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

96–019 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–727 

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION: 

PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2013—GRASONVILLE, MD 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 72 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 73 

WITNESSES 

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

DiPasquale, Nicholas, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Baker, William C., President, Chesapeake Bay Foundation ................................ 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Spies, Paul, Agricultural Conservation Planner, Chester River Association ...... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Neuman, Laura, County Executive, Anne Arundel County, Maryland .............. 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION: PROGRESS 

AND CHALLENGES 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE, Grasonville, MD. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 a.m. at the 

Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center, Grasonville, Maryland, 

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Let me welcome you all to the field hearing of 

the Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on 

Water and Wildlife. 

I particularly want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter 

and Senator Boozman for their help in arranging this hearing. We 

have worked together on the Chesapeake Bay in our Committee, 

and we have had several hearings related to the health of the 

Chesapeake Bay. And I appreciate their willingness to allow me to 

hold—this is actually our second field hearing. We held one in 2009 

in Annapolis, and this is the second field hearing we have held on 

the status of the Chesapeake Bay. 

I particularly want to thank my colleague, John Sarbanes, for 

being here. I think it is very appropriate that this hearing is being 

held at the Chesapeake Bay Environmental Center. I say that with 

Congressman Sarbanes here. This center provides an educational 

experience for particularly young people to understand what we 

need to do in order to protect the Chesapeake Bay for future generations. Congressman Sarbanes has been the leader in our State 

in recognizing that children need to get out and understand the environmental responsibilities that we all have. And I thank him for 

his leadership and I thank him for being here today. 

I have been involved with the Chesapeake Bay, I guess, my entire political life, but I particularly cherish the times that I spent 

with Governor Hughes in Maryland when he was Governor of our 

State and really initiated the Chesapeake Bay Program. It was 

started in Maryland as an understanding that our Chesapeake Bay 

is critically important to the State of Maryland, particularly important to our region, not just as an environmental treasure as it is. 

It is a national treasure. It is actually an international treasure as 
2 

Presidents have declared, but it is also critically important to our 

economy. And we have documented just how significant that is. 

The Chesapeake Bay was in serious, serious trouble. There were 

parts of the coast that you did not even want to go near because 

of the amount of pollution that we saw in the 1970s when we first 

started this effort to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. And I do applaud Governor Hughes for his leadership in bringing together not 

just the State of Maryland but bringing together other States, all 

the States in the region, engaging the Federal Government, and 

particularly engaging the private sector as we came together with 

a strategy to improve the Chesapeake Bay. This hearing is going 

to concentrate on how far we have come and how far we still need 

to go on cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. 

We have two panels. One will include EPA, and I thank Mr. 

DiPasquale for being here. We will have a second panel that will 

deal with some of the principal stakeholders in our effort with the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

The University of Maryland’s most recent Chesapeake report 

card graded the Bay as a C, a marked improvement over the previous year with a D∂. The report card noted several important indicators including decreased nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, an 

improvement of water clarity and dissolved oxygen. That is very 

important because it meant less dead zones in the Chesapeake 

Bay. So today is an opportunity celebrate those successes and to 

highlight the strong efforts of all stakeholders, our farmers, our cities, our counties who are working so hard to make a difference for 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

Now, the Chesapeake Bay help is critically important to our ecology. It is important also to our economy. The Chesapeake Bay 

Foundation estimates that the Bay is worth $1 trillion to our fishing, tourism, properly values, and shipping activities. Between just 

Maryland and Virginia, the commercial seafood industry equals $2 

billion in sales, $1 billion in income, and more than 41,000 jobs per 

year. 

But like most watersheds in this Nation, the Bay has had to deal 

with challenges that come from a growing and expanding population. It is just a great place to live. More people want to live here. 

We are proud that people are coming from all over the world to live 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In the 30 years since the Chesapeake Bay Program started, the number of people living in the watershed has exploded. The population of the Chesapeake Bay watershed has grown from 12 million when the program started to 

nearly 18 million residents today. That is a 50 percent increase. 

With people come environmental challenges. Because of this dramatic growth, the amount of impervious surfaces has increased by 

about 100 percent during that same 30-year timeframe. 

Among the impacts of this increased regional growth is an excess 

of nitrogen and phosphorus flowing into the Bay, causing the concentration of dissolved oxygen in water to decrease to a level that 

no longer supports living aquatic organisms, creating vast dead 

zones. 

The problems that plague the Bay are stark but they are not 

unique. The same challenges exist in many of our watersheds 

around the Nation from the Gulf of Mexico to the San Francisco 
3 

Bay. So what we do here is not just important for the Chesapeake 

Bay, but it gives us a model for other watersheds around our Nation. And we have been at this a lot longer than many of the other 

communities. But what we have done here has certainly helped our 

national effort. 

If we want to improve the health of the Bay and continue to develop practices that can be applied across the country, we need to 

increase our commitment and become more creative in our solutions. And the question cannot be whether the Federal Government 

should take more responsibility. It is how it should take that responsibility. 

One way I believe the Federal Government can make a difference 

is by supporting our farmers in their conservation efforts. Agricultural runoff represents the largest proportion of nutrient pollution 

for the Bay and, therefore, offers the greatest opportunity for 

achieving meaningful nutrient reductions. 

In Maryland, our farmers have been at the forefront of working 

with us in conservation efforts to reduce the impact on our environment. They are some of our best stewards of the land. In the past 

2 decades, Maryland farmers have spent millions of dollars to install and maintain conservation practices on their farms to protect 

natural resources and the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

But more needs to be done. That is why I worked so hard on the 

Farm Bill. I know we are looking at a new way to deal with conservation programs that can help the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

The bill that was reported out by the Senate incorporates new opportunities for us to help farmers so that they cannot only do the 

right thing with the Bay but they can have a viable business and 

be able to compete in today’s global agricultural economy. 

Beyond the potential to support agricultural efforts to improve 

the Bay, the Federal Government has a critical role to play to 

make sure our water infrastructure is in a good state of repair. 

Even as the demand for clean water has increased, we have been 

underfunding investments in our infrastructure at the Federal 

level which, in turn, presents major challenges for local water authorities. 

During this month of August, I visited some of our water authorities and seen firsthand the challenges they have with aging facilities, with the fact that they basically rely on the ratepayers for 

a lot of their improvement. And the rates have gone up and there 

is a limit as to how much you can charge the ratepayers. And our 

densely populated cities are served by pipes that are least 100 

years old. The task of meeting the challenges generally falls on the 

shoulders of local municipalities. 

EPA has estimated that more than $630 billion will be needed 

over the next 20 years to meet the Nation’s drinking water and 

wastewater infrastructure needs. Most of this will need to be funded locally. Well, we have got to step up and help. We have got to 

do a better job. As I said a little bit earlier, we need to find new, 

creative ways to help deal with the challenges that we have in the 

Bay. 

But here is the good news. The United States Department of 

Commerce estimates that each job that we create in the water infrastructure will create almost four jobs in the private sector. So 
4 

this is a jobs issue. By investing in water infrastructure, we help 

our economy not only directly but also indirectly. It has been estimated that for every dollar we spend in water infrastructure, there 

will be almost a $3 economic output in other industries. 

Since water infrastructure is critical to everything from reducing 

runoff and pollutants to creating good paying jobs, I firmly believe 

the Federal Government has an important role in ensuring that 

local governments can continue to provide clean and safe water. 

The public demands that when they turn on their tap, they have 

safe water. We have to help the local governments make sure that 

is maintained. It is critical to the health of our communities and 

for the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

So today we know the Bay is making progress, but we still have 

a way to go. I look forward to hearing from the experts today so 

that we can develop a strategy to move forward for the future. 

Before turning to Mr. DiPasquale, let me first turn to my colleague, Congressman Sarbanes, once again thanking him for being 

here but, more importantly, thanking him for the leadership that 

he has shown on protecting our Chesapeake Bay. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. SARBANES, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Representative SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator 

Cardin. It is a real privilege to be here today for this very important hearing. 

I want to first off salute the Senator for his leadership with respect to restoring the health of the Chesapeake Bay. No one is 

doing more nationally for any treasure of the kind like the Chesapeake Bay than Senator Cardin is, and we certainly have benefited 

from his leadership in Maryland and in the Congress. 

The third district, the newly drawn third district, has even greater portions of the coastline of the Chesapeake Bay now, not from 

the eastern shore but from the western shore, including Annapolis 

and the coastline coming down from Gibson Island. So as much as 

I was focused on the health of the Bay before, I am even more 

keenly concerned that we continue to move forward with respect to 

our efforts to improve the health of the Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a critical partnership for years 

now and has focused the efforts of these resources and many, many 

different players in making sure that we are achieving this 

progress. And we are looking forward to your testimony today on 

this important issue. 

You know, having the EPA’s involvement in the health of the 

Bay is so important because you get that overarching perspective. 

Different States within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and the six 

States and the District of Columbia, obviously, which directly affect 

the health of the Bay, are all engaged in their own efforts to contribute to this important project. But you need that national perspective because there are things that nature crosses State lines, 

and in the absence of that perspective, we are losing critical components. That is why I am happy to have the EPA’s perspective at 

this hearing and it is so important. 

My particular focus—and the Senator was gracious in alluding to 

my efforts on behalf of citizen stewardship, particularly reaching 
5 

out to the next generation and making sure they understand what 

is at stake and connecting them to the environment, to environmental literacy, to the Chesapeake Bay if they happen to live in 

Maryland or one of these other important States that are part of 

the watershed so that they grow up with that value instilled in 

them and they become stewards in the future. And I have supported strongly the efforts to connect young people to nature across 

the country in terms of integrating environmental literacy with the 

full needs of instructional programming. 

