U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–028 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1186 

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION: 

STATUS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 20, 2009—ANNAPOLIS, MD 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 20, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Sarbanes, Hon. John, U.S. Congressman from the State of Maryland ............... 4 

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., U.S. Congressman from the State of Virginia .......... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 11 

Fox, J. Charles, Senior Advisor to the Administrator for Chesapeake Bay 

and the Anacostia River, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 28 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 30 

Baker, William C., President and CEO, Chesapeake Bay Foundation ............... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 75 

Hutchison, Robert, Partner, Hutchison Brothers .................................................. 79 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 82 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Fact sheet from Blue Plains ................................................................................... 161 

Testimony from the Chesapeake Bay Commission ............................................... 165 

(1) 

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION: STATUS 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, Annapolis, Maryland. 

The subcommittee met at 10:12 a.m., in the Joint Committee 

Hearing Room, Maryland Legislative Services Building, 90 State 

Circle, Annapolis, Maryland, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, let me welcome you all to this hearing of 

the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee. 

It is a pleasure to be here in Annapolis for a field hearing. It is 

very appropriate, I think, that this hearing take place in Annapolis 

because it does bring back for me the days when Harry Hughes 

was Governor, and the concept of developing a multi-State approach to dealing with the Chesapeake Bay, partnerships between 

government and the private sector, was initiated. At the time, I 

was the speaker of the State legislature, so it’s nice to be back here 

at this Joint Hearing Room where we held so many meetings to develop a strategy to improve the Chesapeake Bay. And at that time, 

we developed a partnership, recognizing that we could not do it 

alone. And thanks to the work that was done over 30 years ago 

now, the Chesapeake Bay is better today than it would have been. 

I know we are going to have a hearing that will bring out a lot 

of the challenges we have in the Chesapeake Bay and that the 

health of the bay today is not what it needs to be. But if the leadership was not displayed with Governor Hughes and others back 20- 

some years ago, I hate to think of what condition the bay would 

be in today. So we have made progress, but we have a lot more 

that needs to be done, and I am pleased that we can conduct this 

hearing in Annapolis where much of the early work was done on 

developing a strategy to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. 

I also want to acknowledge that Senator Boxer, the chairman of 

the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator Inhofe 

and Senator Crapo, the ranking member of the Water and Wildlife 

Committee, are all very much interested in the Chesapeake Bay 

and have encouraged me to conduct hearings as we look for strate-
2 

gies on a reauthorization of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program 

under section 117 of the Clean Water Act. That is our objective. 

The Chesapeake Bay United Nations Ramsar Convention recognizes it as an ecological region of global significance. It has been 

called the national treasure by Presidents from Ronald Reagan to 

Barack Obama. It is critical to Maryland’s economy, to our environment, to our culture, and our history. 

It is in trouble—the Chesapeake Bay today. The University of 

Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science—the ecological 

health of the Chesapeake Bay, they say, remains poor. There is excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments entering the waters of 

the Chesapeake Bay. The main sources are from agriculture, urban 

and suburban runoff, wastewater from treatment plants, and contaminated airborne pollutants. 

The Chesapeake Bay represents a model for estuary programs 

nationwide and how to curb pollution from Casco Bay in Maine to 

the San Francisco estuaries in California. 

I think, the model for success must include three major elements, 

a focus on the entire watershed, not just the bay itself, but the rivers and streams in the watershed itself. 

No. 2, you must engage all of the key shareholders, stakeholders, 

the Federal Government, the States, the local governments, the 

private sector. And I know we will be hearing from Will Baker 

later from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. But those partnerships 

are critically important if we are going to have a successful effort 

on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. 

And it must be based on sound science. The lab works that are 

being done today need to be supported, and we need to base our 

policy on good science. 

Well, the challenges that we have for the Chesapeake Bay. In the 

last 25 years, we have seen the population of the bay region increase from 12 million to 17 million. That extra 5 million has a 

major impact on the challenges of the bay. The impervious surfaces 

that funnel the polluted water into the Chesapeake Bay have increased by 100 percent over that 25-year period. It is estimated 

that we are losing about 100 acres of forest land a day in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The good news is that there is a willingness to take action. I 

think the stakeholders understand that we need to take the efforts 

to a new level, that maintaining or holding the status quo is not 

an acceptable option on the Chesapeake Bay. We need to do much, 

much more. And we need to look at all of the sources of pollution 

from agriculture—the farm bill that I know my colleagues here had 

a lot to do with, particularly Congressman Sarbanes in the House. 

The Chesapeake conservation funding to reduce the nitrogens in 

the farm bill is critically important. But is it enough? 

In regards to runoff, what can we expect from our cities and 

towns to do to control that source of pollution? From our air, the 

nitrogen oxides that produce excess nitrogen pollution in the bay. 

Are current planned programs to reduce air pollutants enough? 

And wastewater treatment plants, a source of excess nitrogens 

and phosphorus pollution. Do permit requirements need to be 

based on the limits of technology? Should they apply to every sewage treatment plant in the watershed regardless of size or location? 
3 

It is not just pollutants. We also need to deal with how we manage our resources. We know that we have a challenge with the oyster and crabs. For example, are we taking too many menhadens out 

of the bay to turn into fish oil, dietary supplements, thereby losing 

their natural filtering capacity in the process? 

Well, these are some of the questions I hope that we will have 

a chance to talk about at today’s hearing. Today’s hearing is to try 

to fill in the information we need in order to draft the proper legislation. I intend to introduce legislation later this year reauthorizing 

the Chesapeake Bay. What should be included in that legislation? 

I hope this hearing will help us fill in that process. 

I am very pleased that two of my colleagues from the House of 

Representatives are with me today. I want to first welcome Representative Gerry Connolly from Virginia. He will be on our second 

panel, but it is nice to have our colleague from Virginia with us 

today. And, of course, John Sarbanes, my colleague from the State 

of Maryland from the third congressional district is also with me 

today. 

With that, let me first turn to Congressman Sarbanes for an 

opening statement. Then I’ll recognize Congressman Connolly. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

This hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the Committee on Environment and Public Works will come to order. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the status of the 

restoration effort, and recommendations about what can be done to accelerate 

progress. We will hear from two panels of witnesses. 

This will be the first in a series of hearings I intend to hold as the subcommittee 

prepares legislation to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program under Section 117 of the Clean Water Act. 

The United Nations’ Ramsar Convention recognizes the Chesapeake as an ecological region of global significance. The Bay has been called a ‘‘National Treasure’’ by 

American Presidents ranging from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. In Maryland, 

it is the economic, environmental, cultural and historic heart of the State. 

The Chesapeake Bay is also in trouble. 

A recent report from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental 

Science finds that the ecological health of the Chesapeake Bay remains poor. The 

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are unhealthy primarily because of pollution 

from excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the water. 

The main sources of these pollutants are 

• agriculture, 

• urban and suburban runoff, 

• wastewater from sewage treatment plants, and 

• airborne contaminants. 

The Bay continues to have poor water quality, degraded habitats and low populations of many species of fish and shellfish. 

What is to be done? 

We must first recognize that the Chesapeake Bay Program has played a critical 

role in stemming the tide of pollution. The Bay Program is a model for the National 

Estuaries Programs that are helping curb pollution from Casco Bay in Maine to San 

Francisco Estuary in California. 

Any success that these programs have had is because, like the Chesapeake Bay 

Program, 

• they focus on the entire watershed, 

• they involve all the key stakeholders, and 

• they are based on sound science. 

The population of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed has grown from 12 million 

when the Program started 25 years ago to over 17 million residents today. That’s 

a 40 percent increase. And it is not just more people producing more pollution. 
4 

The amounts of impervious surfaces, the hardened landscapes that funnel polluted water into our streams and rivers and eventually the Bay, have increased by 

about 100 percent over the same timeframe. 

We are losing an astounding 100 acres of forest lands every day in the Bay watershed. 

Simply put, there are millions more of us, and the size of our impact on the Bay 

watershed has grown twice as fast as our population rate. Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would undoubtedly be worse than it is. 

But barely holding our own is not good enough. And so merely fine tuning the 

Bay Program will not be good enough either. We need some significant changes if 

we want significant improvements. And we do. 

Everywhere I go there is a strong desire to see the Chesapeake restored. People 

are ready to take action to control pollution, restore water quality and see the living 

resources of the Bay return in abundance. 

Much of the pollution to the Bay still comes from our agricultural lands. Are the 

major increases in Chesapeake conservation funding that we wrote into the Farm 

Bill going to be sufficient to dramatically reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment 

pollution from farms? Will additional efforts be required as well? 

Every day, polluted water runs off our streets and roof tops. Polluted stormwater 

runoff is not the largest part of the problem, but it is the only source sector of pollution that is still growing. What can cities and towns do to control this growing problem, and how can they pay for it? 

