Blue Crabs versus Green Lawns: We may have to decide

What happens if we are unable to achieve federally mandated water quality standards in our lakes, rivers, and bays?

In 1972, Congress enacted the Clean Water Act governing water pollution in the U.S. Among other things, the Clean Water Act regulates the release of pollutants into surface waters from point sources of pollution. Individual states determine water quality standards for bodies of water within their borders.

Are some of these water quality standards essentially unattainable now without major lifestyle changes in the watersheds of certain major bodies of water, such as Chesapeake Bay? In the past 30-40 years, the U.S. has been extraordinarily effective in reducing pollutant discharges from “point sources” such as public and private wastewater treatment plants. Many of these treatment plants are operating at or near the current limits of technology with extremely high removal efficiencies, such that further improvements could be quite costly with perhaps little additional pollutant removal.

Despite those significant reductions in pollutant discharges from point sources, to achieve compliance with water quality standards, we still have a long way to go in reducing nitrogen and/or phosphorus loading in the Chesapeake Bay and other water bodies, such as Falls Reservoir in my own backyard. That is because these nutrients also enter lakes, rivers, and bays from “nonpoint sources” in the watershed, such as agricultural fields, feedlots, stormwater drainage from urban areas, and lawn fertilizers. In the case of Falls Reservoir in North Carolina, phosphorus in soils that were flooded to create the reservoir thirty years ago is likely still being released into the water, slowing recovery of the reservoir from nutrient enrichment.

The effects of nutrients in waterbodies range from annoying to dangerous. High levels of nitrogen and phosphorus cause excessive growth of algae, which when the algae decompose, can deplete oxygen needed by fish and shellfish. Fish kills can result. Some algal blooms are toxic, causing potential threats to aquatic life and possibly to humans. Also, affected water can become discolored or cloudy and take on odors, impacting recreational activities such as swimming and boating.

Measures to control nonpoint pollution are expensive and may be imposed on communities that do not easily benefit from use of the body of water being protected. For instance, New York State and West Virginia are required as part of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup to implement a plan to reduce their nutrient loading to Chesapeake Bay (CB), since some of their land is in the CB watershed and thus contributes to the problem. Perhaps it is not surprising, but understandingly distressing to many in the environmental community, that legal challenges have already arisen even in the early stages of the Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

It may be that our urban/suburban lifestyle expectations are not compatible with the water quality needed to support desirable uses like commercial and recreational fishing.  Perhaps current water quality standards will ultimately require such drastic measures as banning residential lawns, restricting agriculture, and/or limiting development and urban growth within a watershed. Given the unlikelihood that we will halt urban development or curtail agricultural activities in watersheds, it is possible that we cannot achieve current water quality standards in some of our major U.S. waterbodies.

We must also consider what we gain by even partial compliance with mandated pollutant controls. Does an expenditure of 70% of the total estimated costs for point and nonpoint pollution control equal a 70% gain in water quality benefits? Not necessarily.

So, do we want blue crabs and oysters badly enough in Chesapeake Bay even if it requires that we curtail urban development and forego our manicured lawns? While this is a contentious issue, it seems prudent to engage in a discussion of these cost/benefit trade-offs (along with recognition of the distribution of costs and benefits) before proceeding too far with major public investments that yield little beneficial return.