KINDA SAD HUH ?

[capt.george]

[q]





Cityscape: More studies of bay's woes are just pork
By ERIC SMITH, Staff Writer
People who are concerned with cleaning up the bay have suspected for years that the Chesapeake Bay Program is just a big, sloppy boondoggle. Now those suspicions have been confirmed.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office concludes that the program, which supposedly coordinates federal and state cleanup efforts, needs at least as much fixing as the bay itself.

According to the auditors, its goals are confused, its methods are questionable and its monitoring is erratic. Way too much money is being spent on doing way too little for the bay.

The GAO auditors are right, of course, but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

They blame the program for "downplaying" the deteriorated condition of the bay, for example, but in fact it often does just the opposite.

Hardly a month goes by without a mournful pronouncement by some branch of the program that the bay is sick, dying fast or already dead. Aquatic grasses are disappearing, shellfish are being poisoned, acid rain is falling and tons of toxic crud are polluting our waterways. The news is never good.

In a massive irony that only bureaucrats could concoct, the same GAO auditors who found so much fault in the Chesapeake Bay Program are also recommending in their report that more money needs to be thrown at it.

Yes, the investigators who suddenly discovered that $5.6 billion has been largely frittered away over the last decade now have the nerve to suggest that many additional billions of dollars must be frittered away to make things better.

The ironies don't stop there. GAO auditors criticize the program for not developing a "clear, realistic plan" to meet its bay restoration goals.

This sounds a lot like an endorsement of more plans and studies, and more plans and studies are exactly what the Bay program doesn't need. Much of the money piddled away in the last ten years went to reams of redundant analyses of why the bay was in trouble, what could be done about it and who should organize it.

At this point every person with a pulse knows pretty much where bay pollution comes from and how it can be reduced. No one needs to read (or pay for) yet another academic treatise on the finer points of particulates or pollution management minutia.

It's a good sign that federal auditors have finally gotten around to exposing the Bay Program for what it is - a pork program for environmental burteaucrats. It's not such a good sign that the auditors seem to favor filling up the pork barrel again.

------SAD, Isin't the word for this type of wasted time & money---Many are driven by these reports to put forth thier efforts to improve matters based on what they hear & read --I, for one try to keep up with the daily GLOOM & DOOM images that fill the papers & airwaves---Hopefully, SOME good will come of these programs, in the near future & the proper Leadership will prevail in getting the job done.

----It is aparent , that funds are not lacking, But getting what you paid for is!!---OH WELL------



[shy][shy][shy]

[Bob H.]

How shocking, a government program that doesn't work!

[Phil K]

Capt. George,
I don't think I'm surprised here. Until the masses demand accountability, more money will be "frittered" away.

Water quality improved dramatically during the drought years. Why? No run-off. Salinity was up, and reports of Drum in the Patpasco were everywhere. Trout in abundance too. If we could just get that one piece of the puzzle fixed, we'd be setting ourselves up for resource survival and abundance.

I thought there was a recent report or book published by a Naval Academy prof that was critical of the Ches. Bay Foundation and their lack of success. 80K+ members, and I wonder if my dues aren't better spent elsewhere.

[Tom Hughes]

Capt.George,

Thanks for posting this article.

GAO auditors who found so much fault in the Chesapeake Bay Program are also recommending in their report that more money needs to be thrown at it.

A typical political move, throwing more money at problems…BAD IDEA. That’s a complete waste. The laws, to protect our Bay and its tributaries, such as the Clean Water Act, has been ignored and not enforced against big business. Other environmental laws passed to protect our water and land have also been ignored.

No Additional Moneys Needed To Act NOW

We need to enforcing the existing laws and punishing the companies and individuals now polluting OUR Bay. Not by putting them in jail, but by fining them. This will supply plenty of funds to pay for the more law enforcement so badly needed, and this will help clean up the Bay. Very little of the tax payers money will be needed.

It amazes me that our high positioned government officials, attend meeting after meeting with the problems clearly in front of them, can’t keep it simple and act on the problem swiftly.

I guess it must be too much book educated with very little common since??

[scotty80]

Capt G,

What is the source of the opinion you quoted ? The author takes a cheap shot at the problems and doesn't mention any positives. He also offers no realistic recommendations to rectify the issue. I'm certainly interested in a quick fix, got one ?

