SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 2
Download to read offline
Study: Chesapeake Cleanup Would Bring $22B Boon 
The Chesapeake Bay region would reap an additional $22.5 billion a year from improved hurricane 
protection, crab and fish production and climate stability if the Obama administration's contested 
plan to clean up the watershed proceeds, an environmental group says. 
The assessment released Monday is based on a peer-reviewed analysis of the economic benefits to 
the entities -- six states and the District of Columbia -- charged with reducing pollution into the 
nation's largest estuary. 
It comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is defending its cleanup plan in federal court 
against a challenge from farmers and 21 attorneys general who say the pollution limits are 
unreasonably costly and an unjustified power grab by the federal government. 
The study by Spencer Phillips, an economist at Key-Log Economics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and 
Beth McGee, a senior scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, compared the benefits of the 
Chesapeake watershed in 2009, before the cleanup plan was being implemented by the states, with 
scenarios in which the bay is either fully restored under the plan or continues "business as usual" 
without additional pollution limits. 
The analysis found that implementing the cleanup plan -- which seeks to achieve 60 percent of 
pollution reductions by 2017, and the rest by 2025 -- would yield $129.7 billion annually in benefits 
such as flood protection from hurricanes and other storms, improved scenery that leads to tourism, 
cleaner water supplies and healthy forests that reduce heat and help regulate climate. 
That tally is $22.5 billion higher than the $107.2 billion of benefits the watershed provided in 2009. 
Without additional pollution limits, the annual economic value would drop to $101.5 billion. 
The report puts the total cost of implementing the cleanup with the 64,000-square-mile watershed at 
$5 billion to $6 billion annually. 
"We all know that reducing pollution makes great sense for our health and our environment, and 
today we can confirm what we have long thought: It makes good economic sense as well," said 
William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 
The American Farm Bureau Federation, which is challenging the EPA plan in court, said it had not 
yet seen the report so it couldn't comment on the specifics. It supports cleanup generally, but "we 
think environmental benefits will accrue much faster if states lead the process because they are in a 
better position to balance the cost and benefits associated with the cleanup effort," said spokesman 
Will Rodger.
At issue is the scope of EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act. In 2009, President Barack 
Obama issued an executive order for a bay restoration after decades of state inaction, prompting the 
EPA to seek agreements with the states that set standards to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and 
sediment that drain from rivers into the bay. 
Farm runoff such as animal waste and fertilizer had created "dead zones" in the bay where nothing 
lives. It has taken a toll on marine life such as the bay's signature blue crab, according to the EPA. 
In their challenge, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the attorneys general point to 
economic consequences for industry groups and the potential for the EPA to improperly seek new 
restrictions. They say ratification of the Chesapeake plan will lead to similar EPA efforts to reduce 
pollution from Midwest farms into the Mississippi River Basin. 
Oral arguments in that federal lawsuit are expected later this year in Philadelphia. 
Among the states that agreed to the Chesapeake plan, West Virginia is now opposing the EPA-led 
cleanup. Pennsylvania and New York are staying silent in the litigation, while Maryland, Delaware, 
Virginia and the District of Columbia signed briefs in support. 
A recent study by environmentalists found states in the Chesapeake watershed have made strides in 
reducing pollution but in many cases fell short in implementing practices that cut contaminants from 
agriculture. 
------ 
Follow Hope Yen on Twitter: http://twitter.com/hopeyen1

More Related Content

What's hot

Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and Monitoring
Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and MonitoringWater Quality Trading Program Requirements and Monitoring
Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and MonitoringThe Freshwater Trust
 
Aveda CWF 2009 MO
Aveda CWF 2009 MOAveda CWF 2009 MO
Aveda CWF 2009 MOAKiepeJacob
 
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican Republic
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican RepublicThe Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican Republic
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican RepublicCarlos Rymer
 
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water Nexus
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water NexusGovEnergy: The Energy-Water Nexus
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water NexusAaron Sobel
 
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United States
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United StatesOvercoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United States
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United StatesBruce Cohen
 
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NH
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NHNHDES Rivers & Streams-NH
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NHjoerando
 
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing Measures
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing MeasuresNon-Point Pollution & Urban Planing Measures
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing MeasuresMalvika Jaishal
 
Al W & W 2008 11 05
Al W & W  2008 11 05Al W & W  2008 11 05
Al W & W 2008 11 05mjchurchman
 
Ayb Colorado River
Ayb Colorado RiverAyb Colorado River
Ayb Colorado Riverbickay
 
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research World
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research WorldSix topics of climate change which can rule the Research World
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research WorldMrinmoy Majumder
 
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
Upper Colorado River Endangered  Fish Recovery ProgramUpper Colorado River Endangered  Fish Recovery Program
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery ProgramState of Utah, Salt Lake City
 

What's hot (17)

EPA CAA Email 10.04.03 (b)
EPA CAA Email 10.04.03 (b)EPA CAA Email 10.04.03 (b)
EPA CAA Email 10.04.03 (b)
 
