U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–883 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1210 

A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: REAUTHORIZING 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 3, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

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

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 3, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 132 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 229 

WITNESSES 

Griffin, Hon. John, Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources ..... 4 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 11 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 12 

O’Mara, Hon. Collin P., Secretary, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control ................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 24 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 27 

Hawkins, Hon. George S., Esq., Director, Department of the Environment, 

Government of the District of Columbia ............................................................ 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 47 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 49 

Douglass, Hon. Gus R., Commissioner, West Virginia Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 87 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 88 

Brubaker, Hon. Michael W., Vice-Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Commission, 

Senate of Pennsylvania ....................................................................................... 95 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 97 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 101 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 102 

Tierney, Hon. James M., Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources, New 

York Department of Environmental Conservation ............................................ 108 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 110 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 116 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 118 

Cosgrove, Hon. John A., Chairman, Chesapeake Bay Commission, Virginia 

House of Delegates ............................................................................................... 133 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 136 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 140 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 144 

Wurtzel, Alan L., Chairman Emeritus, Circuit City Stores, Inc. ........................ 163 
Page

IV 

Wurtzel, Alan L., Chairman Emeritus, Circuit City Stores, Inc.—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 167 

Fults, Brent L., Managing Member, Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, 

LLC ........................................................................................................................ 172

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 174 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 185 

Gannon, Joe III, Vice President, Envirocorp, Inc. ................................................ 195 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 199 

Mitchell, Marty, Vice Chief Executive Officer, Mitchell & Best Homebuilders . 203 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 205 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 213 
(1) 

A RENEWED COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: REAUTHORIZING 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Cardin and Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. The Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife of the 

Environment and Public Works Committee will come to order. 

I want to thank our witnesses that are here today. This is the 

second in a series of hearings that the subcommittee has held on 

the Chesapeake Bay and the status of the Chesapeake Bay and 

what we can do in regards to reauthorization of the Chesapeake 

Bay to help strengthen the objectives that we are all trying to 

achieve in cleaning up the Bay itself. 

I am particularly pleased today with the two panels of witnesses 

that we have. I know on the first panel there are a large number 

of people that are here. That is because there are so many jurisdictions, so many States that are involved in the work on the Chesapeake Bay. It has been one of the reasons, I think, for the success 

of this model is that all stakeholders are involved. 

So we are particularly please on the first panel to have representatives from all of the States and the District of Columbia 

that are directly involved in our efforts to try to clean up the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

And then on the second panel, we will hear from the private sector. The Chesapeake Bay Partnership between the Federal Government and the State government has been successful because of the 

private partnership that has worked with us. This has not just 

been a governmental effort, but also a private sector effort. 

The partnership itself was a partnership between the Federal 

Government and our States in which we relied upon our States for 

the action plans to try to implement restoration efforts. I think we 

need to start with the fact that we have made progress, but not 

enough progress. 
2 

The United Nations Ramsar Convention recognizes the Chesapeake as an ecological region of global significance. I think we all 

agree with that. The Bay has been called a National Treasure from 

Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama. So it is generally recognized to 

be a very special place. But the Chesapeake Bay is also in trouble. 

A recent report from the University of Maryland Center for Environment Science finds that the ecological health of the Chesapeake 

Bay remains poor. The Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are 

unhealthy, primarily because of pollution of excess nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment entering the waters. 

The main sources are known to us. We know what is causing the 

problem. We need to do a better job of controlling the pollutants 

that enter the Bay from agriculture, from urban and suburban runoff, from wastewater from sewage treatment plants and from airborne contaminants. So we basically know the problem. We need 

to develop an action plan and enforce an action plan that will move 

us forward. 

We must first recognize that the Chesapeake Bay Program has 

played a critical role in stemming the tide of pollution. The model 

works. The Bay Program is a model for the national estuary programs that are helping curb pollution from Casco Bay in Maine to 

San Francisco’s estuary in California. 

Any successful program must combine the focus on the entire 

watershed, involve all the key stakeholders and be based on sound 

science. That must be continued and strengthened in the Chesapeake Bay model. 

But look at some of the challenges that we now need to confront. 

The population of the Chesapeake Bay watershed has grown from 

12 million when the program was started 25 years ago to 17 million residents today. That is a 40 percent increase. That, in and of 

itself, would be a challenge to try manage the Bay itself. But when 

you look at some of the other factors, such as the amount of impervious surface, the hardened landscape, that funnel polluted waters 

into the streams and rivers in the Bay, it actually has increased 

100 percent since during that same period. 

We are losing an astonishing 100 acres of forest land every day 

in the Bay watershed. In shore, there are millions more of us, and 

the size of our impact has grown twice as fast as our population 

has. 

Without the Bay Program, the health of the Chesapeake would 

undoubtedly be much worse than it is today. But barely holding 

our own is not good enough. So merely fine tuning the Bay Program will not be good enough, either. We need some significant 

changes if we want to significantly improve the Bay, and we want 

to do just that. 

Everywhere I go, whether it is in the State of Maryland or the 

State of Virginia or Pennsylvania, I hear from people over and over 

again that they are prepared to do what is necessary in order to 

save our Bay. There is tremendous public support for our efforts to 

curb the pollution entering the Bay. 

So we have done some things in the past. It is time to evaluate 

whether they have worked. We know that much of the pollution 

still comes from agricultural lands. Are the major increases in 

Chesapeake conservation funding that we wrote into the farm bill 
3 

going to be sufficient to dramatically reduce pollution from farms? 

Will additional efforts be required as well? 

Every day, polluted water runs off the streets and roof tops. Polluted storm water runoff is not the largest part of the problem, but 

it is the only source sector pollution that is still growing. What can 

our cities and towns do to control this growing problem? And how 

can we pay for it? 

Nitrogen oxides from air pollution are washed out of our skies 

daily, showering the Bay watershed with excess nitrogen pollutants. Are plan programs to reduce air pollutants stringent enough 

to curb this hidden source of nitrogen pollution to the Bay? 

Wastewater treatment plants contribute excess nitrogen and 

phosphorous pollutions that are fouling the Bay. Do permit requirements need to be based on the limit of technology? Should they 

apply to every sewage treatment plant in the watershed regardless 

of size or location? 

Pollution alone is not the problem. We do not have enough blue 

crabs or native oysters, in part because we have not managed our 

fisheries very well. For example, we are taking too many 

menhadens out of the Bay to turn them into fish oil dietary supplements, thereby losing their natural filtering capacity in the process. 

Do we have enough forage fish to keep our rock fish abundant and 

healthy? Does the Bay Program need to have a formal fisheries 

management component in it? 

Well, these are some of the questions that I hope our panelists 

will discuss with us today. We are looking forward to the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program within the Clean Water 

Act, and I hope that the information that we receive today from 

these panels of witnesses will help us in crafting that bill for consideration later this year. 

With that, let me turn to our first panel of witnesses, our government witnesses that are here. First, let me introduce each of you, 

and then we will be glad to hear from you. 

First we have John Griffin. Mr. Griffin has served as Secretary 

of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources for two Governors. I first worked with John on Bay restoration 25 years ago 

when he was a staff member for Governor Harry Hughes and I was 

the Speaker of the Maryland General Assembly. Mr. Griffin has devoted a substantial part of his working life to Bay restoration efforts, and I am pleased that he will be our lead off witness today. 

He will be followed by Secretary Collin O’Mara, Secretary of 

Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental 

Control. Secretary O’Mara serves as Governor Jack Markell’s appointee on the Chesapeake Bay Program Executive Council. 

George S. Hawkins is the Director of the District of Columbia’s 

Department of the Environment. Mr. Hawkins also serves as Chair 

of the Green Building Advisory Council and is a board member of 

the D.C. Water and Sewage Authority. 

Representing West Virginia will be Commissioner Gus Douglass. 

Mr. Douglass is currently serving his 11th term, wow, as West Virginia’s Commissioner of Agriculture. He has served as President of 

the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 

among his numerous other boards and commissions, and is considered one of the national experts on State agricultural policy. 
4 

State Senator Mike Brubaker serves the 36th District of Pennsylvania. Senator Brubaker is the Vice-Chairman of the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission and leads the Pennsylvania Delegation to the 

Commission. It is a pleasure to have you with us. 

Jim Tierney serves as the Assistant Commissioner for Water Resources with the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation. Assistant Commissioner Tierney leads the Department’s management team for programs to restore and maintain 

New York’s waters. 

And then Delegate John Cosgrove currently serves in the Virginia House of Delegates and is Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay 

Commission. The Commission is charged with coordinating policies 

concerning the Chesapeake Bay across State lines. 

Secretary Griffin, glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GRIFFIN, SECRETARY, 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. On behalf of my 

boss, Governor Martin O’Malley, and all of my colleagues in his 

Bay sub-cabinet, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to come 

here before you, staff and perhaps other members today to talk 

about a matter of critical importance to our region, to the Nation 

and indeed to the world. 

If you would allow me a moment of personal reflection. Going 

back to the 25 years ago that you spoke of, I wanted to mention 

unequivocally that that happened to be a point in time in Maryland’s history, as well as the other primary Bay States, when the 

EPA had just completed its 7 or 8 year study of the ills of the Bay 

and we in Maryland, as well as was true elsewhere, were developing our State level response. 

As you pointed out, you were the Speaker of the House then, and 

I can state unequivocally that that initial program of budgetary 

and legislative initiatives would never have passed without your 

leadership as Speaker of the House. So we are very pleased to see 

that leadership continuing during your years here in Congress and 

now as the Chair of this important subcommittee. I am thinking 

of bills like the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law, the phosphate 

ban and many others which, clearly, without your leadership, 

would never have been enacted. And we thank you for that. 

Senator CARDIN. For those nice comments, I will give you the 

extra minute and a half that took you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. 

Speaking of 25 years ago, that is when this effort in an official 

way started following the EPA’s Bay study, and it is clear that despite a great effort over those last many years, we are not getting 

the results we want. As the old adage goes, so we need to change 

the way we do business. 

We have started to do that in Maryland, and that has been happening regionally in Maryland. Governor O’Malley, when he came 

into office 2 and a half years ago, felt that these longer-term goals 

allowed everybody to rest on their laurels. Therefore, we have developed this idea of shorter-term goals or milestones. They also 
5 

allow more immediate ongoing measurement of progress, and they 

also allow us to hold ourselves accountable. 

So in Maryland, as elsewhere in the region, earlier this year we 

committed to our first set of 2-year milestones that would, if we 

achieve them in Maryland, increase our rate of nitrogen reduction 

by 138 percent and our rate of phosphorous reduction by over 500 

percent. We hope to do this by the end of calendar year 2011, 

which is the first milestone period for Maryland and the other 

States in the region. That would keep us on pace to meet our Maryland goal of achieving Bay restoration over current levels of nutrient pollution by the year 2020. 

Regionally, we sense a growing sense of urgency to take the necessary actions, most of which we know, and we have most of the 

delivery mechanisms in place. Not all of them. The path is not 

easy. It is getting harder. And it will not be cheap, and it will not 

be without controversy. At the end of the day, we believe that we 

need widespread public support and involvement for bold action, 

not just at the governmental levels but also in the way people in 

this watershed go about their daily lives. So it really comes down 

to choices, we think, for everyone in this watershed. 

You had asked us to provide some specific recommendations, Mr. 

Chair, as you consider the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay 

Program section of the Clean Water Act, and we have several that 

we would like to offer. Some of them are not new, and I am sure 

that you have heard them before, but they are important to keep. 

No. 1, we think that we need to establish and statute in this reauthorization a deadline. The region agreed to a 2025 deadline to 

meet our nutrient and sediment reduction goals. Very recently, we 

think it is important to have a statutory deadline as a stake in the 

ground. Otherwise, these interim milestones become somewhat 

meaningless. 

No. 2, we need to establish an independent scientific evaluation 

mechanism to promote more accountability. We have initially established, through contract with the National Academy of Science, 

an effort to perform that function for us. Obviously, accountability 

and getting results have been a big part of what you and others 

in Congress have been looking at over the last several years as it 

has been obvious that we have not achieved the results that we 

want. 

And not unlike the legislation that was passed for the Everglades, we think that you ought to memorialize sections in your reauthorization that call for the National Academy to perform this 

function on an ongoing basis for the benefit of everyone. 

Three, we think, despite the tough times in which we are operating, we should give careful consideration to some increase in the 

level of funding provided through the Chesapeake Bay Implementation Program. Forty million has been authorized. Roughly $20 million, plus or minus, has been funded, or appropriated, in recent 

years. Our thoughts are that should be, we should try to get to the 

$40 million authorization level but with two conditions. 

First, that each State, each member of the compact, be required 

to match that dollar for dollar. And second, at least that amount 

of funding would be allocated proportionately to the level of reduction each jurisdictions is required to make. 
6 

No. 4, address urban and suburban runoff. You spoke of this in 

your introductory comments, Mr. Chair. You know that it contributes about 23 percent of the Bay’s pollution. Restoring urban rivers 

and green infrastructure makes areas attractive for infill development and redevelopment, which is critical from a growth standpoint to the Chesapeake Bay. 

For example, we are here sitting in the Anacostia Watershed, 

which is the focus, as you know, of a major restoration effort. That 

plan which has been adopted for the Anacostia Watershed identifies 5,000 restoration projects, 1,700 of them are storm water retrofit projects designated as priorities. 

And we all know what happens when storm events hit urban and 

suburban streets and roofs and the runoff and the degradation that 

has occurred in the Anacostia and the Potomac. Of course, many 

of the lands and facilities that we are talking about on the Anacostia Watershed are owned by the Federal Government. This is a 

great opportunity for the Federal Government to lead by example. 

But we need more technical and financial assistance to try to 

make a dent in seemingly a growing and almost insurmountable 

problem of retrofitting all of our developed areas. And there are 

other areas, of course, that are kind of priorities in the region for 

this, the Elizabeth down in Virginia, and your home city of Baltimore. 

No. 5, fund core water-related programs. I am really offering this 

one in particular on behalf of our sister agency in the State of 

Maryland, the Maryland Department of the Environment’s Secretary Wilson, mandating increases federally, whether by law or 

regulation, while funding is decreasing. We are speaking specifically here about programs to support the NPDES permitting programs, storm water, wastewater and others. And so restoring some 

of the EPA funding that has been decreasing recently through increases in section 106 and other sections. 

