October 4, 2008

To the editor:

The Chesapeake Bay Act regulates setbacks for building next to creeks, bays and wetlands. It has been in force on the bayside of Accomack since 1988. If you want to know why you should support extending the Bay Act to the seaside of the county, as is presently proposed, read on.

Nobody likes regulations. But sometimes they are necessary to prevent disasters. If we do not act to protect our seaside wetlands and estuaries, we will experience yet another disaster like the one we just heard about in New York. A Melville, N.Y., Newsday article quotes New York Gov. David Paterson, "Long Island was once the most productive hard clam fishery in the United States." According to the State Department of Environmental Conservation, this fishery yielded about 700,000 bushels of hard clams in the 1970s, but last year yielded under 10,000 bushels.

Persistent water quality problems and recurrent blooms of brown algae, which cloud waters and make it hard for clams to feed, are blamed for the fishery crash. Recently, more than 2,000 fishermen and residents have written letters asking for Federal disaster relief.

Last week I checked with Michael J. Oesterling, who is the Fisheries/Aquaculture Specialist at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and asked about the value of clam aquaculture operations on the Eastern Shore.

He said that the Eastern Shore produces 90 to 95 percent of all the cultured hard clams in Virginia -- an estimated 212 million clams. In 2007, these clams had a dockside value of $27.5 million.

Their total economic value -- including the additional value for shipment and for equipment etc. -- amounts to $75 million. Since the majority of clams are sold out of state, this is an Eastern Shore export business. Clams are growing in double digits and I note that this is only one aquaculture industry. There are oysters and the potential for fin fish and others. Add this to the estimate of $144 million for the 2007 value of tourism from the Tourism Commission, and you get a lower bound of $219 million of economic activity which depends on having clean wetlands and estuaries.

At the last Board of Supervisors meeting on Sept. 17, spokespersons for developers asked what the benefit to the Bay Act is. This is a small piece. You do the math.

Along with storm water runoff regulations, the Bay Act setbacks keep estuaries from getting polluted by the types of runoff that cause brown tides and discourage tourists. It is necessary to prevent the type of disaster that has already happened up and down the East Coast and that last week prompted citizens in New York to ask for disaster relief.

I further point out that the Bay Act costs nothing to land owners. I built a house on the bayside in 2004 and sited it within the Bay Act guidelines on two sides. It cost me nothing to comply.

Saying no to this cost-free regulation means we will eventually lose at least $219 million in economic activity and the associated jobs. Don't like regulations? How about having to declare ourselves a disaster and go hat-in-hand to the federal government for relief? It is not a good time for this.

I'd rather support the Bay Act at the Nov. 12 public hearing.

Tony Picardi
Belle Haven