By Adrienne Kotula, JRA Policy Specialist
Water quality issues in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries,
such as the James, have been hotly debated. Due to the recent effort by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to give Chesapeake Bay states an effective framework to
make real progress toward healthy waters for the future, a significant backlash
has sprung up. This backlash includes a lawsuit challenging the cleanup, which is
poised to go before a judge next week. So I thought this would be a good time
to point out a few principles and facts to support cleaning up the James and
the Bay watershed.
1.
Virginia’s constitution states: “It shall be the Commonwealth’s policy to
protect its atmosphere, lands, and waters from pollution, impairment, or
destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of
the Commonwealth.” (Article XI, Section 1).
Enshrined in our Commonwealth’s constitution is the principle
that I can’t pollute and destroy a resource that you also use. That would be a
form of theft. This democratic principle isn’t something the Environmental
Protection Agency invented; it came from the people and leaders of our state.
2. The status quo isn’t working, and the Bay clean-up that has
been underway for 25 years has not achieved a healthy Bay ecosystem. When the
status quo isn’t working, something needs to change. The EPA worked with
extensive monitoring data, peer-reviewed science, and state-of-the-art models
in an attempt to address this need for change. Then, after a period of public
comment and negotiating with state governments, the EPA refined the goals for
cleaning up each waterway. Virginia developed its own plan with input from
stakeholders and Virginia officials will be the ones responsible for making
sure that the costs of meeting these goals are spread fairly among all affected
economic sectors and geographic areas.
3. The goals for pollution reduction are attainable. No one is
trying to eliminate all pollution from our rivers. Scientists, business
leaders, and government officials can all agree that some pollution is an
inevitable side-effect of economic activity, and that we need to have a healthy
economy alongside a healthy environment. That’s why the new targets for
reducing pollution in the James River allow for 23.21 million lbs. of nitrogen,
2.94 million lbs. of phosphorous, and 966 million lbs. of sediment pollution
each year.
Before you let anyone tell you that the James River will be
getting “too clean,” reflect on these numbers. That’s how much pollution is
allowed under the new EPA goals. That’s how much pollution we can reasonably
expect this river to take and still be healthy enough for wildlife and humans
to use and enjoy.