Full document / COSOC-W-86-002 - the National Sea Grant Library

The Chesapeake Bay Comaisslon was formed In 1981 to coordinate
legislation and policy decisions between the States of Maryland end
Virginia as they relate to Chesapeake Bay. In 1985 it was enlarged
to include Pennsylvania. The Commission is lsrgoly legislative in
orientation; fifteen of twenty-one members are state senators or
delegates. Because of its makeup, the Cosalssion focuses primarily
on those things which legislators either do - such as introduce
legislation and approvo budgets - or acquiesce In, such as adoption
of controversial regulations.
Whan the Commission was first formed, there was a perception that one
of its main functions would be to make tho legislation in the two
states - Maryland and Virginia - more uniform. The original focus
was on fisheries management. As the Chesapeake Bay Program studies
drew to a close in 1983, environmental quality became more of a
focus. On both fronts, uniformity has proven to be an elusive, and,
perhaps not worth while, goal. Today, the Commission is concerned
that state responses to common problems are consistent and are of
equivalent effectiveness. Other papers on Chesapeake Bay this
volume have documented tho tremendous amount that the Chesapeake Bay
region's governments and citizens have been able to accomplish so far
in terms of new legislation and budget initiatives, and Innovative
programs.
In many subject areas, Maryland and Virginia, and also Pennsylvania
and the District of Columbia, have been able to agroo on a common set
of problems and solutions. This common set of problems and solutions
is' almost wholly based on information and recommendations emanating
from the seven year $27 million EPA Chesapeake Bay Program,3 and an
excellent job of communicating the study's results. Improved sewage
treatment, agricultural bast management practices cost share
programs, monitoring of living resources and water quality, chlorine
removal and planting submerged grasses have all gotten substantial
boosts.
I will focus, however, on some areas of divergence, and the role
scientific or management information - or the lack of it - has played
in that divergence. I will use three examples: (1) sediment control,
(2) coastal land use, and (3) striped bass management. In each of
these three areas tho availability and type of Information accessible
have played a role in the differing positions taken by the two
states, and particularly by state legislators.
It is necessary to point out that there are other factors, which are
of equal, and in many casas, much greater importance in influencing
the shape of legislative action. Deep rooted philosophical
differences in the role of government in problem solving, differences
in the geographical distribution of legislative districts, and real
physical differences in tho nature of the environmental problems
facing each jurisdiction do exist. Nonetheless, information
availability has played a not insignificant role.
The first illustration I will use is sediment control. In the early
1970's, both Harylsnd and Virginia enacted laws which required a
sediment control plan to be prepared and approved by local
495