U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–284 PDF 2006

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

(109–69)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 4, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

TED POE, Texas

CONNIE MACK, Florida

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana,

Vice-Chair

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a Representative in Congress from Maryland ......... 6

Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, a Representative in Congress from Virginia ...................... 6

Franks, Hon. C. Ron, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,

Chesapeake Bay Executive Council .................................................................... 10

Gross, Penelope A., Mason District Supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors ................................................................................................................ 10

Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 10

Hoagland, Roy A., Vice President for Environmental Protection and Restoration, Chesapeake Bay Foundation ...................................................................... 10

Swanson, Ann Pesiri, Executive Director, Chesapeake Bay Commission ........... 10

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., of Maryland ................................................................ 38

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 42

Davis, Hon. Jo Ann, of Virginia .............................................................................. 43

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., of Maryland ................................................................. 53

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Franks, Hon. C. Ron ................................................................................................ 45

Gross, Penelope A. ................................................................................................... 55

Grumbles, Benjamin H ............................................................................................ 63

Hoagland, Roy A. ..................................................................................................... 75

Swanson, Ann Pesiri ................................................................................................ 81

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD

Bailes, Hon. Gerald L., Director, Miller Center for Public Affairs, University

of Virginia, statement .......................................................................................... 85

Sheenan, Denise M., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation, State of New York, letter, June 8, 2006 .................................................... 89

(1)

THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

Thuesday, May 4, 2006,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

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

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to go ahead and welcome everyone to our

hearing today on the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization

and H.R. 4126 that we are doing at least in major part at the request of our good friend and members of the Subcommittee, Congressman Gilchrest, who is so interested and involved in all of this.

The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States

and is critical to the economy, environment and way of life for millions in the mid-Atlantic area. Covering 64,000 square miles, the

watershed spans parts of six States and the District of Columbia,

and is home to 16 million people. There are 150 major streams and

tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay basin. The Bay is an important

environmental feature in the region. It is home to millions of waterfowl and a vast array of fish, shellfish and other aquatic plants

and animals.

For the human population, the Chesapeake Bay provides millions

of pounds a seafood, a wide variety of recreational opportunities

and is a major shipping and commercial hub. Two of the Nation’s

largest ports are on the Chesapeake Bay, the ports in Baltimore

and the port at Hampton Roads.

Beginning with colonial settlement and until today, land use

changes in the watershed have affected the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Public concerns about the health of the Bay have been

raised since the 1930s. The deterioration of the Chesapeake Bay

can be seen in a decrease in water clarity, a decline in the oyster

and crab populations and a lack of underwater grasses.

There are 11 areas of the Bay that are classified as dead zones,

where there is not enough oxygen in the water to sustain life. The

EPA says the major causes of the Bay’s deterioration are excessive

nutrients and sediments coming from farm lands, wastewater

treatment plants and urban runoff. Septic systems and air deposition of emissions from power plants, cars and trucks also contribute

to the degradation.

In the next 25 years, an additional 3.7 million people are expected to be living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As more con-
2

crete and asphalt replaces forests and open spaces, the runoff of

nutrients and sediments into the Bay will quicken. However, it is

this same development that provides the economic stability and future growth prospects for the region. We must balance our economic development with our need for clean water and a healthy environment.

In 1983, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of

Columbia signed with the EPA the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay Program was authorized formally by Congress and the Clean Water Act. Today, the program

is a partnership of States, local entities and the EPA that directs

and conducts restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake

2000 Agreement set ambitious restoration goals to be met by 2010. Over the last 10 years, $3.7 billion in direct funding has been

provided to the program from the Federal Government and the

States. Of this, $972 million has been provided by the Federal Government. An additional $1.9 billion in indirect funding has gone to

programs that improve the health of the Bay. Also in the last 10 years, the EPA has provided $1 billion to

Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania through the Clean Water

State Revolving Loan Fund. The EPA reports that some progress

has been made in cleaning up the Bay, but many challenges remain.

A Government Accountability Office report last year suggested

that the reported improvements in the Bay may be overstated. To

address the need to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program, our

Subcommittee colleague, Wayne Gilchrest, has introduced H.R.

4126, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2005.

The bill has 16 bipartisan co-sponsors, including another Subcommittee colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

The bill would authorize the Chesapeake Bay Program through

2011, with some modifications. H.R. 4126 would increase the accountability of the program to achieve water quality goals, and

would increase the role of the local governments in Bay restoration.

Also, the bill would increase authorized funding from $40 million

to $50 million annually through 2011.

This is an important bill and deserves our careful consideration.

We have assembled expert witnesses to help us consider this important program, and Mr. Gilchrest’s bill.

We have two distinguished members of Congress from the Chesapeake Bay watershed, Jo Ann Davis of Virginia and Ben Cardin of

Maryland. In addition, we have representatives of the State and

Federal partners who administer the program. I look forward to

hearing from all of you, and let me now turn to my good friend,

the Ranking Member, Ms. Johnson, for any opening statement she

wishes to make.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing on the Chesapeake Bay, one of our wonders of the

world, and on the much-needed efforts to improve its environmental health.

The Chesapeake Bay is an ecological treasure, lying in the back

yard of our Nation’s capital. Home to more than 16 million people

and more than 3,600 species of plants and animal life, the Chesapeake Bay watershed has a long history of human settlement,
3

starting with the first Native American communities roughly

12,000 years ago.

Yet there is also a long history of declining health of the Chesapeake Bay in part because of the utilization of the Bay watershed’s

natural resources. For example, during the 19th century, a shift toward commercial agriculture led to more land devoted to crop production, more reclaimed wetlands as well as the importation and

utilization of nitrogen fertilizers to enhance productivity. These factors, when combined with residential and industrial growth in the

region, placed significant pressure on the delicate balance of the

Bay’s ecosystem.

Soon afterwards, the warning signs of the Bay’s declining health

began. By the late 1800s, oysterman began to record declining harvests of oysters from the region. By the beginning of the 20th century, reports document declining migratory bird populations and

fewer acres of native eel grass beds and other habitat.

In 1968, a local survey reported that pollution in the Chesapeake Bay cost $3 million in annual losses to the Bay fishing industry.

Mr. Chairman, the warning signs have been around for over a century. Yet we have only recently started paying attention.

For decades, numerous governmental and non-governmental organizations, including many here this morning, began to focus on

declining health of the Bay and on the steps necessary to stop the

decline and hopefully assist in the restoration and protection of this

resource. As an example, the ever-present Save the Bay bumper

stickers have encouraged citizens’ awareness for over 40 years.

Yet awareness of the issues and achieving cleanup results are

two different ends of the same task. I am concerned that despite

our efforts thus far, we are no further in actually restoring the ecological health of the Bay than we were decades earlier. Mr. Chairman, decades of study on the Bay have outlined where the problems are and identified how to address these problems.

So this is not a question of what is wrong or how we can clean

it up. This entire debate boils down to one key point: do we have

the commitment? Do we have the commitment to take steps necessary to control the sources of nutrients and silt that continue to

pollute the Bay? Do we have the commitment to take an aggressive

stand on land use and non-point sources of pollution? Do we have

the commitment at all levels of Government to collect and spend

necessary financial resources to make a different in addressing ongoing sources of pollution to the Bay?

Without an aggressive commitment to address ongoing sources of

pollution and to fund necessary projects throughout the watershed,

I am certain that when we revisit this issue in the next reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program, the statements you hear

will be the same as today: that we know where the problems are,

but we are not aggressively taking steps to address them.

I hope after today’s witnesses, which I look forward to hearing,

we might be able to move forward. Thank you very much.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.

Mr. Gilchrest.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for holding this

hearing today. And actually, I enjoyed listening to both of your
4

statements. They were a combination of describing the beauty in

an eloquent fashion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and quite

accurately, I might add, the history of human activity in the Bay

watershed, and the fact that now we know how, we understand the

physics of the ecological system of the Chesapeake Bay. So we

know what the parameters are for fixing this problem, and it is in

essence making human activity compatible with nature’s design.

And the science of that is evident. Our commitment has to be reinvigorated.

What we are trying to do with this reauthorization is to take this

legislation that has been around now for almost 20 years and fine

tune it to the extent that there is more collaboration, more coordination from the Federal agencies, the vast array of Federal departments, with the State governments and the local governments, so

each has an enhanced but an acceptable amount of responsibility

to not only report the findings but do something about the findings.

So today, we would like to have some understanding from the

perspectives of the witnesses as to what are the greatest accomplishments of the Chesapeake Bay Program to this point, what are

the weaknesses of the Chesapeake Bay Program up to this point.

And where are we as far as restoring living resources, water resources, vital habitats and managing open space?

And in Maryland, for example, how are we managing our critical

areas laws? Are we enforcing this with all our efforts? Or are we

lax with the relationship between State and local planners? How

do we deal with sprawl? How do we deal with impervious surfaces?

Impervious surfaces in the last 10 years have increased by 40 percent as the population has increased by 8 percent.

And we know that impervious surfaces are one of the key difficulties with restoring the Bay habitat. What is the relationship

between EPA and USDA as far as the Chesapeake Bay Program

is concerned? What is the relationship between EPA and all the

other Federal agencies that have an impact on the Chesapeake

Bay? Do we have a prediction as to how much water is available

for future development and what about the sewer systems and

their impact over the next 20 or 30 years?

Is there an effective collaborative nature of the program with

small watershed grants between the various States, between the

various agencies? What is the relationship between the Corps of

Engineers and EPA, especially with non-native species and the introduction of non-native species?

The involvement of the President’s cabinet with the Bay restoration, Federal agencies, the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and the unified plan. That is an entity that has a working relationship with

the Bay program. The States’ role. I guess I could go on and on.

One last comment about the State and local government. How

well are they coordinated, collaborative effort with the program to

ensure fair and equitable distribution of the limited funds for small

watershed grants? And certainly, we want to increase the amount

of money for those small watershed grants, because that is where

the rubber hits the road.

In this huge bureaucracy, we need initiative, ingenuity, intellect,

clarity, collaboration and strong, determined leadership. And the

goal sits out there. How are we compatible with nature’s design?
5

That is our target. That is the local planners’ target, the county

commissioners’ target, the mayors’ target, the manager of EPA,

USDA, the Federal agencies, the Governor, DNRs, you name it.

How do we become more compatible?

So I really look forward to everyone’s testimony and I want to

thank the Chairman for his indulgence with my, what can we say,

too much chatter? Passion.

But what I would like to do is submit my official statement for

the record and former Governor Baliles from Virginia, his statement into the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Without objection, those statements will be placed

in the record.

Dr. Boustany, do you have a statement?

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am just going to say, I want to commend my colleague, Mr.

Gilchrest, for the hard work, the passion that he brings to this

issue. And also state that much of what we have learned with the

Chesapeake Bay applies also to my home State of Louisiana and

the coastal issues that we deal with.

