U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

52–467 PDF 2009

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

(111–60) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

BOB FILNER, California 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VACANCY 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

TESTIMONY 

Brinsfield, Dr. Russell B., University of Maryland, Queenstown, Maryland ..... 50 

Bryant, Jr., L. Preston, Secretary, Office of the Secretary of Natural Resources, Office of Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine ................................... 21 

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 14 

Cosgrove, Hon. John A., a Delegate in the Virginia House of Delegates and 

Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission ........................................................ 21 

Drzyzgula, Council Member Cathy, City of Gaithersburg, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Testifying on Behalf of Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments ..................................................................................................................... 50 

Fox, J. Charles, Senior Advisor to the Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 21 

Hawkins, George S., Director, District of Columbia Department of the Environment ................................................................................................................. 21 

Hughes, Peter, President, Red Barn Consulting, Inc., Lancaster, Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 50 

Johnson, Jerry, General Manager, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Laurel, Maryland ........................................................................................ 50 

Pugh, Molly, Executive Director, Virginia Grain Producers Association, 

Chesapeake, Virginia ........................................................................................... 50 

Sturla, P. Hon. Michael, a Representative in the Pennsylvania House of 

Representatives .................................................................................................... 21 

Wilson, Shari, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment ................ 21 

Wittman, Honorable Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Virginia ................................................................................................................. 14 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 69 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 70 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Brinsfield, Dr. Russell B. ........................................................................................ 71 

Bryant, Jr., L. Preston ............................................................................................ 73 

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E. ........................................................................................ 83 

Cosgrove, Hon. John A. ........................................................................................... 88 

Drzyzgula, Council Member Cathy ........................................................................ 92 

Fox, J. Charles ......................................................................................................... 107 

Hawkins, George S. ................................................................................................. 121 

Hughes, Peter ........................................................................................................... 125 

Johnson, Jerry .......................................................................................................... 129 

Pugh, Molly .............................................................................................................. 137 

Sturla, Hon. Michael P. ........................................................................................... 142 

Wilson, Shari ............................................................................................................ 145 

Wittman, Honorable Rob ......................................................................................... 149 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas: ................................................................................................................

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Coalition and Choose Clean Water Campaign, letter ............................................................................................... 2 

Ducks Unlimited, written testimony ........................................................... 5 

Page

VI 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Environmental Working Group, Michelle Perez, Principal Author and Craig 

Cox and Ken Cook, Contributing Authors: ........................................................

Letter ............................................................................................................. 153 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 155 

State of New York, Department of Environmental Conservation, Alexander 

B. Grannis, Commissioner, written testimony .................................................. 186 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 52467.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 52467.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 52467.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 52467.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 52467.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 52467.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 52467.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 52467.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 52467.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 52467.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 52467.011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 52467.012
xix 


Insert offset folio 13 here 52467.013
(1) 

HEARING ON REAUTHORIZATION OF THE 

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM 

Tuesday, September 22, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie Bernice 

Johnson of Texas [Chair of the Subcommittee], presiding. 

Present: Representatives Johnson of Texas, Boozman, Cao, 

Cummings, Edwards, Hare, Latta, Oberstar, Perriello, and Platts. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. The Committee will come to order. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter two pieces of testimony into the record. The first is from the Chesapeake Bay Coalition and the second is from Ducks Unlimited. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 

2 


Insert offset folio 14 here 52467.014
3 


Insert offset folio 15 here 52467.015
4 


Insert offset folio 16 here 52467.016
5 


Insert offset folio 17 here 52467.017
6 


Insert offset folio 18 here 52467.018
7 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I also would like to request unanimous 

consent that Congressman Cummings be allowed to participate in 

this hearing of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. He should be here shortly. 

Any objection? Hearing none. 

Just over a year ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on the 

Chesapeake Bay that highlighted its impairments and provided 

recommendations for its recovery. Today’s hearing is the next step 

in restoring the estuary. 

This afternoon, we will hear from a series of distinguished panelists on the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program. We are 

pleased that we also have the opportunity to hear from two of our 

distinguished colleagues from Virginia, Congressman Gerry 

Connolly and Congressman Robert Wittman. Their districts are, as 

you know, at the lower end of the watershed. They are literally 

downstream, as such. They can offer great clarity to the cloudy bay, 

and we will look forward to their comments and contributions to 

this discussion. 

The combination of a new and committed Administration, an 

unhealthy watershed, and a dedication to solutions and accountability from both sides of the aisle illustrates that the time to act 

must be now. 

But as we discuss the reauthorization of Section 117 of the Clean 

Water Act, and while we call for accountability, we must all set a 

goal of realizing a process for restoring the Bay that is characterized by equity and effectiveness. Speaking plainly, without these 

elements, the Chesapeake Bay will not be restored. 

The primary pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay are nutrients and 

sediment. These pollutants come from a variety of sources, some 

regulated, others not. The only way we are going to be able to 

unlock the puzzle that is a dying Chesapeake is through the creation of a fair system whereby those that pollute the Bay are proportionately responsible for cleaning it up. 

Renewing and, in some cases, installing a sense of accountability 

will not result in a healthy and restored bay. It is the right and 

just thing to do. 

EPA tells us that 20 percent of the nitrogen loadings to the Bay 

come from wastewater treatment facilities; 21 percent comes from 

atmospheric deposition; and 16 percent from urban and suburban 

runoff; and 43 percent comes from agricultural sources. 

The wastewater treatment community has long been regulated 

under the Clean Water Act. As such, publicly owned treatment 

works have been consistent partners with the States of the Bay watershed in reducing nutrient loadings. That said, a number of treatment works have nutrient permit limits that are in excess of the 

levels achievable by current technology. Through trading or technology these lagging facilities must be brought up to speed. 

Resolving the issue of atmospheric deposition is a vexing problem. With environmental statutes that remain stovepiped, our ability to get at the fallout of nitrogen onto the waters and landscape 

of the Bay watershed is handicapped. Through implementation of 

pending Clean Air Act programs such as the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, we can anticipate sizable reductions. Whether these will 

achieve the gains necessary will remain to be seen, as will the matVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
8 

ter of whether there needs to be a closer linkage between the Clean 

Water and Clean Air Acts. 

All levels of government, Federal, State and local, must do a better job with urban and suburban stormwater control and mitigation. This is the sole sector in which pollutant loadings are increasing. It is untenable that while 31 percent of the total loadings of 

phosphorus into the Bay are from urban and suburban sources, 6 

percent are covered by stormwater permits. 

11 percent of the total nitrogen loadings are from urban and suburban sources, and only 2 percent are covered by permits; and 

where 19 percent of all sediment loadings come from urban and 

suburban sources, only 4 percent of the sediment loadings are covered under permits. 

Many of these stormwater inputs are point source discharges. As 

such, they must be better brought in under the manifold of the 

Clean Water Act. We have now held multiple hearings on the effectiveness of the green infrastructure. Given the cost effectiveness of 

many of these technologies, development should not be seen as a 

free pass to polluters. 

Finally, agriculture is an area in which improvements can and 

must be made. While nutrient reductions have indeed occurred as 

a result of the incorporation of best management practices on 

farms and the application of regulations to industrial livestock operations, the fact remains that agriculture remains the largest single source of pollutants into the Bay. If we are to clean up the Bay, 

agriculture must bear responsibility for its proportionate share of 

watershed impairment. 

The value of the Bay lies not just to the States of Maryland and 

Virginia. As a Member from Dallas, Texas, it is obvious that I live 

outside this watershed. Yet I know that restoring this estuary is 

a matter of great importance. The Bay is, as President Obama recently put it, a national treasure. 

As such, I recognize that we all live downstream no matter 

where we, in fact, reside. The benefits of a cleaner Chesapeake Bay 

will, of course, accrue to the estuary itself, but these benefits are 

by no means limited to just the Bay proper. A cleaner bay necessarily means a cleaner Anacostia for the District and a cleaner 

Susquehanna for Pennsylvania, healthier headwater streams in 

Delaware, a more pristine south branch of the mighty Potomac 

River in West Virginia, and a more vibrant Oswego in New York. 

More accountability, equity and effectiveness means both a 

healthier bay downstream and cleaner waters upstream in which 

all people of this watershed may better and more healthily drink, 

swim and fish. 

I thank all of you for being here this afternoon, and I now yield 

to our Subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman, for his opening statement. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I certainly want to welcome everyone to our hearing today, and 

especially Mr. Wittman and Mr. Connolly. We look forward to your 

words of wisdom. 

The Chesapeake Bay is certainly the largest estuary in the 

United States and is critical to the economy, environment and way 

of life for millions in the mid-Atlantic area. Covering some 64,000 

9 

square miles, the watershed spans parts of six States and the District of Columbia and is home to 16 million people. There are 150 

major streams and tributaries in the Chesapeake Basin. The Bay 

is an important environmental feature in the region. It is home to 

millions of waterfowl and a vast array of fish, shellfish and other 

aquatic plants and animals. 

For the human population, the Chesapeake Bay provides millions 

of pounds of seafood, a wide variety of recreational opportunities, 

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

largest ports are on the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore, Maryland and 

Hampton Roads, Virginia. 

Like many of our Nation’s watersheds, the Chesapeake Bay is a 

working watershed, with multiple uses and increasing demands. 

Beginning with colonial settlement until today, land use activities 

and changes in the watershed have affected the health of the 

Chesapeake Bay. Public concerns about the health of the Bay have 

been raised since the 1930s. 

The deterioration of the Chesapeake Bay can be seen in a decrease in water clarity, a decline in oyster and crab populations, 

and a lack of underwater grasses. There are even areas of the Bay 

that are dead zones where there is not enough oxygen in the water 

to sustain life. 

The EPA says the major causes of the Bay’s deterioration are excess nutrients and sediments coming from farmlands, wastewater 

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

to the degradation. 

In the next 25 years, an additional 3.7 million people are expected to be living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As more concrete and asphalt replaces forests and open spaces, the runoff of 

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

this same growth and development that provides the economic stability for the region. All producers, including farmers, foresters, 

fishermen, rely on the water from the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

for their operations. 

Most farmers in the watershed have implemented conservation 

practices and nutrient management plans. If water quality goals 

are not being met, we have to be careful not to overburden producers with regulations that would yield little or no benefit. Before 

we create any additional mandatory programs, we have to ensure 

our producers remain competitive. 

Again, moving the goalposts for farmers and producers without 

knowing if this will improve water quality may ultimately lead to 

these lands being used for activities other than agriculture or forest. Those in the production industry are some of the best stewards 

of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Forcing producers off the land 

will merely lead to more concrete, more asphalt. We may just be 

replacing one source of pollution for another. 

The Bay region must balance economic development with the 

need for clean water and a healthy environment. To do this, the region needs to be smart in how it grows in the future in order to 

minimize the impacts on the Bay. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program was created many years ago to address the degradation of the Bay. In 1987, the program was authorVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
10 

ized formally by Congress in the Clean Water Act. Today, the program is a partnership of States, local entities and the EPA that directs and conducts restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. 

The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement set ambitious restoration goals 

to be met by 2010. These goals are now being rescheduled, but the 

States in the watershed are taking proactive steps to reduce nutrient loadings and increase enforcement. There have been some clear 

successes taking place in our efforts to improve conditions in the 

Bay. Billions of taxpayer dollars have already been devoted to bay 

cleanup. In some cases, this has improved wildlife habitat, bottom 

habitat, and the tideland wetlands. 

The Administration recently issued an executive order to expand 

the role of the Federal Government within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The executive order calls for the creation of total maximum daily load for the Chesapeake Bay to regulate the limits on 

pollutants into the Bay. In addition, the executive order calls for 

a new strategy for meeting the goals of a restored Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem. 

More still needs to be done. All of the program partners and 

stakeholders at the local, State and Federal levels need to make 

some hard decisions to realize a bay region that is both environmentally and economically sustainable. 

Today, we have assembled an excellent group of expert witnesses 

to help us consider the Chesapeake Bay Program as it is now up 

for reauthorization. I look forward to hearing from each of the witnesses on how we can improve the performance of the Chesapeake 

Bay Program and increase the accountability of the program and 

its partners to achieve the Bay restoration goals. 

And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman 

Johnson. I thank you for holding this timely hearing. And I also 

thank you for giving me an opportunity to participate. 

As a Representative of the Maryland Seventh Congressional District, I know what an extraordinary resource the Chesapeake Bay 

is to the State of Maryland, to the mid-Atlantic region, and indeed 

to this Nation. 

In the Administration of President Barack Obama, we finally 

have a President who recognizes that the Bay is truly a national 

treasure and who has made the restoration of the Bay among his 

top environmental preservation goals. 

On May 12, the President issued Executive Order 13508 which 

directs the Federal Government to significantly expand its leadership of the ongoing effort to restore the Bay. Earlier this month, 

the Federal Leadership Committee established by the executive 

order issued a series of reports, known as the Section 202 draft reports, that thoroughly reviewed the challenges faced by the Bay, as 

well as the steps needed to overcome these challenges as we work 

to renew the Bay. 

The Section 202 draft report makes clear the Chesapeake Bay is 

one, if not the most studied bodies of water in the world. We know 

what is harming the Bay. We understand in great detail how nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments enter the Bay from the runoff that 

11 

flows across impervious surfaces, through eroding urban streams 

and aging storm sewers, across farm fields, from the discharges 

that are produced by wastewater treatment facilities, and that 

leach from septic systems and through atmospheric deposition. 

We also understand how controlling and reducing this runoff and 

these discharges is critical to enabling the complex ecosystem if the 

Bay is to thrive again. 

