Protecting sensitive land at the edge of the bay is a critical component of the Tributary Strategies. (Photo by Bethany Thompson.)

The Chesapeake Bay is an integral component of Maryland’s history, economy and quality of life. But nitrogen and phosphorous pollution are choking the bay, threatening its animal life and endangering its future.

Following the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement, Maryland undertook a process of developing a plan for meeting needed pollution reductions for each water basin. The plan, known as the Tributary Strategy, was subdivided based on the ten major tributary basins in Maryland.

Experts convened
A team for each tributary worked with state and local governments, scientists and other citizens and groups to tailor tributary-specific plans and goals based on the unique needs and characteristics of each tributary basin. The total cost of achieving the reduction goals set in the Tributary Strategy was estimated at more than $10 billion.

Unfortunately, as bold as the Tributary Strategy is, at this time it remains simply that—a plan. The final plan was announced with great fanfare in 2004, but has not moved much closer to implementation since then.

During this year’s legislative session, there was a renewed focus on the Tributary Strategy during debate on the Green Fund bill. This proposal was designed to generate about $130 million per year, providing critical funding for implementing restoration and pollution-reduction practices within the Tributary Strategy. The Green Fund would be generated through a fee on newly paved land and other impervious surfaces created by new development.

Great potential from agriculture
Much of that funding would go to the techniques that specifically target agricultural pollution, which are the most costeffective remedial actions in the Tributary Strategy. The agricultural techniques identified would cost $806 million— about eight percent of the total cost— but would provide more than half of the necessary reductions in pollution.

Agriculture is the most cost-effective sector for reducing pollution into the Bay, but all sectors must make changes to meet the needed reductions.

The agricultural techniques include:

• Planting unfertilized cover crops before or after the primary crop harvest in order to consume excess nutrients in the soil.

• Practicing “conservation tillage” by planting crops that require minimal tilling.

• Restoring forest and wetland buffers on agricultural land to reduce nutrient and sediment runoff.

• Applying the minimal amount of fertilizer necessarily for a successful crop.

• Adjusting poultry and livestock feed in order to increase the digestibility of phosphorous and nitrogen.

• Transporting excess manure to areas of the watershed that are not oversaturated with nutrients.

In addition to better agriculture practices, funding is needed for other key pieces of the Tributary Strategies. These pieces include technical assistance to help cities and counties better plan for growth, retrofits for failed stormwater management facilities, and planting more young oysters to help repopulate the species. Funding to reduce pollution from new and existing development is especially important in the more urbanized parts of the state.

Environment Maryland Research and Policy Center will work with Gov. Martin O’Malley this summer as he looks at ways to overhaul the state budget and increase agency funding for these critical solutions. No financial restructuring would be complete without dedicated funding for a real plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay.