Summary

Half Way to a Way Healthy River

This year’s report card for river health gives the James River an overall score of 59 percent and a grade of a C+ on the grading scale most commonly used to measure the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its rivers. While the score has increased one percent in the past two years, troubling signs indicate the need to strengthen river estoration efforts. Without an increased commitment, we risk backsliding and reversing the modest progress we have made.

Within the overall score is a mix of stories—successes and challenges, celebrations and tragedies. While bald eagles continue an impressive expansion, fish populations throughout the river basin face ominous threats. Brook trout populations remain unhealthy in most of its range, mysterious fish kills are impacting smallmouth bass, shad are at historic lows and striped bass stocks in the river have fallen and are susceptible to bacterial infections. On the positive side, three of the critical habitats included in the report have improved in recent years. For instance, underwater grasses continued to expand and now cover 40 percent of where they have been documented in the past. Some of this is due to reduced pollution levels entering the river in recent years that have helped improve water quality and
habitat conditions.

However, some of the reduced pollution levels are simply due to lower rainfall in recent years resulting in less polluted runoff. When the true effectiveness of pollution control efforts is measured, removing the influence of annual weather variations, progress in reducing harmful pollutants has stagnated and in some cases reversed. Most notably and perhaps most alarmingly, the long-term, adjusted average of pollution discharges to the James River has leveled off from significant improvements achieved early in the river cleanup effort. Despite advances in wastewater treatment sufficient to meet the 2010 goals and millions of dollars of public and private investment toward reducing pollution, we have not seen the progress that we should expect. More consistent state and federal funding for agricultural programs has helped farmers implement more pollution-reducing practices, but funding levels are still far from what is needed. Additionally, this paradox—the slowing of actual pollution controls despite increased investment in wastewater and agricultural programs— shows that other sources of pollution, such as new and existing development, must be addressed in a more forceful manner.

Even so, strong actions on specific issues have helped to bring America’s Founding River back to some semblance of health. We must continue to take strong actions to keep the James River’s health moving in the right direction; unless we do so, we risk losing the progress that we have made to date. The choice is ours. Let’s choose clean water and a healthy James River for the future.