California Drought Recovery
California Drought RecoveryCalifornia Drought Recovery
California Drought Recovery
 
CAR Email 7.12.02 (b)
CAR Email 7.12.02 (b)CAR Email 7.12.02 (b)
CAR Email 7.12.02 (b)
 
Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and Monitoring
Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and MonitoringWater Quality Trading Program Requirements and Monitoring
Water Quality Trading Program Requirements and Monitoring
 
Queensland's blue carbon program
Queensland's blue carbon programQueensland's blue carbon program
Queensland's blue carbon program
 
Aveda CWF 2009 MO
Aveda CWF 2009 MOAveda CWF 2009 MO
Aveda CWF 2009 MO
 
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican Republic
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican RepublicThe Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican Republic
The Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in the Dominican Republic
 
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water Nexus
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water NexusGovEnergy: The Energy-Water Nexus
GovEnergy: The Energy-Water Nexus
 
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United States
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United StatesOvercoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United States
Overcoming Obstacles to High Penetration Renewable Energy in the United States
 
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NH
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NHNHDES Rivers & Streams-NH
NHDES Rivers & Streams-NH
 
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing Measures
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing MeasuresNon-Point Pollution & Urban Planing Measures
Non-Point Pollution & Urban Planing Measures
 
Al W & W 2008 11 05
Al W & W  2008 11 05Al W & W  2008 11 05
Al W & W 2008 11 05
 
Ayb Colorado River
Ayb Colorado RiverAyb Colorado River
Ayb Colorado River
 
Rising Oceans
Rising  OceansRising  Oceans
Rising Oceans
 
RCEC Email 5.7.03 (a)
RCEC Email 5.7.03 (a)RCEC Email 5.7.03 (a)
RCEC Email 5.7.03 (a)
 
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research World
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research WorldSix topics of climate change which can rule the Research World
Six topics of climate change which can rule the Research World
 
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
Upper Colorado River Endangered  Fish Recovery ProgramUpper Colorado River Endangered  Fish Recovery Program
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
 

Similar to Study: Chesapeake Cleanup Would Bring $22B Boon

A.Strobridge-GGS Presentation
A.Strobridge-GGS PresentationA.Strobridge-GGS Presentation
A.Strobridge-GGS PresentationAshley Strobridge
 
WaterSummit_web
WaterSummit_webWaterSummit_web
WaterSummit_webPakou Vang
 
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docx
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docxPolicy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docx
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docxLeilaniPoolsy
 
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLs
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLsKelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLs
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLsChoose Clean Water
 
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra Club
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra ClubJuly-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra Club
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra ClubKern-Kaweah Chapter, Sierrra Club
 
Port lavaca desalination study
Port lavaca desalination studyPort lavaca desalination study
Port lavaca desalination studyJeffrey Pickett
 
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009Norreida (Norra) Reyes
 
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statement
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statementJune 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statement
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statementartba
 
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting water
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting waterCalifornia to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting water
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting watercasacramento17
 
Cooperative Conservation
Cooperative ConservationCooperative Conservation
Cooperative ConservationMichael Brent
 
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018Nicholas Toscano
 
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdf
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdfStatement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdf
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdfHecho2
 
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statement
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing StatementMay 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statement
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statementartba
 

Similar to Study: Chesapeake Cleanup Would Bring $22B Boon (20)

Appalachia_MH_7.7
Appalachia_MH_7.7Appalachia_MH_7.7
Appalachia_MH_7.7
 
EPA CAA Email 10.4.03
EPA CAA Email 10.4.03EPA CAA Email 10.4.03
EPA CAA Email 10.4.03
 
A.Strobridge-GGS Presentation
A.Strobridge-GGS PresentationA.Strobridge-GGS Presentation
A.Strobridge-GGS Presentation
 
Hawaii - Energy Independence and The Environment - It's Up to Us
Hawaii - Energy Independence and The Environment - It's Up to UsHawaii - Energy Independence and The Environment - It's Up to Us
Hawaii - Energy Independence and The Environment - It's Up to Us
 
WaterSummit_web
WaterSummit_webWaterSummit_web
WaterSummit_web
 
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docx
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docxPolicy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docx
Policy fíriefingSenate Bill Aims to Prevent ChemicalCont.docx
 
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLs
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLsKelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLs
Kelly Shenk Ag Session - TMDLs
 
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra Club
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra ClubJuly-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra Club
July-August 2003 Roadrunner Newsletter, Kern-Kaweah Sierrra Club
 
Port lavaca desalination study
Port lavaca desalination studyPort lavaca desalination study
Port lavaca desalination study
 
MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUMMEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
 
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009
Reyes.Norreida.SampleNewsletterColumn.Spring2009
 
EPA CAA Email 10.24.03
EPA CAA Email 10.24.03EPA CAA Email 10.24.03
EPA CAA Email 10.24.03
 
