FIRST, let's be grateful that all the smiling pols didn't show up at Wye Mills this week for photo opportunities and overblown oratory, marking the launching of the Chesapeake 2000 draft plan.
That means the real work of charting and improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay over the next decade can begin in earnest. It means that troublesome differences between bay states can be worked out through professional negotiation and expert persuasion, rather than through public saber-rattling.
Controlling growth is the main sticking point of the Chesapeake Bay Program that is to be adopted by Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Growth is the core issue in managing the welfare of the Chesapeake and needs to be clearly resolved if other elements of the bay restoration program -- water cleanup, grasses and fisheries recovery, sediment and erosion control -- are to be effective.
Pennsylvania wants specific goals to brake the loss of forests, wetlands and farmland but is less enthusiastic than Maryland, where Gov. Parris N. Glendening tirelessly preaches his Smart Growth vision of reducing sprawl and preserving open space.
Virginia is copping out on growth control, claiming the state cannot usurp the land-use powers of localities. That's a weak argument, contradicted by the history of state planning actions.
Gov. James S. Gilmore III also eschews any firm number goals in the new program; that's too restrictive, he says. Yet the 1987 Bay Agreement set a goal of a 40-percent reduction in nutrient pollutants entering the estuary, and that figure is reasonably close to being achieved. Numerical goals helped keep efforts on track, measuring periodic progress.
The new bay program is open for public comment, with an official vote on the final document set for June. Raising public awareness is a priority of the plan. Chesapeake residents should take the responsibility now to learn about the bay and take individual actions toward its cleanup.