I am also very interested generally in how we involve ordinary 

citizens as partners in our efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay 

and environment and have sponsored legislation such as ‘‘The 

Chesapeake Bay Homeowners Act’’ where we give homeowners the 

opportunity to contribute in quantifiable ways through credits that 

local jurisdictions and States are trying to achieve with respect to 

the pollution diet put in place by the EPA. 

To close, I will just echo what Senator Cardin said at the outset 

of his remarks and at the end, which is this is about the economy 

of this region. If you invest in the things that clean up Chesapeake 

Bay, you are also investing in things that create jobs and help to 

produce a very important economy of our region and the State of 

Maryland. And that is why this is so critically important. 

So I appreciate the opportunity to be a guest and participate in 

the hearing today. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Congressman Sarbanes. 

Our first witness is Nick DiPasquale, who is the Director of the 

Chesapeake Bay Program at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. DiPasquale previously served as Deputy Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Director of the Environmental Management Center for the 

Brandywine Conservancy in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania and as 

Secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control. So he brings a lot of experience not just at 

the Federal level but also at the State level. It is good to have EPA 

lead off this discussion. 

The Obama administration in 2009, by Executive order, really 

elevated the Federal Government’s commitment and partnership to 

the Chesapeake Bay, and this gives us a chance to review the current status of the Federal commitment to the Chesapeake Bay. 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS DiPASQUALE, DIRECTOR, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Congressman Sarbanes. I am Nick DiPasquale, Director of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office in Annapolis. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify about the 

progress the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership is making to 

restore the watershed. The partnership, as you know, has a long 

history of bringing together the intellectual and financial resources 

of various State, Federal, academic, and local watershed organizations to develop and adopt policies that support a unified plan for 

watershed restoration. 
6 

This year, we recognize the 30th anniversary of the partnership 

and celebrate many of its successes. Our accomplishments and scientific developments are studied and used as a model throughout 

the United States and, as you recognized, throughout the world actually internationally. 

During the last 30 years, actions taken at the Federal, State, and 

local level have made a significant impact. Activities such as improved controls in wastewater treatment plants, enhanced conservation practices to reduce nutrients and sediment runoff from 

farms, more effective stormwater controls in both urban and suburban areas, and better requirements and technologies that reduce 

air deposition of nutrients. 

However, increased impervious surfaces, as again you recognized, 

the changing environmental conditions, and other developments 

that support a growing population have lessened the impact of 

these achievements. 

Although the ecosystem generally remains in a degraded condition, the Bay’s health has slowly improved in a number of areas, 

and we are witnessing clear signs of continuing recovery across the 

watershed. Data from actual water quality monitoring locations 

show a trend of improving water quality condition in many parts 

of the watershed. During the past 25 years, nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations have decreased at almost 70 percent at the 

monitoring sites within the watershed and sediment has decreased 

by about 30 percent at these sites. A 2011 study by Johns Hopkins 

and the University of Maryland showed that summer dead zones 

leveled off in the Bay’s deep channels during the 1980s, and they 

have been declining ever since. 

The Bay ecosystem is showing other signs of recovery such as 

progress in rockfish restoration, better managed crab populations, 

restored grass beds despite heavy rains and more frequent and severe storms. These signs of progress show an ecosystem that is regaining its resilience. This is an important aspect of the restoration 

effort. But challenges do remain. 

Other collaborative efforts that are making a difference include 

the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load, or TMDL, and 

President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive order strategy. 

With involvement from States, local governments, and numerous 

stakeholders, the EPA issued its final Chesapeake Bay TMDL in 

December 2010. Through the TMDL, States are putting in place 

practices for reducing nutrient and sediment from urban lands, including measures to limit runoff through storm flow capture and 

draining initiatives and the creation of stormwater utilities to help 

finance these improved control measures. 

Additionally, many wastewater treatment plants have reduced 

nutrients down to the limits of technology. 

The agricultural sector has done much to reduce pollution to the 

watershed as well and continues to do so through the use of new 

technologies and practices such as cover crops. 

With the continued effort of all of these sectors, these actions will 

help ensure that we maintain our progress. 

The positive effects of these efforts are already being seen in the 

watershed simulation showing that the partnership has achieved 

more than 25 percent of reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, and 
7 

sediment that are going to be required by the 2025 deadline in the 

TMDL. The partnership also agreed to a series of 2-year milestones 

to measure its progress, and I am pleased to say that all of the 

Bay’s jurisdictions are largely on track to achieve their reductions 

for this year. 

We have also seen progress as Federal agencies have implemented the President’s Executive order on the Chesapeake Bay 

restoration. For example, Federal agencies have added new monitoring stations to non-tidal areas of the watershed. They planted 

nearly 100 acres of oyster reefs in Harris Creek. They have implemented conservation practices on more than 342,000 acres of high 

priority working lands, and they have protected more than 1,300 

acres at defense installations within the watershed. 

But even with these recent developments, in July 2011, the 

Chesapeake Bay partners agreed that after 13 years, the Chesapeake 2000 agreement needed to be updated. We are now in the 

process of developing a new agreement. This new plan will clarify 

our shared goals and outcomes, and it is intended to be more flexible to increase transparency and accountability and to allow greater participation by all partners, including the watershed States of 

West Virginia, New York, and Delaware. 

Finally, the partnership continues to address complex and 

emerging issues that can adversely affect the Chesapeake Bay watershed through a process called ‘‘adaptive management.’’ Examples of some of the emerging issues include a continued increase in 

impervious development, impacts related to climate change, the development of new technologies, new scientific understandings about 

the effects of dams, invasive species, and the effects of weather on 

the watershed. The partnership is committed to considering these 

issues to best inform our restoration strategies. 

In closing, I want to reiterate that while we have made progress, 

additional reductions are still needed from all sectors to meet water 

quality standards in the Bay and in local waterways. Despite these 

signs of progress, the job is far from complete, and major water 

quality and ecosystem challenges remain. 

The EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Partnership remain committed to working with all stakeholders to achieve a healthy 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Working together, we can have thriving communities, productive and profitable farms and restored waters. 

Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, 

and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DiPasquale follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you again for your testimony and 

thank you for your leadership in this area. 

You do point out the progress that we have made. We all acknowledge that. As I said earlier, I remember days that you did not 

even want to go near the water in some parts of some coasts. We 

were in danger of having to put permanent restrictions on the recreational use of the Bay, and we went through some very tough periods with what recreational fishing could do on the Bay as far as 

the rockfish, et cetera. And this year has been a pretty good year 

for rockfish. So we have seen some progress. 

But looking at the 2011–2012 Bay barometer, which noticed improvement on the oxygen levels and the reduction of dead zones, 

it also points out that we have challenges to meeting the overall 

goals. I look at some of the specifics. Bay grasses are at 26 percent 

of what was a goal set. The bottom habitable is 45 percent. The 

American shad, 34 percent. The Atlantic menhaden, 25 percent of 

what we would like to be at. So it seems like we still have a significant achievement to reach the goals that we all said were where 

we wanted to be. 

Now, I understand we are going to look at moving forward from 

the 2000 agreement, but do you agree that we are only doing a C, 

that there is still a lot more that could be done, using good science, 

good economics to get the Bay where it needs to be? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Yes. There is no question that we need to redouble our efforts and make the improvements that you are suggesting. When you look at the trends from year to year, sometimes 

there are a number of factors that can impact how that particular 

resource is responding. For example, with Bay grasses, the storms 

that occurred from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee had a 

really significant impact on underwater grasses, but when you take 

a look at the Susquehanna Flats, for example, which we expected 

would suffer some severe damage like it did in Agnes in 1972, it 

was not as severely impacted as we thought it would be. And that 

is an example of the resilience that I mentioned. It is starting to 

get rebuilt back into the Bay system. 

But we need to look at trends over a longer period of time, and 

that is why I think the Hopkins and the University of Maryland 

study is instructive in that regard. The ecosystem sometimes takes 

a while to respond to the measures we implement to reduce pollution loading. We are at the point now, for example, under the 

TMDL—we have only had really about 2 and a half years of implementation. Phase II watershed implementation plans have been 

approved and the first 2-year milestones—we are 1 year into the 

first 2-year milestones under the TMDL. But I think we are at a 

point now where we are going to see some of these measures being 

implemented and we are going to get over that tipping point for the 

Bay restoration effort. We are going to see some significant improvement, for example, in stormwater controls. Many of the localities are adopting stormwater utility fees. They have got projects 

that they are ready and willing to undertake. And as those projects 

are implemented, we are going to see more and more progress taking place. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just quickly go through the different 

major areas of concern. In agriculture, which a large part is not 
25 

under the EPA’s direct jurisdiction, which I understand, we have 

made a lot of progress in our State. The Farm Bill is critically important in the conservation sections and we hope that we can resolve them. 

The administration could move more aggressively on the nutrient 

trading program. They have the authority and we have seen it 

work in other areas where we have provided the right incentives 

for the private sector to develop more cost effective solutions. Pennsylvania has used a nutrient trading program in agriculture. 

Where are we as far as the administration looking at ways to implement an effective nutrient trading program for the Bay region? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. As you know, there are three States right now 

that have active trading programs: Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We are not developing a single trading program at EPA 

that then is delegated to the States. What we are trying to do is 

harmonize the trading programs that are out there, and we are 

issuing a series of technical memoranda that will essentially set 

the expectations for the jurisdictions to use in either establishing 

or refining their own program so they can get credit under the 

TMDL. We have probably got about half the technical memoranda 

we have identified out and being reviewed or in the process of 

being implemented, and the States will be making changes, hopefully, to their programs to be more consistent with that overall general expectation. 

