Post by melody on Feb 5, 2014 11:13:54 GMT -5
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION QUESTIONS WHY STATES OPPOSE CLEANING UP THE BAY
By Kimberly Hess
2/4/14
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation this morning hosted a brief conference call to question why 21 states that are not in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed have joined a lawsuit to stop the implementation of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.
Will Baker, president of the Foundation, expressed his outrage that 21 states, including Alaska and Florida have joined with
the American Farm Bureau Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and other agricultural lobbyist groups to halt implementation
of the blueprint. He explained the original lawsuit was decided by a federal judge in Harrisburg after 11 months of deliberation
and it was rejected, but that decision has been appealed. He said the judge described a vibrant and robust program, calling
it “cooperative federalism” between the states and federal government. He noted the Foundation is a full defendant in the
case.
In a statement, Baker said, “The Chesapeake Bay states have worked with the federal government to develop a Blueprint
for clean water in local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. And, it is working. A group of agricultural lobbyists
including the Farm Bureau and The Fertilizer Institute and others sued EPA to overturn the science-based pollution limits on
which the Blueprint is based. Judge Rambo…heralded the interaction between the federal government and the states as
cooperative federalism at its best. The Farm Bureau and other big-ag lobbying groups have appealed that decision. Now,
the Farm Bureau group has recruited 21 states and eight counties to support overturning the federal judge’s ruling… We
say to Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Alaska, and the other 17 states, don’t tell us how to restore clean water in our backyard.
Each of the six Bay states and the District of Columbia—including hard working famers, businesses, and individuals—are
cooperating. Together, we are well on our way to making our rivers and streams safer, improving habitat, protecting human
health, and strengthening local economies. Those are good things, at least here.”
In light of the action of the 21 states, Baker reported the Foundation is prepared to call on its members in those states to
challenge their governors and attorneys general to explain why they believe they have a right to try to stop efforts to clean
up the bay and rivers that feed it. He asked why those states are opposed to clean water and said the Foundation will do all
it can to get an explanation. Baker said the Foundation will also work to persuade the groups that have appealed the judge’s
decision to instead join the growing list of states, agencies, individuals, and businesses who are working cooperatively to
address clean water issues.
Baker stated he was taken by complete surprise that states outside the watershed would try to sue to stop the watershed
from cleaning up the water. He reported the good news is that the programs are in place and will continue to operate unless
the litigants are successful at overturning the blueprint. He lamented, however, that the litigation means time, money, and
effort has to be diverted to fight the attack.
By Kimberly Hess
2/4/14
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation this morning hosted a brief conference call to question why 21 states that are not in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed have joined a lawsuit to stop the implementation of the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.
Will Baker, president of the Foundation, expressed his outrage that 21 states, including Alaska and Florida have joined with
the American Farm Bureau Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and other agricultural lobbyist groups to halt implementation
of the blueprint. He explained the original lawsuit was decided by a federal judge in Harrisburg after 11 months of deliberation
and it was rejected, but that decision has been appealed. He said the judge described a vibrant and robust program, calling
it “cooperative federalism” between the states and federal government. He noted the Foundation is a full defendant in the
case.
In a statement, Baker said, “The Chesapeake Bay states have worked with the federal government to develop a Blueprint
for clean water in local rivers, streams, and the Chesapeake Bay. And, it is working. A group of agricultural lobbyists
including the Farm Bureau and The Fertilizer Institute and others sued EPA to overturn the science-based pollution limits on
which the Blueprint is based. Judge Rambo…heralded the interaction between the federal government and the states as
cooperative federalism at its best. The Farm Bureau and other big-ag lobbying groups have appealed that decision. Now,
the Farm Bureau group has recruited 21 states and eight counties to support overturning the federal judge’s ruling… We
say to Missouri, Indiana, Kansas, Alaska, and the other 17 states, don’t tell us how to restore clean water in our backyard.
Each of the six Bay states and the District of Columbia—including hard working famers, businesses, and individuals—are
cooperating. Together, we are well on our way to making our rivers and streams safer, improving habitat, protecting human
health, and strengthening local economies. Those are good things, at least here.”
In light of the action of the 21 states, Baker reported the Foundation is prepared to call on its members in those states to
challenge their governors and attorneys general to explain why they believe they have a right to try to stop efforts to clean
up the bay and rivers that feed it. He asked why those states are opposed to clean water and said the Foundation will do all
it can to get an explanation. Baker said the Foundation will also work to persuade the groups that have appealed the judge’s
decision to instead join the growing list of states, agencies, individuals, and businesses who are working cooperatively to
address clean water issues.
Baker stated he was taken by complete surprise that states outside the watershed would try to sue to stop the watershed
from cleaning up the water. He reported the good news is that the programs are in place and will continue to operate unless
the litigants are successful at overturning the blueprint. He lamented, however, that the litigation means time, money, and
effort has to be diverted to fight the attack.
