Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed
Posted at 1:54 PM ET, 02/18/2011

House backs amendment blocking EPA's Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan

By Ben Pershing

Updated 10:09 p.m.
The House voted Friday night to delay the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan, sparking debate between agricultural and environmental groups and splitting the Virginia and Maryland congressional delegations in the process.

The Chesapeake amendment, authored by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), was attached to the massive continuing resolution being debated by the House that would fund the government from March 4 through the end of September. The amendment says that no money in the bill "may be used to develop, promulgate, evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop total maximum daily loads or watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed."

The amendment passed 230-195, with eight Democrats joining 222 Republicans in favor, and 15 Republicans voting with 180 Democrats in opposition. The full CR is expected to be approved sometime Saturday morning. But it still has to clear the Democratic-controlled Senate and the desk of President Obama, whose administration crafted the Chesapeake plan.

Goodlatte is seeking to block a landmark proposal unveiled by the EPA in December that outlines what six states and the District must do by 2025 to clean up the Chesapeake, which absorbs pollution from farms, cities and sewage plants all over the region. The plan would put the bay on a "pollution diet" by putting limits on the "total maximum daily load" of chemicals that can flow into it.

The EPA proposal, the product of years of study and negotiations, has drawn praise from environmental groups and the ire of business and farming groups concerned about the costs of implementing the far-reaching plan. The American Farm Bureau Federation has filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the proposal.

Goodlatte, whose 6th Congressional District stretches from Strasburg to Roanoke in rural western Virginia, told his House colleagues in a letter distributed this week that the EPA's regulations would be economically "devastating" to local governments and farmers, because the cost of compliance would be so high.

"Adding these requirements to many financially strained farmers will likely result in more loss of farmland to development, and this could prove to be worse for the Bay," Goodlatte wrote. "We can restore the Bay while also maintaining the economic livelihood of these communities. The approach being taken by the EPA is the wrong approach, and we must stop it."

Goodlatte also told lawmakers from other parts of the country that the EPA was using the Chesapeake as a "demonstration" project and would soon use the same approach elsewhere. "If the EPA has its way, your local communities will also have to find the money for these costly regulations," Goodlatte wrote. "Congress must tell the EPA we do not want this overregulation in the Chesapeake Bay or any other watershed."

Goodlatte's amendment was strongly opposed by many Democrats, including Rep. James Moran (Va.), the top Democrat on the appropriations subcommittee that funds most environmental programs. Moran noted that Goodlatte, as the top Republican on the Agriculture Committee, had "passed a number of bills that aided in efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay" and said he applauded those actions.

"But the Goodlatte amendment to the CR would be a death sentence for efforts to reduce the level of pollution needed to restore the bay," Moran said. "Pollution kills jobs in the fishing, crabbing, tourism and hospitality industries that are dependent on a healthy bay. We've invested billions in cleaning up the bay, with strong support from the public. But in one fell swoop, this amendment would undo all of that bipartisan work."

Moran led the House floor debate against the amendment, and was joined by Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D).

The amendment also drew a sharp rebuke from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

"How unfortunate that Congressman Goodlatte, who represents one of the states that would benefit most from a healthy Chesapeake Bay, is seeking to torpedo the Bay restoration plan before its ink is scarcely dry," CBF President William C. Baker said in a release issued by the nonprofit.

A committee of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments also wrote to Goodlatte asking him to withdraw his amendment.

Not every Republican in Virginia favored the Goodlatte amendment. Rep. Rob Wittman (R), whose district includes much of Virginia's western shore, planned to vote against it, according to Wittman's spokeswoman.

Just as the proposal divides the Virginia delegation, a similar split is evident in Maryland. Gov. Martin O'Malley and other Democrats praised the EPA's plan when it was unveiled in December. And Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the House Minority Whip, said Friday that he was "strongly opposed" to Goodlatte's measure.

"This amendment would prevent the EPA from continuing efforts to clean up the bay, and appears to prohibit any additional federal assistance to the states to help meet their restoration goals," Hoyer said. "The costs of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of meeting these goals."

But Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R), whose 1st district seat includes Maryland's Eastern Shore, said Friday that he shared the concerns of farm groups about the rulemaking process behind the EPA's plan.

"This amendment only delays the implementation of these rules -- it does not repeal them," Harris said. "The seven-month delay allows more time for all stakeholders to fully review and understand the proposed rules, have the opportunity to resolve differences, assure a more open and transparent process and assess the effect on local economies and our business community's ability to create jobs."

By Ben Pershing  | February 18, 2011; 1:54 PM ET
Categories:  Ben Pershing, James P. Moran Jr., Robert Goodlatte  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Virginia celebrates the Redskins
Next: Senate Democrats strip local tax from districts of anti-tax opponents


Why do Republicans want to destroy this country and poison our families?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | February 18, 2011 2:29 PM | Report abuse

More science phobia from the GOP. Explain to the waterman why you want to destroy their livelihoods by letting the farmers pollute the Bay to death. You are prostitutes to agriculture. The Bay is a huge resource to all in it's vacinity. Disgusting pandering to a special interest. Disgusting.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 18, 2011 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The farmers who have collectivly killed the bay are now going to get a free ticket to finish the job. Mr. Goodlatte will be the death of the Bay. That will be fine with him.

Posted by: nextonuthin | February 19, 2011 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Andy Harris continues his horrible record hostile to the environment, and he represents a district whose shoreline covers half of the bay. He opposes cleanup of the bay, and this puts him squarely at odds with the majority of his constituency. He will be voted out of office in 2012.

Posted by: mglbrown1 | February 19, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

So what if a natural ecosystem becomes a wasteland and threatens the livelihoods of fishermen along the way? Regulation is never the answer! Never, ever, ever.


Posted by: ravensfan20008 | February 19, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

According to the CB Program, farmland/open space decreased 100,000+ acres since 1984, but urban areas INCREASED 355,000 acres.. . and they wonder why the Bay isn't cleaner. The focus has to shift to urban pollution where the bigger problem lies. No wonder farmers are worried. They can't fix everybody else's pollution problems too.

Posted by: mts2sea | February 19, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company