Chesapeake remains sick

‘‘The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It is on life support, fighting for survival,” said William C. Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. ‘‘Are we going to save it, or are we going to let it die? Our elected officials will have to make that decision and time is running out.”

The 2007 State of the Bay report indicates the watershed’s health rating, based on 13 indicators, dropped one point this year to 28 on a scale of 100.

And as population within the 64,000-square-mile watershed soars, the challenges become steeper.

‘‘The treadmill is going faster and faster, and we’re having to run faster just to stay even,” Baker said.

While states have taken steps to reduce the amount of nitrogen that enters the Bay, advocates said the goal of 110 million pounds of annual reduction by 2010 appears out of reach.

For one thing, the Bush administration has cut federal funding for sewage treatment plant upgrades $162 million, or 19 percent, between fiscal 2004 and 2007, Baker said. For another, the federal government has issued regulations that contribute to increased air pollution from coal-fired power plants, he charged.

But there are some encouraging signs.

The Maryland General Assembly last month approved spending $50 million to restore the Bay. Virginia committed $250 million in early 2007 to upgrade wastewater plants, and Pennsylvania this summer created a program to support agricultural conservation.

The governors of those three states, who comprise one-half of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, was scheduled to meet Wednesday in Annapolis, to discuss Bay initiatives after The Gazette’s press time.

Advocates want the council, which includes Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty (D), Del. James W. Hubbard (D-Dist. 23A) of Bowie and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representative, to make three pledges: fund the upgrade of Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant in Washington, accelerate the implementation of agricultural conservation programs, and require stormwater permits to have nitrogen limits.

Combined, those commitments would reduce nitrogen pollution by 50 million pounds, Baker said. ‘‘We must spend new and existing dollars better and smarter.”

Too little was done in the early part of the decade to improve the Bay’s health, advocates said, and officials are now playing catch-up to get close to the 2010 benchmark.

The Bay’s health has hovered in the high 20s for too long, but implementing some of the restoration initiatives without further delay will pay dividends, said Kim Coble, the CBF’s Maryland executive director.

She hopes the legislature’s $50 million investment demonstrates how serious Maryland is about cleaning the watershed. ‘‘[Maryland is] saying we may not meet 2010, but we’re not going to give up. We need the other states to do the same.”

The report evaluated 13 indicators: oysters, shad, blue crabs, rockfish, underwater grasses, wetlands, forested buffers, resource lands, toxics, water clarity, dissolved oxygen, and phosphorus and nitrogen pollution.