Senator CARDIN. I have to ask you to summarize so that we have 

time for questions. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Of course. A couple of more points. 

Create greater accountability. We are very pleased that the 

President’s Executive Order includes elevating regionally something we started in Maryland which Governor O’Malley called 

BayStat which is a fiscal dashboard to measure success. It is accessible to the public. 

Finally, we really need to establish in the reauthorization effective and enforceable implementation plans. I draw for you the parallel to the Clean Water Act, or excuse me, the Clear Air Act, and 

we need requirements on the States to develop plans approvable by 

EPA and then enforced by them. I think the era of general volunteerism has to be over. 

I guess I would just end by saying, as you just suggested, that 

I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. 

We will put each of your entire statements in our record, and you 

can proceed as you wish. We are trying to hold it to 5 minutes, 

panelists, so that can have some time to get into a discussion. 

Secretary O’Mara. 

STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN P. O’MARA, SECRETARY, 

DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL 

Mr. O’MARA. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. 

On behalf of Governor Jack Markell, I would like to thank you 

for inviting Delaware to this important discussion. 

Delaware joined the Chesapeake Bay family in September 2000, 

well after the initial authorization when then-Governor Carper 

committed to working with the Chesapeake Partners to achieve 

water quality goals. Under the leadership of Jack Markell and our 

new administration, we are entirely committed to this effort. 

Today, more than 25 years after the first multi-State agreement 

to address water quality concerns in the Bay, we still have much 

to do. Over the course of our next decade, our efforts to combat nutrient problems in the Chesapeake Bay will also be complicated by 

another vexing problem, that of climate change. No single environmental issue is as sweeping and potentially catastrophic as the potential impacts from a changing climate. 

But before I address the impacts of climate change on the Bay, 

please allow me to first discuss a few key steps that Delaware has 

taken to improve the water quality and various programs that we 

believe could potentially serve as national models as we consider 

reauthorization. 

Only 2.5 percent of nutrient loading from Delaware comes from 

well regulated point sources. The vast majority comes from nonpoint sources such as agricultural, residential, commercial, recreational, and transportation development. Non-point sources have 

been a much more difficult challenge. Agricultural, septic systems, 

diverse urban and residential transportation sources all impact our 

water quality. 

Agriculture is Delaware’s No. 1 industry, and we are committed 

to ensuring that farming remains a sustainable and profitable endeavor in Delaware. Our farmers really see themselves as part of 

the solution, as stewards of the land and of the water. However, 

such productivity and increased development across Sussex County, in particular, in southern Delaware places special stresses on 

our natural resources. 

To reduce non-point sources and ensure that we protect our natural resources while supporting a vibrant economy, Delaware has 

adopted programs that we believe can serve as national models. 

In 2000, under the leadership of then-Governor Carper, Delaware 

adopted a nutrient management law. This unique law requires nutrient management plans for the vast majority of farms in Delaware that brings together stakeholders, contains certification requirements for nutrient applications, reporting requirements, and 

phosphorous-based and nitrogen-based planning where needed. By 

bringing stakeholders together, we were able to achieve significant 

impacts in a very short time. 
17 

Delaware is currently working with EPA officials to strengthen 

the existing program to ensure that key environmental outcomes 

are being achieved. We believe this could be a successful model for 

the region-wide reauthorization. 

Similar to our Nutrient Management Program, we believe that 

our pollution control strategies could also serve as a model because 

they are implementing non-point source reductions required by the 

TMDLs. Recommendations include both regulatory and voluntary 

mechanisms for controlling nutrients, reducing nutrient management loadings that are beyond EPA’s authority. Strategies originally designed to meet local water quality standards are being updated to achieve the reductions necessary for the TMDL. 

These approaches, especially including stakeholder engagement 

throughout the entire process, could have the greatest impact if 

adopted watershed-wide and a unique role for the member States 

in this region. 

Further, Delaware is developing regulations to implement nutrient reductions from onsite wastewater treatment and disposal systems for new development through enhanced storm water and sediment control and riparian buffers, all of which will be important 

to achieving our TMDL. 

While eutrophication is the most important and critical water 

quality concern for the Bay, I believe there will soon be a time 

when tackling water quality issues and implementing the solutions 

seem perfunctory. The impacts from a changing climate are going 

to dwarf the known and foreseen problems acknowledged when the 

Chesapeake Bay Program’s enabling legislation was penned just a 

quarter-century ago. I propose that the two interconnected challenges of climate and water quality, along with air quality, are best 

addressed holistically. 

As a peninsular State almost entirely surrounded by tidal waters 

and with the lowest mean elevation of any State, Delaware will 

likely be more affected by sea level rise than any State in the Nation. Like our neighbors in the Mid-Atlantic, we have high population density, aging infrastructure, critical agricultural resources, 

and several cities exposed to the front levels of sea level rise. 

As we move forward with efforts to improve water quality and 

address climate change, we must ensure that we are using the best 

science to drive our decisionmaking and making sure that States 

have the tools to make this kind of land use planning. 

In the Delaware River Valley, we need numerous mitigation and 

adaptation strategies to protect both the health and the safety of 

our residents. We need policies to promote buffers on our tidal 

lands and non-tidal wetlands in order to give rising waters room 

to flow, studies to prepare for the salinity impacts on our water 

supply for both potable consumption and agricultural production, 

as well as the policy tools to align our nutrient reduction policies 

with our carbon sequestration to promote practices with multiple 

benefits. 

We need to incorporate sea level rise and climate change realities 

into our regulatory and incentive programs in order to efficiently 

and effectively promote best management practices State-wide. We 

need the resources to provide Delaware and all of the other juris-
18 

dictions for the science, tools and policies to prepare for this new 

challenge. 

For example, we know that forested buffers along our waterways 

are the most effective way to reduce nutrient management. And 

they also provide great carbon sequestration benefits. However, in 

the farming community, grassed and planted buffers and cover 

crops are much more preferred over these forestry practices. Would 

this still be the case if we actually paid farmers for these practices 

by actually providing the resources to capture the value of the carbon sequestration that they are providing? 

I am confident that if we use market-based mechanisms, rather 

than traditional command and control approaches, we can incent 

the environmental outcomes that we need while keep our industries strong. We must seek solutions that make it economically advantageous to adopt practices that will improve water quality and 

confront climate change. And we need to make sure that our farmers and other stakeholders have sufficient access to capital to make 

these important investments during this tough economic time. 

Finally, let me close by saying that we must hold ourselves accountable, measure progress and verify the environmental benefits 

to regain the trust of taxpayers. Commitments have been made 

several times in the last 25 years, and I have been working closely 

with Senator Carper’s office, along with the Environmental Defense 

Fund, to look at their key principles to come up with a more comprehensive, outcome driven approach. 

We believe that if we develop and track performance measures, 

really assign responsibility and hold ourselves accountable to 

achieving progress as we did with Governor Kaine and Governor 

O’Malley’s leadership at this most recent Chesapeake Bay announcement, that we can make substantial progress. 

These are the challenges that we look forward to working with 

you on, and I am available for any questions. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Mara follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Senator Carper is an extremely valued member of this committee 

and very actively involved on these issues. I remember with great 

fondness working with Governor Carper on the issues that you referred to. So we very much appreciate your testimony. 

Director Hawkins. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE S. HAWKINS, ESQ., DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT OF 

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. HAWKINS. Good afternoon, Senator Cardin. 

On behalf of Mayor Fenty and the entire District of Columbia 

government, I am delighted to be here today. I would like to express our profound commitment to the Chesapeake and those aspects that run through this city: Rock Creek, the Potomac and the 

Anacostia River. 

We agree with a 25-year end date, or a 2025 end date as mentioned by Secretary Griffin, but very much like 2-year milestones. 

We budget on a year-by-year basis. That is how we determine our 

operational work. I am working on our 2011 budget now. We need 

to have milestones connected to the manner in which we organize 

our work on a regular basis. Having 2-year and an end date is a 

good combination. 

I would like to second mention that we are delighted to be here 

as the enterprise that is both a State and a local jurisdiction. We 

are obviously a State for many of the planning mechanisms, but 

the District is the local government. We approve every development, we review soil and sedimentation plans, we do power, energy 

and all the building codes. So we have a unique view. 

I want to express a few highlights of what we have done to date 

and then mostly look forward to what we would like to see going 

into the future. Three highlights. 

First, I want to mention the incredible importance of the Blue 

Plains Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. It is the largest 

point source discharge to the Chesapeake Bay, it is the largest publicly owned treatment works in the Chesapeake Bay, and it is a regional plant. 

And with regional support, we have reached our milestones to 

date under Chesapeake agreements, mainly because of improvements that have been made at the Blue Plains Plant. I want to recognize that and thank our surrounding jurisdictions, Virginia and 

Maryland, for the joint effort we have worked on to achieve that 

goal. 

Second is our MS4, the separate storm water sewer system permit that is issued to us by United States EPA. EPA has told us 

that it is probably the most stringent urban permit in the United 

States. In my 20 years in the field, I have never seen anything like 

it. It is a federally issued permit under the Clean Water Act, but 

it has aspects that dictate how we run the District, how we are 

building or buildings, how we are designing our streets, how many 

trees we are planting, how we are doing elicit discharges, how we 

are picking up trash, how we are following up with the pet waste. 

That is a federally issued permit. 
34 

This week we begin negotiations on the new MS4 permit for the 

District, which will be even more stringent. But it is a very good 

model for how to manage day-to-day operations of a jurisdiction in 

a municipality and achieve water quality goals. 

Third, Mayor Fenty and the District Council are very committed 

to green.dc.gov. You can see the Mayor’s green agenda. It governs 

really every aspect of city operations from how we work with our 

schools, how we are working with homes, businesses, commercial 

enterprises, streets, parks, green roofs, and it is all on the Web. I 

encourage you to take a look at it. It is a good look at an urban 

green program. 

But looking forward, what we would like to see. I have a few points on section 117. First, we were seeking funding at the $50 

million level. I do not think there is any way we are going to 

achieve our goals in this effort unless we have more firepower, 

more green firepower to bear. I like the idea of matches by local 

government. 

Second, we are a strong believer in a national or it could be a 

basin-wide standard for storm water control. This is just what was 

done in the Clean Water Act of 1972 for point source discharges. 

Up to that point, every State or jurisdiction was negotiating their 

own discharge levels. It was very resource intensive, battles being 

fought in every jurisdiction until national standards were created. 

There is no reason why we cannot have fundamental standards 

for storm water control, urban, rural and suburban. It will not be 

one size fits all, just like as is done for point sources, but can make 

sure that the science and the technology are established so each jurisdiction does not have to fight that issue on its own, but can be 

consistent across the basin. 

I connect that to basin-wide TMDLs. There should be a baseline, 

again urban, suburban and rural. I know that it is tough for agriculture. I know it is tough for suburban. We have to retrofit the 

90 percent of the buildings in the District that are already here. 

It is tough, expensive work. But again, the basin-wide TMDL 

should be driven by EPA, review State implementation plans and 

reasonable assurance. 

Next, section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. 

I know you know about that. There is no implementation mechanism for that provision which requires stringent storm water requirements for Federal facilities. Thirty percent of the lands and 

buildings in this District are owned and operated by the Federal 

Government. It is a remarkable opportunity this statute applies. 

Section 117 could articulate an implementation strategy for those 

requirements. 

Fourth, in section 117 is the Anacostia River. The Restoration 

Partnership does have an Anacostia Plan. We appreciate that EPA 

has appointed Chuck Fox as a special assistant on the Chesapeake 

and the Anacostia. It is a principal example of an urban waterway 

with Maryland and D.C. as its principal areas that can be implemented and funded through section 117. 

Let me mention four other quick points, and then I will conclude. 

One, I will not go into great detail, but we will not succeed unless there is a Federal effort, which there has been, but I encourage 

it an even greater level, for Blue Plains. For nutrient reduction and 
35 

the Long Term Control Plan, which is a mixture of sewage and 

rainwater going directly into our water bodies, $3 billion plus in 

capital funding is expected in the next 10 years. That will be extremely difficult for the ratepayers in the District, particularly 

those who are low income, as well as our suburban customers to 

pay without some Federal support for a Federal outcome. So Blue 

Plains support. 

Second, storm water requirements in the reauthorization of the 

Federal Surface Transportation Act. We will be redesigning the 

roads of the District under an MS4 permit to be storm water protective. My view is that the Federal requirement should be in parallel and should be in place with the Federal transportation funding mechanism, just like it will be for the District. 

Third is to support the Circuit Rider notion. We need someone, 

or more than one person, who can go throughout the Chesapeake 

and teach municipalities about content and issues that do not have 

to be relearned in every place. 

And finally, a regional or national coal tar ban. We just did that 

in the District. It turns out there is an easy way to reduce PAH 

discharges in coal tar by up to 1,000 percent because there are 

equivalent technologies that are easy to implement. 

Those eight strategies, I think, could be a significant part in how 

to improve the Bay as we go ahead. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hawkins follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for those suggestions. As 

you pointed out, we have provided some help with Blue Plains, but 

clearly it is a challenge. We understand that. 

We have been joined by Senator Carper. Your Secretary has 

mentioned your name several times as Governor Carper and the 

good work that you did as Governor and continue to do in the U.S. 

Senate on water issues. You may want to thank him. That is all 

I am suggesting. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. I say thank you as a recovering Governor. Can 

I say just a quick word about Secretary O’Mara? 

Senator CARDIN. Sure. 

Senator CARPER. He was selected by our Governor at the tender 

age of 29 to become Secretary for the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. We stole him from out around 

San Jose. For a guy his age, he has quite a wonderful resume. 

The people of Delaware elected Joe Biden to be Senator, a U.S. 

Senator, at the age of 29. They were kind enough to elect me to 

be State Treasurer at the age of 29. What I first thought was, gosh, 

29 seems so young for somebody to be Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Then, when I thought about it, 

I said, you know, that is about the right age. 

So we are delighted that he has come to our State and delighted 

that he is here today. He is one smart cookie and just a very good 

human being. So we welcome him here today. 

And I think there may be another person here from Delaware. 

Is there more than one panel here? 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. He may be on the second panel. I am going to 

be chairing a committee of my own at 3 p.m. to I am going to have 

to slip out. But thank you all for coming. These are important 

issues, as you know. 