Nitrogen oxides from air pollution are washed out of our skies daily, showering 

the Bay Watershed with excess nitrogen pollution. 

Are planned programs to reduce air pollution stringent enough to curb this hidden 

source of nutrient pollution to the Bay? 

Wastewater treatment plants are an obvious source of the excess nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution that is fouling the Bay. Do permit requirements need to be 

based on the limits of technology? Should they apply to every sewage treatment 

plant in the watershed, regardless of size or location? 

Pollution alone is not the problem. We don’t have enough blue crabs and native 

oysters, in part because we haven’t managed our fisheries very well. 

For example, are we taking too many menhaden out of the Bay to turn them into 

fish oil dietary supplements, thereby losing their natural filtering capacity in the 

process? 

Do we have enough forage fish to keep our rockfish abundant and healthy? Does 

the Bay Program need to have a formal fisheries management component to it? 

Today we will start to examine the key issues facing the Bay. More importantly, 

we will start to examine ways to reinvigorate the Bay restoration effort. 

Later this year I will be introducing reauthorization legislation. All of our panel 

members share a vision of a healthy Chesapeake, supporting diverse and abundant 

life in its waters and wetlands. 

I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists today on what steps 

EPA can take and this Congress can take to make that vision a reality. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SARBANES, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. Thank 

you for the invitation to participate in the hearing. 

We are at a crossroads with the Chesapeake Bay, of course. We 

are always really at a crossroads, but the opportunities presented 

now are particularly exciting. 

As I was driving here today, it occurred to me that, growing up, 

when it rained—and you were not too happy because it rained out 

your baseball game or something—you were told, well, it is a good 

thing because it makes the flowers grow and the trees grow. And 

you sort of took that to heart. Now I find when I am driving in the 

rain, there is a part of me that cringing because I am thinking 

about the water rolling off the blacktop or from the fields and pouring into the tributaries across the watershed and the negative impact that that is having, as long as we do not achieve some of the 

goals that we continue to lay out but seem unable to attain. 
5 

So this is a very, very important hearing. I thank you for convening it. 

We are very excited, of course, at Chuck Fox’s new role at EPA. 

There could not be a better person. I look forward to his testimony. 

Senator Cardin and I were with the new EPA Administrator the 

other day at Fort Meade who declared with pride that science is 

back, and science will certainly undergird all of the work that we 

are going to do to try to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay 

going forward. 

What is exciting now, in particular, is the level of information 

that is available to us about the sources of pollution is really drilling down to a new level which not only is important for the scientists and the experts to give us guidance, but it gives citizens the 

opportunity to participate by taking ownership of the watershed in 

their own back yards, which I think is the ultimate solution to the 

bay’s troubles. 

I am very much in support of the concept you mentioned, which 

is creating this mutuality of understanding across the watershed, 

particularly among public policymakers, and we are trying to design right now a card we can give to every Member of Congress— 

Jerry will be one of them—who have got tributaries that flow into 

the watershed so they can understand the impairments that exist 

in their own district with respect to rivers and streams and begin 

to fully appreciate how what happens in their district impacts on 

the health of the entire Chesapeake Bay. That is how we are going 

to turn the corner on this. 

And the citizen participation that is going to happen is really 

going to be led by the next generation, by our young people who 

can take up these causes with a fervor that is hard for us to manage sometimes. And I want to thank Will Baker for his leadership 

on environmental education and working with me closely on the No 

Child Left Inside effort. 

The bay will be clean when the 17 million residents of the watershed who have bad habits tip the balance by developing good habits with respect to the environment, and hearings like this and participation of the citizenry going forward are going to make the difference. 

I thank you very much for the opportunity to participate. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you again. I am glad you mentioned No 

Child Left Inside. Of course, Congressman Sarbanes has been the 

leader on that issue, and it is, I think, a critically important part, 

education, in dealing with the Chesapeake Bay. So I congratulate 

you on that. 

Now, Congressman Connolly, we are going to have an opportunity to hear from you later, but I’d be glad to give you a moment. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 

thank you for your leadership. Having this hearing I think is terribly important. I am going to be talking a little bit later about the 

whole issue of impervious surface, but the relationship between 

land use and what is happening in the bay I think is just critical. 

As someone who has just spent the last 14 years of his life in local 
6 

government, I know there are things we can do, and let me just 

give you one example that is not in my testimony. 

One of the last things I had a chance to do before I came to Congress as chairman of Fairfax County was put together a 3-year 

task force on Tysons Corner. Tysons Corner is bigger than all of 

downtown Boston. It is the largest retail and commercial office 

market on the east coast between Manhattan and Atlanta. 80 percent of the stormwater in Tysons is untreated. We have 46 million 

square feet of stuff on the ground and 41 million square feet of surface parking space. And we can change that. The plan we are coming up with Tysons will change that such that there will be 100 

percent of all stormwater treated, and we are going to significantly 

reduce that impervious surface. 

So there are things we can do as policymakers in local government especially that can make a big difference in trying to turn 

around some of the concerns we have with respect to the bay. 

Again, I thank you for your leadership, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Representative Connolly follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much. 

Without objection, opening statements from members of the committee—the record will be open to include those opening statements. In addition, the entire written statements of our witnesses 

will be included in the record, and they may proceed as they see 

fit. 

We will have two panels. Our first panel will be Charles Fox, 

Chuck Fox, who is the Senior Advisor to the Administrator for 

Chesapeake Bay and the Anacostia River, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We take great pride in Chuck assuming that new 

position. He has a distinguished record as a champion of the bay 

restoration and water issues. He served as Secretary of Maryland’s 

Department of Natural Resources, as well as Assistant Administrator of the EPA’s Water Division during the Clinton administration. Chuck, it is a pleasure to have you. 

STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 

ADMINISTRATOR FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY AND THE ANACOSTIA RIVER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You cannot come to this hearing room and not reflect upon some 

of the past. My first experience in this hearing room was, in fact, 

under your leadership as the speaker of the House. I think my colleague, Will Baker, and I were testifying on the phosphate detergent ban, and I think it is a classic example of had we not taken 

those actions, today we would be far worse off than we are. A lot 

of that is because of your early leadership. So thank you very 

much. 

My name is Charles Fox. I am a senior advisor to Administrator 

Lisa Jackson at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. And we 

really appreciate the opportunity to discuss EPA’s emerging new 

leadership to restore and protect Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. We are working very closely with our Federal and State partners to define what we hope will be bold, new ways of strengthening the management, performance, and accountability of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Administrator Jackson outlined her vision and priorities to the 

agency in a recent memo to all EPA staff. She described President 

Obama’s three core values for our agency. No. 1, science must be 

the backbone for our programs. No. 2, EPA must follow the rule of 

law, and No. 3, EPA’s actions must be transparent. These guiding 

principles apply to the agency’s work broadly, as well as our work 

here in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Administrator Jackson’s memo also highlighted five priorities 

that would receive her personal attention. She described one of her 

priorities to intensify our work to restore and protect the quality 

of the Nation’s waters. She stated in particular that the agency will 

make strong use of our authorities to restore threatened treasures 

such as the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes. 

A little over a month ago, I began my service as the Administrator’s Senior Advisor on the Chesapeake Bay and Anacostia River. 

I am both excited and, I must admit, daunted by the opportunity 

to work with all the bay partners and Members of Congress to find 

ways to address the challenges confronting the bay and its people. 
14 

The Chesapeake is a national treasure. While we are mindful of 

our accomplishments over the past 25 years, we are also intensely 

focused on how to improve our work to have greater success in the 

future. We are committed to change and to provide the leadership 

necessary to improve the performance and accountability of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. We cannot pledge that the bay’s health 

will improve dramatically in the next several years. However, we 

can and do pledge to provide the leadership that will be responsive 

to the conclusions of scientists, to our obligations under Federal 

law, and to the desires of the region’s community. 

Last month, the Chesapeake Bay Program issued its annual assessment of the health of the Chesapeake Bay, also referred to as 

the ‘‘Bay Barometer.’’ A copy of the executive summary has been 

provided to the chair and to the members of the subcommittee. The 

Bay Barometer affirms what we all know: despite the longstanding 

commitment by the array of partners, the health of the bay and the 

watershed remains severely degraded. Virtually all of the 13 specific measures show very limited progress. The one striking exception is the restoration of the population of striped bass. This success is attributed to the bold action by Maryland, Virginia, and 

other east coast States to limit harvest pressure years ago. At the 

same time, it is worth noting that this population has been 

stressed in recent years by high instances of mycobacteriosis. 

