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

21–657 PDF 2017

REHABILITATION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: 

HEALING THE BAY THE VOLUNTARY WAY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

Serial No. 114–58

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, Chairman 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas, 

Vice Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SCOTT C. GRAVES, Staff Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

(II) 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Kuster, Hon. Ann M., a Representative in Congress from New Hampshire, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 11

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Submitted articles ............................................................................................ 4

WITNESSES

Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .............................................................. 12

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

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 41

Redding, Hon. Russell C., Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, 

Harrisburg, PA ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21

Submitted questions ......................................................................................... 41

(1)

REHABILITATION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: 

HEALING THE BAY THE VOLUNTARY WAY 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION AND FORESTRY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Thompson, Allen, Lujan Grisham, Kuster, Nolan, and DelBene. 

Staff present: Haley Graves, John Weber, Josh Maxwell, Patricia 

Straughn, Stephanie Addison, Faisal Siddiqui, John Konya, Anne 

Simmons, Evan Jurkovich, Nicole Scott, and Carly Reedholm. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Conservation and Forestry, entitled, Rehabilitation of the Chesapeake Bay: Healing the Bay the Voluntary Way, will come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome our two witnesses today, two great champions for agriculture and rural Pennsylvania and rural America. I 

appreciate having them here as we explore today’s topic. 

Over the course of the 114th Congress, the Conservation and 

Forestry Subcommittee has held a series of hearings to highlight 

the success of voluntary conservation by our nation’s farmers, 

ranchers, and foresters. 

Today’s discussion, Healing the Bay the Voluntary Way, takes a 

more focused approached to this discussion. The Chesapeake Bay, 

the largest estuary in the United States, is an incredibly complex 

ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part 

of our American heritage. 

The Bay’s watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, spread-out suburban development, and diverse 

agricultural practices. But, unquestionably, the Bay is in need and 

worthy of our attention and concern. I believe that everyone has a 

role to play in restoring it. 

With the USDA’s recent report on the improved health of the 

Chesapeake Bay, it is timely that the Committee should highlight 

the voluntary conservation efforts that are being implemented by 

producers. I want to be sure that the agriculture community receives the credit it deserves for engaging in voluntary practices and 

the reduced nutrient and sediment runoff. 

2

However, it has become increasingly clear that some government 

agencies and environmental activist groups, organizations ignore or 

otherwise discount the commitment our farmers, ranchers, and foresters make to environmental stewardship. The critics forget that 

farmers and ranchers are the original and best stewards of the 

land. Farmers and ranchers continually find new and innovative 

ways to reduce energy usage, reduce emissions, and sequester carbon while still providing America with an abundant and affordable 

food and fiber supply. This is something that critics conveniently 

forget, especially when discussing restoration of the Chesapeake 

Bay. The goal for all involved is the same, the continued health 

and vitality of the Bay, while the road to that health and vitality 

is being strongly debated. 

It is a clear choice: over-regulation and intrusion into the lives 

and livelihoods of those who choose to make the Bay’s watershed 

their home or incentive-based programs that help restore and protect our natural resources. 

EPA and other regulators fail to realize that fear and intimidation is no way to govern. No two producers face the same natural 

resource concerns. Voluntary conservation initiatives are the only 

way to respond to natural resource concerns because they can be 

tailored to best address each concern. 

We have seen time and time again that top-down, one-size-fitsall is the least effective solution to a country as diverse as this, certainly as diverse a watershed as the Chesapeake watershed is. 

Whether the farms are 2 miles or 2,000 miles apart from each 

other, protecting our drinkable water supply, keeping nutrients in 

the soil for the next crop year, or maintaining a supply of forage 

for livestock, there is no shortage of reasons why we must continue 

to innovate when it comes to preserving our natural resources. 

In addition to the great work being done at the state and county 

levels, I am proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in 

Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps in order to do their part 

to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay. The environmental 

gains they have achieved are a testament to our producers. I would 

also like to highlight the trust built between those who deliver the 

conservation programs and farmers who depend on their technical 

assistance. These invaluable relationships are the core of the voluntary conservation model, and I would strongly caution any agency or organization who wishes to change this model for success. 

It is very coincidental that the day before this hearing that will 

highlight USDA’s report on the improved health of the Bay and the 

importance of voluntary conservation efforts of farmers and ranchers that the Chesapeake Bay program would release a press release agreeing that the Bay water quality is improving. However, 

they have a slightly different narrative. 

They begin the release with the following statement, ‘‘The 

amount of nutrient and sediment pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay fell significantly between 2014 and 2015, helping improve water quality in the nation’s largest estuary. Experts attribute this drop in pollution loads to dry weather and below-normal river flow, but note local efforts to reduce pollution also played 

a role.’’

3

EPA is so blatantly tied to their agenda against agriculture that 

the agency will give more credence to climate change than they do 

to successful efforts by agricultural producers. The data in USDA’s 

report clearly prove that it is the conservation efforts by farmers 

and ranchers improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

And, without objection, I would like to submit for the record the 

Chesapeake Bay press release that I noted on the Chesapeake Bay 

program, Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Improving, as well as an 

article that was in a Farming magazine, actually was shared with 

and given to me by some of the farmers in Pennsylvania. That is 

where you get your best information, from the folks who are on the 

farm doing the work. This is an article that says, What is the Cause 

of the Bay’s Problems? This is by two farmers who are also biologists. And manure gets too much blame, farmer-biologists say. 

And, without objection, I submit those for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning, and welcome to today’s hearing. Over the course of the 114th Congress, the Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee has held a series of hearings 

to highlight the success of voluntary conservation by our nation’s farmers, ranchers, 

and foresters. 

Today’s discussion, ‘‘Healing the Bay the Voluntary Way’’, takes a more focused 

approach to this discussion. The Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the U.S., 

is an incredibly complex ecosystem that includes important habitats and is a cherished part of our American heritage. 

The Bay’s watershed includes all types of land uses, from intensely urban areas, 

spread out suburban development and diverse agricultural practices. But, unquestionably the Bay is in need and worthy of our attention and concern, and I believe 

everyone has a role to play in restoring it. 

With USDA’s recent report on the improved health of the Chesapeake Bay, it is 

timely that the Committee should highlight the voluntary conservation efforts that 

are being implemented by producers. I want be sure that the agriculture community 

receives the credit it deserves for engaging in voluntary practices that reduce nutrient and sediment runoff. 

However, it has become increasingly clear that some government agencies and environmental activist organizations ignore or otherwise discount the commitment our 

farmers, ranchers and foresters make to environmental stewardship. 

The critics forget that farmers and ranchers are the original and best stewards 

of the land. Farmer and ranchers continually find new and innovative ways to reduce energy usage, reduce emissions, and sequester carbon while still providing 

America with an abundant and affordable food and fiber supply. This is something 

the critics conveniently forget, especially when discussing restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The goal from all involved is the same, the continued health and vitality of the 

Bay, but the road to that health and vitality is being strongly debated. It is a clear 

choice, over-regulation and intrusion into the lives and livelihoods of those who 

chose to make the Bay’s watershed their home, or incentive-based programs that 

help restore and protect our natural resources. 

EPA and other regulators fail to realize that fear and intimidation is no way to 

govern. 

No two producers face the same natural resource concerns. Voluntary conservation initiatives are the only way to respond to natural resource concerns because 

they can be tailored to best address each concern. We have seen time and again that 

top-down, one-size-fits-all is the least effective solution to a country as diverse as 

this. Whether the farms are 2 miles or 2,000 miles apart from each other—protecting our drinkable water supply, keeping nutrients in the soil for the next crop 

year, or maintaining a supply of forage for livestock, there is no shortage of reasons 

why we must continue to innovate when it comes to preserving our natural resources. 

In addition to the great work being done at the state and county levels, I am 

proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in Pennsylvania have taken volVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
4

untary steps in order to do their part to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake 

Bay. The environmental gains they have achieved are a testament to our producers. 

I’d also like to highlight the trust built between those who deliver conservation 

programs and farmers who depend on their technical assistance. These invaluable 

relationships are the core of the voluntary conservation model, and I would strongly 

caution any agency or organization who wishes to change this model for success. 

I am proud of the fact that farmers are taking real, on-the-ground, daily steps to 

improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay region and across the country. With 

that, I thank our witnesses for being here today, and I recognize Ranking Member 

Lujan Grisham for any comments she would like to make. 

SUBMITTED ARTICLES

Data Show Drop in Nutrient and Sediment Pollution, the Leading Causes 

of the Bay’s Poor Health 

[http://www.chesapeakebay.net/presscenter/release/chesapeake_bay_water_quality_improving] 

Chesapeake Bay Program 

Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Improving 

Press Center 

Annapolis, MD (September 21, 2016)

The amount of nutrient and sediment pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay fell 

significantly between 2014 and 2015, helping improve water quality in the nation’s 

largest estuary. Experts attribute this drop in pollution loads to dry weather and 

below-normal river flow, but note local efforts to reduce pollution also played a role. 

Indeed, related research (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/presscenter/release/

science_shows_restoration_efforts_can_improve_local_water_quality_in_the_ch) shows 

‘‘best management practices’’—including upgrading wastewater treatment plants, 

lowering vehicle and power plant emissions, and reducing runoff from farmland—

have lowered nutrients and sediment in local waterways. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) tracks pollution loads and trends (http://

www.chesapeakeprogress.com/clean-water/water-quality/water-quality) as it marks 

progress toward improving the health of the Bay. According to data from the CBP 

and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads 

to the Bay were below the long-term average in 2015. Between 2014 and 2015, nitrogen loads fell 25 percent, from 290 million pounds to 217 million pounds. Phosphorus loads fell 44 percent, from 17.7 million pounds to 9.9 million pounds. Sediment loads fell 59 percent, from 7.2 billion pounds to 2.9 billion pounds. Below-average loads are considered positive because reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment pollution can improve water quality. 

The most recent assessment of water quality—which examines dissolved oxygen, 

water clarity and chlorophyll a (a measure of algae growth) in the Bay and its tidal 

waters—makes these improvements clear: an estimated (http://

www.chesapeakeprogress.com/clean-water/water-quality/water-quality) 37 percent 

of the tidal Chesapeake met water quality standards between 2013 and 2015. While 

this is far below the 100 percent attainment needed for clean water and a stable 

aquatic habitat, it marks an almost ten percent improvement from the previous assessment period. 

A large portion of pollution loads enters the Bay from the rivers within its watershed. Accordingly, the USGS tracks annual pollution loads and trends in these loads 

at monitoring stations along nine of the biggest rivers that feed the Bay. In some 

cases, long-term pollution trends at these stations—which span from 1985 to 2015—

reflect efforts to improve water quality. Long-term trends in nitrogen, for example, 

are improving at six of the nine monitoring stations, including those on the Susquehanna, Potomac, James and Rappahannock (the four largest rivers in the watershed). Long-term trends in phosphorus and sediment, however, are more variable: 

phosphorus is improving at three monitoring stations and degrading at five, while 

sediment is improving at three stations and degrading at four. Short-term pollution 

trends—which span the last decade—show less improvement. 

In June, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released its 2 year milestone 

evaluations of Federal agencies’ and watershed jurisdictions’ work toward the 

Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-baytmdl) (Bay TMDL). This ‘‘pollution diet’’ calls for all needed pollution control measures to be in place by 2025, with measures that would achieve 60 percent of pollution load reductions in place by 2017. Computer simulations show (http://

www.chesapeakeprogress.com/clean-water/water-quality/watershed-implementationVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
5

plans) these measures are in place to achieve 31 percent of the nitrogen reductions, 

81 percent of the phosphorus reductions and 48 percent of the sediment reductions 

necessary to reach our clean water goals. Evaluations from EPA indicate it is unlikely jurisdictions will meet the 2017 target for reducing nitrogen. 

While continued improvements in water quality will take time—due in large part 

to the lag (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/lag_times_call_for_patience_

in_awaiting_restoration_results) between the implementation of a conservation practice and the visible effect of that practice on a particular waterway—the ecosystem 

is beginning to respond to protection and restoration efforts. Last year, researchers 

observed (http://www.chesapeakeprogress.com/abundant-life/vital-habitats/sav) 

more than 91,000 acres of underwater grasses in the Bay, which surpassed the 

Chesapeake Bay Program’s 2017 restoration target 2 years ahead of schedule and 

marked the highest amount ever recorded by the Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science aerial survey.

Facts

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitors nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment 

loads entering the Chesapeake Bay from the nine largest rivers in the watershed. 

Together, pollution loads computed at all nine River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations reflect pollution loads delivered to the Bay from 78 percent of its watershed. 

Additional monitoring and modeling information is used to estimate the total nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads delivered to the Bay in a given water year. 

The amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment entering the Bay can change 

dramatically from year to year and is influenced by changes in land use, land management and river flow. This complicates our efforts to determine trends in pollution 

loads over time. The USGS analyzes trends in flow-normalized pollution loads—

which account for changes in weather and river flow—to better understand the 

changes in pollution that can result from changes in land use and management 

practices. 

Last year’s decline in pollution loads can, in large part, be attributed to favorable 

weather. While high precipitation can increase river flow (http://

www.chesapeakebay.net/indicators/indicator/river_flow_into_chesapeake_bay) and 

push pollution into the Bay, river flow was below normal in 2015. However, 2015 

was not a drought year. A related analysis (http://ecoreportcard.org/report-cards/

chesapeake-bay/publications/2015-chesapeake-bay-report-card/) from the University 

of Maryland Center for Environmental Science highlights the significance of this 

fact: previously observed improvements in water quality have been linked to lower 

rates of river flow than those seen in 2015. The long-term decline in pollution loads 

can also be attributed to on-the-ground pollution-reducing practices, which jurisdictions put in place to meet first the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement (http://

www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12512.pdf), then similar agreements signed in 1987 (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/

cbp_12510.pdf) and 2000 (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/

cbp_12081.pdf), and later the requirements of the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum 

Daily Load (https://www.epa.gov/chesapeake-bay-tmdl) (Bay TMDL). 