Finally, we also know that despite being informed by conclusive 

scientific evidence of what is wrong, the many voluntary agreements that have been signed with so much fanfare over the past 

quarter century have all failed to accomplish their shared objective 

of truly cleaning up the Bay. 

The Section 202 reports provide a stunning assessment, despite 

all the agreements, despite all the promises, despite all the best efforts, heartfelt slogans and expenditure of billions of dollars, the 

Bay’s water quality in 2008 was still very poor. 

The Section 202(a) report is also clear about what must be done. 

It states ‘‘to meet water quality goals for the Bay, nitrogen and 

phosphorus pollution must be reduced by 44 percent and 27 percent respectively, despite expected population increases of 30 percent between 2000 and 2030.’’ 

Ladies and gentlemen, despite the best intentions of the States, 

the voluntary agreements that have failed in the past, are simply 

not going to achieve this level of pollutant reductions in the years 

to come. And we need to be very clear on that. We need to be honest with ourselves on that. It is evident that we must begin implementing more formal structures to control pollutant loadings. 

However, it is also evident that current law does not provide all 

the authorities necessary to establish, implement and assess the 

results of such new control measures. As such, it is now critical 

that we in the Congress step up and provide the legal authorities 

the Environmental Protection Agency and the States need to take 

decisive action to restore the Bay. 

Frankly, we must also hold these entities accountable for the results of their efforts, and under the leadership of President Obama, 

we have a once in a lifetime chance to enact legislation that can 

finally set us on the path to restoring the Bay, an achievement 

whose true benefits will accrue to our children and grandchildren 

and generations yet unborn. 

I am honored to be working with Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson and all of my colleagues on the Transportation 

Committee to craft such legislation. I look forward to today’s hearing which will help inform the development of these provisions. 

With that, Madam Chairlady, I thank you again and I yield back. 

Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perriello. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member. 

The Chesapeake Bay is an unbelievable treasure for our Country, 

for our region and certainly for the Commonwealth of Virginia. It 

is a treasure in terms of biodiversity, in terms of natural resources, 

and it’s also a tremendous economic driver. But many of the sectors 

of our economy that help contribute to the problems in the Bay are 

also great treasures of ours and great economic drivers. 

12 

The challenge facing the Chesapeake Bay is not one that’s solved 

by great platitudes or ideological debates. It is really down to the 

problem solvers. It is down to the people who can get into the details. And to be honest with ourselves, given some of the things 

that have made great strides in the past and some of the things 

that have fallen short, we need to start with a simple question: 

What solves the problem? And then have the follow-up: What is the 

most efficient way to get there? 

What has been impressive in this debate across State lines, 

across county lines, is people who are deadly serious about solving 

this problem, who understand its importance not just to our environment, but to the long-term economic growth of our Commonwealth and beyond. 

So I think we see today with this hearing and with the efforts 

that have gone into those who are speaking to us today, that we 

see a serious set of people trying to answer those questions. We 

have sectors of our economy affected by this that are already in 

very difficult times. We need to find ways to make sure that we are 

not putting an undue burden on them. 

But we also know that there are certain biological issues that are 

not up for debate that need to be addressed, and without that, we 

will see these things fall apart. 

So the help of our neighbors will always be a top priority and a 

strong consideration as we hear the witnesses today. And I commend the Chairwoman for calling this hearing and for all those 

who are part of it, and look forward to getting into the nuts and 

bolts of how we actually solve this problem together. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and to the 

Ranking Member as well. 

I share both the expressions of concern that my colleagues have 

made today, as well as all of our shared responsibility and desire 

to meet our shared responsibility for the protection of the Bay, and 

to balance the multiple uses of the Chesapeake Bay. 

I am someone who has, like many you know, fished, camped, 

hiked, and made recreational use of the Bay and its treasures. But 

I also recognize that we have many industrial and commercial 

sources that depend heavily on a healthy and thriving Chesapeake 

Bay and the entire watershed. 

I live here in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, and what 

we recognize in this area is that for those of us who live along the 

Potomac, Patuxent, and Anacostia Rivers that there are things that 

we are doing in terms of our transportation and economic development policies that, although we are hours away and miles away 

from the Bay itself, add deep and harmful contributions that are 

contributing to the ill health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

And so we have a responsibility in this region, but there is also 

a responsibility for industry. Along the Bay are agricultural and 

commercial industries that, while it is important for them to thrive, 

are contributing heavily to the agricultural runoff, for example, in 

the Bay that have led to its ill health. 

13 

And I think as my colleagues have shared, you know, we have 

been doing a lot of studying of the Chesapeake Bay. I have been 

an advocate on Bay issues for about the 25 years that I have lived 

in the region. And so we do know what the causes are. We do have 

to have shared agreements and responsibilities that we can all 

meet and live up to-- and that we are willing to live up to. 

I think that it is really clear that despite all the resources that 

we have put into Chesapeake Bay protection and restoration, that 

we haven’t been as successful as we would like to have been. And 

for the multiple States that share this bay as a resource and for 

this Nation, it is really imperative that we come together on a set 

of agreements that can be properly enforced and monitored so that, 

in fact, in 20 years we are talking about a really healthy Chesapeake Bay. 

We know that there are greater efficiencies that can be achieved 

in wastewater treatment, in transportation policy, in economic development policy, some of which seem very local in nature, but in 

fact, because they impact a region and they impact the Nation’s 

largest estuary, actually may require some Federal intervention 

that we might not undertake in other areas. 

And so, Madam Chairwoman, I am grateful to be here today to 

listen to the testimony of so many of our experts, our colleagues 

who, like me, share responsibility for the Chesapeake Bay. And I 

look forward to us coming to some resolutions that will result in 

true health for the Bay and the maintenance of the Chesapeake 

Bay for future generations. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hare? 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to thank Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member 

Boozman for holding this very important meeting. 

The Chesapeake Bay is one of the Nation’s most cherished natural resources. The Bay is the largest estuary in the Country. It 

is rich in wildlife and is home to over 3,700 species. 

Over the past half century, the population of the Bay watershed 

has doubled. Increases in agricultural runoff, wastewater treatment facilities, new land development, and vehicle usage in the 

area have led to significantly high levels of pollutants such as excessive nutrients and sediment in the Bay. As a result, the Bay’s 

water quality and ecosystems are under significant stress. 

To address this, in 1983 the States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, 

and Virginia, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission and the EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement, 

with the aim of protecting and restoring the Bay. The Bay Agreement resulted in the creation of the Bay Program, a partnership 

that directs and conducts activities towards the restoration of the 

Bay. 

Despite these coordinated efforts, the overall health of the Bay 

has been slow to improve, as indicated by the Bay Program in its 

assessment of the health of the Bay in 2008. It is clear that we 

have much more work to do. 

Madam Chairwoman, I believe that the Bay Program and its 

stakeholders need to reconsider what has been done or not done in 

14 

the past and consider what it will do differently in the future to 

protect this vital natural resource. I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses today and to learn how we can make improvements 

to carry out this mission. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I look forward to the testimony. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Are there any other opening statements? 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perriello for introductions. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to do 

the introductions. 

Our first witness today is Congressman Rob Wittman from the 

First District of Virginia: America’s first district, home of Williamsburg and Yorktown. Mr. Wittman is a Member of the Armed Services Committee and has been a tremendous champion of our men 

and women in uniform, and particularly of the advancement of our 

naval fleet and other important priorities. He also serves on the 

Committee on Natural Resources. 

He has been a long-time champion of the Chesapeake Bay’s vital 

economic and environmental importance. He comes from a marine 

biologist background and brings a tremendous amount of both substantive research and policy expertise to the equation. He has 

many degrees, including ones from UNC and Virginia Tech, two 

ACC schools that still know how to win a football game. 

And I, on a personal note, want to thank him for reaching out 

so much since I first got here in January. He extended a reach 

across party lines to work particularly on issues related to veterans 

and Virginia. It is a real pleasure to hear from him today. 

He will be followed by Congressman Gerry Connolly from Virginia’s 11th District, a Member of the House Budget Committee, 

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He is a previous 

Chair of the Board of Supervisors in Fairfax County. He is the current President of the freshman class and the past president of the 

Virginia Association of Counties. He really brings a particularly important perspective, having seen local, State and Federal interaction on these issues. 

He has been a long-time advocate for children in the Commonwealth and across the country, and is an expert on foreign policy 

and other issues. So it is a pleasure to see his expertise here as 

well. 

We welcome you both and, consistent with Subcommittee practice, this panel will be adjourned following their testimony. 

That having been said, Congressman Wittman, please proceed. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Boozman. It is an honor and a privilege to be before you today, 

and I really appreciate your allowing me to discuss the issues before us about the Chesapeake Bay. 

15 

As you know, the Bay is extraordinarily important to myself and 

to our constituents. It is an economic driver in Virginia and that 

is why I am glad to be here with you today. 

I am also pleased to be joined by my colleague from Virginia, 

Congressman Connolly. Gerry is also very dedicated to preserving 

and restoring the Chesapeake Bay. He knows how important it is 

not just to the State, but to the Nation. And I am glad to have 

worked with him already on a number of bay issues. He and I have 

a chance many times to talk about what we can collectively do to 

get our bay cleaned up. And I look forward to continuing to work 

on those issues. 

I would also like to recognize another colleague from the Commonwealth, Congressman Perriello, who has also been a true 

champion for the Bay, a real leader there, someone that reaches 

across the aisle and makes sure that we get things done in the best 

interests of the Commonwealth and the best interests of this Nation. I really appreciate your leadership and your efforts on behalf 

of the Chesapeake Bay. 

I am fortunate to represent Virginia’s First District, which 

stretches from the exurbs of Washington, D.C. down to Hampton 

Roads. The First District includes many of the major tributaries of 

the Bay: the Potomac, the Rappahannock, the York and James Rivers. Just as the Bay has shaped the lives and livelihood of Virginia 

residents for centuries, the Bay continues to be a central part of 

life in our region. 

As the largest estuary in the United Stats, the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed is home to over 16 million people. The scope of the watershed is hard to imagine. The watershed encompasses six States 

and the District of Columbia, well over 1,000 local governments, 

150 major tributaries, 100,000 streams and rivers, and over 11,600 

miles of shoreline, plus thousands of plants and animal species. 

The Bay accounts for billions of dollars in economic and recreational revenue, not to mention it is the site of major ports and 

military bases. 

I believe that there is a deep sense of frustration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed about the progress we have made to restore 

the Bay. Yes, we have had successes. However, with all the Federal, State, local and private partner investment, we would all like 

to see more accomplishments. 

With that said, I am encouraged by the renewed attention and 

dedication towards restoring the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake 

Bay Action Plan, ongoing State efforts, and the Administration’s 

Chesapeake Bay Executive Order all see to improve bay cleanup efforts, and I applaud those efforts. They are long overdue and the 

time is now. 

Across the Bay, these efforts are shaping and will continue to 

shape restoration efforts. Today’s focus on the reauthorization of 

the Chesapeake Bay Program is another important component of 

this complex environmental restoration effort. I would like to outline some of the key principles that I would like to encourage the 

Committee to consider as Congress continues to evaluate and plan 

for ongoing restoration activities in the Chesapeake Bay. 

First, there must be performance-based measures to assure that 

dollars currently spent on bay restoration activities are producing 

16 

results, and that efforts are being monitored and adapted to meet 

bay goals. 

I encourage the Committee to consider incorporating H.R. 1053, 

the Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act, legislation I 

have authored into any bay program reauthorization. H.R. 1053 

would implement and strengthen management techniques like 

cross cut budgeting and adaptive management to ensure we get 

more bang for our buck and continue to make progress in bay restoration efforts. 

Both techniques will ensure that we are coordinating how restoration dollars are spent and making sure that everyone understands how individual projects fit into the bigger picture. And in 

that way, we are not duplicating efforts, neither are we spending 

money in a duplicative way, nor do we need to be looking at issues 

that are at cross purposes. So this will allow us to make sure that 

we are avoiding that duplication in those efforts that cross purposes. 

The Chesapeake Bay Accountability and Recovery Act would require the Office of Management and Budget, in coordination with 

State and Federal agencies involved in the Bay, to report to Congress on the status of Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts. That 

way, Congress is kept up to date on an annual basis, and just like 

anything else, we can make changes accordingly. 

My bill would also require the EPA to develop and implement an 

adaptive management plan for Chesapeake Bay restoration activities. Adaptive management relies on rigorous scientific monitoring, 

testing and evaluation and the flexibility to modify current management policies and strategies based on changing conditions. Just 

like a business plan, as the environment around you changes, your 

business plan changes. This would allow our plan to clean up the 

Bay to also change. 

Cross cut budgeting and adaptive management should be key 

components of the complex restoration activities involved in the 

Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. 

Second, I would also like to encourage the Committee to consider 

alternative options and incentives that don’t force top down regulatory requirements. I recognize that we need both carrots and 

sticks to make complex environmental projects work, and I realize 

that the command and control approach does have a place. But as 

a former small-town mayor, I know that localities often struggle to 

meet State and Federal mandates with inadequate financial and 

technical resources. We should continue to look for ways to create 

incentives and provide the resources for States and localities to 

meet bay restoration goals. 

Additionally, I believe we should encourage innovative and out of 

the box solutions to cleaning up the Bay. New technology and cutting edge research should be encouraged to meet the Bay’s pressing 

needs. 

For example, promising technology exists that could turn chicken 

litter into energy and reduce one of the Bay’s most significant pollutants. This is just one of many technological innovations that 

could improve the Bay. 

In addition to technologies, we should also embrace other innovative solutions. In the Rappahannock River basin, a group of my 

17 

constituents is developing a private sector-led marketplace for environmentally friendly products that will help to protect and restore 

the Bay. I would encourage the Committee to help localities and 

embrace technology and innovation to clean up the Bay. 

