hidden
Image Database Export Citations

Menu:

Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program: Exchanging Promises for Results

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Steinzor, Rena
dc.contributor.author Jones, Shana Campbell
dc.date.accessioned 2009-09-30T15:30:23Z
dc.date.available 2009-09-30T15:30:23Z
dc.date.issued 2009 en_US
dc.identifier.uri https://hdl.handle.net/10535/4992
dc.description.abstract "In 1983 Congress created the Chesapeake Bay Program, establishing it under § 117 of the Clean Water Act. It was the first estuary to be targeted by Congress for restoration, and today it is the nation’s oldest estuary restoration program. The regional partnership, which now includes several federal agencies in addition to Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, West Virginia, New York and the District of Columbia, is world-renowned for the quality of its science and its monitoring capabilities. Yet, although approximately $4 billion has been spent on restoration efforts since 1995, the Chesapeake Bay remains 'severely degraded.' Analysis of the Bay’s stagnating health over the last 15 years tells a discouraging story: while things have not gotten worse, they have not improved either. In short, we have been treading water instead of moving forward. While population growth in the region has certainly made Bay restoration efforts more difficult, the critical problem lies with the underlying premise of the Program itself: that a voluntary, cooperative approach among federal and state partners without genuine accountability and strong leadership works. A quarter century of experience demonstrates conclusively that it does not. The Bay Program has a long history of promoting 'lowest common denominator solutions' aimed at achieving political consensus and of being 'captured by the states,' who refuse to risk short-term economic interests to secure the health of the Bay and the long-term interests dependent upon it. The Environmental Protection Agency itself has been missing in action over the past decade, preferring to step lightly instead of using its existing statutory authority to press for more progress and controls. As long as the Bay Program lacks real authority to require its federal and state partners to take action, no entity is directly responsible for Bay cleanup--and no entity takes the blame for the manifest failure." en_US
dc.language English en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries CPR White Paper no. 903 en_US
dc.subject coastal regions en_US
dc.subject coastal resources en_US
dc.subject water quality en_US
dc.subject population growth en_US
dc.subject water pollution en_US
dc.title Reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program: Exchanging Promises for Results en_US
dc.type Working Paper en_US
dc.type.methodology Case Study en_US
dc.publisher.workingpaperseries Center for Progressive Reform, Washington, DC en_US
dc.coverage.region North America en_US
dc.coverage.country United States en_US
dc.subject.sector Water Resource & Irrigation en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.item-files-description
chesbayfinal.pdf 2.002Mb PDF View/Open Chesapeake Bay Program paper

This item appears in the following document type(s)

Show simple item record