The Chesapeake Bay Program uses the following data to determine the total nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads entering the Bay:

• Nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads computed at nine RIM stations;

• Nitrogen and phosphorus levels in water samples collected at wastewater treatment plants downstream of RIM stations;

• Computer-simulated estimates of nitrogen and phosphorus loads from nonpoint 

pollution sources downstream of RIM stations; and

• Computer-simulated estimates of the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to tidal 

waters.

Water quality in the Bay and its tidal tributaries is evaluated using three parameters: dissolved oxygen, water clarity or underwater grass abundance, and chlorophyll a (a measure of algae growth). These parameters are monitored by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. The resulting data is used to develop an indicator of the estimated 

attainment of a set of water quality standards that can be monitored at this time. 

During the 2013 to 2015 assessment period, an estimated 37 percent of the Bay and 

its tidal waters met water quality standards. This marks an increase of almost ten 

percent from the previous assessment period, during which an estimated 34 percent 

of the Bay and its tidal waters met water quality standards. While this indicator 

does not represent a complete accounting of all of the water quality standards for 

the Bay and its tidal tributaries, it does reflect trends in water quality over time. 

6

If the Bay and its tidal tributaries are to function as a healthy ecosystem, all water 

quality parameters for all aquatic habitats must be met.

Issues

Excess nutrients (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/nutrients) and sediment (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/issues/issue/sediment) are among the leading 

causes of the Bay’s poor health. Nitrogen and phosphorus can fuel the growth of 

algae blooms that lead to long-duration, low-oxygen ‘‘dead zones’’ in deep water and 

short-duration ‘‘mortality moments’’ in shallow water. Sediment can block sunlight 

from reaching underwater grasses and suffocate shellfish. By tracking pollution 

loads into rivers and streams, the Chesapeake Bay Program can ensure our partners are on track to meet our clean water goals. By measuring the achievement of 

water quality standards, we can observe changes in Bay health over time. By reporting on these environmental indicators together, we gain a better picture of how 

pollution from the watershed can affect the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

Quotes

‘‘It is critical that we track our pollution control efforts and assess the 

ecosystem response that result from those efforts. The ecosystem of the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed is large and complex and can be affected by a 

variety of different factors. We are witnessing improvement in a number of 

our indicators—bay grasses, water clarity and water quality standards attainment, as well as a number of our fisheries such as blue crab population. 

But we must stay focused and ramp up our pollution reduction efforts if we 

are to be successful over the long-term.’’

NICK DIPASQUALE, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program.

‘‘While our job is not done, our determined efforts to date give us great 

hope for further improvements in water quality in the Bay and its tributaries and the living resources that depend on healthy aquatic habitats.’’

MOLLY JOSEPH WARD, Virginia Secretary of Natural Resources, and Chair,

Chesapeake Bay Program Principals’ Staff Committee. 

‘‘While the lowered amount of pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay in 

2015 is encouraging, the trends of nutrients and sediment over the last decade in the major rivers flowing into the Bay show mixed results. There will 

need to be improving trends in all of these rivers to support improvement 

in the Bay’s health.’’

SCOTT PHILLIPS, Chesapeake Bay Coordinator, U.S. Geological Survey.

Related

Water quality improves, pollution falls in the Chesapeake Bay (http://

www.chesapeakebay.net/blog/post/water_quality_improves_pollution_falls_

in_the_chesapeake_bay) (September 21, 2016). 

FARMING, September 2016

What is the Cause of the Bay’s Problems? 

Manure Gets Too Much Blame, Farmer-Biologists Say 

By Curt Harler

7

The reproductive cycle of fish in the Chesapeake Bay is unusual. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has found male fish in the Susquehanna carrying eggs. And 

intersex fish have been found. That is simply wrong. 

The USGS is monitoring the Juniata River, Swatara Creek (which is a river-size 

stream) and other watersheds in the mid-Atlantic area. All show male fish with female sex features. Interestingly, the females do not show male attributes. 

Farmers have shouldered most of the blame for pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay. Conventional wisdom said it was manure runoff and chemical fertilizer 

in the Bay watershed that was destroying fisheries. Nutrients were pouring down 

the Susquehanna from New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland into the 

watershed. 

Many felt that farmers had to be stopped. This mantra, based on some solid scientific research, has been repeated for over 1⁄4 century. To agriculture’s credit, much 

has been done about the situation. 

Now comes Cleon S. Cassel, owner of Cassel Vineyards of Hershey in 

Hummelstown, Pennsylvania, to say that manure is not the deep cause of the problem. Yes, he concedes, manure and fertilizer runoff caused problems in the past. But 

what is hurting the fishing industry—and will hurt it even more in the future—is 

the runoff of drug store medicines like estrogen from birth control pills, diabetes 

medications and other legitimate pharmaceuticals. Road salts are not helping. Neither are waste products from hospitals and pharmaceutical plants. 

Cleon and his sons, Chris and Craig, all hold master’s degrees and all taught biology. Chris got his master’s degree studying stream runoff at mine sites, so he knows 

about sampling procedure and research in watersheds. 

‘‘This has become a terrible PR problem for farmers,’’ Cleon said. He would like 

to see groups like Farm Bureau expend more effort defending farmers and less bragging about crop yields increasing a few percentage points. 

This spring, Chris took his biology classes from the Milton Hershey School out to 

sample every tributary to the Swatara near Hershey. His findings point to drugs 

and female hormones in the water. That, he said, is why the males show female 

attributes but not vice versa.

Others concur. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the (USGS) published work in 2009 based on the Potomac and other area watersheds that showed 

that at least 82 percent of male smallmouth bass and 23 percent of the largemouth 

bass had immature female germ cells (oocytes) in their reproductive organs. 

‘‘Our findings suggest that intersex is both more widespread than previously 

known, and, at least in the sampled streams, is not related to a single chemical or 

source,’’ said Vicki Blazer, a USGS scientist at the Leesville experimental stream 

lab in Kearneysville, West Virginia. 

This condition, a type of intersex, is a disturbance in the fish’s hormonal system 

and is an indicator of exposure to estrogens or chemicals that mimic the activity 

of natural hormones. Several other abnormalities were also noted by the researchers 

from the National Fish Health Research Laboratory, some affecting female bass. 

Blazer has looked at why so many male smallmouth bass in area watersheds have 

immature female egg cells in their testes. Recent research by the USGS points to 

myriad sources including wastewater treatment plant effluent, agricultural and 

stormwater runoff. Any or all may contribute to reproductive endocrine disruption, 

as well as the immunosuppression they found. 


11458001.eps
8

Working with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, 

two scientific papers were published by the researchers. (Later, Blazer got the 

American Fisheries Society’s 2010 Publications Award for her article investigating 

fish mortality.) Based on the results of these studies, no single chemical or source 

could be identified as causing the intersex abnormalities. Scientists point out that 

multiple chemicals not solely associated with agriculture or wastewater treatment 

plant effluents may be responsible. 

Maryland Department of Natural Resource (DNR) surveys have documented 

strong reproduction and abundance of smallmouth bass in recent years. ‘‘The Potomac River main stem, Monocacy River and Conococheague Creek remain premier 

smallmouth bass fishing destinations for anglers,’’ said John Mullican from Maryland DNR. 

White sucker fish also showed a tendency to react to hormones. This surely is a 

bad portent for the Chesapeake Bay.

Biology Background

In addition to being a farmer, Cleon taught biology at Lower Dauphin High 

School. His son teaches biology at Hershey School. They know biology. Their 

thoughts are backed up by scientists ranging from the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection to the National Geographic Society. Their land has been 

cultivated by the Cassel family since 1903. The Swatara is about a mile from the 

home farm. Craig and Chris, along with and their wives, Becky and Jody, are the 

fifth generation to work the farm and are part of the three generations of family 

that currently work the land near Hershey. Cleon is looking to the future—and the 

sixth generation is at the rabbit-showing stage in their career. 

To date, just two percent of the population—farmers, and sometimes golf courses, 

cemeteries or other green areas—have been asked to bear the onus of the Bay’s 

problems, the Cassels said. 

Chris said Blazer’s collection sites are in an area of minimal agricultural runoff. 

However, he noted there are numerous wastewater plants, institutions like the Milton Hershey Hospital and pharmaceutical plants in the watershed. 

Hormones are killing the Chesapeake Bay for fishermen, the father and sons said. 

‘‘We have regulations for 20 percent cuts in nutrients. We ought to demand 20 percent cuts on estrogen and road salts,’’ Cleon said. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture is aware of the issue but has taken 

no action to date. The Cassels want the government and other researchers to expend 

more effort researching hormones and road salts as killers of fish. It is not that they 

deny manure is part of the problem. They freely admit that it is. However, after 

30 years of work with farmers, environmental conditions in the Bay are barely holding their own despite huge improvements in reducing ag runoff.

A Look at Manure

Chris noted that the fish gathered for study outside Hershey were netted near the 

Hershey Medical Center. No mention of the medical center is made in the research, 

although he said every male bass taken in that area showed female organs. 

‘‘We’ve been beating up farmers about manure ruining every watershed,’’ noted 

Sheila Miller who, with her husband, Mike, runs Deitchland Farm near Womelsdorf, 

Pennsylvania. ‘‘Even the kids in school think farmers are to blame.’’

Cleon agreed. ‘‘The Amish are the easiest people to blame. They never go to court. 

They never fight back. Farmers are second easiest.’’

While Miller is adamant that farmers should not be putting manure into streams, 

she noted the amount of work that has been done—starting with the decades-old 

practice of contour farming and continuing to today’s BMPs (best management practices). 

The Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) agrees that farmers have 

done well. ‘‘Farmers have made good progress in reducing sediment, nutrient and 

pesticide losses from farm fields through conservation practice adoption throughout 

the Chesapeake Bay region,’’ CEAP stated. 

Most cropland acres have structural or management practices—or both—in place 

to control erosion. Nearly 1⁄2 of the cropland acres are protected by one or more 

structural practices, such as buffers or terraces. Reduced tillage is used in some 

form on 88 percent of the cropland. Adoption of conservation practices has reduced 

edge-of-field sediment loss by 55 percent, losses of nitrogen with surface runoff by 

42 percent losses of nitrogen in subsurface flows by 31 percent, and losses of phosphorus (sediment attached and soluble) by 41 percent. 

Producers have reduced N by over 45 percent of 2025 targets, phosphates by 32 

percent and sediments by 30 percent. Even watchdog agencies concede that ag has 

done a lot. Farmers have accomplished 50 percent of what they were asked to do 

9

to get the Bay to a level of nutrients and sediments where it can start to regenerate 

itself. 

Chesapeake Bay Segmentsheds with Major Basins

Even critics agree that it is likely more has been done by farmers than has been 

counted. This is primarily because projects that are not cost-shared fly under the 

government’s radar. 

Since it is easy to document cost-share projects—state and Federal agencies do 

a good job of that—those projects are well known. However, improvements producers do on their own are harder to track. 

The problem is that the success story is not uniform. CEAP said, ‘‘Opportunities 

exist to further reduce sediment and nutrient losses.’’ But, as Chris said, that is 

only part of the problem. And the big, low-hanging fruit is in drugs, not manure.

Historic Record

The USGS got involved long ago. In the summer and fall months of 1996 and 

1997, an unusually high prevalence of skin lesions in fishes from tributaries of the 

Chesapeake Bay surprised the fishing community and scientists. These skin lesions 

ranged from small petechial hemorrhages to abrasions to deep ulcers penetrating 

underlying muscle and visceral organs. A variety of fish species were involved as 

indicated by results of surveys conducted by several state and Federal agencies during this time period. 

In addition, two fish kills involving primarily juvenile Atlantic menhaden occurred 

in August 1997. The fish kills as well as the variety of fish lesions were attributed 

to the presence of the toxic dinoflagellate, Pfiesteria piscicida. Because menhaden 

were the most frequent target of acute fish kills and episodes of fish lesions in the 

Chesapeake Bay, the penetrating ulcers so common in this species are now viewed 

by many as ‘‘Pfiesteria-related’’ and thought to be caused by exposure to Pfiesteria

toxin. 


11458002.eps
10

Even earlier, however, there was reason to doubt that manure or farm fertilizer 

were the major cause of fish kills. Every farm boy or girl over a certain age remembers being sent down to the pond on the homeplace with a bucket of fertilizer and 

ordered to toss in some scoops to encourage growth. 

The Cassel operation has a couple of farm ponds including one just below the 

horse barn—a building that used to house 100 head of cattle—that are full of thriving fish. They have received manure, but not estrogen or road salt, since 1948. 

Other farmers have healthy ponds that have received manure or fertilizer runoff for 

decades, too.

Cleon Cassel and his sons Chris and Craig all hold master’s degrees and 

all taught biology. Chris, here with a bass, got his master’s degree studying 

stream runoff. Photo by Jody Cassel.

‘‘Our pond has some of the best fishing in Dauphin County and it is way overnutrient loaded,’’ Cleon said. 

Cleon noted an old booklet from the folks at Zett’s Fish Hatchery in Drifting, 

Pennsylvania, that encourages landowners to sink a bale of straw in a pond and add 

a sack of manure to the mix to encourage smaller aquatic life to feed. ‘‘We’d go to 

jail if we did that today,’’ he said. 

Most farmers are on board with reducing manure and fertilizer runoff. However, 

manure may be only part of the issue. So-called ‘‘nanoparticles’’—those man-made 

bits of material included in hundreds of products ranging from drugs to sunscreen 

to sporting goods—are what the Cassels and others suspect are doing the bulk of 

the damage today. 