Finally, I want to mention two things that I don’t believe belong 

in legislation reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program. I would 

encourage the Committee not to include language that would impose any additional regulations or restrictions on non-native oysters or commercial menhaden harvests. I am opposed and would be 

very concerned about any language that would undermine the 

Army Corps of Engineers’ final environmental impact statement on 

oyster restoration, and I am also strongly opposed to any language 

that would prohibit commercial fishing of menhaden. 

Peer-reviewed Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission scientific stock assessments are very clear and the Atlantic menhaden 

populations are healthy and they are not being over-fished. We 

want to resist the temptation to replace fishery science with politics. 

In my mind, reauthorization of the Bay Program is not the appropriate venue to address fisheries management policy decisions. 

We ought to make sure that we use the existing avenues for that 

in both the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the 

Mid-Atlantic Councils. 

Thank you again, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member 

Boozman, for the opportunity for me to testify today, and I stand 

ready and willing and able to support and work with you to continue efforts to restore our national treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Johnson and 

Ranking Member Boozman, and thank you for your thoughtful 

statements, coming from Texas and Arkansas. I really appreciate 

what you both had to say about the importance of the Chesapeake 

Bay as the number one estuary in all of the United States. 

Frankly, what we do here, as Mr. Perriello indicated in his gracious opening remarks, what we do here in the Bay has implications for lots of other important watersheds throughout the United 

States-- so hopefully we can get it right. 

And I want to thank, in particular my friend, Elijah Cummings, 

for his leadership. I know he is getting ready to introduce a companion bill to the Senate bill, and I look forward to working with 

him on that. 

There are three main sources of pollution for the Bay: sewage 

treatment plants, agriculture and stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces, largely generated from urban and suburban communities. 

Over the past 30 years, we have made remarkable progress reducing pollution from two of those three sources. We are retrofitting sewage treatment plants in my county, for example, that 

will only have three milligrams per liter of nitrogen, a six-fold decrease from the 18 milligrams per liter in the 1970s when algae 

blooms decimated large swaths of the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers. 

18 

We have reduced nitrogen pollution from the agricultural sector, 

from 150 million pounds in 1985 to 99 million pounds today. This 

is thanks largely to Congress’ investment in the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service and other farm conservation programs. 

Despite these achievements, however costly, the overall health of 

the Bay, as has been noted, has not markedly improved, and it is 

only at 28 percent of its colonial health, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. According to the Environmental Protection 

Agency, runoff from impervious surface areas is the only pollution 

source going into the Bay that is increasing. 

We have made progress. We haven’t solved the problem, but we 

have made progress on agriculture. We have made progress on 

wastewater treatment. We have actually lost ground on the third 

source of pollution, impervious surface stormwater. 

Between 1990 and 2000, population in the Bay grew 8 percent. 

You talked about this, Mr. Boozman. But impervious surface at 

that same time grew 41 percent. So if we in fact grow by as much 

as you predict, Mr. Boozman, of 3.5 million additional souls in the 

watershed, the impervious surface growth is going to be many multiples of that. 

This dramatic growth in impervious surface led to a 25 percent 

increase in nitrogen pollution from stormwater runoff, a 9.1 million 

pound annual increase. If we have made substantial reductions in 

two of the three sources of pollution, and the third source is growing, and the Bay’s health is not improving, one might and maybe 

must deduce that bay recovery is contingent on finally reducing the 

third major source of pollution: stormwater from impervious surfaces. 

H.R. 3265, the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act, would reduce 

this pollution from stormwater runoff by establishing bay-wide performance standards for stormwater management. It would require 

that greenfield development, sites that are 5 percent impervious or 

less, maintain pre-development hydrology by infiltrating evaporation or reusing 95 percent of stormwater runoff. These are techniques deployed in the watershed today, but not uniformly. 

This is the same standard that Federal facilities must meet already, under the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. So 

we are not asking anybody to do anything more than we already 

require of ourselves as a Federal Government. 

This standard would be implemented under the existing municipal separate storm sewer system, MS-4 permit, which is already 

administered by the EPA. It would extend MS-4 permits to all localities in the Bay watershed so there is a level playing field. This 

would ensure that we do not inadvertently encourage sprawl by 

having higher standards in urban areas than suburban areas. 

It would provide funding for localities to help administer these 

MS-4 permits and create 75 percent matching grants for localities 

to construct what is called low impact development strategies and 

techniques. I have one here today. This is a pervious block of concrete, allowing water to flow through it. We also have pervious pavers, for example: bricks that do the same thing. There are lots of 

techniques we can use under the rubric LID that can make a difference, and I am very cognizant, as somebody who spent 14 years 

in local government, of what my friend Rob Wittman said: we don’t 

19 

want to put undue burdens on localities. That is why under H.R. 

3265 the federal matching grant program would pay up to 75 percent. 

This bill would also require Federal facilities to develop plans to 

maximize forest cover, which would dramatically reduce, of course, 

stormwater runoff. The Federal Government owns 7 percent of the 

entire land in the watershed, so we can have a significant impact 

in terms of Federal policies in trying to address this issue. 

I am pleased to say that the legislation has been endorsed by the 

Coalition for Smarter Growth, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, American Rivers, Journey Through Hallowed 

Ground Partnership, the Land Trust of Virginia, the Choose Clean 

Water Coalition, including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the 

National Wildlife Federation, the Piedmont Environmental Council, 

and over 80 other environmental groups from the watershed. 

Senator Cardin’s discussion draft of the Chesapeake Bay Reauthorization incorporates much of the language in my bill, H.R. 

3265, and I am very pleased about that. I look forward again to 

working with Elijah Cummings and doing the same here in the 

House. 

I encourage the Subcommittee to incorporate these provisions in 

your Chesapeake Bay reauthorization legislation for the reasons I 

have stated. And I thank you so much again for caring about the 

Bay and for holding this important hearing. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

You have reminded me that I should make sure that everyone 

knows to try to stay within five minutes. 

I feel the passion and I thank you very much for coming. We are 

loaded with passion on this Committee for the Chesapeake. 

Our distinguished Chairman of the Full Committee has come in. 

Thank you for testifying. You can be excused. We don’t ask our 

Members questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not quite so quickly, Madam Chair. I would like 

to thank Representative Wittman for carrying through on a conversation we had during the State Revolving Loan Fund legislation. The gentleman offered an amendment with a little perfecting 

language, which we accepted, relating to the Chesapeake Bay, and 

I invited him, Madam Chair, to become more engaged in the issue. 

He was a new Member, a new energy, and he has followed through, 

and I appreciate that. 

And Representative Connolly, who’s got a long history of engagement in local government and understands the issues and has a 

commitment to the Chesapeake Bay, it is very commendable that 

both of you stand shoulder to shoulder on this issue. 

This is not just an issue, though, for Virginia, Maryland, Delaware. It is for Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, New York State, the whole area 

watershed that contributes to this bay, its water and its pollution. 

The problems are many-faceted and of many origins. 

In a roundtable that I organized and that Ms. Johnson, Mr. 

Cummings, Ms. Edwards, Republican Members of the Committee 

participated in, we heard that upstate New Yorkers are likely to 

say, what is the Chesapeake Bay to me? I don’t go there. I don’t 

fish there. I don’t collect oysters from the Bay, or crabs. But the 

20 

migratory waterfowl that come from the inland reaches of the watershed use that bay. And the nitrogen that is put on the lawns in 

upstate Pennsylvania and upstate New York and in West Virginia 

all makes its way into that watershed, and from the watershed into 

the Bay. 

And this is the most important estuary in the world. Estuaries 

are those unique meeting places of salt and fresh water where new 

life forms are created. And by the destruction of the water quality, 

we are inhibiting and limiting and preventing creation of new life 

forms and the evolution that this rare ecosystem provides. 

It is the common heritage of all Americans, this, Puget Sound, 

and the Great Lakes and the coastal area in the New Orleans, 

Texas, Mississippi region. All those Gulf of Mexico states, the pollution they experience comes from 11 States. It is going to take all 

those States engaged to protect and preserve the Mississippi and 

its delta. It is the same for the Chesapeake Bay. At this roundtable 

gathering, I asked Mr. Cummings, who was here a moment ago, 

but I asked him to coordinate an ad hoc group of Members from 

both sides of the aisle of our Committee, and from beyond the Committee, to develop a real action plan. We have studies stacked 10 

feet high on the Chesapeake Bay. It is action time now. That is the 

purpose of this hearing to find out what the actions are that we 

need to take. 

I agree with the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, who 

said fisheries regulation should not be the subject of such legislation. We have fisheries councils up the Eastern seaboard, in the 

New England area, fisheries councils in the Pacific Northwest, fisheries councils in the Southeast, that take are of those issues. 

And the fisheries management of the Chesapeake Bay is similar. 

There are mechanisms to deal with that. But if we don’t get the 

pollution out of the contributing tributary waters, there won’t be 

any fisheries to manage or to regulate. We will simply have red 

scum and green scum and a lifeless bay. 

Now, I want to see this bay revived, and I want those life forms, 

like crabs, oysters, and fish, to thrive, not just survive. So we all 

need to work together and heed the concerns that both of you have 

reflected, and Mr. Connolly in particular, the impervious surfaces. 

The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 35 years ago, did an analysis in California for the State. The survey was pursuing the issue 

of why were we having so much rainfall? Why was there so much 

flooding in our ditches, and in our stream beds? And the Coast and 

Geodetic Survey sent a team of researchers out to measure rainfall 

and found it was the same in the ’70s as it was in the ’30s. The 

amount of rainfall hadn’t changed. What had changed was impervious surface. The runoff from parking lots and roadways had increased the runoff into streams and therefore increased the flooding problem. 

So those are things that we have to do. We have to preserve our 

wetlands, which are the shock troops against pollution. They filter 

the waters of their harmful forms. So this is a beginning, one of 

several, but I intend this, and I know that Chairwoman Johnson 

does as well, and Mr. Boozman, to be a serious sustained and successful effort. 

21 

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

for your passion. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

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

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. On our second panel, the starting witness will be Mr. Fox, because I know he has to leave early. He is 

EPA’s Senior Advisor to the Administrator, for the Chesapeake. 

Our second witness is Maryland’s Secretary of the Environment, 

Ms. Shari Wilson. Welcome back to our Subcommittee, Ms. Wilson. 

Following her is Secretary Preston Bryant from Virginia’s Department of Natural Resources. 

And our fourth witness is Director George Hawkins from the District of Columbia Department of the Environment. And I understand that you will be joining the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority 

shortly, so good luck with your new position. I don’t know which 

is better for you, but we will enjoy working with you in that capacity nevertheless. 

Our next witness today is Pennsylvania State Representative, 

Mr. Michael Sturla. 

And our final witness on this panel is Virginia Delegate John 

Cosgrove. Mr. Cosgrove is also Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. 

We are looking forward to your testimony. Your full statements 

will be placed in the record, and we ask that you try to limit your 

testimony to five minutes, if possible, as a courtesy to others. 

Mr. Fox, you may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF J. CHARLES FOX, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; SHARI WILSON, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; L. PRESTON BRYANT, 

JR., SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF NATURAL 

RESOURCES, OFFICE OF VIRGINIA GOVERNOR TIMOTHY M. 

KAINE; GEORGE S. HAWKINS, DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT; P. MICHAEL 

STURLA, REPRESENTATIVE, PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; JOHN A. COSGROVE, DELEGATE, VIRGINIA 

HOUSE OF DELEGATES, AND CHAIR, CHESAPEAKE BAY COMMISSION 

Ms. FOX. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

This is quite a pleasure to be here today in a room filled with 

so many Chairs and Chairwomen. It is quite an impressive turnout. And to all the Members of the Chesapeake Bay delegation, 

thank you very much for all your leadership here. 

President Obama and Administrator Jackson are committed to a 

new era of Federal leadership, one that is characterized by increased accountability and performance to help protect and restore 

Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries to a healthy condition. 

On May 12, President Obama signed Executive Order 13508 creating a Federal Leadership Committee to strengthen and align the 

capabilities of all Federal agencies. The order directed us to prepare seven draft reports within 120 days addressing key challenges 

affecting the Chesapeake Bay. Last week, two weeks ago, the FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
22 

eral Leadership Committee received the seven draft reports for review. 

The executive order’s draft report on water quality may be of 

greatest interest for today’s hearing. It defined three principal 

mechanisms to achieving water quality objectives in Chesapeake 

Bay and its tributaries: first, to create a new accountability program to guide Federal and State water quality efforts; second, to 

initiate new Federal rulemakings and other actions under the 

Clean Water Act and other authorities; and third, to establish an 

enhanced partnership between USDA and EPA to implement a 

Healthy Bay Thriving Agriculture Initiative. 

The proposed new accountability program builds on existing 

Clean Water Act authorities to set new expectations for State and 

Federal programs for reducing nutrient and sediment pollution, including EPA’s intention to rely heavily upon enforceable or otherwise binding programs in approving State implementation plans. 

We have also proposed to identify a number of potential consequences that we may use in the event that jurisdictions do not 

implement effective restoration programs. 

The draft water quality report also cites potential changes in regulations under the Clean Water Act to reduce pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations, municipal stormwater pollution, and from new growth. 

With these rulemakings, EPA would significantly strengthen or 

clarify Federal requirements that would further limit nutrient and 

sediment discharges to the Chesapeake Bay. 

In addition to the rulemakings, the draft water quality report 

contains recommendations for implementing a compliance and enforcement strategy, as well as a joint partnership initiative with 

USDA. 