With that, I look forward to the testimony. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.

Ms. Shuster.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I know that, coming from Pennsylvania, it is our tributaries that

flow into the Chesapeake. I have been a strong proponent of bringing home Federal dollars to assist a lot of the small, rural communities in my district to improve wastewater facilities and make

sure that we are being responsible stewards of those Pennsylvania

tributaries to make certain that the national treasure that we have

in the Chesapeake Bay continues to be a place where it is environmentally sound that we continue to respect the integrity of that.

So we appreciate the two of you being here today and we will

continue in Pennsylvania to work to keep our streams and rivers

clean. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Shuster.

As we have discussed at other times, there is an important Federal role in regard to this work, because people from all over the

Country come to and visit the Chesapeake Bay area. On the other

hand, I know from my home area and places all over the Country,

people have gone berserk over land that is on the water. The value

of the properties on water have just exploded. What that means is

that some of the local governments are going to have to shoulder

perhaps a little more of the burden also than they have done in the

past. But we will get into that as we go along.

Our first panel is a members panel. In my six years chairing the

Aviation Subcommittee and now my sixth year chairing this Subcommittee, with members panels, I always ask the members to

withhold any questions to the members in consideration of the fact

that these members have very busy schedules and need to get on

to other things, and also, because we can discuss matters with

them on the floor and at other times.

So we will put your full statements into the record and we give

you, we ask that witnesses limit their statements to five minutes.

We know it is hard to get a five minute statement sometimes into
6

that amount of time, so we give you six minutes. But after that,

we ask you to stop, so we can get on to other witnesses.

We will go first with ladies first, our friend, Congresswoman Jo

Ann Davis, who represents the Commonwealth of Virginia. Ms.

Davis.

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JO ANN DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF VIRGINIA; THE HONORABLE BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

MARYLAND

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

I appreciate your efforts, and I thank you for allowing me to sit

in on your committee this morning.

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me interrupt you just a moment. I have to run

and do a vote in another committee. Dr. Boustany is going to take

over for me, but I will see your full statements.

Mr. BOUSTANY. [Presiding.] Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting

for the change in chair, I just want to welcome Ms. Davis and Mr.

Cardin this morning. I would be remiss if I didn’t say that both

these members work very hard for the restoration of the Bay that

they also reside on. Thanks for coming to testify today.

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. You may proceed.

Ms. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my colleague on the

other side of the water, Representative Gilchrest, I want to thank

you for your efforts on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay. As a member

of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, I commend you for

your leadership and your dedication to the Bay. In the six years

that I have been here, I have heard about the Bay from you for

those entire six years.

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, as I said, and I am

proud and honored to represent Virginia’s First Congressional District, which spans most of the Bay’s western border. The James,

York and Rappahannock Rivers, three of the Bay’s major tributaries, flow through my district. The Bay and tributaries have

shaped and continue to shape the lives of the residents of Virginia,

especially in my district. I want to see the Chesapeake Bay restored and the environment improved.

We as a Nation have a special responsibility to act as stewards

of our natural resources and environment. In Virginia, we are gearing up for the 400th anniversary of America’s founding at Jamestown. Part of the commemoration, hopefully, will include the designation of the Captain John Smith Chesapeake Bay National Historic Water Trail.

John Smith explored most of the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries in 1607 and 1608. What he found was an astonishing assortment of wildlife and beautiful scenery. He wrote in his journal,

‘‘Heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man’s

habitation.’’ And I, along with about 16 million other people, agree

that the Bay and its tributaries are a great place to live. They are

also worth protecting and taking strides to improve the health of

the region’s waterways.
7

The Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement focused on significantly reducing nutrient pollution and sediment deposits by 2010. That date

is fast approaching and with much still left to do. Improved water

quality is and should remain the number one priority of the State,

Federal and local partners involved in the Bay cleanup. This is

such a large undertaking and the complexities of understanding

such a large estuary are daunting. The Federal and State governments have already invested billions, and it is our responsibility to

make sure that we are getting the most cleanup for our tax dollars.

I am encouraged by Representative Gilchrest’s vision to address

these concerns by increasing the responsibilities and the role of

local governments in Bay restoration. Localities and individuals are

vital components of any action and plan to clean up the Bay.

I want to take a minute or two to give a couple of concrete examples that exemplify a wide range of local efforts underway to improve water quality in the Bay region. This morning the National

Association of Counties recognized the efforts of community volunteers in Caroline County, Virginia. About a dozen volunteers were

instrumental in assisting local officials with a critical wastewater

project.

Dawn is a small, rural community without indoor plumbing. Poor

drainage and heavy storms wash waste into the drainages, threatening wells, groundwater and public health. Seeing the need and

recognizing the health and environmental impact, volunteers assisted local officials to collect easements and regulatory paperwork.

Thanks in large part to volunteer efforts, the community is slated

to begin construction of a wastewater facility early next year.

This is just one example of how local officials and communities

working together can address the health and environmental problems that will ultimately impact the health of our waterways.

I want to give you one more example of the important role that

local governments are playing in Bay restoration. Fredericksburg,

Virginia is reflective of many areas in the Bay watershed. Located

just south of D.C., the whole region is feeling the pressures of

growth and the strains associated with traffic, congestion and land

use. In Fredericksburg, along the banks of the Rappahannock, the

local government has just voted to place 31 miles of riverfront land

under conservation easement, creating an important buffer against

runoff and development. This is another examples of concrete steps

that local groups are making to preserve green spaces, to protect

Bay tributaries and enhance restoration efforts.

Finally, I want to remind the Committee of the important role

that our watermen, oystermen and commercial fishermen of eastern Virginia have in the future health of the Bay. Generations of

watermen have fished and lived off the water. Still in my district,

commercial watermen, private companies and individuals are cultivating millions of oysters each year. Oyster aquaculture business

adds oysters that clean and filter Bay waters, an important component to improving water quality. These men and women know better than most the status of the Bay and their input is essential.

Residents of Northumerland County have relied on the health

and the bounty of the Bay’s fish stock for generations. Reedville,

Virginia is the third largest fishing port in the United States. It is

a little tiny rural area. We need to ensure that when these issues
8

are discussed that local communities and businesses that have the

knowledge, investment and stake are consulted and involved in the

process.

I believe that the Chesapeake Bay Program and the EPA should

make it top priority to meet mandated improvements to water

quality before embarking on efforts to manage fisheries which may

be best addressed under the existing structure at the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries

Commission.

I want to just say that when I was in the State legislature, I was

on the Chesapeake Bay and its Tributaries committee then. Like

Representative Johnson said, we have all discuss it, we all know

the problems. But it is going to take the commitment of all involved, the Federal, State and local, to do what is necessary to

clean up our Bay, keep it clean for our generations and for future

generations to come. I have a granddaughter three months old and

I want it to be there for her in years to come.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you for your testimony.

Next we will hear from the Honorable Benjamin Cardin from the

State of Maryland. Mr. Cardin, you may proceed.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank you for

this opportunity to testify. I want to thank Mr. Gilchrest for his

leadership on this legislation. I am proud to join his as a co-sponsor, along with every member of the Maryland Congressional delegation, as well as many other members. I want to also thank Jo

Ann Davis for her leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, let me go back if I might, I am not going to go

back 400 years, a lot has changed in the Chesapeake Bay since

Captain John Smith traveled down it. But in the 1980’s, before the

Federal partnership was created, I was the speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates and Harry Hughes was Governor of Maryland. We, along with colleagues from Pennsylvania and colleagues

from Virginia and the Nation’s capital, got together in an effort to

try to do something about a Chesapeake Bay that was in trouble.

We developed a partnership in the 1980’s and recognized that

unless we took dramatic action, the Bay that we loved, the Bay

that was part of the life of the people of this region and Nation,

one of the great treasures of our Country, would be lost. We developed a program that changed laws in our States and formed partnerships with private organizations and got people energized about

taking some dramatic action, including land use controls and restrictions on fishing and all types of matters that were extremely

controversial for the time.

We then went to the Federal Government, almost 20 years ago,

and said, help us, be a partner. And the Federal Government said

yes.

So I want to start by thanking you, thanking this Committee and

thanking Congress and thanking the Federal Government for being

a partner on the Chesapeake Bay Restoration. We could not have

made the progress that we have made over the last 20 years without your help.

Now, there are many who will come up, including myself, saying

that we have tremendous challenges ahead of us. The Chesapeake
9

Bay is in trouble. But if it were not for the Chesapeake Bay partnership that was started in the 1980s, the Chesapeake Bay could

very well be totally gone today.

We have established a way in which we can deal with these problems. We need to strengthen it. And that is why Mr. Gilchrest’s

legislation is so important. We can not do it now without your help

to take us to the next plateau.

And that is what his legislation does. The Chesapeake Bay is a

national treasure, but it is also a national model. And we can work

together to do a much better job on the Bay. The dead zones are

frightening to all of us. We see the fish that have cancerous tumors

and we know about the striped bass in this region. We know that

we are the habitat for the striped bass, and we are worried that

your granddaughters will not see striped bass in the future unless

we take action today in order to deal with these issues.

So the Gilchrest legislation renews the commitment, expands the

commitment and looks at new challenges that we face. And one of

those challenges is to energize local governments. I am glad that

Wayne mentioned that. I live in a county of 775,000 people. Wayne

lives in a county of 20,000 people.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is 18,000.

Mr. CARDIN. You lost two?

[Laughter.]

Mr. CARDIN. Well, then, will have to adjust the lines a little bit

in redistricting.

But we have the same challenges. This bill does not mandate

local government action. It involves local government, tells them to

be a partner and help us and gives them the resources. I couldn’t

agree more with Mr. Gilchrest about how much we get back from

these grants, these small grants that we make, that energize school

children and energize local government to be part of it.

We have a serious problem. The Bay is not flushing itself fast

enough. We put too much pollution into the Bay with the nutrients

and the sediments. We are falling behind. Despite all our efforts,

we are falling behind. We need a new push on the program, and

we really are looking to this Committee to give us that help. This

legislation is vitally important if we are going to be able to win the

Bay for future generations. We can do it, but we need your help,

and I thank you very much for holding this hearing.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Let me just say that at the beginning, I complimented my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, and I want to compliment

the two of you for the passion and drive that you bring to this, and

the long hours of work that you have put into it as well.

We appreciate your testimony and thank you, and we will submit

the entire testimony into the record. Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a very quick

comment to Ms. Davis and Mr. Cardin. And Ben reminded me of

this, and so did Jo Ann. More than 20 years ago, when both of you

were working on these Bay issues, before there was a Bay program,

what you did back then is a great model for what we can do right

now. While the Bay is in trouble and there are dead zones and a

number of other difficulties, there were portions of the Bay, because of what you did, especially in some of the tidal basins that
10

are blossoming, they are flowering, they are restoring themselves

into nature’s beautiful bounty.