Rebecca Klaper, Ph.D., professor at the School of Freshwater Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, studies nanoparticles. She wants to know what 

happens when something so small gets into the environment. Scientists still don’t 

know how these tiny particles interact with the environment and living things, she 

said. Using environmental genomics, she has studied waterways from Wisconsin 

across the Great Lakes into Pennsylvania. 


11458003.eps
11

To predict the potential impact of nanomaterials on the environment, her group 

examined properties of nanomaterials that may make them toxic or cause them to 

impact populations. She uses the aquatic model species Daphnia magna, D. pulex

and Oncorhynchus mykiss (rainbow trout) in an effort to make predictions about the 

impact of current and future nanomaterials and their toxicity. 

‘‘Our initial studies have found that nanoparticle toxicity is influenced by the core 

structure of the nanomaterial as well as how a nanomaterial is introduced into suspension,’’ Klaper said. For example, titanium dioxide nanomaterials are an order of 

magnitude less toxic than their fullerene (nC60) counterparts. In addition, smaller 

particles are more toxic than larger aggregates. ‘‘We are continuing this research 

with other nanomaterials,’’ she said. A complete investigation will not be a rapid 

process. 

Core particle structure and surface chemistry both act to impact toxicity, immune 

response and behavior. ‘‘Taking a systematic approach to evaluating nanomaterials 

will provide a basis with which to make predictions about the characteristics of 

nanomaterials that may affect their interactions with aquatic species,’’ Klaper said. 

Ultimately, she hopes to be able to provide guidance on what makes 

nanomaterials harmful to the environment and ideas on to how to create environmentally sustainable nanomaterials. 

Whatever the cause of the Bay’s difficulties today, most observers would agree 

that anything that impacts the health of the Bay should come under review. 

Focusing on farmers and manure runoff, to the exclusion of other potentially 

more-damaging causes, is bad for everyone. 

‘‘The finger-pointing at farmers is not going to go away,’’ Chris said, noting big 

pharma has too much money in the game to allow that. 

Research efforts flow to areas where dollars are available. Nobody in academic research wants to do anything that would cause pharmaceutical companies to withdraw research dollars, he said. However, he sees some hope since wastewater treatment operations know they have ‘‘a secret problem’’ and are working on ways to 

treat effluent. 

‘‘Nobody wants to say, ‘We have met the enemy and they are us,’ ’’ Cleon said. 

‘‘But it is interesting that all the researchers’ findings (of sex-distorted fish) are 

close to populated areas, close to research facilities, close to pharmaceutical plants.’’

Curt Harler. who has a B.S. in agriculture from Penn State University 

and an M.S. in ag from Ohio State University, is a full-time freelance writer 

specializing in green topics.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, it’s my privilege and honor to recognize Ms. 

Kuster, serving as acting Ranking Member for this hearing, at this 

point for her opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. KUSTER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you very much, Chairman Thompson. And 

thank you for holding today’s hearing. 

We appreciate the opportunity to allow us to further explore how 

our conservation efforts are working on-the-ground. As we move 

closer to the next farm bill in the upcoming session, these are the 

conversations that our Committee needs to continue to have. 

Farm bill conservation programs incentivize farmers and ranchers to take real, meaningful, and voluntary conservation efforts on 

their land. Farmers and ranchers can choose from several different 

farm bill conservation programs, such as EQIP, the Environmental 

Quality Incentive Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, to 

meet the conservation needs of their operations and the surrounding landscape. 

It is clear to me that the success of voluntary conservation programs depends upon the partnerships that producers develop, not 

only with the NRCS but also with the conservation districts that 

12

help farmers and ranchers implement these practices on-theground. 

I know that a lot of conservation work has gone toward cleaning 

up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As an aside, I worked here on 

the Hill—I like to say 30 years ago; it is more like 40 years ago—

and learned to wind surf in the Chesapeake Bay. And let me just 

say: thank you for your efforts to clean that up. 

Because of these efforts and the partnership and participation of 

farmers, we have seen the health of the Bay improve dramatically. 

There remains a lot more to do in the Bay watershed, like many 

other areas across the country. 

While many of us on this Committee are not from the Chesapeake Bay area, we are watching the Bay closely for strategies, 

best management practices, and lessons that we can apply to other 

important conservation areas, like in my region, the White Mountain National Forest and the Silvio Conte Wildlife Refuge. 

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. We appreciate 

your time. 

And thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

I hope we will have more hearings to come to continue to examine 

our farm bill conservation programs, and we can all work together 

to make sure that these programs are easy to use for farmers and 

ranchers. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady, who obviously started 

working on the Hill when she was 5 years old. 

Ms. KUSTER. Oh, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The chair would request that other Members 

submit their opening statements for the record, so that the witnesses may begin their testimony to ensure that there is ample 

time for questions. The chair would like to remind Members they 

will be recognized for questioning in order of seniority for Members 

present at the start of the hearing. After that, Members will be recognized in order of their arrival, and I appreciate the Members’ understanding. 

I would like to welcome again our witnesses to the table, two agriculture leaders. Mr. Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture; and 

the Honorable Russell Redding, Secretary, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, serving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, based out of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

Witnesses are reminded to limit their oral presentations to 5 

minutes, and all written statements will be included in the record. 

Chief Weller, please begin when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WELLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Kuster, and 

Members of the Committee. Thank you very much for the invitation. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I really credit you in holding this hearing 

and having an opportunity to talk about how the voluntary approach is delivering real results. 

13

In my experience in the last several years, particularly in the 

last several months, it seems there is a growing theme, and it is 

one I am concerned about. And that is the voluntary approach to 

agriculture conservation is not working, and we are not getting the 

results that were perhaps expected or promised. And people are 

considering other options, whatever those options may be. 

To have a forum, a venue to actually share what farmers and forest landowners are doing for the Chesapeake Bay but what, importantly, this Committee provides for through its investments 

through USDA generally and NRCS specifically for an array of conservation programs and the very significant assistance this Committee makes available, I have to say it is delivering huge results, 

not just in the Chesapeake Bay but nationally. 

In previous testimony, I have been able to talk about some of the 

other outcomes, results that are happening on the landscape because of the voluntary approach, because of the collaborative approach farmers and ranchers are taking as part of their agricultural production. But, today, we are also, obviously, focused on the 

Bay. 

And there have been some allegations that USDA hasn’t done its 

part, that we made promises. I am here to say we made promises 

absolutely, but those promises were absolutely kept and in part because of the very significant programs and flexibilities and tools 

this Committee provides us, and in partnership with agriculture in 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

Since 2009 through this fiscal year, we at NRCS and our conservation partners, state government and districts and NGO organizations across the Bay watershed, and across six states, have invested $890 million in financial and technical assistance to help 

producers put in place valuable conservation practices on their operations. That in turn has leveraged we estimate $400 million in 

conservation out of the pockets, the budgets of those family farming 

operations. Just through the title II programs alone, that is not 

counting the very significant investments from partners and state 

government and very significant investments from the NGO community. We are talking a very substantial investment in private 

lands, voluntary incentive-based conservation. 

In general, I sleep well at night knowing that the voluntary approach works and is delivering results. But what is really compelling is that this voluntary approach is a win-win. It is a win in this 

case because we are starting to see a recovery of the Bay, but it 

is also a win because we have been able to maintain productive 

working agricultural lands here in the Chesapeake Bay region. 

Regarding the size and scope, sir, that you outlined at the beginning, it is a very large watershed. In total, it is 44 million acres 

in size, of which about 7 million acres are cropland, another 3.6 

million acres are pasture, and then forests are an additional 21 

million acres. It is a very significant footprint that rural lands 

have. And that is a good thing, because we depend upon the water 

flowing off those rural lands to maintain the quality of waters that 

flow ultimately into the Bay. 

In my view and in my estimation, if you care about the quality 

of the Bay water, you have to care about the integrity and the economic success of those working landscapes. It is not just something 

14

that NRCS believes in, it was actually in the Administration’s 

Chesapeake Bay strategy that was released in 2010, that was put 

out as an interagency report, that laid out our strategy and our 

commitments, going forward, to implement President Obama’s Executive Order to help address Chesapeake Bay challenges and also 

opportunities. In that report, it specifically calls out that healthy, 

productive agriculture is essential to maintaining the protection 

and vitality of the Chesapeake Bay waters. We put in place, we invested $890 million. By many people, unfortunately, that is the only metric, how much money you spend. 

In my view, that is not a very good metric. I would rather actually 

get to what we are really doing with the money. With the money 

invested, we were able to put in place conservation systems on 3.6 

million acres of working lands: croplands, pastures, and working 

timberland forests. That is a land area equivalent size almost three 

times the State of Delaware. 

Within that very significant footprint, we then worked with our 

partners to try and identify, where are those most vulnerable soils? 

Where are those small watersheds where there is the greatest opportunity to make a difference? We put in place these overall good 

water-quality management practices on 1.6 million acres and highly targeted practices in these priority areas across the Bay states. 

Just measuring by one metric alone, the protection for the 

streams and tributaries, just looking at those buffers and fences, 

basic practices to protect the integrity of those riparian areas, if 

you laid them end to end, it would be 3,500 miles of water quality 

protection practices along streams and tributaries were installed 

just since 2009. If you laid that out, that would stretch from Annapolis, Maryland, all the way to San Francisco, and from San 

Francisco all the way north to Seattle. The voluntary approach absolutely is installing real infrastructure that works for working agriculture but also, in this case, is helping to protect the waters of 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

What is the result of all this? We went out and did a survey with 

producers on the Bay back in 2012. Already, that survey result is 

getting a little bit long in the tooth. But back in 2012, what we 

found is that producers on the Bay had in place soil conservation 

practices on 97 percent of all cropland acres on the Bay. Ninetyseven percent of the 7 million cropland acres on the Bay had soil 

conservation practices in place. At least 52 percent of those cultivated crop acres had cover crops as part of the rotation. Over 50 

percent were no-till. 

When we went out and we have done these surveys nationally, 

the Chesapeake Bay stands out as one of the leading areas in the 

entire country in terms of the level of stewardship and good quality 

management, soil conservation, and water-quality management. In 

many cases, they stand, producers here on the basin, stand head 

and shoulders above other areas in the country. There is no doubt 

in my mind that is a result of the voluntary approach producers 

are doing their part. 

What do these good conservation practices result in? Back in 

2012, again, we estimate that we reduced edge-of-field losses moving off cultivated farm fields by 62 percent in terms of sediment 

loss, 45 percent from the phosphorus loss, and 38 percent in terms 

15

of nitrogen loss. Just sediment loss alone, 62 percent reduction in 

edge-of-field loss, that is equivalent to 15 million tons of sediment 

that is no longer flowing into tributaries and ultimately deposited 

into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

A headwind, though, that blowing against this that people don’t 

often talk about is actually the urbanization of the watershed. Over 

the last 20 years, so from 2002 to 2012, in 20 years, 1.6 million 

acres of rural lands were developed, were converted. I don’t want 

to pick on Delaware, but that is a land area 30 percent bigger than 

the entire State of Delaware was developed. 

Why is that significant? Because when you have asphalt, roads, 

roofs, parking lots, an acre the asphalt has 16 times the volume of 

runoff than an acre of meadow. You are exacerbating the runoff, 

the energy that is flowing into tributaries, eroding stream banks, 

picking up sediment that is in the streambeds, ultimately flowing 

warmer water, faster water, more energetic water, carrying nutrients, sediments other contaminants off of those developed areas in 

the Chesapeake Bay watershed. That is a strong headwind. Notwithstanding the headwind, we have made great progress. 

What are the actual results? We have estimated what some of 

these results are doing, and we went out and we started to a look 

at, what are other organizations reporting out in terms of actual 

outcomes? To be clear, I am not claiming credit that agriculture is 

responsible for all of these outcomes. But when you start to lay out 

all the positive trends and you connect the dots, big picture view, 

there is something happening, and it is very positive. In my view, 

agriculture is a huge contributor to this. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program has estimated that, between 2009 

and 2015, that there have been declines in loadings, in tributaries 

flowing into the Bay. In terms of sediment, a 640 million pound reduction in sediment, a 38 million pound reduction in phosphorus, 

a 24 million pound reduction in nitrogen. It turns out the agricultural sector, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program, is the leading sector reducing these loadings. In terms of the sediment, the 

agricultural sector is responsible for 78 percent of that reduction. 

For the phosphorus, the agriculture sector is responsible for 53 percent of that reduction. And for nitrogen, the agriculture sector is 

responsible for 23 percent of that reduction. 

According to the USDA, the long-term trends in total nitrogen indicate improving conditions at a majority of the monitoring stations 

across rivers and tributaries in the Bay. Twice as many monitoring 

stations show improving trends for nitrogen as those monitoring 

stations showing degrading trends. And for phosphorus, over three 

times as many are monitoring stations that show positive improving trends as those show degrading. According to USGS, for the 

last 10 years, nitrogen levels improved at 54 percent of the monitoring stations and, for phosphorus, at 68 percent of the monitoring 

stations. 

And USGS also estimated, in providing a forecast about potential 

summer dissolved oxygen levels, which is a measure of quality of 

Bay water, USGS estimated that the Susquehanna River delivered 

66.2 million pounds of nitrogen from January to May 2016, which 

is 17 percent below average conditions. 

16

According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in 

July of 2016, they issued a report that dissolved oxygen levels in 

Maryland’s portion of the Bay were the second best since 1985. And 

University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Studies, they 

are the ones who produce the annual report. They issue the index 

report card. They give a score for the health of the Bay. In 2015, 

it earned one of the three highest scores since 1986. They got a letter grade of ‘‘C,’’ which I will say is not great, but it is one of the 

three highest since 1986, and the other two highest were in 2014 

and 2013, showing a positive trend line. 

