A second look at the EPA-McDonnell decision to “green” Richmond
By JR Hoeft | Friday, August 6th, 2010 | PolicyOn Tuesday, Gov. Bob McDonnell stood with EPA representatives and longtime Democrat and Richmond Mayor Dwight Jones to announce that nearly $1 million would be spent on projects meant to “green” Richmond in order to protect the James River (and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay) from storm water run off.
The projects – rain gardens and special bricks – are meant to absorb more water into the ground as opposed to the water draining directly into the James.
My initial reaction was that this is not a bad project and something is better than nothing. I also was critical of Americans For Prosperity for what I perceived to be an over the top reaction to the governor’s proposal.
However, after having thought about this for a couple days, I still don’t mind the project but,
1) I understand why AFP is critical of the administration here and appreciate their consistency
2) I’m not sure this is the best way to spend nearly a million dollars, if it really is being done for environmental purposes
3) I’m disappointed with the administration’s response to the criticism
First, looking at AFP, they have long been critical of the EPA and their attacks on the U.S. economy. The EPA is a strong proponent of cap and trade, which, is part of the energy bill being debated in the Senate. The Kerry-Lieberman bill outlines cuts in CO2 emissions 52 percent below the 2005 level in 2035, which will force severe reductions in energy use and economic activity. According to the Heritage Foundation, “the ensuing higher energy costs would impose extraordinary losses on the economy. Income losses would amount to nearly $10 trillion and job losses would exceed 2.5 million.”
The EPA has also unilaterally made a decision to regulate CO2 emissions in vehicles, which has been steadfastly fought by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli, as you are aware, is leading the charge against specious climate change data being used to make policy decisions.
So, it does seem a little odd that McDonnell, the jobs governor, would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with an EPA that has a record of being against the Virginia economy.
AFP has long pointed out the EPA’s aggressive approach at regulation and government overstretch, so it should come as no surprise that they were notably suspicious of this latest initiative.
Second, while in the grand scheme of things, spending $800,000 might not seem like much when you compare it to the $13,000,000,000,000+ national debt that we have, but it is spending nonetheless and, as conservatives, we should advocate money being spent on the most effective ways of cleaning up the bay.
What about restoring wetlands? Oyster beds? Tax breaks for companies who take proactive steps to reduce waste runoff (such as into the Pagan River)?
Also, don’t we want water to run off? Richmond is part of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, which feeds a fresh supply of freshwater into the ecosystem. Is trapping rain in rain gardens and special bricks potentially going to impact tributaries into the James and reduce wetlands surrounding Richmond?
Third, I’ve learned that the administration is responding to criticism that they are receiving via email by saying that this was an initiative by the previous administration and that they’re merely implementing it. If that is the case, then why is the administration taking credit for it? And, that begs the question, why did they go forward with this project anyway? It’s not as if they went along with the previous administration’s proposed budget.
Conservation is a conservative value – and it’s one that I personally support. And, while I still applaud the governor for moving forward with steps to make environmental progress, I can certainly understand why others might be critical of this project in the context of ongoing policy decisions and financial nightmares.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
Comments
8 Responses to "A second look at the EPA-McDonnell decision to “green” Richmond"
Instead of eliminating runoff, why not filter it? Isn’t runoff what naturally feeds our rivers? The problem isn’t runoff, the problem is that the runoff is dirty.
This gubernatorial PR “feel good” effort not only wastes funds but is a purposeful distraction from necessary genuine efforts necessary to clean the Chesapeake. How about letting VMRC set the harvest limits for menhaden rather the GA which is influenced by lobbyists not conversation?
I agree completely. I’m glad to see you applaud the consistent fiscally conservative efforts of AFP, and also pleased that you note the inconsistency of the McDonnell administration on fiscal issues large and small. Also, glad you noted that we don’t need to filter rainwater runoff from a four acre hill full of grass and rose gardens…that’s just common sense thinking.
In the response to my email, the governor replied, “It is important to note that the project, designed to reduce the impact of pollution run-off from the Virginia Capitol grounds, was approved and funded during the last administration.” This is a scapegoat response and a situation where McDonnell could have easily said “Thanks, but no thanks.” to the EPA. It might only be less than the state pays Howie Mandel to be on our lottery tickets ($860k), but it’s still nearly a million bucks that could be spent downriver on actually protecting the Bay instead of landscaping in Richmond.
Perhaps you have failed to see the parking for Legislators and the Governor that surrounds the capitol grounds and which drains directly into the river.
While I understand, and share much of, the animosity towards the EPA, we can’t just dismiss every policy and program because they’re EEEEVIL.
Beyond that, your science is a bit flawed regarding runoff. Of course water is going to run off. But there’s a difference between the amount of water that runs off (see Gaston) and the nutrients or pollutants that are in the water.
Both the rain gardens and the porous pavers are designed to filter the water. Controlling what is in the water that goes into the rivers and the bay is a significant part of how you restore the wetlands and the oyster beds.
Protecting the Bay neither begins nor ends at the shoreline. In one sense or another we all live downstream.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Bearing Drift, Old Virginia. Old Virginia said: New Blog Post: A second look at the EPA-McDonnell decision to “green” Richmond http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/bearingdrift/~3/tdAIaEwKQtc/ [...]
Unless I am mistaken this was a grant from the EPA. That means if McDonnell didn’t take it, someone else would have. The taxpayers’ money was going to be spent regardless, might as well have it spent on us.
What would be the point in refusing a grant with no strings attached?
Dear Sirs,
We are a bearing manufacturer here in China,Our main products include rod end bearings, linear bearings, radial spherical plain bearings, they are of high quality and at low price. Could you help us?Our company website is jjbearing.cn.
Now we are supplying bearings to Germany,United States, India. Netherlands. Czech, Poland for a long time.
We hope we can have the opportunity to cooperate with you.
Contact: TOM
MSN & Mail: 2660762@jjbearings.com
Tel:0086-0578-2660762: mobile phone 15906886697
Fax:0086-0578-2126755
Web: http://www.jjbearing.CN
Company:ZheJiangJingJiu bearings co.,ltd.
ADDRESS:LiYang STREET NO.1119,LiShui City,TianNing Zone, ZheJiang province,China
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.