Trump proposes 90% cut of Chesapeake Bay cleanup funding: Why Pa. residents should care

For the third year in a row, President Trump is proposing to all but eliminate funding for the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The president is proposing a 90 percent budget slash that would decrease funding from $73 million to just a little over $7 million.

“It’s like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory," Chesapeake Bay Foundation President Will Bake said. “This would cut a highly successful program, that has been instrumental in saving Chesapeake Bay, off at the knees. “

States that have an impact on the bay have received funding from the EPA for decades to reduce pollution, including:

• Sewage treatment upgrades
• Reduced storm water pollution runoff for municipal, suburban and urban areas
• Assistance to farmers to reduce runoff of sediment, nitrogen and pesticides

“For Pennsylvanians, this is as important for local water quality as it is for the bay downstream,” Baker said. “The same thing that pollutes Pennsylvania streams and rivers are the same constituents that pollute the bay.”

Farmers

The potential funding cut would not result in a free pass to pollute because Pennsylvania has laws and regulations governing pollution of local streams and rivers. But Baker stressed that it would negatively impact Pennsylvania farmers and rural residents.

“It would curtail assistance to Pennsylvania farmers, agencies and municipalities to do the job they want to do,” Baker said. “There have been waiting lists for utilization of these funds in years past. When you divide that $73 million up among all the states and programs, it's still not enough.”

Baker said that CBF has been pushing for a funding increase from $73 million to $90 million.

“These funds are used to help slow down storm water, keep it on the land and have it absorbed into the land, so it doesn’t run off into the local creeks and flood the local community.”

Trump’s history on waterway funding

In his first year in office, President Trump proposed to slash funding for Chesapeake Bay restoration in its entirety. The money was eventually restored by Congress.

Last year, the president proposed to cut funding by 90 percent. Again, Congress put the money back into the budget.

“We thought maybe he’d try to cut it by 80 percent this year, but he went back to 90 percent again,” Baker said. “Every year, a bipartisan group of House and Senate elected officials on the appropriation committees have put the money back in."

Crab life and prices

If pollution in the bay is increased, Baker believes it will have a negative effect on wildlife, including the quality and price of blue crabs.

“A Chesapeake Bay that becomes more degraded will negatively impact blue crabs, oysters, striped bass and all living creatures in the bay,” Baker said, “It’s also an economic driver in addition to a sense of pride to the region. It would absolutely increase the price for things like crabs.”

Flooding

Last year there were many heavy storms and floods that negatively impacted waterways across Pennsylvania and the Chesapeake Bay. But Baker says that it could have been much worse if it wouldn’t have been for decades of funding and progress.

“The record-breaking rainfall was an enormous disaster for Pennsylvania and had an impact on the bay downstream. But the impact wasn’t as bad as many feared because the bay developed a greater resiliency due to decades of pollution reduction,” he said.

More:Heavy Pa. rains sent a huge plume of mud through the Susquehanna into the Chesapeake Bay

Will funding be restored?

It's possible that Congress will again restore the funding for the Chesapeake Bay. But Baker says the president's three-year attempt to eliminate funding speaks volumes about his intentions. 

“The only message you can draw is that the president doesn’t think the federal government should help save Chesapeake Bay. This goes against five decades of bipartisan support,” he said.

Baker added that it wouldn't take long to reverse the progress he believes the bay has made if funding is dropped. 

“If this funding is not restored for even a year, you lose the momentum and integrity of a program that has been heralded worldwide for turning around a complex environmental system.”