It took 100+ years to degrade the Bay to it's point today. We ain't gonna fix it in 25. If it were not for groups like CBF, do you think the Bay would be in a better or worse state ???

[Capt. Mike Anderson]

[Q]scotty80 originally wrote:
Capt G,

What is the source of the opinion you quoted ? The author takes a cheap shot at the problems and doesn't mention any positives. He also offers no realistic recommendations to rectify the issue. I'm certainly interested in a quick fix, got one ?

It took 100+ years to degrade the Bay to it's point today. We ain't gonna fix it in 25. If it were not for groups like CBF, do you think the Bay would be in a better or worse state ???
[/Q]

Is the author taking cheap shots at the problems or have the GAO auditors concluded what the author is repeating.

Here is another article.

http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2679

And here is a link to the report. As you will see it's not an opinion by a reporter.

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/newsgao111505.htm

[capt.george]

[q]Direct & Indirect Spending on the Bay’s Restoration


The General Accountability Office report contained the most complete analysis to date of how much money has been spent to restore the Bay.

It estimated that ---$3.7 billion--- in direct funding was provided to restore the Bay from 1995 through 2004. An additional ---$1.9 billion -----in indirect funding was also provided for activities that affect the restoration effort.

The direct funding came from 11 key federal agencies, the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The states typically provide 75 percent of the direct funding.

Also, funding has grown over the years, from----- $148.6 million-- in total direct funding in 1995 to ----$486.6 million----2004. Funding peaked in 2002 at -----$558.2 million.----

The indirect funding was split more or less equally between federal and state governments. It includes programs that help the Bay cleanup, but would provide funding regardless of the Chesapeake Bay commitments.

These include many farm programs that pay farmers to implement practices that reduce runoff. Most of Pennsylvania’s funding was indirect because, although many programs supported Bay goals, they were not the programs’ primary purpose.

Indirect funding has also increased over the years, from ----$131.6 million ----in 1995 to -----$343.2 million in 2004

-------Scotty, In the many years I've worked the waters of the Chesapeake, I've seen no drastic changes ---Except for horrible devestation Agnus presented to us in 72----I felt good when the ajoining states Banned phosphates in detergents, Felt good when Big ships stopped flushing thier bilges, & throwing garbage & trash overboard ---Felt good when Boats Large & small started using Plastic bags to collect trash & dumped it ashore---Felt good when sanatation devices became law--Felt good when boaters stopped draining thier oil in bilges, mixing with soap & pumping it overboard---Felt good when I helped re seed grass beds----

---All of a Sudden, the States & Federal government, discovered the Chesapeake, Funds became a good P R tool---Some for you & Some for you & yeh, why not?, some for me---So pray tell, Where did 5.6 BILLION DOLLARS go or do to better the Bay----Come on , Someone TELL me where it went--It sure didn't do much according to all the GLOOM & DOOM I read about every day---
----Scotty, you ask about CBF, I'ts difficult for me to comment, I was a funding supporter, untill they got into testifing on fishery issues that pertained to size limits & seasons--I felt that was a relm best handled by Fishery managers---
----Its a deep & serious problem & the subject alone speaks for itself ---Surely GAO A very lienient auditor, wouldn't be so critical if it wasen't so-----
-----The only funds I heard of being used WISLEY was the Million or so spent on the Asian Oyster expermential reef, that the Cow Nose Rays ate up in a 2 day feeding spree , at least they tried ----OH WELL--
[shy]

[J.P. Williams]

Capt. George and Other Anglers--

Here's where that $5.6 billion went--to stabilize the patient. Remember that over the past 25 years, the population of the Chesapeake watershed has grown by about 18%, from 13.5 million of us to 16 million, and it's increasing at about 100,000 people per year, mostly from people moving in.

George, you know how much Anne Arundel County has grown over that period. Now even your native Massaponax is growing. Stafford and Spotsylvania are two of the twenty fastest growing counties in the U.S. (BTW, Loudoun is first.) That $5.6 billion is what it has taken just to stay even (and actually improve just a little, according to CBF's State of the Bay Report, though we're still scoring it at only 27, which is a failing grade in any school).

