Silver Chips advisor John Mathwin to retire

John Mathwin came to Blair 35 years ago in 1970 as an English teacher. When he took over Blair's journalism program in 1978, there was one section of juniors and one section of seniors, with the seniors serving as the Silver Chips production staff, which consisted of 20 students. Between print, online, business, art and technical staff, the staff of Silver Chips had over 120 students this year in addition to five introductory journalism classes.

Additionally, in the past three years, the program has won four Pacemakers, an award for the best high school newspapers. Mathwin estimates online and print have won around 1,000 awards since 1978.

Mathwin got out of the army in 1968 and then went to the University of Maryland to get his Masters in teaching English. After his first job interview at a school, Blair, he was hired as an English teacher.

After eight years of teaching English at Blair, Mathwin was asked to take over Blair's journalism program. He had become really interested in journalism because of the Watergate scandal.

Mathwin says that the past seven years have been particularly satisfying for him because Silver Chips and Silver Chips Online have soared to new heights. "I'm really glad I didn't retire seven years ago when I could have," Mathwin says.

Vickie Adamson, chair of the English department, is also glad that Mathwin did not follow through on his plan to retire when Blair moved buildings. "When he said he wasn't going to come to the new Blair, it was like the captain going down with the ship. The Titanic was sinking, and he was going to stay with it. Then he changed his mind and decided he would give one year in the new building. The next year he said, 'I'm still having fun, maybe I'll stay for one more year,' and he did that for the next six years. It's been just glorious to have him for longer," Adamson says.

Mathwin says working with the Silver Chips staff to break the story last year about Dr. Weast discouraging minorities from taking the SAT as one of his favorite memories with Silver Chips. "Having The [Washington] Post email us about doing a great job with the story and beating The Post to the story was a special thing," he says.

Mathwin mentions several different things he will miss about being Silver Chips advisor. "I get a tremendous sense of worth from being associated with this endeavor. I think I'll miss feeling productive, feeling like I'm doing something worthwhile. I think it's unlikely that I'll find a job that provides as many rewards," he says.

Although he wishes he could continue, Mathwin says that he simply can't keep up the energy necessary to stay as Chips advisor. "It's a hard job, and I'm just getting tired. If I could do it part-time, I would have. It needs to be done 100 percent. On late Friday, you've got to be there, and I'm just getting worn down," Mathwin says. Additionally, he feels that it is simply time to try something else. "It's time to move on, it's the end of the trail. I've played my nine innings, and the game's over. It just feels like that," he says wistfully.

Adamson says that working with Mr. Mathwin since she came to Blair 11 years ago has been a joy. "He's great in so many aspects. You can always get sound advice from him. When I think about Mr. Mathwin, I think about integrity. His moral center is so strong, I'm sure that his students learn from it, and that it radiates out through the department," Adamson says.

Throughout his tenure at Blair, Mathwin has spent much time fishing, kayaking and canoeing. "I love rivers," he says with a smile. In addition to continuing to enjoy the water, Mathwin thinks that he will probably end up working for an environmental organization.

Mathwin feels that he cannot leave without thanking all those involved in the success of Silver Chips throughout his time. "It's a team effort. Editors support sponsors and vice versa, staff supports editors. That's analogous to the way I felt about the English department, Ms. Adamson, the tenth grade CAP team, Dr. D'Angelo [the coordinator of the CAP, where Mathwin worked from 1988-2003] and the Blair teaching staff in general. It feels like I've been supported by them. It's nice, I feel like I'm part of a team, a winning team." Mathwin mentions Principal Phillip Gainous in particular. "Gainous has been the ideal principal to have for journalism, and many other things, but journalism in particular," Mathwin states.

Mathwin also wants to thank both the print and online staffs of Silver Chips from this past year. "I'm really grateful, particularly to the staff of Silver Chips Print and Silver Chips Online that I'm going out on top. Two Pacemakers, it's like a walk off homerun, hearing the crowd cheering," Mathwin says happily.

The article below was written about Mathwin by former Silver Chips Online staffer and current sophomore at Duke University, Elliott Wolf. Due to technical difficulties it was not possible to post the article until now.

Mathwin's river battle ends in Supreme Court ruling

December 9, 2003 marked the end of a long journey for journalism teacher John Mathwin. That day, his complex and tumultuous quest to protect the Potomac River from inroads by the Fairfax County Water Authority (FCWA) was ended with a 7-2 ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Mathwin's journey rekindled centuries-old debates over water rights to the Potomac River, debates that were originally settled hundreds of years ago. The dispute steadily escalated from Maryland Department of the Environment and the Fairfax County Water Authority, to the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies, to the Supreme Court case of Virginia v. Maryland.