An example is the Sassafras River. Because of what you did back

then, and because of Critical Areas legislation, and because of what

you did to create buffers, the bay grasses in much of that tidal

basin and the restoration of the species is really wonderful. But

that is specifically tied to what you did prior to the Bay program.

The Bay program is trying to enhance that. But the foundation

that you have built, that we need to build upon, is a blessing to

us all.

Mr. CARDIN. Well, the Volvo races will restart, as you know, in

the Bay. I think if we didn’t do what we did 20 years ago, they may

not have wanted to come into the Bay.

Mr. GILCHREST. Absolutely, Ben. Thank you very much.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Before the two of you leave, the Honorable Ranking Member of this Subcommittee would like to say a few words.

Ms. JOHNSON. I simply want to thank you for coming and to say

thank you for coming back to the Committee. Twenty years ago,

you were a member of this Committee and set some of this in motion. And we appreciate both of you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you both.

We will now call forth our second panel. Let me say thank you

all for coming. We have a very distinguished second panel, as we

continue to look at the Chesapeake Bay Program reauthorization.

Welcome to all of you. We look forward to your testimony.

Our first witness will be the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles, with

the U.S. EPA, Assistant Administrator for Water. Mr. Grumbles,

thank you for joining us, and you may begin your testimony.

TESTIMONY OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY; HONORABLE C. RON FRANKS, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, CHESAPEAKE BAY EXECUTIVE COUNCIL; ANN PESIRI SWANSON,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION; PENELOPE A. GROSS, MASON DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; ROY A. HOAGLAND, VICE

PRESIDENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RESTORATION, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always an honor

to appear before the Subcommittee, particularly to talk about efforts to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay. I am Ben Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, at the U.S. EPA. Rebecca

Hamner and Mike Burke of the Chesapeake Bay Program office are

also with me, sitting behind me.

I was not disappointed by the level of the eloquent statements

that have been made so far in terms of the members and the panelists. I am sure there will be more eloquence from the rest of this

panel.

I am just reminded of the statement from Will Shakespeare that

action is eloquence. I know that as you go through this important

hearing and you have a lot of questions and follow-up questions,

that the real measure will be the actions that are taken as a result

of the hearing and the progress that is taken.
11

So in my moment of time here, what I would like to do is summarize very briefly activities of the U.S. EPA and the history of accomplishments that focus more on what we are doing now with our

partners and what we need to be doing. The overarching goal and

the directive from the President to the Administrator is to accelerate the pace of environmental protection. And the Chesapeake Bay

is a national treasure, and as Congressman Cardin said, it is also

a national model.

So far more is at stake, as you know with your strong interest

in coastal Louisiana and elsewhere, there is far more at stake here

than just the Chesapeake Bay, although it is truly a national treasure.

The history of the program, we have seen great accomplishments.

And when we acknowledge that 1,800 miles of streams, migratory

fish passageways have been opened, it is the highest number in the

Nation in terms of opening up the streams and watersheds for migratory fish passage. That is an impressive accomplishment.

There are also impressive accomplishments in terms of the green

infrastructure, forested buffers and wetlands that have been restored and protected. There are also measurable accomplishments

in terms of recovering the populations, the numbers of striped bass

or rockfish, although we still have important work to do in ensuring the quality of those important links in the ecosystem and the

food chain.

The main message, though, is that there is much more work to

do. As you know, we do have dead zones, or very low dissolved oxygen levels at certain times of the year. The oyster population is at

great risk. There are tremendous challenges ahead and much work

that we need to do, all of us together, to accelerate the pace of environmental protection.

I would like to emphasize some of the actions that we are currently undertaking. In the President’s budget request, the agency

is seeking for the Chesapeake Bay Program an increase of $4 million above the baseline from last year. So it is a $26 million total.

That is one piece, one very important piece, but it is a piece in

a program that can provide scientific, cutting-edge information and

stewardship and help to facilitate this grand collaboration that

needs to occur to make progress in the Chesapeake Bay.

I would like to mention that the current activities for the agency

are to focus on the core Clean Water Act regulatory programs, the

water quality standards, the permitting, the pollution budgets, the

collaborations that need to occur, and to use those and to continue

to use those tools while also using innovations and collaborative efforts, cooperative conservation, which is a real priority for the Administration, bringing together USDA, EPA, Army Corps, DOT,

other Federal agencies together to work with the critically important partners, the States and the local governments, and perhaps

most importantly private citizens and real stewards that are going

to make a difference. And we all want to make a difference.

The Chesapeake Bay Program has seen some significant success

in terms of working with our State partners to establish our water

quality standards, nutrient goals and requirements. That is a tremendous important effort. And it wouldn’t happen without EPA’s

support for the States who are the primary leaders in that regard.
12

At the end of 2004, EPA, working with our State partners, all

the way from New York to Virginia to West Virginia to the States

within the 64,000 square mile watershed agreed to a collaborative,

innovative approach for watershed based permitting. And we think

that is going to lead to improved regulation of over 450 facilities

throughout the watershed and an annual reduction of 17 million

pounds of the nitrogen loadings. The nitrogen and phosphorus continue to be one of the greatest challenges facing the Bay. So we

need innovative approaches like that.

Mr. Chairman, one of the key components of our approach, our

strategy, is to build new partnerships and collaborations with different agencies across the Federal Government. We are committed

to doing that. We are also committed to using tools under the

Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Interstate Regulation, which was recently finalized, will help lead to a reduction of 10 million pounds

of nitrogen over the course of its implementation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight some of

the priorities for the agency and the Chesapeake Bay Program and

look forward to answering any questions members may have.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles.

Our next witness is the Honorable Ron Franks, Secretary of the

Maryland Department of Natural Resources. We appreciate your

coming here today and look forward to your testimony. You may

proceed, sir.

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, I am Ron

Franks, Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. With me today is Frank Dawson, our Assistant Secretary

for Chesapeake Bay Programs.

The restoration of the Bay is an unprecedented effort. It began

with a set of untested assumptions and a steep learning curve for

a complex, dynamic ecosystem. Pennsylvania, Virginia and Maryland have greatly increased funding for the Bay. Pennsylvania’s

Growing Greener II initiative will invest $625 million in environmental restoration programs and projects. Maryland’s new Bay

Restoration Fund will provide $75 million annually to upgrade sewage treatment plants and plant cover crops, greatly reducing the

amount of nutrients entering the Bay.

Tributary strategies are now in place for almost all of the Bay

jurisdictions. And implementation plans are under development.

Maryland’s draft implementation plan was released in February.

Washington, D.C., one of the Bay’s largest urban pollution

sources, has embarked on a long-term control plan that will reduce

combined sewer overflows by 96 percent. Virginia recently committed to preserving 400,000 more acres, and Maryland has committed

to spending $300 million for land conservation this year alone.

Just last month, Maryland’s Governor Robert Ehrlich signed the

Healthy Air Act, to reduce the atmospheric deposition of pollutants

to the Bay. Combined, these and other ongoing measures may well

bring us close to the tipping point at which we may see dramatic

improvements in water quality and living resources. We agree with

the findings and recommendations of the GAO evaluation of the

Bay program, which we understand provided a foundation for the

development of H.R. 4126. I want to compliment Congressman

Gilchrest on his legislation.
13

We also agree that the bill’s key element, bringing the Bay restoration effort closer to the local level, is what is most needed. My

written statement discusses how the issues raised in the GAO report are being addressed and provide suggestions for further improvement through changes to H.R. 4126. Here are three key recommendations. First, shift the program’s perspective to Bay-wide

to local improvements. While the Bay program needs to continue

to report on Bay-wide health, local progress will be far more telling

than Bay-wide assessments in measuring the effectiveness of efforts.

The foundation for assessing progress at the local level is already

included in the tributary strategies. The Bay program’s planning

and assistance should focus on how to accelerate tributary strategy

implementation, shifting focus among priority watersheds over

time.

Second, strategically employ the limited resources available for

Bay restoration. Resources should be concentrated in communities

that are engaged in leveraged partnerships for coordinated, large

scale restoration efforts. Prior to the GAO evaluation, Maryland

was already moving forward to utilize its resources more effectively. Beginning with the Corsica River initiative announced last

year, we are targeting resources where there can be a clear showing of substantial improvement. This legislation will support and

expand these efforts.

Finally, increase the Federal contribution to improving local capacity. A specific program should be established within the Bay

program to improve local capacity for environmental planning and

measurement. To initiate and sustain local protection and restoration efforts, a substantial increase in financial assistance to local

governments as needed.

As a starting point, the Chesapeake Bay Program needs to be funded annually at the full authorized level, which is currently $40

million. We feel the current authorization should be increased to at

least $50 million. Any increased funding should be dedicated to the

State implementation grants and small watershed grants program.

I note that while the States have substantially increased spending on the Bay, the promised benefits of these increases will be

canceled out if Federal spending for clean water programs continues to decline. That decline needs to be reversed.

In concluding, I ask for your perseverance. We are attempting to

do what has not been done before. We are in this for the long haul

and there will be a long haul. In spite of the challenges, we have

been able to move forward and achieve substantive improvements

in the Bay and its tributaries. With your support, the progress will

continue.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Franks.

Our next witness will be representing the Chesapeake Bay Commission, Ms. Ann Swanson, Executive Director. You may proceed.

Ms. SWANSON. Thank you very much.

I would like to thank each and every one of you here on the Committee, both Committee members and staff, for your attention to

the Chesapeake Bay. Representative Cardin couldn’t have said it

better when he said thank you. Because in truth, the Federal in-
14

volvement in the Chesapeake Bay has been an extraordinarily catalyst for the region. You should never underestimate the power of

that.

I work for three general assemblies, from Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, representing the Chesapeake Bay. Your efforts

to support the Bay essentially help to encourage them to do State

level programs. And for every dollar that you ante up as cash, of

course they do too. And then they call upon their citizens and local

governments to do more. So this is truly an example of leveraging.

In my limited time here, I hope you will indulge me, I have decided to go a bit off script and instead to really talk about the basics of why this investment is so critically important. The first

question that you have to ask yourself is why is the Bay so special.

And I was delighted to hear Representative Johnson refer to it as

a wonder of the world. I have only dared to call it a national treasure. So I am glad a Texan went higher.

To me, why is the Bay so special? It is one of the most productive

places that this Country has to offer. Its diversity is extraordinary,

with 3,600 species of plants and animals. The Chesapeake Bay is

a protein factory, producing a lot of our Nation’s fish, spawning

most of our Nation’s striped bass, still producing a huge portion of

our blue crabs. In fact, many of the iconic American natural resources, whether those are waterfowl or fish, come from the Chesapeake Bay. They may come from other places, but if you were designing a Kix box or some cereal box, those icons would be very

prominent in our region.

So why then are we floundering? Why is it so difficult to restore

the Bay? And there are some fundamentals you must know, that

essentially nature and God have dealt us. One is that it has the

largest land to water ratio of any estuary on the planet. It is five

times more than the next nearest estuary. What that means in layman’s terms, what you do on the land, greatly affects the water

and dilution cannot be counted on.