The recent health assessment describes some important but not 

yet sufficient progress to reduce nutrient pollution from agriculture 

and wastewater treatment plants. Agriculture remains the single 

largest source of nutrient and sediment pollution to the bay, with 

about half of the nutrient load directly related to animal manure. 

However, the report also shows that pollution from urban and suburban stormwater is actually increasing. 

This negative trend is directly linked to the rise in population in 

the watershed. Since 1950, the number of residents has doubled. 

Projections through 2030 show continued population growth and 

continued increases in sprawling urban and suburban development. 

From 1990 to 2000, the amount of impervious surfaces, such as 

roads and rooftops, increased by 41 percent, even though the population only rose by 8 percent. 

Congress reauthorized section 117 of the Federal Clean Water 

Act in 2000. This section expired in 2005. It formally authorized 

the Chesapeake Bay Program and the landmark agreement that 

was adopted in 2000 by the Federal Government and our State and 

local partners. But as we all know, the key goals of that 2000 

agreement are not going to be achieved. Sadly, the bay program is 

actually not even close to achieving most of the key goals of the 

2000 agreement. 

Improving water quality remains the fundamental challenge for 

EPA and our partners. This challenge, in turn, is defined more precisely as reducing runoff pollution from urban, suburban, and agricultural lands. Presently we have a range of tools that we are implementing to tackle these problems. However, the range of existing tools may not be enough to get the job done. 

EPA and our partners will want to better focus our existing regulatory authorities and other tools to improve performance and accountability. However, we also must consider new tools to improve 
15 

the health of the Chesapeake. We look forward to working with 

this subcommittee and other Members of Congress to explore these 

issues in the months ahead. Reauthorizing section 117 presents all 

of us with a unique opportunity to redefine our future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fox follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Fox, thank you for your testimony. I also 

thank you for your service. 

As you point out, we are not going to meet the goals set out in 

the 2000 agreement by 2010, which is the date that we are supposed to achieve certain, specific goals. There is expectation that 

EPA may very well put in total maximum daily load restrictions 

and that it is unclear as to what you can do in regards to point 

pollution issues and nonpoint pollution sources. 

So my question to you is, what do you believe you can do under 

the existing authorities that you have in order to achieve the maximum desired effect, knowing what the 2000 agreement intended 

to do? And do you need additional authority from Congress in order 

to be able to achieve what you believe is necessary in regards to 

the 2000 agreement? 

Mr. FOX. Your question, Mr. Chairman, I think goes to the heart 

of the challenges that we are facing today. By way of clarification 

for you and others, TMDL stands for total maximum daily load. In 

and of itself it is literally nothing more than a piece of paper that 

has a budget, an allocation for how much pollution needs to be reduced from different sources. The TMDL in itself does not convey 

any new regulatory authority to the agency, although it does, in 

fact, guide subsequent permitting decisions that are made over the 

point sources in the watershed. 

Right now within the watershed, EPA under Federal law defines 

point sources to include wastewater treatment plants, as well as 

stormwater runoff from urban and suburban areas, as well as 

CAFOs, concentrated animal feeding operations, the largest, if you 

will, of the so-called factory farms throughout the bay watershed. 

There is a range of animal operations that are presently not under 

the point source permit program, and there is a range of urban and 

suburban runoff areas that are not part of the point source program. 

I think the agency is going to have to look at this and make some 

determinations as to whether or not we need to strengthen and expand the universe of point sources under current law and whether 

or not we, in fact, also need to set some more minimum standards 

for these point sources under Federal law. 

I would say, having said all of this, that there is still a very significant part of the pollution load to the Chesapeake Bay that is 

not regulated under Federal law. This is what we call true 

nonpoint sources of pollution. This is an area where we might need 

to talk more with this subcommittee and with some of our State 

partners to really figure out the best way to capture some of these 

nonpoint sources within the context of a watershed-wide framework. We can do some of that under current law. There is no question, but the interesting part about this is these are the most costeffective and cheapest parts of the pollution reduction equation, is 

what is coming from, in particular, some of the agricultural sides 

of this equation. And so I think in the end, if we want to really 

design a true watershed-wide framework, we are going to have to 

find a way that we incorporate all sources and do this in a way 

that really gives us a high degree of confidence that we are going 

to get these pollution reductions from them. 
55 

Senator CARDIN. I understand that you have been on your current job for, you said, 30 days and that the Obama administration 

is still in its first 100 days. So we understand you are still trying 

to sort out some of the issues here. 

I think the guidance we are going to need is that a lot of this 

depends upon voluntary compliance to a certain degree, particularly in the nonpoint sources. What we need to know, with good 

science, is how much is coming from the regulated point source pollution issues and how many are nonpoint, and what we need to do 

to expand the regulatory framework, if you need additional authority and how we can do that in the most cost-effective way without 

causing major problems for the industries. 

That type of advice is going to be critically important for us as 

we look forward to having an effective regime to reach these results. But it has got to be based upon good science, as we said earlier, and it also has to be based upon what additional regulatory 

authority you need. When you have the permitting where you can 

hold up permits, you only can do that to a certain degree. It may 

work; it may not work. But it’s not exactly the most efficient way 

to go about some of these issues. 

Mr. FOX. The one comment, Senator, is that in many ways the 

Chesapeake Bay—we are the envy of the world. Our scientists 

have, in fact, defined with tremendous precision the very work that 

we need to do throughout the watershed. We know today, for example, in each individual watershed how many acres of nutrient management plans need to be implemented on agricultural land, how 

many buffer strips need to be installed, how many point source 

sewage treatment plants need to be upgraded. We can really define 

in very precise terms exactly what work on the ground needs to 

happen. 

I think the challenge, as you suggest precisely, is figuring out 

what is the delivery mechanism that we can use as Government to 

help make this happen on the land. And in some cases it might be 

incentive programs. It might be direct Federal or State funding, 

and in other cases it might be appropriate use of accountability or 

regulatory authorities. 

But that is to me where I sit now the biggest challenge, taking 

what the scientists have told us what needs to happen and being 

able to tell you and the people of the watershed in a very accountable way that we have a likelihood of achieving this over a certain 

period of time. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree. Of course, the stormwater is another 

issue. What can you do in working with local governments to have 

a more effective way of dealing with the stormwater issues affecting the bay? 

Mr. FOX. The committee will hear from Congressman Connolly 

who has just done some outstanding work in northern Virginia, 

and I think he captured very well the challenges with his Tysons 

Corner example. 

The good news is we have some successes to build on. Montgomery County, Maryland recently enacted what we call an MS– 

4 permit, which is EPA’s point source permit for dealing with what 

we call municipal separate stormwater systems. That is where you 

get the MS–4. In that, Montgomery County laid out a series of spe-
56 

cific performance standards that it has for new development, as 

well as retrofitting existing development. And I think that it is 

going to be actions like this that in fact really help us some of the 

goals that we have for urban and suburban stormwater runoff. 

I have had the privilege of reading the testimony that you are 

going to hear and seeing some of the photos, and I think the Congressman can describe pretty eloquently not just some of the things 

we can do on the ground, but frankly how cost-effective they really 

are. 

Senator CARDIN. We look forward to Congressman Connolly’s testimony. 

We also look forward, though, to your leadership within EPA to 

figure out cost-effective ways. To me, this is one of the low-hanging 

fruit areas that we should be able to do much more effective work 

in and it can be done in a cost-effective manner. 

Let me allow Congressman Sarbanes an opportunity to question. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Again, we are so excited at your new role. 

I am going to ask a kind of related question, coming at it a little 

bit differently to what Senator Cardin asked you initially in terms 

of the EPA being able to have an impact. What are three things 

that you would look back on and say if the EPA had been more active, proactive, more engaged in enforcement or activity, on these 

three items, it would have made a significant meaningful, statistically significant impact on the health of the bay, as you look back 

over the last few years, which I would interpret would then be 

areas of priority for you going forward? 

Mr. FOX. Not to take anything away from the challenges that my 

colleagues faced in the past, I think if you look objectively today, 

one would argue that we probably should have required nitrogen 

removal in wastewater treatment plants sooner and with a higher 

degree of specificity and aggressiveness than we have. At this 

point, we are on track to getting permit limits in all wastewater 

treatment plants by 2010. I think in hindsight, this is something 

that the scientists showed to us and the engineers showed to us 

could be done, and it could be done and it could have been done 

perhaps a little bit sooner. 

The MS–4 permits that I mentioned before for municipal 

stormwater—I think we are now entering a phase where we at 

EPA are developing a series of fact sheets, model permits. We are 

seeing some leadership from localities like Montgomery County. I 

think this is another area where we had the regulatory authority, 

we had the tools, we have gained knowledge today. Again, in hindsight, this might have been something that we should have moved 

a little bit faster on. 

