College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Mattawoman: Constructing or destructing?

By Matt Dernoga

|

Published: Monday, October 26, 2009

Updated: Monday, October 26, 2009

A week ago, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) announced a bill to clean up the Chesapeake Bay by giving the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to set pollution reduction goals for states whose pollution harms the bay. Federal funding would be cut if those targets aren’t met. The legislation, titled the Bay Ecosystem Restoration Act, would also authorize $2 billion for the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to spend on cleanup and best practices.

Passing this bill would be a good step, particularly toward actually putting some teeth into regulations by punishing states who slack off. Up until now, the main strategy for saving the Chesapeake Bay has been to fund an exponentially larger broom to clean up our growing mess, oblivious to the concept of preventing the mess in the first place. This could be why the Chesapeake Bay Foundation rated the health of the bay in 2008 a 28 out of 100 — one full point higher than the score in 1998. Ah, the smell of bullshit consistency. 

Gov. Martin O’Malley and other state officials have a great opportunity to break the tendency of making the cleanup a national disgrace. Mattawoman Creek in Charles County is one of the most pristine, healthy streams that flows into the Chesapeake bay. It’s also one of the premier fish nurseries on the East Coast, consistently drawing tourism and Bassmaster Tournaments. Charles County government wants to build an extension of a highway called the cross-county connector across the full width of the Mattawoman watershed.

This would no doubt generate thousands of acres of new sprawl and development around the creek, where the 2,200-acre Chapman forest is currently located. Talk about one-upping the Wooded Hillock. The only thing funnier than this plan is Charles County officials arguing that developing over Mattawoman Creek will actually help save it. The Maryland Department of the Environment has to decide whether to approve a permit for this development proposal.

If I was a member of MDE and found this request on my doorstep, the first thing I would do is check to see whether it’s April Fools’ Day. The rejection would be swift. Instead, MDE has been deliberating over the permit for many months, giving serious consideration to a proposal that is seriously bad.

We need more leadership on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay not just by throwing money at the problem, but by enforcing strong standards on development and pollution so pollutants don’t get into the Chesapeake bay in the first place. Cardin has shown that we can count on him. Can the state also count on O’Malley to follow Cardin’s lead?

Past development decisions, such as allowing the construction of the Intercounty Connector, do not inspire confidence. Neither does MDE’s hesitation in rejecting the permit for construction of the cross-county connector, which would lead to the destruction of Mattawoman Creek. With one of the healthiest fish nurseries in the Chesapeake Bay region on the line, reckless development decisions such as paving over a body of water with a highway should lead MDE to a simple conclusion, be it bay or creek.

Why would we want to destroy something good?

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at dernoga at umdbk dot com.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

8 comments Log in to Comment

Scott Sewell
Thu Oct 29 2009 22:36
Well stated Matt!

Scott Sewell
Conservation Director
Maryland Bass Federation Nation

njr
Wed Oct 28 2009 10:45
Matt Dernoga's article is SPOT ON!!! Charles County is NOT by ANY means managing their watersheds in an environmentally sound manner. That the Mattawoman is STILL considered somewhat pristine speaks to the fact that CC has just recently seen an out-of-control growth spurt. It's develop at all costs down here in Charles, and how much longer the Mattawoman can remain one of the largest fish spawning areas for the Chesapeake Bay remains to be seen.
MAS
Wed Oct 28 2009 09:55
I am a resident of Charles County and would be directly affected by the wholesale, rampant development facilitated by this outdated transportation strategy of a highway. Matt, my dear, thank you for your article…it is right on the money!

With regards to ana costia, you are missing an important point: while state and federal agencies have been, for decades, pledging to clean up the Bay, local governments have been doing as they please, destroying acres of forest and the waterways that run through them. The Bay needs strong, enforceable laws that control land use at the LOCAL level.

In Charles, our local government is NOT managing its watersheds. Take Mattawoman for example. The county’s comprehensive plan has approx. 60 percent of Mattawoman’s watershed designated as a development district where 70 percent of the county’s growth will go over the next ten years. This will kill the creek.

Streams such as Campus, Paint Branch, and Mattawoman are all part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Raising the importance of preserving the Mattawoman before it is destroyed is not one county “sniping” at another since clean water is vital to all of us. After all, water knows no boundaries.

Your name
Tue Oct 27 2009 21:01
Mattawoman Creek is the BEST bass fishing spot in Maryland... Me and my pops took our boat there multiple times this past summer. Appreciate the article Matt.
Linda
Tue Oct 27 2009 16:04
We all need to save all the watersheds in the world that are still functioning and work to restore those that are not. Unfortunately, Charles County officials are ignorantly planning the destruction of the Mattawoman because "it's the PLAN". A graph on the County's website under "Mattawoman Watershed Protection Plan" depicts the Mattawoman rendered "nonfunctioning" at buildout.
MD Girl
Tue Oct 27 2009 13:45
Isn't a considerable portion of the Mattawoman's upstream watershed in the southern section of Prince George’s County? And isn't College Park in PG County? Interesting viewpoint below, albeit a little short-sighted. Truly a bay-wide approach is best. We should all care about the Mattawoman's health because it directly affects the Bay's health. This issue does not exist in a vacuum.
MD Girl
Tue Oct 27 2009 13:44
Isn't a considerable portion of the Mattawoman's upstream watershed in the southern section of Prince George’s County? And isn't College Park in PG County? Interesting viewpoint above, albeit a little short-sighted. Truly a bay-wide approach is best. We should all care about the Mattawoman's health because it directly affects the Bay's health. This issue does not exist in a vacuum.
ana costia
Tue Oct 27 2009 13:04
Maybe campus community should focus on improving Campus Creek and Paint Branch, instead of poking fingers at local decisions in Charles County? They seem to be managing their watersheds pretty well without their urban neighbors' hypocritically sniping from the banks of the Anacostia watershed, thank you very much.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In