The six other reports focus on conserving landscapes, reducing 

pollution from Federal facilities, targeting Federal financial assistance and technical assistance, adapting to climate change, improving science and monitoring, and improving protection of living resources. 

Over the next 60 days, the Federal Leadership Committee will 

evaluate the recommendations and consult with the States and the 

District of Columbia. We are in the process of developing a draft 

strategy which, along with the seven reports, will be formally presented for public comment later this fall. 

I would like now to turn to the issue of reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program under Section 117. In general, we look forward 

to working very closely with you to improve the protection of the 

restoration programs for the Bay and its tributaries, and the Administration strongly supports your efforts in this regard. 

We are hopeful that any reauthorization of the program will be 

supportive of and consistent with the goals of the executive order, 

as well as those of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, specifically, the no later than 2025 end date for getting practices in place 

that will protect water quality. 

As you know, the fundamental challenge for the Bay’s water 

quality is reducing runoff pollution from urban and suburban and 

agricultural lands. The latter is responsible for roughly half the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment flow into the Bay. The former is 

23 

a smaller, but both significant and growing source of the Bay’s pollution. 

Our Nation’s modern history includes several successful examples of pollution control from similarly diffuse sources. The Clean 

Air Act is probably the best example. It has produced significant 

improvements in air quality, despite sizable growth in population, 

energy consumption, and vehicle miles traveled. As we think about 

ways to further protect the Bay, we might want to look at a range 

of accountability mechanisms, including many similar to those 

available in the Clean Air Act. 

We look forward to working with you in the days and months 

ahead. Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I appreciate 

greatly your respect for my unique schedule today. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. We will be in 

touch. 

Mr. FOX. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Secretary Shari Wilson, Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore. 

Ms. WILSON. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking 

Member Boozman, Chairman Oberstar, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here, and we can’t thank you 

enough for the time you are devoting to this important topic. 

I also want to thank Congresswoman Edwards for her continued 

advocacy for the Chesapeake Bay, and in particular for your efforts 

to make sure that environmental protection and public health protection extend to all Marylanders. 

And to Congressman Cummings, you are the most forceful and 

articulate advocate for connecting the health of the Chesapeake 

Bay to all of Maryland, and we greatly appreciate it, sir. 

The State of Maryland is greatly encouraged by President 

Obama’s executive order. The level of priority and the Federal cooperation called for in that executive order is simply unprecedented. And it was stated earlier that we have a unique opportunity, a once in a lifetime chance, and in fact that is the case, we 

believe. 

In Maryland, under Governor O’Malley’s leadership over the past 

two and a half years, we have increased our environmental enforcement actions by 34 percent, that is from 2007 to 2008. For new development, we have increased and improved controls for 

stormwater. In other words, for new development we require controls now that will basically have runoff equate to woods in good 

condition, a very high bar. 

For our larger municipal areas, we have initiated a new round 

of permitting that has an unprecedented level of retrofit requirements, in other words, retrofitting impervious areas that were developed long before modern stormwater controls were put in place. 

For the first time ever, we have requirements in place for the management of poultry litter. As you all well know, we have plans underway to upgrade 67 of the wastewater treatment plants in Maryland, accounting for 95 percent of the flow, with state of the art enhanced nutrient removal technology, and that is completely paid 

for by Maryland citizens as they pay a fee on their monthly water 

and sewer bill. 

24 

All of that follows the 2006 Healthy Air Act, which is one of the 

most progressive controls for power plants in the Country, including for nitrogen reduction, and almost a decade earlier, a requirement that Maryland farmers use nutrient management plans. 

These actions were all difficult. They have all been controversial, 

and yet they are essential for the Bay’s restoration. Even with 

those actions, we know more is needed. In May, Governor O’Malley, 

along with other governors in the watershed, committed to more 

than doubling nutrient reduction efforts. And as you consider reauthorizing the Chesapeake Bay Program, we would respectfully offer 

the following for your consideration. 

First, as has been mentioned, it is essential that we get a firm 

deadline in place that is required by statute. It is necessary to have 

this and it has been missing with the Bay restoration for some 

time. 

Second, we believe it is very important to have binding and enforceable implementation plans and ramifications if those plans are 

not either effective or they do not reach their goal. Chuck Fox referred to the Clean Air Act. That provides a model that has shown 

us that it can be successful as evidenced by ozone reductions in 

Maryland, for example. It is a planning process so that everybody 

knows the rules of the road, and the plan ahead, and it has worked 

effectively. So we would respectfully suggest that that model be 

considered. 

Third, funding for both the Bay Program and the regulatory programs under the Clean Water Act. We understand that the funding 

level for the Chesapeake Bay Program has been approximately $20 

million annually, although a $40 million authorization is in place. 

And we would respectfully urge increasing the funding to the authorized level. 

We also have the regulatory programs in place at the State level 

to implement these new measures that are needed. But quite candidly, the strength of those programs has been crumbling around 

us over the past several years, and that is before the current fiscal 

situation that we find ourselves in. It is essential that these regulatory programs be adequately staffed so that we can tackle the job 

at hand. 

Fourth, it was mentioned earlier the need for effective management. In Maryland, we have used Governor O’Malley’s BayStat 

process. It is essentially a real-time management tool aimed at redirecting resources to the places where the scientists tell us that 

we will get the best return on nutrient reduction for each dollar invested. It has been very effective for us. For example, we have redirected funding for cover crops for farmers, and we suggest that we 

all need to partake in a similar kind of effort. 

And last, it is hard to talk about the Bay restoration without 

mentioning and putting in a plug for the one action, the single 

largest action we can take for the Bay restoration, and that is the 

upgrade of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant. It currently discharges 5.5 million pounds of nitrogen into the Bay annually, and that can be reduced by at least 4 million pounds. 

In conclusion, we are very pleased that you are holding this hearing today, and we look forward to working with you in your future 

25 

endeavors, and would be pleased, of course, to answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

Secretary L. Preston Bryant, Jr., the Office of the Secretary of 

Natural Resources, Office of Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine. 

Mr. BRYANT. Madam Chairman, Mr. Boozman, Chairman Oberstar, on behalf of Governor Kaine, thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for your leadership on the Bay challenges. It is 

clear from your opening remarks you have a good grasp of the challenges facing those of us at the State level. 

My remarks that have been submitted give a brief history of 

some of the most recent investments that Virginia has made, so I 

won’t go into those other than to say that like Maryland, we have 

invested just in the last four years more than $1 billion of State 

resources, principally into wastewater treatment plants, more than 

60 facilities, and in record investments with our agricultural community. That $1 billion does not include what the local governments have added as their contribution or what our agricultural 

community has done to step up their efforts as well. 

I would like to address sort of three things this morning: one, to 

tell of some recent actions by the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council; second, to say a word about the importance, as we see it, of the 

Federal Government being actively involved in a partnership with 

us; and then third, the items that you will see in my remarks, I 

have 10 items that should be considered, we believe, in the reauthorization bill. 

First, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council is comprised of the 

Governors of Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania, the EPA Administrator, the D.C. Mayor and the Chairman of the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission. Governor Kaine of Virginia currently chairs the 

Council. 

A year ago, the Council did something fairly unique, if not even 

impressive, and that is they admitted failure. They admitted failure on some fronts, while certainly acknowledging that we have 

made great progress over the last three decades. We also had to acknowledge that there have been three or four multi-state compacts 

with targets that we have failed to meet many of them, the most 

recent being some of our 2010 deadlines. 

Governor Kaine, Governor O’Malley, Governor Rendell and others acknowledged that we can do getter. As such, what they did is 

they changed approach. Instead of drafting long-term 10-year plans 

and not knowing until the very end whether you are successful, 

they changed approach and said we are going to target two-year 

milestones at a time, culminating in an end date. 

It is much more transparent and it is much more accountable. 

The stakeholders watching will know immediately how we are 

doing. So I will say more about that shortly. 

Let me also say that we acknowledge as well that there is a new 

day dawning for the Chesapeake Bay, kicked off principally by 

President Obama’s executive order. It is historic, and we welcome 

that partnership. And Chuck Fox with the EPA has been a real 

leader in helping us. 

26 

In terms of the bill that is before us, there are 10 items, the Bay 

authorization bill, there are 10 items that you will see in my remarks that I recommend you consider to be included. 

First, this financial assistance. Again, a State-Federal partnership. The current draft has $1.5 billion principally for urban and 

suburban runoff. And while we acknowledge that is certainly important, we also must acknowledge that the jurisdictions making 

up the watershed, some are rural, others are urban in nature, and 

perhaps we need to look more broadly at that very, very significant 

investment. 

Second, we hope that the bill will define what we call 

@@reasonable insurance.’’ As the EPA is holding States increasingly accountable, the EPA is also asking that we reasonably assure them that we have the necessary tools and resources and capacity to meet the targets. What has been a challenge, however, 

and all jurisdictions would agree to this, is properly defining ‘‘reasonable assurance.’’ And so we would seek your leadership in helping us, working with us cooperatively, to help further define ‘‘reasonable assurance.’’ 

Third, we hope that the bill will recognize what the Chesapeake 

Bay Executive Council has adopted as a new methodology. That is, 

instead of long-term goals, recognize the value of the short-term 

milestone approach. Again, we think it is much more accountable 

and transparent, and that is a consensus among the jurisdictions 

in the watershed. 

Fourth, we necessarily recognize that should there be increased 

Federal funds, that there also ought to be some consequences 

should we fail. If we fail to meet the targets expected of us, we expect there to be some consequences coming from the EPA. 

At the same time, we also trust there will be some flexibility 

built in to those consequences. For example, there are certainly unforeseen circumstances. No one would have predicted five or even 

two years ago that our robust economy would be teetering on collapse. So we must take into consideration some of the unforeseen 

circumstances as you hold us accountable. 

We also recognize that there are many sectors, as has been mentioned this morning, that are at play. Wastewater, agriculture, air, 

homeowners all need to be part and parcel of this. I would echo 

Secretary Wilson and Governor O’Malley that there should be a 

deadline. As we are working on two-year milestones, culminating 

in a deadline, I would suggest that the watershed jurisdictions 

have consensus on what that deadline should be. They have agreed 

that it should be ‘‘no later than 2025.’’ Certainly, that language 

doesn’t preclude earlier success, so we hope the reauthorization bill 

will reflect that language. 

And then I will also, my time is running out, but you will see 

that there are other recommendations as well, and I will just finish 

on one, and that is some expanded authority. A large portion of the 

nutrient sediment pollution that is currently entering the waters 

originates from sources that really aren’t currently regulated. That 

is air, some urban runoff, and then also some areas of agriculture. 

So again, following that all sectors should be at the table, we hope 

that you will help us on that respect as well. 

27 

So with that, Madam Chairman, I will commit my remaining remarks to you and the staff, and we thank you for holding this hearing. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

I want to announce that Congresswoman Norton sent word that 

she had a conflict in her schedule and could not make it today, and 

that Director George Hawkins from the District of Columbia, Department of the Environment, will very capably represent her 

views today. 

Mr. Hawkins? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson, 

Mr. Boozman, Chair Oberstar. 

I am delighted to be here today to speak about the Chesapeake 

Bay. I am the Director of the District Department of the Environment. I want to offer greetings from the Mayor of Washington, 

D.C., Adrian Fenty. I am delighted to speak on behalf of Congressman Norton, who is a great friend and ally as well. 

And I want to directly answer the question you asked, Mr. Oberstar, at the beginning, which is: Why would someone in New York 

or Pennsylvania want to undertake some of these steps if they are 

not near the Bay? Because the answer to that question is the same 

answer why Mayor Fenty I so committed to protecting here in 

Washington, DC. 

Of course, we are closer to the Chesapeake than many people in 

New York and Pennsylvania, but that is not fundamentally why 

Washington, D.C. is committed to this. The Anacostia, the Rock 

Creek and the Potomac run through the middle of our city. We 

know that every step that needs to be taken to protect the rivers 

in our city for the welfare and benefit of all of us who live and reside here are the same steps that will also protect the Chesapeake. 

But we do not sit here primarily about the Chesapeake as much 

as much as we are completely committed. It is the rivers in our jurisdiction where our people live that we are concerned about. And 

we believe exactly these steps will secure the health and welfare 

of those water bodies here in the District, as well as the Chesapeake Bay, and that goes the same for New York, Pennsylvania, 

West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and all the jurisdictions. 

We are organizing our comments today with respect to the Senate bill. Obviously, the House will be doing what your good judgment suggests, but we have used that to organize our thoughts, 

what we favor, some questions we have, as well as some improvements that we might suggest you consider. 

Fundamentally, Chair Oberstar you will remember, and Mr. 

Cummings, I have two primary points that I have made every time 

I have testified. Both of those aspects are in the Senate draft. One 

is the SIP plan from the Clean Air Act, which is now called the 

tributary implementation plan, a TIP, instead of a SIP. It would be 

a bubble demonstrating how much a jurisdiction would need to 

reach. There would be flexibility to reach goals within it. That is 

a good idea and should be maintained. 

That piece, along with a second, which is bottom line stormwater 

standards that must be applied across jurisdictions, working together, is exactly some of the best pieces of environmental legislation today. Those are two primary issues that we are concerned 

28 

about, along, of course, with funding capability to make sure the 

work can be done at hand. 

Very specifically, those pieces that we support in the draft, we 

like codifying the Chesapeake Bay executive order, a bay-wide 

TMDL, and the tributary implementation plan, as I have just mentioned. Those are very strong. 

Second, we are very much in favor of the inclusion of agriculture 

and animal feedlot operations and the watershed permit approach; 

air deposition, which is up to one-third of the deposition for nitrogen. Both of those are included in the draft we support. We are thrilled to see $1.5 billion authorized for urban and suburban stormwater. There is no question that that is an area that 

needs significant consequence. And because of the cost of retrofitting existing development, you need look no farther than outside 

the doors of this building. We know that without that funding, we 

are likely not to succeed. 