You also look at the ecosystem itself. You have crabs, 19 percent 

increase in breeding adult females. Total blue crab population, it 

is the fourth highest population in 2 decades. Seagrass extent, we 

have had an over 50 percent increase in the overall expanse of 

seagrasses in the Bay, which is another indicator of overall aquatic 

health. That is important because those are the nurseries, the fisheries for crabs and for other aquatic species in the Bay. Anchovy, 

bass, shad have all shown over the last several years, if not a decade, positive increases, a surging rebounding population across the 

Bay. 

Again, I am not claiming agriculture is solely responsible, but in 

my view, agriculture has absolutely not only made a promise in 

part because of what this Committee provides to our Department, 

has helped deliver on that promise through a voluntary collaborative approach, which is helping, in my view, ensure the long-term 

sustainability and productivity of agriculture in this region but 

also, in this case, the recovery and health of the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about 

agriculture, conservation, and the shared effort to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay. The ongoing support of this Subcommittee for voluntary private lands 

conservation is an enormous part of the conservation work that is making a difference for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the region’s farms and private forests. 

Agricultural Land—Key to a Healthy Bay 

The Chesapeake Bay is North America’s largest, most biologically diverse estuary. 

Its watershed covers 64,0002 miles across six states and is home to more than 17 

million people. Nearly 1⁄4 of the watershed’s area is in agriculture, whose 84,000 farms’ sales approach nearly $10 billion annually. Since 2009, Federal agricultural 

conservation investments approaching $1 billion have been helping the agricultural 

community on its way toward meeting key conservation goals for cleaner water and 

a healthier ecosystem. Our own science has documented the benefits being delivered 

by farmers’ active conservation systems, while independent modeled and monitoring 

results show positive trends for water quality, habitat and key aquatic species. 

With technical and financial help from USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and farm bill programs, farmers in the watershed are installing conservation systems that avoid, control and trap potential nutrient and sediment 

losses from farm fields. In addition to helping improve water quality, these conservation systems help boost soil health and air quality, enhance wildlife habitat 

and strengthen the economic bottom lines for farms. 

While agriculture and forest lands remain the predominant land uses in the Bay 

watershed, both farming and Chesapeake Bay water quality are under continuing 

pressure from development. Between 1992 and 2012, developed area in the watershed increased by nearly 40 percent (or about 1.6 million acres). Among the conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
17

sequences of losing agricultural areas are declines in access to local, fresh foods; reduction in the capture of carbon in soils and plants; and increased runoff from 

roads, roofs, and parking lots. For example, a 1 acre parking lot produces about 16 

times the volume of runoff that comes from a 1 acre meadow. While there is no single-sector or short-term solution for the complex water quality issues in the watershed, maintaining agriculture is essential to protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

NRCS Investment in the Bay Watershed 

In 2009, Executive Order 13508 directed agencies to focus resources and identify 

innovative solutions for improving water quality in the Bay. NRCS collaborated with 

Federal, state and local partners to target conservation investments and accelerate 

results. According to USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP), focusing conservation efforts in priority watersheds and on vulnerable soils can accelerate per-acre reductions by 70 percent for sediment, 30 percent for nitrogen, and 

40 percent for phosphorus, as compared to no targeting. Approximately 500 small 

priority watersheds were identified, and USDA established a goal of helping to install conservation systems on 4 million farmland acres in these watersheds by 2025. 

Since 2009, NRCS has worked with thousands of farmers and forest landowners 

to implement ‘‘Avoid-Control-Trap’’ conservation systems on over 3.6 million acres 

in the watershed. Critically, about 50 percent of this work has been focused on those 

priority watersheds and soils, generating greater water quality returns for the Bay 

and achieving about 41 percent of the 2025 goal within just the initial 6 years. 

Through these partnerships with farmers and landowners, since 2009 NRCS has 

invested over $890 million in Federal conservation funding in the Bay watershed. 

In turn, this Federal investment is leveraged by an estimated $400 million in financial and management resources of the watershed’s farmers and forest landowners, 

as well as state and local governments and private conservation organizations who 

are helping to implement key actions in each of the Bay states’ Watershed Implementation Plans. 

NRCS and partners are also building the next generation of conservation science 

and innovation through Conservation Innovation Grants. Between 2009 and 2016, 

NRCS has invested nearly $16 million in 35 projects to test new approaches and 

technologies, and deepen the bench of partners and tools to drive continued progress 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These partners match or exceed the Federal investment, adding over $16 million of their own resources to developing and disseminating conservation tools, technologies and approaches to accelerate progress. 

The Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) provides the newest 

platform for partners to collaborate and work cooperatively with producers on Baywide solutions. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed is one of eight critical conservation 

areas for RCPP funding, allowing partners in the region to access all RCPP funding 

pools. In the two sign-ups since the program started, 14 projects have been selected 

within the Bay Watershed, which will help to improve water quality and wildlife 

habitat in the Bay region, while also enhancing farms and forest resiliency and productivity. Currently, over $42 million in Federal resources are leveraging nearly $60 

million in non-Federal investments over the next 4 years. 

A Healthier Bay 

The signs of a healthier Bay are evident across the watershed, from cleaner water 

to grasses on the sea floor and more abundant fish and wildlife. A number of agencies and non-government organizations are studying the rebound of the Chesapeake 

Bay ecosystem made possible by a variety of sectors, including agriculture. 

Voluntary conservation is working to reduce the loss of sediment and nutrients 

from farm fields in the Chesapeake Bay region, according to USDA’s Conservation 

Effects Assessment Project (CEAP):

• Reducing Sediment Loss—farmers are combining cover crops and field buffers 

to control erosion and reduce sediment leaving their land. As a result, between 

2006 and 2011, average edge-of-field sediment loss decreased by an estimated 

15.1 million tons per year.

• Managing Nutrients—farmers are using practices such as residue and tillage 

management, nutrient management and waste storage facilities to minimize the 

risk of nutrients and sediment reaching the Bay while maintaining productive 

farming operations. NRCS estimates, from 2006 to 2011, that improved nutrient 

management has reduced the total loss of nitrogen by 26 percent and phosphorus by 45 percent. 

Across the basin, cover crops and other conservation efforts have reduced runoff 

of nutrients and sediment. The Chesapeake Bay Program reports that between 2009 

18

and 2015, nitrogen loads going to the Bay declined by eight percent, phosphorus 

loads by 20 percent, and sediment loads by seven percent. Agriculture was the leading contributor to phosphorus and sediment reductions during this period—providing over 50 percent of the phosphorous and over 75 percent of the sediment reductions. 

Some U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water quality monitoring stations are showing water quality improvements in the streams and rivers that flow into the Bay 

and in the watershed. The USGS has reported that over the last 10 years, nitrogen 

levels have improved at 54 percent of the monitoring sites and phosphorus at 68 

percent of the sites. According to data released by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources in July 2016, the dissolved oxygen levels in Maryland’s portion of 

the Chesapeake Bay were at their second best since 1985. 

Cleaner water drives ecosystem recovery. Underwater grasses, which provide critical food and shelter to wildlife, are recovering. The Bay Barometer, reported that 

between 2013 and 2015, those grasses have grown from nearly 60,000 acres to more 

than 91,000 acres—the largest amount of grass ecosystems in the past 3 decades, 

exceeding the 2017 restoration target 2 years early. 

The Maryland Department of Natural Resources reports that blue crab, an indicator of the Bay’s health, has seen population spikes. Adult females are up 92 percent in 2016 compared with last year, building on population climbs over the past 

few years. The overall crab population is the fourth highest level in 2 decades, and 

builds on last year’s 38 percent boost in abundance. 

Conclusion 

There is more work ahead, but one thing is clear—losing farms and forests is not 

in the best interest of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, the region’s economy, or the 

quality of life for our local communities. Maintaining successful, sustainable working agricultural lands is essential for protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

NRCS and its conservation partners have worked with farmers in the Bay region 

for more than 80 years and are committed to continuing the voluntary conservation 

efforts that are improving water quality in the watershed while supporting a strong, 

Bay-wide agricultural economic sector. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, chief, I appreciate it. 

And also, thank you, during Ag Progress I had the privilege and 

honor of hosting a listening session in Pennsylvania with Secretary 

Russell. And you were kind enough to send your regional NRCS 

person, and she did a great job. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Secretary Redding, you are now recognized for 

your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL C. REDDING, SECRETARY, 

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

HARRISBURG, PA 

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and all Members 

of the Committee, thank you, first, for the opportunity to be here 

and to talk about the progress we have made in Pennsylvania on 

Chesapeake Bay and water quality. And I appreciate Chief Weller’s 

review of what has been invested and the outcomes of those investments but also to echo his points of appreciation to the Committee, 

who has both the primary concern of conservation first, but also 

the underpinning of that is an assumption of a productive and viable agricultural economy, right? And that is really key for us. 

Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say many times that there are 

two coequal goals to this discussion about the Chesapeake Bay. 

One is water quality, and the other is viable farms. You will not 

achieve the first without the second. We have to ensure that the 

lands are productive agricultural lands, but as we know, the greatest return on investment of any funds, private or public, can and 

19

will be achieved by way of agricultural conservation practices 

versus others. I think that is an important point. 

I will do a quick summary. You have my comments. I prefer to 

respond to questions, but just to outline a few key points here. We 

have been working on this issue of the Chesapeake Bay for the last 

40 years from the TMDL establishment in 2010. You heard the investments we have made through the USDA and in Pennsylvania. 

They have been significant. I would say there has been a lot of 

progress. That is not always the story told. As you alluded to in 

your opening statement, there has been a tremendous amount of 

progress made. That progress has been a full partnership with the 

agricultural community. It has been a full partnership with our 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS, and the conservation districts, and many NGOs who have been at the table to help us do 

that. And we have made progress. 

We have more to do. That is part of what you are here to talk 

about and want to share with you, but we have made progress. The 

Chesapeake Bay report itself speaks to the progress. The University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science, the USGS 

water-quality monitoring shows there has been progress. 

We have reduced phosphorus by 25 percent, nitrogen by six percent, sediment by 15 percent. And the numbers sometimes don’t 

tell the full story of the load. But they are significant numbers and 

we are making progress. We also know that this is one of these 

issues where there will always be tension between the aspirational 

and the practical. It is just how dynamic it is. We will work at it. 

We will work at it hard. But any time you are talking about the 

landscape and the complexity of this landscape in this region, particularly, as the chief noted, it is going to take a lot of work. And 

that is not something we should apologize for or shy away from. 

We simply have to acknowledge it is going to take a lot of work 

to get the job done. 

From Pennsylvania, just to put this in perspective, the Susquehanna River, largest contributor of water to the Chesapeake Bay, 

as you travel over the Bay Bridge, look down, 90 percent of that 

water in the upper bay is from the Susquehanna River. It flows 

right through the heartland of Pennsylvania, and 50 percent of the 

total water in the Bay is out of the Susquehanna River. We understand our contribution and the magnitude of the challenge as well. 

We have continued to work with the Governor and our Administration across the agencies to really refocus our work on the Bay. 

As you know, we have titled this, The Reboot. The Reboot implies 

we had a plan in 2009, 2010. We worked at it through several Administrations. Governor Wolf returned 2 years ago and really put 

a focus on this. We knew, at that point, we were behind on the 

deliverables as laid out in 2010 TMDL. The difference with this effort now is it is very specific in terms of total load delivery and reduction expectations between 2009 and 2025. It then sets 2 year 

milestones, and those 2 year milestones become the midterm exams 

that we have to do. And we know that we are just not quite where 

we want to be, particularly on phosphorus and sediment. We are 

making progress. Anyhow, just to say that that is a key difference 

between what the discussions were and where we are today. Another reason for the Committee’s interest in this is, how we are 

20

doing both with the agriculture aspects but certainly from the public policy standpoint? 

Our Reboot had a number of points, six major components to it, 

looking at technical and financial assistance. It looked at the technology. A big component was better coordination and capacity of 

both the state and agencies looking at improved data collection. 

There are many points: Two that I will highlight for you and we 

can talk more about. One is the role of the conservation districts 

in the effort of our Reboot. And this has surfaced a number of conversations in the state, and I know those conversations have extended to the USDA and NRCS as well. But there is no question 

that the progress that has been made and the progress that still 

has to be made can only be accomplished with the partnership of 

the conservation districts. 

What we stepped into was an assumption that, given the historic 

relationship that the districts had with Pennsylvania by way of delegation agreement over the years, what we found was a willingness 

but some apprehension because of the comprehensiveness and the 

expectation of compliance checks, which is also part of our current 

efforts. 

I will just say to that point that we have made tremendous 

progress in discussions with NRCS at the state level to make sure 

that the confidentiality of the information, as required by Congress 

in section 1619, is protected. We believe that we have found a way 

by way of a signed waiver and transparency with that transaction 

for the farm community to be protected and to live true to what 

Congress was intending with the confidentiality and privacy of that 

data. We have made progress on that. 

But just to underscore, there is no way forward without the conservation districts. They have been great partners. We will continue to work with them as well. 

The second point, just on a statement, Mr. Chairman, you made 

at the outset about the voluntary efforts and certainly giving credit 

to producers. One of the components of our strategy has been making sure that we account for the everyday good management practices that producers are employing. The Chesapeake Bay model has 

been noted many times. The majority of the BMPs that are in the 

model are those things that have been cost-shared, meaning that 

the public has made an investment in them. It does not include the 

non-cost-share practices or all of them. We have taken an effort 

with Pennsylvania State University to do a non-cost-share survey. 

It was well-responded to, and we are anxious to get that information back. Penn State is working through it as we speak, and we 

hope to have that information for the benefit of the next version 

of the model. 

But even the early signs are really amazing in terms of the practices that we know are out there. The water quality monitoring has 

demonstrated they are, but they are not in the model. As you 

know, for a lot of producers, they want to have some assurance 

that ‘‘if I have to do more, I want credit for what I have already 

done.’’ And that really has been an important part of the conversation for us. Those things continue, but just to say that that has 

been part of our strategy for the very first time, to go out and do 

a comprehensive study with our land-grant university to ask the 

21

question, ‘‘What have you done that has not been paid for by government and both in terms of practice and the details of those 

BMPs?’’ We will have the benefit of that to inform our discussion 

and work here as we move forward. 