But I agree that once the rules of the game are well defined, we 

are going to see more active participation on the part of buyers and 

sellers in that market. 

Senator CARDIN. I think there is a role for the Federal Government to play here. I understand the States are moving forward, but 

I would just encourage you to take a good look at this because I 

think this is a win-win situation. We are looking at some of the 

costs on the local governments on dealing with water issues versus 

working with the agricultural community for nutrient reductions. 

The cost issues could very well dictate some help for local government on nutrient trading programs. So I think a Federal role is 

needed here, and I would just urge you to just look at this and see 

whether we cannot move it forward aggressively in dealing with 

the nutrient reduction levels. 

Let me talk just a little bit about development. We are still waiting for the runoff regulations on storm runoff issues from EPA. We 

have been waiting a long time. We would like to see that issue. The 

stormwater runoff issue is the largest growth area of concern of 

pollutants going into the Bay. 

I was at a brick company. August gives me a chance to get out 

and see my State. So we have this greater Maryland tour, and we 

went to the Ernest Maier Brick Company. I always give plugs to 

Maryland businesses. And they have ways of doing surfaces that 

look like they are concrete, but the water is managed on the runoff, 

giving us the best of all worlds, giving you the use of the surface 

but also helping us on runoff and doing it in a more responsible 

way to actually control the volume of runoff by how they do the 

underpinnings to the brick work. 

It seems to me that there is a lot of potential here in dealing 

with stormwater runoff that you have not yet met, and the Federal 
26 

Government really does need to be in the leadership. So can you 

give me a status as to how we are doing on the stormwater runoff 

issues? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Well, I am hopeful that proposed regulation 

will be promulgated relatively soon. I think it will help provide incentives for using low impact development types of techniques similar to that which was undertaken by the District of Columbia in 

their MS–4 permit. I think that really kind of set an example for 

how we can use low impact development, green roofs, tree plantings, and that sort of thing to take up both stormwater flow and 

the nutrients that are contained within it. 

I am aware of the example that you mentioned, and in fact, when 

I am out talking, I use that as an example of ways that communities can make investments because putting those pervious pavers 

in local communities where they are manufactured actually end up 

creating more jobs. 

Also in that area, there was a local firehouse that put a green 

roof on. They were able to essentially contain all of the water that 

came down on their facility, and whatever overflow actually occurred, they had a storage tank that they would contain the water 

in and then use that for firefighting purposes. They would actually 

use it to fill their tanker trucks. 

So that kind of creative thinking. As I go around the watershed, 

I see a lot of innovation occurring. Charlottesville, Virginia; Lynchburg, Virginia; Lancaster City, Pennsylvania. You see some very 

creative approaches being taken by public works directors and local 

city councils to deal with some of the issues that are before them. 

They know the cost is high. They are looking for ways to reduce 

the cost and still make the improvement in water quality that they 

are expected to make. 

Senator CARDIN. And we would hope that your policies will encourage that. We understand that population growth will continue. 

People want to live in this area. That means there is more pressure 

on construction. Construction done in the right way can help us 

deal with the problems, but in the wrong way, compounds the challenges. So if we are all going to work together, then we have to 

have an aggressive policy to deal with the realities of construction 

whether it is public construction or whether it is private construction, and the Government has be in the leadership. That is why the 

regulations here are particularly important. We understand we 

have got to get it right. We want to work with you to move ahead 

in this area. 

Last, let me just mention the problems of local governments, and 

we will hear from some of the local people today. Financially they 

need a more aggressive way of dealing with development, particularly how they deal with water infrastructure. We need creative 

ways. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake testified before our Committee—this was a year or a year and a half ago—urging some new 

approaches. And I have introduced legislation on the resiliency 

trust fund where we try to leverage dollars to deal with the dollar 

amounts. The numbers that you are throwing out on the need for 

water infrastructure are huge. We need some new initiatives. 

There is just not enough money under the current programs to deal 

with this challenge. 
27 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Well, we have held a series of environmental 

finance workshops throughout the watershed to provide local communities with a variety of tools and approaches that they can use 

to help finance those kinds of improvements. Again, as I mentioned 

previously, we see a lot of innovation taking place. That is driven 

by the high cost of implementing some of this, and we are trying 

to use those as example throughout the watershed for other communities to consider. 

I also think there is a role for the private sector. Private sector 

financing and trading is another example of using a mechanism to 

drive the costs down while achieving the water quality objective. 

But the private sector is out there. They are interested. We get 

contacted on a pretty routine basis. They are looking for opportunities to use private capital to make some of these improvements. 

And actually one of the concerns we have is with the capacity of 

local governments to take on a large number of projects all at one 

time. We see the use of the private sector as being a way to help 

get the job done essentially. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree with that. What brings our Committee 

together, Democrats and Republicans, are ways that we can leverage investment, whether it is roads, bridges, transit systems or 

whether it is water infrastructure. It brings us together. I think, 

finding what has worked in local communities and trying to model 

that, and trying to provide incentives for that makes sense. 

So we hope that you will share best practices and creative ways. 

We know the deficit that is there. We have had too many Beltway 

closings and business evacuations in our State and around the Nation too many times. We have seen businesses and lives put at risk 

because of water main breaks. We have got to deal with this, and 

finding creative ways, I am convinced that we can get the critical 

mass of Congress to support critical ways to advance investment in 

modernizing our water infrastructure. So I hope that you will encourage local governments to come in with creative solutions where 

we can help as a partner in advancing a greater commitment to infrastructure improvement. 

Let me turn to Congressman Sarbanes. 

Representative SARBANES. Thank you, Senator. I just have a couple of quick questions. 

Let me just preface it by saying this concept of resilience is really 

an exciting one. It is when those who are trying to help the Bay 

sort of enter into partnership with the Bay itself. As we hit those 

tipping points as the Bay achieves resilience or portions of the Bay 

achieve this resilience, we want to make sure we preserve that and 

do not slide back. So I am very intrigued by your observations in 

that regard. 

I wondered if you could just describe the importance of bringing 

new States into the agreement that is being put together now for 

the next version of the Chesapeake Bay Program and sort of the 

potential that is represented to do this in a more formal way. 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Well, as you may know, currently the headwater States are participating on the water quality side of it 

through a memorandum of understanding. So they have never really been full partners in the partnership agreement, although some 
28 

of them certainly have interest in fisheries and habitat and some 

of the other components of the partnership effort. 

The new agreement is not going to be an overhaul of the old 

agreement. It is basically going to be a refinement and it is going 

to provide some unique features that have not existed before. So we 

have been going through a process over the last almost 2 years now 

of looking at the goals that were set out under previous agreements 

under the Executive order strategy under the TMDL, and we are 

trying to harmonize those so that all of these efforts are moving in 

the same direction at the same time and that we are making the 

most effective use of our resources. In fact, the Executive order 

strategy anticipated that and directed us to do that. The Chesapeake Bay Executive Council likewise directed us to go out and refine our goals and outcomes. So we have been engaged in that process for about 2 years. 

After the first of the year, we really started to take a look at how 

we could develop a new agreement that is going to be a lot more 

flexible. So one of the things we have done is incorporated an 

adaptive management decisionmaking framework into the day-today implementation activities that are anticipated under the new 

agreement. We have started to do that previously with the goal implementation teams that we have, fisheries habitat, water quality, 

so that we actually use the data we are collecting. We are analyzing it. We are trying to determine what factors may be influencing whether or not we are achieving our goal. We are using that 

as a feedback mechanism to make changes and improvements in 

the way we go about doing business. 

The other feature of the new agreement that I think is new is 

the use of management strategies to articulate how we intend to 

achieve each of the outcomes that will be established under the 

new agreement. Management strategies have not been used previously. This will be a new feature. Everybody who has an interest 

in participating, whether it is a State jurisdiction, local government, non-governmental organization, academic institution, would 

all sign on to this management strategy that is designed to achieve 

a particular outcome. It would have periodic check-in periods every 

2 years, similar to the milestones, so we make sure we are staying 

on target and moving toward that outcome. It would take into account things like impact from land use or the effects of climate 

change. It would articulate the resources that each of the entities 

brings to bear on achieving that particular outcome. 

So it is increasing the transparency of the way we do business 

because there will be a plan. This management strategy essentially 

would be a plan that anyone could look at and participate in or 

question. So it would be developed with full public participation 

and people would be able to weigh in on it. It also becomes the accountability vehicle ultimately for making sure we stay on target. 

I think that is an important feature. 

Also, in terms of flexibility, under the agreement as currently 

drafted, the Executive Council, which is the Governors of the 

States, the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the EPA 

Administrator, and the Mayor D.C. would essentially delegate to 

the principal staff committee, which are the executive secretaries 

in each of the agencies in each of the jurisdictions, the ability to 
29 

make changes to the outcomes. So that as we get information and 

need to make adjustments, that body would be able to make 

changes and would not have to go back to make changes to the 

agreement to accomplish that. 

Again, this would be done with full public participation. So I 

think there are a number of features like that that really are an 

improvement over the previous one. 

Representative SARBANES. And then the last question. 

First of all, let me thank the EPA for working closely with us 

and trying to further develop and pilot this idea of communities 

stepping up and taking real ownership of efforts to reach these 

TMDL goals and objectives. And the Chesapeake Bay Homeowner 

Act we have introduced will basically help us sort of model what 

could that look like if you have ordinary homeowners who have a 

menu of options for things they can do on their own property that 

will, in fact, reduce runoff and otherwise add to the water quality 

and in so doing move that jurisdiction in a quantifiable way toward 

the TMDL obligations. 