And as your neighbor to the east, we want to be your partner in 

getting us to a cleaner, healthier Chesapeake Bay. Thanks. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Carper. 

Commissioner Douglass. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GUS R. DOUGLASS, COMMISSIONER, 

WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity 

to represent some of my environmental concerns as well as those 

of my counterparts across this great Nation. 

In June 2002, the West Virginia Department of Agriculture 

joined the Chesapeake Bay Program. But the Department has been 

involved in water quality monitoring since 1999, when agriculture 

became the focus of a TMDL for fecal coli in the Eastern Panhandle’s waters. 

Agriculture is commonly seen as the primary contributor of nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay because one, agriculture is highly 

visible to the public, and two, it is commonly believed, but 

unproven, that agriculture can make the most reductions for the 

least money. 
58 

The truth is that, one, numerous sources affect water quality including residential lawns, urban runoff, highway and airplane deicers, wildlife and, importantly, wastewater treatment plants that 

rely on decades-old technology. 

Two, since 1996, West Virginia’s Eastern Panhandle farmers have invested $8.6 million of their own money into Best Management Practices, plus $24 million in government cost-share funding. 

Three, a safe, affordable and geographically diverse food supply 

remains one of our Nation’s most important policy considerations. 

And four, data gathered in the region is extensive, and it shows 

that voluntary conservation programs have maintained good water 

quality in West Virginia’s streams for over a 10-year period. 

An example of this is the Potomac Headwater Land Treatment 

Program, which was one of the first nutrient management programs of its kind to boast voluntary participation of over 85 percent, folks, of the poultry and beef producers in the Eastern Panhandle. This program initiated 269 long-term contracts specifically 

for nutrient reduction in the Potomac Valley. 

Through this and other programs, West Virginia was able to remove the North Fork of the South Branch River from the 303(d) 

list of impaired streams back in 2003. This is perhaps the only success story of its type that I am aware of in this country. 

Meanwhile, in the far eastern part of the Panhandle, agricultural 

land is facing an onslaught from commercial and residential development. Folks, we lost 76,000 acres of farmland in recent years. 

And yet water quality in the Chesapeake Bay continues to decline. 

So I ask you, which is the greater burden on the environment: 

a farm that has spent tens of thousands of dollars of its own money 

to create as small an environmental footprint as possible, or a new 

housing development that destroys green space and wildlife habitat, burdens undersized sewage plants, and typically consumes 

more in services than in taxes? 

West Virginia will have new concentrated animal feeding operation regulations on the books in 2010. We should be allowed to 

give these new CAFO standards a chance to see what reductions 

they bring before we are forced to undertake new regulatory 

schemes. 

I am now serving my eleventh term as West Virginia’s Commissioner of Agriculture. And folks, during those four decades in office, 

I have seen a few things that work and many that do not. One 

thing that does not work is excessive regulation of our farm community. 

The WVDA and other agencies have committed to using a voluntary approach to water quality because we have shown that it 

works to protect the environment, our State’s economy, and our 

Nation’s food supply. 

And folks, the bottom line is if you want additional action on the 

part of the States, it is going to take staff, educational opportunities and cost-share programs. There will be increased benefits to 

the Chesapeake Bay, with the local water quality, if we can get the 

possible funding. 

Thank you for your attention and your invitation to be here 

today. I would be happy to take any questions. 

[The prepared testimony of Mr. Douglass follows:] 
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 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Commissioner Douglass. 

I can assure you that we share your concern about preserving 

farmland and open space. We think it is critically important to the 

Chesapeake Bay, and we share that goal. We will have a chance 

to talk about the best way to do that. 

Senator Brubaker, it is a pleasure to have you here. Pennsylvania has been a leading player in the Chesapeake Program from 

its inception. We could not have made progress without the leadership in the State of Pennsylvania. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL W. BRUBAKER, VICE-CHAIRMAN, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION, SENATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Thank you, Senator, for those comments. 

Chairman Cardin, Senator Carper, it is my privilege and honor 

to be here today. Thank you for the invitation. 

My name is Mike Brubaker. I am a Pennsylvania State Senator, 

representing the 36th Senatorial District, which includes a part of 

Lancaster County, most of Lancaster County, and part of Chester 

County. I am honored to represent Pennsylvania today at this 

hearing and offer my support for your efforts to reauthorize section 

117 of the Federal Clean Water Act. 

The current language of section 117 has played a vital role in the 

establishment of the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Program and has 

served as a central catalyst for the multi-jurisdictional campaign. 

However, the time has come to revamp this law, to give it new fuel 

by adding Federal authorities, mechanisms of accountability, and 

enhanced financial support that will collectively leverage even 

greater actions at the local and State level. 

By way of background, approximately half of Pennsylvania lies 

within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River supplies 50 percent of the fresh water to the Chesapeake Bay. Pennsylvania is responsible for the largest share of pollution reductions to achieve our Chesapeake Bay water goals. 

Almost my entire senatorial district lies within the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed, and I am proud to serve as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Delegation to the Chesapeake Bay Commission and Majority Chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture and Rural 

Affairs Committee. 

I am also an agronomist, a plant and soil scientist with over 30 

years of working with farmers in the northeast part of the United 

States. I have also worked with the Chesapeake Bay related organizations since the year 1980. I have also written hundreds of nutrient management plans myself. 

While Lancaster County may be known for its most productive 

farmland, some of the most productive farmland in the world, we 

have a large population of plain sect Amish and Mennonites. Lancaster County is a very diverse and growing county. It is no stranger, also, to suburban development and the continual challenges of 

economic development and environmental protection. Lancaster 

County has 500,000 residents, and believe it or not, 12 million visitors each year. 

I am going to skip some of my testimony so I can keep on time. 
96 

Importantly, while sources of impairment to the Bay are simple, 

excess nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment are the clearly the 

focus, and also as clearly, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution to 

this very complex problem. 

Second, the Bay program’s work must be science based. As a legislator, I frequently work with Bay Program data, and I work with 

that inside of my policy decisionmaking processes. While not always perfect, this information is very good and open to the public 

for review. 

Now for the shortcomings of the program. The Bay Program has 

not historically focused on implementation, or more precisely, accountability for implementation. It has instead focused on research 

and policy. As a result, we have not sufficiently driven reductions 

of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment from existing sources, primarily agriculture and wastewater treatment plants. 

In Pennsylvania, we are reducing nitrogen loads at the rate of 

1.2 million to 1.5 million pounds of nitrogen reduction per year. 

Most of those reductions have come from the implementation of agricultural best management practices spurred by State nutrient 

management regulations, Federal regulation of concentrated feeding operations, and State and Federal cost share programs like 

those in the Federal farm bill. 

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania still has more than 30 million 

pounds of nitrogen reductions to meet our goal. Thus, our progress 

toward a clean Chesapeake Bay has been slowed, and we have to 

play catch-up. 

I see my time is nearing conclusion. So let me skip. I heard you 

say that my entire testimony is submitted, correct? 

Senator CARDIN. Your entire testimony will be included in the 

record, and we will be looking at that. But if you need an extra 

minute or two, take it, please. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Well, thank you. 

In the year 2008, I, as a Republican, joined with my fellow Commission member and Lancaster County State Representative Mike 

Sturla, a Democrat, to convene a bi-partisan Lancaster County 

Chesapeake Bay Tributary Task Force. The Task Force consists of 

more than 50 businesses, agriculture, local government, and scientific leaders in Lancaster County to address our Chesapeake Bay 

responsibilities in a way that makes fiscal sense and environmental 

sense for our community. 

I would be very happy to submit a copy of this book. I am very 

proud of this organization, this bi-partisan mostly private sector organization. Every member that chose to come from the community 

chose to come and put our differences aside, work cooperatively on 

solutions without the Federal Government, without the State government, without anybody telling us what to do. 

And it is just absolutely amazing when you allow people to come 

to the table voluntarily, with one goal in mind, to figure out how 

can we do business, how can we allow our businesses to grow, and 

still at the same time reduce our environmental footprint and enhance our contribution to the Bay. It is a real success story. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brubaker follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for your testimony but, more 

importantly, thank you for your action. It is not apparent on the 

surface Pennsylvania’s role in the Bay. As you pointed out, the 

Susquehanna is the largest supplier of fresh water. We could not 

have made a progress on Bay without aggressive action by Pennsylvania. 

Your leadership has been incredible over the years, and we really 

do thank Pennsylvania for that. 

Commissioner Tierney. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. TIERNEY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR WATER RESOURCES, NEW YORK DEPARTMENT 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Senator 

Carper. I just came in from Delaware where I am vacationing, and 

it is looking good, the water is looking good in there. It is all right. 

I submitted testimony. So I am going to try and skip right to 

some key bullet points for your consideration. 

One of the first things I would like to recognize is the fact that 

Chuck Fox has arrived on the scene with a special focus from EPA, 

which is showing up in things like Presidential Executive Orders 

and Federal agency coordination and the like, which is highly beneficial, and I think that is a terrific thing that the Administration 

has done. 

And Jeff Lape, who has coordinated the Chesapeake Bay Program for years, comes to New York, knows us, works with us, and 

we really do appreciate the attention that he gives us and that 

open line of communication. 

What you will hear a lot in Chesapeake Bay talk is EE3: everything by everybody everywhere. And that we are going to have to 

get fairly close to that in order to solve the problem. What is truly 

involved in EE3 is quite something. Every septic system or 90 percent of them. Things like that. Every road ditch, every retrofit fit, 

you know, basically retrofitting the built environment, the excavated environment, and the farmed environment. 

There is a lot that will be discussed there, and I think EPA is 

taking a leadership role in framing a lot of what is involved in 

that. But it does not solve the overall Chesapeake Bay problem. 

New York’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay is highly rural, contrary to the popular understanding of the New York environment. 

It is 70 percent forested. It is a lot of dairy agriculture in that area. 

It really is very rural. And protecting that rural landscape, those 

wetlands, those streams, the mountains, and the forests effectively, 

protecting what you have already got is a big thing. 

So what we may want to think of in terms of the reauthorization 

or policy or oversight work going forward is an EE3 for natural resource protection. Governor Paterson is a strong supporter to the 

Clean Water Restoration Act, for example. That we want to restore 

the jurisdiction over waters that we have lost in the Rapanos decision and some of those other Supreme Court decisions that have 

harmed the level of jurisdiction over the natural resources that 

naturally clean and protect the water. 

As a Senator from Maryland, I think you would be very interested, and very supportive, of course, in an EE3 free airshed, par-
109 

ticularly for NOx, SOx. Maryland just gets hammered by out-ofState emissions of air pollution that waft into your State. Put aside 

water quality, think about kids with asthma, and the impacts on 

health of the elderly, heart attacks and the like, but also that NOx, that nitrogen, entering the Bay. 

The estimates range from between 20 to even as high as 30 percent of the nitrogen in Chesapeake Bay comes from air deposition. 

Nitrogen, as you probably know, is very difficult to remove once it 

is on the landscape. It does not absorb to soil, so it tends to get 

there somehow. So you have to stop it at the source, at that smokestack, hopefully even at the low nitrogen fertilizer and the like. 

A third thing that we have to think about beyond the built environment is technology standards. This is very important. EPA 

needs to get the technology standards, and that is different than 

water-based quality standards, for wastewater treatment plants 

out of the cellar. We do not really have a national floor right now, 

we have a national cellar. We need them to get that up on the first 

floor and maybe start to reach toward the ceiling a bit more. 

That program helps push standards nationally. For instance, the 

secondary treatment level of technology for wastewater treatment 

plants nationally is now some 30 years old. The technology is way 

beyond that. We need to move on. And it also gets us out of this 

daily grind of TMDLs. You know, basin by basin, point source by 

point source, planning and programming. It helps jump us ahead 

quickly. 

The fifth thing I would like to talk about is that we need to think 

in terms of a basin approach, not simply a Bay approach. If you 

want my farmers and my rural country people and my foresters up 

in New York to be interested in the Bay, we have to do something 

for them as part of this program. They are interested in flood hazards. There are a lot of flash floods and the like there. A flood plain 

mapping, source water, drinking water source water protection, 

wetlands and wetlands construction, and good forestry maintenance and even buying the land, where appropriate. 

We think all those things together kind of bring the hope that 

the Bay will ultimately run clean. And it is New York’s hope to be 

a part of that partnership and a successful partnership down the 

road. 

I will stop my comments there, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tierney follows:] 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Delegate Cosgrove, I am going to ask your cooperation for a moment. I know that Senator Carper is going to have to leave shortly, 

and I want to give him a chance to ask questions. Then we will return to your formal comments. Feel free to try to answer questions 

that Senator Carper may be proposing. 

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

And again, our thanks to all of our witnesses for joining us here 

today. 

Commissioner Tierney, you are talking about the effect of air 

emissions and the presence of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide 

in the air and the bad things that it does to our health when we 

breathe it in. Also, I think you were registering how part of the 

water degradation in the Chesapeake Bay is because of, I think you 

said sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide. Is that what you said? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Nitrogen. 

Senator CARPER. Nitrogen oxide. As the Chairman knows, some 

of us have been working here in the Senate for a while on legislation to reduce the emissions from—— 

Senator CARDIN. The Senator has personally been in my office 

many times to personally lobby on behalf of his legislation, if that 

is what—— 

Senator CARPER. You are very kind to be supportive. But what 

we are trying to do in legislation, national legislation, is to take nitrogen oxide, which is really now only controlled east of the Mississippi, and to make sure that we try to reduce nitrogen oxide 

emissions by at least 70 percent between now and 2015, not just 

east of the Mississippi but also west of the Mississippi. 

And we would reduce the sulfur dioxide emissions by some 80 

percent by 2015 and mercury emissions by some 90 percent by 

2015. We are delighted that the technology has moved along so 

that we can actually reach those goals now without undue economic damage, I think, to the utilities. But I appreciate very much 

the point you have made. 

We talk a lot about carbon dioxide emissions and the need to rein 

in carbon dioxide emissions, and I fully agree with that, and while 

we do that to turn it into economic opportunities for us. But we can 

find economic opportunities by controlling sulfur dioxide emissions, 

nitrogen oxide emissions and mercury emissions to create technologies and products that we can sell around the world to reduce 

those. 