In the Supreme Court decision, Virginia Commonwealth's attorney general attributed much of the uproar to a lone "citizen activist in Maryland named John Mathwin," who "called numerous agencies to 'stir up opposition.'"

My love of the Potomac

"The crusade starts with my love of the Potomac," said Mathwin. Mathwin has always been an avid outdoorsmen and boater, and his "crusade," as he and others describe it, began in 1997 while he was canoeing on the Potomac River. Mathwin noticed unusual activity on the Virginia side of the river. FCWA officials told him "don't worry," but after further investigation, he learned of a plan by the FCWA to construct a drinking-water intake in the middle of the river to replace the existing intake on the Virginia side.

The construction of the intake raised a host of environmental and legal questions. According to an internal study by the FCWA, two Virginia tributaries were polluting the water around the existing intake on the Virginia side of the Potomac. Development around these two tributaries, named Broad Run and Sugarland Run, were the direct cause of the pollution around the intake. Instead of seeking to stem development and control the pollution, the FCWA sought to build a completely new intake in the middle of the river.

According to Maryland State Delegate Jean Cryor, the intake, once complete, would also have been unsightly and hazardous. "Fairfax wanted to put a pipe in the river, put buoys and lights around it…so [we'd] have a platform with lights and buoys at frankly one of the most beautiful places on the river," said Cryor.

The presence of the intake was also expected to increase silt levels in the Potomac by up to 7,900 tons per year. The 18ftx18ft, 725ft long trench that the intake was to rest in had to be blasted into the river bottom, dispersing thousands of tons of silt and disrupting the ecosystem around the construction, according to the FCWA's own assessment of the environmental impacts of the construction.

According to Neal Fitzpatrick of the Audubon Naturalist Society, beyond the silt, the main environmental concern is how much water will be taken out of the river. The Potomac must maintain a certain "low flow allocation" to be able to support the ecosystem. The FCWA was using a figure for that allocation that was established in the 1980s but that was not scientifically verified, and in Fitzpatrick's opinion, too low. "In April of 2003, we met and confirmed our conclusions that [FCWA's] low flow allocation is not based on any scientific study at all," he said.

"Our goal is to make sure the ecosystem [of the Potomac] is protected, and now it's not. As more pressure for more water [to be removed] occurs, and the floods and droughts occur, we want better accountability and a better plan for making sure there's enough water for the fish," said Fitzpatrick.

"I thought it impossible to believe," said Cryor, of when she first heard from Mathwin that Fairfax County was seeking to build the intake.

According to Cryor and Fitzpatrick, very few people in Maryland, including state legislators, knew of Virginia's plan. "[Mathwin] was one of the first people who knew that Fairfax Water Authority was actually seeking a permit. In the early stages of this, the Maryland Department of the Environment did a dreadful job of letting people know," said Fitzpatrick.

"John was the warning signal that eventually led to all of this action," added Fitzpatrick.

"He saw a problem, he learned of a problem, and he took immediate action," said Cryor of Mathwin.

Permit: denied

The original 1632 charter of the State of Maryland and a 1785 compact between Maryland and Virginia stipulate that Maryland maintained sovereign control over the Potomac to the low water line on the southern border of the river. For projects of this type, Virginia had to obtain the express permission of the Maryland government before it could begin any construction.

Due to Mathwin's efforts, state legislators and the Governor were made aware of the implications of Virginia's request for a permit. According to Cryor, despite "enormous" pressure from the Governor of Virginia and North Virginia businesses, both the Maryland House of Delegates and the State Senate approved a resolution preventing FCWA from beginning actual construction of the intake.

"The state reached its decision to deny authorization of this project by considering all the information submitted by the Fairfax County Water Authority. Based on the evidence provided, I decided that the public interest would be best served by avoiding impacts to the Potomac River from the installation of the proposed intake," wrote then-Governor Paris Glendening to Mathwin.

However, the dispute would not end with the legislature's action.

Virginia v. Maryland, No. 129 Orig.

After Maryland denied Virginia's request for a permit to construct the intake, Virginia sought relief from the Supreme Court, which was a constitutional mandate to settle disputes between states. "When Virginia saw that [the permit was to be rejected], Fairfax County turned around and went to Richmond and said to the Attorney General, 'we want to take this to the Supreme Court,'" said Cryor.

