A Look at Clean Water and the Law

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.