I am going to ask Secretary O’Mara just to take a moment. I 

apologize for missing your testimony. I just came in on the train 

and rushed right over as soon as I got here. But just some 

takeaways for me as your, I started to say as your junior Senator. 

I am so used to saying junior Senator. As your senior Senator, 

some takeaways for me and for Ted Kaufman, our new junior Senator, for purposes of this hearing. 

Mr. O’MARA. I think from the point of view of Delaware, sorry, 

from the point of view of my department, we really want to take 

a new approach to the challenge that the Bay presents us. It is beyond just the water quality issues. It is also getting into multimedia challenge, like you mentioned air quality, and also planning 

for the issues around climate change. 
131 

Now, we have done some very innovative things in Delaware, 

some of which started under your leadership with the Nutrient 

Management Program, being stakeholders together, holding people 

accountable. So we believe that, you know, now is the time to readjust sails and find those kinds of market-based economic solutions 

to try to encourage people to adopt the behavior we want, but at 

the same time making sure that agriculture is financially viable 

and other industries down in the southern part of the State. 

So really I am asking for, you know, taking a hard look at whether it is the Waxman-Markey bill as it is written, are incentives 

being put forth for carbon sequestration and other activities like 

that? Let us try to advance policies that provide multiple benefits. 

We know forested buffers in Sussex County will provide both 

water quality impacts and carbon emissions. And so if there are 

ways to tie things together intelligently across these bills, across 

media, I think the more successful it will be, and it will have a bigger impact despite the current economic downturn. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. We were pleased to work with one 

of your constituents, Jim Purdue, during my second administration 

as Governor, my second term as Governor, and we have, as you 

know, a lot of chickens on DelMarVa Peninsula, and they create a 

lot of chicken manure. We call it nutrients. But it is a lot of nitrogen and a lot of phosphorous. 

In the past, we have stacked it up in fields, sometimes several 

inches deep, and spread it out more than we should have. And put 

it out in fields, laid it out in nonem pads, not covered pads, but allowed the waste to come and be washed into our streams and 

ditches and so forth. 

We are doing a much better job. One of the things that I am very 

proud of is that we created a Nutrient Management Commission 

that required all of the farms that spread nutrients to have a Nutrient Management Plan, required training for the folks who were 

spreading the nutrients during the course of the year. 

We did a wonderful partnership with Jim Purdue and the folks 

at Purdue. And the partnership basically says, let us put some 

State money and some Purdue money together and create a facility 

just outside of Seaford, Delaware, just north of Delmar, Maryland. 

The idea is to take about 15 percent of the nutrients from the poultry houses, take them to this facility, treat them under high temperature, create a pelletized organic fertilizer that we sell all over 

the country. 

And I think now they are actually making some money doing 

this. So we kind of created an economic opportunity out of this. We 

still have work to do. But I think we are on the right track. 

I would say to our friend from West Virginia, you were talking 

about the Eastern Panhandle, do you raise some chickens there? 

Raise any chickens? Do you all raise any chickens in West Virginia? 

Mr. DOUGLASS. The Eastern Panhandle is the chicken capital of 

West Virginia in the Moorefield area. 

Senator CARPER. I thought so. I am from Beckley, from Raleigh 

County, that is where I was born. So you are from Mason County, 

are you not? 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Yes, Mason County. 
132 

Senator CARPER. I thought so. Well, welcome. We will learn from 

you in terms of reducing nutrients that go into our waterways and 

perhaps you all can learn from what we have done as well. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Well, you are aware of what we have done in 

Connaught Valley as well, SO2 particulates, and so we are serious 

in the environmental problems and again, we want to be good citizens, the farm community does, and appreciate—— 

Senator CARPER. You bet. Well, those of us who live in the DelMarVa Peninsula and the Mid-Atlantic Region who end up, we call 

it, at the end of America’s tailpipe, breathing the sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen dioxide and mercury that has come up from a lot of other 

places to our west, we appreciate everything that you can do there. 

And I appreciate the leadership of Senator Cardin on this issue 

and a whole host of others and for giving me a chance to come by 

and join you for just a little bit. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman Cardin, for convening this hearing. I 

appreciate your inclusion of me and the other Chesapeake Bay watershed Senators. 

While I look forward to the testimony of all our panelists this afternoon, I wish 

to welcome in particular two panelists from my home State of Delaware—the Honorable Collin O’Mara, our new head of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. 

Although he comes to us by way of San Jose, California, Mr. O’Mara is no stranger to the Mid-Atlantic, as he has spent a great deal of time along Delaware’s and 

Maryland’s coasts. 

I would also like to welcome Mr. Joe Gannon, Vice President of Envirocorp, which 

is based out of Harrington, Delaware. Both Envirocorp and the Gannon family have 

a long history of protecting environmental quality and fostering citizen awareness 

in the watershed. 

Thank you both for joining the subcommittee today to provide your perspectives. 

As the Nation’s largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay supports an immense diversity of plant and animal life. The Bay is a prime example of the fact that ecological 

and economic significance go hand in hand. The Chesapeake yields more fish and 

shellfish than any other American estuary, providing jobs and supporting the regional economy. 

Unfortunately, as we all well know, the Bay and much of its tributaries are not 

in good health. Excess amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous pose an especially 

grave threat to the ecosystem, as they destroy habitat and kill aquatic life. 

In addition to the challenges of nutrient loading, the watershed is threatened by 

population growth, sprawling development, and the impacts of climate change—not 

the least of which are sea level rise and salt water intrusion. 

Not to be overlooked is the serious impact of air pollution on water quality and 

the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay region. Nearly a quarter of the nitrogen 

pollution flowing into the Bay comes from the atmosphere. 

Nitrogen emitted into the air can also negatively impact the growth and survival 

of plant and animal species in and around surface waters. Mercury is another very 

serious threat, as it is responsible for more fish contamination than any other pollutant. 

Simply put, our goals for water and ecosystem quality will not be met unless we 

also address the contributions of air pollution. My colleagues and I on this committee are working very hard on this front, and I look forward to unveiling clean 

legislation in the near future. 

In closing, I would like to recognize the fine work taking place on the ground in 

Delaware to educate the public and form grassroots coalitions to protect the watershed. 

In Delaware, we’re faced with no easy task—more than 90 percent of the State’s 

waterways are considered ‘‘impaired.’’ The most common impairments come from 

hard to control, non-point sources. 

I applaud the work of Delaware’s Tributary Action Teams, which are creating pollution control strategies tailor made for each of the State’s watersheds. 
133 

The most important element of Delaware’s strategy is the engagement with citizens—allowing local residents to weigh the merits of various proposals—and collaboration with stakeholders and advocacy groups. 

I’m hopeful that we can build on this model of grassroots engagement and collaboration, and I look forward to hearing the perspectives of other States on this truly 

regional issue. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. You are welcome. And I understand that on the 

second panel there is young Joe Gannon, Vice President of 

Envirocorp, which is in Harrington, Delaware, where we have the 

State fair, they just closed it down on Saturday night. But to Joe 

Gannon, welcome, and thank you for inviting him and letting Delaware not only on one panel but on two. This is a good sell. Thank 

you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we can learn a lot from Delaware. We 

know that. 

I would just like to make an observation. Agriculture is very important to the State of Maryland. It is a major part of our economy. 

I can just assure you that we are going to do everything we can 

to preserve agricultural land. We think it is critically important for 

many reasons, including our economy as well as our environment. 

I recall very vividly when we started down the Bay Program the 

first partners we brought in was our agricultural community, to 

work with them to make sure that what we did is consistent with 

the economics of farming which, we think, can make sense. 

And of course, if there is need for special attention, as one of you 

pointed out, as far as the buffer zones, that is something that we 

should talk about, how to make it economically feasible to have 

that type of activity. 

Delegate Cosgrove, thank you very much for your patience. It is 

good to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN A. COSGROVE, CHAIRMAN, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION, VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 

Mr. COSGROVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for the 

opportunity to testify—— 

Senator CARDIN. You need to turn on your microphone. 

Mr. COSGROVE. There we go. I am an engineer, too, I should have 

figured that out. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSGROVE. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to 

ask for your concurrence in the reauthorization of the Chesapeake 

Bay Program, section 117 of the Clean Water Act. 

At the outset, I want to commend you for your leadership in 

bringing this important issue to the forefront to advance the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Senator, you are a gentleman of 

the Bay. You get it. We are just here to kind of reinforce, I think, 

what is already known well to you. 

The role of the Federal Government is critical to the success of 

the Bay restoration. And for the effort to succeed, that role must 

grow stronger. I am here today as a Virginian, I am here today as 

the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and I am here 

as a proud Republican to tell you that we need the Federal Government to play a stronger and more targeted role in Bay restoration. 
134 

The Clean Water Act must provide new authorities and accountability measures that complement our State efforts in order to minimize pollution from all sources. We believe that restoring our Nation’s largest estuary is a shared responsibility, not just of the 

States or local government or the private sector, but of the Federal 

Government as well. 

In February 2008, the Chesapeake Bay Commission developed 

and broadly distributed a special report containing a full suite of 

recommendations for Federal legislation and funding to advance 

the Bay’s continuing restoration over a 3-year period, 2008 to 2010. 

Included within that report were recommendations that the EPA 

Chesapeake Bay Program be reauthorized with a heightened focus 

on new authorities, increased implementation and accountability. 

The bottom line—since we have to do more with less, we need 

to do a better job choosing what is regulated, what is incentivized, 

and where these programs are more strategically applied. 

Now, I have been a member of this Commission for 5 years, and 

I have the honor of Chairing the Commission this year. In the past 

5 years, I can say that we have seen a huge increase in State and 

local government investments in the Bay. In Virginia alone, 

through the State Water Quality Improvement Fund, we have invested over a half a billion dollars to upgrade our water treatment 

programs within the Bay watershed. We have committed to another half a billion dollars over the next 5 years to continue those 

efforts. 

Our local governments have stepped up their commitments and 

are utilizing the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund to help shoulder their burden to cover the remaining costs of the upgrades. And 

recently, Federal funding to the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund 

has increased, and we thank you very much for that. And other 

States in the Bay are using this fund and making good progress 

in tackling their point sources of pollution to the Bay. 

So thanks in large part to the increased State and Federal funding and existing regulatory permit authority within the Clean 

Water Act, we are reducing point sources of pollution delivered to 

the Bay. Hundreds of sewage treatment plants throughout the watershed are being upgraded with new technologies to reduce nutrient loads. 

The Federal Government needs to step up, and we need to have 

those authorities in place so the States can do their job. I will say, 

not wanting to aggravate any of my additional panel members, that 

the Federal Government is making slow progress though, Senator, 

in upgrading the wastewater treatment plant Blue Plains located 

in the district. They have come a long way. But they have got a 

long way to go. 

And as the largest point source in the entire watershed, almost 

4 million pounds of nitrogen stands to be reduced from the Bay’s 

nutrient load from this one facility. You know that. We appreciate 

the efforts that you have put into Blue Plains, and we ask you to 

continue those efforts and let us get Blue Plains up to the technology that it should be. 

In reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program, we have the opportunity to capitalize on additional Federal and State efforts underway to make real progress in cleaning the Chesapeake. First, 
135 

the Bay States have agreed to chart out and implement 2-year restoration milestones. Second, EPA is developing a Bay-wide TMDL. 

And third, the President issued an Executive Order directing Federal agencies to coordinate their restoration efforts and prioritize 

the Chesapeake as a national treasure. 

Currently, the Clean Water Act applies to all point sources of 

pollution. However, many sources of pollution fall outside of the 

scope of the Clean Water Act. To protect a system like the Chesapeake Bay, where the majority of nutrient pollution comes from 

non-point sources, we must make sure that all sources of pollutants 

are controlled in a meaningful and highly accountable way. 

And I will say, Senator, that the Navy is a model of how to develop their lands. They have done a tremendous job, especially in 

the Norfolk Naval Base, of doing very responsible development 

where they have really taken care of the storm water runoff. 

We need to build our existing partnerships and increase our accountability to increase our rate of success. By reassessing what is 

working to clean up the Bay and building on those examples, we 

can continue to make progress. However, we need to make sure 

that the right tools are there. So far, those tools have included 

strong intergovernmental relationships and partnerships and clear 

regulatory authority. 

Mr. Chairman, these waters of the Chesapeake Bay are the same 

passages that brought Christopher Newport and Captain John 

Smith to the new world. These waters captured the imagination of 

Lord Calvert and brought him and his descendants to establish 

what is now the State of Maryland. These waters are where this 

great Nation was conceived. 

As a former naval officer, I know that now the world’s mightiest 

ships, both merchant and warships, traverse these waters on their 

way to and from ports all over the world. 

Most importantly, Senator, our children must have this treasure 

to enjoy and admire just as we have it now. 

Mr. Chairman, you are doing a great job. Please help us do ours. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cosgrove follows:] 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank you. That was excellent testimony to conclude the formal presentation by the panel. So I 

thank you very much for that. 

I want to put one commercial in. We, in this committee, have 

passed out the State Revolving Fund reauthorization. It will be the 

first time, I believe, in 20 some years that we would have a reauthorization. It modernizes the formula so that it is based more on 

need, primarily on need. 

As a result of putting more money into the authorized program, 

every State will get more funds to deal with their wastewater 

treatment facilities. However, the percentages will change to meet 

the current needs. So not every State will see their percentages increase. 

We are in danger of not getting that bill moving forward, and we 

could use all of your help in talking to your Senators as to the importance to get that done without relieving the national pressure 

on wastewater treatment facility modernization and new facilities. 

It is difficult to deal with Blue Plains in isolation. There just are 

not enough funds out there to deal with all of these problems. 

So the Chesapeake Bay is very much dependent upon the reauthorization of the State Revolving Fund. I would just urge you all 

to talk about the urgency of getting that done. It also makes sense 

for our economy in so many different ways. 

But that was just a commercial to get that bill moving. Senator 

Boxer is working very hard with our leadership. We have strong 

bi-partisan support for it. We are pretty close to getting there, but 

we could use continued interest on that. 

Let me talk a little bit about the two issues that most of you 

have talked about, and that is the tools that you need to get the 

job done and whether there should not be some type of enforcement 

to the goals that are set. 

