Missing the Mark in the Chesapeake Bay: A Report Card for the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans

39 Pages Posted: 28 Jan 2011 Last revised: 17 Mar 2015

See all articles by William L. Andreen

William L. Andreen

University of Alabama - School of Law

Robert L. Glicksman

George Washington University - Law School

Rena I. Steinzor

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Center for Progressive Reform

Ling-Yee Huang

Independent

Shana Jones

University of Georgia

Date Written: January 25, 2011

Abstract

Momentum for Chesapeake Bay restoration has advanced significantly in the past two years, shaped by the combination of President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order and the EPA’s Bay-wide Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process. These federal initiatives, taken in partnership with the Bay states, required the Bay states and the District of Columbia to submit Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) to demonstrate how they will meet the pollution targets in the applicable TMDLs.

In August, the Center for Progressive Reform sent the Chesapeake Bay watershed jurisdictions (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia) metrics by which our panel of water quality experts would judge the strength of the plans; we also submitted comments to the states in November on their draft plans. The states’ final plans were submitted to EPA in November and December.

The state plans fail to provide a specific roadmap for restoring the Bay, CPR says today in Missing the Mark in the Chesapeake Bay: A Report Card for the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (press release). The report was written by CPR Member Scholars William Andreen, Robert Glicksman, and Rena Steinzor, and CPR executive director Shana Jones and policy analyst Yee Huang.

Our report found that the state plans all underperformed, to varying degrees, on the two primary areas for evaluation: transparency of information and strength of program design. While improvements from the drafts, the final plans were light on providing specific commitments for actions needed to achieve the required pollution reductions, and generally did not pledge dedicated funding for the proposed programs. The plans generally did not establish a baseline for existing programs’ effectiveness to allow the public to monitor future performance in implementing the pollution reduction controls.

Keywords: Chesapeake Bay, TMDL, watershed implementation plans, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia

Suggested Citation

Andreen, William L. and Glicksman, Robert L. and Steinzor, Rena I. and Huang, Ling-Yee and Jones, Shana, Missing the Mark in the Chesapeake Bay: A Report Card for the Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans (January 25, 2011). U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2011-4, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1749574 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1749574

William L. Andreen

University of Alabama - School of Law ( email )

P.O. Box 870382
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487
United States

Robert L. Glicksman

George Washington University - Law School ( email )

2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
202-994-4641 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.gwu.edu/Faculty/profile.aspx?id=16085

Rena I. Steinzor

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law ( email )

500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
United States

Center for Progressive Reform ( email )

500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
United States

Shana Jones

University of Georgia ( email )

Athens, GA 30602-6254
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
79
Abstract Views
1,417
rank
414,054
PlumX Metrics