IGR Final Draft
IGR Final DraftIGR Final Draft
IGR Final Draft
 
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statement
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statementJune 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statement
June 11 ARTBA T&I wotus hearing statement
 
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting water
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting waterCalifornia to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting water
California to impose fines up to $500 a day for wasting water
 
Cooperative Conservation
Cooperative ConservationCooperative Conservation
Cooperative Conservation
 
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018
Environmental Claims Journal - Editor's Note - January 16, 2018
 
The costs of fracking
The costs of frackingThe costs of fracking
The costs of fracking
 
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdf
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdfStatement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdf
Statement_HECHO Letter to House Committee on Natural Resources.pdf
 
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statement
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing StatementMay 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statement
May 29 2014 Draft Small Business Wotus Hearing Statement
 

More from combativequarre16

More from combativequarre16 (10)

Test
TestTest
Test
 
Morning Must Reads: January 16
Morning Must Reads: January 16Morning Must Reads: January 16
Morning Must Reads: January 16
 
Test
TestTest
Test
 
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PAWater and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
 
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PAWater and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
Water and Flood Restoration in Quakertown, PA
 
Test
TestTest
Test
 
Does homeowner's insurance cover floods?
Does homeowner's insurance cover floods?Does homeowner's insurance cover floods?
Does homeowner's insurance cover floods?
 
Test
TestTest
Test
 
Flood Cleanup Under Way In Soggy Midwest
Flood Cleanup Under Way In Soggy MidwestFlood Cleanup Under Way In Soggy Midwest
Flood Cleanup Under Way In Soggy Midwest
 
How to Clean Up after a Flood
How to Clean Up after a FloodHow to Clean Up after a Flood
How to Clean Up after a Flood
 

Study: Chesapeake Cleanup Would Bring $22B Boon

  • 1. Study: Chesapeake Cleanup Would Bring $22B Boon The Chesapeake Bay region would reap an additional $22.5 billion a year from improved hurricane protection, crab and fish production and climate stability if the Obama administration's contested plan to clean up the watershed proceeds, an environmental group says. The assessment released Monday is based on a peer-reviewed analysis of the economic benefits to the entities -- six states and the District of Columbia -- charged with reducing pollution into the nation's largest estuary. It comes as the Environmental Protection Agency is defending its cleanup plan in federal court against a challenge from farmers and 21 attorneys general who say the pollution limits are unreasonably costly and an unjustified power grab by the federal government. The study by Spencer Phillips, an economist at Key-Log Economics in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Beth McGee, a senior scientist at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, compared the benefits of the Chesapeake watershed in 2009, before the cleanup plan was being implemented by the states, with scenarios in which the bay is either fully restored under the plan or continues "business as usual" without additional pollution limits. The analysis found that implementing the cleanup plan -- which seeks to achieve 60 percent of pollution reductions by 2017, and the rest by 2025 -- would yield $129.7 billion annually in benefits such as flood protection from hurricanes and other storms, improved scenery that leads to tourism, cleaner water supplies and healthy forests that reduce heat and help regulate climate. That tally is $22.5 billion higher than the $107.2 billion of benefits the watershed provided in 2009. Without additional pollution limits, the annual economic value would drop to $101.5 billion. The report puts the total cost of implementing the cleanup with the 64,000-square-mile watershed at $5 billion to $6 billion annually. "We all know that reducing pollution makes great sense for our health and our environment, and today we can confirm what we have long thought: It makes good economic sense as well," said William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The American Farm Bureau Federation, which is challenging the EPA plan in court, said it had not yet seen the report so it couldn't comment on the specifics. It supports cleanup generally, but "we think environmental benefits will accrue much faster if states lead the process because they are in a better position to balance the cost and benefits associated with the cleanup effort," said spokesman Will Rodger.
  • 2. At issue is the scope of EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act. In 2009, President Barack Obama issued an executive order for a bay restoration after decades of state inaction, prompting the EPA to seek agreements with the states that set standards to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that drain from rivers into the bay. Farm runoff such as animal waste and fertilizer had created "dead zones" in the bay where nothing lives. It has taken a toll on marine life such as the bay's signature blue crab, according to the EPA. In their challenge, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the attorneys general point to economic consequences for industry groups and the potential for the EPA to improperly seek new restrictions. They say ratification of the Chesapeake plan will lead to similar EPA efforts to reduce pollution from Midwest farms into the Mississippi River Basin. Oral arguments in that federal lawsuit are expected later this year in Philadelphia. Among the states that agreed to the Chesapeake plan, West Virginia is now opposing the EPA-led cleanup. Pennsylvania and New York are staying silent in the litigation, while Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia signed briefs in support. A recent study by environmentalists found states in the Chesapeake watershed have made strides in reducing pollution but in many cases fell short in implementing practices that cut contaminants from agriculture. ------ Follow Hope Yen on Twitter: http://twitter.com/hopeyen1