And the third fundamental thing that you need to know about

why it is so important is there is an extremely narrow opening,

which people like Jo Ann Davis and others know about. And so as

a result, just counting on the ocean to carry that pollution away is

very difficult.

Finally, confounding it, we have 16 million people spanning the

Mason Dixon line. We have an enormous number of governments,

1,600 or more ruling local governments, and they all need to be coordinated.

So in my remaining time, let me focus on what has been accomplished. Extraordinary participation, some of the finest science in

the world. It is why we are asked to go internationally and speak.

We know more about this estuary than most other places. And I

would only wish many other places in America and globally to

know as much about their place.

So then what is wrong? If we know about it, we have also done

more costing than almost any other natural place that I know of,

certainly the other big estuarine and environmental programs of

this Country. They call us to say, how have you done this, how

have you costed it out? Where that gets you when you carefully de-
15

fine what you know about a place, what you need to do and how

much it is going to cost, is it gets you to the implementation phase.

And that is what is wholly unique about the Chesapeake region.

We are deep into that implementation phase, and quite honestly

and candidly, and my mother might not like me to say this, but it

is hard as hell. It is incredibly difficult.

So what do we need? What have we learned at this point? This

legislation addresses several of those things. First, you must target,

you must have the political guts to target. Because if you don’t,

with the limited dollars available, you can’t go the distance. The

idea of encouraging local governments to be more involved, the idea

of small capacity grants for local governments is pivotal.

Incentivize them. Get them having the guts to be innovative and

proactive. They have the intellect. They have the compassion. They

need support.

And the last thing that I would say in my remaining time is in

terms of the Federal Government, yes, we need the Federal agencies working very closely together. This legislation calls for an

interagency cross-cut budget. That is a good thing. We need to

push for strong integration and strong cooperation so that the Departments of Agriculture and the Departments of Energy and the

Departments of Environment, the EPA, et cetera, are working very

closely together.

I commend this legislation. You are heading in the right direction, getting more money at the local level and in the small watershed grants, and calling on increased targeting. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. We thank you for your testimony. Next we will

hear from the Honorable Penelope Gross, representing the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. She also serves

as Mason District Supervisor on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors from Annandale, Virginia. Welcome, and we look forward

to your testimony. You may proceed.

Ms. GROSS. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Chesapeake Bay restoration activities and the vitally important role of local governments in those

efforts.

Chesapeake Bay issues are of particular interest to me as a

founding chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee of the

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, a member of the

Chesapeake Bay Program’s Blue Ribbon Financing Panel, and I recently was elected chair of the Bay Program’s Local Government

Advisory Committee, also known as LGAC.

I chair Virginia’s Potomac Watershed Roundtable and as you

mentioned, I represent Mason District on the Fairfax County Board

of Supervisors. Fairfax County is one of the largest jurisdictions

population-wise in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Each of these

responsibilities has helped shape my perspective on what is needed

to keep our efforts to achieve a clean bay on track.

Of the 98 commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, 22

specifically involve local governments and other commitments

imply local government involvement. From a local government perspective, we know what to do to continue making progress. But we

need more help from our State and Federal partners. The Bay program has successfully generated plans and documents that outline
16

what actions local governments should take to restore the Bay.

However, I believe we are heavy on written plans. And we are

struggling on the follow-through, that is technical and financial assistance to get more done.

This was the most common and strongly voiced concern among

LGAC members from all jurisdictions at our most recent meeting

held right here in this building. And I want to take this opportunity Congressman Gilchrest and his staff and Congressman Jim

Moran’s staff for engaging in substantive dialogue with LGAC

members about this legislation.

Local governments throughout the watershed are spending millions of local dollars to do our part in cleaning up the Bay. However, there needs to be greater emphasis on developing mechanisms to capture those substantial implementation efforts by local

governments and others, which are not funded through State or

Federal Chesapeake Bay funds.

I understand that the States may be working on a tracking system for urban non-point sources, but to facilitate reporting by implementing entities, I would recommend that this system be webbased and simple to use. I am sure it is no surprise to you that

the biggest help we could use is additional Federal and State funding. It is critical that the Federal and State governments in the watershed assume a major role in providing financial assistance for

implementation at the local level.

I also need to mention our concern with deep cuts being proposed

to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. While local governments

and our State partners are working to increase funding for clean

water programs, the Federal SRF is being targeted for cuts totaling

$199.2 million. Many local governments, especially in rural areas

of the Bay watershed, depend on this Federal funding to pay for

high priority water pollution control projects and the proposed

budget cuts are exactly the opposite of what is needed to achieve

our goal of a clean and healthy Bay.

But funding alone is not enough. We also need our State and

Federal partners to work cooperatively with local governments on

a watershed basis to one, clearly articulate measurable goals for

local governments to achieve and couple these with appropriate levels of funding support. It is critical to have a detailed plan that explains who, what, when, where, why and how.

Second, increase the level of support for the Small Watershed

Grants Program to the proposed authorized amount of $10 million.

While far short of the estimated funding necessary, the Small Watershed Grants may be the most effective mechanism for engaging

local governments in a common effort to achieve water quality and

habitat goals. The current funding level of $2 million translates

into just $1,212 for each of the 1,650 local governments in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed.

In addition, I recommend increasing the cap on individual small

watershed grants to as much as $1 million, a substantial increase

over the present $50,000 limit. Let me give you an example. In

Fairfax County, we sometimes do not apply for watershed grants,

because the staff time involved in preparing the grant application

actually costs more than the grant itself. The current $50,000 cap
17

effectively eliminates larger jurisdictions from participating in the

Small Watershed Grants program.

Third, establish a measurable goals provision for soil conservation districts comparable to the provision for local governments.

Fourth, enhance the tributary strategies and implementation plans

to explicitly address nutrient and sediment cap management as

growth continues.

Fifth, a one size fits all approach to local government coordination and C2K agreement implementation will not work. Differences

in local government access to technology must be considered during

the development of communication strategies. A strong, structured

technical assistance program to local governments is needed, especially in smaller, more rural jurisdictions that lack staff expertise

and stormwater management and watershed protection.

Sixth, we are concerned about the proposed language that requires tributary strategy goals, or BMPs, to be included in NPDES

permits, both point and non-point source or MS4 permits. In Virginia, non-point source pollution standards should not be written

into MS4 permits, because the Commonwealth does not yet have

an effective mechanism to track urban non-point sources.

Each of these areas is of strong interest to LGAC. With appropriate staff and requisite resources, I can envision an activist role

for LGAC as the tributary strategies are turned into action plans,

including one, developing goals at the local level and helping ensure that localities live up to their responsibilities; two, partnering

with State and local agencies to achieve an equitable allocation of

funding; three, reaching out to other sectors, especially agriculture

and private industry.

We need to open or continue dialogue with all our partners in the

Chesapeake Bay watershed. We are all in this together, from those

who labor under the Statue of Freedom atop the Capitol, dome to

the Pennsylvania farmer, to the Maryland waterman, the Virginia

technology worker, the long-time resident and the new American.

Finger pointing won’t clean up the Bay. Working together just

might.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear today

and for your leadership in helping keep the Bay restoration effort

moving forward. LGAC is looking forward to working with you all

to achieve our shared goals of a restored Chesapeake Bay watershed. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Ms. Gross.

Next we will hear from a representative from the Chesapeake

Bay Foundation, Mr. Roy Hoagland, who is Vice President for Environmental Protection and Restoration, out of Annapolis, Maryland. Welcome, Mr. Hoagland, and you may proceed.

Mr. HOAGLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman

Gilchrest and members of the Committee. I am in fact the Vice

President for the Policy and Advocacy Arm of the Chesapeake Bay

Foundation, a non-profit organization of over 160,000 members

across the Nation. Congresswoman Johnson, we are the Save the

Bay bumper sticker people.

I am here also as a former member of the citizens advisory committee to the Chesapeake Bay Program. I have served as its chairman for two years and just have completed my term. So my history
18

is here as both an insider and an outsider when it comes to the

Chesapeake Bay Program, both a critic and supporter.

You have heard an awful lot already about the successes and the

challenges that face the Chesapeake Bay Program. In the time I

have, I would like to focus on the bill itself, to urge you to act favorably on this legislation, this critical legislation, and in fact, consider three modifications to it.

The first modification is to strengthen the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Government in the Chesapeake Bay Program.

We will not, we will not save the Bay absent more Federal dollars,

more Federal enforcement and increased Federal commitment. You

have heard about recent State commitments toward the Chesapeake Bay Program. We need a parallel Federal commitment. One

provision in particular in the legislation does have us concerned

where it actually reduces the Federal agencies’ responsibilities to

Bay restoration and the commitments of this Chesapeake 2000

agreement. We would respectfully suggest that provision be either

removed or reworked.

The second modification, provide a separate $20 million authorization for the Chesapeake Bay Program State implementation

grants. You have heard a lot today about the need for implementation. That is the stage we are at. These grants are fundamentally

different from the core research communication, coordination elements of the Chesapeake Bay Program. We urge not only independent authorization language, but also language that makes the

use of those funds specifically contingent on implementation on the

ground, not staff support, not agency operation costs, but implementation, because implementations are the next key steps that we

need in terms of moving forward to saving the Bay. The third modification, create a new, separate $15 million authorization for a Chesapeake Bay targeted watershed grants program. The Chesapeake Bay has received targeted watershed grants

in the past, and currently, as a result of EPA’s national program,

but only as a result of appropriation language earmarks. The

Chesapeake Bay, as you have heard, is a national treasure. It is

a resource of ecological, cultural, historic significance. And we

would urge that you statutorily identify it as such through a targeted watershed grant funding.

Those are the three modifications we would urge that you consider as you move this legislation forward. Strengthen the roles

and responsibilities of the Federal Government in the Chesapeake

Bay Program efforts; provide a separate $20 million authorization

for the Chesapeake Bay Program State implementation grants; and

make those grants contingent on actual, on the ground implementation use; and create a new, separate $15 million authorization for

the Chesapeake Bay targeted watershed grants program.

Congresswoman Davis stated that nearly 400 years ago, Captain

John Smith wrote of the Chesapeake Bay that ‘‘Heaven and earth

never agreed to better frame a place for man’s habitation.’’ The

truth is that we have not treated that extraordinary gift of earth

and heaven with the full stewardship it deserves. As you have

heard, we know the problems. We have the solutions. What we

need is to make the necessary investments and aggressively pursue

the implementation of these solutions.
19

We urge you to perfect and pass this legislation so that the Bay

Program, the Federal Government, all the partners to this restoration effort of this national treasure can move forward and more aggressively toward effective stewardship. We thank Congressman

Gilchrest for his leadership not only on this bill, but for his historic

leadership on Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. And thank you

for the time you have given us to participate today.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hoagland.