In summary, just to end where I began, with a thank you. I appreciate your leadership on the Committee and back in Pennsylvania. I know you travel a lot of miles around the state and see 

what we see, and that is a changed landscape. When we speak of 

issues of BMPs and cover crops and all of the good work that has 

been done, you see that firsthand, as I do. I appreciate your leadership and the Committee in today’s hearing. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Redding follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL C. REDDING, SECRETARY, PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, HARRISBURG, PA 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Grisham, and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony today on our Pennsylvania-centric approach to restore local water 

quality in Pennsylvania, and by virtue of that, the Chesapeake Bay. 

I will provide a general overview on the current state of the Chesapeake Bay in 

Pennsylvania, highlight state and Federal partnerships and investments in conservation, outline the commonwealth’s strategy to enhance Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay restoration, and share a few key thoughts related to local water quality 

efforts. 

Water Quality Trends in the Chesapeake Bay 

For background on how we got here, as a result of the Federal consent decree in 

2010, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Bay. Implementation of this TMDL requires 

us to develop plans to meet specific target reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus and 

sediment loads in phases. Pennsylvania’s Phase 2 Watershed Implementation Plan 

has interim targets for these reductions to be achieved in 2017. We are not on 

schedule to meet its goals for 2017. The commonwealth continues to face immense 

challenges to improve water quality. 

Pennsylvania’s agricultural sector is facing an enormous test, as it constitutes 

55% of the nitrogen loads to the Bay. It must reduce its nitrogen loads to Chesapeake Bay by more than 40 percent (or more than 25,000,000 million pounds) by 

2025. 

Regardless of the 2017 and 2025 Federal deadlines, we have an obligation in 

Pennsylvania to the Clean Streams Law—established well before the EPA established deadlines for Pennsylvania under the Total Maximum Daily Load. 

It’s about local water quality—no matter where you are located in our commonwealth. It’s about doing the right thing. As a state, we realize there is more work 

to do; however, it is important to recognize the progress Pennsylvania has realized 

up to this point. 

Over the past 30 years, Pennsylvania has invested more than $4 billion, mainly 

in wastewater system upgrades, through various loan and grant programs, toward 

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. The results show that phosphorous has decreased by 25 percent; nitrogen by six percent, and sediment by nearly 15 percent. 

The majority of these reductions have come from increased treatment of the discharges of nutrients from wastewater treatment plants. 

With 33,600 of Pennsylvania’s active farms located in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, achieving our water quality improvement goals will be no easy task, and any 

solution—state or Federal—must balance the commonwealth’s interests in a vibrant 

agricultural sector, local water quality, and limited state and Federal resources. Agriculture is ready to be part of the solution. Many people are concerned about the 

health of our local waters—none more so than farmers, who rely on our land and 

water to grow so much food. 

What remains clear to us is that Pennsylvania has been, and continues to make 

strides toward protecting and improving local water quality. We are pleased to hear 

recent reports from the Chesapeake Bay Program that estimated nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment going into the Bay has all dropped over the last 6 years—

by eight, twenty, and seven percent, respectively. The University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science recently gave the Bay its third highest health score 

22

in 3 decades, noting progress in several areas. And monitoring from the U.S. Geological Survey indicates that the per-acre nutrient and sediment loads are declining 

at a majority of the monitoring stations across the five Chesapeake Bay states. 

This good news is a reflection of progress in a variety of sectors, including agriculture. The practices farmers use and the strategies and plans they have put in 

place are truly making a difference, but more work needs to be done. It’s very important to note that Federal agency investments in conservation have, and will continue to play, a large role in the progress we have made. Of critical importance is 

the farm bill conservation title funding administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 

State and Federal Partnerships and Investments 

USDA programs have been the primary source of Federal assistance to agricultural producers working to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay. USDA 

NRCS targets their investments in high-priority watersheds where nutrient and 

sediment pollution is highest. According to NRCS, since 2009, they have been able 

to partner with state, nonprofit and private-sector partners to install conservation 

systems on more than 1 million acres in the basin. This equates to more than 

$267.2 million invested in Pennsylvania since 2009. This investment includes hundreds of nutrient management plans and the implementation of a variety of practices, such as structural practices, tillage management and cover crops. There is no 

doubt that without the strong support of NRCS through farm bill conservation title 

program funding for on-farm conservation practices, we would not be where we are 

today. The numbers tell that story. 

Pennsylvania farmers actively seek USDA assistance, with more than $100 million in applications coming to the NRCS annually. Unfortunately, both Federal and 

state resources are limited, even with significant Federal investment in conservation 

programs. In Fiscal Year 2016, applications from Pennsylvania’s farmers to the 

USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program outpaced available funds by more 

than 5:1 ($100 million in requested funds vs. $20 million in available funds): 65 percent or $52 million of the unmet need comes from the Chesapeake Bay portion of 

the commonwealth. 

Given this unmet need statewide, leveraging innovative private-sector partnerships are more important than ever. 

An example of the power of partnerships unfolded recently as the Pennsylvania 

Department of Agriculture (Department) was awarded more than $632,000 under 

the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction grant to support farmers’ local water quality improvement work in southern 

Lancaster County. The Department partnered with 16 other organizations from the 

public, private, and nonprofit sector to leverage an additional $909,000 in matching 

funds, meaning that more than $1.5 million will be directed to improving the health 

of Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams. The unique aspect of this project is the connection it will demonstrate between conservation, herd health, and farm profitability. The project will give farmers in the targeted watersheds a suite of tools, or 

adaptive toolbox to be able to do the things that not only achieves a baseline level 

of compliance, but that are also best for their operation. 

Commonwealth Strategy to Improve Water Quality 

While Pennsylvania has made strides toward improving local water quality, it 

needed to change its approach for the Chesapeake Bay. Working with a number of 

external partners and stakeholders, in January 2016, Governor Wolf unveiled a 

comprehensive, Pennsylvania-centric strategy aimed at improving local water quality in this commonwealth—and with that, the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy represents a reasonable, incremental and balanced approach to improving local water 

quality by reducing nitrogen and sediment loads in Pennsylvania waterways that 

will ultimately restore the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. The strategy relies 

on a mix of technical and financial assistance, technology, improved data gathering 

and record-keeping, improved program coordination and capacity and, when needed, 

compliance and enforcement measures. 

The strategy also recognizes two key, co-equal goals for success: clean water and 

viable farms. Our farmers have long recognized the important link between healthy 

soils, sustainable farming practices, and the water quality of our waterways. When 

we have healthy, viable farms, we have healthy, viable watersheds. You can’t have 

one without the other. 

There are six elements to the plan:

1. Addressing pollutant reduction deficiencies by meeting the EPA goals of inspecting ten percent of farms in the Bay watershed annually, with increased 

23

inspection and compliance efforts using existing Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) and conservation district staff.

2. Quantifying previously undocumented best management practices (BMPs), 

and putting new high-impact, low-cost BMP projects on the ground in watersheds that are currently impaired by agriculture or storm water.

3. Improving reporting, record-keeping and data systems to provide better and 

more accessible documentation of progress made toward Pennsylvania’s restoration effort.

4. Identifying legislative, programmatic or regulatory changes that will give 

Pennsylvania the additional tools and resources necessary to meet water 

quality goals.

5. Establishing a new Chesapeake Bay Office within DEP to coordinate development, implementation and funding of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay efforts.

6. Obtain additional resources for water quality improvement by seeking new 

sources of funding.

I would like to highlight two areas in particular: the role of conservation districts 

in the inspection and compliance efforts (and lessons learned), and our efforts to 

quantify undocumented best management practices. 

The Role of Conservation Districts 

In order to help get the commonwealth back on track to meet the mandated reduction goals, ten percent of Pennsylvania farms in the Bay watershed will be inspected annually to ensure they have written plans for manure or nutrient management and erosion control. These mandated reduction goals, paired with our collective challenge of both state and Federal diminishing resources, especially on the 

human capital side, has made the task of ten percent farm inspections difficult, and 

has required us to think broadly about conservation service delivery. It has forced 

a conversation about agricultural compliance and about how to best deliver and implement plans. 

Our preferred approach to the challenge of ensuring base-level compliance on ten 

percent of farms in the Bay watershed is to use our county conservation districts. 

Conservation districts are trusted, local partners with well-established relationships 

with farmers across Pennsylvania. With approximately 33,600 farms in the Bay watershed alone, we needed to think broadly and follow an approach that we feel is 

in accordance with the historical practice of conservation districts. Historically, conservation district staff has had a role in compliance inspections under Pennsylvania’s Chapter 83 Nutrient Management and Chapter 102 Erosion & Sedimentation 

regulatory programs for decades. In particular, the Nutrient Management program’s 

annual compliance inspection of farms by a conservation district staff person, with 

follow up enforcement action (if necessary) by the State Conservation Commission, 

is a model for this strategy. 

Conservation districts in 29 Pennsylvania counties in the Bay watershed have applied successfully to conduct farm inspections aimed at reducing agricultural runoff 

into local streams and rivers and ultimately, the Bay. As a result, these districts 

will continue to receive funding to support bay technician staff from DEP. Nine conservation districts failed to meet the application deadline or have declined to participate. The remaining three counties in the Bay watershed have such a small portion 

of the watershed they have not received funding for a Bay technician in the past. 

Farms in the Bay watershed in these counties will be covered by DEP or EPA personnel. 

The participating conservation districts will be inspecting 50 farms per full-time 

person funded in each county. The goal is to start these inspections by the beginning 

of October. DEP regional staff has already started inspections in some of the counties that have chosen not to participate. The initial compliance inspection focus will 

be on ensuring that farmers have Manure Management Plans and Erosion and Sedimentation Plans—requirements that have been in law for over 3 decades. 

Lessons Learned 

We would like to reiterate our commitment to working with the conservation districts to accomplish Pennsylvania’s comprehensive strategies to clean up the Bay. 

The 66 districts across the commonwealth are a critical first line of engagement 

with our farming community. We acknowledge the positive contribution that districts have made and recognize the challenges that they, like many in public service, 

face in carrying out their charge. 

Since January 2016, a number of lessons have been learned as it relates to conservation work and the strategy put forth by the commonwealth. We made a number of assumptions on the front side that the roles and responsibilities of conservaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
24

1 7 U.S.C. § 8791. 

tion-related work are well-defined. Each conservation district is unique, has its own 

set capacity and capability, and has differing thoughts on the role that district staff 

plays in conservation. This has caused us to think hard about the level of capacity 

for conservation work and how to structure the roles and responsibilities. It has 

caused us to step into the compliance conversation and ask questions about how to 

best deliver and implement conservation plans. And where conservation districts 

choose to not conduct compliance visits, we’ve had to think about which entity is 

best positioned to step into the compliance role—whether it be the private-sector, 

DEP, EPA, or the Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission. There is no perfect 

solution. 

A second lesson learned was how to manage and protect confidential data. One 

intricacy that proves the connectedness between the commonwealth and NRCS is 

the fact that farmers may use their NRCS Conservation Plan in order to satisfy 

Pennsylvania erosion and sedimentation regulatory requirements. In doing so, however, it leads to more questions about privacy and maintaining confidentiality. 

Over the past few months, discussions have ensued on Section 1619 of the 2008 

Farm Bill and other Federal protections of the content of agricultural plans. Section 

1619 provides that USDA, or any ‘‘contractor or cooperator’’ of USDA, are prohibited 

from unilaterally or voluntarily providing or disclosing information provided by 

farmers or landowners participating in a NRCS program to a third party.1 In the 

current situation, conservation districts in Pennsylvania are considered ‘‘cooperators’’ and DEP is considered a ‘‘third party.’’ NRCS-funded plans represent many 

plans that are currently in use in Pennsylvania. The Federal prohibition does not 

extend to DEP, as DEP is not a cooperator as that term is defined by relevant Federal law. 

The concern that has been expressed on behalf of NRCS and the conservation districts is that they do not want to violate the Federal prohibitions in conducting work 

for DEP under the Chesapeake Bay Standard Operating Procedure manual (the 

manual outlines the role of conservation districts in the commonwealth’s Chesapeake Bay strategy). The dilemma appears to come from the fact that conservation 

districts are in partnership with both NRCS for certain purposes, and with state 

agencies for certain purposes. As an example, conservation districts have been delegated authority from DEP for the implementation of Erosion and Sediment Control 

regulations, which includes agriculture compliance. It is the overlap of those partnerships at the conservation district level, and the duties and obligations that come 

with both of those relationships that seems to create the dilemma for conservation 

districts as well as for state and Federal agencies. 

If conservation districts are to continue to operate in this dual role and under 

these two different sets of parameters, we need to find a way to meet state needs, 

Federal needs, and conservation district needs, and do so in a way that recognizes 

and protects each of these interests. As always, this will be a balancing act and compromise will be necessary. 

As a temporary solution to this dilemma, DEP is in the process of designing their 

own release form for conservation district and DEP regional staff to use in the collection of information during the inspections. This form complements the NRCS 

form. If a producer (at least in this first year) needs to sign both a state and Federal 

form to help ensure that they have properly acknowledged the release of their 

USDA information and also acknowledge the purpose and intent of what they are 

releasing that information to DEP for, then that compromise seems to remove the 

road block. This compromise also provides us with time to work through these legal 

and policy issues in hopes of a satisfactory long-term solution. 

Quantifying Undocumented Best Management Practices 

Our plans to locate, quantify and verify previously undocumented BMPs represent 

a new and unprecedented partnership with the agriculture industry and the academic community. We want Pennsylvania farmers to obtain maximum credit—both 

publicly and in the Bay model—for the good work they are doing. Therefore, a survey was developed by The Pennsylvania State University and funded by DEP in late 

2015 in collaboration with many partners, including the Department, DEP, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, PennAg Industries, Professional Dairy Managers of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Farmers Union, the Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable 

Agriculture, the Pennsylvania State Conservation Commission, and the Pennsylvania Association of Conservation Districts. 