Eric Smith loves to pontificate about wasted $ in The Capital, but he never mentions that all Bay restoration programs swim against a heavy current. Remember that old quote from Pogo, the comic strip possum--"We have met the enemy, and he is us."

We--all of us--leave a HEAVY footprint on the Bay ecosystem, from nitrogen and phosphorus every time we flush and sediment that comes from from construction projects to ag runoff from farms that aren't making money because we insist on cheap food and from exhaust emissions from our tailpipes. Got any idea how much nitrogen will wash off I-66 in Northern VA with tomorrow's slush and rain?

Yes, the GAO Report shows that the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program should be more focused on coordinated implementation of those restoration programs (CBF, by the way, was one of the organizations that pushed for the study). Though we still have much to learn about the Bay (yes, it's that complex), the science the Bay Program has sponsored over the past twenty years has given us a world-class blueprint to make real change.

Now they need to help put that science to work, to join us (CBF) and fishermen's organizations like MSSA, CCA, the Charterboat Associations, and the Ches. Guides Association in pushing the cleanup forward (which the Bay Program has been reticent to do lately). We know how to treat sewage well (there are already a few star-quality plants, like Piscataway on the Potomac), and we're learning a lot about cost-effective ways to deal with farm runoff.

Maryland's flush fee and the dedicated funds VA Gov. Warner has just put into his budget for sewage treatment upgrades are large enough to start making a difference over the next five years. (We'll be watching closely to make sure that $ gets spent well.)

Next the big challenge will be agriculture, which will require not just enforcement (sorry, Tom) but assistance with conservation programs, especially on family farms. Watch for a lot of action in both the VA & MD General Assembly sessions in '06. In fact, don't just watch--get involved, and informed. Visit www.getdedicated.org to learn how. It's free.

Legislators really listen to fishermen, as we have found out over the past two years. By the way, there's a lot going on in Pennsylvania too, though that's an even tougher fight. But the Susquehanna had a big smallmouth kill this summer, so folks like Bob Clouser are hopping mad and searching (with our Harrisburg Office) for solutions. I'm spending a lot of my time up there, helping.

Sorry to get onto a soap box, but Eric Smith's column really set me off. He's not in the trenches of this fight, and he doesn't know the whole story--by a long shot.

We don't have to live with dead zones. We CAN save this Bay. The tide is starting to change. Now's the time to push harder than ever.

Best regards to you all for caring enough to post,
Capt. John Page Williams
CBF Senior Naturalist &
Chesapeake Bay Magazine Fishing Columnist

[capt.george]

[q] Eric Smith loves to pontificate about wasted $ in The Capital, but he never mentions that all Bay restoration programs swim against a heavy current. Remember that old quote from Pogo, the comic strip possum--"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
[/q]

------John Page, Thanks for jumping in, You & others must know how I feel about the sad state of the Chesapeake---On one hand I hope that all the funds that have been thown it's way IS DOING SOME GOOD---Then again we must relize that Eric's column is not based on HIS findings, but based on a Government report----& as I said , GAO is at the most a Wrist Slap, a Tiger w/o teeth---There are no penalties, assocaited with thier reports ----Where else could 5.6 BILLION dollars be spent W/O some visiable gain----I have to salute you & others like you for your never ending Crusade for a better bay, but as an outsider of the system ,I would think your frustrations must be monsterous-----

----Flush tax, hopefully will used with speed, with results
----Farmer substudies, for planting cover crops---probably will have few takers---
----What the bay needs right now is ACTION,some leadership from men with a Devil may Care additude---Doers, not talkers,--Like the builders of houses on islands, & expanders of marnia's
who Do it , at least it gets done----
----Scotty, says it took 100 years for this to evlove, & we can't fix it in 25----I dissagree, we need a 9-11 mentality---
---Then again the Chesapeake is only a drop in the bucket in domestic & world affairs----OH WELL----[sad]

[capt.george]

---Richmond, Va.---
---Gov. Warner proposed yesterday to spend 200 MILLION to cut pollution & improve the bay's watershead----The one time funds are part of a 242.5 MILLION water Quality package that Gov. Warner plans to interdouce before he leaves office in mid January

------Here's more, if it passes---[wink]