Now we will proceed with questions for the panel. Because of

time constraints, I am pleased to defer to the Ranking Member,

Ms. Johnson, to begin questioning.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hoagland, according to the Chesapeake Bay Office, roughly

45 percent of all the nutrients and two-thirds of the sediment loads

that are negatively impacting the Bay come from agricultural, nonpoint sources. And yet, EPA has limited authority to address these

non-point sources of pollution, other than trying to reach voluntary

agreements to implement these management practices.

Is that enough or is there a better way to address what appears

to be the largest, most difficult source of impairment to the Bay?

Mr. HOAGLAND. Well, agricultural and controlling pollution from

agriculture is an incredibly leaky system, by the nature of agriculture itself. The Bay Foundation has embarked on a very aggressive partnership with the agricultural community to get them to be

the kind of colleagues that you have heard about. There have been

great steps made toward agriculture, but we do in fact have to

make great, great further strides.

The important thing to remember about regulating or treating

agricultural pollution, which the Chesapeake Bay Commission has

established is, we get a bigger bang for our buck from nutrient reduction if in fact we put it on agricultural lands than anywhere

else. If we reduce sewage treatment plant pollution and manage

agricultural pollution, we can get about 80 percent of the reductions that we need for about 20 percent of the projected cost of the

entire restoration.

So one of the tools should be in fact taking a very hard look at

the Farm Bill and how we can put more directed funds out of that

program into the Bay restoration effort, recognizing the Bay is in

fact a national treasure and that it should in fact receive a fairer

share of those Farm Bill monies.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

This question is—sorry.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, if I could just add something to

that, Secretary Johanns of USDA has had conversations with the

leadership, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, with Administrator Steve Johnson, and is very enthused about being a very active partner in bringing to the table USDA programs and authorities.

I just want to underscore Roy’s comment about the benefits of

improved control of nutrients and sediments. That will be accomplished through a variety of measures, including water quality

trading where we are seeing leadership in various States. And it

is a high priority of the EPA as well to try to make progress, sig-
20

nificant progress for nutrients that often come off the agricultural

lands. Thank you.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you.

I know that the Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement establishes a

series of goals for the restoration and protection of the Bay by

2010, including correcting the nutrient and sediment related problems sufficient to remove the Bay from the list of impaired waters

under the Clean Water Act. It is now 2006, and the authorization

contained in the bill we are discussing today lasts through 2011.

Given the pace of the current restoration efforts, is the Bay likely

to be removed from the impaired waters list by 2010? Anyone on

the panel or all.

Mr. HOAGLAND. Congresswoman, given the current pace, no. No

question. Given the current pace, we will not remove from the impaired waters list. That is precisely the problem, is that we need

to step up that pace. We need to invest more, we need to be more

aggressive.

I don’t want to overstate it, but one of the successes of the Bay

program is that it has taken these years of science, these years of

studies, so that we do know the problem. We know nitrogen reduction, we know where the sources are. And we even have the solutions, upgrade the sewage treatment plants, put the practices on

the farm land. It is not difficult in terms of what we have to do.

It is difficult in implementation. We are at the stage where we

need to ramp up that implementation if we are going to get the

Bay off the impaired waters list.

Ms. GROSS. Congresswoman, I would agree with Roy. I was one

of those elected officials who thought that we could meet the 2010

deadline. But that was back in 1998, 1999. When we needed the

Federal Government to come in and tell us what the numbers

should be, there was a great delay, 2000, the Chesapeake 2000

Agreement was signed, we thought we might have some of the

numbers, 2001 went by, 2002 went by, 2003.

We finally got some of the numbers from EPA. That was a disappointment, and we will not meet the deadline by 2010. But we

want to make sure that we are given credit, that the local governments are given credit for what they have been able to do. And it

is does not absolve us of responsibility from continuing to try to

reach a clean Bay.

But by 2010? No. I now have said publicly many times, we are

not going to make that goal.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Your question is the question that everyone

wants to ask. And it is a key question. I agree with the responses

I have heard so far from an EPA perspective. At the current rate,

we will not meet that goal. But we feel that it would be premature

to officially remove that goal. There is a tremendous power of having a deadline out there to really emphasize action and acceleration

of progress. So while our strategic plan recognizes that scientifically and realistically we need to have some additional milestones,

we remain fully committed to that goal, and we think that we can

make progress through innovative approaches that States and local

governments and citizens and EPA are exploring aggressively right

now.

But there is no doubt that the pace needs to be accelerated.
21

Ms. SWANSON. Congresswoman, I would just like to add one brief

thing, which is, I think you can look at the Chesapeake Bay much

like an overweight person. The Bay is essentially bulging with nutrients and sediments, both of which are not bad in the body system, unless they are in excess, similar to our own fat.

And so essentially what we have done with the Bay Agreement,

and with the very specific numeric standards that now exist for

those nutrients and sediment, is we have defined where the perfect

weight is. Not John Smith’s perfect weight, but rather where is the

point at which you can have some nutrients and some sediment in

the Bay, allowing for pollution essentially, and still de-list the Bay.

And we have done that. And I don’t know of other places around

the Country that have gotten to that extreme.

So now the question is, how do we capture it? Mr. Hoagland

mentioned a study that the Bay region did on cost effective strategies. Because the elected officials in our region knew they didn’t

have the money and that they had to invest it wisely. And what

that study showed was that if you carefully target at the point

sources and five very particular agricultural practices, you can capture 75 percent of that nitrogen goal. So 75 percent of the weight

loss, 78 percent of the phosphorus, and 100 percent of the sediment.

Now of course, that assumes full implementation, which may

never happen. But my point is, it is extraordinary and if that patient you were counseling on weight loss were to lose that level of

poundage, you would be very close to your goal. And you would see

a natural response in the body or the Bay to continue. At some

point nature will help us recover as well. So I wouldn’t be quick

to give up. What I would be very quick to do is take your Federal

dollars, take your Federal policy making and force the targeting

and force the incentives to really go the distance. There is a lot

that can be done.

And finally, let me say this, nitrogen has no memory. What that

means is if U.S. politicians get it out of the Bay, within a year’s

time you see the recovery. It is a magical pollutant in that regard,

from a political point of view. Because you can see the rapid response.

Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Gilchrest?

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That was a wonderful analogy, somewhat overweight. And I

think it is a perfect analogy. I will add one thing to that. It is not

one person that has to lose that weight.

[Laughter.]

Mr. GILCHREST. It is a lot of people. If that one person was in

this room today, they would understand what we are talking about.

They would get the information direct from each of us.

One of the problems with the Chesapeake Bay watershed,

though, is that there are a lot of overweight people out there that

do not have access to the information about nitrogen and phosphorus and air deposition and sediment and sewer and buffers and

critical areas and agriculture and all those things. The dissemination of the information, even in this age we are now in, is not quite

what it is, what it could be or should be.
22

So these overweight people, sometimes they never even hear the

word Chesapeake Bay Program or how to lose the nitrogen. So part

of my question, and in just a minute I am going to ask how we can

get to that point. Because what we are doing here, and we all want

to work hard on the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and the

Federal partners that we have here today with this Committee, I

think in the last year or so, this Committee has been more, with

the exception maybe of when Ben was on the Committee, but this

Committee is extraordinarily helpful in this effort, to write this legislation. And I do want to compliment the Committee for doing

that, and I want to compliment Edie Thompson, sitting behind me,

for all the hours and hours of work that she has gone through on

this effort.

I want to say something to Ms. Johnson’s question about, and

probably Mr. Hoagland, too, when you mentioned agriculture and

nitrogen flow into the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture for a long time,

if we go back 500 years, it used to be the Indians. Then they started growing tobacco, then we came in and started growing commodity crops and all of those things. We put a fair share of nitrogen

into the Chesapeake Bay.

But there is a whole range of programs out there. And the

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, along with the EPA, are really beginning to work well with agriculture, to keep agriculture economically viable and change its practices, so they can be a part of the

restoration efforts. And we see that all over the Chesapeake Bay.

We see where ag has changed its practices. We see those buffers

out there, whether they are grass buffers or forested buffers.

And you are right, Ann, that Bay comes back, within a few years,

you have all kinds of bay grasses. And it is blossoming with American lotus blossoms late July, early August, if you want to come

over and go canoeing and smell the sweet scent of that flower.

And Ben, you described a whole series of things that EPA is

doing. I know I have been working with Mike Burke, Mike has

been an annex to our staff, I think, since 1990. We are doing extraordinary things with the technology that we have. And the Federal Government has been a pretty good partner.

But can we keep pace with increasing populations in the watershed with what we are doing? Can we keep pace with those impervious services over the decades to come? Can we keep pace with

the increasing amount of air deposition from the infrastructure of

a human population?

So I think there are great challenges out there. We have great

things in place. We need to get right down into the person that just

gets appointed to a planning office, so they know. We need to get

right down to someone who is just newly elected mayor or on a

town council or a county council or a county commissioner or county administrator or county executive. They have land use responsibilities.

What I see in my district, not a small housing development of 60

houses being proposed, but 4,000 houses being proposed in small

towns, 3,000 houses being proposed in small towns. And having no

connection with that and the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay. So I

guess my first question is, and I would like to see this done all over

the watershed, I don’t know to exactly go about doing it, but having
23

been in office for a few years, and I go to town meetings all the

time, I go to county meetings all the time and I go to planning

meetings. I go to agricultural meetings and things like this.

And I would guess, and I know it is not specifically in our legislation, but I would guess if the Chesapeake Bay Program coordinated

with other agencies, maybe the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, certainly the Farm Bureau, and on a regular basis, you would visit

in a year’s time or two year’s time every single, well, let’s put it

this way. You wouldn’t have to go to every little single town in the

watershed. You could have regular meetings bringing in one or two

or three counties, depending on the population of those counties,

and explain the bureaucracy of the Chesapeake Bay Program, and

then explain the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay Program.

And I would say, Ann, if you were at those meetings and you described the problem like you have described it here, and the rest

of you described that problem, the dissemination of information

and the education that people would have would be extraordinary.

They would have information. They could use their initiative and

their ingenuity and their intellect.

Right now, the dissemination of this information is just not

where it should be. So I have a couple of other questions, and I

know I am out of time. With the indulgence of the Chairman, I will

just ask a few of those questions.

But what I would like to do is work with you, so we could pilot

this in the First District of Maryland and have meetings at Salisbury State, Chesapeake College, Cecil Community College, Hartford Community College, Anne Arundel Community College; market this specifically to local government people that are going to

make land use decisions for that kind of information.

Ann, do you want to say something?

Ms. SWANSON. Yes. We have now been asking our own members

to look forward and in the next, it is only five years, but in the next

five years, what would you like to see on your accomplishment time

line. These are all House and Senate members from Maryland,

Pennsylvania and Virginia. And the only common thread the answer is to really see a technical assistance outreach program to

local governments and really enhance technical assistance to the

agricultural community.

