first=Ben |title=Lawsuit: EPA fails to enforce Chesapeake Bay pollution caps |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/lawsuit-epa-fails-to-enforce-chesapeake-bay-pollution-caps/2020/09/10/914ad908-f39e-11ea-8025-5d3489768ac8_story.html |date=2020-09-10 |newspaper=The Washington Post|agency=Associated Press}}</ref> CBF and EPA reached a settlement on the lawsuit in 2023. EPA agreed to increase its efforts to reduce farm and stormwater runoff pollution in Pennsylvania, including compliance and enforcement actions.<ref>{{cite web |title=EPA Activities Pursuant to 2023 Settlement Agreement |url=https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/epa-activities-pursuant-2023-settlement-agreement |date=2024-09-12 |publisher=EPA}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Settlement Reached in Suit Over Pennsylvania Pollution |url=https://www.cbf.org/news-media/newsroom/2023/federal/settlement-reached-in-suit-over-pennsylvania-pollution.html |date=2023-07-12 |publisher=Chesapeake Bay Foundation |id=Press release}}</ref> EPA's 2010 TMDL document requires all states in the bay watershed region to develop detailed implementation plans for pollutant reduction.<ref>{{cite web |title=Chesapeake Bay Milestones |url=https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl/chesapeake-bay-milestones |date=2024-05-17 |website=Chesapeake Bay TMDL |publisher=EPA}}</ref> The states have been developing their plans for years, in many cases building upon restoration projects that they had initiated before EPA's TMDL was finalized.<ref>For example, see "Maryland's Two-Year Milestones", documents issued biennially outlining the state's projects and goals for pollution reduction. The state intends to initiate "all necessary pollution reduction actions" by 2025. {{cite web |title=Maryland's Two-Year Milestones |url=https://mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/TMDLImplementation/Pages/milestones.aspx |access-date=2024-11-04 |publisher=Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) |location=Baltimore, MD}}</ref> These plans are long and complex, involving regular consultation with many stakeholders (i.e. governments, industry, agriculture, citizen groups). The plans include multiple milestone goals for project initiation or continued progress in water quality, through the use of pollution control upgrades (such as at sewage treatment plants) and more widespread utilization of various [[Best management practice for water pollution|best management practices]] (BMPs). The BMPs are designed for specific sites to control pollution from nonpoint sources, principally agriculture, [[land development]] and urban runoff. For example, a farmer may install vegetated [[stream buffer]]s along a stream bank to reduce runoff of sediment, nutrients and other pollutants.<ref>{{cite web |title=Riparian Forest Buffer; Conservation Practice Job Sheet |url=https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/strmRest/buffers/RiprarianForestBufferJobSheet.pdf |date=1997 |publisher=U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=2021-12-29 |archive-date=2021-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211229172006/https://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/ftpref/wntsc/strmRest/buffers/RiprarianForestBufferJobSheet.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref> A land developer may install [[stormwater management]] facilities such as [[infiltration basin]]s or [[constructed wetland]]s during the construction of housing or commercial buildings.<ref>{{Cite book |author=National Research Council, Committee on Reducing Stormwater Discharge Contributions to Water Pollution |chapter-url=http://www.nap.edu/read/12465/chapter/7 |title=Urban Stormwater Management in the United States |chapter=5. Stormwater Management Approaches |date=2009 |publisher=National Academies Press |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=978-0-309-12540-6}}</ref> In 2011 both Maryland and Virginia enacted laws to reduce the effects of lawn fertilizer use, by restricting nitrogen and phosphorus content.<ref>{{cite web |last=Pimental |first=Alicia |title=Maryland passes law to reduce pollution from lawn fertilizer |url=https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/maryland-passes-law-to-reduce-pollution-from-lawn-fertilizer |date=2011-05-23 |publisher=Chesapeake Bay Program}}</ref> The Virginia law also banned [[Deicing|deicers]] containing urea, nitrogen or phosphorus.<ref>{{cite web |last=Pimental |first=Alicia |title=Va. governor signs bill banning phosphorus lawn fertilizer |url=https://www.chesapeakebay.net/news/blog/va-governor-signs-bill-banning-lawn-fertilizer-containing-phosphorus |date=2011-08-18 |publisher=Chesapeake Bay Program}}</ref> Installation of stormwater management facilities is already a requirement for most new construction projects in the bay region, under various state and local government requirements. These facilities reduce erosion and keep sediment and other pollutants from entering tributaries and the bay.<ref>For example, see the {{cite report |title=Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volumes I and II |url=https://mde.maryland.gov/programs/Water/StormwaterManagementProgram/Pages/stormwater_design.aspx |date=May 2009 |publisher=MDE}}</ref> However retrofitting such facilities into existing developed areas is often expensive due to high land costs, or difficult to install among existing structures. As a result, the extent of such retrofit projects in the bay region has been limited.<ref>{{cite report |title=Constructing Stormwater Retrofits in Maryland: Challenges & Recommendations for Cost Estimation |url=https://owl.cwp.org/?mdocs-file=9254 |date=January 2019 |publisher=Center for Watershed Protection |location=Ellicott City, MD}}</ref> In May 2025 Governor [[Wes Moore]] signed the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act which allots up to $900,000 per year to a new certification program for farmers who use sustainable practices that decrease runoff into the bay, establishes a water quality monitoring program to unify current testing efforts and aims to streamline oyster aquaculture leasing, among other provisions.<ref>{{cite web |title=Moore signs Chesapeake Bay bill as federal cuts loom large |url=https://marylandmatters.org/2025/05/14/moore-signs-chesapeake-legacy-act/ |website=Maryland Matters |access-date=14 May 2025}}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Niidae Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Encyclopedia:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
Chesapeake Bay
(section)
Add topic