Recent reports on the health of the Chesapeake Bay paint a dismal picture. An Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program report noted that water quality has shown little progress since 1985, and levels of nitrogen and phosphorus - the nutrient pollutants that are the focus of cleanup efforts - show no real long-term improvement. Evidence of these excessive nutrients showed up in recent large fish kills in Baltimore's harbor and in Annapolis' Weems Creek.
Bay grasses, essential for crabs and fish, are far short of the goal of 185,000 acres set in 2000 by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, which drives bay restoration. Oyster populations are at 1 percent of the 1880 levels and far from the tenfold increase agreed upon for these important nutrient and sediment filters.
Why is the bay in trouble after 23 years of bay partnership efforts? The cleanup is proving much harder than anyone anticipated, complicated by 3.5 million more residents in the bay's watershed. We have not properly dealt with sprawl development and the destruction of forests. While population in the watershed grew by 8 percent in the 1990s, development added an astounding 41 percent more impervious surfaces (housing subdivisions, roads, etc.), which increase runoff and therefore pollution into the bay.
Equally important, we have failed to effectively deal with the largest source of bay pollution: agriculture. Best-management practices are the most cost-effective way to control bay pollution, but agriculture has lagged under a largely voluntary approach.
Our treasured Chesapeake Bay might never be restored without a leap forward in the way we manage pollution. Two critical changes are in order: The state must act aggressively to control growth through land-use legislation that effectively changes development patterns and establishes a "no net loss" policy for remaining forests, and the state must require that farms implement a nutrient management program, coupled with increased funding.
Anything short of these changes spells disaster for the Chesapeake Bay and its living resources - and for the future of Maryland's environment as a whole.
About 170,000 more people are added to the bay region each year. Population is sprawling, consuming more land per capita, as 41 of Maryland's municipalities lost population from 2000 to 2005. Baltimore lost 314,000 people from 1950 to 2006. The base realignment and closure (BRAC) process will only exacerbate these problems as 28,000 households are added. Another million Marylanders are expected in two decades. Smart Growth is not working well; 75 percent of all the land on which new homes have been built from 1998 to 2005 is outside the "priority funding areas" designated for growth.