And then finally, I would say in a very similar vein would be the 

subject of animal agriculture, so-called concentrated animal feeding 

operations. This is a very delicate and difficult problem. It is one 

that has been defined, in part, by the courts. And EPA leadership 

or, in some cases, lack of, frankly, in the last administration—the 

agency is just now beginning a permitting program for concentrated animal feeding operations throughout the watershed. I 

think, in hindsight, this is something too that we probably should 

have spent a lot more time and energy on many years ago because 
57 

when you look at the data, animal manure, as I testified, is responsible for roughly half of the agricultural loads. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you. 

And then my second and last question is, what do you view as 

the most obvious points of collaboration between agencies and governmental agencies like the EPA that are engaged in this cleanup 

of the Chesapeake Bay and the citizen efforts that can be undertaken? I mean, put on your hat as a resident of the watershed and 

as somebody who has been very active at the sort of grassroots 

level. Where do you see those new opportunities for real collaboration between the ‘‘ordinary citizen’’ who wants to take up this 

charge and government working together? 

Mr. FOX. It is a very good question, and I think all of us today 

confront a world that is over-deluged by communications from all 

kinds of things. We all worry in our daily lives about our children 

and getting them to karate practice or getting them to school on 

time. And I think we do need to find more effective ways of communicating with people about what they can do to help with the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

Myself personally, somebody who is very knowledgeable about 

this, when I did remodeling at my home, I put in a nitrogen removing septic tank. I did my own stormwater treatment not just to collect the stormwater from my own house, but I actually collect it 

from some of my neighbors’ houses as well. I am fortunate that I 

was able to do this. 

But I will tell when I did all of this about 8 years ago, it was 

hard for me to get information to figure out how to do it right, and 

I think today we have that information. We really just have to find 

effective delivery mechanisms in this complicated world to get this 

information to people because I think in their hearts they want to 

help. 

Mr. SARBANES. Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Congressman Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your testimony this morning, Chuck. 

A question. Do you think it might be helpful, when we look at 

trying to get local governments cooperating even more in the goals 

we are setting for the Chesapeake Bay, if we were to have a uniform Federal standard on low-impact development? 

Mr. FOX. I am going to perhaps not answer that question as directly as I should, and I say that because the agency, outside of my 

purview, is in the process of making some regulatory decisions on 

that very point. And I do not want to in any way jeopardize their 

record or their decisionmaking. 

I would say that I have heard from local governments and I have 

heard from State governments, many in the bay watershed, that 

they would love nothing more than EPA to help them by establishing some minimum criteria for how they would go ahead and 

implement various stormwater management programs. 

I will never forget a fascinating discussion with the mayor here 

in the city of Annapolis—this was many, many years ago—where 

she expressed a very strong willingness to upgrade her sewage 

treatment plant. But she made it very clear to me that it was very 

difficult for her to do that in the absence, in this case, of uniform 
58 

statewide requirements for plant upgrades. And she was, at the 

time, really suggesting to me that that is what we really needed 

to do. And I think that is precisely the kind of leadership that EPA 

can and should be providing going forward. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. As we move forward—you know, local and State 

governments in our region have spent a lot of money on water 

treatment, sewage treatment, even stormwater treatment. One of 

the concerns, obviously, expressed by both State and local governments is, as we move out to the future and we do adopt more aggressive standards, there is an element of unfunded mandate in 

this. 

Can you talk just a little bit about what the thinking is—I know 

you have only been there 30 days—in terms of potential additional 

resources or assistance from the Federal Government to State localities to implement the standards we are talking about? 

Mr. FOX. In many ways, this question of funding sources for pollution control is something that I think, getting back to the Congressman’s question about how we could have done things differently—in many ways, I think this has sidetracked some of our 

progress, and let me explain this briefly. 

Beginning 2002–2000, there was a lot of conversation about how 

much would it cost to save the bay. And this resulted in any one 

of a number of different analyses, including a very high-level blue 

ribbon task force that presented a series of recommendations to 

Members of Congress, I think at that point, specifically asking for 

a multi-billion-dollar Federal funding to help the bay cleanup. 

I think as a practical matter in today’s fiscally constrained environment, both at the Federal level and the State level, we simply 

cannot expect that in fact there is going to be substantial increases 

in public investment. And I think we have to use that as a realistic 

assumption for how we then develop plans going forward. 

So to get to your specific question, many localities, the District 

of Columbia, Montgomery County, are now implementing 

stormwater management fees as a way of paying for some of these 

costs that have to be borne at the local level. It is an ‘‘unfunded 

mandate’’ at some level in that government agencies set minimum 

standards. Local governments, in turn, have to find a way to pay 

for them. And we might be able to look at ways that the Federal 

Government can help with all of this, but in the end, I think we 

are going to have to make some judgment about who is the best 

person to design, operate, and ultimately fund some of these kinds 

of operations. 

One observation I would make too is that if you look at the last 

30 years of the Federal Clean Air Act, our Nation has made just 

tremendous progress improving air quality throughout the Country. We have today requirements for catalytic converters on cars 

that in fact increase the cost of buying a car. You can go to California and have requirements on the kind of paint you buy trying 

to limit the VOCs in that that probably results in increased costs 

of that paint. 

I think increasingly we have to think about ways of incorporating 

some of these costs of cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay into the 

products, services, and other things that consumers grow to love in 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And I think this is some of our 
59 

challenge in figuring out what is the most cost-effective way of 

crafting these solutions together. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Just a final follow up on that, Mr. Chairman. 

Might the clean water State revolving fund play a role in trying to 

help mitigate some of those costs to States and localities? 

Mr. FOX. No question it could be very helpful in some cases. 

Many municipalities already have access to low-interest market 

funds, so that the SRF programs are not necessarily all that valuable to them, although they do certainly take advantage of it. Generally speaking, there is a very broad array of projects that are eligible under the SRFs. They tend to be much more advantageous to 

the smaller communities that might not already have access to lowinterest loans on the bond market. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just say to you in the current economic 

climate, we may want to take a fresh look at that because a lot of 

municipalities are having trouble accessing the credit markets. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Congressman Connolly raises a good point 

about the fact that you are dealing with so many different local 

governments within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We have six 

States. We have the District of Columbia, a lot of local governments. 

You mentioned the Clean Air Act and the challenges we had as 

a Nation to deal with the quality of our air. Well, to a certain degree the problem of the Chesapeake Bay is similar to the air. It is 

not only the jurisdictions that are within the watershed. We also 

have, of course, air pollutants that come in from wherever that affect the quality of the bay. When you implement TMDL, it seems 

to me it is going to be difficult to figure out how you do that with 

all these different levels of government. 

So I guess my question is, can we learn something from the 

Clean Air Act? Can we have noncontainment issues if we do not 

reach certain goals, that there would be restrictions imposed? And 

then science gives us the options that can be taken. So local governments know what they can do in order to achieve certain results, but they have to be in containment if they are going to be 

able to be freed from additional requirements. Is there something 

we can learn from that model? 

Mr. FOX. I think there is an enormous amount we can learn from 

that model. 

I did an analysis recently, before I came to this job, of looking 

at the exact same time period that the Chesapeake Bay Program 

existed with the progress under the Clean Air Act. And in the period 1980 to—I think at the time I looked at this, the data might 

have gone through 2002. The Clean Air Act’s challenges were just 

like the Chesapeake Bay. There was an increase in population, increase in vehicle miles traveled like impervious surface that exceeded that of population, increase in energy demand and increase 

in GDP, and at the same time in that period under the Clean Air 

Act, the six priority pollutants under the Clean Air Act with GPA 

measured actually went down by over 40 percent. If you were to 

compare similar trends on water pollution loads in the Chesapeake 

Bay, you would not see that decline. 
60 

I think some of the examples that you laid out about why the 

Clean Air Act worked better—I think these are precisely the kind 

of things that we all need to look at going forward here in the 

Chesapeake. 

The Clean Air Act—one of its root structures is what is called a 

SIP, State implementation plan, which is not unlike a TMDL. But 

under the Clean Air Act, all sources of pollution are within that 

SIP, and there are very clear requirements on the part of the 

States, as well as the sources of pollution, to take action to stay 

within the loading caps of that SIP, even in the context of growth. 

I remember when I was at MDE, we had a new plant coming 

into Baltimore. He wanted to locate in a nonattainment area. We 

said please come in. We want the jobs, but you need to know you 

need to give us a 2-to-1 offsets for your nitrogen oxide emissions, 

and that was specific requirements for the SIP and it was a way 

of dealing with growth in the context of the Clean Air Act. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think we really need to think out of just 

the current structure because it was well-intended, but I am not 

sure it gives us the effect of monitoring to reach the goals that we 

set and that you are going to need a stronger framework to deal 

with it. 