I think that we all agree that we should have goals set under the 

current way it is done. I mean, it is a partnership, it is a consensus 

type of goals that are established, it is multi-year with a way to 

evaluate on a periodic basis, whether it is every 2 years or so forth. 

A point is to take a census as to where we are and the progress 

that we are making. 

We also must have actionable progress in each of the areas that 

are adding to the pollution in the Bay, whether it is the point 

source pollution or whether it is airborne or whether it is agriculture or whether it is runoff or wastewater treatment facilities. 

And it needs to be based upon good science. 

Now having said that, I think, Secretary Griffin, you mentioned 

it, and others mentioned it, that we could perhaps learn a lesson 

from the Clean Air Act, where we have—where it requires the development of State implementation plans, recognizing full well that 

not one jurisdiction can solve the problems or our air as one jurisdiction cannot solve the problems with the Bay. Then there are certain expectations and enforcement provisions that are in the Clean 

Air Act. 

Can that be a model that we could use in the Chesapeake Bay 

program, recognizing that we also must provide the resources and 

tools so we can realistically achieve the objectives that we say? 
155 

Can I hear from Secretary Griffin? And if anyone else wants to 

comment, fine. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Senator Cardin, that is a great question, and my 

answer is, unequivocally, yes. I think, having worked with this program for 25 years, several things are clear in terms of what we 

have to do to change the way we do business and get different results. 

I think one of them is to require each State to come up with an 

implementation plan that is approved by EPA and that they can 

enforce, so that you have more of a watershed focus as opposed to 

simply relying on EPA’s individual permitting authorities, whether 

they are NPDES permits or MS4 strong water permits, whatever. 

I do not think, you know, something that has been lacking here 

is we talk about watershed-wide efforts but our regulatory scheme 

is not aligned with that, and I think this moves us in that direction. 

But most importantly, I think it gives each State some assurance 

that if they do their part, the Federal Government, which is really 

the only level of government that can do this over the States, 

makes sure that every other member is doing their part as well. 

I think that is the fundamental idea here. It is watershed-based, 

and everybody gets bound to develop and implement these plans. 

Another example in my world, dealing with fisheries is somewhat 

of a parallel. And that is that my State’s Fisheries Commission and 

their counterparts across the country, when they develop plans 

with the States, if the States do not implement them after a series 

of due process requirements are met, the Commission can impose 

a plan. You know, I am thinking of our years together in the State 

with the whole rockfish issue some time ago. 

But I do not think it is unprecedented, certainly. Those are two 

examples. And I think it is something we really need. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Secretary O’Mara. 

Mr. O’MARA. Thank you, Senator. 

We completely concur with Secretary Griffin that it is a valuable 

approach. We want to make sure that we are looking holistically 

across all sources and that rather than just focusing on agriculture, 

really looking across transportation, commercial development, residential development and recreational. 

But one point that we are struggling with a little bit in Delaware, as Senator Carper said, we are kind of at the tailpipe of the 

eastern corridor, looking at air emissions. We have been struggling 

a little bit trying to have our 126 Petition take into account the 

emissions that are coming from outside of our immediate corridor 

with Maryland and Pennsylvania, but actually going further up the 

line with coal plants in Ohio and Indiana and kind of up that way. 

So as we are looking at this holistically, I do think we have to 

have a balance of both the State responsibilities, but also looking 

at the impacts we are having on each other and tying ourselves together, as Secretary Griffin said. 

Senator CARDIN. That would be particularly true on airborne. 

There is no question about it. Does anyone else want to comment 

on this? 

Yes, Mr. Tierney. 
156 

Mr. TIERNEY. We have an example for you in Long Island Sound 

where we have a nitrogen dead zone, a nitrogen-caused dead zone. 

It is rimmed by Long Island, New York City, and highly populated 

centers in Connecticut. And unlike the Chesapeake Bay Program, 

New York and Connecticut got together with EPA and did a TMDL 

and finished it in 2000. 

We had all our permit fights, litigation and the like done and 

wrapped up by 2004. And since that time, because this is nitrogen 

and the big issue there was wastewater treatment plant discharges, we focused on the 102 larger wastewater treatment plants 

right around Long Island Sound. And it was an enforceable, binding program. 

We got into this TMDL, Total Maximum Daily Load Program—— 

Senator CARDIN. It was enforceable? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Absolutely enforceable. I am the dark angel of New 

York State when it comes to this sort of thing. I make people spend 

extraordinary amounts of money on upgrading the wastewater 

treatment plants. We are set to finish approximately 90 to 95 percent of our reductions under the TMDL by 2014. 

Senator CARDIN. What was the authority for you to be able to do 

that? 

Mr. TIERNEY. The Clean Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, 

if a water body does not meet State water quality standards, which 

are also the Federal water quality standards, then you have to a 

do a pollutant budget program for it. Those pollutant budget programs have results. They can get incorporated into binding Clean 

Water Act permits that are enforceable. 

So the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant, by the time 

it looks like it is done, the upgrade has other things in it too, it 

might be $5 billion, Senator. 

But what was distinctly different from the Chesapeake Bay Program is that we did develop an enforceable program. We put it on 

a schedule of compliance, and we did the enforcement to make 

things happen. 

I am not very big on voluntary programs in many ways. Sure, 

I like it, I think they are good. But for instance, I beg to differ with 

my friend from West Virginia that frequently a lot of the results 

on agricultural enforcement, agricultural land management, agricultural pollution eruptions, do not show up, necessarily, outside of 

a regulatory context. 

Yes, we need to help the farmers. But in New York, for example, 

we have 88 CAFOs within the Susquehanna-Chemung area, 88 

regulated CAFOs for dairy cattle. Only two would be regulated 

under the Federal program. We do it as binding, State Clean Water 

Act permits. 

So just that program itself gives you an example of how there is 

a compliance assurance context here that I think really could be 

useful if injected into the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to get to Commissioner Douglass in 1 

second. 

In that program, do you also have on runoff issues, the nonpoint—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. Senator, on the farms, every farm has to have 

a comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan, nonstructural pro-
157 

grams and structural programs, down to 200 cows. We have, and 

I think other States as well, have storm water permits, polluted 

runoff permits, both for construction activities, industrial sites and 

city streets that are well more stringent than the Federal minimum. 

Senator CARDIN. You have authority over that in enforcement? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Yes. And we enforce it. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Commissioner Douglass. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Senator, it is interesting that you make reference 

to the Clean Air Act. I can tell you from some experiences in that 

because, back in the 1960s and the 1970s, there was a West Virginia Air Pollution Control Commission, and I served as Chairman 

of that for 9 years. And I will tell you, AEP and Union Carbide and 

the others were tough people to convince that new technology was 

out there and that they could prosper from the new technology. 

I certainly think that is true to an extent with what we are looking at as water. I alluded to technology in my presentation and in 

the lengthy—and when are we going to learn from England, the 

U.K., that there is a solution that is profitable out there, and that 

is anaerobic digestion. 

We just go back to the old technology here, and I think that we 

are wasting money when we can gather methane, we can gather 

plant foods, and there is a saleable product, rather than trying to 

dispose of sewage sludge which, again, causes us major problems 

out there. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Well, that is my two cents worth, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate it, Mr. Douglass. 

Mr. Cosgrove. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Senator, one thing that I hope the committee will 

keep in mind is that we always talk about agriculture a lot. Now, 

my district is a little strange because half of it is agriculture and 

half of it is suburban. And we always talk about farm runoff and 

cows and whatever, and corn that is being grown and fertilizer that 

is being used. 

But what is really missing, I think, in many cases, is the discussion on non-point source pollution. In Northern Virginia, where I 

grew up, it is nothing but a big parking lot when you look at it. 

It is all imperious surfaces. You look at all of metropolitan Washington, and it is the same way. Look at Hampton Roads where I 

live now. To a great extent, it is like that. And Richmond, and all 

along that watershed. That water has no place to go but into the 

James River and into the Potomac River and right into the Bay. 

I think that a lot of the progress we made is in non-point source 

pollution, and I hope that the committee looks seriously at that. 

The farmers are doing a lot. They are doing a lot now to try to 

mitigate the runoff, whether it is no till or whether it is BMPs or 

any other of the tributary strategies, they are doing everything 

that they can right now within their financial capability. 

But I hope that we will not forget those non-point sources which 

have a real impact on the Bay. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that point is very well made, and on enforcement we would have to include non-point sources. Otherwise, 
158 

I think we lose the confidence and credibility and probably the political ability to get this done from the other communities that 

would be directly impacted. 

Senator Brubaker. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Well, thank you. I just wanted to speak to agriculture for 1 minute because it was referred to frequently. I said 

in my testimony that I have written hundreds of nutrient management plans, worked for firms that have written thousands in all of 

the States that are being referred to here. 

It is perfectly clear that there are some nutrient management 

plans that have made a significant difference in water quality 

emissions from farms, and to the opposite side, a significant 

amount of money has been spent on nutrient management plans on 

some farms that have yielded very little true net gain. So again one 

size does not fit all. There are some farms that are in a whole lot 

more sensitive position than others. 

I do agree with the Commissioner of West Virginia on agriculture, that you have got to build a productive partnership with 

the farms if you expect the real life activity on that farm to change 

in a substantive way. That farmer needs to believe that technology 

improvement or that scientific or best management practice is actually in that producer’s best interest. Otherwise, you simply get a 

plan, a strategy, a book that will go onto a shelf and not be utilized. 

Senator CARDIN. Director Hawkins. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think the question of how the State implementation plan construct under the Clean Air Act is a fascinating one. 

The reason, and this is where the District is an interesting example, we do a State implementation plan for air issues for the District. There had been a debate in the District about whether we 

would decentralize the testing of air emissions for automobiles. 

There was a consequence to our SIP plan that was enforceable on 

air emissions. 

In order to do that plan, we had to have an alternate strategy 

to make up for those emissions somewhere else that was measurable and knowable before the first change could be done. And we 

were looking at expanding bus routes, increasing—well, there were 

all sorts of steps. 

A SIP plan on a water base would have to have the same thing— 

non-point source and point source handled. I have run a farm, I 

have owned a farm, I know about farming. It has to be included. 

But once you have your equation to a certain amount of reductions, 

the SIP plan would work to say, if you cannot reach this much 

here, you have to reach it somewhere else. There is a one-for-one 

trade. And if you do not, we enforce on the whole. We expect you 

to meet the whole. You can be flexible about which tools you use 

to apply to reach that whole. 

The feature that we have for State implementation plans under 

the Clean Air Act, which I think we need under the Clean Water 

Act, is a standardized model for how much reductions we assume 

come from certain strategies. That is why I have advocated very 

strongly, as many people know, for standardized responses, not 

that they are not changed for urban, rural and suburban. 
159 

But in the Clean Air Act model, and it is assumed how much reductions you make if you put in a bus line based on characteristics, 

if you do low impact development requirements of this amount for 

suburban jurisdictions, you get a credit in your SIP plan. 

And we are constantly improving the science, not in any one jurisdiction, but for the entire basin, scientifically based. So yes, you 

would account for different types of topography or different locations. But that way, everybody is equal and the science that backs 

of the implementation of the SIP plan that is enforced, that is a 

workable model that will make a difference. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I think you make a very valid point. 

I want to talk about one additional tool that we are looking into, 

and that is a nutrient trading program to provide ways in which 

you can reach the levels by basically underwriting the costs of nutrient reductions in other segments. 

Any thoughts as to whether that would be a valuable tool in 

helping reach our objectives here? 

Senator. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Thank you, Senator. There is no doubt that the 

answer is yes. Within my senate district and within Pennsylvania 

we have a few trades on the books. Each one of those trades has 

been properly evaluated and, there is just no doubt about it, significant gain on nutrient reductions and huge economic gains to the 

originating sewage treatment plant. 

One of them is Mount Joy, Pennsylvania. It is the Brubaker 

Farm. Same last name as me but not a family relative, but a good 

friend. Seven hundred dairy cows. With a neighboring sewage 

treatment plant, they did a trade where significant modification 

was done on that 700-cow dairy, and in exchange, enough nitrogen 

and phosphorous reduction and sediment reduction was verified 

that, ultimately, that local sewage treatment plant that needed to 

make upgrades did not need to make the type of upgrades that 

were being required. 

It saved the sewage treatment plant money and took some of 

those dollars and put them back into the farm operation to allow 

the farm operation to move down more significantly into their environmental compliance. 

Senator CARDIN. That seems like a logical help because you can 

get savings in agriculture. The problem is the economics for the developers. The economics make sense, to help the farmers out. 

Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. But Senator, if you are talking about everything by 

everybody everywhere, that means every farm needs to be done, 

that means every retrofit needs to happen, that means all of the 

air sources need to be addressed. So in a context where the bar is 

so high, this poses a problem for you to consider going forward. 

Where the non-pollutant reductions are so high, you may very 

well need both the wastewater treatment plant and the pollutant 

reduction program that my friend from Pennsylvania just spoke 

about. So if you need it all, trading amongst point sources allow 

more to happen in one place than another, poses a problem, I 

think, going forward, to reaching that ultimate end line where people can focus. 
160 

Senator CARDIN. I think, though, that we want to have the numbers make good science that is achievable. So we do not want to 

set the bar so high that it is unrealistic that we are going to be 

able to achieve that. On the other hand, we can certainly do a lot 

better than we done in the past meeting the goals, at least as we 

are right now. 

Doug. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Senator, at the risk of alienating my friend right 

here, we all have to live in the real world. And agriculture is becoming more and more of a very expensive real world. And if there 

are ways to reduce the overall impact through trading, then I think 

that has to be part of the solution. 

Granted, in a perfect world, everybody would be everything they 

possibly could everywhere. But the dollars involved, especially for 

that small farmer, will be the difference between are they going to 

do that, or are they just going to go away. And if they go away, 

what is going to go on their place? More impervious ground cover, 

houses or whatever. We have to look at that. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Brubaker. 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Thank you. Very briefly, my friend to my left 

makes a very good point. But in that case in Mount Joy that I 

spoke about, pound one of reduction was not offset with pound one 

of gain. There were a number of pounds that were removed, and 

then the balance beyond that was ultimately traded. 

Senator CARDIN. Secretary Griffin. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chair, I would only make two quick points. 