What I would say is if you tackled both of those, and I was at

USDA just yesterday with a conversation among high level USDA

people about that critical importance of supporting technical assistance for agriculture. And then of course the BMPs that go with it.

But really getting the message out there, we have nothing like

that, really, for local governments. And if you combine the two,

then you can get the current progress that would come with agriculture, almost immediate response, and the long-term investment

as we change the land to a more urban population. It is right on

the money.

Mr. GILCHREST. We don’t want a more urban population, Ann.

Ms. GROSS. Congressman Gilchrest, it sounds to me like you are

talking about one of the things that LGAC could be helpful in. One

of the things that came up at our meeting that, you attended part

of the meeting, but I think this happened before you were there,

was one of our members, it was a Virginia member from down in
24

the Fredericksburg area, said, you know, local governments really

don’t have a clue.

Coming from a Fairfax perspective, that is a little hard for me

to understand, but I am beginning to understand that not everybody is doing it the way we do in Fairfax. But there are an awful

lot of small, local governments that simply do not have the ability,

they do not have the staffing, they do not have the funding, they

sometimes do not have the commitment. They don’t understand, in

many cases. And their constituents don’t, either.

So it is a selling job for those of us who are in local government

to be able to sell this idea to our constituents also. I think that

there is definitely a role for LGAC to be, it is part of what the local

government advisory committee should be doing.

One of the things I have noticed, ten years ago, when I was first

elected, nobody was talking about the Chesapeake Bay. Now, some

people were talking about it sort of on the periphery, those who

were very involved in Bay issues. But generally, elected officials

were not talking about the Chesapeake Bay.

We have made some changes there, at the Council of Governments, even in the General Assembly of Virginia. A few years ago,

none of the delegates would know what you were talking about,

and now they are starting to ask the questions. Instead of us asking them the questions, they are beginning to ask the questions.

So we are making some strides in educating elected officials

about the Bay. We need to be able to do more of that, and I really

like your suggestion about going around to various smaller localities and doing these sort of seminars for local government officials.

Because you are absolutely right, we need to have that commitment, it starts at the local level.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Grumbles?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I just wanted to—thank you, Mr. Chairman. I

just wanted to say, Congressman, that while the Administration

has not developed an official position yet on H.R. 4126, as I read

through it, to me one of the very positive components of it, other

than reauthorizing the building upon a very successful and proven

statutory program, is the emphasis on local government and an increased role. As everyone is pointing out, given the challenge, the

growth issues will always be a barrier, a potential barrier to accelerating the progress.

It is very positive, very good to emphasize that in legislation as

well as outside legislation. EPA certainly through the Chesapeake

Bay Program office, will want to work with you to follow up on

your suggestions about outreach at the grass roots level.

And you mentioned the impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. One of the things that we are really excited about at the Federal level is the new partnership with the Department of Transportation. It is called the Mid-Atlantic Green Highways Initiative. A

couple of weeks ago, we announced a $1 million program targeted

in the Anacostia, but it is about DOT and EPA working together

and then translating that effort at the local level to have smarter

practices to reduce the stormwater runoff, to increase the areas so

that instead of runoff, you have sink-in and filter out the pollutants

before they reach the Bay.
25

So we are very appreciative of your theme on greater local involvement and controlling stormwater.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ben.

I don’t know if the Chairman had any questions. I was going to—

I am way over my time.

Mr. BOUSTANY. What we will do, I have a few questions I would

like to ask, and then I will let you go with another round.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Your testimony was great. I learned a lot. And

I want to say that one of the common themes behind this all is,

we are certainly dealing with a very complex ecosystem. Part of

that complexity is sort of the human interaction with growth and

development and other interactions with the ecosystem.

Specifically, for the panel, I would like the opinion of each of you.

Certainly you are aware of the recent GAO report and recommendations that were issued there. Do you feel that H.R. 4126

addresses the issues raised in the GAO report? I would like each

of you to maybe comment on that.

Mr. Grumbles, do you want to start?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I can start and make a few comments. I think

one of the messages from the GAO report, which we are certainly

taking to heart, and that we have included in our recent report,

health of the ecosystem and also the restoration efforts of the ecosystem, is the added emphasis on data and information to ensure

accountability and results.

So I see in the legislation, in my cursory review of it, because I

need more expert review and opinion on it, but the legislation is

clearly adding some reporting mechanisms to help steer future decisions and measure the progress and accountability. That clearly

is the theme that comes out in the GAO reports and is reflected

in the recent EPA reports on the health of the ecosystem and the

restoration efforts we are taking.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Franks?

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, and I would concur with that. The reporting

requirements, I think, are essential. And I think the bill does address that. I feel for all of us reports are essential. We need to

measure where we are, where we start and where we wind up. I

think the bill does do that.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Ms. Swanson?

Ms. SWANSON. I guess I would like to say two things. The GAO

report was very, very helpful. And essentially what it did was amplify something we had already been struggling with, which was,

how do you tell a complex story in simple terms when you rely both

on monitoring and modeling. And one doesn’t tell the full picture.

So the GAO report helped to kick us in the pants and basically

say, you need to figure this out. And the new reports that the EPA

Bay program recently put out are a real step in the right direction.

Rebecca Hamner and others deserve a great deal of credit for the

work they did trying to do that.

But the other thing that the GAO very clearly laid out is that

your goals are not doable at your current cash flow. And it very

clearly outlines that. It very clearly says, you have goals, but you

don’t have the implementation plans, which includes cash fall, for

how to get there. And so I see the GAO report as yet another wake-
26

up call that, okay, everybody, round two, you have done the planning, you have gotten basic funding in place, but now let’s go the

distance.

And things like what Mr. Hoagland suggested, with very specific

pots of money for local government implementation, the small watershed grants, the targeted watershed grants, they are phenomenal tools to get us to the next step.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Ms. Gross?

Ms. GROSS. From a local government perspective, I think those

of us who are on the outside looking in and reading that report,

I was very concerned that the report would cause EPA to refocus

everything sort of internally and sort of slow down what we were

trying to do at the local government level. I think that has, I have

been assured that that is not going to happen. But that was an initial concern, that whoops, all this work that we are trying to move

forward now would be stuck because they would have to be spending all their staff time working on a response to the GAO report.

I think that the reporting requirements, if this heightens our

commitment, if the GAO report causes us to heighten our commitment and the reporting requirements, that is fine. I think that we

really need to have projects on the ground, and I believe that this

particular bill will help us to do that.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Hoagland?

Mr. HOAGLAND. Mr. Chairman, the GAO report highlighted, as

you have heard, a need for increased reporting and accountability

by the program. And there is no question that the legislation before

you today addresses those reporting elements. And in fact, the Bay

Program has in the recent past taken very responsible steps to address those concerns.

What I am not clear that the legislation contains is the recommendation for a comprehensive, coordinated implementation

strategy. One of the things before the Bay Program right now that

has been debated that the Bay Foundation has advocated for is a

very conscious, deliberate transition from research communication

and coordination to implementation. So I would suggest that if you

are looking for having all of those recommendations incorporated in

the statute, you should reexamine whether or not it does have that

necessary mandate for a coordinated implementation strategy.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. And that gets sort of to the next

issue I wanted to bring up. I mentioned the complexity of the ecosystem. But equally complex, and perhaps even more complex is

the coordination, as you mentioned, of multiple States, local governments, various agencies. When I think of my home State of Louisiana, it seems fairly simple in how we coordinate our efforts with

regard to our coastline in comparison to what you all are trying to

accomplish. So it is truly a monumental effort.

Mr. Grumbles, from the Federal standpoint, do you feel that you

have adequate coordination right now amongst the Federal agencies?

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think we have the mechanisms in place. We

can always, always do a better job in coordination, recognizing the

opportunities that are close to the surface or staring at us right in

the face. There is always room for improvement. But I do feel that
27

there is a significant amount of leadership. EPA and its role with

the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Administrator being on the

Executive Council is important. We did just in October have a first

of its kind meeting in Washington, D.C., where Federal agency

heads or their deputies gathered among the 17 different agencies

to talk specifically about implementation, improved coordination

and cooperative conservation.

So we need to continue to work at it. I think we have the basics

for the type of integration and coordination that is needed.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Okay. And one last thing I would like to mention,

and that is, when you are trying to send funds down to the local

level, you apparently are certainly dealing with a lot of competing

requests. How do you prioritize? And who should head that effort?

Ms. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, let me take a crack at that from the

standpoint of something that I do as part of LGAC. That is, I get

an opportunity, I have been asked to review the Virginia grant applications for the watershed grants. What I always look for is

projects on the ground. An awful lot of the time, the money is going

to staffing, it is going to more planning, it is going to more reporting. And it is not going to the projects on the ground where we are

actually maybe doing some digging, doing some planting, doing the

kinds of things that we need to do.

I think that local governments certainly get a little frustrated.

Yes, we do need funding as far as staffing and so forth. But if we

are going to have things really show up, you get the biggest splash

for the cash is planning riparian buffers, those kinds of things. So

I look at prioritizing projects, not planning, necessary, but projects.

We have had planning up to her.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Anybody else want to comment on that?

Mr. FRANKS. Yes, if you don’t mind. I am going to agree wholeheartedly. Planning is wonderful, and we have been planning for

a long time, and it is time to do it. When you send money down,

I would look for programs that have a clear vision of where they

want to go and a strategy for getting there. And the only thing that

is holding them back is the dollars.

We have been talking here today about what steps were we moving forward and how it is moving forward in a positive way. The

legislation that allows us to clean up our sewer treatment plants

is very, very positive legislation. The initiative in the farm community to clean up their areas, not only clean up, but reduce their

flow of nutrients into the Bay, is absolutely essential. We are talking here about a 75 percent to 80 percent gain, if it is done everywhere across the board. That is tremendous.

We also have another program in Maryland. That is, we are looking, through an EIS, at what do we do when it actually gets into

the water. Our oyster population is decimated. And we are taking

a look at a different way of putting another oyster in there. We

don’t know if it is going to be successful. But if our EIS is successful, we will begin a large scale oyster deployment.

If it is successful, then we have, we have tried to minimize the

stuff getting into the water. And now we are going to remove it

once it gets there. To me, putting your money into areas that are

effective is the most critical area. Planning is good. We have to

have some planning. But we really need action.
28

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Ms. Swanson?

Ms. SWANSON. I would like to share a recent observation that answers the question. There is a thing called the targeted watershed

grants, and it is for very large grants, $750,000 to $1 million. We

recently went through the first round of grant selection. I had the

pleasure to be on that committee.

One of the things that this year was done that has never been

done before on any of these types of grants is we asked for a quantification of the pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that

would be reduced based on the proposed project. And that ended

up being one of the illustrative things in the grant that told you

what you would get for your investment.

