Another look at the battle of Reedy Creek restoration

An article from the Bay Journal.

June 15, 2016; 9:59 AM • by Richard Hayes

In the interest of fairness I’ve been asked by DPU to share this article from the Bay Journal which presents another examination on the proposed Reedy Creek restoration.

City officials said they want to encourage residents and businesses to put in green infrastructure. But they say they’re under the gun to meet their legal obligations to reduce the amount of pollution each stream is contributing to the James River and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay. They don’t have the luxury of time, they say, or the ability to require property owners to install such practices.

“We have to do both. We can’t not comply with the TMDL,” said Grace LeRose, who is in charge of making sure the city does its share to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load, better known by its acronym, TMDL. It sets limits that states and cities have to meet on the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that can wash or be discharged into the estuary.

The comment in the linked article takes direct issue with the science behind the Reedy Creek Coalition’s stance.

About Bay Journal: “Bay Journal is published by Chesapeake Media Service to inform the public about issues and events that affect the Chesapeake Bay.”