Realizing that no man – or woman – or garden -- is an island, I headed off to a town hall meeting on Tuesday night in Annapolis. This town hall meeting was not about healthcare reform, but it did involve some Obama administration officials and loads of unhappy people. No one chanted or threw chairs, but there were lots of reporters and lots of interesting things were said by citizens from all over the state.
The meeting was held to highlight an upcoming deadline. President Obama has asked his new top officials on the Chesapeake to draft a work plan for the Bay. The plan is to be submitted on September 9. Advocates had hoped that a town meeting would 1) give the EPA a chance to hear from locals and, 2) highlight the importance of submitting comments to the EPA now, before the draft plan is complete. A lot of the people who organized and promoted the meeting were saying it this way: what happens now could determine the work done on the Bay for the next decade or more.
I have to tell you that my hopes were not high for this event. Its August and in Washington, which is kind of like a political dead zone. Hypoxia for humans. There’s lots of stuff floating around out there in the political waters, but nothing is really happening. Its dead. Parking lots are empty, roads are clear for driving and there are a lot more seats available on the Metro. People aren’t really interested in starting new projects. Mostly, everyone counts the days till they get to go to the beach and people wait for Congress to get started again in the fall.
It was also hotter than the hinges of hell on Tuesday, a real scorcher of an afternoon. Emails were flying back and forth here in Silver Spring; a lot of people were wondering if anyone was going to show in Annapolis, and would it be worth the long trek over there at rush hour? It had been a long, hot day and maybe the whole thing would be a waste.
Well, turns out a lot of people have been waiting for a long time to talk about what exactly is wrong with the Bay and its recovery plan. A long time. Like, eight years. Now, we’ve got a president who might, I emphasize MIGHT, be interested in reversing some of the environmental damage that has occurred during the Bush years. People obviously came to find out just what Obama’s team intends to do. It was anything but a waste.
There was a real sense of urgency in the crowd, of feeling that someone upstairs needed to hear what the locals were saying and seeing. A lot of people there seemed to feel that we are fiddling while Rome burns, and that forty years of recovery don’t really mean much if the local governments are not held accountable, and that we might not know everything about forging ahead with a large scale recovery but we owe it to future generations to try.
The meeting was hosted by Environment Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and was held in a medium-sized church in the suburbs on Bestgate Road. This wasn’t a sleepy August meeting. Car upon car pulled into the lot, then they began to fill the field behind the church, then they began to line the streets in adjoining subdivisions. (I haven’t seen that many Priuses in one parking lot ever before.) And the people just kept on coming. The whole church hall was filled to capacity and then some. The church ran out of folding chairs, but people said, okay, we’ll stand. Then the room was so full there was no room to even stand, so big speakers were put up in the hallway and people sat out the hall, and up the steps, listening intently to what was being said inside. (The Baltimore Sun later reported that more 350 people were there.)
It was so hot in the main room that it radiated heat like a bread oven. But almost everyone stayed for the whole two hours, heat be damned. People turned their environmental flyers into fans, opened windows and sat like parishoners at an old home tent revival. If you build it, they will come. And come then did.
There was a whole team of people who seemed to be Eastern Shore farmers, wearing shirts that said NO FARMS, NO FOOD. There were guys in Docksider shoes who looked like everyone’s dad from the neighborhood I knew as a kid in Baltimore. There were sailing advocates, and guys wearing those “Retired Navy” baseball caps. There were surfer girl types, and animal rights activists. There were seniors citizens, and a girl in a bright pink sparkly skirt and her high school friends. There were activists from the urban heart of DC, and a whole slew of people in suits who looked like they were going to drown in the heat. There were college students wanting to make a difference, and loads of people with t-shirts saying they were with one creek group or another. (I was kicking myself for not wearing my Friends of Sligo Creek t-shirt, or my Anacostia Watershed Society tee which I saved from the 2005 clean up. Oh well.)
The meeting was held to highlight an upcoming deadline. President Obama has asked his new top officials on the Chesapeake to draft a work plan for the Bay. The plan is to be submitted on September 9. Advocates had hoped that a town meeting would 1) give the EPA a chance to hear from locals and, 2) highlight the importance of submitting comments to the EPA now, before the draft plan is complete. A lot of the people who organized and promoted the meeting were saying it this way: what happens now could determine the work done on the Bay for the next decade or more.
I have to tell you that my hopes were not high for this event. Its August and in Washington, which is kind of like a political dead zone. Hypoxia for humans. There’s lots of stuff floating around out there in the political waters, but nothing is really happening. Its dead. Parking lots are empty, roads are clear for driving and there are a lot more seats available on the Metro. People aren’t really interested in starting new projects. Mostly, everyone counts the days till they get to go to the beach and people wait for Congress to get started again in the fall.
It was also hotter than the hinges of hell on Tuesday, a real scorcher of an afternoon. Emails were flying back and forth here in Silver Spring; a lot of people were wondering if anyone was going to show in Annapolis, and would it be worth the long trek over there at rush hour? It had been a long, hot day and maybe the whole thing would be a waste.
Well, turns out a lot of people have been waiting for a long time to talk about what exactly is wrong with the Bay and its recovery plan. A long time. Like, eight years. Now, we’ve got a president who might, I emphasize MIGHT, be interested in reversing some of the environmental damage that has occurred during the Bush years. People obviously came to find out just what Obama’s team intends to do. It was anything but a waste.
There was a real sense of urgency in the crowd, of feeling that someone upstairs needed to hear what the locals were saying and seeing. A lot of people there seemed to feel that we are fiddling while Rome burns, and that forty years of recovery don’t really mean much if the local governments are not held accountable, and that we might not know everything about forging ahead with a large scale recovery but we owe it to future generations to try.
The meeting was hosted by Environment Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and was held in a medium-sized church in the suburbs on Bestgate Road. This wasn’t a sleepy August meeting. Car upon car pulled into the lot, then they began to fill the field behind the church, then they began to line the streets in adjoining subdivisions. (I haven’t seen that many Priuses in one parking lot ever before.) And the people just kept on coming. The whole church hall was filled to capacity and then some. The church ran out of folding chairs, but people said, okay, we’ll stand. Then the room was so full there was no room to even stand, so big speakers were put up in the hallway and people sat out the hall, and up the steps, listening intently to what was being said inside. (The Baltimore Sun later reported that more 350 people were there.)
It was so hot in the main room that it radiated heat like a bread oven. But almost everyone stayed for the whole two hours, heat be damned. People turned their environmental flyers into fans, opened windows and sat like parishoners at an old home tent revival. If you build it, they will come. And come then did.
There was a whole team of people who seemed to be Eastern Shore farmers, wearing shirts that said NO FARMS, NO FOOD. There were guys in Docksider shoes who looked like everyone’s dad from the neighborhood I knew as a kid in Baltimore. There were sailing advocates, and guys wearing those “Retired Navy” baseball caps. There were surfer girl types, and animal rights activists. There were seniors citizens, and a girl in a bright pink sparkly skirt and her high school friends. There were activists from the urban heart of DC, and a whole slew of people in suits who looked like they were going to drown in the heat. There were college students wanting to make a difference, and loads of people with t-shirts saying they were with one creek group or another. (I was kicking myself for not wearing my Friends of Sligo Creek t-shirt, or my Anacostia Watershed Society tee which I saved from the 2005 clean up. Oh well.)
By the time the program started some on stage mumbled, “Man, it looks like the 80s tonite,” making reference to the years when Bay activism seemed to peak.
From that moment on, the energy in the room seemed to change somehow. It was almost as if people realized that the Bay might be dying, but interest in the Bay had only hibernated and gone local for a while. The people who love the Bay and want to change it have not died. The more they talked about their local activism and recovery efforts, the more the sense of purpose in the room seemed to coalesce. In light of the fact that the Federal government hadn’t been too keen on doing much for the Bay, people had been hard at work in their own little streams and towns. Now, they wanted to see if the Fed would step up the plate to help them.