The other thing that happened is it made the people applying

think differently. Because instead of thinking about a great process

or a great plan, they thought about how am I going to capture

pounds. And for us, in our region, that is what matters. I would

suggest that kind of quantification should be applied nationwide, in

Louisiana or Texas or wherever, so that if you are trying to get at

a goal, make the grantees quantify it. And it worked beautifully.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Hoagland?

Mr. HOAGLAND. Yes, Mr. Chairman, let me add a couple additional comments. I do fear that too often we don’t make the priority

choices we have to, because in fact we want to keep everybody

happy and everybody to have a small piece of this Chesapeake Bay

Program funding. We go back to the fundamental issue of, we now

that water quality is the underlying problem that we need to solve,

so that should be the first criteria. The second criteria should be

targeting those watersheds where it is needed.

I go back to what you said about knowing the science and knowing the problems. We know that from an agricultural basis, we

have three hot spots: the Shenandoah Valley, it is the Lancaster

area and it is the Eastern Shore. Those are the three hot spots

where excess fertilizer, excess manure, must be managed, where

we need reductions. There is no question that we should be investing more dollars there than some other places. Those are tough

choices. But we have that information to make those decisions.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.

Mr. Gilchrest, another round of questions?

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A number of you have talked about priorities. And to use Ann’s

phrase, the political guts to target, and Secretary Ron Franks

talked about the Corsica River as a priority area and selecting priority areas where the dollars can be spent for much more substantive, comprehensive restoration projects could. I guess anybody

on the panel, but Mr. Hoagland, you talked about that, and Ms.

Swanson and Ron, you have talked about it.

Is this a direction that the Chesapeake Bay Program should

take, looking at areas that are vulnerable, whether it is the Shenandoah Valley or Eastern Shore agriculture? And just say for the

next five years, this is where most of the money is going to go for

restoration? Could each of you comment on that?

Mr. HOAGLAND. Congressman, I often joke, I have had this new

position with the Foundation now for slightly over a year. But I

have been with the Foundation for 16 years. And when I got this
29

job, the Foundation had set a goal that by 2010 we are going to

achieve that 110 million pound reduction goal. And my dream is

that on December 31st, 2010, I am either smiling or I am frowning

as to whether or not I have achieved that goal.

We cannot get to that goal. We cannot get to that goal unless we

make those decisions that you are raising right now and invest in

those key areas where we are going to make the biggest difference

in bringing that nitrogen pollution loading down. That is sewage

treatment plants, that is agriculture, when you get into agriculture

that is in those targeted areas. There is just no question. We won’t

get there. We won’t restore the Bay unless we make those hard

choices.

So I would say yes, we have to be more deliberative, more specific and make harder choices in where we are going to use the

money that we do get in order to get the biggest bang for the buck.

Ms. GROSS. But Congressman, I think that we need to also be

aware of the policy changes that are necessary from the standpoint

of local governments. If these areas are hot spots, there may be policy changes that can be put into place that don’t cost a lot of

money. If you can put the policy changes in and uphold those policies, as we are doing, for instance, in Fairfax County right now,

where we now have the Chesapeake Bay, our new Chesapeake Bay

ordinance is not allowing people to build within 100 feet of a

stream, even if it is in their back yard.

And we are taking some heat for that. Because it means you

can’t do certain things or it is going to cost—

Mr. GILCHREST. Are there court challenges to that?

Ms. GROSS. No, there have been no court challenges to this particular one. The State told us we needed to do this, and so we are

doing it.

Mr. GILCHREST. Good.

Ms. GROSS. And it is pinching a lot of people, because they are

not able to build alongside the lake that they wanted to, or they

are not able to do the kinds of things that they wanted to do. They

are having to mitigate for all of that.

So I guess I would say that while targeting hot spots is a good

idea, be careful about then taking the funding away from other

places that may need it. Look at the policy changes at the local

level that may be required that might also get us to where we need

to be. It is not always throwing money at a solution, sometimes it

is throwing ideas and policy.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I just wanted to comment briefly

that there one of the reasons that the Administration included in

EPA’s budget, the 2007 budget request, the $6 million for the Corsica River pilot project is because rather than practicing random

acts of kindness, there needs to be a practice of coordinated acts

of conservation. If you look at certain areas, the goal is to work in

a bipartisan, collaborative manner to truly remove from the list of

impaired waters segments through an integrated, innovative approach. That is one good example of a way to make progress. No

one argues with success, and it can be a good model throughout the

watershed and throughout the Country.
30

But the important point is that while we target resources towards particular areas or opportunities, we all have to keep in

mind what are the key challenges, what are the areas across the

watershed that really need the most action. And that is where your

points about the nutrients, the submerged aquatic vegetation, the

runoff, either agricultural or stormwater in urban areas, we need

to keep that in mind as we look to provide limited amounts of funding and resources to those overarching priorities and look for targets of opportunity where we can really make a difference and set

a good model for others throughout the watershed.

Ms. SWANSON. One caution. And I don’t mean to walk you into

complexity. But I would say, I want to know what issue you are

talking about. And the reason for that is, if you are talking about

agriculture, and particularly manure, and you have to understand

that for point sources in the Bay watershed, about 22 percent of

the nitrogen comes from point sources. Manure contributes 20 percent or 19 percent.

And so manure alone is an enormous contributor. That is where

those three hot spots are. And there is enormous opportunity there

as a result, because it is very concentrated.

Now, if it was targeting for point sources, I might not say, oh,

yes, do the Corsica, and I mean no disrespect, but when I start targeting, I want big flows, blue plains. And I want it to go the lowest

it can possibly go. So there, I would target all of your sewage

plants larger than 500,000 gallons. So I would target differently

when it comes to point sources than non-point.

Thank you.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Franks?

Mr. FRANKS. In targeting, you have to be both programmatic as

well as geographic. You don’t have a choice in that. You need both

aspects of it. I want to talk just for a quick minute about the Corsica and about the watershed, just really very quickly. We have a

lot of things that we believe will be effective in reducing pollutants

to the Bay. What we tried to do in the Corsica was bring all those

things together and do all of the things in all of the places to see

whether or not we really know.

And if we do, after we have done this, and after it has been

measured, because we are not doing anything without measurement, we will be able to say with honesty, yes, we do know what

needs to be done and we have done it. If we find in doing this river

system that some things work and some things don’t, then we have

that real experience which we can come back and say, we don’t

need to do these things, but we need to do more of this other.

Now, we picked the Corsica, and I will be perfectly frank here,

and we are about to look at another watershed. We picked the Corsica because of our limitation of money. We did not have enormous

funds. It is going to cost about $19.4 million to restore the Corsica,

we believe, to a level which we can be able to apply and have it

removed from the EPA’s impaired waters list. That was the money

we could cobble together. We thought we could cobble together, and

with your help, we have been able to do that.

That is one watershed. We are looking at all those BMPs we

need to do in that watershed. Now we are looking at a second watershed. This watershed will probably be a more urban watershed,
31

a watershed that has different needs to remove it from the list in

order to make sure that our BMPs work in a more urban environment.

This is an experiment. It is one we think is well founded. We

think it will be successful. But it is a learning effort on our part.

And we feel very, very positive about it, and we feel very, very positive about the next one.

Mr. GILCHREST. Who is involved in that Corsica watershed restoration project, Ron?

Mr. FRANKS. When you say who is involved?

Mr. GILCHREST. Other than the Department of Natural Resources?

Mr. FRANKS. We tried to make it across the board. Most everybody is involved, from all the different State agencies to the town

of Centerville to the county of Queen Anne’s, all the non-profits.

We have tried to make it across the board.

If everybody is not involved, if everybody doesn’t know what is

going on, if they don’t have ownership, it doesn’t work. We need to

bring everybody together. We have differences, we discuss them, we

work them out and then we move forward. When this is over with,

we hope we have something that everybody will have bought into

because they have been part of the process.

Mr. GILCHREST. Great. Mr. Chairman, I have one more question,

if I might. This question, your comment about the Corsica and the

integration of various agencies is a question I have for Mr. Grumbles. There is, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, do you see them playing a role, or are they playing a role in

the Chesapeake Bay Program as far as, I would say, is there an

entity within the Federal Government or Chesapeake Bay Program

that coordinates activities between NRCS, EPA, Corps of Engineers, NOAA, Department of Transportation, where they have, and

I see Rebecca nodding back there, where they see the watershed in

various ways as far as their contribution to its restoration or their

contribution to its degradation and how they can coordinate the

dollars, the funding, the program, the plans for reduction of nitrogen and phosphorus and things like that?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, I certainly, and I know the agency and Rebecca and the Chesapeake Bay Program office, we recognize the

good work, the important work that the Institute for Conflict Resolution has done in the past and continues to do. I am not sure that

that organization or that particular entity is absolutely necessary.

I feel that we should always keep our eyes open and our minds

open to collaborators and facilitators on multi-regional complexities

with conflict resolution. I think we do have a good basic structure,

and you certainly have the passion and the professionalism of the

partners in the Chesapeake Bay to help make conflict resolution a

way of the future. Congressman, I hesitate to say that that particular organization is the best approach.

Mr. GILCHREST. Well, if you put that organization aside, is there

a structure within the Bay program so that these various organizations from Agriculture to the Corps of Engineers to Transportation

to all the other Federal agencies that have some impact or input

into the Bay’s watershed, is there a collaborative effort, a structured collaborative effort for them to work toward the same goal?
32

Mr. GRUMBLES. Former Administrator Mike Leavitt used to say,

when looking at regional collaborations and the challenges, that oftentimes the problem is not technology but sociology. That getting

everybody together in a way to sort through the different perspectives and pursue common ground or if not common ground, middle

ground. I feel just as an EPA official that we have the partnership,

the Chesapeake Bay Program, the historic agreement, the Chesapeake Executive Council. We have the overall structure to do that.

To me, one of the best examples of the framework actually working was the end of 2004, when EPA and our partners were able to

agree to a multi-State watershed based permitting strategy that

stretches all the way up to New York and includes other States in

the watershed. That wasn’t done through a formal conflict resolution process. It was done using the existing framework we have

and spending a lot of time person to person working out differences

and different perspectives, geographic as well as policy.

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I want to compliment all of you. We

all are engaged in a lot of different activities. These are, I guess

when you have, I don’t want to say 16 million overweight people

out there, but it might be a million, your efforts are well appreciated. I want to thank you for taking this time out of your life.

For some of you it is decades, for some of you it is a little bit shorter, to accomplish these worthy goals.

But I would also like to continue to collaborate with you on this

process, as we bring the legislation through to fine tune it with

your recommendations even further. I guess if I could leave any

message to each of you, as I see it from my perspective, traveling

around Maryland, the watershed, is if we can develop a system to

disseminate this information to a larger group of people in an organized fashion. Talk about the bang for the buck that we get from

that. I think that would be a real positive thing.

Thank you all very, very much, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.

I would like to recognize Ms. Norton, who joined us a few moments ago, and see if you have any questions.

