Report: Bay plan would cost $10B

Environmentalists claim their version of a bay cleanup would bring economic benefits. Given that little growth is expected for several years, that seems more than unlikely.

A study conducted for the Maryland State Builders Association concludes that a new plan by the state and federal government to clean up the Cheasapeake Bay would cause a loss of more than $10 billion to businesses in the state and more than 65,000 jobs. But an environmental group says the study exaggerates the costs and does not include new jobs that would be created by the plan.

The study, conducted by Sage Policy Group of Baltimore, also predicts that more people would move from Maryland to Virginia, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to avoid the higher costs associated with the environmental safeguards planned to protect the Bay, which range from waste treatment plant upgrades and requirements to improving failing septic systems.

Builders say they want to clean up the Bay and work with environmentalists, but they think the same results to improve the Bay's watershed can be achieved in more cost-effective ways.

The state should focus on the large polluters, which would be more economical than the state's plan, said Martin Mitchell, president of the Maryland National Capital Builders Association, which is part of the Maryland Builders Association.

"We think there are some other ways to go about achieving results because we are supportive of a clean Bay and clean streams," Mitchell said. "But we're out there looking for the most economical solutions. We're willing to work hand in hand with the state and the environmentallists to come up with the best solutions."

Kim Coble, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, called the report's portrayal of data skewed.

For instance, the study ignores that the improvements for the establishment of new treatment plants already is ongoing and there already are funding sources to pay for them, Coble said.

The report also claims the state would have 65,000 fewer jobs because of the changes, but it does not take into account the numerous jobs that would be created to build new treatment plants and that would become available from improvements to the fisheries.

"It's like only looking at one side of the equation and calling it final," Coble said. "What struck us most was it was written solely to portray the perspective and needs of the homebuilders' association versus meeting the needs of Maryland."

http://www.gazette.net/stories/04292011/businew184822_32594.php