The meeting was called to officially highlight two important things. President Obama has ordered the EPA and other federal agencies to draft plans by Sept. 9 to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Towards that goal, the president has named Chuck Fox as a special advisor on the issue. Mr. Fox was introduced to the crowd and after all the speeches were over, questions were taken from the floor.
The organizers had sent out emails asking people to come voice their concerns this way: “We want to be able to fish and swim throughout our Bay. We want marine life to thrive any time of the year. We want our blue crabs, oysters and rockfish back to healthy, plentiful levels. We need to unite our voices to overcome the big developers and chicken companies that are trying to drown us out.” Other notices had implored readers to “make sure Mr. Fox gets the message loud and clear.”
To start off the presentation, Don Boesch was asked to give a science update on the health of the Chesapeake. Dr. Boesch is the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
As someone who writes regularly about the science of ecology, I was so glad to have him on the docket to kind of frame the evening. I want science to be the compass in this fight. I understand the need to be guided by empirical evidence and the need to avoid making random guesses about where to go next. As a good scientist, he of course presented the crowd with a sense of objectivity. I listened with great interest to his “state of the Bay’s science” description.
The thing is, science’s uncertainty never goes over well with political crowds. People come to these meetings wanting definitive answers and solutions. It is a conflict that has occurred time and time again, not just in the Chesapeake Bay but anywhere in the world where science, culture and policymakers meet.
So it was no surprise that as Dr. Boesch explained that “the ugly truth is, we really don’t know if what we do is helping or hurting,” I could hear some of the people behind me groan. Nonetheless, I understood his message. We don’t know much about how to recover large ecosystems. We have to do better, we have to do more, but we have to check ourselves from time to time to see what is working and what is not.
It was the next part of his speech that seemed to resonate the most with a lot of people, though. Up till now, he pointed out, we’ve been relying mostly on voluntary measures to help the Bay. And one thing we do know: there are not many examples of times when strictly voluntary measures have netted results. Voluntary measures don’t cut it.
Mandates, strong mandates are much more effective. And although they may seem initially expensive, they can net positive social impacts. Farmers in Denmark, for example, have gained a great deal from incentives and requirements involving the reduction of nitrogen in that country, causing a 50% reduction in the country’s nitrogen run-off. We could learn from these kinds of examples.
After Dr. Boesch, a preacher from a small Methodist church on Smith Island named Reverend Edmund talked for a while. It was unclear (even to the minister himself) why he had been asked to talk. But as he described life in his small Bay town and how the livelihoods of the people there were disappearing, it became evident that he had been asked to paint a picture of the people who have lived on the Bay for decades and depended on its bounty to sustain themselves and their families.
As the heat continued to radiate from the room, no one left.
Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took the stage next and gave the advocates’ point of view. There’s good news, and there’s bad news. The good news: green is in and we have O’Malley (MD’s governor) and O’Bama both saying they want to do more for the Bay. We do see some small improvements in the Bay. Mostly, he said, modest adjustments in the predictions made about dead zones created by the abundance of nitrogen in the water. Things aren’t as bad as we thought they’d be at this point.
The bad news, though, is of course the bigger deal. We certainly can’t declare victory. The Bay, its rivers and streams are still terribly polluted, he told the crowd. The fish are dying and getting strange growths. Infections are on the rise among those who fish and swim. The state of “The National Estuary” ought to make everyone ashamed.
From that moment on, the energy in the room seemed to change somehow. It was almost as if people realized that the Bay might be dying, but interest in the Bay had only hibernated and gone local for a while. The people who love the Bay and want to change it have not died. The more they talked about their local activism and recovery efforts, the more the sense of purpose in the room seemed to coalesce. In light of the fact that the Federal government hadn’t been too keen on doing much for the Bay, people had been hard at work in their own little streams and towns. Now, they wanted to see if the Fed would step up the plate to help them.