And of course we support stewardship grants for States. Really, 

so much of this work is going to local governments who will be implementing improvements to their building codes and their development plans in order to implement the nuts and bolts of these proposals. 

Some questions we have in the second category. In the draft, 

there is a cap and trade proposal for nitrogen and phosphorus. We 

are very curious to see more about that idea. It is in Section 10. 

It is very short at the moment. Is that optional? Is it mandatory? 

How would it work? We do like the idea that if someone is in significant noncompliance, they not be eligible for trade or that you 

cannot cap and trade if you are in an area where a trade would 

cause a water quality problem, but that, I believe, needs to be more 

fleshed out. 

A second point we would like to find out more about. We are glad 

that the USGS and NOAA and various river basin commissions are 

involved in monitoring under the draft proposal. We do also support that it is divided between title and non-title monitoring. 

The question we have is up until now, the Chesapeake Bay Program has provided critical monitoring and modeling for us at the 

State level to do this work, which will be even more important with 

two-year milestones. That is not clearly spelled out and we would 

like to see it be so. 

The third area of where we might look for some strengthening 

of the draft bill. One I have mentioned before, you did note that 

I will be joining the Washington, D.C. Water and Sewer Authority 

shortly. I also want to note that Jerry Johnson, my predecessor, is 

here in the room. I very admire greatly what he has done in his 

capacity and is now working at WSSC, so we will be hand in hand 

in the days ahead, but he deserves congratulations for the extraordinary work he did on our behalf at WASA. 

But there is no question that, as my comrade Secretary Wilson 

mentioned, that funding for the largest point source to the Chesapeake Bay is a fundamental issue. It is $2.2 billion to reduce combined sewer overflows; $800 million plus for advanced nitrogen. 

That is $3 billion right there for the largest point source. Certainly, 

we will all participate. There is a great partnership here, but the 

Federal Government, I believe, because of the wide benefits, as well 

29 

as consequence to this question, would behoove to continue supporting that effort. 

Second, we would like to see the MS-4 provisions in the draft, 

which are already strong, strengthened to include bottom line 

standards for certain kinds of stormwater development. At the moment, each jurisdiction will have to battle out that issue independently. I actually believe it saves money at the local level if you 

don’t need to re-battle that issue every single place, but establish 

on a bottom line basis those standards which would comply with 

Chesapeake efforts. You don’t have to do that in every place over 

and over and over for the same kind of development. 

Last, I think the section in the draft would be strengthened if we 

focused on transportation and Federal highways and the 

stormwater standards for Federal highways. 

So I am delighted to be here today once again to testify before 

you, and will be prepared to answer questions. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

The Honorable P. Michael Sturla, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Harrisburg. 

Mr. STURLA. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member 

Boozman, Chairman Oberstar, Members of the Subcommittee, especially Representative Platts, who is a former colleague of mine 

in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify here today. 

My name is Mike Sturla and I am a Member of the Pennsylvania 

House of Representatives, where I serve in the 96th District representing the City of Lancaster, which for those of you who aren’t 

familiar with it, has about 60,000 people in four square miles, not 

what you think of when you think of Lancaster County. I represent 

a densely urban area. A mile outside of my district are farms that 

have been farmed for 250 years, but I have an urban district. 

I am also Chairman of the Majority Policy Committee in the 

House of Representatives, and I have recently be reappointed as a 

member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The last time I served 

as a member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission was in 1993 and 

1994. Unfortunately, in the 15 years since I last served on the 

Commission, not much has changed. It is true that we do have new 

funding mechanisms and regulations that have been put in place 

by watershed States to control both point source and non-point 

sources of pollution. And in Pennsylvania alone, we have doubled 

our annual average nitrogen reduction so that we now reduce between 1.3 million and 1.5 million pounds of nitrogen for the Bay 

each year. Unfortunately, however, we still have 30 million pounds 

to go. 

Bay-wide, the tidal waters are still impaired and we continue to 

face the challenges of a growing population. The current Bay Program has allowed us to make progress and we have, and it has resulted in some of the best science in the world related to estuaries 

and their watersheds. But as Representative Cummings pointed 

out earlier, we know what we have to do to achieve water quality. 

What has been missing, and I think this is the critical part, is our 

ability to hold ourselves accountable to that goal despite all our 

good faith efforts. 

30 

This hearing and your consideration of the reauthorization of the 

Bay Program is a welcome opportunity to build on the past by ensuring that our efforts will indeed result in a clean bay. The Bay 

Program’s history has featured a series of agreements with longterm water quality goals supplemented along the way with programs or regulations enacted to address individual nutrient and 

sediment sources. 

We now recognize that long-term goals are not sufficient in a 

world of two-year election cycles and annual budgeting. So we, as 

a Bay Program partnership, have recently agreed to set two-year 

milestones within the long-term goal of 2025 for full implementation of everything we will need to do to achieve a restored bay. And 

I believe, as was pointed out earlier, that this is critical to success. 

In addition, we recognize that everything that we will need to do 

includes almost everything that we can ask from any and all sectors, wastewater treatment plants, agriculture, stormwater and air. 

While it is true throughout the watershed that it is important to 

remember that a mix of sources and conditions varies from State 

to State, and there is no one size fits all solution, States should be 

given the flexibility to determine the most cost-effective way to 

achieve those load reductions within their jurisdictions. 

At the same time, merely planning a strategy is not enough. The 

strategy must ultimately be implemented and we look to be held 

accountable for achieving what we say we will achieve. Within the 

framework of sources, subjects subject to permits such as wastewater treatment plants, urban stormwater and concentrated animal feeding operations, this is relatively easy. Within the realm of 

sources not subject to permits such as small farms and other nonpoint sources, the job is more complex. 

The responsibility for non-point source performance is at the 

State level, and has traditionally focused on voluntary incentivebased programs. Regulatory programs also exist, but they are not 

consistently enforced. And as a urban legislator, I frequently hear 

from constituents who receive higher sewer rates because of their 

mandated sewer upgrades, and well we should. We dump raw sewage into the Conestoga, which runs past my city, 90 days out of the 

year. 

They also express their frustration that they can see farmers 

continue to apply manure on snow-covered ground or allow cows 

full access to a stream without any consequence. I am not suggesting that the answer is to let sewer systems off the hook and 

to shift the burden entirely to agriculture. But the amount of reductions that we must achieve means that we need all sectors to 

be responsible for their fair share of the loads. We must do a better 

job at the State level of putting the programs in place to get these 

loads, even from non-point sources. 

In a perfect world, we could write a law and the problem would 

be fixed. We don’t live in a perfect world and practices and technology cost money. Regulatory enforcement is an important tool 

that we can and should be willing to use. However, the ultimate 

goal of enforcement is compliance, and compliance costs money. 

Federal funds such as the Farm Bill conservation dollars, 319 

Program funds, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and the 

31 

Clean Water Act Programs are critical in helping us achieve compliance for both point source and non-point sources. 

In closing, I guess I want to emphasize the importance of allowing us the flexibility in how we achieve the goals, but remaining 

absolute on the insistence that we do achieve the goal of clean 

water throughout the watershed. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

The Honorable John Cosgrove, Virginia House of Delegates, and 

also Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, Maryland. 

Mr. COSGROVE. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

Chairman Oberstar, thank you so much, and Ranking Member 

Boozman, thank you. 

Members of the Committee, I am here to testify in support of reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program. And I must state at 

the forefront that the role of the Federal Government is critical to 

the success of the Bay restoration project. For this effort to succeed, 

that role must grow stronger. 

I am here today as a Virginian, as Chairman of the Chesapeake 

Bay Commission, and as a proud Republican to tell you that we 

need Federal Government to play a strong and more targeted role 

in bay restoration. The Clean Water Act must provide new authorities and accountability measures that complement our State efforts 

in order to minimize pollution from all sources. 

We believe that restoring our Nation’s largest estuary is a shared 

responsibility, not just of State and local governments and the private sector, but of the Federal Government as well. Back in February of 2008, the Commission published a report containing a full 

sweep of recommendations for Federal legislation and funding to 

advance the Bay’s restoration from 2008 to 2010. 

Included within that report were recommendations that the EPA 

Chesapeake Bay Program be reauthorized, with a heightened focus 

on new authorities, increased implementation and accountability. 

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

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

and where these programs more strategically are applied. 

Now, I have been a member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission 

for five years, and I have the honor of being the Chairman of the 

Commission this year. In the past five years, I can say that we 

have seen a huge increase in State and local government investments in the Bay. 

In Virginia, through the State Water Quality Improvement Fund, 

we have invested well over a half billion dollars to upgrade our 

wastewater treatment plants within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. And our local governments have stepped up their commitments to utilizing the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund to help 

shoulder the burden to cover the remaining costs of the upgrades. 

Now, recently, Federal funding to the Clean Water Revolving 

Loan Fund has increased and we thank you very much for that. 

Other States in the Bay are also using this fund and making good 

progress in tackling their point sources of pollution to the Bay. 

32 

So thanks in large part to increased State and Federal funding, 

and existing regulatory permit authority within the Clean Water 

Act, hundreds of sewer treatment plants throughout the watershed 

have been upgrade with new technologies to reduce nutrient loads 

to our bay. 

The Federal Government is, however, making slow progress in 

upgrading its own wastewater treatment plant, Blue Plains, located within the District. As the largest point source in the entire 

watershed, almost four million pounds of nitrogen stands to be reduced from the Bay’s nutrient load from this one facility alone. 

Madam Chairwoman, funding from the Federal level is essential 

for this key action to reducing nitrogen pollution in the Bay. We 

ask that you please actively support efforts to achieve this immense task and get Blue Plains upgraded with additional Federal 

funding. 

And while the States have been making significant progress 

overall with our point sources, we have not been as successful with 

reducing other diffuse sources of nutrient pollution entering the 

Bay. For our non-point sources of pollution, we have good established Federal and State partnerships, but we lack the necessary 

funding and the regulatory authority to get the job done. 

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

Bay States have agreed to chart out and implement two-year restoration milestones. Second, EPA is involving a bay-wide TMDL. 

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

the Chesapeake as a national treasure. 

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

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

of the Clean Water Act. To protect a system like the Chesapeake 

where the majority of nutrient pollution comes from non-point 

sources, we must be sure that all sources are controlled in a meaningful and accountable way. 

We have seen such leadership exhibited by the U.S. Navy within 

Virginia. The Navy is a model on how to develop their lands, and 

they have committed to use low-impact development techniques to 

ensure reduced water runoff from their facilities. It would be great 

to see this impressive initiative expanded across all Federal lands, 

including Federal highways. 

We need to build on existing partnerships to increase our accountability and to increase our rate of success. So far, all the tools 

have included strong intergovernmental partnerships and clear 

regulatory authority. 

Madam Chairwoman, the waters of the Chesapeake Bay are the 

same passages that brought Christopher Newport and Captain 

John Smith to the new world. These waters captured the imagination of Lord Calvert and brought him and his descendants to establish what is now the State of Maryland. These waters were where 

this great Nation was conceived. And Madam Chairwoman, these 

great waters brought the descendants of a fellow named Sam Houston, who was a Virginian, who had a little bit to do with the establishment of the Republic of Texas and where you live now. 

33 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSGROVE. Madam Chairwoman, I actually lived in Dallas 

for three years. I am familiar with Lake Lewisville, Lake Ray Hubbard, Lake Grapevine. They are gorgeous bodies of water, and you 

love them. I know you do. We love our bay. 

What we are asking you, Madam Chairwoman and Mr. Chairman, is to look at the Chesapeake Bay. Help us restore our bay. 

Help us restore this beautiful, beautiful national treasure so that 

not only us, but our children and our grandchildren, and I will 

have one of those pretty soon, are going to be able to enjoy that 

beautiful waterway, to play in the water, enjoy the crabs, the oysters, and just the sunsets on the Chesapeake Bay. We need your 

help and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

If you come back and see that Cowboy stadium, you would not 

want to come back to Maryland. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. We will start the first round of questions. 

My question is to Ms. Wilson. In your testimony, you noted that 

the Clean Air Act is a good model for which to pattern the amendments to the Clean Water Act, and I would like you to expand on 

that a little bit. That is, what similar elements could be included 

in the Clean Water Act for the State’s failure to act or produce desired results? And how could these penalties be structured where 

they would be an effective incentive, and therefore never actually 

implemented, hopefully? 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you for the question. We have looked at a 

number of different possibilities, and concluded that the Clean Air 

Act provided the best model because it is an iterative planning 

process, but there are two distinct features of it. There is a deadline and there is a sanction if the plan is not adequate. And of 

course, as you know, that sanction under Federal law is the withholding of transportation funds, which has never been fully exercised. So in that sense, it has also been effective in that it prompts 

compliance and the development of these plans. 

That has been lacking in the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort. 

As has been mentioned earlier, we have had voluntary commitments, and despite tremendous progress, really in the face of tremendous development in the Bay watershed, we still haven’t gotten 

there. 

So when you are looking at what seems to be missing from the 

current system, it is the planning process, but a planning process 

that can be enforced and that has consequences for failing to meet 

it that seems to be missing. 

In terms of whether we would advocate, for example, for the 

withholding of Federal transportation funds for lack of developing 

an adequate water quality improvement plan or failure to meet the 

deadline, we have made other suggestions that might be appropriate, and those would include some of the withholding of funds 

such as revolving loan funds. You could put in place requirements 

for the offsets of new development so that you are not always behind the game, so to speak. 

