Send to a Friend

Your First Name: Your Last Name:   Your Email:   Your Friend's Email:

Your Personal Message:

Yes, I would like to receive National Wildlife Federation emails.

Your message has been sent

Thank you for sharing this page with your friends!

Rider attached to budget bill would block science-based restoration of the Chesapeake Bay watershed

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed its Continuing Resolution (CR) in February to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year, it represented both a substantial setback for environmental protection and perhaps the crest of a rabid anti-regulation push in American politics.

So says Nathan Lott, Executive Director of the Virginia Conservation Network and one of the 44 National Wildlife Federation affiliate partners who recently signed a letter urging members of Congress to oppose the CR.

But for Lott, a board member for Virginia's State Environmental Leadership Program, former employee of the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and author of "60 Hikes within 60 Miles: Richmond," it signaled something more: an indication that he and his son, now five years old, might not be able to eat the fish they catch near his home in Richmond for too much longer.

"I was with him at the store, looking at fishing poles […] and I was thinking, 'Well, how long will there be fish to catch or eat?'" Lott says. "Will it be that way five years from now, (or) when he has his own kids?"

Such fretting appears well justified. After recent conservation progress, the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which is home to some 17 million people in parts of six different states and a source of drinking water and fishing and hunting opportunities, could be in for hard times as a result of a portion of the CR intended to block science-based restoration of the 64,000-square-mile area.

The final CR bill includes a rider offered by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) to block efforts to clean the Chesapeake Bay, just as progress is finally being made. It would forbid the use of funds in the Act "to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads [TMDL] or watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed"---in effect, the rider opens the floodgates for polluters.

The Influence of Corporate Agribusiness

Pollution in the Chesapeake has resulted in environmental deterioration, negative health effects for local populations and damage to the economy. Yet corporate agribusiness is opposed to the cleanup plan because they don’t believe that farming operations should be held accountable for their pollution. In addition to spending tens of millions to lobby politicians, agribusiness has pushed for this rider and attempted to stymie Bay cleanup by filing suits in state and federal courts.

According to Lott, the backlash against regulation ultimately made Clean Water Act implementation "a whipping boy, especially for agriculture [interests]."

Major fish-kills have hit the Shenandoah River in the last few years, and recent algae blooms turned the James River into "foul acres of green or red algae literally sucking the life out of" the water. Elsewhere, in the town of Hopewell, "foul water" issued from the taps as a result of a bloom in the Appomattox River. Such incidents are at least partially attributable to run-off nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural and industrial sources.

As Lott sees it, Chesapeake Bay restoration programs to address these and other concerns were "a long overdue step for wildlife, homeowners and cities." Restricting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to implement them, especially in the form of riders that have nothing to do with fiscal discipline, was "surreptitious and insulting" to members of the Virginia Conservation Network, a reactionary political attack launched at the worst possible time and at the expense of average citizens.

Handcuffing the EPA’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act essentially amounts to a giveaway to the farm bureau, Lott said.

As for the pretense that tough budget cuts need to come from somewhere, Lott refers critics to projections that the CR ultimately does not chip away at the deficit.

“In terms of financial debate, this is just a political football," Lott says. "It's like, 'We're with you against too much overreach,’ but this didn't save taxpayers a dime.'”

Ultimately, the CR and its minefield of pro-polluter riders is a proposal that doesn’t add up to the kind of commonsense values that Americans expect from their elected officials.

"We don't want to leave our kids a broke country, but we also don't want to leave them a polluted country. And it's a false dichotomy to say we have to choose."