The meeting was called to officially highlight two important things. President Obama has ordered the EPA and other federal agencies to draft plans by Sept. 9 to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Towards that goal, the president has named Chuck Fox as a special advisor on the issue. Mr. Fox was introduced to the crowd and after all the speeches were over, questions were taken from the floor.
The organizers had sent out emails asking people to come voice their concerns this way: “We want to be able to fish and swim throughout our Bay. We want marine life to thrive any time of the year. We want our blue crabs, oysters and rockfish back to healthy, plentiful levels. We need to unite our voices to overcome the big developers and chicken companies that are trying to drown us out.” Other notices had implored readers to “make sure Mr. Fox gets the message loud and clear.”
To start off the presentation, Don Boesch was asked to give a science update on the health of the Chesapeake. Dr. Boesch is the president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.
As someone who writes regularly about the science of ecology, I was so glad to have him on the docket to kind of frame the evening. I want science to be the compass in this fight. I understand the need to be guided by empirical evidence and the need to avoid making random guesses about where to go next. As a good scientist, he of course presented the crowd with a sense of objectivity. I listened with great interest to his “state of the Bay’s science” description.
The thing is, science’s uncertainty never goes over well with political crowds. People come to these meetings wanting definitive answers and solutions. It is a conflict that has occurred time and time again, not just in the Chesapeake Bay but anywhere in the world where science, culture and policymakers meet.
So it was no surprise that as Dr. Boesch explained that “the ugly truth is, we really don’t know if what we do is helping or hurting,” I could hear some of the people behind me groan. Nonetheless, I understood his message. We don’t know much about how to recover large ecosystems. We have to do better, we have to do more, but we have to check ourselves from time to time to see what is working and what is not.
It was the next part of his speech that seemed to resonate the most with a lot of people, though. Up till now, he pointed out, we’ve been relying mostly on voluntary measures to help the Bay. And one thing we do know: there are not many examples of times when strictly voluntary measures have netted results. Voluntary measures don’t cut it.
Mandates, strong mandates are much more effective. And although they may seem initially expensive, they can net positive social impacts. Farmers in Denmark, for example, have gained a great deal from incentives and requirements involving the reduction of nitrogen in that country, causing a 50% reduction in the country’s nitrogen run-off. We could learn from these kinds of examples.
After Dr. Boesch, a preacher from a small Methodist church on Smith Island named Reverend Edmund talked for a while. It was unclear (even to the minister himself) why he had been asked to talk. But as he described life in his small Bay town and how the livelihoods of the people there were disappearing, it became evident that he had been asked to paint a picture of the people who have lived on the Bay for decades and depended on its bounty to sustain themselves and their families.
As the heat continued to radiate from the room, no one left.
Will Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation took the stage next and gave the advocates’ point of view. There’s good news, and there’s bad news. The good news: green is in and we have O’Malley (MD’s governor) and O’Bama both saying they want to do more for the Bay. We do see some small improvements in the Bay. Mostly, he said, modest adjustments in the predictions made about dead zones created by the abundance of nitrogen in the water. Things aren’t as bad as we thought they’d be at this point.
The bad news, though, is of course the bigger deal. We certainly can’t declare victory. The Bay, its rivers and streams are still terribly polluted, he told the crowd. The fish are dying and getting strange growths. Infections are on the rise among those who fish and swim. The state of “The National Estuary” ought to make everyone ashamed.
Baker then outlined his ideas for change. State officials, he said, have said the Federal government needs to do more to support and enforce the legislation that is already out there. The EPA, he added, is far too much of an entrenched bureaucracy. They need to pick one permit in MD, VA, DE and PA and say they are going to enforce it throughout. And then do it consistently and well.
After Baker’s presentation, Chuck Fox the aforementioned new EPA Senior Advisor on the Chesapeake, gave his remarks.
“We have to look at a game changing solution,” Fox said. What has been done hasn’t worked so far. We have to bring down the numbers on nitrogen and phosphorus.
“I believe,” he continued, “that we can get there, or frankly I wouldn’t have taken this job.”