What I am interested in hearing from you is do you believe that 

if this kind of effort is embraced by ordinary homeowners across 

the watershed, that it could, in fact, have a meaningful impact on 

the efforts to move us toward the goals we have. 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Yes. I do not think there is any question that 

it would have meaningful impact. In my mind, we have an environment that has been degraded and essentially died a death of a 

thousand cuts, as you have probably heard mentioned, and the only 

way we are really going to repair that is to repair those individual 

cuts. We can take care of the big sources of pollution, but I think 

we need to take care of the little sources of pollution as well. 

Your bill—and if I may be so presumptuous to commend you for 

it—I think is really landmark legislation in the sense that it increases public awareness, No. 1. No. 2, it gives us an insurance policy that we are going to, in fact, get these reductions in nutrients. 

Specifically in Maryland, I have been told that turf grass now exceeds cropland in terms of the amount of acreage that is in the watershed. So that is a significant source. The legislature in Maryland 

has passed a fertilizer law that essentially reduces nutrients and 

makes those improvements. I think there is an appetite among 

homeowners to put in rain gardens, put in rain barrels, to look for 

ways to divert stormwater runoff from city streets and ultimately 

storm sewer systems. I think we have to do that if we think we 

are going to get to where we need to be in an expeditious fashion. 

So thank you again for your leadership in that regard. 

Representative SARBANES. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. What is the timeframe for trying to get the parties together on the updated agreement? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Right now we are making good progress. In 

fact, there will be a meeting this afternoon where we go over some 

of the changes that have been agreed to, but we are looking at 

probably early to mid-December for having an agreement ready to 

sign by the Executive Council members. 

Senator CARDIN. And it will provide for a more open review? 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. Yes. We will be having a 30-day comment period. We had one, essentially an outline for the agreement and the 
30 

initial set of goals and outcomes that we put out for public review 

and actually got a pretty good response on that. We are in the process now of actually developing a narrative that would fill out the 

agreement, and we intend at this point to put that out for public 

notice probably toward the end of September, and we have public 

review for 30 days. Then we would take the input that we have 

from that process, make changes, and hopefully have a final agreement ready to be signed by mid-December of this year. 

Senator CARDIN. One of the major challenges of the previous 

agreements has been the rigidness, as you point out. To try to 

make adjustments and reconvene and try to get to the next agreement was cumbersome and basically not an option that was available. So I am intrigued by the process that you anticipate would 

be included here where adjustments can be formally made through 

a less formal process. 

Mr. DIPASQUALE. The overall structure of the partnership is goal 

implementation teams who I say do the heavy lifting of the organization. They are the science folks, the technical people who make 

recommendations up to the management board, and the management board, which I chair, is kind of the implementation level for 

the partnership. And the management board actually in this case 

is going to—as the agreement is currently drafted, would be overseeing the development of the management strategies, and they 

would review and approve those. 

The next level up is the principal staff committee, which is the 

executive secretaries from each of the agencies and counterparts, 

for example, in the commission and in the Federal agencies. They 

would have the authority to make changes to the outcomes only, 

not the overall goals of the partnership, but the outcomes, those 

things that are specifically deliverable, for example, setting a reforestation goal. If for some reason, that needed to be adjusted up or 

down, the principal staff committee using the adaptive management process that I referred to earlier would take a look at whether or not they agreed with doing that, and then they would make 

the decision at that level with full public participation. All of the 

meetings that we have had, management board meetings, principal 

staff committee meetings are all advertised. They are open to the 

public. We have opportunity for public review and comment in that 

process. So the principal staff committee would be given the authority to make changes in those specific outcomes. 

Senator CARDIN. Of course, it cuts both ways. It can be used to 

strengthen, but it also can be used to give more leeway and perhaps weaken. And so it is of concern. 

But I think to make this a little less rigid makes sense, provided 

that it is an open process. And again, based upon the best science 

and outcome available to reach the goals that have already been 

established to me makes a lot of sense. So I would urge you to do 

this in a very open, transparent manner, as you are already suggesting, so the confidence this program has enjoyed for 30 years is 

maintained. 

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. 

We will move to our second panel. Let me invite up Will Baker, 

a familiar face on the effort of the Chesapeake Bay. Will Baker is 

the head of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the largest not-for- 
31 

profit conservation organization dedicated solely to preserving and 

protecting and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. He was rightfully acknowledged to receive the Presidential Medal for Environmental 

Excellence. 

Paul Spies is the Agricultural Conservation Planner of the Chester River Association. He continues to assist his family to operate 

their 1,000-acre grain farm and vineyard in Talbot County, Maryland, not far from where we are here. 

It is a pleasure to have Laura Neuman, who is the County Executive for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, not very far from where 

we are right now. And under her leadership, she has brought Anne 

Arundel County together, and I applaud her for her incredible leadership in the county. That is one of our great counties in our State. 

We will start with Mr. Baker. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT, CHESAPEAKE 

BAY FOUNDATION 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you very much. Senator Cardin, Congressman 

Sarbanes, you all both have been great leaders. 

And, Congressman, allow me just to say a few more words about 

Senator Cardin. His leadership goes back all the way to the Maryland House of Delegates. Some in the audience may not know you 

were elected when you were still in law school. You were the 

youngest speaker of the house in Maryland, and you went on to 

Congress. What outstanding contributions you have made to our 

State and to the health and benefit of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Senator CARDIN. I will give you an extra 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BAKER. I was going to bargain for 6, but I will take 5. So 

thank you both. 

The Bay is America’s largest estuary with Washington, DC, at 

the very center of its watershed. It is a national and, as you said, 

Senator, even international treasure with 17 million, close to 18 

million people, and it is growing at 150,000 people a year. 

So how is it doing? The Bay is getting better, but it is still a system dangerously out of balance. Let me repeat it. It is getting better, but it is still dangerously out of balance. CBF’s scientists score 

the health of the Chesapeake at a 32 on a scale of 0 to 100. That 

is a D∂. We are a little bit harder graders than the University of 

Maryland. So the Bay is still ecologically functioning at only about 

a third of its historic capacity. 

Every summer we know about the mainstem and the tributaries 

plagued by dead zones, not enough oxygen to sustain life. On average, about 60 percent of the Bay and its tidal tributaries have insufficient levels of oxygen. 

But the Chesapeake Bay is still a significant economic engine. In 

2009, the commercial seafood industry in Maryland and Virginia 

alone contributed $3.4 billion in sales, $890 million in income, and 

almost 34,000 jobs to the local economy. Think, if the Bay were 

fully restored, what that would mean, and think of the loss just 

with oysters in the last 30 years, $4 billion in lost revenues in 

Maryland and Virginia. 

So let us look at what has been done so far. 
32 

The first three Bay agreements, 1983, 1987, and 2000, had no 

enforcement protocols. Elected officials signed them with great fanfare and terrifically good intentions, but when the deadlines arrived, pollution reduction targets were missed not by an inch but 

by a mile every time. So in 2009, CBF and a number of partners 

sued EPA for failure to enforce the Clean Water Act and the terms 

of the Chesapeake Bay agreements. 

In December 2010, EPA and the jurisdictions finalized a new 

agreement, this one with teeth. It was called the TMDL, what the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation calls the Chesapeake Clean Water 

Blueprint. Two-year transparent, reportable, and enforceable milestones, each of which must build to the ultimate deadline of 2025 

make it very different from what has come before. 

In July, we evaluated the progress being made toward the 2012– 

2013 milestones and found that all of the jurisdictions were making 

some progress toward their goals for that milestone, but no jurisdiction was on track to implement all of the pollution reduction 

practices they committed to achieve by the end of 2013. So while 

much remains to be done, scientists are seeing examples of improved water quality, better habitat conditions, and there is evidence that the dead zone, as you reported, is getting smaller, not 

gone but at least going in the right direction. And as you all mentioned, scientists speculate that we may be beginning to see some 

positive feedback loops as improvement strategies build one on the 

other. 

Think of this as a vicious cycle in reverse. We have had plenty 

of vicious cycles in the Bay history. Now maybe we are seeing one 

in reverse. In my full testimony, we detail a number of success stories, including Mattawoman Creek in Maryland, the Litiz Run in 

Pennsylvania, Muddy Creek in Virginia, Gravelly Branch in Delaware, and others. 

But we also detail sobering news. 2012 was the third year in a 

row that acres of underwater grasses declined on a Bay-wide scale 

with current levels approaching a low last reported in 1986. And 

one of the most prized fresh water sport fish species, smallmouth 

bass, has suffered fish kills and perplexing illnesses in several Bay 

tributaries. In some areas, smallmouth bass populations have 

plummeted and there are signs that the health of the Bay’s iconic 

rockfish, striped bass, is deteriorating. And finally, just this last 

summer, we have seen way too many ‘‘no swimming’’ advisories 

issued by health departments. 

So we must do more. Critical to the effort is Federal funding and 

technical assistance to local jurisdictions. To quote Yogi Berra, we 

must not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I think Yogi Berra 

said that. I actually just assume that. But we are getting close. We 

cannot lose it at this point. So we are on the verge of success. We 

need Federal leadership to continue. The Federal Government is 

the only jurisdiction—when you look at this chart, six States, 

64,000 square miles—the Federal Government is the only jurisdiction of government that can do what science says has to happen: 

manage this as one single ecological system. So we need the Federal Government to continue its leadership. 