34 

So there are a range of options, but I think really the critical 

piece is to have a consequence to not either submitting or having 

in place and implementing a plan that meets the deadline that we 

collectively set that is meaningful, and what is what we really 

need. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. 

I will now ask our Ranking Member for any questions he might 

have. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I guess the question I would have, and again, even though I am 

Arkansan, we are in the middle of the Country. We have a lot of 

water, and we have a lot of water going to other States, and because of that I am very, very familiar with water problems from 

living it, and then also being in the position that I am in now, but 

this has been going on for a while. 

Mr. Cosgrove said, you know, that you lacked the regulatory authority that you needed. I think that was kind of the theme. You 

just mentioned some things, Ms. Wilson. Can you guys kind of go 

through and just tell me if you could snap your fingers what those 

regulatory authorities would be? 

Mr. Sturla? 

Mr. STURLA. Well, if I could, I think one of the things we need 

is somebody perhaps with a slightly larger hammer than we do to 

hold over some people’s heads. And in addition, as I pointed out in 

my testimony, we also need to be able to help people with that 

compliance. 

As an example, I recently introduced legislation to require any 

farm or forest land in the State that is under our Clean and Green 

Program, which gives them tax breaks, to actually have a conservation plan. The hue and cry I heard was that they couldn’t find 

enough technical consultants to get those plans done so we had to 

phase it in over a five-year period. 

So even the idea that they should be not polluting in order to get 

tax credits, I only have enough dollars and enough manpower to let 

that happen within five years, if I can get that law passed, and I 

don’t have that. 

If the Federal Government says, I am sorry, you have to do that, 

then I suddenly sit up and start to comply, particularly if there is 

some sticks that are held out there, because I am frustrated, as a 

member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, knowing that I have 

asked for voluntary compliance for years and years and years, and 

everybody says, yes, I will get around to it, and 15 years later, no 

one has still gotten around to it. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Director Hawkins? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Thank you for asking the question. I have a very 

direct response, because I believe this debate has been addressed 

in this body years before, in both the Clean Air Act and the Clean 

Water Act. The question is how do we impose across a large area 

multi-State, multi-jurisdiction standards that we know will reduce 

pollutants to the Chesapeake. At the moment, each jurisdiction— 

and we heard there are more than 1,000 of them—are individually 

seeking to answer that question as best they can, using local authorities that can be a challenge in every single jurisdiction at 

every single moment. The sheer level of local work that goes into 

35 

it, often which is overturned, the fights are brutal and the consequence, as we have seen, has not been strong. 

What we also can do—and this is what you just heard Secretary 

Wilson mention—under the Clean Air Act, you have a SIT plan. 

Not only does it have a very specific end deadline, there are numbers that the plan must meet based on the best model that you can 

put in place. 

Now, in Washington, D.C. we were thinking of decentralizing air 

mission control for cars. The model shows that your air pollute reductions decrease if you decentralize, because gas stations can do 

a little more hanky panky than a centralized system can. As a result, if we wanted to implement that under our very clear SIT plan, 

we would define measurable results immediately in some alternative before it would be approved. So there is an immediate need 

to have consequence on any change we made on how we operate 

our city. That is a very firm system, and we can do that for water 

discharges the way we have done for air. 

The second—so the bubble notion, flexibility within it, but a clear 

date and level of reductions, combined with the minimum standards. It doesn’t mean that every jurisdiction shouldn’t decide. If we 

have an open plot of land down at the old Convention Center at 

H Street, it is D.C.’s decision whether or not to build on that site. 

That is a local decision. But if you are going to build on that site, 

there should be a minimum set of stormwater standards that, 

again, every one of 1,000 jurisdictions doesn’t have to refigure out. 

You can always do more, but if you are going to do it, whether 

you have a rain barrel, whether you have a rain garden, whether 

you put a green roof on, the low impact development strategies, 

there is a bottom line that is common throughout the jurisdictions 

that are implemented everywhere that still allows for local flexibility, that allows how you would apply it on the site, but it means 

a certain level of performance can be guaranteed within your bubble and at a standard. That would be connected to two things, one 

is a funding source, which the Senate bill at least authorizes, and, 

second, consequence if you don’t, which I agree with Secretary Wilson should mean withdrawing funds connected to the same topic; 

and there is the revolving funds, there are the funds that are noted 

here. There are plenty of tools that can be used by the Federal 

Government both to give encouragement to do the right thing and 

also to do a disincentive not to do the right thing that are immediate. 

Mr. BRYANT. Just a quick answer as well. We were quick to note 

that there are many sectors involved—wastewater treatment 

plants, agriculture, urban, suburban, homeowners, etcetera. When 

I suggested that there are expanded authority, the most frequently 

cited example is agriculture. For example, the EPA has estimated 

that less than 20 percent, less than 20 percent of the nutrient sediment runoffs from agricultural lands is currently captured, is currently under some type of regulation. With this bill, the reauthorization bill, as drafted, authorizes an expansion of State permitting 

authority, under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, that will 

allow States to address any pollution, any contributor, and therefore capture some of the areas that are not being captured now 

from a regulatory perspective. 

36 

And I want to be quick to add that there have been great advances and great work with our agricultural community. I cited 

that as an example. We can cite the same similar imbalances in 

urban runoff and in air deposition as well. But look at Section 402 

of the bill, Section 402 of the Clean Water Act for some expanded 

State permitting authority. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Ms. Wilson? 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you for the question. I think that you are 

hearing a couple of themes come through, and I would agree with 

those, and that is a planning process with deadlines and requirements for meeting standards, the notion of standardized thresholds, minimum thresholds throughout the watershed. I like the 

idea that was raised about the fact that having that minimum 

threshold would actually be more efficient than the process we currently have with each of the jurisdictions implementing different 

standards, and it would also sort of level the playing field, if you 

would. So I agree with all the suggestions that have been made. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. So you think it would be better than for the Federal Government, for us to dictate, versus you all forming some sort 

of a compact? I guess the problem with this, the reality is, you 

know, you talked about agriculture. You know, that is an expanse. 

The point source is going from one part to point one in phosphorus. 

You are talking about many, many millions of dollars, and the ratepayers are going to have to pay that. I mean, the vast majority of 

that is going to be picked up by the individual ratepayer. 

So where I see we get in trouble is that we look at that not as 

kind of a one size fits all situation, you just look at it versus the 

local circumstance; and I think that really is a big problem. I think 

that it is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. 

Ms. WILSON. If I may respond, I agree with your points, and I 

think what we are advocating for is minimum technical standards 

so that we get some consistency. Historically, each of the States 

have developed their own approach and we are still doing the 

same, actually, because each State has a different plan for accelerating the restoration plans. If you were to have a water quality 

planning process and each jurisdiction were to develop its own plan 

for how it was going to get its nutrient reductions, that jurisdiction 

could then determine whether they wanted to shift the expense to 

ratepayers, for example, through wastewater treatment plant upgrades or to do it in a different way. 

So acknowledging what you are saying, I think we are looking for 

something that has some minimum level of standards, but still has 

a planning process that is tight and that we have to meet, but allows for some flexibility. 

Mr. HAWKINS. And a comment that I would offer, I think your 

point is very well taken. I have spent a lot of my career doing local 

government support. What I found with developers is that, in fact, 

when you have every jurisdiction—and in many places it is town 

by town—there is a different set of standards. In fact, the amount 

of engineering and legal time you have to spend figuring out each 

individual set of technical specifications is far more expensive if 

there is a simplified bottom that everybody knows applies. And, in 

fact, every time I put on a roof, it is the same kind of roof. Your 

fixed costs actually go down, not go up, because you know exactly 

37 

what you have to do; you can prepare the materials, the design engineering and architecture becomes more simplified, and, in fact, 

you can save. It is still totally a local decision; is it a large building, 

is it a small building, is it on that corner or is it on this corner, 

the basic specifications of how we make sure stormwater. Plus, you 

can cut your specifications into specific categories. It is not for all 

homes; you can divide it up in a rural area, in a suburban area, 

and have different grades of protections based on how specific you 

become. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I am sitting here and I am trying to get through this, and I think 

what things are boiling down to and I think the Chairwoman’s 

question and Mr. Boozman’s questions go to two issues, equity and 

accountability. I want you all to go on record saying that you agree 

that there should be consequences. You know, they say you can 

keep doing what you have been doing, and you are probably going 

to get the same results; or you can do things differently. 

So I guess I heard what you said, Secretary Wilson, and I heard 

what you all just said about basically reviewing this whole thing— 

Secretary Bryant talking about this idea of every two years or 

whatever, having these shorter benchmarks. I can’t think of anything else to call them. I think that is a great idea. 

I guess what I am trying to figure out is at what point is a part 

of the benchmark not only about putting in the mechanisms we 

want to leave in place to get to the final goal? Or is it also saying, 

okay, this is where we want to be by 2012, this is what we want 

to do by 2016, as far as reductions and the kinds of stuff we want 

to see and this is what we need to have in place. It just seems like 

something is missing here under the current approach. 

The other thing is that I want to know, when you consider Virginia, with Governor Kaine, he only has one term, so I want you 

all to go on record saying that you think that there should be consequences and I want you all to define this thing a little bit better, 

Secretary Bryant, this whole issue of flexibility, because flexibility 

is important, I think. If you have an economic situation like we 

find ourselves in, that is one thing, but you also know that flexibility can create some loopholes, and it actually could fly in the face 

of the very thing we are trying to accomplish. 

So I guess I go back to what I said from the very beginning, that 

we have got to ask ourselves, okay, are we going to grab this thing 

and deal with it right now; are we going to make our environment, 

the Chesapeake Bay, better than—the environment in the Chesapeake Bay better than when we found it when we came along; or 

are we going to leave something worse off for our children and generations yet unborn? I mean, that is the real deal. This is our 

watch, so we have to ask whether flexibility is a word for passing 

it on to another generation? 

I know that is not what you are trying to say, but I want—I 

mean, as I listen to your discussion, I think that is where, again, 

the issue of equity and accountability, those two things play an important role. I would like to hear you all go on record to say you 

agree that there should be consequences and that this whole thing 

of flexibility would almost have to be something extraordinary like 

38 

the economy going just kaput. So I hope that—so I would like to 

just go down the line. I will start with my secretary, if you don’t 

mind, from Maryland, Secretary Wilson, then we will go down the 

line, if you don’t mind. Thank you. 

Ms. WILSON. Congressman, thank you for the excellent question. 

Yes, Maryland supports consequences, as you know. And I think I 

led everybody astray, and I didn’t mean to. The process that we 

have under the Clean Air Act is an incremental planning process, 

so you take a chunk of time, you have a standard that you need 

to meet at the end of that period of time, and you have to put in 

place or put forward a plan that shows you, piece by piece, how you 

are going to get to that end standard and in what time frame. EPA 

reviews it and says that is good, we agree; that is no good, and unless you fix it these consequences are going to come into play. 

So that sort of combines both having a deadline with consequences with the flexibility to tailor your plan to your situation 

that we were talking about earlier. So you have stated it far better 

than I ever could. We do have a choice now, and we have the opportunity, with this Executive Order and President Obama’s leadership, to put in place a plan that will get us there by a date certain. Maryland is advocating for 2020; other States are advocating 

for 2025. But I think the most important thing is that we put that 

end date in place and get this mandatory planning process, with 

some consequence if you don’t fully implement it, in place as soon 

as possible. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Cummings, my remarks earlier on acknowledging that there must be consequences were actually reflective of 

what Governor Kaine himself has said. As Chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council with his colleagues, again, they acknowledged a year ago that not only have the States collectively failed 

to meet a number of targets in several multi-State compacts heretofore over the last 30 years, but the most recent one being that 

we are not going to meet some of our targets or many of our targets, most of our targets, for our 2010 deadline. Some individual 

targets will be met, for example, Virginia will meet our 2010 deadlines for sewage treatment plants; but we will miss many others, 

as will the other States. 

So Governor Kaine has said, yes, there must be consequences. If 

we are to be seeking, on the one hand, more Federal assistance and 

being grateful for the Federal organization and assistance that is 

outlined in the Executive Order, if we are to be seeking, say, $1.5 

billion here, we acknowledge that, on the other hand, there must 

be consequences if we fail to meet the expectations imbedded in 

them. In these two-year milestones, adopting these two-year benchmarks, that is a new methodology. Out with the old of 10-year 

long-term goals that you don’t know if you are meeting them until 

the very end, and in with the new, meaning short two-year milestones, much more transparent, much more accountable. There are 

many, many stakeholders who are looking over our shoulders and 

watching us. They will know immediately if we have failed and, 

39 

therefore, puts the pressure on us on the next set of two-year milestones. It will be cumulative. 

You mentioned that, in Virginia, we are the only State where the 

governor can’t succeed himself. I am a former legislator and budget 

writer, and I can tell you, as I have said previously in other forums, that I admit it is not every day that a State official comes 

here before you and says show me your teeth and pick up a hammer and do something to me if I fail. But we are at that point. We 

all know that the Chesapeake Bay is at a very significant point, 

and I can tell you, as I have said before, that budget writers at the 

State level, they don’t necessarily fear the EPA. There hasn’t been 

that level—in this respect: there hasn’t been that level of consequence exacted upon us in days past. And, as such, when budget 

writers have to make significant appropriations decisions, it falls to 

the bottom of the list because they are not necessarily as concerned 

as they should be, and they should be. 

So, yes, we are on record saying there should be consequences. 

Ms. EDWARDS. [Presiding] Mr. Cummings, perhaps we could hear 

from Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Sturla so that we can move on. Thank 

you. 

Director Hawkins? 

Mr. HAWKINS. Yes. I want to be clear and very straight. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You all can be brief. 

