patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

How Did Our Environment Get in This Mess?

It only took a little more than a generation for suburban development to compromise the health of our watersheds.

 

Every day I hear or read some more bad news concerning the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Dead zones with no oxygen to support life, sediment clouded water killing submerged aquatic vegetation, fertilizer runoff causing destructive algae blooms that rob the water of oxygen, and declining oyster and crab populations have all been in the news frequently in recent years.

It seems that in our efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay, we end up taking two steps forward and three steps back. The situation is frustrating to say the least—and yet, we cannot give up trying to reverse the ill effects that our day-to-day living has brought upon the bay.

Growing up here in Severna Park, I remember seeing my toes while in chest deep water, finding soft crabs in grass beds and seeing skipjacks dredge for oysters. However, in my lifetime, these scenes are now just memories in all but a few areas of the bay.

What caused these once commonplace sights and experiences to disappear? 

Development of land in the watershed is the chief culprit. Unfortunately, there was not a template for the type of suburban development that this area experienced in the decades following World War II.

New roads were built, gasoline was much less expensive, people began buying one or more cars for their growing families and many folks wanted to live the new version of the American dream in a three-bedroom, bath-and-a-half home in the suburbs.

Who could blame people for taking advantage of the opportunity to get out of the noisy, congested cities and, for the first time, buy their own home in the brand new suburbs? As wonderful as this lifestyle change was, there was also a downside to all the new development that would become evident as time progressed.

As development increased, so did the amount of paved surfaces as roads were improved, parking lots constructed, and sidewalks and driveways were built in our communities.

To drain all the newly paved areas, storm drains were installed to direct water from these surfaces into nearby creeks and rivers so that standing water would not be a problem. As the numerous residential and commercial construction sites rains would often wash exposed soil into storm drains or directly into nearby bodies of water where the water would turn muddy from the sediment until it settled to the bottom.

However, during the '50s and '60s, the impact from the development boom did not seem to adversely affect the health of our creeks, rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.

We now know that all the development in our area did have serious consequences upon the environmental health of our watersheds. Sediment-clouded water prevented adequate sunlight from reaching the once plentiful submerged aquatic vegetation.

As the grass beds disappeared, young fish and crabs had fewer places to develop in size. Oxygen levels in the water declined as dangerous algae blooms were fueled by runoff containing excessive nutrients. Disease and poor water quality caused the demise of the once plentiful oyster population which helped filter the water in the Chesapeake Bay.

While this scenario is grim, there is hope that these trends can be reversed. People are becoming more conscious of their individual and collective impact upon our watersheds. Better stormwater management practices have been developed to reduce stormwater runoff and municipal sewer systems are gradually replacing septic systems as a means to treat wastewater.

It is worth noting that many of the current water quality problems occurred in the span of 60 years. Each of us needs to examine the consequences of how our lifestyles impact the quality of the water around us and continue to learn from our past mistakes. Perhaps sometime within the next decade (or decades), folks will once again be able to wade in chest-deep water and clearly see their feet in our rivers and the Chesapeake Bay.      

Related Topics: Development, Pollution, and runoff

Dylan Donahue

2:28 pm on Monday, April 11, 2011

Green roofs are a great way to stop the flow of chemicals into the bay from storm water runoff. Of course, all the new construction is the main factor, but maybe if green roofs were installed on more of the new construction, there would be some positive effects. As a Maryland native, this subject is very important to me. For more green roof information, please see www.greensulate.com

Reply
Comment_arrow

John Dawson

8:50 pm on Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Good comment Dylan. Green roofs another way to help curb run off pollution. I really believe that we need to do more "outside the box" thinking when dealing with the problems in our environment.

John Dawson

9:16 pm on Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Tom Horton

re: your very good editorial on our environmental mess. have you considered that we're going to have to pay attention to how many people live around the bay as well as to what impact each of them has? look at it this way: first 8 million of us in the bay watershed, 1600's to 1950's, certainly not living so green, but bay healthy, as you recall second 8 million, 1950's to 2010, actually doing a lot more to reduce impacts than prior to 1950's, but not enough, big bay declines third eight million, by around 2050 or 2060...not only expected, but sought avidly (i.e. all our growth policies seek to increase jobs, size of economy and numbers of us). bottom line: we're still talking about returning the bay to something like its eight million person status, even as we plow along toward 24 million. on paper, you might achieve that. in reality I don't know anyone credible who really believes we can. you can say there's nothing we can do about growth, or that we have to have it; but what's that based on other than a lack of critical thinking and lack of analyzing the different experiences in other parts of the developed world? I have been reading editorials like yours, earnest, well meaning, sensible sounding, for several decades. I have to conclude what they all propose as solutions haven't worked, or not well enough.

Reply

Mark

12:28 am on Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Like CBF who has fought a losing battle for over 40 years, the propaganda continues. I suspect like MRA they have a different agenda.
2 billion gallons of raw sewage continue to flow into the bay from municipalities. The State continues to dump spoils. Does anyone remember the state using agent orange to kill the seaweed - the bottom of the food chain and underwater habitat - clogging propellers?
Run-off that has been occurring since the beginning of time I think not. What a coincidence that the very chemicals blamed most recently for the demise of the Bay - nitrogen and phosphorus - are also byproducts of sewage treatment. The 3 biggest offenders are the Patapsco, Anacostia and Elizabeth River. The Anacostia alone has 1 billion gallons of raw sewage flowing into it annually.

Reply

Leave a comment