First of all, I do not think nutrient trading programs, like any trading program, work unless you have an effective cap. 

Second, if you are talking about trading between regulated 

sources, i.e., at this point, essentially, point sources and unregulated, at least in the context of agriculture, non-point sources, it 

seems to me it is not an apple. It is an apple and an orange in the 

sense that you are foregoing more assured enforceable requirements on a point source for a non-point source where there is no 

assurance that it is going to be, at least from a regulatory standpoint, implemented. 

That is just something that, you know, I certainly appreciate the 

comments that others in this panel are making about the marginal 

operation of a lot of farms these days, and there are some costs 

that have to be absorbed. But there are certainly ways to deal with 

that. 

Senator CARDIN. You raise the last question that I had, and that 

is non-point sources. It is a challenge in the Chesapeake Bay how 

we get a handle on non-point sources. Do any of you have any suggestions on more enforceable ways on non-point sources? 

Director, you seem to be the popular one here on developers. Let 

us hear from you. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I do. And I do not think this is much different 

than what we did for technology-based standards under the Clean 

Water Act of 1972. The question was the same. 

Prior to 1972, the only way we were figuring out how to reduce 

pollutants to water bodies was to try to reason from the water body 

and scientifically prove back to the discharger, in every jurisdiction 
161 

differently. It was exceedingly difficult to do, and we had very little 

improvement to water quality from 1956 to 1972. 

The decision in the Clean Water Act in 1972 was to have technology-based standards that were stable, that asked what is the 

property doing to discharge, not what the receiving body can handle. If, in section 117, we establish standardized requirements for 

development anywhere, so a suburban development is taking over 

a farm in any of these jurisdictions with some grades to show differences in topography and otherwise, but there is a standardized 

requirement in every place, that would then become the requirement that is a technology onsite the same way an end of pipe discharge requirement is at every metal finishing plant of a certain 

kind no matter where it appears in the country. 

I think—we have requirements in the District, we built it into 

the Code. My review is that it is the rules of the game. Create the 

rules of the game to have the outcome. That does not favor my jurisdiction over anybody else’s. It is a clean game between us, because we have at least a clear set that everybody must do. So a 

developer does not get a better deal somewhere else. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, that also applies to governmental development, whether it is infrastructure, roads—— 

Mr. HAWKINS. Absolutely. And in the District, green building requirements are now built into the requirements. Now, every District building must be LEED silver. In 2012, every commercial, private, must be LEED Silver. It is not a rule of the game—— 

Senator CARDIN. We are moving in that direction at the Federal 

level also. I think it makes sense. Whether we will be able to do 

it in our highway program has yet to be seen. That is still on— 

well, there are real intentions to do that. We will see how the economics of this all plays out. 

Secretary O’Mara. 

Mr. O’MARA. Thank you, sir. In Delaware, we are trying to do a 

lot of work on our pollution work control strategies. We are really 

looking at local land use decisions and really working with the 

counties and all those other stakeholders, whether that is implementing buffers or other mitigation techniques. 

One of the concerns that we have is how do we coordinate across 

our jurisdictions so that we do not create kind of perverse economic 

development incentives to develop in some States and not in others 

because of these different types of requirements. And these are all 

authorities that the EPA does not currently have that we have 

kind of challenge of trying to implement at the State level in collaboration with the counties and municipalities to try to get at 

some of these non-point sources. 

But whether it is, you know, a golf course, or some kind of a residential or commercial development or agriculture, having some 

kind of common standards. And then, as Director Hawkins was 

saying, making sure that we are using the best science and giving 

the right credits for the different types of approaches. 

But we have had some luck. You know, there are some kinds of 

legal questions about the approach, but having that stakeholder behind you when getting to local land use decisionmaking we found 

to be absolutely key. 
162 

Senator CARDIN. I think Director Hawkins raises a very valid 

point about having uniform standards of expectation using best 

science so that deals with the non-point sources. There are also 

mitigation issues that we could talk about, including the building 

shorelines and other programs that have been very successful, a 

combination of which could make a real impact on non-point 

sources. 

Does anyone else want to comment? 

Certainly, Commissioner. 

Mr. DOUGLASS. Through my activities over the years, I learned 

a long time ago that I am better off if I stay with the facts and 

make the decisions on the best science that is available. It is for 

that reason that I alluded in my presentation that I initiated a 

water sampling program on the Potomac River in West Virginia 

back in 1998. 

I have a 10-year projection on that, or facts on that. We were 

sampling those various streams in West Virginia from one to five 

times a month, and I think you will find it interesting what we 

have found and we are publishing that report. It should be out momentarily. 

But again, this is what I have based my decisions on in West 

Virginia. And of course this information is available to EPA, and 

we are very close to several agreements right now that you alluded 

to here on clean water nutrients and the other effluents that are 

in that water. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we appreciate that. I was a little bit reluctant when I was told that were going to have seven people on the 

first panel. I was happy because it means that there are seven jurisdictions that are part of the Chesapeake Bay effort, which gives 

us a lot of power and interest. 

I was concerned about how we would interact with seven witnesses at one time. I must tell you, I found this panel to be very, 

very helpful and very informed. I really do congratulate all of the 

jurisdictions for their leadership on this area. 

This has truly been a commitment in which the States and the 

District of Columbia have taken on the real responsibility and have 

brought in the Federal Government as a partner. But it started 

with our States willing to make the tough choices to deal with the 

Bay. 

It was not easy for any State. But when you live in Virginia, or 

you live in Maryland, and you live on the shores of the Chesapeake, it is a constant reminder. If you live in New York or you 

live in Pennsylvania or Delaware or West Virginia, it is not quite 

as easy to understand the impact that you have on this incredible 

estuary. So I really do thank all of you for your leadership on this. 

And Senator, since you are a senator, I will give you the last 

word on this. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BRUBAKER. Well, thank you sir. I just felt the burning desire 

just to make one very last brief comment regarding trading. Farms, 

as we all know, are businesses. Dairy today, in Pennsylvania it 

costs about $16 to make 100 pounds of milk, and producers are getting $12 for it. Dairy farmers are losing tens of thousands of dollars a month. 
163 

Farm families, and we have 63,000 farm families in Pennsylvania, farmers want to do better environmentally. But their business has to yield a level of profitability that will allow them to 

come to the table. Right now, in certain business sectors of agriculture, economic profitability does not allow them to come to the 

table. 

Trading provides that economic stimulus for producers to step up 

and say, yes, I can do better. And it is not government money. It 

is money coming out of a system. So it is a true gain, and I would 

just argue as strongly as possible that it ought to be a tool in the 

toolbox. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you for that comment. 

And again, let me thank all of our panelists for their testimony. 

[Recess.] 

Senator CARDIN. Let me invite the next panel forward. 

We are pleased to have Alan Wurtzel, who served as the CEO 

of Circuit City until 1986. He is currently a Trustee of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I think it is also worth noting that Mr. 

Wurtzel once served as the legislative aide to former Senator Joe 

Tydings, who held the U.S. Senate seat from Maryland that I am 

privileged now to hold. So Mr. Wurtzel, it is a pleasure to have you 

before the United States Senate. 

Brent Fults is the Principal, Nutrient Land Trust, Earth Source 

Solutions and its successor organization, the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, where he has experience with markets for environmental credits. 

Joe Gannon, III is Vice President of Envirocorp, a water quality 

testing company based in Delaware. Mr. Gannon is also a Board 

Member of the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance. 

Finally, we have Marty Mitchell, Vice Chief Executive Officer of 

Mitchell & Best Homebuilders. Mitchell & Best is headquartered in 

Rockville, Maryland. It is a pleasure to have a Maryland company 

represented here at the table. 

Mr. Wurtzel, we would be glad to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN L. WURTZEL, CHAIRMAN EMERITUS, 

CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC. 

Mr. WURTZEL. Senator, thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

I am here on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and it 

is, as you pointed out, a bit of de ́ja` vu because I did work for Senator Tydings as a legislative assistant in his first 2 years in office. 

I would just note that in those days this building was known as 

the New Senate Office Building, and Senator Dirksen was the Majority Leader. Actually, Joe Tydings’ first major legislative effort 

was to try to derail Senator Dirksen’s attempt to overrule the one 

man-one vote decision. So it was a privilege to watch Senator Dirksen on the floor almost every day trying to bring forth his constitutional amendment. 

Getting back to the business at hand. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been working to save the Bay since 1967, over 40 years. 

We focused public attention on the deplorable state of the Bay and 

have been there every step of the way as Congress and the Federal 
164 

Government and the States have worked together to solve the problems of the Bay. 

CBF currently has 225,000 members spread across the watershed and a staff or approximately 100 talented policy, education 

and restoration specialists working out of locations in Maryland, 

Virginia, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. 

Meeting in this room brings back memories of Senator Muskie 

who led the effort in 1972 to produce the Clean Water Act. The 

opening sentence of the Clean Water Act says, ‘‘the objective of this 

act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and environmental integrity of the Nation’s waters.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I can tell from your very perceptive opening 

statement you also believe that these were laudable objectives, and 

while a lot has been done, we have not achieved the objectives that 

Senator Muskie and his colleagues put forward in 1972. 

Partly it is because the population of the area, as you pointed 

out, almost doubled, and a lot of it has been paved over. There has 

been a lot of good work. But we have not been able to achieve the 

objectives of a chemically, physically and biologically clean Bay. 

I am going to skip my discussion about some examples. You 

know very well about the dead zones in the Bay and the fact that 

there are so many nutrients that there are lot of areas where there 

is no dissolved oxygen in the water. 

The various jurisdictions have tried, in 1982, 1987, 1992 and as 

recently as 2000, to set voluntary standards to reduce phosphorous, 

nitrogen and sediment. And none of those efforts, including the 

2000 effort, have been successful in achieving the objectives. 

So one has to ask, with all the goodwill, and all the work and 

all the effort, why has there not been more progress? I was delighted to see the seven jurisdictions here today. They were all supportive to amendments to the legislation to create more teeth, to 

create more accountability, to create more results. What it shows, 

I think, is that there is a systemic issue here. And the systemic 

issue is the structure of the Clean Water Act itself. 

As you have pointed out, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation believes that most of the low hanging fruit, most of the progress, has 

been made with point source pollution. Maryland and Virginia have 

stepped to the plate, and Pennsylvania, with very large appropriations to deal with point source pollution, both industrial as well as 

sewage treatment. We have made a lot of progress, and there is 

more in the works. But still the levels of phosphorous and nitrogen 

in the Bay continue to be at least constant and may be slightly rising over time. 

And so what we need to do is begin to address our non-point 

sources. You pointed out, and I was pleased to see, all seven jurisdictions represented here seem to agree. 

The next thing I was going to say is that the way to deal with 

non-point sources is to follow the model, or to use the Clean Air 

Act as a model. You obviously have that on your mind because you 

raised that question yourself. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

strongly believes that it is a good model for attacking the non-point 

sources in the Bay. 

We would encourage you and your staff to examine that model 

carefully and tailor the successful approach there to the Bay. The 
165 

Clean Air Act has reduced air pollution by 50 percent. We believe 

that is largely because of the way the Act works. It creates accountability, State by State. States, as you know, must limit the 

sources of air pollution, and if they do not meet the standards, they 

have to go back to those sources and require further reductions of 

air pollution. 

We need to do similar things with non-point sources, terrestrial 

non-point sources, in the Bay. To be more specific, we have eight 

recommendations which are in my testimony but I will outline 

them very quickly here. 

Senator CARDIN. We will put all of your statements, full statements, in the record—— 

Mr. WURTZEL. Thank you. I assumed that. 

Rewrite section 117 of the Clean Water Act to create a national 

pilot program for clean water. I mean, this is a nationwide problem. I have in my statement some statistics, but it is like one-third 

of the rivers, and one-half of the lakes, and one-third of the estuaries that are not swimable or fishable. This is nationwide. 

So this problem, while we are focusing on the Bay, is not limited. 

Obviously the Clean Water Act is a national act. We are recommending that you possibly make the Bay a pilot project and give 

us a few years to show what we can do as a way of leading the 

Nation to improving other waters, by using the Bay as a pilot. 

One, require that the TMDL contain separate loads for permitted, that is sources that require a permit such as point sources, 

as well as non-permitted or non-point sources, so that we look at 

those separately and begin to address the non-point sources separately. And then divide them into whether it is runoff, or agriculture, or whatever. 

Two, require the States of the Bay watershed to submit to EPA 

State water quality implementation plans, similar to what is required under the air pollution act. 

Three, require the States to submit reports every 2 years detailing the progress made in achieving the pollution caps. 

Four, provide meaningful consequences if a State fails to meet its 

objectives. 

Five, authorize citizen suits against the States for failure to comply and against EPA for failure to respond appropriately where the 

States have not made adequate progress. Over the last 8 years, we 

feel the Federal Government has not done a good job using the 

powers of the Act to enforce the standards it has set. 

Six, we agree with your suggestion of an interstate nutrient trading program, and we think that cap-and-trade is a way to effectively share the burden and shift the burden to those places that 

can most easily afford to meet the standards of water quality. 

And finally, to authorize a new competitive grant program that 

supports local governments which in turn can support the localities 

and the farmers and the other individuals that are required to 

make difficult changes. This kind of a grant program will help to 

facilitate the implementation of the tougher standards. 

So in conclusion, I encourage you and the other Senators on this 

committee to embrace the legacy of Senator Muskie and the other 

environmental visionaries of the past generation. The Clean Water 

Act set the objective—restore and maintain the chemical and phys-
166 

ical and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. As I said, we 

have made progress, but a lot more needs to be done. 

The focus should be, we think, on non-point sources so that our 

streams, rivers, lakes and bays become both fishable and swimable 

again. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wurtzel follows:] 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Fults. 

STATEMENT OF BRENT L. FULTS, MANAGING MEMBER, 

CHESAPEAKE BAY NUTRIENT LAND TRUST, LLC 

Mr. FULTS. Thank you, Senator Cardin and members of the subcommittee who will hear this testimony. 

I am Brent Fults, Managing Member of the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Land Trust, known as CBNLT. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss an important market-based approach to reducing 

the level of nutrient pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay. 