The purpose of the survey was to inventory conservation practices implemented 

by farmers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We know that Pennsylvania 

farmers have done much to improve water quality and soil health, yet many of the 

25

practices that farmers have implemented are not accounted for in tracking progress 

toward priority water quality goals. This is especially true where farmers have implemented practices on their own initiative, using their own means to do so. The 

survey inventoried these practices by providing a mechanism to capture and report 

voluntary conservation practices. 

The survey was launched online in January 2016, and was subsequently mailed 

to approximately 20,000 farmers. Approximately 6,780 completed surveys were returned, a response rate of 35%. The Penn State Survey Research Center received 

all surveys, and processed all data. Ten percent of survey returns were randomly 

selected for on-farm follow-up visits in order to analyze the accuracy of the data and 

develop a statistical analysis of the surveys returned. 

Penn State Extension staff conducted the farm visits in August, and all visits 

have now been completed. The research team is now in the process of entering and 

analyzing farm visit data so that statistical analysis can be completed. A final report will be given to DEP for submission to the Chesapeake Bay Program by the 

end of September. We look forward to reviewing the data analysis once complete 

and hope to confirm a high level of conservation stewardship already occurring on 

farms across Pennsylvania. 

Moving Forward 

Moving forward, our obligations to water quality—locally and in the Chesapeake 

Bay will not go away—they aren’t something we can ignore. We all have a role in 

the health of our waterways, and agriculture is a key part of the solution. 

We must continue to consider the practical side of things, viewing how rainfall, 

droughts and planting seasons impact our work to protect our waterways. Like 

many things in life, there is a tension between the aspirational and the practical. 

There are a lot of variables in this discussion that can create tension, but we believe 

it can be a healthy tension. Our collective job is to take the aspiration of cleaner 

water and a healthy ecosystem and apply it practically. 

If anything is clear, it is that agriculture has high standards for conservation, 

with deep roots in a culture of stewardship. Farmers want to be the solution for 

clean water, and do not condone poor managers who are causing water quality problems. We need to continue to recognize farmers for their high conservation standards, especially given the multiple and competing expectations of agriculture in the 

21st century—job creators, food providers, economic drivers, and environmental 

stewardship. 

We must continue to develop and deploy effective targeting in high-priority areas, 

integrate soil health and manure management into water quality strategies, support 

community-based and locally led approaches to conservation, collaboratively seek 

new funding opportunities, and engage all stakeholders—Federal, state, local, public, private, nonprofit—in our approach to local water quality. 

Local water quality in Pennsylvania is a shared responsibility, and we believe 

that collaboration, partnerships, commitment, and resources are the key to the success of the effort. If every farmer, community and citizen does their part, we will 

restore and safeguard local water quality in Pennsylvania, and help to restore the 

quality of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

Once again, I want to thank you both for your leadership, quite 

frankly, for our agriculture industry and, specifically, as we look at 

making sure the watersheds have good drinkable water, quality 

water. Nobody disputes that. I think that is 100% consensus of how 

basic and fundamental and important that is. 

I also believe in a couple of truisms. One of them, if it is not broken, why are we fixing something? With the Pennsylvania Reboot,

and there are some really good parts to that, but there are some 

concerns I have obviously with what appears to be moving away 

from the model of voluntary conservation, which is really impressive, thank you both for reflecting on what we have accomplished 

using voluntary conservation, and you didn’t even throw in all the 

endangered species that we have de-listed as a result of voluntary 

conservation. I happen to think what we are doing actually doesn’t 

so much need a reboot because I think the shoe fits for what we 

26

are trying to accomplish. Now, certainly, with some of the initiatives it is always good to look at how we are doing things. 

My first question is for Chief Weller. Chief, as you state in your 

testimony, with technical and financial assistance from NRCS and 

the farm bill conservation programs, farmers in the Bay watershed 

are successfully installing conservation systems that are improving 

water and air quality and enhancing habitat, wildlife habitat 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay. An important part of that question is that technical assistance and conservation delivery provided 

by local conservation districts, who I have tremendous respect and 

they are just an incredibly important partner. I take the opportunity to go out and to visit our conservation districts when I can. 

My last one was in Erie County. I attended their annual luncheon 

and a regular meeting that they had. Are you worried that with 

Pennsylvania, for example, with what is happening in Pennsylvania with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s proposal. I get it; it is because of threatening of withholding 

moneys, EPA withholding moneys from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, who therefore would hold moneys, hold ransom our conservation districts, which would cost us 

some pretty important positions of great scientists who are working 

with our conservation districts today. I get where the pressure 

point is. Are you worried, with what is happening with Pennsylvania, that districts will have less time to actually deliver on-theground conservation, on-the-field technical assistance, and stress 

the conservation delivery system in an area where demand for conservation is so high? 

Mr. WELLER. Let me begin with answering and recognizing the 

importance of the districts. NRCS, when we were born 81 years 

ago, we were the Soil Conservation Service, 1935. At the same 

time, we were born alongside across states during that era with 

soil and conservation districts across the country. And we grew up 

together. We are collocated together. If you were to walk in one of 

our field offices, more often than not, we are collocated. You 

wouldn’t know where the local district began and where the NRCS 

ended. They are teams. They share in everything. And so they are 

part and parcel of the overall infrastructure to deliver a voluntary 

approach. 

I am also very sympathetic to what Secretary Redding has laid 

out and the charge that state government is trying to address their 

needs and challenges in the state. But from my perspective, just 

looking at our capacity, just at NRCS, to deliver conservation, 

starting with the conservation planning but then taking advantage 

of the resources through the farm bill programs and working with 

producers, since 2010 to 2015, across the entire Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, because of funding reductions, NRCS has 155 fewer 

field office employees today than we did back in 2015. In Pennsylvania alone, we have 55 fewer field-level district conservationists 

to do on-the-ground conservation that we had just 5 years ago. To 

help pick up the slack, you have to have partners to help us continue to carry the ball, to do that, conservation planning and delivery. 

And so to the extent that those very limited resources are already stretched thin, are then diverted to other activities, that is 

27

just going to make it harder to take advantage of the resources 

through the farm bill, to go out and do one-on-one consultative support with the producer, and ultimately, it is going to make it much 

harder to deliver a voluntary approach for conservation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Conservation districts have a special relationship, obviously, with producers, because a trust factor has been 

built over many decades. As producers see district employees, they 

are there to help. They are there to help, I would say not in a punitive; it has never been in a punitive manner. But it has always 

been in a cooperative, consultative capacity. Because of this trust 

factor, districts can bridge the gap between producers and government agencies, both state and Federal. 

That being said, I am concerned, and I understand the short 

game, because when you have an agency, the EPA, and Washington is threatening withholding funding that have been appropriated by this body, they are there to execute what we appropriate, and yet they are changing and they are arbitrarily implementing their roles. They are actually, to some extent, they are legislating, which is not within the Constitution what they are supposed to do. I get the short game of the threats of the personnel 

needs, because I have met these folks, the boots-on-the-ground, and 

they are good people. They have great education, great background, 

and they are dedicated to serving or advancing conservation practices. But that trust issue, I am just very concerned that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection finds themselves 

in a position, because of the influence of the EPA, which I don’t 

think they really have the authority to do, quite frankly. I don’t remember anything that we have done authorizing or appropriating 

that would allow them this hammer, especially when the EPA regional director from Philadelphia has been in this hearing room 

and has told us that the Chesapeake Bay is not a regulation, which 

pretty much knocked most of us out of our seats, because it sure 

sounds like a regulation when you look at the punitive consequences of not adhering. 

But it really comes down, and I am concerned what the breakdown, what this does to the trust, where the requirements, the districts begin doing compliance checks in order to continue receiving 

funding for bay technician staff only will erode this relationship. If 

districts lose this trust due to the uncomfortable position EPA has 

forced them into, we will only serve to hamper the conservation delivery system. 

I divide this into a short game and a long game. The short game 

is, I get it, the financial pressures, being held for ransom financially. But the long-term game is what concerns me because trust 

is inherently a part of voluntary conservation. And all the great 

gains, the percentages, sediments, the TMDLs, the phosphorus, the 

nitrates. 

And you put it into such great perspective because you talked 

about the urbanization, that headwind, that pressure, that growth 

since I was first elected to serving this body in 2008. You compound that with what we never account for, those periodic 100 and 

500 year floods, which seem to be coming a whole lot more often 

than that, that just wash over those banks. And there is not a 

thing that we can do about that, not a thing that we can do about 

28

stopping those things that have always occurred that wash all the 

phosphates and nitrates that were safely safeguarded, except for 

those occasions of those massive floods. 

What is your perspective on the long-term game? Because I am 

concerned that if we lose the trust with the voluntary conservation 

programs, which means that, over time, we will begin to lose 

ground on cleaning our watersheds as farmers and ranchers become more guarded about allowing, whether its NRCS, whether it 

is conservation districts, whether it is the ag extension folks, onto 

their farms and ranches. 

Mr. WELLER. If I may, in listening, sir, to your question and your 

remarks, I am reminded of a different region of the country but a 

very eloquent producer. This was in Denver, Colorado, when Secretary Jewell announced we were not going to list the sage-grouse 

because of a voluntary approach to managing range country in the 

West. There was a rancher from Nevada. His name is Duane 

Coombs. In my view, he stole the show at this event, in part because he spoke for the land, but he also spoke for his community 

and the people that work the land. He was very eloquent when he 

said, I am going to paraphrase what he said, good conservation is 

good government. And that empowers people. It empowers communities, and it gives dignity, in his words, to the little people. 

But he also talked about how a collaborative voluntary approach, 

where you built trust with landowners and communities, can help 

change the relationship between people who live on the land and 

the government. And he was starting to see a shift in the winds 

in a part of the country where there has not, frankly, been a great 

relationship between landowners and the Federal Government, and 

he was very optimistic for the future. 

Shifting here back to the Chesapeake Bay and to your question 

on trust, it is fundamental. What a lot of our colleagues in the environmental community don’t recognize is we are only there on that 

farm but for the invitation of that landowner. And more often than 

not, I just spoke to a producer yesterday, in fact, from Texas, and 

she was relaying to me some concerns she had, but how she worked 

with NRCS, invited her into her kitchen, and sat at the table for 

8 hours working through her agricultural operation and identifying 

what are the best approaches to address her resource-management 

challenges on her farm. That doesn’t happen with very many other 

Federal agencies where you are literally invited to a homeowner’s 

house, at the kitchen table, and you are part of, many cases, the 

family, but you are looked at as a business partner. If you lose that 

trust and people suspect you have other motives or they suspect or 

fear that what they are going to share with you will be used for 

other purposes, the long view I share a concern with what may 

happen to that invitation and to that willingness for people to open 

their farm gate. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

I am pleased to recognize Ms. Kuster for a line of questioning 

and consume as much time as you would. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. 

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think we are pressured for time. 

Ms. KUSTER. Thank you. Well, I appreciate it. 

29

Thank you to our witnesses, Chief Weller and Secretary Redding, 

for being with us today. 

I am impressed by the progress here of the Chesapeake Bay. It 

is an area of incredible ecological diversity and pristine natural resources. And I wish you well in your continued efforts. 

I wanted, if you wouldn’t mind indulging me, to turn our attention to my farmers in New Hampshire. I can’t say we have many 

ranchers, but a few. As a Member of this Committee, I have had 

the privilege of representing hundreds of farms throughout my district. And I have spent a lot of time visiting with farmers around 

who participate in NRCS cost-share programs. But the one piece of 

this that I keep hearing recurring frustration about is the annual 

SAM DUNS, is that how we refer to it, reporting requirement. The 

producers that I have spoken with were frustrated that this regulation puts small farmers on the same playing field as entities that 

receive multimillion dollar contracts, such as large military contractors, but in New Hampshire, the average NRCS contractor is 

around $20,000. The paperwork is overwhelming. 

Can you tell us, and this is to Chief Weller, what producers are 

telling NRCS field offices about the regulations? What I keep hearing, just to be specific, is that my producers are confused about the 

process. What I am worried about is it is acting as a barrier to 

entry to some producers who want to participate in the conservation program but are just getting tangled up in red tape. 

Mr. WELLER. I am very cognizant, but I am appearing for the 

body that writes the laws. We don’t get a choice on what laws we 

choose to implement or not. 

Ms. KUSTER. That is fair. We are asking, what do we need to 

change in the upcoming farm bill? If it is not on you, it is on us. 

We will take it on us. And be specific about what would need to 

change. 

Mr. WELLER. To your question, ma’am, there is a lot of concern, 

and it is not just from producers, landowners, forest landowners, 

producers in New Hampshire. This is virtually in every state. 

When I go on the road, I think about every farmer I visit with this 

is what I hear. And then I get in the cab of the truck and visit with 

the NRCS staff, and I get an earful. It is a concern. And so it is 

a little bit responding to the previous question about trust. It is 

also, frankly, about the brand. If your brand is, what you offer is 

a lot of paperwork and red tape, it makes it really hard to get people to want to come in and work with you. Again, long view, I am 

a little bit concerned. 

Short-term, we have been able to work through it. I will be honest: it has been a burden on the men and women in the field. It 

has been distracting them from their day-to-day jobs. We have had 

to go back and review 15,000 active EQIP and CSP contracts this 

year. The value of those contracts is approaching $1 billion, and 

these are active contracts that were hung up on this issue. 

Ms. KUSTER. And what is it specifically? What is the hang up? 

