On 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.