Ms. NORTON. This is a matter of such great importance across

five or six States, and I am very pleased to welcome all of you here.

I am very pleased at the regional effort and understanding of the

importance of the Bay and of the various programs. I must say that

when I read and of course, the Bay is covered very substantially

in our newspapers, about problems with rockfish and other problems. One wonders about our progress. Of course, this is nature,

things will happen from time to time.

The report card notion that Mr. Gilchrest has led, the way in

which local governments have taken responsibility is admirable. I

cannot say that I have a sense of the overall health of the Bay, as

difficult as that is. In the Anacostia, this Committee, and this is

the real stepchild here, and of course all this water flows you know

where ultimately. But this Committee, and I think Congress has

approved a part of a plan for the Anacostia that says that the

Corps of Engineers is to get the jurisdictions involved, there are

three jurisdictions involved, to develop a 10 year plan for the Anacostia. This is one river.
33

But this is a part of a bill that I sponsored. What was important

to me was that everybody was working on the Anacostia while it

was still a very polluted river. We know what needs to be done. It

has a huge problem from stormwater overflow. We know it has to

be done.

But the whole notion of these periodic meetings where everyone

pledges and signs on to support cleanup didn’t seem to me to tell

me anything in the long run. I am sure they did it, and I am sure

that of the commitment. What my bill did was to put responsibility

some place. Now, again, we are talking about the Bay, which is a

much more complicated matter.

But what it did was, we said, look, Corps of Engineers, you get

these jurisdictions together, you make them agree, you have them

agree on a plan. So in the end, the kind of collaboration that it

takes to clean up any body of water has got to occur, because everybody has to agree to the plan. And there is somebody in charge of

getting the plan together.

Now, the Corps of Engineers is not going to do the plan. The

Corps of Engineers can’t make individual jurisdictions do anything.

But at least we have placed responsibility somewhere, other than

in the jurisdictions involved to integrate and to come forward with

a coherent plan.

I would simply like to ask if anything of the kind exists with respect to the Chesapeake Bay or whether it would be useful at all.

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, the first thing I wanted to do

in response to your question was to say EPA appreciates and acknowledges your leadership on the Anacostia River. I remember us

working with Ken and other members of the Staff on the Subcommittee many years ago, where you had a field hearing to specifically draw national attention to the urban stormwater challenge

in the Anacostia. EPA wants to be a full partner in that effort. We

are taking important steps. Because it is a very polluted but important asset in this whole region. It is also connected to the Chesapeake Bay.

We do have a tributary strategy. For the Chesapeake Bay, your

question, there is a framework. There are action plans. And they

are translated into tributary strategies. There are 36 tributary

strategies, and they essentially encompass watershed plans for

what brings the lifeblood into the Chesapeake Bay.

Ms. NORTON. Do you integrate all those together so that you

know, does the EPA do that?

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, the Chesapeake Bay program office, which

EPA does integrate, does look at them. Of course, as you know, the

key to the success and sustainability of each of those 36 tributary

strategies is based on the local and State level and citizen level

partnership in putting those together. But yes, we do have an important role in that overall effort. All the Bay partners have agreed

years ago that the tributary strategies are part of the salvation, the

way to really make on the ground, in the watershed progress toward the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. HOAGLAND. Congresswoman, I would answer the question a

little differently. I would say no, there is no one with ultimate responsibility under this cooperative partnership. And in fact, I think
34

there is a need, and the Foundation has argued for a greater involvement by the Federal Government.

We do have a resource that is multi-jurisdictional. It is one of national significance. There is a key role that needs to be played at

a greater leadership level from the Federal Government, not unlike

the one that you described that you had to address with the Anacostia.

Ms. NORTON. Does anyone else have a view on that matter?

Mr. FRANKS. When you look at a watershed, and you ask, have

you considered all the different parts to it, that is what we did with

the Corsica. The Anacostia is more of an urban watershed, and a

much larger watershed. We took a small watershed because that

is what we thought we may be able to arrive to acquire the funding

to do all of the things in all of the places all of the time to make

it a working project.

So we have looked at a watershed-wide plan. The Anacostia is a

much more complex and much, much, much more costly undertaking.

Ms. SWANSON. I would like to respond. When I think about the

Chesapeake Bay Program, the leadership in the Chesapeake Bay

Program I would describe as a Rubik’s cube, where there are certain leaders who know they are a part of the cube. But essentially

as issues change, geographic priorities change, dollars available or

even political will, when the right opportunities align, different

leaders emerge, the same way different pieces on the cube lead you

to putting it together.

So I would say that the strength of the Bay Program is multiple

leaders. But I would also say that for some of the other Federal

agencies, all the Federal agencies in the Bay watershed, the more

they get clear direction from you as to the priorities in the Bay watershed and their activities, the more they will be a very prominent

piece on that Rubik’s cube.

And make no mistake, the Federal agencies’ involvement is vital

and pivotal and keeps all of us as States and general assemblies

together. But I would say, you need to amplify that leadership

among many of the Federal agencies.

Ms. GROSS. From a local, local government perspective, we wonder sometimes about the coordination. But when you look at an org

chart, you can sort of see where some of that goes.

I would also say, though, that it is important that local governments be fully participatory in the effort. You mentioned, Congresswoman, the Anacostia River. In my prepared remarks, I do mention the restoration of the Anacostia as an example for maybe

prioritizing grants within watersheds or metropolitan areas. Because that is a very important one for those of us in this particular

region.

However, sometimes the participation of even our larger governments within the metropolitan region is not what it should be. I

am very pleased to see especially at the District of Columbia Government level, that there is a new environmental department, a department of the environment being put together, which is going to

help coordinate their efforts.

Because quite frankly, it has been a little frustrating sometimes

that the level of participation in the region, and I am not speaking
35

for the complete watershed right now, we can get into that another

time. But for just the metropolitan region, it has been spotty in

some regards. So trying to be cohesive at the local level, and then

I don’t know whether it should flow downhill from the Feds or try

to go up here.

But there needs to be coordination at all the levels. If we can coordinate regionally or locally among ourselves while the Federal

and State governments try and figure out what to do, we shouldn’t

just not do that until somebody else above us gets their act together.

Ms. NORTON. It is interesting to hear your responses. I think the

Bay is one of the seven wonders of the United States. There is just

nothing else like it. And of course, its complexity is awesome as

well, and in many jurisdictions.

This is a Federal republic. And when you have independent local

jurisdictions involved, you have a major issue about how—every jurisdiction is supposed to deal with their own thing. And that is the

way the Federal republic is organized. We would not want it any

differently. I am not one for easy analogies. But I do want to suggest that in this region, we have had great difficulty despite enormous regional cooperation on things that the region cannot do

without. I give Metro as perhaps the preeminent example. You

take that away and the whole region falls apart.

Of course right now, in one of my other committees, I am cosponsor of a bill where we are trying to get each part of the region

to sign on to a dedicated annual payment for Metro, because here

is this wonderful thing that the Federal Government disproportionately contributes to, and it is, and people love it now. They are loving it to death, they are getting on. And we have hung out this

kind of, let’s call it an incentive. We have not yet gotten everybody

to take to it. But we sit together a lot. We sit together a lot.

There is, I spoke about the Anacostia River analogy, because you

can, I think, see that the word coordinator is all we are talking

about. The Federal Government is empowered here. It is not a new

structure. It is not some new office in the Corps. But it is responsibility, so that Congress can have a hearing for our bill and say

to the Corps, all right, what have you done.

To give you another analogy, again, analogies are the way in

which lawyers operate. But their opponents operate in tearing

apart their analogies. So I offer them simply for what they are

worth.

But when the Homeland Security bill came through here, I sat

on one of my committees and recognized how central this region

was with the entire Federal presence located here. I sponsored an

amendment that ultimately the whole region sponsored and we got

through for a coordinator for this region. Now, that could have

been somebody who had some other role in the Department of

Homeland Security. But the fact is that Congress said we would

pay for a coordinator. So that person sits with the counties that are

involved, Fairfax, Montgomery, out to some distance, D.C., and coordinates security, including grants.

Now, he doesn’t say you get one, you get one. But somehow it is

interesting how they have developed a way of prioritizing security

concerns within this region. I have to tell you, I would be the first
36

to hear it, I will be through in a minute, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, particularly since I am on the Homeland Security Committee,

there have not developed issues. If anything, we are on the coordinator, because they have not come up with the final plan we want.

So my only point is, I am not sure anyone is going to be able to

tell us much about the Bay, the Bay that we love so much until

somehow somebody who looks at the whole Bay is able to report.

We do have a Federal Government and it is of course the overarching Government, and it does seem to me that the Federal Government has a role to play here. And we have to think through

what that role should be.

But I am convinced just by talking with you and seeing that everybody is trying their darndest and still we have major questions

out there. I do want to say this, I think that without that kind of

coordination, when you hear about rockfish, we run to the rockfish

issue. When you hear about whatever is the issue that makes the

newspaper, that may become your priority. I wonder if that is the

way to really take care of an extraordinary resource like the Chesapeake Bay.

I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EHLERS. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman’s time has expired.

I do apologize for arriving so late for this hearing. I was chairing

my own subcommittee, also on the topic of water, or lack thereof,

about developing a drought information system for this Nation, a

rather dry subject, I must say. But we had a very good hearing and

reported a bill out creating a national system of identifying and

sharing data on the drought system. So I am inundated with water

issues today.

I don’t want to take your time, and I don’t have questions, because I missed most of the testimony. But I do appreciate your

being here.

What I do want to observe is that we have done two major things

in the Congress in the past 15, 20 years. First is the Chesapeake

Bay project. Second, the Everglades. We also had a small one on

the Salton Sea.

But now the next big one is looming, and it is far bigger than

these, and that is one I am involved in. I agree with everything Ms.

Norton said about the problems of the Chesapeake Bay, the coordination, the need for it, how large the problem is. You multiply that

probably 30-fold, and you get to the Great Lakes, which is the issue

I am concerned about.

I am very pleased not only that we got my Legacy Act passed a

few years ago, but that Mr. Grumbles and the EPA have been very

supportive in recommending funding. The President has been even

more supportive in granting the funding, and we have made substantial progress. But I have introduced a major bill which I hope

we can get passed soon, which will do for the Great Lakes the same

thing that is going on for Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades. And

it is absolutely essential to do that, and I know, since water and

water creatures are dear to all your hearts, that you will support

that effort as well.

With that, I want to thank you for your presence here. Your testimony has been very valuable to this Committee as we continue

to consider the reauthorization. And I certainly appreciate your
37

taking the time to come here and benefiting us with your knowledge. Of course, Mr. Grumbles has shared his knowledge with us

for years. We still haven’t begun to in any way plumb the depths

of his intellect and his knowledge on this topic.

But we appreciate all of you coming here and sharing your information with us. It is the only way the Congress can operate, is

through your help. So thank you for being here.

With that, I am pleased to bring the hearing to a conclusion. The

hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92Æ