Mr. WELLER. The requirement, there are these two different systems. You have to get a DUNS number, DUNS Bradstreet number, 

and then you have to have a System for Award Management number, which is a separate system. It was, my understanding, put into 

a Military Construction Authorization Act. It was meant to really 

30

address large contractors that work with the government. If a 

farmer files his or her taxes as an entity, a joint operation, or an 

LLC, which many producers do, they are required to basically register with the government because they are receiving a direct payment from the Federal Government. It is a way, big picture, for the 

government to ensure we are not improperly paying corporations 

that have some issues, tax liabilities, or shouldn’t be paid. I don’t 

think it was intended to, in this case, impact the producers, landowners. 

Unfortunately, these SAM numbers require the producers to go 

to this website, and it requires an annual renewal. And so, for a 

lot of folks, they would get their number, but then their number 

would expire. Separately, and I am sorry to get bureaucratic, 

but——

Ms. KUSTER. That is all right. We need to get into the weeds to 

fix it. The one thing we can agree on: we are not pro-red tape. We 

would like to work together to get rid of it. 

Mr. WELLER. Okay. We are required then to ensure producers 

have their numbers and are valid and are current. If they are not, 

we legally cannot make a payment. We are working very hard to 

educate producers. We are helping to provide as much help to get 

their numbers going. But, frankly, it is something at the end they 

have to get. I would be happy to work with your office, with this 

Committee to go a little bit deeper into what the issues are and 

look for some options to help reduce the red tape. 

Ms. KUSTER. I would love to. And see if we can’t streamline. My 

other committee is the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, so you can 

imagine I am used to red tape. But it would be great if we could 

help our producers, and I have a bill in now about exports for a 

one-stop shop in the Department of Commerce, because for a small 

business in my district to make a terrific product and try to sell 

it overseas, Make It In America, and we can bring those dollars 

here and be successful, but they have to go to 25 different places 

to get the permission. I am a big fan of cutting through red tape. 

Thank you. I would like to work with you on that. 

The other question I wanted to bring up to you, and this is a selfserving pitch for a bill of mine, H.R. 5451, Improving Access to 

Farm Conservation Act of 2016. This is a bipartisan bill and, again, 

cutting red tape for producers who are interested in participating 

in voluntary conservation programs. I would love to get my colleagues to take a look at it. It is a win-win for these producers who 

want to improve conservation practices on their farms and would 

be helpful for NRCS field staff who can spend less time sitting behind their desks dealing with the paperwork and more time in the 

field providing technical assistance. I am hoping that this Committee will bring up the bill during the next markup. I very much 

thank you for being with us, and I will follow up offline with the 

chair here to see if we can get some movement and try to get some 

relief. Thanks very much. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Let me take the liberty of a couple more questions. I know that 

we are coming up on some time limitations Secretary Redding has 

with his schedule. 

31

But, Secretary Redding, this Committee has had serious concerns 

with the Chesapeake Bay TMDL from the beginning for fear it 

would unfairly punish states for not meeting certain benchmarks. 

Part of that is our concern that all of the great things that we do 

in agriculture don’t always get measured, nor do we get credit for 

it. 

Do you believe that Pennsylvania is being unfairly scrutinized for 

its perceived lack of progress in Bay restoration efforts? And do you 

believe that the EPA is recognizing all conservation activities that 

farmers and ranchers are not just voluntarily implementing but, 

based on those most recent reports, multiple reports that are being 

documented, great outcomes? 

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I wouldn’t say that we 

feel like we are being—well, we are scrutinized for sure. Any time 

you are talking about a watershed of this size and the number of 

people who live here and have an opinion about it—and it is right 

in our nation’s capital—there are a lot of folks watching that water 

body very closely. We certainly feel the pressure and feel the heat 

of questions being raised about our progress on the TMDL. 

The challenge has been for us is, given the scale of this, to have 

some appreciation by the EPA of the number of farms and the size 

of the state. As an example, there are 33,600 farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And since Delaware has been referenced several times earlier, I will just say you can put all the agriculture in 

the State of Delaware in the county of Lancaster as an example, 

just to put this in scale: 5,000+ farms in the county of Lancaster 

alone, 1⁄2 of those Amish. 

The frustration has been not an acknowledgment that we have 

a deliverable. We understand we have a timeline, but you have to 

have an appreciation for what has been done, and that gets back 

to having a good baseline of the non-cost-share practices that have 

been invested in. You have to have a good baseline of where you 

need to make particular investments, where you have the capacity 

to make the investments. 

The frustration has been more in not acknowledging that every 

state in this Chesapeake Bay watershed is equal. And if that is 

true, then you have to have some commensurate allocation of resources to go with it. And we think you have to have some commensurate timelines that are in keeping with the scale of the problem, right, that you have to keep looking at that issue. So that has 

been a challenge. 

The bigger one, or at least part of that, has been the narrative, 

is that it is always about what you have to do yet versus what have 

you done in the last 30 years that has brought us to the moment 

where anybody driving these roads in this region says, ‘‘This landscape has changed’’? It has changed by population. It has changed 

by infrastructure. It has changed in so many ways, and it has 

changed agriculturally. It is this frustration of, we had the TMDL; 

we will manage that; we are going to have to have an honest conservation about whether we can make the mark on all of the original timelines and milestones that were laid out, but we will make 

our best effort to get to 2025. But we also want to make sure that 

we are giving credit to the producers who are doing everyday good 

management practices, that we can meet the two coequal goals, beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
32

cause if you rush past the water quality and say that is the only 

indicator of success, then we trade away an incredible economic resource or quality of life in this region that we don’t want to do. 

That is the coequal goals piece. 

It is going to be a constant discussion. We would simply ask for 

transparency. We would ask for an acknowledgment that, as we 

have done in Pennsylvania with our State Conservation Commission, that we recognize the equilibrium that you have to find between environmental issues and agricultural issues. That has not 

always been evident in discussions about only the TMDL and 

whether we are successful. I appreciate the question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, how much of a role, if any, is the 

EPA playing in terms of its directives or threatening withholding 

of funding on using conservation districts to conduct compliance 

checks? And if so, isn’t that the role of the states to regulate and 

enforce how farmers operate? 

Mr. REDDING. Yes, so in the design of this and why I mentioned 

the role of conservation districts in the testimony, we have used 

them, and will need them, going forward. And to the point made 

about trust, there is clearly, when you ask the farm community 

who would they prefer to have on the farm, they would like to see 

the local conservation district personnel and realizing that may 

sometimes look like NRCS personnel just because they are commingled there. But it is going to be a local presence would be preferred. And we would prefer that as well at the state level. 

Now, the EPA certainly has jurisdiction over the concentrated 

animal feeding operations, the CAFO permits, as you know. But for 

all of the others, the preference from our standpoint would be either state or local. 

What we have experienced in the last couple of months has been, 

in the absence of conservation districts or the states being either 

as aggressive as needed and/or as comprehensive as needed, that 

the EPA would do some farm visits, even to the non-CAFO permit 

holders. 

It is not forced upon, but as we know in the Watershed Implementation Plan, the WIPs as they are referred to, and these milestones, if there is not progress the way that the TMDL is set up, 

the EPA certainly has the right to inquire, to request, to encourage, 

and, in some cases, to farm visits. That is not our preference by far. 

The preference is to do that with districts for the state. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then my final question is for both of you. It 

may not be a fair question for folks who are agricultural leaders, 

but we have talked, obviously, our focus here has been on agriculture and agriculture’s role in keeping our watersheds clean. But, 

as we talked the word urbanization has been mentioned a few 

times. And we all know the pressures that our states within the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed have been under, specifically Pennsylvania, from my perspective. And we know the great work that’s 

been done. 

And, Secretary, thank you for your leadership on the voluntary 

conservation, things that we are not getting credit for, clearly, because you wouldn’t get those types of reductions in phosphates and 

nitrates and sediments without all of those efforts. 

33

But I am curious, do either of you know what kind of difficulties 

and challenges on our agricultural community that have been, 

pressures, I guess. Any perspective on what measures are being 

pursued on the whole urbanization issue? And I am not saying that 

is under your jurisdictions, but obviously, being involved with the 

watersheds, I would be curious to see what the rest of the story is. 

With those pressures, chief, that you reflected on, are there measures being taken to deal with the urbanization within the watershed, specifically along the Chesapeake Bay itself? 

Mr. REDDING. Mr. Chairman, I will say two things and then 

defer to the chief. 

We believe long-term, given that the TMDL carries through 

2025, but as I have said many times, this is a question of what we 

do in the next 25 to 50 years, not what we do in the next 10. If 

we really are serious about meeting the two coequal goals that we 

have established for water quality in the TMDLs, so we have to be 

thinking long-term. 

Long-term, we believe that the answer is found in a combination 

of partnerships of local urban centers in rural communities that 

you simply have to have a way to address either nutrient trading, 

you have to bring stormwater into the conversation long-term 

about how you manage nutrients. And, personally, you stop worrying about the sector allocations and the pie, as we refer to it, and 

look at the water quality outcomes. If you do that, then you start 

having really important conversations about how you have folks in 

the community who have to coexist look at the issues of water resources and the natural resource management of the community. 

That is important. 

Very specifically, then, one of the issues the farm community has 

pointed out numerous times to us in Pennsylvania is that there is 

not a requirement for commercial fertilizer application on lawns. 

Okay? They can simply do that. There is no reporting. There is not 

a credential as there is, in comparison, to if somebody is doing that 

in an agricultural enterprise. There is a whole other set of recordkeeping; there is a set of credentials. 

We have a piece of legislation ready to go for the state that will 

close that gap and make it a requirement for the person doing fertilizer application to be credentialed to do so, that there will be 

record-keeping requirements so we know where the fertilizer is 

being applied and how it is being applied. And that will get to that 

discussion of both the shared responsibilities in many neighborhoods for water quality. And that will be where a lot of folks in 

urban centers touch that Chesapeake Bay, right, or the Susquehanna in our case. 

I think that will be an important change, because it will help 

change the narrative. It will help bring that back to communities 

and push this issue beyond an agricultural conversation where it 

is at the moment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Chief, any thoughts in terms of how we mitigate the urbanization side of this issue? 

Mr. WELLER. Well, I am not the overall expert in what localities 

and developers are doing for stormwater management. But I would 

like to just build upon what Secretary Redding laid out in that 

34

there is also hints at an opportunity for agriculture, for working 

lands, is something at NRCS we have also been trying to support, 

and that is this notion of trading, of using market mechanisms. 

For example, just here in Washington, D.C., D.C. Water, a couple 

of years ago, had to encumber ratepayers in the city with a 100 

year $1 billion bond to retrofit the city stormwater and wastewater 

treatment system, which is by setting that aside, a huge debt but 

also an environmental justice issue for a lot of folks who live in this 

community. 

Setting that aside, could there have been opportunities for D.C. 

Water to instead partner with producers of the Potomac, to work 

with the watershed itself and partner with them to put in place 

lower cost practices that will be, frankly, good for production, better nutrient management, better tillage practices, better pest management that would have the same, if not more, effect on overall 

water quality flowing here in the Bay, that would have been a 

lower cost to taxpayers, ratepayers, here in the city, would have encumbered communities with less long-term debt, but then also, 

frankly, would have been, again, that positive feedback, that investment in agricultural infrastructure that is going to help provide for the long-term productivity of the lands. 

We have been, in trying to provide some seed money, venture 

money in this here in the Bay, in Maryland, Virginia. I would be 

very interested in exploring opportunities in Pennsylvania. Is there 

a way you could actually not just get money for your grain crop or 

for your dairy products but a producer could then also get some additional financial incentive to provide for cleaner water for ratepayers downstream but do it in a way that is not a regulatory burden but is, instead, a more collaborative positive approach. 

There are examples of this in a small scale nationally. We are 

very interested and excited about this, but we haven’t yet cracked 

the code to get this at scale. This is a big opportunity here in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it sounds like a great opportunity for the 

agricultural community. I am not sure it is doing much for stopping the progressive contributions of chemicals or phosphates, nitrates, all the things that we have been battling. Urbanization, as 

you know, obviously continues. And development, it is hard not to 

have that happen. The trading credits, obviously, are a credible tool 

that many are looking at, but I am not sure it is a solution in getting the Bay cleaner, quite frankly. 

And I did promise that was my last question, but just a clarification. There is a lot of heartburn and concern on the part of the 

Committee, who worked so long and hard on the farm bill, in terms 

of maintaining confidentiality of farmers. And I just wanted to revisit that. 

Just briefly, Secretary Redding, looking at, and I get the idea of 

a voluntary confidentiality waiver. Quite frankly, if your Member 

of Congress is working with you for any reason, first thing we do 

is we get people to sign that waiver form. They are eager to do it, 

because they have approached us about resolving their problem. 

But how does that work if they choose not to do that, not to provide 

that information, are they then automatically, technically out of 

35

compliance and, therefore, potentially subject to some type of a 

penalty? 

There is kind of an oxymoron between the words voluntary and 

compliance. They just usually don’t fit very well together. 

Mr. REDDING. Yes. It is voluntary but verify, right? And we build 

it, the hallmark of conservation success has been the voluntary nature. What we are asked to do in the TMDL now is to verify what 

it is that we have actually done and/or say what we are going to 

do is verify. But specific to section 1619, the way this is now set 

up, if a producer, when approached, voluntarily provides the information to the conservation district or to a third party, they can do 

so. 

What we are requesting is just a standard procedure, is that before any of the information is turned over to either the state or to 

a third party is that those release forms are signed. That way there 

is full acknowledgement. 

In a perfect world, we would prefer that the producer handles the 

file and interfaces with the individual who is doing the verification. 

That is the preferred way. But your assumption is that there would 

be some intermediary in there. 

We have not, again, it is an assumption that we haven’t confronted the question, if somebody refuses to provide the information, what does that do? At this point, that has not been contemplated as a default to noncompliance, but it will certainly require some additional conversation if somebody is not cooperative. 

