Pennsylvania is committed to a massive undertaking
to remove the Chesapeake Bay from the federal Clean Water Act's list of impaired
waters by 2010. The primary goal of this effort is to increase oxygen levels,
improve clarity and reduce chlorophyll levels in the Bay by reducing nutrient
and sediment loads. This will be accomplished by applying a broad array of
Best Management Practices to a variety of non-point sources and requiring higher
levels of treatment from point sources such as municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTPs).
| "Pennsylvania's
share of the cost to clean the Bay is an estimated $8.2 billion -
roughly twice the entire annual budget for all environmental
programs in the state" |
Staggering Costs
Initial estimates of the cost of cleaning up the Bay are enormous. In
its January 2003 report, "The Cost of a Clean Bay," the Chesapeake Bay
Commission estimated the capital cost of new programs required to restore the
Bay to be $19 billion. Pennsylvania's share is estimated to cost $8.2 billion,
or roughly twice the entire annual budget for all environmental programs in the
state. Because the tributary strategies are still being developed, the actual
costs of the program may exceed theses initial estimates.
Panel Oversight
Recognizing the enormity of the challenge to
finance the required programs, the Chesapeake Executive Council established a
Blue Ribbon Finance Panel to evaluate ways to close the funding gap. The
Panel determined that current funding does not begin to meet the need.
Simply improving the existing funding programs will provide too little and take
too long. The PADEP has acknowledged that the cost of the clean-up effort
exceeds the funds currently available by several orders of magnitude.
Weighing Options
Faced with the high cost of the restoration effort and the limited funds
currently available, the Chesapeake Bay Commission identified the nutrient and
sediment reduction programs that will have the largest impact for the smallest
investment.
| "Upgrading
WWTPs is the top choice for nutrient and sediment reduction " |
Thirty four nutrient and sediment reduction
practices were evaluated and the six alternatives that can best be implemented
with the limited funding available were identified. Priority was given to
options that keep nutrients out of the environment, are considered reliable,
politically viable and have a source of financing over time. First among the top
six choices are WWTP upgrades.