The Supreme Court appointed a Special Master, an objective arbiter with some knowledge of the specific situation, to make a recommendation in the case. Deciding that Virginia was within its rights to construct the intake, the Special Master ruled against the State of Maryland.

While the Supreme Court rarely decides to overrule a Special Master, Mathwin and many others were hoping that the Court would ultimately recognize the issues at hand and decide in Maryland's favor. "The Special Master lived in Maine, [and] probably never really saw the river," said Cryor.

Both Maryland and Virginia filed briefs, and the case was argued on October 7, 2003. In a 7-2 decision delivered on December 9, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens dissenting, the Supreme Court declared "Maryland's exceptions overruled; relief sought by Virginia granted; and Special Master's proposed decree entered," upholding the recommendations of the Special Master and Virginia's right to both construct the intake and pump the increased amounts of water out of the Potomac River.

Cyror was in the Supreme Court when oral arguments were given, and sincerely believes that the case would have been won had Maryland Solicitor General Andrew Baida presented the case better. "When I heard him argue, it was one of the most difficult days of my life…Frankly, the judges tried to help him," said Cryor. Court transcripts show several instances where Supreme Court justices corrected Baida on the facts of the case.

"This isn't a battle about water, this is a battle about responsibility…I don't think he understood the case," said Cryor.

"The narrow issue before us is whether Maryland may impose any limits on withdrawals by Virginia landowners whose property happens to abut the Potomac. Because those landowners' riparian [water] rights are – like all riparian rights at common law – subject to the paramount regulatory authority of the sovereign that owns the river, I would sustain Maryland's exceptions to the Report of the Special master," wrote Justice Stevens in the dissenting opinion.

"I still think the case would have been won by the Maryland attorney if they had presented with the foresight and vision of John Mathwin," said Cryor.

"If the media would have done its job"

While Mathwin feels that nothing that he or Maryland officials could have done would have changed the ultimate outcome of the case, he does feel that the media failed to accurately inform the public of all of the issues involved. "The media was a huge disappointment. I still feel wounded by their sloppy handling of the story," said Mathwin.

Mathwin was especially disappointed with the reporting of The Washington Post, whose editorial board frequently sided with Virginia and the FCWA. Mathwin also felt that the media did not emphasize the FCWA's study that established the culpability of Virginia's developments in polluting the Potomac and prompting the need for the new intake. "The media treated the study as a non sequitor at best," he said.

"What does it mean?"

Many officials on both sides of the Potomac are trying to figure out the exact implications of the Supreme Court's decision. While the Potomac River is still within the borders of the State of Maryland, Virginia now has more control over how its resources can be used. Cryor described the implications of the ruling as "most confusing."

Mathwin and Cryor are both concerned that the lack of one unified entity safeguarding the interests of the Potomac will allow more damage to occur. "Since there was a country, Maryland has had legal responsibility for making decision about the river because of the boundary," said Fitzpatrick. Now, "Virginia and Maryland need to learn the same skills that kindergartners and first graders learn, how to share the resources."

According to Cryor, the ruling puts the interests of the Potomac in an "extraordinarily difficult situation…[The Potomac] is to Virginia just a natural resource for water, and they can do whatever they want. It will be very hard for Maryland to fight Virginia," she said.

Despite the fact that the question of FCWA's mid-river intake was settled by this ruling, it is likely that this is not the end of the troubles between Maryland and Virginia over the use of the Potomac. "It's guaranteed that once Virginia comes back with an application for a large additional amount of water, Maryland will run to the Supreme Court and raise the questions again about how we're going to manage the water appropriation process," said Fitzpatrick.

No regrets

While Mathwin obviously would have preferred the situation to have ended differently, he has no regrets about his involvement.

Many have acclaimed his efforts throughout the seven-year ordeal. "He's a great guy," said Congressman Chris Van Hollen, who as a State Senator pushed to prevent the FCWA from building the intake. "It was John Mathwin who started it, John Mathwin who kept it going, and I regard him as a great man," said Cryor.

"John was the warning signal that eventually led to all of this action, he was crucial," said Fitzpatrick.

Mathwin still retains his love for the Potomac, and he will never stop fighting to protect it from actions from both sides of the River. "The most ironic thing is that now, WSSC (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission) wants to build its own mid-river intake," said Van Hollen.