I do think with a new administration, there are always new opportunities. We should try to take advantage of this. The good 

news on the Chesapeake Bay is that there is broad consensus that 

we have got to take this to a new level, and it has been embraced 

by the business community, by all different parts of our economic 

fiber that understand the importance of the bay. 

So I think we do have a unique opportunity and we need to think 

beyond just the current structure as to what structure will give you 

the tools you need to accomplish the results without imposing 

undue burdens on the private sector, which is obviously a point 

that we have to be very careful about. 

Mr. FOX. Right. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. I understand you are going to be remaining at 

the desk. We want to bring up our second panel. In case they need 

help, you are there to help. You are from the Federal Government. 

That is good to hear. 

The second panel will consist of Gerry Connolly who will move 

from here to there. The Congressman represents the Fairfax area 

of Virginia, Virginia’s 11th district, has served in local government 

as chair of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, chair of the 

county’s Legislative Committee, and chair of the Northern Virginia 

Regional Commission, among other roles. In 2002, he was the recipient of an environmental achievement award from the Hunter 

Mill Defense League and has been recognized by Fairfax Trails and 

Streams for his environmental stewardship. 

Will Baker is well known for his work on the Chesapeake Bay. 

He is President and CEO of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and 

he has had that position since 1982. The foundation is the largest 

not-for-profit conservation organization dedicated solely to preserving, protecting, and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. In 1988, 

Washingtonian Magazine named Mr. Baker the Washingtonian of 

the Year for his work on bay restoration. Mr. Baker led the foundation in 1992 when it received the Presidential Medal for Environ-
61 

mental Excellence. Will Baker is well known to those of us in 

Maryland and this region as a person we can go to get an honest 

assessment of what we need to do in regards to the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

Robert ‘‘Bobby’’ Hutchison is a partner of Hutchison Brothers 

grain operations. He holds a board position with the Maryland Agricultural Commission, the Maryland Grain Utilization Board, and 

the Talbot County Farm Bureau. Mr. Hutchison serves as treasurer of the Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc. and is a member of its executive committee and can give us, I think, an honest assessment 

of the difficulties of agriculture in a very tough environment today 

and that we make sure that we have balance in what we do in regards to the bay. Agriculture is a critical ingredient to the economy 

of this region. 

It is a pleasure to have all three of you with us, and we will start 

with Congressman Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again. I 

again want to thank you for your leadership. Having a champion 

such as yourself in the U.S. Congress, especially in the Senate, 

overlooking this terribly important issue, important to our entire 

region, is a comfort and I look forward to working with you in the 

House of Representatives. 

I would like to summarize my written testimony, which you have 

in front of you. 

The bay has three main sources of pollution: point sources, agricultural nonpoint source pollution, and urban/suburban point 

source pollution. 

In the past few decades, we have achieved remarkable reductions 

in point source pollution, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, in your 

opening statement. By 2006, for example, sewage treatment plants 

throughout the bay watershed have reached 72 percent of their reduction goal and 87 percent of their phosphorus reduction goal. The 2008 farm bill added $4 billion to USDA conservation programs. This dramatic increase in investment will significantly reduce agricultural nutrient and sediment pollution entering the bay. 

But despite long-term reductions in point source pollution, the 

dramatic increases in agricultural conservation spending, the 

health of the bay has not materially improved. Failure of the bay 

to recover is due principally to continuing increases in impervious 

surface areas and associated stormwater runoff carrying nutrients 

and sediment. According to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, suburban and urban nonpoint source pollution is the only pollution 

sector in the bay watershed that continues to grow, and the growth 

has been dramatic. Between 1990 and 2000, for example, the impervious surface area increased 41 percent in the bay watershed, 

compared to the 8 percent population growth experienced in that 

same time period. 

The data is fairly clear. This Chesapeake Bay authorization bill 

must both reduce the spread of impervious surface area that results from sprawl and create regulatory and incentive structures 

that can eliminate impervious surface areas in existing developed 

areas. This means we must engage land use practices. 

Prior to my election to Congress, I served for 14 years in local 

government, the last 5 as chairman of Fairfax County. As a subur-
62 

ban county with 1-plus million people, Fairfax County has been 

ground zero for increasing impervious surface areas. Some of our 

sub-watersheds have imperviousness between 25 and 40 percent. 

These expanses of pavement have killed most of our streams. The 

last native trout in Fairfax County perished in the early 1990s. 

Stream erosion is so severe that some stream channels have 20-foot 

high eroded banks. 

When I ran for chairman, I pledged to enact a comprehensive environmental agenda to address this. Following the election, the 

board dedicated 1 full penny in our tax rate to stormwater management for the first time ever, producing $60 million in revenue over 

3 years. With this money, we paid for stream baseline assessments 

that found dramatic differences in stream health that correlated 

negatively to impervious surface areas. In watersheds with less 

than 5 percent surface area, we found healthy and diverse populations of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish and good stream habitat. In watersheds with low imperviousness, ranging from 5 to 10 

percent, such as watersheds near the Town of Clifton in Fairfax, 

we found some reduction in species diversity. In watersheds with 

imperviousness ranging from 15 to 40 percent, however, we found 

extreme stream bank erosion, little to no benthic macroinvertebrate 

life and very low diversity in species. 

Based on these findings, we then funded 30 watershed management plans for all of our county watersheds to identify what 

projects would be necessary to protect watersheds with healthy 

streams. We adopted a low impact development strategy as part of 

comprehensive plan. 

And we found, Mr. Chairman, that developers were more than 

willing to cooperate. The private sector was more than willing to 

cooperate in looking at other ways of treating stormwater. So we 

looked at rain gardens. We looked at green roofs. We looked at the 

trench infiltration. And we have actually got successful models that 

we used in the county. 

I believe that the local jurisdictions, with a little bit of help from 

the Federal Government and from the State governments, actually 

can tackle this problem. I mentioned Tysons Corner. We have an 

opportunity to retrofit one of the largest urban concentrations of 

impervious surface in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and if we 

have the political will to do so, we can actually turn it around into 

a green center of technology, into a green urban center in our region and actually address and improve the water quality coming 

out of that area. 

So I look forward to your questions, Mr. Chairman. But I do believe that impervious surface is one of the major culprits for why 

we have not achieved the progress we had so hoped to achieve in 

Chesapeake Bay. The good news is I believe there is a lot we can 

do about it. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Now we will hear from Mr. Baker, and if you 

could bring the microphone a little closer to you, it would be easier, 

I think, for the people to hear. 
63 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am especially pleased to be here this morning. 

I thank Congressman Connolly for all his great work at the local 

level, and we look forward to working with him at the Federal 

level. 

Let me, if I might, just summarize the testimony that I have presented to you. 

First, it seems to me that it is a terrible disgrace and really a 

national shame that when you or I go out to a restaurant in our 

hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, we have probably a 9 out of 10 

chance of eating an imported crab cake rather than one that comes 

from the Chesapeake Bay. If that does not strike home here at the 

center of the Chesapeake Bay watershed—we cannot get a real 

crab cake from the bay—something is definitely wrong. 

According to NOAA, some 4,500 crab-related jobs were lost in the 

last decade, all at a cost of $640 million to Maryland and Virginia. 

That is an economic impact of an environmental damage. 

And oysters. H.L. Mencken’s immense protein factory is largely 

boarded up. A generation of kids growing up now may never taste 

a Chesapeake Bay oyster or see the economic engine that once was 

the Chesapeake Bay oyster industry. 

There is a little good news, and it is important to focus on the 

good news when we get it. It appears as if native oysters may now 

be developing a resistance to the two parasites, MSX and Dermo. 

Maryland in 2008 planted over 500 million hatchery-produced seed 

oysters. Hopefully, they will have a chance to survive. 

And crabs have responded, as we just saw last week, to catch restrictions. 

It is a truism, however, that a crab not harvested will remain in 

the Chesapeake Bay and build the population. But if we hope for 

more, if we hope for long-term sustainable fisheries and water that 

is safe for humans, we have to do much more in dealing with water 

quality. Huge dead zones, water dominated by algae and bacteria 

and areas that continue to be plagued by toxic contamination—all 

this adds up to a Chesapeake Bay system which is dangerously out 

of balance. 

As we know, the pollutants causing systemic collapse are too 

much nitrogen and too much phosphorus, and the same phenomenon is happening worldwide. Here on the bay in our 10th Annual State of the Bay report, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation gave 

the bay a D. The grade is not so much for the bay itself, as for the 

government which has failed to put science to work in its restoration. 

If you want to search for good news here, there is some as well. 

It is true we have held our own, as previous speakers have noted, 

in spite of enormous population growth. One could argue that the 

per capita impact on the Chesapeake has been reduced by 50 percent or more over the last 50 years as the population has doubled, 

but none of us are satisfied with saying the bay would have been 

worse if not for our collective efforts. 

