I have often written about legislation I have introduced that I believe would interest the readers of the Falls Church News Press. Today I have news of a very important bill that unfortunately was not successful.
I have a deep concern about protecting water quality and have patroned measures aimed at restoring and maintaining the health of the Chesapeake Bay. This year, with the advice and assistance of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, I proposed a measure to limit nutrient pollution through the implementation of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the multi-state plan to restore the Chesapeake and its tributaries. Over the last year, Virginia and its Bay state partners adopted a specific goal for nutrient pollution reduction. That goal represents the culmination of more that 20 years of scientific study; more specifically, it represents three years of detailed scientific debate and extensive public comment.
As we know, sewage treatment plants and factories are the largest contributor of nutrient pollution in Virginia. The Commonwealth has committed to removing approximately 30 million pounds of nutrient pollution from our rivers and streams. This is almost twice the amount of reduction that has been achieved over the last twenty years. My bill would require the State Water Control Board to ensure that permits for significant dischargers of nutrient pollution contain conditions to ensure we reach our goals.
However, in spite of all the effort, the scientific research, and the public involvement I found unified opposition to the process, the goals, the timelines and the strategies that had been laboriously developed.
Opponents included the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties, normally allies for environmental protection, as well as representatives of municipal and industrial sources of nutrient pollution. I met with the opponents of the bill, listened to their concerns and incorporated a number of their provisions. This exercise proved fruitless as it became clear to me that their opposition lay not with the bill. Rather, they fundamentally oppose the level of commitments we have made during the highly inclusive, multi-year process. Most alarmingly, I discovered that the municipal wastewater agencies now support a timeline for the cleanup that extends out to 2016 or beyond – a timeline that ignores the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement and guarantees our failure to meet our commitments.
Some of the opponents of my legislation have not even stepped forward to take part in the effort to increase natural resources funding. A true commitment to cleaning up the Bay and its tributaries needs to be reflected in a commitment to initiatives for funding to achieve necessary and dramatic reductions in cleaner water now, not tomorrow and certainly not in 2016.
In light of the strong opposition my legislation faced I have asked that Senate Bill 639 be carried over and reconsidered next year.
