Frederick officials call bay cleanup costs ‘unrealistic’ State says cost is high, but not final yet

The state of Maryland’s plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay will not only cost billions of dollars, but it continues to frustrate local officials who have to implement it.
Frederick County’s share for one part of the plan alone — renovating older neighborhoods to reduce stormwater runoff — could cost up to $4.3 billion, according to Shannon Moore, the county’s acting manager of sustainability and environmental resources.
“The problem is that the limits established by the state put a heavy burden on municipalities and citizens,” Moore said.
The burden, she said, “is not possible from a feasibility or cost perspective.”
As part of a federal mandate to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) determined how much counties need to lower the amount of pollution they contribute to the bay, and local officials have to figure out how.
The state’s cleanup plan, or the “Watershed Implementation Plan,” is divided into two phases, the first of which was released in December 2010.
According to the plan, Frederick County and its municipalities need to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants; hook up septic systems to treatment plants; renovate older developments to reduce stormwater runoff; and change some farming habits to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that ends up in the bay.
Hooking up a septic system to a sewer line could cost $13,000 per house, according to an April 2011 study by the Sage Policy Group on behalf of the Maryland Builders Association.
And the costs of renovating older housing developments with separate stormwater management systems could run as high as $4.3 billion, Moore said in an email.
Using a state computer program to help determine costs, Moore said that the county could not meet the goals of removing nitrogen and phosphorus from urban areas, even if the county retrofits 100 percent of all urban land.
“The state has been promoting stormwater retrofits very heavily, but they are not cost-effective or efficient,” Moore said.
State officials acknowledge that the costs are high — the state projects $10 billion for phase one — but insist that the cost to each county has not been determined.
“Everyone is worried about costs, and they will be high, but we don’t know what they are yet, and we are looking at ways to reduce the costs, and are also looking for additional funding sources,” said Richard Eskin, director of science services administration at MDE.
The program Moore used to estimate the cost to Frederick is only meant for establishing “what-if scenarios,” according to Eskin.
According to Sage Policy Group report, the state’s estimates are conservative, do not represent the final cost, and will not assure that reduction goals are met.
Stricter than mandated
An added aggravation, many officials say, is that Maryland is pursuing a more aggressive schedule than required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA, by executive order from President Barack Obama to abide by the federal Clean Water Act, put states in the 64,000-square-mile watershed of the Chesapeake Bay on a pollution diet, targeting reductions for 2025.
Maryland is pushing for 2020, and is leading the way, Eskin said, because it has the most to benefit by the bay’s restoration. “It makes sense to get it sooner rather than later,” he said.
Del. Kelly M. Schulz (R-Dist. 4A) of New Market said the state is skirting the question of cost. “If the state was being honest, it would say the funding would come from an increase in taxes because the revenues aren’t going to show up miraculously,” she said in an interview.
Schulz said she is working on building a coalition of stakeholders to present a unified front during the 2012 session of the Maryland General Assembly.
Local politicians are also reaching out to elected officials on the federal level.
Frederick city Alderman Shelley Aloi (R) is working with the Washington Area Council of Governments to create a coalition across counties to lobby the U.S. Congress to either change the deadlines or provide funding for the plan.
Frederick city is on the hook for $21 million in upgrades to its wastewater treatment plant, in addition to stormwater changes. Some of the funding will come from a state grant.
Still, Aloi questions the effectiveness of the mandated upgrade. “The problem is that what is being required has no scientific data to indicate that once we do what they’re requiring, that it’s even going to work,” Aloi said in an interview.
Frederick Alderman Karen L. Young (D) wants to lobby the state to at least change the deadlines for implementation so that they are commensurate with those established by MDE.
As vice chair of the legislative committee of the Maryland Municipal League, she said municipalities are just starting to figure out the impact of the state requirements, and have a lot more questions about the plan.
Meanwhile, MDE is working on phase two of the watershed implementation plan, due to the EPA on March 30.
That plan, Eskin said, will answer questions about the operational aspects of the bay restoration. MDE plans regional meetings, webinars and hands on training for those involved in preparing local plans.
“Hopefully, the plan will be consistent with local priorities and visions,” Eskin said. “We are anticipating very significant improvements in local streams as a result and in local water supplies by recharging the watersheds, which will benefit before it benefits the bay.”
kheerbrandt@gazette.net

Click here to view original article