Scientists Urge More Aggressive Cleanup

Stepped-Up Regulation Backed as 25-Year Effort Fails to Meet Long-Term Deadlines

A group of scientists who study the Chesapeake Bay took on a new role -- environmental activism -- yesterday, when they made an unusual appeal to revamp the bay's government-led cleanup effort.

That effort began 25 years ago today, with an agreement signed by three governors, the mayor of Washington and the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Now, the program has spent nearly $6 billion but has failed to deliver the healthy estuary that was promised.

Yesterday, the scientists joined with environmentalists and former Maryland officials to call for a major change. They said the current effort -- which relies largely on encouraging voluntary measures, such as reimbursing farmers or septic tank owners who reduce pollution -- should be scrapped.

In its place, they proposed using tougher regulations to force the bay's polluters to clean up.

"People are not buying in. They are not doing the right thing," said Walter R. Boynton, a professor at the University of Maryland's Chesapeake Biological Laboratory since 1978. "At this stage, we need to use a much heavier hand."

That call, made during a news conference in Annapolis, comes at what may be the lowest point for the Chesapeake cleanup, which involves state, federal and local authorities and is coordinated by the EPA.

Despite a quarter-century of work, the bay's biggest problem -- pollution-driven "dead zones," where fish and crabs can't breathe -- has not significantly improved. Officials with the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office concede that the cleanup won't meet its next major deadline, which requires a much cleaner estuary by 2010.

At a meeting of the cleanup's leaders this month, governors and EPA officials said they would stop setting long-term deadlines and focus instead on short-term goals. Unsatisfied, a coalition of environmentalists and watermen's groups is still threatening a lawsuit.

"Our expectations have collapsed, along with the Chesapeake Bay," said former Maryland state senator Gerald W. Winegrad (D-Anne Arundel), who has given slideshow presentations about the bay's decline to audiences around Maryland.

In addition to Boynton, the bay scientists at yesterday's news conference included Thomas R. Fisher, a professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and Thomas W. Simpson, a former U-Md. professor.

Boynton cited a recent long-term study of the Patuxent River, which showed that some contamination is backwashing upstream into the river. After being polluted by its tributaries for centuries, the Chesapeake is dirty enough to return the favor.

"This is a really disastrous trend. Truly awful," Boynton said. He said such developments had inspired the scientists to make their case publicly.

The proposal unveiled yesterday contained few specifics. But no matter what form it takes, increased regulation of farms, septic tanks and city storm sewers is likely to be a hard sell.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman for the Maryland Farm Bureau said new regulations would be a serious financial burden on farmers.

"That is not going to fly for some time," said U.S. Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (R-Md.), who is leaving office after nine terms. But Gilchrest said such a proposal might lead to an important debate. "What can happen is a discussion about why the bay is dying," he said.

Yesterday, officials in the Maryland and Virginia governments said they would consider the ideas, as did U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), who has been active on bay issues.

Jeffrey L. Lape, head of the EPA's bay program, spoke at yesterday's news conference, promising the scientists and activists that he would work to improve the cleanup.

Later, EPA spokesman Travis Loop said it would be counterproductive to scrap the bay program and start over. "It would kind of take the regional restoration effort back to square one, and that's not what's needed at this point," he said.