Mr. HAWKINS. The District of Columbia supports very clear 

standards. By flexibility we mean if you have to reduce your nitrogen reductions by 10 percent in two years, we will give you flexibility in how you achieve that 10 percent, whichever is best for 

your city, but you better achieve it or there will be consequence. 

And we agree with that system with one addition, which is our 

presentation that there should be some bottom-line standards for 

development that, no matter what else you do, you must incorporate those. So there is inflexibility on certain pieces that you 

must implement. 

I would add that is exactly the system that industrial facilities 

have faced for the last 20 years. You give them an end of point discharge that they must meet. What they do in their facility to meet 

that is their job. But at the end of the day, they have to meet the 

number and, if they don’t, there is a violation and a consequence. 

That is the same system. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Sturla? 

Mr. STURLA. Thank you. Yes, we do support consequences and, 

as was pointed out, we do want some flexibility in how we get to 

our goal, but we do want somebody to say that there are consequences if we never get to our goal or if we don’t meet those 

goals. Part of what we face is those debates within our State, rural 

agriculture versus urban sewer stormwater plants that are combined systems, stormwater and sewer, that are 200 years old and 

suburban areas that have a lot of big box runoff. We are all competing with each other as to who needs to do what. So when I end 

up with a diluted plan at the end of it and I go back to the Chesapeake Bay Commission and say, well, we didn’t quite get to where 

we wanted to in Pennsylvania, but, guess what, you didn’t get to 

40 

where you wanted to in Virginia either, and you didn’t get to where 

you wanted to in Maryland, and we know that New York and West 

Virginia and Delaware, which aren’t even members, surely didn’t 

get to where they are, and, by the way, there is Blue Plains, so we 

can lay all the blame on them. There is always somebody else that 

you can blame and point the finger at, and unless there is somebody at the top saying you all have to comply and there are going 

to be consequences for everyone unless you comply, we will always 

be able to point fingers and do the blame game and escape what 

we believe is something that maybe we should do, but we will get 

there eventually. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I first want to thank all 

of our witnesses for your testimony. I am sorry I had to step out 

for some of it. 

Mike, especially, good to see you. Thanks for coming down. 

My question for all of you to address, but starting with Mike and 

specific to Pennsylvania, then broadening it, in some proposed legislation there is the idea of expanding to having a nutrient trading 

program for the entire watershed, for the entire region, all six 

States, using Pennsylvania as a model. 

So, Mike, I was wondering if you would be able to expand a little 

bit on what Pennsylvania has done and how you have seen it work, 

specifically in Lancaster County, because I think in your opening 

remarks you captured, in Lancaster County, what really embodies 

this whole region, because your district, the 96, is a very tight 

urban district, but you have the suburbs around you and then you 

have those great Amish farms beyond that, and it encompasses the 

differences throughout this region. 

And then for all of you, your sentiments on the idea of a regional 

trading program, and should it be a Federal mandate that we do 

it or should it be left to the discretion of the various States to enter 

into agreements to do that across State borders, as opposed to us 

establishing it through some Federal legislation. 

Mr. STURLA. Yes. We do support nutrient caps and the trading 

program, and only if there are caps does a nutrient trading program actually work. It is only when you create that demand that 

a farmer can say if I put certain practices into place, I can take 

some of that cap, I can sell that, I can become profitable by doing 

good farming practices and by being good stewards of land and eat 

up some of those credits. 

It has to, though, be in place in a sort of forceful, effective way 

for it to be successful. If it is just sort of an open market, no cap 

on it, just willy-nilly, you want to buy some credits, there is nothing to buy if I am not being forced. If the EPA never says we are 

going to impose penalties on you, if I keep getting the pass because 

I am trying and I am going to do it next year, it will never be as 

effective as it should be. 

Mr. HAWKINS. On behalf of the District, we are interested with 

the idea of cap-and-trade essentially for these nutrient. The challenge that we see, and looked at this issue in other jurisdictions I 

have worked in, and is in the draft legislation, the two big issues: 

41 

if you are going to trade from one place to another, how do you 

make sure the place that is buying credits and, therefore, polluting 

more than they would have otherwise, that there is not a risk to 

that water body? That is such a resource and information-specific 

decision on every one of the trades that I am not—we are completely open to it. I am not confident that the transaction costs 

won’t be more than what you can do if it is done on a very broad 

scale. 

Second, there are some cases when you won’t want to trade at 

all, if the parties trading have significant compliance issues. 

So we are certainly still open to that idea, but want to learn 

much more. 

Mr. BRYANT. Four or five years ago, Virginia actually instituted 

a comprehensive nutrient credit trading program for nitrogen and 

phosphorus, principally for wastewater treatment plants. What we 

found is we had 2010 deadlines for more than 100 wastewater 

treatment plants in Virginia that needed to be upgraded. Maryland 

had roughly 60. So just in the two neighboring States there were 

160 wastewater treatment facilities that were all going to be competing for labor, materials in a very short period of time, and we 

knew the costs were going to go up. So we implemented a nutrient 

credit trading program. I believe, if I remember correctly, there 

were only two such programs in the Country, a small one around 

Cape Fear, North Carolina, and a fairly small one in the Long Island Sound. 

In Virginia, we constructed one that is broad and comprehensive, 

and the EPA estimated that it would achieve something like $200 

million in savings against the conventional everybody doing their 

own thing and upgrading to state-of-the-art technology. So ours is 

going well. We have also expanded it recently to make provisions 

for non-point sources to also be a part of that trading system. 

Ms. WILSON. Maryland supports a cap-and-trade program if it 

has the appropriate controls on it. And we know from our participation in other cap-and-trade programs that it is essential that regulating the environment so that there is consistency and parity between the trades, if you will, is essential to making it work. 

To your question about whether it should be mandated in Federal legislation, our experience in Maryland, as you know, a fairly 

small State, is that it would be much more effective if it were on 

a wider scale because you get a critical mass so that you can have 

effective trades between the sectors, in particular. So if that is 

what it took to get a regional trading program in place, we would 

say yes. But, again, it is all contingent on having the proper controls for the trades. 

Mr. PLATTS. And the controls and what the cap is, if you are 

doing it regionally, how we set the cap for the whole region versus 

individual States. I mean, there are a lot of variables that would 

have to play out to make sure it is effective, fair, and doesn’t result 

in lack of focus on local degradation, that we abandon some areas, 

in essence, just by buying credits, instead of trying to still fix those 

problems. 

So I appreciate each of your insights and, again, for all your testimony. I appreciate your making the effort here today. The timing 

was maybe a little ideal; my seventh grader at Yorksboro Middle 

42 

School, this week’s test was on estuaries and the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed and these issues, so I think I got prepared for the hearing versus helping him study for his exams. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Platts. I think there are several 

of us who can attest to having gone through a test or two on the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

My question actually originally started with Mr. Cosgrove and 

Mr. Fox, both of whom have left, so I will give you all an opportunity. 

Secretary Wilson, it is always good to see you and to hear about 

what our great State is doing with your partners in the other 

States. I wonder if you could—you have all talked to what sounds 

to me like disharmony in terms of the regulatory structures in each 

of the jurisdictions and implementation of programs in those jurisdictions, and, very surprisingly, each of you also has spoken to the 

idea that you want additional Federal regulation, which is not 

something that we often hear from States. 

But speaking to that disharmony, it does occur to me that some 

of the challenges that EPA has outlined are actually things over 

which they don’t have any control or authority right now, and I am 

concerned that, under current standards, the EPA is really not 

going to be able to achieve the kinds of reductions that have been 

identified as necessary unless they have some additional regulatory 

authority. So without speaking to what each of your States or jurisdictions is doing, I wonder if you could talk very specifically about 

where it is that EPA needs the greatest amount of authority over 

the region and the watershed. 

Ms. WILSON. Thank you for that question, which is a good one. 

To our way of thinking, in addition to the mandatory planning 

process and the deadline and the consequences that we have already talked about, that is an authority that is not in place for the 

watershed. So that would be one area. You rightfully point out that 

a lot of the activity for nutrient reduction that needs to take place 

is local, and the local sources are varied, from small municipalities 

to agriculture; and I think that that is the advantage of this planning process, wherein a State could be given a target and then figure out for its jurisdiction what is the best way to get there. 

So, in answer to your question, I think it is the mandatory planning process and the deadline and the consequences that will incorporate all of those issues. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And let me just interrupt here, because with the 

exception of the District of Columbia, it is also true that even in 

a State like Maryland, you have local jurisdictions that have broad 

authority over economic development policies and strategies and 

their local road systems that are also contributing to runoff. So 

even in your individual States it does seem to me that the EPA 

still would lack what it needs to do to enforce a watershed-wide 

policy for the kinds of reductions we need to see. 

Any thoughts about that? I can imagine if we had our counties 

here, they would cringe if we thought about impeding their planning and development processes. 

Ms. WILSON. And these are challenges that we currently deal 

with and that local governments are currently dealing with. So, for 

43 

example, if you take the area of wastewater treatment plant upgrades, there is State funding available, but those are local projects 

as well. So there is a system, if you will, in place where the State 

will set standards. For example, with stormwater we set a minimum standard and now all the counties will adopt that. 

So there is this flow of authority, if you will, from the Feds to 

the State to the local governments, and I think if we were to put 

in place the—and I feel like I am repeating myself, and I apologize 

if I am; I am just not articulating it well. If we were to put in place 

this mandatory planning process, where we had to meet certain 

water quality goals, we would then figure out what the State could 

do and work with the local governments to figure out what they 

could do, you know, work with agriculture to figure out what they 

could do. But you are right, it is a mix of activities that need to 

occur in terms of the nutrient reductions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And I want to just go on to the next witness because our Chairman is here, and I know that he has questions as 

well. But first, I want to just go to this issue—it seems the most 

anxiety has been raised by farmers and homebuilders. I understand the challenges faced, but I wonder, particularly from Pennsylvania and Virginia, obviously, Maryland,—we have farmers as 

well, quite a number of them on the shore,—if you could address 

for me where you believe the EPA needs to have broader authority 

that would assist us in getting the reductions in, say, nitrogen and 

phosphorus levels, but still enable the kind of commercial and agricultural activity that many of our States depend upon. 

Mr. Sturla? 

Mr. STURLA. Well, I will talk a little bit about enforcement, but 

I would also like to talk a little bit about grants, because part of 

our testimony also said we needed some money to go along with 

this. 

And, as an example, I will use my community, the City of Lancaster. In Pennsylvania, we don’t do a county-wide government 

overview of all this, we do municipality by municipality, and there 

are over 2500 different municipalities. Mine has 60,000 in about a 

four square mile area and our combined stormwater and sewer system, which was built over 200 years ago, every day that it rains 

dumps raw sewage into the stream. That is 90 days out of the year. 

EPA has put us on notice saying we better get things cleaned up, 

and we are looking at, because we can’t separate the systems 

quickly—that will take 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars—we are looking at our short-term solution of building a $30 

million holding tank so that we can capture that effluent on those 

90 days and process it in the off days when it is dry. 

We have 60,000 constituents and a $30 million holding tank we 

need. I mean, you do the math. It gets overwhelming for small municipalities like that. And we are pretty good about it. There are 

smaller municipalities that are in even worse shape. 

On the agricultural end of things, you will always see, in Pennsylvania, anyway, them talk about what are called legacy sediments, because there used to be a mill dam every mile or so down 

the road where there was a grist mill, and they built a dam and 

all the sediments backed up behind that dam for years, and now 

all those dams are gone because they are hazardous risks and all 

44 

that silt is continuing to move down the stream every time we have 

a major storm event. So the farmers say don’t blame me, blame the 

guy who farmed 100 years ago. We need to get that legacy sediment cleaned up also. That is not an easy process and that is not 

something that the farmers view as their responsibility, but we 

have to figure out how to get to it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Secretary Bryant? 

Mr. BRYANT. Yes, ma’am. First, I must say agriculture and forestry is still the number one industry in Virginia. As Governor 

Kaine frequently says, there is not even a close second. The Virginia way has always been to work in a very voluntary and incentive-based way through cost share programs with EPA and others 

to incentivize our agricultural community to step up, and many 

have; we have made great progress. 

I hesitate to speak for Mr. Fox, who has left, but I believe he has 

said a number of times that he thinks that, in his reading of the 

Clean Water Act, there may be sufficient power within existing 

law. However, he also has noted that there should be perhaps some 

more attention paid to large animal feeding operations that are 

great sources of pollution. As I have noted previously, the EPA estimates that less than 20 percent of the agricultural runoff is currently regulated. So probably focusing on some agricultural areas 

may be where some improvements need to be made. 

Let me also say this, however. Working very closely with the Virginia agricultural community, they have brought it to our attention 

and they contend that there may be much better and much more 

good stuff going on than they are properly being given credit for. 

There are many voluntary actions being undertaken by Virginia 

farmers that are not being tracked and properly accounted. So we 

are exploring whether or not there are ways that we can get additional information from USDA to be shared in the aggregate for 

privacy reasons with EPA so that we can give the agricultural community proper credit and accounting where we may not be giving 

them credit for right now. So we would like to keep that in balance. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I am going to—we have just been—well, I have additional questions, but I am going to defer to my Chairman, and I will come 

back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Again, I appreciate all of you participating and 

sharing with us your wisdom, your thoughts, your energy, and your 

passion for protecting the Chesapeake. I said earlier it is the 

Chesapeake, it is Puget Sound, it is the New England fisheries, it 

is the Gulf Coast fisheries, it is the Great Lakes, where we are beleaguered by invasive species and the residue of hundreds of industrial plants and a century or more of industrial discharges that are 

still there on the bottom, sediment being taken up through the food 

chain. We have to deal with all of those things. We have to walk 

and chew gum at the same time. 