The States and all of the stakeholders also need certainty that 

Bay implementation is fair. This certainty will come from a trans-
33 

parent clean up process so that all parties know that each other 

party is doing its job and Federal assistance to provide consistent 

funding and technical assistance to help individuals and communities defray the cost. Existing programs in the Clean Water Act 

are helpful, but local governments—and I am sure Ms. Neuman 

will talk about this—local governments need more, such as a dedicated grants program to help address polluted runoff, the only 

source of pollution which continues to increase. 

Finally, the importance of the Bay Program. As we have heard 

from Nick, it coordinates the science and the research and modeling and support services, data collection. It is essential for the 

Bay Program to continue to operate. The Clean Water Blueprint 

has infused new life, but what it has undone far exceeds what has 

been done to date. Now is not the time to rest. Now is, as Don 

Bosch says, the moment in time. We have got the best science, the 

technology, the know-how to get the job done. This is our watch. 

Our legacy to leave our children and grandchildren is an imperative. 

Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, Congressman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker. 

Mr. Spies. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL SPIES, AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION 

PLANNER, CHESTER RIVER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. SPIES. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

present today and thank your staff for helping a first-timer get his 

presentation in. And though it is a little late, I am here and it is 

in. So thank you and thank you for the opportunity. 

I am a fourth generation farmer from Talbot County, Maryland, 

the neighboring county from where we are today. We grow corn, 

soybeans, wheat, 10 acres of grapes, and a 1-acre greenhouse complex for European cucumbers. I serve as the Vice President of the 

Maryland Grain Producers and a member of the local farm bureau. 

I also work with the Chester River Association as a conservation 

planner, working as a liaison between the environmental organization and the farmers in my community. 

My position has given me a unique, although sometimes uncomfortable, position to view the work and the progress made in the 

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. This is the viewpoint I speak 

from today as, like most farmers, an environmentally concerned 

producer. 

Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘Chesapeake Bay Restoration: 

Progress and Challenges.’’ So I can end on a positive note, I will 

start with the challenges. 

First, the goals we set for ourselves are lofty but not impossible. 

To use a sailing analogy, we need to use full sail and everyone at 

the oars. One sector pulling their load is not going to equal a clean 

Chesapeake Bay. Each sector will need to pull its weight and contribute significant reductions. 

Agriculture faces a threefold educational challenge. 

First, how to educate a growing population with less and less ties 

to the industry. Each generation gets further and further away 

from agriculture and food production and the food production experience. People are losing sight of how important agriculture and 

farmers really are. In the State I produce, Maryland, agriculture 

is an $8.25 billion industry. 50 percent of that revenue comes from 

animal production. 50 percent of the revenue. The non-agriculture 

sector needs to grasp that it is not perfect industry, but still it is 

a vital part of our economy. The old adage rings true. You cannot 

throw the baby out with the bath water. Agriculture is important 

to our present and to the future of the State and to the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. 

The second educational challenge is understanding how far advanced our local farmers are in terms of nutrient management. 

And we need to be. We directly affect a public treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Farmers in others area believe that it is not their problem because they do not live close to the Bay, but I would like to 

remind them that clean water is an everywhere problem. Streams, 

rivers, aquifers, lakes, the Gulf of Mexico. Basically if you use 

water, nutrient management is coming to an area near you. 

With that said, our Chesapeake Bay farmers are leaders in the 

field of nutrient management. From nutrient management plans to 

new fertilizer application technology, we put more effort into im-
46 

proving our nutrient use efficiency than any other part of the country. 

The final education challenge is the understanding of how a nonpoint source nutrient moves from the time of application to the 

time that it enters our streams and Chesapeake Bay. I am not sure 

if you received it, but I work with the USGS service. They put out 

a map of timeframes from the time nutrients are applied in the 

field to when it enters the local bays and streams. It is a little bit 

scary, especially for someone whose salary is directly related to the 

outcomes of clean water efforts. But from the time we apply the nutrients in agriculture to the time it enters our Bay and streams 

and estuary, it can be 30 years or even more. So when we talk 

about the next generation and how important it is, what we are 

doing today—we are not going to see the benefits until the next 

generation 30 years from now. 

The final challenge is a request. We need to avoid division. I 

have been part of multiple projects that environmental and agricultural sectors have come together to accomplish big things. The 

more we can work together and not point fingers, the more we will 

accomplish for the Chesapeake Bay. 

Onto the positives. Agriculture is doing its part. Milestones have 

been met, and with continued work future milestones will be met. 

One thing that no one is good at these days is patience. Cell 

phones, instant news, fast cars. When we push a button or the accelerator, we do not just want results, we want fast results. That 

is just not possible in the world of the Chesapeake Bay and cleaning it up. Agriculture has never said we do not want to do our part, 

but time is needed for change. I urge gracious patience, not the 

kind of patience that is given with the idea that patience is not 

needed or deserved, but the kind of patience you give a partner or 

a teammate. 

One of the biggest successes of the process has been research and 

advances in new technologies and ideas. One I have been part of 

is active nitrogen application, applying nitrogen based upon the 

crop’s need as you are applying it instead of a uniform rate across 

the field. And a new study that we are working with USGS on is 

looking at irrigation and improving the irrigation technology and 

how we irrigate our crops. As you understand, the more information we have, the better decisions we can make. So as we improve 

our nutrient application and our irrigation technology, the better 

we will be able to grow our crops with less nutrients and still 

produce the food that we need. 

I am one of four brothers. We are all different, look different, 

talk different, have different interests, but we are a family and we 

have real interest in the health and success of each other. When 

we were young and our father gave us a chore to do, many times 

we all had our own ideas how to do it. We would tell the other ones 

to stop bothering us and we would go off and try to do it on our 

own. At some point we would realize that we were not getting 

much done and the Dukes of Hazzard was about to come on. We 

would huddle up, open ourselves up to new ideas, make a plan, and 

work together. Sometimes we would use mostly my plan. Most of 

the time we would not. I will tell you, though, when we worked together, we always got the job done. We never missed Bo and Luke 
47 

slinging gravel in Hazzard. The Chesapeake Bay Program has 

brought us together. We look different. We talk different and we 

have different interests. But we all had to come together for the 

health of the Chesapeake Bay. I hope we can come together, to be 

open to new ideas, make a plan, and work together. 

The final thing. Progress. The dictionary definition: a forward or 

onward movement; gradual betterment. Many would like to change 

‘‘gradual’’ to ‘‘immediate.’’ Using Webster’s version, I would like to 

say we have been successful and are making progress. If we all 

stay together, pull our oars, and keep the sails up, we can have a 

better Chesapeake Bay. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spies follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Spies, thank you for that comment. I think 

you summarized it well about how success depends upon all being 

in and everyone doing their share because we cannot just do it 

alone. I appreciate that comment. 

Ms. Neuman. 

STATEMENT OF LAURA NEUMAN, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ANNE 

ARUNDEL COUNTY, MARYLAND 

Ms. NEUMAN. Good morning, Senator. Good morning, Congressman. I want to thank the Committee for inviting me to participate 

in this important hearing, and I also want to acknowledge you, 

Senator, for your commitment to the restoration of Chesapeake Bay 

and to my colleagues for their dedication and expertise. 

When I moved to Anne Arundel County 21 years ago, I moved 

to be close to the Chesapeake Bay. There is nothing more beautiful 

or more worthy of preserving. I think we can all agree that to preserve the Bay’s future, we must preserve it today. 

Anne Arundel County is a primary beneficiary of the Bay with 

over 500 miles of shoreline within our boundaries. There is no 

question that we must continue to focus our attention on Bay clean 

up not just for today but for years to come. 

How we clean up the Bay is of particular concern to me, specifically how much that clean up will cost our taxpayers and our accountability to them. 

When I was appointed County Executive in February, our county 

council was prepared to pass the stormwater management fee, 

which is not so affectionately known as the ‘‘rain tax.’’ This tax was 

mandated by the State legislature in 2012 as a funding source to 

reduce pollutants associated with stormwater runoff. 

In 2012, the Maryland General Assembly mandated the State’s 

10 largest jurisdictions, not all 24, but a select 10, to adopt local 

laws by July 1st, 2013. I vetoed the bill because our county did not 

deserve another tax and also because the country had not done a 

good enough job educating the public about the fee and, more importantly, what the money would be used for. Ultimately my veto 

was overridden by the council. I will talk more about that in the 

context of challenges. 

But first, overall on the watershed implementation plan. In July 

2012, Anne Arundel County submitted its detailed water implementation plan to the Maryland Department of Environment, 

which is designed to achieve the necessary 32 percent reduction in 

nitrogen and 47 percent reduction in phosphorus and sediment to 

meet our pollution diet by 2025. It falls into three separate categories that need to be addressed. 

First is wastewater treatment plants. Anne Arundel County has 

made significant progress in reducing the pollutants from wastewater treatment plants. The county is halfway through the implementation of a $250 million program to provide enhanced nutrient 

removal, or ENR, at all seven wastewater plants. This work will 

be completed by 2017 and will remove nearly 470,000 pounds annually of nitrogen. At ultimate plant capacity, the pollutant load 

removal increases to nearly 720,000 pounds annually. 

This effort is dependent on the Chesapeake Bay restoration fee, 

also known as the ‘‘flush tax,’’ that was imposed by the State legis-
54 

lature on all property owners across the entire State. By applying 

the tax to the broadest base, the rate was kept lower and has been 

viewed as a cost-effective means of addressing a major source of 

Bay pollution. No one wants taxes, but when they are spread 

across the board, it is a fairer process and the pain seems a little 

bit more tolerable. 