So what can we do? Let me make just a few points. 
64 

The condition of the Chesapeake is a national disgrace. I say that 

not so much to be rhetorical as to make a point. While the States 

have made numerous good-faith efforts over the last several years, 

the Federal Government has simply not been in place doing what 

the Clean Water Act has required. A national treasure remains 

trashed. 

Let us look at how we go there. Between 1976 and 1982, Congress funded the largest and most comprehensive scientific study 

of any body of water conducted in the world, $33 million over 7 

years. The result was captured in an Evening Sun—we remember 

that paper—headline, The Bay is Dying, Scientists Say. The Bay 

is Dying, Scientists Say. 

Central to the collection of studies that were released was the 

simple fact that the Chesapeake is part of a huge six-State, 64,000 

square mile system. Only by managing it as a system was there 

any hope for restoration. Your predecessor, Senator Mathias, called 

for a title 2 river basin commission to be the jurisdiction responsible for managing the Chesapeake Bay. That was in 1982. Basically the States said no way. We are not ceding authority to a new 

jurisdiction. Instead, a new executive council was created which 

would lead a multi-State/Federal team. 

Did it work? Clearly not. I do not know if you have ever been 

to an executive council meeting, but with few exceptions, they are 

simply a recitation of individual State actions. 

There is no mystery why the bay is not getting any better. 

Science told us to manage it as a single system, but we are not. 

Unless there is fundamental change now in how the bay is governed, the next 25 years will be just as grim. Science was right. 

Senator Mathias was right. But politics got in the way. 

We have called publicly on EPA to step up to its management responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. We are cautiously optimistic with the new leadership at EPA. We met recently with Lisa 

Jackson, and we are certainly very pleased with Chuck Fox as the 

new Senior Advisor to the Administrator. We are cautiously optimistic that a new era is about to begin. Let us all work together 

to see that that happens. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Hutchison. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HUTCHISON, PARTNER, HUTCHISON 

BROTHERS 

Mr. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Bobby 

Hutchison, and I am kind of overwhelmed to be a part of this 

panel. I am here today on behalf of the Maryland Farm Bureau 

and Maryland Grain Producers to express my thoughts on the 

progress made in bay restoration and some ways that we think we 

can accelerate it. 

Four insights that I would like for you to take away today are: 

One, Maryland farmers lead the Nation in the use of best management practices and advanced technology to protect the environment and specifically the Chesapeake Bay. 

No. 2, Maryland farm businesses are relatively small family operations. They do not have environmental compliance officers or attorneys on staff. They are husbands and wives sitting at a kitchen 

table at the end of the day trying to keep up with all the paperwork. 

No. 3, all new environmental regulations aimed at protecting the 

bay have significant economic impacts on small businesses in the 

watershed. Cost-share programs by the Federal and State governments are not grants. They involve substantial monetary investment by farmers. 

And No. 4, Maryland farmers are willing to do more to protect 

and restore the bay if the programs are reasonable, economically 

feasible, based on sound science, and equal to the efforts being 

made by other sources of bay nutrients. 

To give you a little bit of background about myself, I farm with 

two brothers, a son, and a nephew in Cordova on the eastern shore 

on a 3,600-acre farm. We grow grains, corn, soybeans, barley, 

wheat, and also processing vegetables, peas, lima beans, and cucumbers. We also sell seed corn to supplement our income. 

Tremendous progress has been made. Since the bay restoration 

efforts began in the mid-’80s Maryland farmers have made tremendous progress. Farmers are applying nutrients based on certified 

nutrient management plans. All poultry feed includes phytase. 

Cover crop acreage has expanded considerably, and new best management practices are added annually. 

A review of Maryland’s BayStat model shows that agriculture is 

progressing toward meeting its goals. EPA’s assessment, table 1, 

shows that agriculture is close to 50 percent of its goals, but urban 

programs have declined by more than 60 percent in every category. 

Maryland farms are now responsible for only 7 percent of bay nitrogen and 8 part of bay phosphorus. 

The Bay Commission Cost Effective Strategies have defined six 

best management practices. Five of those were from agriculture. 

We are concerned that undue emphasis has been placed on the agricultural best management practices to clean up the bay. 

I also believe strongly that the Chesapeake Bay Program has 

failed in its efforts to restore the oyster population in the bay. 

Without these natural feeders, water quality will never be restored 
80 

regardless of the activities that occur on the land. This must be a 

priority. 

The bay model needs to be improved to take into account things 

that the farmers are doing that they do not receive Federal funding 

for. These include no-till, variable-rate fertilizer application, slowrelease fertilizer use, chemical storage, and even some traditional 

practices such as buffers, stream fencing, and grassed waterways, 

and these are totally at the farmers’ expense and are not given 

credit in there. 

The bay model is also out of date in some of the figures it uses. 

For example, in 1985 my corn yields were 100 bushel. Today they 

are 120, with irrigated fields running close to 245 bushel. It is important that the bay model uses the characterization of agriculture 

and nutrient use in Maryland, and it is imperative that it is updated and there is greater transparency with the data that is being 

used to compile agricultural progress. 

We have made significant improvements, and I refer you to table 

2 that shows the efficiency of nitrogen use. In 1980, we were producing .6 bushel from a pound of nitrogen. In 2005, that was up 

to 1.3 bushels. In phosphorus, it was from 1.33 pounds per bushel 

to 2.89. That has come through genetic improvement and also better practices, ways of applying nutrients such as side dressing, split 

applications on small grain, and use of slow-release nitrogen products. 

We are going to see more improvement as the future goes on 

through bio-technology. There is drought-tolerant corn that is just 

around the corner. There is better nitrogen efficiency use with corn 

just around the corner. So we will see that increase as time goes 

on. 

Also, there are things coming on board such as GreenSeeker, 

which is the ability to go across the field and measure the nitrogen 

that is in the crop and apply the rate as to what is already there, 

a variable rate. But that is experimental. It looks very promising. 

There is also technology for poultry litter injection, and that is 

promising. 

One of the things that we can do immediately is produce ethanol 

from barley in the bay. There are several groups looking at it. I 

was part of a group that looked at it and we decided not to move 

forward with our project, although we believe it would work. But 

Chesapeake Energy down in Somerset is talking about building a 

plant, and they are planning to use barley. But more importantly, 

Osage BioEnergy in Hopewell, Virginia has broke ground on a barley plant. They will use up the 300,000 acres of barley that can be 

grown so it can act as a cover crop and work for water quality. And 

then on top of that, after you get the benefits from the grain, if we 

learn to make cellulose ethanol from the straw, it can be a win-win 

for the bay. 

We are concerned about the CAFO rules being applied more 

strictly in region III than they are in other parts of the country, 

and we think there should be some attention given to that. 

And we are also that the technical providers that we go to in agriculture have a knowledge of our farming practices. There is a core 

group out there of the Extension, crop consultants, and local soil 

conservation districts, and we think that is where the money 
81 

should come down and go through those agencies as opposed to diluting an already short supply by bringing in other groups to work 

with us. 

Sustainable agriculture. That means something different to every 

one of us. I would suggest that sustainability involves maximizing 

yields to meet future nutritional needs while decreasing impacts on 

the environment. If farming does not provide a reasonable income 

to the farmer, it cannot be sustained. I believe the bay program 

documentation clearly demonstrates that a well-managed farm is 

far better for the bay than urbanization. The agricultural community maintains its willingness to work with Congress, the Governor, the bay program, and all other interested parties to do our 

part to clean up the bay. We ask for your support for adequate 

technical assistance and an understanding for the needs of economically viable family farms. 

Thank you, and I apologize for going so far over. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchison follows:] 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Hutchison. 

I appreciate all three of your testimonies. 

Agriculture is a critical industry to Maryland and this entire region. It is usually ranked No. 1 as far as the economic importance 

to our State. 

I could not agree with you more about your statement that Maryland farmers are willing to do more to protect and restore the 

Chesapeake Bay if the programs are reasonable, economically feasible, based on sound science, and equal to the efforts being made 

by other sources of bay nutrients. I think that should be the framework in which we operate. So I applaud you for that. 

I also want to compliment the agricultural industry in this region 

because I think they have been very aggressive in working with us 

as partners to try to come up with best practices, helped us with 

the farm bill, the conservation provisions in the farm bill to try to 

provide ways in which we can make progress. 

I guess if you care to respond—if Congress or EPA decided that 

it wanted to regulate agricultural nutrient runoff more aggressively 

and broadly, how do you think that burden should be shared? Do 

you have a view as to the best way for us to try to get a handle 

on it in a fair manner? 