But we are not going to make the assumption just on the question 

of the privacy of the information, if it is not provided, that it is 

noncompliance. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the first things they told me around here 

is don’t ask a question unless you already know the answer. But 

I don’t know the answer to this; I will be up-front. 

Would that information, then, as it is, obviously, if it is held by 

the producer, the farmer, the rancher, it is protected at that point. 

But even with this release, when that information is provided to 

the state or the conservation district, would that then would be 

vulnerable? Would that be information that is, I don’t know what 

word I am looking for, but basically through the courts would that 

have to be released to the public? 

Mr. REDDING. Well, I can tell you for Pennsylvania, in fact, on 

the release of agricultural plans form, we note that once the information is provided, the documents will become part of the Commonwealth’s public record and will be retained as such. There is 

notice that it is potentially subject to the right to know. 

The CHAIRMAN. It would be subject for those who are kind of 

shopping around for information for nuisance lawsuits. 

I am pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. 

Chief Weller, on October 4, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, including the EPA Administrator, the Governors of Virginia, 

Maryland, New York, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and 

the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and the Chair of the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission will be meeting to identify restoration challenges, 

36

moving forward. If given a seat at the table, what story would you 

tell about the role of voluntary conservation efforts being implemented by producers? 

Mr. WELLER. In part, it would be a reflection of what has been 

shared and discussed in the hearing today. But my short message 

would be, really, a request that the commission and representatives 

that appear before the commission, to be honest, that we need to 

celebrate. We have collectively made huge progress. 

In part, a lot of the impassioned concern for the health of the 

Bay, there are a lot of folks who are concerned we haven’t made 

as much progress as some feel we need, but it is important once 

in a while to actually take stock of how far we have come. 

We should also thank, frankly, agriculture for how much has 

been delivered. As I shared a little bit earlier before you were able 

to arrive, according to the Chesapeake Bay Program, agriculture, 

the agricultural sector, is one of the leading if not the leading sector for reducing nonpoint source loadings into the Bay itself, particularly for sediment and for phosphorous, and also has made good 

contributions for nitrogen. 

And so it is, really, the holdup in identify, recognize, and celebrate success. And then, collectively, we need to identify, we are 

not saying ‘‘mission accomplished.’’ We are not saying ‘‘job done.’’ 

Then let’s jointly focus on what needs to happen next. 

And so, unfortunately, there has been a lot of focus on how much 

money you have spent, a lot of folks point at USDA. And for those 

who care about the sustainability of the Bay, if your only metric 

is how much the Federal Government has spent, I would submit 

that is not a very sustainable metric and perhaps it is not the best 

metric. Let’s look at, broadly, what is science telling us about the 

trend and direction of the Bay. And in general, there are a lot of 

good points that show recovery, a rebound. And, okay. Let’s celebrate what is resulting in that. It is very complex. There are a lot 

of factors, but you can’t forget the men and women, the family operations that are trying to make a living off the land that, frankly, 

are putting products on the shelves of our stores, the people, the 

17 million people that live on the Bay, who depend upon the food 

when they go to the grocery store. And so these small business operators want to stay in business. And then, frankly, that is the best 

thing for the Bay is to have those lands stay in pasture and in crop 

and forest. And the best way to ensure that landscape stays open 

and doesn’t get sold and developed is to ensure it is economic and 

those business owners can make a living. 

That comes back to celebrating success, rewarding progress, and 

then focusing on what still needs to happen and how do we jointly 

leverage and invest in a positive solution that is collaborative, as 

opposed to punitive. 

Mr. ALLEN. So what you are saying is that there is a joint effort 

here that has been successful. And then what is holding us back 

in continuing this effort? 

Is there some way that we need to build a better partnership 

here? Are there obstructions to building a better partnership? Is 

there any finger-pointing or like, ‘‘Hey, you are not doing enough,’’ 

and that sort of thing? How do we do this in a joint effort to get 

to the end result we want? 

37

Mr. WELLER. There are examples. And I am not saying, but it 

is in part human nature, and folks are very concerned and passionate, doesn’t matter what side of the issue you are on. 

I am not saying there is finger-pointing, but I am saying we 

could better partner together. Notwithstanding the resources we 

get from this Committee, our resources, particularly our staff, our 

field folk, who work very hard, and I am very proud of what they 

do, their time, and they are stressed very thin. And right now, they 

are pretty stressed, given it is the final week or 2 of the fiscal year. 

How do we, then, work better with state government? How do we 

work better with districts? How do we work better with agribusiness and agricultural consultants? How do we work better with 

loaning institutions? How do we work better with water utilities 

and municipalities? And there are examples of this. In part, there 

is a program this Committee has supported, a Regional Conservation Partnership Program, which around the country, we have now 

over 198 projects which are showing you can partner together. 

When you empower local folks to identify their priorities and invite 

NRCS, USDA in that conversation to co-invest, you can unlock 

some really exciting things. 

We have a lot of examples where you can get past the fingerpointing and actually get the results on the ground. And there are 

absolutely examples right here on the Chesapeake Bay. I don’t 

want to mischaracterize what is happening. 

Mr. ALLEN. Would the Chairman yield 1 additional minute? 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. 

Mr. Secretary, I would like to hear your thoughts on this collaborative effort. As you have recognized, the Bay received the highest 

grade for health since 1992 and 30th highest in 3 decades. Acknowledging that more work remains to be done, would you agree 

that we are on the right course to continue this collaborative effort 

and incentive-based conservation? 

Mr. REDDING. Yes. Congressman, thank you for the question. 

Certainly, going forward, the only way to success is through this 

foundation of partnerships and collaboration. We have looked at it 

in state. And while we, as a Department, look at our role and responsibilities and relationship with the districts, the reality is it is 

well beyond that. It will take the mayors, and it will take the county commissioners, it will take everybody looking at what it is that 

we can do, number one. 

I think, to your point about the meeting and looking forward a 

little bit, there are two things. I would say, first, as we have stated 

earlier in the hearing, there is some recognition that there has 

been a tremendous amount of progress has to be part of the narrative, right? It can’t always be about, ‘‘You have more to do,’’ 

right? That is fatiguing. It is fatiguing at the farm level. Every 

time you feel like you are making progress. We all understand the 

cycles of this business and the seasons we live in and so forth. You 

like to hear that you are actually making progress. And some of 

what has been noted by the USGS, the University of Maryland, 

and EPA, that has to be front and center and really part of what 

we talk about and how we talk about the Bay, going forward. 

38

And the third point would be about the question of the goals. If 

it only is, if the simple metric is water quality, then that becomes 

a very limiting conversation, right? If it is about the economic viability of, in our case, agriculture or the region, then that requires 

us, then, to look at some of the urbanization concerns and the demographics shifts that we have seen. 

But I would say it also presents an opportunity to bring 17 million people as consumers to the conversation. And I don’t know at 

this point whether there is really a regional appreciation for the 

delicate balance that is required, but also the personal action that 

is required to get us to the reductions, right? It is what we buy. 

It is where we shop. It is what we view in terms of the value of 

land. I think that can be part of the conversation that the chief 

notes of celebration, but it is also becomes part of the narrative. 

Mr. ALLEN. Okay. Well, thank you, again, for your testimony. 

Again, our role here is to facilitate collaboration, and we are here 

to do that for you as best we can do in our role and as Members 

of Congress. And thank you for your efforts, and I wish you all the 

best. And let us know how we can help you. 

Mr. REDDING. Very good. 

Mr. ALLEN. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to thank our witnesses. It is undeniable the record of success that we have accomplished together through voluntary conservation. 

I was at a Chesapeake Bay event where the NFWF was presenting some grant moneys, some that came from the USDA, some 

came from the EPA, to folks. Actually, Secretary Larson was there. 

We did it, actually, at Penn State, Secretary Redding, we did it at 

the Larson farm at Penn State about a month ago or so. And it was 

out there that I made the comment that conservation is a team 

sport. And it is. And since we have embraced conservation not in 

a punitive way, a top-down penalty-imposed system, where we 

went to a team sport, which really reflects voluntary conservation, 

we have just made amazing gains so that water is cleaner. Our 

phosphates are down. Nitrates are down. Sediments are down. The 

other benefits, quite frankly, these voluntary programs create jobs 

for the mediation work that is done, whether it is for preparing 

buffers or stream bank restoration, just all the different things that 

are there. The endangered species that actually have been de-listed, which I still find just remarkable how well that has worked 

versus, unfortunately, what was tried to be done in the past with 

a punitive regulatory approach by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It 

just shows the benefits and not only has it worked based on pure, 

great statistically documented information, these studies, but it is 

a sustainable trend. It has a trajectory. It is about direction and 

momentum. 

And so I have tremendous concerns of anything that would break 

that teamwork approach and taking our folks, who have been 

great, who have been embraced by farmers and ranchers on the 

fields, and having them exercise police power, I think that it is just 

very threatening to me in terms of the long-term. And not only 

would it, perhaps, stop our trajectory that we have now under volVerDate 0ct 09 2002 16:46 Jan 04, 2017 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 P:\DOCS\114-58\21657.TXT BRIAN
39

untary conservation, we may actually see those gains start to 

erode. 

I really appreciate both of you being here today to address this 

topic. Pennsylvania and the United States, quite frankly, are just 

tremendously benefited by having you in your leadership roles in 

agriculture. And I appreciate the opportunity to continue to work 

with you on this issue and others. 

And under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today’s 

hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional 

material and supplementary written responses from witnesses to 

any questions posed by a Member. 

This Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry hearing is now 

adjourned. 

Mr. REDDING. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

41

* There was no response from the witness by the time this hearing was published. 

SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

Response from Jason Weller, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture * 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from Virginia 

Question 1. I regularly hear from producers in the Sixth District of Virginia who 

are concerned with the implementation of EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) blueprint and the economic impact of its mandates. Do you believe that the TMDL blueprint was the best way to achieve a healthy Bay?

Question 2. Chief Weller, do you share the Committee’s view that voluntary conservation is the best model for conserving natural resources? Why or why not? 

Response from Hon. Russell C. Redding, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 

Questions Submitted by Hon. Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from Virginia 

Question 1. As the Secretary of Agriculture of a Chesapeake Bay state, do you believe that EPA has removed or diminished the autonomy of the Bay states with its 

Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) blueprint? Has EPA respected 

the Congressionally mandated partnership between EPA and the states as was 

clearly established with the Clean Water Act? 

Answer. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, states are required to establish a 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for watersheds or stream reaches with impaired water quality. In establishing a TMDL, states are required to determine existing pollution loads and calculate load reductions that they believe will enable 

them to achieve the water quality goals for these impaired waters. Within certain 

limits, this TMDL process is a fairly straight-forward mathematical calculation to 

allocate pollution load reductions based on best available data and information regarding nutrient and sediment loads within the targeted watershed or stream segment. 

The development of a Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) by a state is required under the TMDL process in order to describe in detail how a state will 

achieve the pollution reduction targets established under the TMDL. Throughout 

the development of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs 1 

& 2), Pennsylvania has been able to develop restoration plans that suited the 

unique characteristics and needs of the Commonwealth. 

While these WIPs and the specific best management practices (BMPs) and other 

pollution control tactics contained in them are subject to EPA review and approval, 

I believe the Commonwealth has been able to maintain a high level of autonomy 

and discretion in selecting the specific practices, plans and approaches that will 

achieve the largest nutrient and sediment reductions contained in the Chesapeake 

Bay TMDL. 

Throughout this TMDL WIP development process, EPA plays a critical role to ensure accountability as the states work to both develop and implement the plan’s provisions. We appreciate the importance of this EPA function and value the feedback 

on our work, however, ultimately the choice of how to meet our water quality improvement goals of the TMDL and the WIP rests with the Commonwealth.

Question 2. As you may know, many Members of the House Committee on Agriculture have been opposed to the Chesapeake Bay TMDL since its inception for fear 

it would unfairly punish states for not meeting EPA mandated goals. Do you believe 

that Pennsylvania is being unfairly scrutinized for its perceived lack of progress in 

Bay restoration efforts? If so, do you believe that this type of strict examination 

could be easily applied to other Bay states? Do you believe that EPA is recognizing 

all conservation activities that farmers and ranchers are voluntarily implementing? 

Answer. The Commonwealth fully recognizes that we have an obligation under 

both state and Federal law to protect and restore the quality of our streams, lakes 

and other water bodies. Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law was enacted and established a goal of protecting and restoring the waters of our Commonwealth long before the Federal Government and EPA became a player in this arena. We also recognize that on the Federal level, a large portion of this obligation falls on our shoulders as a state. As such, we recognize and understand the high level of scrutiny directed towards Pennsylvania by EPA and quite frankly, by other states and organizations as well. 

42

The Chesapeake Bay watershed encompasses approximately 64,0002 miles of land, 

with 40% of that land found in the Susquehanna and Potomac watersheds. The Susquehanna River alone contributes about 1⁄2 of all fresh water of the Bay. 

Within Pennsylvania’s portion of the watershed are nearly 34,000 family farm operations which contribute to the water quality challenges we face. We believe those 

outside of PA recognize the significant and proportional role that Pennsylvania 

plays in the restoration of the watershed. Others can characterize whether this is 

fair or unfair—we are singularly focused on meeting the water quality expectations 

placed on us. 

In terms of recognizing farmers’ voluntary conservation practices, the Chesapeake 

Bay model does allow for reporting of certain conservation practices voluntarily installed by our farmers. The challenge is that Pennsylvania has previously lacked 

cost effective means to identify, verify and report these voluntary practices. Pennsylvania has recently piloted several innovative and promising tactics to gather this 

information (PSU Agricultural BMP Self-Reporting, NRCS Potomac Watershed Remote Sensing Pilot) that will enable us to report voluntarily installed conservation 

practices. EPA has acknowledged the difficulty that Pennsylvania faces in this regard and has committed their support to assist the Commonwealth in evaluating 

these new approaches and working to ensure the model is capable of accepting this 

new data

Æ