The second area is stormwater I want to address as well. When 

it comes to addressing urban runoff and the challenges of 

stormwater, the estimated cost to implement a strategy in Anne 

Arundel County is $1 billion by 2025. This mandate is under the 

regulatory authority of the EPA. The EPA should have undertaken 

a fiscal impact analysis to evaluate each jurisdiction’s capacity to 

raise and expend this level of funding. This does not even consider 

the extraordinary requirements of covering septic systems to county homes converting septic systems to county public sewer with infrastructure requirements in the billions, a far bigger project. 

As I mentioned, in 2012, the Maryland General Assembly mandated the State’s 10 largest jurisdictions to adopt the laws by July 

1st to establish a watershed protection and restoration program 

and include a stormwater remediation fee, also known as the ‘‘rain 

tax,’’ for the purposes of funding the 2025 TMDL stormwater goals. 

I am not aware of any other Bay region State that has imposed 

new taxes for both wastewater treatment plant upgrades and 

stormwater remediation. 

Candidly, I vetoed the local stormwater tax in Anne Arundel 

County because I did not like the way in which it was imposed on 

our residents by the State. It has resulted in what I call a ‘‘race 

to the bottom’’ among the 10 jurisdictions to see who could impose 

the lowest tax, including one jurisdiction that has refused to impose a local tax at all. 

I have personally read hundreds of emails on this subject, if not 

thousands. Last week, while I was speaking to a group of reporters 

and editors in Baltimore, they asked me what was the top question 

I received from the constituents. Without even thinking about it or 

blinking, I reported the rain tax. 

My staff and I have received numerous complaints from every 

type of taxpayer: residential, nonprofit, religious organizations and 

businesses. People do not understand the causal connection between urban runoff and sediment pollution in the Bay. There was 

no large-scale public education campaign to let citizens know what 

TMDL stands for and they were totally unprepared for yet another 

tax on their property, this time to pay for stormwater projects. Because the county council promptly overrode my veto, we have a 

stormwater tax in effect in Anne Arundel County. 

Our hands are tied and so we are moving forward. Anne Arundel 

County is implementing a watershed protection and restoration 

program. The stormwater tax is now assessed on residential and 

non-residential properties within the county and appears on the 

property tax bill. The residential fee is assessed based on zoning 

density. The non-residential fee is assessed on impervious surface 

determined from aerial photography. The base rate is $85 per 2,940 

square feet. When fully phased in over 3 years, the stormwater tax 

will generate $22.5 million in fiscal year 2016. 
55 

Our county’s current 6-year capital improvement plan is budgeted for $460 million to fund stormwater projects which will 

achieve a 10 percent reduction in nitrogen, 25 percent reduction in 

phosphorus, and 22 percent reduction in sediment by 2019. Anne 

Arundel County taxpayers are already carrying a significant share 

of the Bay clean up. 

The rain tax has received the most attention, but to place so 

much emphasis on this one area is to ignore the biggest challenge 

which looms in front of us, which brings us to septics. 

The third and most costly sector toward meeting our pollutant 

reduction mandates is the conversion of septic systems to public 

sewer. Anne Arundel County has over 40,000 septic systems which 

deliver an estimated 515,000 pounds of nitrogen to the Chesapeake 

Bay each year. We must reduce our nitrogen loads by 230,000 

pounds annually, requiring us to convert roughly half our septic 

systems to public service systems, which is over 20,000 connections. 

This is estimated to cost Anne Arundel County nearly $1.5 billion. 

The technical and regulatory challenges associated with this effort are daunting. Success will require an integrated partnership of 

Federal, State, and local governments. Local governments cannot 

do this alone. Unfortunately, we have to. Yes, the Chesapeake Bay 

is a treasure for our community, but it is also an economic development engine for the eastern half of the United States. When you 

consider the widening of the Panama Canal, the Chesapeake serves 

an important economic development function for the eastern half of 

the United States, and cleaning up the Bay is an important job for 

everyone who benefits from the Bay. 

In the 1970s when the Clean Water Act came into being, the 

Federal Government provided 87.5 percent of funding to help local 

governments pay for the massive investment in extending sewer 

service to unserved areas. Today’s challenges are similar in the 

magnitude of what we are being asked to do. The Chesapeake Bay 

is a national treasure. It is a shared resource and it should be a 

shared responsibility. 

We are not having an honest conversation if we are not including 

all three areas of water treatment and management that must be 

addressed. All three areas, not just stormwater. 

On to compliance and challenges and emerging issues, we certainly have many challenges ahead. Without question, where you 

stand on this important issue of stormwater in Maryland will be 

a defining issue in the 2014 election regardless of your position. 

Consequently, the Maryland legislature will have pressure to revisit the issue during the 2014 session. It will inject more uncertainty into the program, which received no financial assistance 

from the State. Public acceptance of a benefit they cannot visualize 

is an ongoing challenge for every elected official. 

Although the efforts of Federal and State governments are appreciated, financial assistance has been woefully inadequate compared 

to the costs local governments are facing for stormwater retrofits. 

Finding the dollars to comply is an issue of legitimate concern, particularly for local governments who have limited tax bases to support such a costly undertaking. We look to our Federal partners for 

a more creative and collaborative approach to achieving our goals. 
56 

A more technical challenge involves navigating a lengthy and difficult Federal regulatory process, probably the biggest challenge of 

all, to obtain necessary permits for stream restoration projects. My 

colleagues might agree with me on that. Getting permits often 

takes 1 to 2 years. Often the permits require extensive and costly 

pre- and post-construction monitoring. Every environmental group 

I have worked with has named this as their primary challenge. 

This results in significant additional project costs, as well as expansion of project schedules due to the duration and timing of the required monitoring, costing taxpayers more money. 

Federal permitting requirements become a barrier to Anne Arundel County achieving mandated targets. In the past year, Anne 

Arundel County has engaged in an ongoing dialog with Federal and 

State agencies to address the permitting issue. This is an action 

item that demands resolution. 

In conclusion, if there is anything to take away from lessons 

learned, it is a fact that the Chesapeake Bay is the Nation’s largest 

estuary and one of the world’s most productive bodies of water worthy of national attention, no different than the Federal response to 

the Great Lakes or Florida’s Everglades. No one county, no one 

State, no one region should have to bear the entire burden of remediation. We must all be in this together. When we shift this responsibility to a few counties, we are placing the burden of a national 

resource on a local community. At a time when Maryland is struggling to be competitive, we are putting ourselves at a competitive 

disadvantage with yet another tax. 

On behalf of the citizens of Anne Arundel County, I appreciate 

the opportunity to share with the Subcommittee a local government 

experience to date in meeting the EPA’s pollution diet for the 

Chesapeake Bay. Thank you for inviting me to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Neuman follows:] 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

Senator CARDIN. You are welcome. Thank you for your testimony 

and thank all three of you for your testimony. 

It is very clear from all of your testimony that, first, the public 

wants a clean Chesapeake Bay. You moved here, Ms. Neuman, because of the Bay. They expect when they turn on their faucet, they 

are going to get clean water. They expect us to deliver and protect 

the environment. 

And it was the Congress, not the Environmental Protection 

Agency, that passed the Clean Water Act. It was a very popular 

thing to do because it speaks to a national priority. We wanted 

clean water. We passed the Clean Air Act because we wanted clean 

air. 

And I applaud Bill Baker for saying it is one thing to have a law. 

It is another thing to enforce a law. And it was not easy to get different stakeholders together on the Chesapeake Bay Program, and 

it was well intended. No question about it. And Mr. Baker is absolutely right. As we look at the different progress States—we did not 

miss by a little bit. We missed it by a lot what we thought we 

should be able to get done. 

So now we are looking at a progress chart that is not as rosy as 

we had anticipated it to be. And I agree with all three of your testimonies, and that is, it is not up to the farmers, it is not up to developers, it is not up to local government. It is up to all of us to 

figure out a plan that works where everyone is held accountable 

and responsible for what they should be able to achieve, not just 

public good science tells us, but good politics tells us. 

I particularly appreciate your point, Ms. Neuman, that this has 

got to be done in a way the public will accept. Otherwise, we cannot sustain this. This is democracy. So we have got to get this done 

right. 

So, Mr. Baker, let me start with you. Why are we not going to 

reach the 2015 goals? Is it a matter of political will? Is it a matter 

of finance? Is it a matter that we set goals too high? Why are we 

not achieving more? 

Mr. BAKER. The 2016 interim goal? 

Senator CARDIN. Right. 

Mr. BAKER. We have optimism and hope that we will meet that. 

Senator CARDIN. Oh, good. I thought you said in your testimony 

that all of the jurisdictions are making progress but not enough 

progress. 

Mr. BAKER. This is in the milestone for 2012–2013. Each of the 

States has committed to doing certain things, and so for the 2013 

deadline of the milestones, the interim report was for half of that 

2-year term. They reported on what they were doing and none of 

them were meeting but all were doing some. We have confidence 

that some of the States may yet pull out the 2013 milestone and 

meet all of their requirements, but it is going to be a big lift in this 

current year and what is left of this year. 

In terms of the 2016, 60 percent of the way toward the 2025 

deadline, we are still hopeful that that can be met, but it is going 

to take a lot of work. 

Senator CARDIN. What is the greatest challenge the stakeholders 

are facing? 
67 

Mr. BAKER. With respect, Ms. Neuman, the greatest challenge is 

hearing local officials complain about how costly this will be and 

using dollar amounts that are simply unsubstantiated by reality, 

scaring people into thinking that we cannot afford to save the 

Chesapeake Bay. Over and over again, you will see huge numbers 

come out of local governments, and once implementation starts, 

those numbers start to go down dramatically. I think that is the 

greatest challenge, that people are being scared, that political agendas are being pursued to try to foment opposition to cleaning up 

the Chesapeake Bay to saying things like the only source of pollution that is being attacked is stormwater when that is simply not 

the case. So I do object to using the Chesapeake Bay and its clean 

up as a way to tell people that what is being asked is impractical 

and impossible to achieve. It is not. 

