THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 9, 1994 TAG: 9407090208
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B3 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: By MAC DANIEL, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Medium: 76 lines
After half a year of scrapping, Gov. George F. Allen's administration and the federal government have found common ground on an environmental issue.
After some subtle prodding - and a delicate threat - by Uncle Sam, Virginia finally agreed to move forward on a plan to reduce run-off pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
The state Department of Environmental Quality announced the move Thursday, four months after EPA officials suggested that at least $1.15 million in federal funds might be withheld if Virginia did not get up to speed.
Becky Norton Dunlop, state secretary of natural resources, said Friday the state will begin a series of public hearings on run-off pollution in September. A plan to reduce the problem is expected to be finished sometime after 1997.
Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, Maryland and the EPA signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in 1987. In doing so, the parties promised to reduce run-off pollution by 40 percent by 2000.
In 1992, those same parties agreed to reach the goal by reducing pollution in the Bay's tributaries. Thus far, the District, Maryland and Pennsylvania have completed their draft plans. Virginia has not, but EPA officials said Friday that the state is now on track.
Run-off pollution, also known as nutrient pollution, causes an overabundance of phosphorus and nitrogen in the water. These nutrients can result in algae blooms that eat up oxygen needed for aquatic life.
``Think of it in terms of too much of a good thing,'' said Joseph H. Maroon, Virginia executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Sewage treatment plants, run-off from farms and city streets, and leaking septic tanks are sources of this pollution.
While the Chesapeake Bay is not dying from the problem, it is certainly not thriving. ``A medical analogy is that the patient is stable but is still not out of danger,'' Maroon said.
Bay activists were cautiously optimistic.
``We think it's an encouraging sign that the Allen administration has indicated an effort to move forward,'' Maroon said. ``It's a team approach and we need all players as a team to participate if it's going to be successful.''
``Habitat loss, fishery declines, toxins and sediment run-off will not be addressed in this program,'' he said. ``The Bay won't be problem-free, but it's important to have a coordinated attack on this significant form of pollution.''
Sharon Adams, president of the Elizabeth River Project, said her organization is ``really still in a wait-and-see mode.''
``We tend to be practical people,'' she said, ``and we are far more interested in action than rhetoric.'' ILLUSTRATION: TACKLING RUN-OFF POLLUTION
THE PLAN: According to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and Maryland
promised to reduce run-off pollution by 40 percent by the year 2000.
Two years ago, the states also agreed to cut pollution in the Bay's
tributaries.
Virginia is the only party that hasn't drafted a plan.
VIRGINIA'S ACTION: Virginia will begin a series of public
hearings on run-off pollution in September, and a plan to reduce the
problem is expected to be finished sometime after 1997, the state
secretary of natural resources said.
THE POLLUTANTS: Run-off pollution causes an overabundance of
phosphorus and nitrogen in the water, which in turn can trigger
algae blooms that eat up oxygen needed for aquatic life.
Sewage treatment plants, run-off from farms and city streets, and
leaking septic tanks are sources of this pollution.
KEYWORDS: POLLUTION CHESAPEAKE BAY ENVIRONMENT by CNB