What will become of Chesapeake restoration under Trump?
Donald Trump famously has vowed to "drain the swamp." But what about cleaning up the bay?
The billionaire businessman's campaign and subsequent transition have raised more questions than answers about how a Trump administration would handle the massive Chesapeake Bay cleanup.
“That’s the $20,000, $20 million question these days, and I’m getting it a lot," said Katie Frazier, president of the Virginia Agribusiness Council. "I think it’s too early to tell.”
The president-elect's website presents position statements under 16 categories, such as cybersecurity, the economy and immigration. No environmental category is listed.
Trump's rhetoric and his pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, however, suggest a broad retrenchment is in the offing for the nation's environmental regulations and enforcement.
In his few specific comments on the environment, the real estate developer called the EPA's actions a "disgrace" and threatened to cut it to "little tidbits."
Although the EPA is the lead authority on the Chesapeake cleanup, it would be a herculean challenge to shut down the restoration effort entirely, even with conservatives in charge of all three branches of government. Still, Trump's administration could bog down the cleanup's progress at a time when critical deadlines are approaching.
”We’re going to have our hands full," said Eric Schaeffer, former head of the EPA's regulatory enforcement office and co-founder of the Environmental Integrity Project.
His main cause for concern, he said, is an EPA denuded of its powers — or simply its staffing — to compel foot-dragging states and industries to do their required part of the cleanup.
As far as environmentalists are concerned, Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to run the agency represents a potential case of the fox guarding the hen house. The New York Times has called Pruitt a "key architect" of the many legal fights to undo President Barack Obama's climate-change policies.
"The message is loud and clear," said Kathy Phillips, the Assateague Coastkeeper.
The bay restoration hinges on an executive order signed by Obama in 2009. The order puts the federal government in charge of administering the cleanup. Its tasks include identifying the actions to be taken, supporting an expanded research regimen and preparing for the effects of climate change.
Where Trump could hamper progress is by reducing or eliminating federal grants that have helped farmers take actions to reduce the amount of nutrients that run off their land, Frazier said.
“I know that juxtaposes against smaller government and less funding for agencies," she said.
READ MORE: Maryland and Delaware are on different Chesapeake cleanup paths
READ MORE: An EPA assessment shows states' efforts are mixed on restoring the bay
Farmers would prefer an approach that provides incentives to cut pollution like the cost-share grants rather than fines and sanctions, said Colby Ferguson, government regulations director for the Maryland Farm Bureau.
“A lot of that stuff is extremely expensive, like installing manure storage shreds or transitioning away from poultry litter to commercial fertilizer sources," he said. "Unless the crops are high and valuable, it’s difficult.”
Under a 2010 agreement, the District of Columbia and the six states in the bay's watershed — including Maryland, Delaware and Virginia — agreed to put themselves on a "pollution diet" to limit further water-quality degradation. It requires the jurisdictions to have the steps in place to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution by 60 percent by 2017. The deadline for completing the work is 2025.
If Trump's EPA fails to hold less-aggressive states accountable, it could result in more pressure being placed on other jurisdictions to manage the cleanup, Schaeffer said. One potential sore spot: Pennsylvania, which farmers and leaders of rural counties in Maryland have long accused of not doing enough to curb pollution entering the bay at the Susquehanna River.
Trump likely couldn't turn his back entirely on the cleanup. That's because the latest round in the decades-long effort was set in motion by a federal lawsuit. To fail to live up to the terms of the EPA's 2010 settlement agreement would be to invite the enmity of the original litigants.
“I don’t think that can really be re-litigated," Schaeffer said.
Last March, the Supreme Court declined to take up an American Farm Bureau Federation-led challenge to the cleanup, which had argued that the federal government had usurped state authority. That left in place a lower court ruling that granted the EPA jurisdiction to enforce total maximum daily loads, or TMDLs, under the Clean Water Act.
One more inauspicious sign for environmentalists: Pruitt was one of the 21 state attorneys general who backed the lawsuit.
"While Mr Pruitt may have a tough time reversing the court decision on the Bay TMDL," Phillips said, "it's the visual of the president-elect appointing someone who advocates for deregulation of environmental protections, who is a climate change denier and who sued the EPA to head the EPA."
There could be room for changes, though, Ferguson said.
“It was done by lawsuit so it’s not like all of a sudden it would just go away really easily," he said. "But at the same time, it’s one of those things you’ve got to look to see is it effective to do that or is it effective to stick with the programs that are working.”
410-845-4630
On Twitter @Jeremy_Cox