Senator CARDIN. On the eastern shore of Maryland, in fact, in 

most parts of our State, if you are talking to the farmers, they 

think the farmers are the ones who are being picked on the most 

as far as dealing with the clean up of the Bay. 

So, Mr. Spies, what do you find to be your greatest challenge in 

trying to meet the expectations that government has of a clean 

farming? 

Mr. SPIES. One of the issues—and I do not have a fix to it, but 

a lot of the grants that I have been involved in and a lot of grants 

that other people have been involved in have been where people 

really look at the new technology, the next best thing. We know 

cover crops are working. We know nutrient management plants 

have a benefit, but what is that next thing farmers can do and agriculture can do to reduce their burden on the Bay? So there are 

a lot of exciting things coming down the pike, but part of the crux 

of that is once we have researched it and we start using it, to put 

it into the plan of the TMDL, there is a process and it needs to 

be evaluated. It needs to be peer-reviewed. Then it is put into our 

TMDLs and our WIPs as a temporary goal that is usually pretty 

conservative. And so agriculture does not from my point of view— 

I do not know about the others, but agriculture is not really reaping all the benefits of some of the practices that we have been 

doing and the money we have been pumping into reduction of nutrients. So I think it is an important process to evaluate each new 

technology and make sure that it is living up to what has been 

billed. It would just be nice if there was a way to kind of track that 

and follow that along through the process instead of it being put 

off until 2017 or later. 

I am excited about the programs. I am working within agriculture and I think agriculture will be able to meet its goals. It is 

going to hurt. It is going to take work. But some of the technologies 

that are coming and the research that is coming are exciting. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Ms. Neuman, most of your relationship in regards to the Bay is 

with the State. The State has come up with a plan. The counties 

are responsible for their sector. The legislature has passed certain 

laws in regards to funding. My question is what would you like to 

see the Federal Government do to make your job a little bit easier 

in dealing with the responsibilities you have with the Chesapeake 

Bay. 
68 

Ms. NEUMAN. Well, I believe the Chesapeake Bay is a national 

resource. The Government could take a lead just like they did with 

the Everglades or Great Lakes in cleaning up the Bay and the tributaries that flow into the Bay. The Chesapeake Bay benefits everyone in this country not just because it is a beautiful body of water, 

but it is a major economic development engine. If you consider the 

widening of the Panama Canal, it is more important. So I believe 

that the Federal Government should take a lead in the overall 

clean up. 

What is happening in the State is that when this remediation fee 

was passed by the General Assembly, what they did was push it 

down to the 10 counties rather than the 24 jurisdictions. So those 

10 counties competed in what I call a race to the bottom to see who 

can propose the lowest tax. It is not a fee. It is a tax. 

We all agree that the Bay needs to be cleaned up. There is not 

any question about that. That is why there are over 600 nonprofits 

that in some way are focused on cleaning up the Bay or the tributaries flowing into the Bay. It is very important. We need to do it. 

It needs to be done, but to push it down to 10 counties in the State 

of Maryland when the entire country and certainly the eastern half 

greatly benefits from this huge body of water I think is unfair at 

the county level and it requires a broader perspective. It requires 

work at the Federal level to manage this process much like you 

have done with the Everglades and the Great Lakes. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, part of reforming the conservation sections of the Farm Bill is the recognition by the Federal Government that there are critical areas of this country of great interest 

to the entire country so that there are programs tailored to provide 

additional help in critical environmental areas such as the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And the same thing is true as we look at the 

Chesapeake Bay Program as to how we can get national attention 

to an area that is important to the entire country because it is a 

national responsibility, not just a regional responsibility. 

Congressman Sarbanes. 

Representative SARBANES. Thank you. 

Mr. Baker, I wanted to ask you about—you talked about the 

three agreements that took place and the striking failure to meet 

the objectives that have been set out in each of those. Why do you 

think we missed those? It seems to me the information and knowledge we had at our fingertips before those agreements were in 

place was nothing like what we have now, and it is harder to own 

the problem than solve it when you distribute it out to all stakeholders. I imagine you would say—but I would like to hear your 

thoughts on this—that we cannot pretend now we do not know 

what we need to know in order to make significant progress. It is 

not a matter of knowledge anymore. It is about meeting the expectations. 

But can you comment on sort of how we move to a new place 

with the information and knowledge available to us to provide the 

stakeholders with that ownership that we ought to be able to expect from the stakeholders to solve the problem, that that might 

be one of the things that helps make a difference this time out? 

Mr. BAKER. Yes, sir. And it is important to remember that we 

had 90 percent at least of the science in 1987 when the 40 percent 
69 

reduction for nitrogen and phosphorus was set. The numbers in the 

TMDL blueprint are near exactly the same as they were in the 

1987 agreement in terms of how much pollution needs to be reduced. What is so different this time—and you asked why. And I 

think one is that there is better information, but also people are 

impatient and they are impatient when after 35 years progress has 

not been made in saving something that is as important to our 

economy and to our well-being as Chesapeake Bay. They do demand more. So I think the constituents of our elected officials in 

this six-State region said now is the time to get serious. 

The reason this one is different is because it headed off what 

hurt the last ones, which was toward the end of the cycle, whether 

it was either 1987 and 2000 or 2000 and 2010, elected officials 

started to say, you know, I just do not think we are going to be 

able to make it. I wish I had been around early on when we first 

got started because we would have gotten started earlier. We have 

delayed. This one requires the 2-year incremental reportable and 

measurable steps. Each State has to get to the 2025 deadline, and 

if the States do not meet those 2-year milestones, the EPA can impose sanctions against the States. We think this is a critical difference. 

But do not take my word for it. Look who is opposing it. Some 

of the most powerful associations in this country are opposing the 

TMDL in Federal court and in Congress because they think this 

time it has got a real chance to succeed, and they are afraid of success. So you have the Fertilizer Institute, the National Chicken 

Growers, the Hog Council, the Grain Growers, the Homebuilders 

Association of America all suing in Federal court to try to take 

away the TMDL, and they are lobbying in Congress. 

So this one is different. People have been impatient. We know 

more and we decided that something had to be done that was enforceable. 

Representative SARBANES. I like the concept that we have now, 

in effect, an early warning system, on the political side of this to 

check in at regular intervals to adjust and enforce and insist in 

ways that we could not do before with the way the plan was designed and structured. 

Talk a little bit and then I will ask you, Ms. Neuman, to speak 

to this as well. But let us talk about the public’s relationship to the 

Chesapeake Bay and to these efforts generally. I know the Chesapeake Bay Foundation periodically does surveys to get a sense of 

what the public’s perspective is and what the appetite is in the 

public to step up and do the right thing with respect to the Bay. 

Then it is a ‘‘connect the dots’’ exercise if, as I imagine you are 

going to tell me now, there is strong support for a cleaner Chesapeake Bay, that you then show people, well, these are the things 

that have to be done in order to achieve that. But talk a little bit 

about what you get when you go and survey the public and how 

that helps to inform the position and policy. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, we do do routine public opinion surveys, and 

we just finished one in Virginia. There is a gubernatorial election 

coming up. We hired both a Republican and a Democratic polling 

firm to work together. We will be glad to provide the results to you 

and to the rest of the Committee members. 
70 

The results are startling: overwhelming support not only for 

cleaning up the waters of the rivers and streams of the Chesapeake 

Bay, but for paying for it. Overwhelming support of paying for the 

clean up. And it is a broad-based survey. There is a lot more than 

that, but the short answer—I know we have limited time and others want to speak—overwhelming public support every time there 

is a survey done. 

Representative SARBANES. Ms. Neuman, as you go around the 

county, I imagine you sense that commitment to the health of the 

Bay and a willingness on the part of the residents of Anne Arundel 

County to try to do their part. Do you think there is a way to kind 

of capture that interest and energy and commitment and to channel it so the residents of the county and others in Maryland and 

beyond will take greater ownership of some of the resource side of 

the equation that needs to go with it? 

Ms. NEUMAN. I would, without question, say there is overwhelming support for cleaning up the Bay and the revenue streams 

that flow into the Bay. I do not think any of us would debate that 

point. We all agree on that. It needs to be cleaned up. We have 

been cleaning it up for 35 years. 

The question is how are we going to pay for that. Are we going 

to ask a handful of jurisdictions in the State of Maryland to bear 

the financial burden? This is a national problem, and if you are a 

woman who is 60 years old living in a 1,000-square-foot house on 

1 acre in Glen Burnie, you are being asked to pay $170 a year right 

now, which is, by the way, your 40th tax increase in 7 years—tax 

or fee increase in 7 years. They are pushing back. It is the No. 1 

question I get asked everywhere I go. 

And even those who support the Bay—and that includes me. I 

mean, I really moved to Anne Arundel County because of the Bay. 

I grew up in east Baltimore. I had never been on a boat. I wanted 

to go out and see what it was like. I got in a boat at 27 and moved 

to Annapolis 2 weeks later. I love being on the Bay. There is no 

greater activity. Those of us who benefit from being on it, know the 

beauty of it. Not everyone has that opportunity. If you live on the 

water in Anne Arundel County, if you are of a certain socioeconomic class and you can see the benefits of being on the Bay, 

it makes a lot of sense to do that. Some people have that privilege. 

Not everyone does. Most of our citizens do not have that privilege. 