Mr. HUTCHISON. I certainly have some thoughts. I certainly do 

not know that I have the answer. But to be honest, at this point 

in time, I do not know what we can do that we have not already 

adopted at this point. As I said, I think there are new things coming along. Some of those, such as the biotechnology will not have 

any public sector cost to it. I think that would be borne entirely by 

the farmer. But I do think there are things such as the 

GreenSeeker, the poultry litter injection unit that was demonstrated about 10 days ago at the Y. Those things have tremendous costs to them to the farmer and limited use, and it might be 

very well to help fund that. 

Certainly the research for such things as the slow-release nitrogen, slow-release phosphorus products—and that is ongoing right 

now. I do not think that needs to be stepped up, but that needs 

to be proven whether there is an economic benefit or an environmental benefit, and if it is strictly an environmental benefit, then 

there may need to be some help to use those products. Currently 

my limited research on my farm has shown that there is no economic benefit to it. It is kind of a tradeoff. But if it proves that it 

is good for the bay, then it would be certainly a legitimate tradeoff. 

I do think that farmers in general—not in general—all farmers 

look at the environment and want it to be better than it was when 

they started on their farm. They want to hand it down to their children in better shape, not just the farms themselves, but the total 

environment. 

But there is only so much cost burden that we can share. So I 

do think that increased subsidies—that is not the right word—costshare programs are appropriate, and I do point out in the testimony there that I think there are $91 million that have been spent 

by the Government and $13 million matching by the farmers. So 

we do have a cost to pay, and I think that is probably appropriate. 

But I think it needs to be remembered that we do have to bring 

money out of our own pocket to do that, and I think there should 
93 

be some help in some of these things that are questionable at this 

point. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, there are certainly some best practices 

that will actually help the farming economy, but there are others 

that have to be shared in a fair manner. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Fox, I just want to make sure the record is clear on the impact to the goals we are trying to accomplish. I am looking at your 

March report that you referred to, I think, early in your presentation on pages 24 and 25. You have a pie chart there that looks 

at nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment as far as the industries and 

the relative responsibility on pollution in the bay. I just want to 

make sure that this is accurate from the best information that you 

have today because this will be one of the issues that will guide 

us. If you would just go through that with us briefly, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. FOX. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I go through this, I will start 

with the caveats that you expect, and that is that this is the gross 

summary bay-wide assessments of the loads from different sources. 

When you look at individual watersheds, the breakdown is a little 

bit different. And there are subcategories within all of these categories that, of course, are not captured in this as well, and I will 

mention a couple of those. 

What it says is that for the total nitrogen loads to the bay, the 

relative responsibility for agriculture is estimated at 42 percent. 

The wastewater side, which includes publicly owned and privately 

owned wastewater treatment plants, is 20 percent. Runoff from 

urban and suburban sectors is 16 percent, and importantly, that is 

obviously a growing percentage. And then the atmospheric contribution is 22 percent on the nitrogen side. And this comes chiefly 

from automobiles and powerplants, fossil fuel combustion. 

On the phosphorus side, a very similar picture for agriculture at 

46 percent; wastewater at 22 percent; urban/suburban runoff at 32 

percent. 

And then, of course, on the sediment side, the number is very 

significant for agriculture, and that is estimated at 76 percent with 

the urban and suburban at 24 percent. We do not find significant 

sediment loads from wastewater treatment plants or atmospheric 

sources. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, we will include the report in 

our committee record for today’s hearing. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 

Senator CARDIN. I wanted you to go through this because, again, 

I agree with Mr. Hutchison’s point, that it has to be equal to the 

efforts being made by other sources of bay nutrients. I will broaden 

that. I think if we look at the bay in its totality, we need a strategy 

that is going to be fair to all of the segments. Some are easier to 

get to because of perhaps the regulatory system or the source, but 

we need to have a fair program to all the activities that are dealing 

with the pollutants, obviously go to those that are the most economical to deal with, but we need a comprehensive approach. 

Mr. Baker, let me just turn to you for a moment. So what type 

of regulatory system should we have? What do we need to do? Do 

we need a fundamental change? Senator Mathias you mentioned 

earlier, who is one of my heroes when it comes to not just the 

Chesapeake Bay, but is a great role model for all of us who serve 

in the U.S. Senate. 1982 it was that he made his recommendation. 

It was a different political climate in 1982 than it is today. Should 

we be looking at Senator Mathias’ recommendation, or can you 

bring us up to date as to how you think we need to deal with the 

current challenges? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Senator. By definition, the boundary of 

State government ends at the State line. And so a management regime that relies on individual Governors to set strategies that will 

have a cumulative benefit of restoring a system that spans six 

States and the District of Columbia is bound to be handicapped 

from the get-go. 

The development or the putting in place of a whole new governmental entity, a title 2 river basin commission, is probably as unlikely today as it was in 1982 from a political standpoint. But the 

jurisdiction that does have not only we say, we believe, the authority but the responsibility watershed-wide is the Federal Government, specifically the Environmental Protection Agency. Let me 

just give you one example. 

The northern section of Maryland’s part of the Chesapeake Bay 

is really dominated by what comes out of Pennsylvania and New 

York State. Maryland has no authority and certainly no responsibility to address pollution coming out of Pennsylvania and New 

York State. The States of Pennsylvania and New York have interest in clean water in their jurisdictions, but anybody would be fooling themselves if they said that their primary interest is improving 

the waters of Maryland. 

So you need a Federal Government to set a specific and enforce 

a standard for the entire watershed. We think that the science has 

absolutely been precise in terms of where the pollution is coming 

from and what reductions need to be made on a tributary-by-tributary basis. The need is for EPA to enforce that science, and certainly what we have heard from Ms. Jackson says she will. We are 

looking forward to seeing that that happens, and as you know, we 

have a lawsuit against EPA to try to see that a Federal court will 

require EPA to enforce those provisions of the Clean Water Act. 

Senator CARDIN. I guess my point is this. There is a new administration in town. They certainly have a different priority as it relates to the environment. And I guess my question to you—and 

maybe if you do not feel comfortable in answering it, you can certainly supplement this at a later point. But do we have an ade-
135 

quate regulatory framework in place? We just need to enforce it. 

And should we be giving this administration an opportunity to act? 

Or do we need Congress acting to strengthen the regulatory and 

monitoring and enforcement provisions so that you can get the results? And I think your observations here to be very important to 

us. 

Mr. BAKER. I understand the question precisely. There is ample 

authority and responsibility under the Clean Water Act to not wait, 

to begin reducing pollution immediately from all of the areas that 

are clearly stated in the Clean Water Act, certainly all point 

sources, stormwater from urban and suburban areas, and certain 

agricultural sources. 

Now, do we need in this Country greater guidance, greater clarity, perhaps some expanded responsibilities if section 117 of the 

Clean Water Act were reauthorized? Absolutely, absolutely. But 

there is no need to wait any longer to start putting things in place 

under existing authority, and we have a lot of ground to make up. 

We really have seen very little, if any, of that in the last decade. 

Senator CARDIN. Another area I would ask for your advice, and 

that is the transparency at EPA. Again, we have a new administration. I think they are trying to make sure that there is accountability for good policy and the use of good science. I think it is an 

opportunity perhaps for us to institutionalize a better public transparency on how decisions are made, and we would welcome your 

thoughts as to whether we should try to put that into legislation 

or just get it through administrative action. 

Mr. BAKER. I think you use all tools at your disposal. And when 

you asked Mr. Fox the question after his testimony, the one word 

I wrote down was transparency. I think that is critical, and I think 

EPA and the rest of the Federal agencies have an absolute obligation for full and complete transparency with the public. That has 

not been the case at all times in the past. The public and really 

decisionmakers at the State and local level are often whipsawed by 

different information that comes out, and that simply does not need 

to be the case. And I think EPA can play a big role in that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Certainly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Could I go back, if you would not mind, just to 

the issue of governance and the concept that Mr. Baker cited from 

our friend, Senator Mathias, whom I had the privilege of working 

with for most of a decade on the Senate side? 

We do have some models that require regional cooperation and 

regional planning that wash the hands of States—or maybe to put 

it positively, cross-jurisdictional responsibilities. For example, we 

have a structure in transportation with metropolitan planning organizations. In metropolitan Washington, it is TPB. It is the Transportation Planning Board, which has a lot of power in deciding 

which projects get approved in Maryland, D.C., and Virginia and 

which do not, what is in the constrained long-range funding plan 

and what is not. And so we do have that model. 

With respect to air quality, we have MWAQC, the Metropolitan 

Washington Air Quality Committee, that actually has a lot of 

power in requiring respective jurisdictions ultimately, if they do not 

volunteer to do it, to take mitigation measures that are very spe-
136 

cific. We have even looked at things like odd/even days for lawn 

mowing to make sure that metropolitan Washington is in compliance with EPA air quality standards. 