We are all familiar with the environmental challenges faced by 

the Bay, most notable of which is the unsustainable loading of nutrients and sediments. My testimony will provide a brief history of 

the nutrient trading programs, the milestones in Virginia, the roles 

that CBNLT has played, and the importance of private marketbased solutions. 

I have spent 22 years navigating development and regulations. 

In 2000, my business partner and I founded EarthSource Solutions 

to provide innovation to the growing green economy. In 2005, the 

Commonwealth created a nutrient exchange program aimed at 

point source reductions. That legislation also created the opportunity to create non-point nutrient reductions known as offsets. 

CBNLT was founded in 2006 as a response to my core environmental values and the growing concerns for the Bay. CBNLT began 

to develop land stewardship strategies that reduced nutrient loads 

and generated offsets. In September 2008, CBNLT became the first 

private entity in Virginia to generate and offer certified nutrient 

offsets. 

These initial offsets were generated through land conversion 

practices on a 110-acre core portion of a 904-acre heritage farm 

known as Wildwood Farms. The nutrient offsets derived at the 

farm have been implemented in advance and sequester 100 pounds 

of phosphorous and 376 pounds of nitrogen annually. In a 30-year 

period, Wildwood Farm will reduce a combined phosphorous and 

nitrogen load of over 14,000 pounds. In a 100-year period, 47,000 

pounds will be reduced. 

In 2008, CBNLT identified the need to expand the use of offsets 

to address nutrients associated with storm water. This opportunity 

would require a legislative effort. The resulting legislation received 

bi-partisan support and was unanimously passed on all fronts. The 

legislation took effect on July 1, 2009. 

There are several important points of the legislation. Offsets 

must be generated in the same tributary as the permitted activity. 

Offsets represent reductions above and beyond existing tributary 

strategies. And offsets may not be used in contravention of local 

water quality regulations. This represents a leading first step 

model by the Commonwealth for addressing nutrient pollutions resulting from storm water runoff. 

In a little over 3 years, Virginia has expanded from a broad vision to an on-the-ground implementation. This effort has set the 

bar high. Virginia’s proactive approach has resulted in verifiable 

opportunities for private market participation in the green econ-
173 

omy. This private investment in the environment results in multiple public benefits. It is a real solution. 

Although still opportunities and barriers exist, should a multiState trading program be developed, it would be important to establish a level of equivalency between the States with regard to the 

generation of offsets. As Federal funding is directed toward the 

clean up of the Bay, it is important that funds are distributed equitably. It may even be possible for the development of some sort of 

nutrient neutral standard. 

It is important to note that this committee, the reauthorization 

of updated strategy, and equitable stakeholder participation can 

create a private offset market. First step models start somewhere. 

The obligation for change is now. 

We still need to be creative in seeking potential uses for offsets 

as they will prove essential to the Bay-wide clean up strategy. As 

stakeholders strive to achieve water quality goals for the Chesapeake Bay, a private nutrient credit market will be essential to 

success. The implemented offsets will provide real on the ground 

reductions that are validated and are retired for a permanent 

change. 

CBNLT follows a belief that private markets working with an appropriate regulatory framework is the most effective approach. 

I hope as the subcommittee continues its legislative efforts toward the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program that it 

carefully considers the opportunity for public-private partnerships. 

I encourage the committee to review my written testimony for more 

detail and call upon CBNLT for further information. 

Thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fults follows:] 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much for your testimony. 

It is very helpful to us. 

Mr. Gannon. 

STATEMENT OF JOE GANNON, III, VICE PRESIDENT, 

ENVIROCORP, INC. 

Mr. GANNON. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, for the opportunity 

to appear today and to provide my testimony. 

I would also like to thank Senator Carper. Although he had to 

leave, I would like to thank him for mentioning me earlier. And 

also, Secretary O’Mara, hopefully he stuck around, but I am not 

sure if he did, I would like to thank him as well. 

I fear that my testimony may be slightly anecdotal in comparison 

to the testimony that has been provided, especially by the Secretaries from the States earlier. 

Basically, I grew up in Delaware, and I have lived surrounded 

by both the bays, the Delaware Bay and the Chesapeake Bay, for 

29 of my 33 years. I have a degree in biology from the University 

of Pennsylvania at West Chester. I am also a husband, a father of 

two, a business owner, a scientist and a naturalist. I have deep 

family ties to the Chesapeake Bay as well as the Delaware Bay. 

My grandfather was born and raised on the Tuckahoe River, a 

major tributary to the Chesapeake Bay. I grew up kind of right on 

the cusp of the time when you could still swim in the ponds of 

Delaware. In their current state today, seeing someone swim in the 

ponds is a rare occurrence. As a little kid, I vaguely remember 

swimming in local ponds. Today, I would not let my kids go near 

a pond for fear of what may lie within and the consequences that 

may befall. 

I look at our ponds as that canary in the coal mine over on the 

Eastern Shore. Our ponds and tributaries are the first victims of 

our constant and enduring pressure on the environment. My role 

at Envirocorp Labs is Vice President of the laboratories. It is actually a small family business that was started by my father back in 

1984. It was born out of wanting to take an active role in monitoring and supporting the wastewater treatment plants in Delaware, on DelMarVa. 

As I said, it was started by my father as a modest venture that 

saw him up early, collecting samples by himself and at the few clients he could support. Today, that business has grown to 13 employees and stands as one of the leaders in environmental business 

in the watershed and the surrounding region. 

We perform analytical testing for everything from point source 

wastewater treatment plants to homeowners for drinking water, 

and also, recently, the Bay Restoration Fund through the septic 

analysis for nutrient reduction. We also routinely analyze storm 

water, soils and sludge, and have participated in several projects 

in support of DNREC’s monitoring of the Delaware Bay and its 

tributaries. 

For the Bay Restoration Fund, also known as BRF, we perform 

sampling and analysis for four of the highest disbursed units participating in the program, which means that a large percentage of 

that data that is generated to support BRF is performed right 

there in our laboratory. 
196 

In the data we have seen and generated, the effluent from home 

septics far exceeds anything being discharged by a point source 

treatment facility in respect to the variability of nutrient loading. 

Though the volume of water pales in comparison to the millions of 

gallons a day flowing over that weir from your local wastewater 

treatment facility, the high nutrients being placed back into the 

water cycle from home septics cannot be denied. 

The effort of the BRF to introduce secondary treatment to home 

septic is commendable and certainly a step in the right direction. 

I am not privy as to the existence of a study comparing non-treated 

standard septic to units that are treated using the secondary treatment devices. However, I am confident that the reduction achieved 

on a whole is a significant contribution. 

I will add a caveat to that statement with the fact that we found 

that the units must be properly maintained to meet the goals of the 

BRF. A properly maintained unit is capable of meeting the reduction goals. However, it stands that the units can quickly fall into 

a state where reduction goals are not being met. 

I would propose that a review of the BRF program is necessary 

with the valuable input of the scientific community and the incorporation of specific organized monitoring as its primary goal. 

Wow, I cannot believe I went through 4 minutes that fast. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GANNON. I will skip a couple of things then. 

Our tie to the Bay Program at Envirocorp is really in recognizing 

the importance of injecting good science into the Bay’s efforts. We 

donate staff and volunteer over $50,000 annually supporting analytical services to the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance Creekwatcher 

Program. It is formulating a data baseline of one of the major tributaries feeding into the Chesapeake Bay, and that is the Nanticoke 

Watershed. 

The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is just what it says. It is an 

organization that is in partnership with agriculture, industry, volunteers, advocates, municipalities, industry, regulators and other 

non-profit groups. The NWA seeks to develop and implement actionable plans for lessening environmental pressures and impacts 

within the watershed through community-supported and wholly 

volunteer effort to bring the Creekwatcher Program to the Nanticoke. 

They monitor 40 sites in the watershed, covering a huge geography of nearly 370,000 acres and crossing political boundaries 

that are historically very difficult to work across. 

In addition, funding targeted at localized watershed groups for 

the restoration project has seen, the potential has seen great leaps 

forward for the implementation of projects that will help the health 

of our waters, support for all the tributaries. 

A uniform creek watch effort by the Bay Program could vastly 

improve the knowledge base about the health of the water. Likewise, Federal support put into action through local groups is an organic and proactive way to help achieve water quality goals. 

Bringing all interested and involved parties to the same table to 

discuss a plan, while at the same time involving them in the process, is central to NWA’s goals. Nanticoke Watershed Alliance’s strategic intent is to build one of the strongest, most efficient, most ac-
197 

curate citizen volunteer organizations on the Bay. And NWA has 

successfully grouped together businesses and municipalities and 

citizen advocates in that effort. 

This is the key factor to the program’s success and ultimately 

one that I feel would be the linchpin for turning the degradation 

of the Bay around. The coming together of those that make a living 

within the watershed, from farmers to major corporations, with 

those that are attempting to protect it from further decline, is 

going to be essential. 

We need these bridge organizations at the forefront because they 

are the ones doing all the legwork for this effort. At some point, 

throwing money at the problem will not be enough. We will need 

the passion and due diligence of these grassroots organizations. 

But we will, at the same time, need the full cooperation and investment of the infrastructure, from the farmers to the treatment 

plants and the industries and the regulators. 

What leaves the premises 365 days a year needs to be at all 

times in the best interests of the tributaries and, ultimately, the 

Bay. We need to reduce our nutrient loads while at the same time 

making it easier for operators and farmers to do so. 

We can no longer impose stringent guidelines without at the 

same time giving the permit holders the technology to achieve the 

necessary reductions and lessen their impact. To do so only perpetuates an already declining situation. 

Funding research that explores these technologies and experiments with innovative ways to reduce our impact or treat the Bay’s 

waters is going to be crucial and support worthy in this effort. 

Funding for advocacy organizations is essential to their success. 

Monitoring their efforts, however, is equally as crucial. Some would 

say more so since it helps the legitimacy and garners public support, perhaps the most crucial part of the pie. 

Without a cohesive, concerted, well funded, supported effort, they 

cannot continue to do the groundwork. They cannot continue to 

bridge the relationships that are becoming all the more important 

in the Bay’s effort. The fostering of that relationship between industry and advocacy is where the Bay effort will be won. 

Last night, as I was preparing for today’s testimony, my son 

asked me to help him with a little jigsaw puzzle. It was an easy 

puzzle, 100 pieces, perfect for a 5-year-old. I had not done a puzzle 

in years, but I remembered the old trick about finding all the edge 

pieces and then filling in the middle. 

As we worked our way through the edges, and having this testimony on my mind all the while, I realized that the work being done 

by non-profits, volunteers and researchers in support of the bill is 

akin to filling in all the edge pieces to that puzzle. 

To finish the job in an accurate and timely manner, it really 

starts with the groundwork laid in the initial stages out there on 

the edges. This is the dirty work—the clean-ups, the early morning 

samplings, the bird counts, the men and women in the labs cranking out nitrate after nitrate after TCAN, after inter-caucus. This is 

the most important work. 

The non-profits and volunteers are out to change hearts and 

minds, not because they are looking for financial gain or fame but 
198 

because they inherently believe they cannot sit by and watch the 

Bay decline even further. 

So we work the edge, we lay the groundwork, all the while the 

organizations supporting the Bay are showing us what is on the 

box, allowing us to see what the final picture could be if we put 

in the time and effort. 

Without that picture, we are just shuffling pieces around the 

table like a 5-year-old, watching and waiting for Dad to give us the 

guidance. We need his help, but we also need to learn to finish the 

puzzle on our own with his support. 

Bringing together all of the remaining puzzle pieces for the Bay 

is where the supporting organizations truly will shine. Ultimately, 

their investment of time, funding, both public and private, organization and passion, will guide us toward placing that final puzzle 

piece. 

I was also reminded looking at my son sit there that we are just 

borrowing the Bay from his generation. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gannon follows:] 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Mitchell. 

STATEMENT OF MARTY MITCHELL, VICE CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, MITCHELL & BEST HOMEBUILDERS 

Mr. MITCHELL. Good afternoon, Chairman Cardin. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you on the Chesapeake Bay Program. 

My name is Marty Mitchell. I am a second generation homebuilder from Rockville, Maryland. Our family company, Mitchell & 

Best, has been building homes in the Washington area for over 34 

years. I have been actively involved in land development for 16 

years. In the past 10 years, I have developed two Environmental 

Communities of the Year in the suburban Maryland area. I am also 

a lifelong resident of Maryland who regularly enjoys the benefits 

of the Bay. 

Home builders have taken proactive steps to be a part of the solution to restore and maintain the Bay, such as, in 2002, launching 

Builders for the Bay, a new partnership encouraging the use of Bay 

friendly site design principles that reduce the environmental effects 

of residential and commercial development. 

Builders for the Bay was ultimately able to identify and remove 

impediments such as mandates for wider streets, sidewalks on both 

sides of the streets, and facilitate use of practices and principles 

that reduce environmental stresses on the watershed. 

Home building and development activities across the watershed 

have been regulated at the Federal, State and local levels for many 

years, and those regulations have become more stringent over time. 

The requirements include sediment and erosion control plans and 

installation and maintenance of best management practices or 

BMPs to keep polluted storm water from discharging to the Bay. 

When these are properly installed, they do work. I have been actively involved in a project that had monitoring reports that shows 

the results of those BMPs. 

Maryland’s 2007 and pending Storm Water Management Program changes have added enormous costs to developing property. 

In many parts of Maryland, the cost of gaining approvals and developing land is greater than the value of that developed property. 

This is somewhat a function of the current economic times. But 

with the added layer of the new storm water management requirements in Maryland, it will be a long time before either new development or redevelopment has a profit margin on the land development side. This is a concern across the country as we have seen 

how stopping housing and development has a devastating impact 

on the local and State budgets. 

The number of initiatives currently underway to improve the Bay 

is many, and they cover a broad spectrum of pollutants, areas and 

activities. Obviously, the Chesapeake Bay Program has been working for a long time to restore Bay. Unfortunately, we have only had 

marginal progress because of too much emphasis placed on a small 

cause of the problem. In order to succeed, the program needs to 

properly account for the population growth and infrastructure 

growth that will occur and continue to occur in the Bay watershed. 
204 

The second initiative impacting the Bay and the Program is the 

low impact development standards that are a major tenant of the 

restoration program and the developing TMDL, or Total Maximum 

Daily Load, for the Bay. Our industry has had no opportunity to 

provide input to the Bay Program on our experience with LID, and 

yet the Chesapeake Bay Program Office is actively promoting this 

to the States as an aspirational goal of no-discharge development. 