If you want people to appreciate the Bay, you need to get them 

on the Bay, but if you have never been on the Bay or if you do not 

benefit or directly understand the economic benefit of preserving 

the Bay, this national treasure that is a major economic engine, in 

addition to being a natural beauty, it is hard for you to connect 

with another $170 a year tax which, by the way, is going up to several hundred dollars over the next several years. And when you 

have 10 counties out of 24 who are being asked to pass this tax 

on to their citizens, it seems fundamentally unfair. And the tax rate is not consistent. So in one county, it is $35. In our county, it is $170. They say it is $35, but I sent in my request to find out and it was $170. So it is not uniformly applied 

and citizens in 10 counties in our State are being asked to bear the 

financial cost of it. It does not seem fair to me or to every citizen 

I have spoken with who is opposed to this tax. 
71 

There needs to be a national approach to addressing this issue. 

The Bay does need to be cleaned up. It needs to be addressed nationally. And I believe our local and our statewide elected officials 

will be pressed hard on this in the next round of elections. 

Representative SARBANES. Well, I am sure the two of us would 

agree with the notion that the Federal Government can be contributing more in resources certainly. I think we have advocated bolstering the partnership and a shared responsibility that you are referring to. But I do think there is a potential to connect the strong 

feelings that people have about the Bay to an ownership and stewardship of progress we have made there that includes being not 

necessarily loving of the Bay but being accepting of the notion that 

some additional resources to promote the benefits from the Bay are 

to be expected. 

The other thing is that I think there is real opportunity, as counties and jurisdictions design their stormwater management fee 

structure, to offer credits to homeowners and others who are affected by it when they take meaningful steps to reduce their particular footprint. And the legislation that I have offered, The 

Chesapeake Bay Homeowners Act, has initiatives that the EPA is 

taking to model how that would work and what is the potential. 

So then the homeowner and consumer or resident is not just looking at this through the lens of I am going to get hit with X dollars’ 

worth of tax, but I have an opportunity through things that I do 

in my own property, initiatives that I undertake to reduce that and 

at the same time be contributing both in kind and partially, yes, 

with some dollars contributed to the overall health of the Bay. And 

that is the kind of partnership between government, nonprofit organizations, and ordinary citizens, of whom there are 18 million of 

us residing in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that can get us to 

those critical tipping points that we heard about earlier. 

Ms. NEUMAN. I think it is a great idea. It is a frequently asked 

question for those who have invested in remediation projects on 

their property, whether it be residential or commercial. They are 

asking us to be aware of that. But there are three fees associated 

with cleaning up: Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund, the 

stormwater remediation fee, also known as the rain tax, and in our 

county we have the septic issue which is exponentially larger than 

either of those issues. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank all three of our witnesses. 

I think this has been extremely helpful. 

And, Mr. Baker, the map that you put out I think is very telling. 

We have enjoyed support not just from Virginia and Maryland and 

Delaware and the Nation’s capital but also from the people of 

Pennsylvania and the people of New York and people of West Virginia who are in the watershed but do not see it quite as visibly 

as we see it because we get the beauty of the Bay. They have the 

tributaries that are critically important for the health of the Bay. 

We have had that type of support over the years with the partnership. And I think all of your testimonies have been extremely helpful to us. 

Once again, I want to just thank the leadership of the Environment and Public Works Committee for allowing us to get out into 

the community to develop a hearing on how we can, as a practical 
72 

matter, help. There is no question that there is a commitment in 

this country to clean water. There is a commitment for improving 

the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay partnership has been a model 

program that looks at ways that we can really make the results the 

Clean Water Act would dictate us to make and that the people of 

this country expect us to do. But we have got to find a practical 

way to achieve that. 

We have been working at this for a long time. But for the work 

that we have done, we would be in much worse shape today. But 

it is frustrating that we have not been able to achieve more. And 

I could not agree with Mr. Spies more that everyone has to be at 

the table. It cannot be one person. All of us have to come. And it 

does cost money. We have to have the resources. I know the State 

of Maryland can meet its obligations and has tried hard to find a 

way to do that in conjunction with all of the people of our State. 

So I will take this back. Senator Boozman has been one of our 

partners in this. He is the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee. He has been very interested in the Chesapeake Bay. 

And I also want to thank, as I said earlier, Senator Boxer and Senator Vitter, the chairperson and the ranking Republican on the full 

committee, for their commitment for us to try to develop a record 

so that our Committee can act in a responsible manner. 

Once again, thank you all for your participation. 

And with that, the subcommittee hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today’s hearing. I also thank our witnesses 

for testifying before the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife. 

It is no secret that taking on incredibly complex restoration efforts—whether in 

the Chesapeake Bay, Louisiana, or elsewhere—requires cooperative and trustworthy 

relationships between numerous parties, including local, State and Federal officials, 

farmers, industry representatives, municipal utility interests, nonprofit organizations, and others. I am concerned, however, that Federal officials and environmental 

groups are not holding up their end of the bargain. 

For example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants the various 

Chesapeake States to work together on restoration issues, yet is at the same time 

undermining State and local environmental authority through various regulatory 

programs. EPA recently determined, without State input, that it will assess Bay 

Watershed States’ animal feeding operation standards and has indicated that it will 

take ‘‘appropriate actions’’ if the State program isn’t satisfactory to the agency. This 

type of veiled threat serves no one. It completely ignores the States’ primary role 

in environmental regulation, and it does a disservice to restoration efforts by pitting 

the local jurisdictions against the Federal Government. 

Likewise, environmental groups continue to pursue endless litigation against anyone who dares to use natural resources to provide food and jobs to our fellow Americans, often at the cost of real environmental progress. And we should all remember 

that one of the primary roles of our Federal Government is to facilitate commerce, 

not to frustrate it. I was disappointed to learn last week that farmers in Maryland 

will not be able to recoup $3 million in legal fees incurred in defending an outrageous Clean Water Act lawsuit filed by the Waterkeeper Alliance. It is well known 

here that the tactics the Waterkeeper Alliance used to persecute the farmers were 

dubious, but the Alliance was not held to account. If environmental groups truly 

want improved restoration efforts, they should think twice before suing the people 

who are putting food on our plates in an environmentally responsible manner. 

I am pleased to have as the minority witness the County Executive for Anne 

Arundel County, Laura Neuman. She is a local official who understands the importance of a balanced approach to Chesapeake Bay restoration. Through her opposition to the so-called ‘‘rain tax’’ and other efforts, the County Executive has worked 
73 

to ensure that those who want restoration to involve more than just environmental 

groups and government bureaucrats have a voice in Maryland. 

Once again, I thank the Chairman for calling today’s hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

Chairman Cardin, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the progress and ongoing challenges of efforts to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

Earlier this year, when I became Subcommittee Ranking Member, I appreciated 

the opportunity to visit with you and to receive a progress report from you on the 

Chesapeake Bay Program. 

Today’s hearing is nationally significant for several reasons. First, the Chesapeake Bay—our nation’s largest estuary, with a watershed that stretches from New 

York down throughout the mid-Atlantic region—is a vital resource of national significance. Second, the actions taken to restore the Bay set precedence that may be 

duplicated in other watersheds. Finally, the positive and negative experiences of 

Chesapeake Bay watershed stakeholders, from all walks of life, will inform other 

communities with similar challenges. 

Much of today’s testimony is encouraging. In many respects, the Bay’s water quality is improving and critical ecosystems are becoming healthier and more resilient. 

However, as our nation continues to borrow at a rate of billions of dollars every single day—an unsustainable level of borrowing—water quality stakeholders are rightfully concerned that an increasing share of the burden for restoration activities 

could be shifted to State and local governments. We have experienced this type of 

burden in Arkansas, as well. For example, in northwest Arkansas, a handful of relatively small communities have invested over $250 million over the last decade to 

improve their wastewater treatment plants, with very little support from the Federal Government. 

To maintain support, the Chesapeake Bay Program and activities carried out 

under the President’s Executive Order must remain focused on water quality improvement; and where these activities have been focused on other agenda items unrelated or only tangentially related to water quality improvement within the watershed, I urge our agencies to refocus and redirect efforts toward solving water quality 

challenges. For example, we hear about climate change as part of the Federal Government’s Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. We also hear of a Federal ‘‘Mid-Atlantic Elementary and Secondary Environmental Literacy Strategy,’’ and the like. 

Instead of focusing on the problems that have the potential to unite citizens behind 

Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts, these peripheral efforts create the impression 

that the Administration is using the Program to advance its own political agenda. 

Congress may debate climate-related policies or whether there should be Federal incentives for schools to place a higher emphasis on environmental science than on 

other areas of need, such as medicine, but the Chesapeake Bay efforts should not 

be used to preempt these important debates. The threat of ‘‘mission drift’’ is real, 

and if the Bay Program appears to be too political, support will be undermined. 

I also want to address the importance of cooperative federalism. Too often the 

EPA begins by threatening the States and other non-Federal stakeholders. Many future water quality improvement efforts—both in the Bay watershed and across our 

country—will depend on voluntary actions by farmers, community leaders, and ongoing local taxpayer support. The EPA’s aggressive posture could undermine local 

support and voluntary actions. 

Moving forward, we should continue to promote cooperation and support. We 

should continue to invest in State revolving fund capitalization grants. We should 

support voluntary trading initiatives that allow resources to be most effectively 

used. And we should continue to emphasize the role of partners, like NRCS, that 

have earned trust in our communities. 

Finally, I regret that I was unable to attend today’s hearing, but I look forward 

to reviewing the testimony and continuing to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to support water quality improvement efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 

throughout our country. 

Thank you. 

Æ