So it seems to me that we could look at some of those models 

with respect to the bay because I think Mr. Baker’s point is well 

taken. The fervor with which Maryland and Virginia have entered 

into mitigation measures and the investments that we have made 

most certainly have not been matched by some of our neighboring 

States. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I want to agree with both of you. I want 

to agree with Mr. Baker in that I do think EPA has a great deal 

of authority, and they can act. We want to see them act in order 

to protect the environment. That is what EPA’s mission is. We 

want them to be certainly within the legal authority that they 

have, but using that to accomplish their goals. And where they run 

into difficulty because of legal uncertainty, please come to us and 

see whether we can help you clarify that and work with you. 

But on the other side, I am concerned about consistency here and 

would like to make sure that we have in statute the clear direction 

necessary to reach our objectives in regards to the Chesapeake 

Bay. So even if you have the authority that you need, I would be 

concerned that if we are not more specific in statute, we could fall 

back to a time where it may not be as high a priority as it is with 

this current administration. So I think we would want some guidance in either of those circumstances. 

Mr. Baker, I want to ask you one of my favorite questions concerning the Asian oyster. I know that the decision was made not 

to move forward on it, but that could be changed tomorrow or the 

next day. Does Congress need to act on this issue? 

Mr. BAKER. I had not even thought of that. The decision that 

came out of the Corps of Engineers now stands. We think they 

made the right decision. Certainly when so little has been done to 

really give the Chesapeake Bay oyster the chance it deserves, to 

bring in a foreign species with all the consequences that are unknown, would be right in the face of good science. So any help Congress could give would be welcome, and we would be happy to work 

with you on it. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we may take you up on that. It would be 

good to have clear direction in statute on these types of issues. On 

the other hand, we do want good science to be able to move forward. But I share your concern. Senator Mikulski has been one of 

the leaders in the U.S. Senate on trying to make sure that we have 

good science as it relates to oysters in Maryland. Of course, there 

have been many projects moving forward. 

You seem to be more optimistic than perhaps I have heard in the 

past on the oyster. Is there a reason for that? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, yes, two things. First, there is some sign that 

it looks as if our native bay oyster may—and I really underscore 

‘‘may’’—be developing some resistance to the two parasites. 

And second, just look at the marketplace. There are a number of 

companies now growing and marketing native Chesapeake Bay 

oysters, triploid, which means they are sterile oysters, in Chesapeake Bay and are making some money at it. 
137 

Third, restoration works. And I might take this opportunity, if I 

may, to clarify a statistic that has been widely bandied about, that 

$58 million has been spent on restoration of the bay oyster over the 

last decade or more. That is simply an incorrect number. $17 million has been spent on restoration. The balance has been spent on 

basically a put-and-take fishery, moving oysters from one area to 

another to try and circumvent disease, building oyster reefs and 

bars that then would be harvested. But really, the total dollars 

that have been spent on restoration, when you think of what has 

been lost and what is at risk, is not nearly enough. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Do you have a view on the menhaden as to whether there needs 

to be better management of the taking of the menhaden? 

Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. The menhaden fishery, as you know, is 

primarily a Virginia fishery. Virginia still uses large trawlers to 

harvest menhaden, and menhaden are a filter feeder similar to oysters and other shellfish. 

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission instituted a 5- 

year window of opportunity in which the fishery is capped to allow 

the scientists to come up with the best number possible as to what 

the sustainable harvest is. Once that number is available, we ought 

to follow the science once again and meet that, and whatever it 

takes to meet it should be followed. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think management is a critical issue. 

You mentioned the rockfish, that it seems like it is going to be a 

good season, although my brother went fishing yesterday and did 

not catch anything. He is a pretty good fisherman. So we will see. 

Of course, the crab crop looks like it is going to be better, certainly better this season than last. 

Congressman Connolly, I want to ask you about what practices 

you are using in regards to looking at dealing with the runoff. It 

is amazing to me because I have seen some very practical ways of 

dealing with runoff issues that look like it is economically feasible. 

It is less expensive than pouring all that concrete. It certainly looks 

better and is much better for the environment. I personally believe 

the Federal Government has got to be a leader here in the way 

that we do our construction, whether it is roads or buildings, that 

we have a clear policy on minimizing the negative impact on the 

bay and that we lead by example and then show the right practices 

that can be economically achieved. 

In your experience, can you tell us what could be the best policies 

to try to make this as economically feasible as possible, achieving 

our environmental results? Any lessons learned from what you did 

in Virginia? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I think there are, Mr. Chairman, and I hinted at 

it a little bit earlier with our exchange with Mr. Fox. I do think 

that some kind of standard set by the EPA on low-impact development could make a difference because you made the point that you 

do not want to do an undue burden on business, but if one locality 

wants to do the right thing and have certain requirements of businesses as they are doing new development or retrofitting existing 

development, and the neighboring jurisdiction has none, you have 

put yourself, trying to do the right thing, at a competitive dis-
138 

advantage. And so having a uniform standard on low-impact development I think can make a difference. 

We put up some pictures here, Mr. Chairman, of three examples 

in Fairfax County we did as a government that were not terribly 

expensive and they had very dramatic improvements in the treatment of runoff. 

This first one was a recreation center where in the drainage 

area, about 23–24 percent of the drainage area we turned into a 

rain garden and got very dramatic improvements in terms of the 

runoff that was retained, about 47 percent. 

The second picture is an example of a roof garden where we took 

an impervious surface on a parking garage on a roof and basically 

turned it into a rain garden that has, in one case, retained 100 percent of the estimated runoff. I mean, really a dramatic improvement. 

And the third example was a parking lot where we replaced asphalt with porous pavers and we instituted a retention trench that 

has also had a dramatic improvement. This is a government center 

and a fire station, heavily trafficked, and we have made a big difference. We are over 40 percent now of runoff being treated and retained. 

So these were just three examples of LIDs. You know, we are 

practicing what we are preaching, and we are finding developers 

more than happy to try to replicate this with a little bit of encouragement. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 

Senator CARDIN. As far as the cost differential, have you been 

able to document the extra costs? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is hard to get at that delta, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, we have looked at, for example, in the replanning of 

Tysons7, that 3-year effort, the business community sat at that 

table, and to a person, the developers and the owners, including 

the largest single owner of property in Tysons, unanimously endorsed the LIDs that we put in the plan that would require 100 

percent treatment of stormwater and would implement these kinds 

of measures to try to make for a more efficient and environmentally sensitive Tysons Corner. So I cannot give you a delta just 

yet, but I can tell you that we are not finding a lot of resistance 

from the business community. 

Senator CARDIN. And in some cases, the maintenance costs are 

going to be less. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. We saw that in legislation that I was working 

on on GSA buildings that the cost issues really were not there. I 

mean, it is not extra cost. It is just paying attention to the environment and doing it the right way. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. In public buildings, Mr. Chairman, what we 

found in the public sector, roughly the life of a building is somewhere around 40 to 50 years, and we find the break-even point 

with these investments is around year 11. So after that, you are 

actually net making money in terms of savings and maintenance 

and operation. 

Senator CARDIN. And Mr. Fox, looking again at your pie chart, 

all three, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediments, are very much impacted by runoff. So it seems to me this is one that we could make 

some significant progress. 

Mr. FOX. Absolutely, and my hope is that with the emergence of 

this next generation of stormwater permits for urban and suburban 

areas, we will see an increasing tightening of these permit conditions and higher performance of precisely these kinds of things. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank our witnesses, all four of 

you. This is the first of a series of opportunities we are going to 

have to try to deal with the Clean Water Act, deal with the Chesapeake Bay Program, to try to develop the right governmental structure, and working with this administration, which we believe is 

very much in step with what we are trying to accomplish in Congress on the Chesapeake Bay. 

There has been a lot of effort put into the bay—there is no question about it—by the agricultural community, by local governments, by the private interest groups, by children who go out on 

the weekends to clean up the bay, and it has made a difference, 

as I said in my opening statements. But we are at a D in our grading system and that is not acceptable. We are in poor quality. That 

is not acceptable. 

So we need to look at ways to do it consistent with what Mr. 

Hutchison said. We want it to be based upon good science. We 

want it to be fair. We do want to create an undue burden on our 

economy. We think we can achieve those goals. But I really do 

think we need the help of all of you, all the stakeholders, in order 

to achieve that objective. I can tell you that this committee is very 
160 

much interested in working with each of you to develop legislation 

and try to move legislation through Congress and to give the administration the tools they need, whether they are financial or regulatory, to achieve these objectives. 

The record will be open for 2 weeks for additional comments that 

any of you would like to add or by members of our committee. 

Again, I thank you all for your participation. 

With that, the hearing will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:43 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170