The state of Maryland’s plan to clean up the Chesapeake Bay not only will cost billions of dollars, but it continues to frustrate local officials who have to implement it.

“This plan will require significant efforts at significant costs,” said Leslie Knapp, associate director for the Maryland Association of Counties [MACo]. “Our biggest concern is simply, how are we going to pay to do what needs to be done?”

As part of a federal mandate to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake Bay by 2025, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) determined how much counties must reduce the amount of pollution they contribute to the Bay, and local officials have to figure out how to reach those goals.

The state’s cleanup plan, or the “Watershed Implementation Plan,” is divided into two phases, the first of which was released in December.

In March 2010, Caroline and Anne Arundel counties were part of a pilot program to help determine pollution-reduction goals for the state’s Watershed Implementation Plan. In Anne Arundel County, the projected cost of instituting the plan was $2 billion, Knapp said.

“It’s a monumental investment,” said Matt Diehl, a spokesman for the county’s Department of Public Works. “These costs far exceed our current budget.”

The department’s overall budget is about $1 billion.

Diehl said Anne Arundel’s plans call for improvements to the septic system, an extension of the public sewer system and work to handle stormwater runoff. The wastewater treatments plants also are being upgraded to meet enhanced nitrogen-removal standards.

Caroline County was faced with a cost estimate of $70 million, almost twice its annual budget of $40 million, according to Kathleen Freeman, director of the county’s planning and codes department.

But Freeman said while the initial cost projection was daunting enough, MDE released new targets for pollution reduction this week that could triple or quadruple the cost.

“The targets have gone up fairly dramatically. Based on the old information, we were looking at $70 million,” Freeman said. “With the new numbers, we haven’t had a chance to review them thoroughly yet, but it would obviously be more expensive. No one wants to spend three or four times our county budget.”

Caroline County’s largest expense is building a regional wastewater treatment plan for $25 million.

Frederick County’s share for one part of the plan alone — renovating older developments to reduce stormwater runoff — could cost up to $4.3 billion, according to Shannon Moore, the county’s acting manager of sustainability and environmental resources. And that is not based on the new targets MDE released this week.

“The problem is that the limits established by the state put a heavy burden on municipalities and citizens,” Moore said.

The burden, she said, “is not possible from a feasibility or cost perspective.”

According to the plan, Frederick County and its municipalities need to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants, hook up septic systems to treatment plants, renovate older developments to reduce stormwater runoff and change some farming habits to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus that ends up in the Bay.

The costs of renovating older housing developments with separate stormwater management systems could run as high as $4.3 billion, Moore said in an e-mail.

Using a state computer program to help determine costs, Moore said the county could not meet the goals of removing nitrogen and phosphorus from urban areas, even if it retrofits 100 percent of all urban land.

“The state has been promoting stormwater retrofits very heavily, but they are not cost-effective or efficient,” Moore said.

State officials acknowledge that the costs are high — the state projects $10 billion for the first phase — but insist that the cost to each county has not been determined.

“Everyone is worried about costs, and they will be high, but we don’t know what they are yet, and we are looking at ways to reduce the costs and are also looking for additional funding sources,” said Richard Eskin, director of science services administration at MDE.

The state’s estimates are conservative, do not represent the final cost and will not assure that reduction goals are met, according to an April study by the Sage Policy Group on behalf of the Maryland Builders Association.

Although local governments are focused on the obstacles in the plan, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation reminds them that they have 15 years to make the changes and that state and federal money will be available to help.

Kim Coble, Maryland executive director of the Bay foundation, urges local government not to “lose sight” of the goal for clean water that benefits everyone. “This plan will get us to clean water, water we can swim in and drink,” she said.

Stricter than mandated

An added aggravation, many officials say, is that Maryland is pursuing a more aggressive schedule than required by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA, by executive order from President Barack Obama to abide by the federal Clean Water Act, put states in the 64,000-square-mile watershed of the Chesapeake Bay on a pollution diet, targeting reductions for 2025.

Maryland is pushing for 2020 and is leading the way, Eskin said, because it has the most to benefit by the Bay’s restoration. “It makes sense to get it sooner rather than later,” he said.

Del. Kelly M. Schulz (R-Dist. 4A) of New Market said the state is skirting the question of cost. “If the state was being honest, it would say the funding would come from an increase in taxes, because the revenues aren’t going to show up miraculously,” she said in an interview.

Schulz said she is working on building a rural coalition of stakeholders to present a unified front during the 2012 General Assembly session.

MACo’s Leslie Knapp said several proposals have been floated to generate revenue for the projects, with most on the backs of local governments. Among the proposals is a mandate that all local governments impose a stormwater fee and an increase in parts of the Bay restoration fee.

“Every little bit will help, but ultimately the proposals out there represent a tiny fraction of the total cost,” Knapp said.

MACo is holding a symposium on the issue for county officials Oct. 7 in St. Michaels to discuss the challenges and implications of the pollution-reduction plan.

Meanwhile, MDE is working on Phase 2 of the watershed implementation plan, due to the EPA on March 30.

That plan, Eskin said, will answer questions about the operational aspects of the Bay restoration. MDE plans regional meetings, webinars and hands-on training for those involved in preparing local plans.

“Hopefully, the plan will be consistent with local priorities and visions,” Eskin said. “We are anticipating very significant improvements in local streams as a result and in local water supplies by recharging the watersheds, which will benefit before it benefits the Bay.”

Staff Writer Erin Cunningham contributed to this report.

kheerbrandt@gazette.net