An Interview with Will Baker, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

March 2009 National Building Museum Online

In January 2009, the National Building Museum launched the Sustainable Communities lecture series that expands on the exhibition Green Community, which examines how we plan, design, and construct the world between our buildings. The Museum spoke with Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and a panelist in the March 31st Sustainable Communities program “Water Knows No Boundaries”, about the efforts to preserve and protect the Bay and its watershed.

National Building Museum (NBM) Online: How can we effectively communicate issues of watershed protection to the
general public? 

Will Baker: Effective communications must come through all media–print, electronic, web-based, blogs, etc. –and must be respectful of the science. What is most difficult for the public is what I call the “yo-yo effect.” One day the public may read
about underwater grasses literally carpeting the Northern Bay, and feel good. A week later, there may be a major news
story about dead zones due to lack of dissolved oxygen and they feel bad. Both articles may be accurate, but their
juxtaposition is confusing to the public. That is one reason why the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) created and publishes its health index annually – based on 13 different indices, each scored from 1-100, and averaged into one number.

NBM Online: The Chesapeake Bay watershed includes parts of six states (Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York) and the District of Columbia. How do we encourage these governments to cooperate on watershed issues? 

Baker: The three primary states in the watershed–Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania–comprise 85 percent of the watershed. Their governors, the administrator of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Mayor of
D.C. constitute the Executive Council, which is the Bay’s governing body.
The three “minor states”–New York, Delaware and West Virginia–have
been encouraged to work with the Council. The federal government, the
only jurisdiction which has watershed-wide responsibilities, has only one vote. Depending on who is president, it
has been more or less effective in its role.

Until a single entity, with watershed-wide responsibility and authority, is in place or until the federal government asserts its
authority under the Clean Water Act, the cleanup is unlikely to be managed systemically. Only a systems approach to
restoring a natural resource as complex as the entire Chesapeake Bay Watershed will ultimately work. CBF asserts that
the federal government has abrogated its responsibilities under the Clean Water Act, and that is why we are suing them. 

NBM Online: The Clean Water Act of 1972 was a sweeping piece of legislation that changed the way we protect water resources in the U.S. Has it lived up to its goal of making the nation’s waterways, including the Chesapeake Bay, “fishable and swimmable?”

Baker: The Clean Water Act itself cannot “live up” to its goal, but the federal agency charged with enforcing it can, and should be held accountable. While the EPA was part of a process that was making some progress and building some momentum up until 2001, that progress was dramatically reversed between 2001 and 2009. The CBF has been forced to bring legal action against EPA twice, once in 2004 and now again in 2009. The EPA (with the exception of the short time when it was run by Christine Todd Whitman, who was fired) has not just been an ineffective partner; it has been a negative force undercutting the good intentions of the states.  This is not a partisan commentary.  Five former EPA Administrators (three of whom were Republican) repudiated Administrator Stephen Johnson for his environmental deregulation.

While most of the Bay, and the tributary rivers to the head of tide, are officially “impaired” under the Clean Water Act, advisories as to the amount of fish that should be consumed are issued across the watershed and across numerous species. Water contact in certain locations and during certain times of the year when bacteria are most prevalent is either prohibited or discouraged. 

NBM Online: Stormwater runoff is a major source of pollution in the Chesapeake Bay. What can be done to address this issue? 

Baker: Stormwater runoff is one of four major sources of pollution. The other three are agricultural runoff, airborne deposition, and sewage treatment plant and industrial discharges. There are a number of practices and technologies that can reduce stormwater runoff, and, in fact, the Clean Water Act requires municipalities to meet certain standards. These standards have largely been ignored by the states that have been delegated with implementation authority. In our region, the first locality to institute a stormwater management permitting system that includes nitrogen limits is Montgomery County. The Montgomery County program, while not perfect, can be a model for other jurisdictions in the watershed. 

NBM Online: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically includes $4 billion for assistance to help communities with water quality and wastewater infrastructure needs. Does the Chesapeake Bay Foundation plan to tap into these funds?

Baker: The $4 billion appropriated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund – the principal way that the federal government supports state and local projects to stop pollution to America’s waters. The money is divided according to a set formula among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Funds will be spent by the states to improve wastewater treatment plants and infrastructure, to limit urban and suburban runoff to our streams and rivers, and in some cases, to help farmers limit commercial and natural fertilizer runoff. For example, in the District, the money will go to the Blue Plains wastewater treatment plant – the biggest such plant in the world, but at the same time the biggest single polluter of the Chesapeake Bay. 

All told, more than $800 million of the $4 billion will come to the six states plus the District of Columbia that contribute pollution to the Chesapeake Bay. CBF’s main interest is making sure that those funds are spent wisely on projects that will directly limit pollution, and not just on the routine maintenance items that can be paid from other sources of funds. We have written to the governors of the six states, and to Mayor Fenty, to share our ideas and encourage them to spend the money directly on pollution reduction. We are discussing among ourselves whether we should also approach them to offer our help in areas where we have special expertise – for example, providing technical help to farmers interested in building buffers along stream banks to keep fertilizer runoff out. We’re certainly willing to help out with our expertise, but the key point is that we want the money to go directly to projects that will help the Bay.   

Register for "Water Knows No Boundaries" on March 31.

More information about the lecture series and the exhibition, including program video and audio, exhibition tours, and Q&A forums with program panelists can be found here.

The Sustainable Communities lecture series is sponsored by United Technologies Corporation.

Get National Building Museum news.