According to Fox, urban and suburban developments present one of the biggest areas for change and difference. Run-off from such areas are one of the only pollutants that are increasing in the Bay.
We have made big differences in agriculture, he explained, and there’s lots of enthusiasm in this sector for improving water quality. Agriculture also presents some of the most cost-effective controls that can be put in place. Changing what happens on farms can make a quick improvement.
Then: finally, finally, finally. The crowd was able to voice their concerns. People from watermen’s associations and neighborhood associations talked about sewage treatment being one of the biggest issues. Untreated sewage could be seen in the Bay regularly, people said. Why was this not addressed by anyone on stage, they asked.
A man from one of the local river groups discussed his own river’s struggles to deal with sediment left from sloppy home construction practices along the banks. He pleaded with those on stage to “give some of those millions you spend on studies to groups like ours, so we can go out there and do the work to solve these problems?”
(I personally found this last comment very disheartening. While I understand that man's frustration level, I also know that science funding has been cut to the quick lately, and it seems to me that one reason we don't know much about how to help the Bay is that we just don't fund enough really good science monitoring programs. Every time we get gauges set up out there we lose the funding we need to maintain them. I want more science funding AND funding to those working on the local level on solutions. But hey, I wanted a pony for Christmas once, too. So there you go.)
A woman who described herself as an environmental justice advocate from Bowie in Prince Georges County gave an impassioned, short speech that drew lots of applause from the crowd. There is no relationship, she said, between the local entities and these land use issues you discuss. No one at the local level is being made to abide by federal regulations. “Local interests,” she said, “are diametrically opposed to what the state and federal laws demand.” Such interests are far more worried about increasing their tax base than they are about the environment.
Another man who called himself a farmer and a retired engineer from the Conowingo area said people in his area were not so much canaries in the coal mines as they were people seeing “buzzards on the back fence.” He talked about the problems locals were seeing which were being ignored by those on the federal and state level. It would only take one really bad storm to make the dam a real disaster.
Another man pointed to the weakness of the stormwater permits in the Bay area, which seemed puzzling. Septic systems need to be addressed, said another speaker.
One man who said he was from a group working on the Magothy River talked about what his group had done and asked the simple question: “Where are you guys?” Pointing to Chuck Fox he pleaded: “Why don’t you come down to the river sometime? Down to the local level? See what is happening. We see it every day. We need you to enforce the federal laws.”
A woman who said she was from southeast DC took the mic and was incredibly eloquent and to the point. “I just want everyone to remember,” she said calmly. “The Chesapeake Bay includes the Anacostia.” All the pollution, all the problems….You can’t solve the Bay’s worries, she said, without solving the problems of that river. (I whooped in agreement with that, by the way. It is really weird that a lot of people don’t even know the Anacostia is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.)
There were tons of other comments. Some were kind of wacky, of course. Some sounded downright conspiracy theory-like. Some were just not relevant. But it was great to see such energy and enthusiasm, and find out there are loads of people who are working on their creek, their river, their spot on the watershed so hard.
As the evening closed down, it was amazing to see that the majority of those 350 people stayed through almost the entire event.
As the evening closed down, it was amazing to see that the majority of those 350 people stayed through almost the entire event.
At the end, the Environment Maryland team reminded everyone that they should submit comments to the EPA now.
To read more about the upcoming deadline visit the Chesapeake Bay Program website:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/news_eowebsite09.aspx?menuitem=43927
You can also visit the Environment Maryland website:
http://www.environmentmaryland.org/clean-water2/restore-the-chesapeake-bay
And to read more about the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, go to:
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1000
To read more about the upcoming deadline visit the Chesapeake Bay Program website:
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/news_eowebsite09.aspx?menuitem=43927
You can also visit the Environment Maryland website:
http://www.environmentmaryland.org/clean-water2/restore-the-chesapeake-bay
And to read more about the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, go to:
http://www.cbf.org/Page.aspx?pid=1000
No comments:
Post a Comment