Doug Kanter wrote:
You're both right and wrong sorta kinda. I'm not familiar with the local
situation around the bay, but I do know that what's causing a lot of the
problem is the same thing that's causing problems in a couple of the Finger
Lakes of upstate NY: Runoff from farms, mostly normal fertilizers, and it
doesn't matter THAT much whether they're synthetic fertilizers or organic
ones, like composted manure which the Amish farmers use.

In most watersheds, definitely including the Chesapeake, runoff from
lawns is also a very big problem.

NC addressed the issue of runoff from upland farms by q very effective
method: money. Farmers are given incentives (big enough to affect
profitability) to have a buffer system of ditches and dikes around their
fields, with natural cover, which captures much of the fertilizer run-off.



... Here, I don't see
much arguing between the parties when it comes to working out these
problems. Local pols have to literally look their constituents in the eye,
and maybe watch restaurants, motels and marinas go out of business if they
allow a recreational resource like a lake turn to crap.

Hmmph. I suspect that you don't see the arguing because the side with
the most money always wins. I also suspect that the environmental
picture up there isn't as rosy as you paint it... especially considering
the low population density.

The biggest problem for the US east coast ecosystems is very simple...
lots & lots & lots of people. For example, Boston Harbor, that fabled
avatar of aquapurity, has about 10X more 'stuff' flushed & drained into
it than the total volume, much less the tidal exchange volume. This
threshold was crossed back in the 1800s... and there are effectively
zero wetlands. Is this the model for the future?


... I suspect that when
problems surrounding the Bay are fixed, it will also be local powers that
deal with it.


I suspect that they'll continue to fail to deal with it. Making
well-publicized but ineffective & inexpensive gestures is a lot more
politically expedient.


However, on a national level, where laws are made regarding more dangerous
pollutants, the Republican party is almost exclusively responsible for the
WEAKENING of the rules. If you don't agree with that, you're not reading
much.


Heh, under Reagan the EPA took a big hit. Under Bush Jr the EPA has all
but shut down. There is no effective environmental law enforcement on
the Federal level.

DSK