I have personally been involved with a project in Prince George’s 

County where a low impact development failed miserably. You 

need to have the right types of soils, and in many cases low density 

development, to truly have it be successful. 

Reviewing the initiatives, I have a number of suggestions to 

make to the committee regarding the Bay’s restoration. 

First, the greatest emphasis must be on the biggest sources of 

pollution, including runoff from existing urban areas, sewage treatment plants, combined sewer and storm systems, and of course agriculture. 

Second, efforts must be effective, efficient and affordable, and as 

pointed our earlier, based on good science. 

Third, maximum flexibility, options for permit compliance and 

workable outcomes are necessary. For example, as has been said 

earlier, interstate water quality trading is crucial to reduce the 

overall costs of bringing down the pollutants in the Bay while also 

ensuring that agriculture runoff is addressed. 

In addition, we have had discussions with the Maryland DNR 

about the permitting of new development. Today, it is totally focused on the project itself as opposed to the watershed or the tributary. We believe there are better opportunities at lower costs that 

have greater impact on improving the Bay by expanding the viewpoint to the tributary or watershed as opposed to the project itself. 

Fourth, immediate and broad opportunities for stakeholder input 

must be provided. A clear and continuing plan to include the public 

is vital to the effort’s success. 

Fifth, the restoration program will sorely test the Bay States’ 

economy. Subsequently, substantial Federal support for this program is imperative. 

I thank you for allowing me to express my concerns and make 

a few suggestions on the restoration of the Bay. I would be happy 

to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:] 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 

Senator CARDIN. Well, again, let me thank all four of you for 

your testimony. Also, thank you for your patience. This has been 

a long hearing, and we appreciate very much your testimony and 

participation. 

Mr. Mitchell, let me start, if I might, with you. You have an excellent reputation in the community for being sensitive to the environment, and we appreciate that very much. You also raise a very 

valid point on non-point sources that there is a lot of existing construction out there, and it is causing a great deal of difficulty. We 

do not want to stop new development. New development is important for our economy. It is important for quality of life, quite frankly. 

The approach that has been suggested is that we would have a 

dual standard. For new construction, they would have to meet a 

higher standard. Now, you do raise a valid point. Some of the regulations are counterproductive if you are dealing with sidewalks or 

width of roads. So some of this could be gained just by eliminating 

some of the regulations that are counterproductive to the goals that 

we are trying to succeed in, but it is bound, though, to have a higher standard for new construction. 

Is that acceptable to the industry? That, as we get better science 

and technology, we establish tougher standards for new development whereas existing development may very well escape those 

types of retrofits? 

Mr. MITCHELL. I think there is a certain acceptance level. We understand that new development requires standards that existing 

retrofits do not. I think our position would be that if it is in a 

smart growth area, a priority funding area, the difference or the 

various levels would not be the same. 

One of the unfortunate things that seems to be occurring is that 

the incentives for smart growth and redevelopment, particularly in 

some of the issues that we have had with the Storm Water Management Program in Maryland, is going to make it more and more 

difficult to redevelop those areas where we do want the development to go. 

You know, we would be happy to work with you to try to figure 

out a way that this sort of dual program might work for the industry. 

Senator CARDIN. That is a very valid point. As we look at smart 

growth, we are trying to affect where development will take place. 

It may not be in the area where you can mitigate the most, as far 

as new construction is concerned. And how do you deal with the holistic approach to what you are trying to do with development, 

mindful of trying to get the maximum advantage runoff pollution? 

Mr. MITCHELL. One of the things I mentioned, we had a conversation with Secretary Griffin, actually, of DNR and we talked 

about the fact that you get to an incremental point on new development whether it is in the right location or the wrong location, 

whatever you want to look at it, that you just cannot make another 

step, and it would cost you tens of thousands of dollars to make 

that additional improvement for little impact. 

I can remember one of the first jobs I did almost 20 years ago, 

there was a debate on how much of the BMPs that we wanted to 

have onsite, and the county had a program where we could go off-
226 

site and do a stream restoration program within the same watershed and the environmental benefits for the area were much greater. 

That is where I kind of learned about the fact that in suburban 

Maryland areas, there are locations 40 or 50 years ago where the 

bottoms of the streambeds were paved over. And I think that there 

could be a working through the permit process, say, OK, the incremental benefit on the new construction is not as beneficial as going 

back to retrofit, whether it be stream restoration, cutting down erosion on a stream, removing these concrete bottoms to the streams, 

or other various things that are available to us. 

Senator CARDIN. We do have some concrete streams still remaining and there is some work being done to try to correct that. It is 

not easy in some places. 

Mr. MITCHELL. You are right. 

Senator CARDIN. But I think the way you are approaching it is 

right. If we are going to be looking at hard standards on the Bay, 

then as we look at the non-point sources and are starting to have 

some stricter requirements on development, which I think most are 

understanding, you need to make a good faith effort to try to look 

at areas that you can improve that are already constructed, whether it is what we have done with cement streams or what we have 

done with some of the runoff from transportation, or existing construction. But clearly there is more potential in dealing with new 

construction than any place else. 

Mr. Gannon, you raised a point I had not thought about. I usually think of wastewater treatment facility plants as the major 

problem on point source issues. I had not thought about the septic 

systems that are not connected to sewage, to public lines. 

Is there much area of improvement that we could have here? Is 

there much seepage that could be contained where you are not connected to public sewage? 

Mr. GANNON. Yes. I think that the secondary treatment that 

Maryland has imposed with the Bay Restoration Fund, there are 

four or five different companies that are offering secondary treatment. I think the secondary treatment that is happening is at least 

a step in the right direction, and I think that mandating secondary 

treating rather than just a gravity flow system, and this really is 

not my area of expertise, it is just more supposition based on our 

experience with dealing with these secondary treatment units. 

But they have, I think they are a step in the right direction to 

bringing a better technology to something that is, you know, ages, 

ages old technology which is the use of a septic tank and a tile 

field, which essentially just lets waste settle and then is discharged 

into a tile field that eventually becomes groundwater at some point. 

Senator CARDIN. The type of work that you are doing is—give me 

a little bit better understanding of what your surveys do. 

Mr. GANNON. Well, we are just a third party independent laboratory that provides—part of the Bay Restoration Fund requirement 

was that the individual contractors contract a certified laboratory 

to provide them with data on the reduction between influent and 

the effluent, and somewhere in between, how their secondary treatment unit is doing its work. 
227 

So what we do is we do the analysis and things on the influent 

and the effluent, as well as the sampling. That is another key protocol of the Bay Restoration Fund, that they have to have an independent third party do the sampling. And that is where we come 

in. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wurtzel, one might wonder why a former CEO of a major 

company would be suggesting that perhaps we need more environmental regulation. I am not surprised to hear you say that. We 

have a lot of businesses that have been partnered with us on the 

Chesapeake Bay and looking for reasonable ways to deal with it. 

But I would like to get your perspective as to whether you are 

subjecting yourself to criticism because of suggesting that we could 

use stronger regulation. 

Mr. WURTZEL. I do not think that regulation—— 

Senator CARDIN. You need to put your microphone on. 

Mr. WURTZEL. Regulation, in my opinion, is not a four-letter 

word. We are all on the highways every day, and we have regulations for traffic. And I think we all accept them because if you did 

not have regulation, we would be driving like bumper cars, and it 

would be chaos. 

So as our society becomes more complicated, as we become more 

interdependent, we are going to have to—we need, in effect, more 

regulations. They have to be smart regulations. They have to be 

flexible regulations. Cap-and-trade, they have to be as marketbased when possible as they can be. We require kids to go to 

school. We require you to have a driver’s license. We require you 

to have your car inspected, all sorts of things. 

Now that we see the interconnection, let us say, between agriculture and the Bay, between development and the Bay, between 

runoff from our roads and the Bay, the fact that there are adverse 

consequences downstream means you have to attack them upstream. And we have to do it in as smart a way as possible and 

in as compassionate a way and provide, where necessary, the resources for farmers or other people that are impacted to make the 

necessary changes. 

But we cannot live in a complicated society, I believe, without 

regulations. 

Senator CARDIN. I think that is well said. I alluded earlier that 

the success of the Chesapeake Bay Program from its inception was 

that it had strong private sector support, including from the business community. 

Mr. WURTZEL. Right. 

Senator CARDIN. From its inception. And the first regulations 

that were put in in Maryland were very much involved with the 

business community and they support us—— 

Mr. WURTZEL. Right. 

Senator CARDIN [continuing]. In the original steps taken in 

Maryland and in Virginia. I think the way you said it, that they 

want sensible regulations, they want predictable regulations, 

achievable standards. 

Mr. WURTZEL. Exactly. 

Senator CARDIN. So that is our challenge. 
228 

Mr. Fults, both you and Mr. Wurtzel spoke in favor of the trading of nutrient levels. I just want to challenge you on one of the 

things that you said. You said that it has got to be fair, which we 

all agree about that. Of course, as we also mentioned earlier, we 

have to have limits so that there is a market for what we are trying to do. 

And then you said, though, that we need to have some equality 

among the different areas, I think I heard you say that, and where 

they are used, etc. That seemed to me to say, a little bit, that you 

are going to interfere with the market. You are not going to let it 

be pure, from the point of view of the most valuable use of the offsets, because you will have some form of restrictions as to where 

the offsets can come from or where they can be used. 

I just really want to challenge you to at least respond to me 

whether those types of restrictions are warranted as an interruption to the otherwise free market approach on the trading system. 

Mr. FULTS. Well, sir, the challenge was in discussion of the Federal funding. We are a private, market-based approach of which we 

require no Federal funding, and we request no Federal funding in 

the resolution of our offsets. So my discussion was based on, as you 

all fund the Bay programs, that you do it equitably. 

I believe as you create a private market, if you take a watershed 

approach, or actually I am in favor of a baseline-based approach 

where there is an equivalent currency for an offset, that we might 

be able to allow private market achievements to begin to make the 

difference beyond baseline. 

Virginia has taken a first step model where we have allowed the 

creation of offsets beyond a baseline component, and I think that 

is important. It is up to you to decide how you spend your Federal 

money, but the challenge is that we are not asking for Federal 

money, our solutions are real and active today. 

Senator CARDIN. And we would put into this reauthorization the 

fairness as to how the moneys are going to be used. So as long as 

we use the entire watershed, you think that the trade model used 

for nutrients could be throughout the whole watershed without requirements as to where those offsets come from? 

Mr. FULTS. We do believe that it is a bigger outlook. It is a picture taken from in the sky, that you do trade by a watershed-based 

approach, that over time both the grassroots movements, the clean 

environments of the builders and the efforts of a private market 

will create a substantial change. 

Our retirements are permanent, and one of the things I learned 

in the last 3 years is that there is a very strong bi-partisan support 

of our objectives, and there is a very strong support from the various grassroots foundations through the home builders. I think that 

it provides them with that last bit that he was talking about, that 

it is just unachievable. And you said it yourself—this goal has to 

be achievable. So it provides one component in the suite of—— 

Senator CARDIN. So you would not have a concern, necessarily, 

as long as, again, it is all set up in a fair manner, we have achievable goals, I am assuming that. So one of Mr. Mitchell’s friends, or 

Mr. Mitchell, was involved in some sort of development and needed 

some offsets for the work they are doing in Maryland, looking for 
229 

an opportunity, perhaps in Pennsylvania, for those offsets, that is 

part of what you see as a proper offset system? 

Mr. FULTS. I think it is most accountable on a watershed by watershed basis, but I believe, at the end of the discussion, each State 

should have accountability to the overall Bay. 

Senator CARDIN. That is very helpful. 

Again, I want to thank all four of you for your testimony. This 

is not the last time we are going to be talking to you about these 

issues. This is a process in evolution. We hope that, shortly, we are 

going to be able to circulate a reauthorization bill for comment, and 

we are hoping, again, to be able to get reauthorization legislation 

through the Congress before the end of the year. That is our goal, 

and that is our objective. 

And with that in mind, this is the second hearing, and I think 

we filled in some more of the answers to our questions as we try 

to achieve what we have been asked to do by our partners, and 

that is for the Federal Government’s role to be more than just providing tools but also providing a way that we have a better chance 

of achieving the objectives that we have set out among the different 

partners participating. 

With that, we are going to try to achieve that by circulating a 

draft. And we thank you all for participating in the process. 

Mr. WURTZEL. And we thank you, Senator, for your leadership on 

this effort. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

The subcommittee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:22 p.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a regional partnership that was started in 1983. 

Bay Program partners include the States in the watershed, the Chesapeake Bay 

Commission, a tri-State legislative body; the Federal Government, represented by 

EPA; and participating citizen advisory groups. The Chesapeake Bay watershed 

stretches across more than 64,000 square miles, encompassing parts of six States 

we have represented here today—Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, 

Virginia and West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The watershed includes 

more than 100,000 streams and rivers that eventually flow into the Bay. 

I am glad that Senator Cardin is holding this important hearing today. States, 

local governments and private citizens are the primary caretakers for their water 

resources. They have the knowledge and expertise to understand how best to deal 

with environmental concerns, almost always better than a Washington bureaucrat, 

far removed from the stream or tributary. I am very glad that we have all the 

States in the Bay watershed here today, and I encourage them to tell us what they 

are doing and where they have been successful. 

I know firsthand that voluntary environmental programs are very successful. 

Since 2003, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission has invested in conservation 

practices in Oklahoma’s top priority watersheds. These State conservation and education programs have documented a 69 percent decrease in phosphorous and nitrogen in a tributary to the Illinois River. This wasn’t achieved through a top down, 

EPA driven program, but through partnership with the State and local land users 

to ensure sustainable results through locally led, voluntary solutions. My State’s experience is that heavy handed regulations that ignore economic realities and property rights do not work. 

As we look toward re-authorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program, it is important 

to hear from all stakeholders about the parts of the program that work and the 

parts of the program that could be improved. Taking care of a resource like the 

Chesapeake Bay requires the buy in of all interested stakeholders, from businesses, 

to fishermen, to land users and developers upstream. A top down, heavy handed 
230 

Federal approach will not lead to the kind of real changes that are necessary to ensure the health of the Bay. 

Æ