chesapeake-bay.jpg

Birds feed near the New Point lighthouse on the Chesapeake Bay near Mathews, Va.

(Ron Edmonds, AP)

William C. Baker is president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation

I am writing to share some observations concerning Plain Dealer reporter D'Arcy Egan's article, "Legislation calls for federal coordinator to lead fight to stop Lake Erie pollution," that ran on cleveland.com April 24. While a federal coordinator would certainly be a positive development, as your article notes, we have a model in the Chesapeake region that could also be useful for your region.

The problems of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in the Chesapeake Bay have been documented for decades. There have been numerous voluntary agreements that sought to reduce pollution and restore water quality. But while progress was made, the agreements never achieved their objectives. Targets were missed not by inches, but by miles.

The costs: environmental degradation, human health risks, and economic losses.

Why did we fail? The first three agreements were voluntary and set goals to be achieved a decade or more out. By the time the deadlines arrived, the governors who signed the agreements

,

and the federal partners

,

were no longer in office. There was little accountability and no consequence for failure.

The past need not be the future, here on the Chesapeake or for Lake Erie.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation finally sued the federal Environmental Protection Agency for its failure to implement the Clean Water Act.

As part of the 2010 settlement, EPA agreed to work with the Bay states to establish pollution limits (called a Total Maximum Daily Load) that would be sufficient to restore water quality in local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. Once the limits were set, the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, New York, and the District of Columbia created plans to achieve their parts of the pollution-reduction goal. Time limits were also set, with 60 percent of the programs and technologies to be on the ground by 2017, and 100 percent by 2025.

To ensure accountability and transparency, each jurisdiction sets two-year milestones that lay out how they will meet their incremental goals. And EPA committed to impose penalties if those goals were not met.

Together, the pollution limits, state plans, and two-year milestones make up a Clean Water Blueprint for the region. And progress is being made.

The road has had its potholes, and progress is not guaranteed. In fact, the American Farm Bureau Federation, allied agricultural lobbying groups, and the National Association of Homebuilders

to attempt to end the Blueprint. They lost in federal district court

,

and have appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At the appeals court level, the Farm Bureau was joined by 21 state attorneys general, who argued that if the Blueprint works here, it might be a model for other regions of the country.

There is no doubt that there are many similarities between pollution in Lake Erie and pollution in the Chesapeake and its local rivers and streams. Since 1987, we in the Chesapeake Bay region have known that nitrogen and phosphorus pollution needed to be reduced by about 40 percent. Coincidentally, that is the same percent reduction that it is estimated Lake Erie needs.

A federal coordinator would certainly help. Additionally, we at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation encourage you to ensure that any cleanup program include both the transparency and accountability that the Blueprint has here in the Chesapeake. From decades of experience I can tell you that, without that, goals are likely not to be met. Come visit us here on the Chesapeake. We'd be happy to share our experience and the lessons we have learned.

Of most importance, one lesson we have learned is that clean water is not a luxury; it is a right, but one that must be fought for.

William C. Baker is president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.