Your idea of a holding tank, Mr. Sturla, do you know how old 

that is? Thirty years. Thirty years ago the first project was initiated here in the District of Columbia at the urging of my predecessor, John Blatnik, who worked with the then Federal Water PolVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
45 

lution Control Administration and some innovative researchers 

who said, you know, we have these huge storms, there isn’t enough 

money to separate storm sewer and sanitary sewers, and it would 

be best if we tried channeling all of that into big holding facilities, 

neoprene bladders that would hold a million gallons of runoff. And 

an experiment was undertaken and they were built in the Potomac 

and the Patuxent and it worked. 

But then came the Reagan Administration and they abolished all 

those funding ideas and the money went away, and we converted 

from an 80 percent Federal grant program to a loan program, just 

at the time that the smallest communities in this Country, who 

were next in line to get the big load of Federal grant funds. Then, 

as you described, the small town in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, like 

many in my district and elsewhere around the Country, they had 

to go hat in hand for a loan, to be repaid with interest. That was 

the wrong thing to do at the right time. The right time was back 

then. We were going to deal with all these small issues, having 

dealt with large waste streams. So that is still our problem all over 

this Country, but especially in this watershed. 

Now, we are coming back to this idea of holding tanks—I just 

want to finish that thought off—at the headwaters of the Great 

Lakes in Duluth, in my district, and Superior. They are building 

three of these holding tanks. A lot less expensive than going back 

digging up all the sewers and separating the combined storm and 

sanitary. Build these holding tanks, hold the material until the 

storm has passed, pump it back through the system, treat it properly at far less cost. But we ought to reinstate the grant program 

to do these things. 

But the question, among many, that I wanted to ask Mr. Fox, 

but I know he had a medical appointment to attend. But, you are 

good surrogates, all of you, to discuss concentrated animal feeding 

operations. We know what they are, but what about those entities 

like Perdue Farms that get around pollution control programs by 

having a central facility, whereby they have all these little satellite 

growers who are not point sources, and then they send their chickens into the central processing plant? How do you get at those? Do 

we need to change the definition of CAFOs? Do we need to restructure the law, or is there enough authority within existing law to 

get at them? 

Ms. WILSON. Mr. Chair, I will take a stab at that one. In Maryland, I mentioned in our testimony that we recently put in place 

a new set of requirements for manure management for poultry operations, and it was basically an expanded group of poultry operators above a certain size threshold, because they were not previously regulated. So that was a very controversial undertaking. 

We got a lot of very good input from the farming community about 

how to make the requirements more efficient and more likely to be 

implemented properly, and made adjustments accordingly. The 

EPA has recently changed its interpretation of a definition and now 

the Federal rule will encompass most of the facilities that Maryland is regulating. 

So a long way of saying, to some extent, some of those facilities 

are currently being regulated. And I would not speak for Mr. Fox, 

but in draft reports that EPA has recently issued, there is discusVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
46 

sion of expanding the universe of what would be covered under 

those sorts of requirements, and I think the discussion that we all 

need to have is what would that expansion be and what would it 

entail. And there is obviously a tremendous amount of interest in 

the answers to those questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. There are probably 100 questions I 

would love to ask. We can have that in a smaller setting, in a different setting. But a common theme running through your testimony and through the roundtable we had a couple months ago or 

so, was the need for finding enforceable implementation plans. This 

was repeated again today in this setting, and the commitment of 

all the States was clear—New York was a part of that, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, the District was very enthusiastic. Director 

Hawkins, I remember your forceful presentation for a Chesapeake 

watershed management plan. And all the elements are there for it; 

all the pieces have been studied. The documents are this high, 

maybe higher. We don’t need a newly funded study; people are fed 

up with studies. We want an action plan, we want a watershed 

management action plan. 

Mr. Cummings is receiving information as the formal head of our 

task force that I have charged him with undertaking. When are 

you going to get this information to him and when is he going to 

be able to come back to this Committee in time for the reauthorization? We need to have a really strong watershed plan so that, as 

you said in that roundtable, there are Chesapeake standards that 

we are all adhering to, New York as well as Virginia as well as the 

District—all adhering to Chesapeake standards. 

Mr. HAWKINS. A quick comment, and this connects to the question you raised before about the jurisdiction of EPA under the 

Clean Water Act. I fundamentally believe the Clean Water Act has 

plenty of authority to establish standards for discharges and the 

total maximum daily loads, which can be a waste allocation or a 

load allocation, which is to point or non-point sources. In the District, we are currently negotiating a MS-4 permit with EPA that 

will have operational consequence in how we build the buildings of 

this city, just like virtually every jurisdiction in the Country. What 

has been missing from the Clean Water Act, as everybody knows, 

is not the authority to set the standard or to be prepared at what 

the numbers ought to be, it is the implementation plan that goes 

with it in parallel so you know what must be done, where, and 

how. 

Our fear in the District—of course we want development in the 

city. The mayor is fully committed to both, a green city and a vibrant city. We know we will have to have a very high set of standards under a federally issued permit for development in an MS-4 

context. What we would like to see is that not price developers out 

of the city out to farm fields, because there would be standards 

there as well. So it is an even playing field. We will step up, and 

are, as the mayor wants both vibrant economics, as well as a green 

city. 

Having a common playing field means that is true across the 

Chesapeake Bay with Chesapeake standards. The authority to set 

the numbers are there. The challenge has been, for the last 20 

years, what are the definable implementation plans, which, in the 

47 

draft, is the tributary implementation plan as the main implementation scheme. That is a great addition and something that we 

need. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I look forward to seeing that, and I think 

that is the key element. As discussed in the roundtable and as it 

runs as a theme throughout all your testimony, we need to have 

watershed-wide standards that all are going to adhere to and we 

have an enforceable program. We also have to put some money up 

for this thing. However, we are always asked how much is it going 

to cost? What is the cost of not acting? What is the cost? Maybe 

you give a bushel of oysters to everybody up in New York who says, 

look, we don’t use the Bay. But if you restore that Bay there will 

be enough oysters for the whole watershed to give a bushel to every 

household. That Bay used to be filtered in a week by the oysters; 

now it is a year. 

That is not sustainable. It is not about fisheries management, it 

is about water management, about the water quality management 

and about doing it across the whole watershed. And, in that theme, 

I am developing a watershed plan for the whole Country to get this 

whole thing going in the right direction. 

All right, Madam Chair, I will desist. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boozman, do you have additional questions? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. If I could just ask two more questions, then I 

promise we will let you go. 

Mr. Hawkins, a number of us on the Transportation Committee 

actually signed onto a letter making a request through our Chairman and our Ranking Member that the transportation infrastructure surface transportation reauthorization include a clear policy, 

standard, and guidance to reduce or eliminate stormwater discharges from new or major highway retrofits; and you have already 

indicated, of course, the problems with our local suburban and 

urban runoff problems. How can we best, if you would just—and 

I am asking this on behalf of Ms. Norton, who couldn’t be here 

today, so I think she just wants to make sure it is on the record. 

How can the Federal Government best approach the problem? 

Mr. HAWKINS. That is a great question and it is one, again, for 

example, in the city roads, DDOT, that we do here in the District, 

that is also subject to the MS-4 permit negotiation, which I just 

mentioned. There will be EPA negotiated requirements, coming 

from a Federal mandate, of how we design the roads in the city, 

and we are going to be implementing more of what is called a lowimpact design development standard to allow rainwater to be retained, water that is raining down the road to go in to support 

street trees and the greenery that we want in our city for a whole 

bunch of reasons. But it also reduces stormwater and improves 

water quality. 

Now, obviously, outside, the Federal has the major Federal highways and so much money is spent, and this is a design specification 

issue. I have regularly heard from developers, yes, it is an additional cost, but to me this is like a plumbing code or an electrical 

code. Once you set the bottom line for how all roads are designed, 

that now becomes built into the cost of every road and you get a 

48 

benefit of an enormous range of—huge expenditures are made on 

an annual basis, and once on a per unit basis it becomes the design 

standard. The cost drops dramatically when you get economies of 

scale. The technology and the techniques all become similar. 

That has been true every step of the way when we have imposed 

higher standards on industry. At first it seems insurmountable and 

will be too expensive, and a few years later, as long as it is common, so that a metal finishing plant in Vermont has the same 

standard as the metal finishing plant in Montana, so they are all 

doing the same and the technology and the expertise and the consultants. We can do exactly the same for roads, with the single biggest buyer being the Federal Government. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that and I know 

that Ms. Norton will appreciate that being part of the record as we 

consider our surface transportation reauthorization. 

Then, lastly, and any on the panel, and it doesn’t have to be each 

of you because time is wasting, but I wonder if you could speak to 

the role of green infrastructure in addressing the problems of the 

Bay runoff and nutrient problem. We talk to the particular problems of farmers and agriculture and commercial sources, but we 

need to really look at the development question, our commercial 

buildings, our homes. There is a lot of pressure for development 

throughout the watershed, particularly in the urbanized areas. I 

just wonder if any of you could speak to the issue of how we 

incentivize green infrastructure and green building for infrastructure as a mechanism and an incentive, if you will, to contribute to 

the health and strength of our Bay. 

Mr. HAWKINS. I think that is a great question and I will try to 

be brief; I know we have been with you a long while. 

I would say there are several things. It is a wonderful question. 

There is no question to us in the District that incorporating green 

design standards, the low impact development in every kind of 

structure is one of the fundamental step forwards that every jurisdiction in the Country should be looking at. It not only is a water 

quality management issue, reducing the amount of stormwater because it is retained on site, the stormwater is cleansed of many of 

the nutrients that are the problem. It also helps cool buildings, it 

provides ecology and habitat. There are jobs connected with the ongoing upgrade and maintenance of these amenities. And you walk 

down a city street on a hot day and you are underneath a tree canopy of a street with trees, and you know what a benefit it is to 

have greenery as part of the quality of life of a place. 

There are so many multiple benefits to building green into the 

system. What we are doing in the District, to answer the questions 

that you have raised, is, one, we are increasing the building standards, the same thing we are all talking about. If you are going to 

build in the District, what you must do to manage stormwater is 

becoming more stringent. So the rules of the game are getting 

tougher. We are also providing incentive grants to help incentivize 

and provide subsidies for green roofs, for example, for the production of those products. We have both incentives on one side and 

regulatory requirements on the other. The third is that there is a 

fee charge in the District for how much stormwater you generate, 

and our intention is to have a fee that is scaled. If you do better 

49 

at your site, so you hold more stormwater on your site, less is 

draining out into the pipe, you pay less of a fee. So you have a financial incentive because you are generating less stormwater; our 

pipes may need to be less big. Maybe if we do enough of it, our 

bladders under the grown can be a little smaller and we can save. It is $200 million, I think you said, in the District. Jerry Johnson knows this. It is a $2.2 billion project here in the District to build 

those underground caverns to hold that stormwater. If we are retaining more on the surface for all these benefits, maybe, if we do 

it at enough scale, we can downsize those underground caverns and 

save some money on the other side. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

I believe Mr. Cummings has one additional question. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Secretary Wilson, one of the things that I—we, in trying to pull 

this all together, one of the strongest groups that seemed to be concerned about all that we are trying to do is our agriculture community. In Maryland, would—you know, the farming community in 

Maryland would need, I think, additional aid to implement additional pollution control measures, at least that is what they are 

saying. If so, what level would they be needing, particularly given 

the challenges that the agricultural community is facing now? They 

are extremely sensitive about all of this and I think Mr. Boozman 

sort of referred to some of the issues with the agriculture community. That is where we are hearing it. 

Ms. WILSON. Yes, and you raise a very good point, and we are 

hearing the same. In fact, I have mentioned a couple of times these 

new standards for manure management for poultry operations that 

we have just put in place, and I failed to mention that those were 

coupled with some financial assistance programs to assist with the 

cost. As we know, many of our farmers are particularly hit hard 

by the economic challenges that the Country is facing. 

So I don’t have an answer for you in terms of the dollar amount, 

but I would be happy to work with our Department of Agriculture 

and get that information not you. Suffice it to say it is a topic every 

single day and we are hearing the exact same thing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. I know that you will be grateful to 

know that this panel is dismissed. Thank you very much for your 

testimony and your perseverance, and that goes particularly to 

panel three as you join us. 

Today we are joined on panel three by Council Member Cathy 

Drzyzgula from Gaithersburg, Maryland, testifying on behalf of the 

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 

Next is Mr. Jerry Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the General Manager 

of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. It is a point of 

privilege welcoming you because you serve so many of the constituents of the 4th Congressional District in Maryland and our metropolitan area. 

Our third witness on this panel is Dr. Russell Brinsfield from the 

University of Maryland; and following him, Ms. Molly Pugh will 

testify. Ms. Pugh is the Executive Director of the Virginia Grains 

Producers Association. Then our final witness today is Mr. Peter 

50 

Hughes. Mr. Hughes is the President of Red Barn Consulting, 

based in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. 

Thank you all and, again, thank you for your patience, and we 

look forward to your testimony. 

Council Member Drzyzgula, good to see you today. Please turn 

on your microphone. 

TESTIMONY OF COUNCIL MEMBER CATHY DRZYZGULA, CITY 

OF GAITHERSBURG, GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; JERRY JOHNSON, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, 

LAUREL, MARYLAND; DR. RUSSELL B. BRINSFIELD, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, QUEENSTOWN, MARYLAND; MOLLY 

PUGH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA GRAIN PRODUCERS 

ASSOCIATION, CHESAPEAKE, VIRGINIA; AND PETER 

HUGHES, PRESIDENT, RED BARN CONSULTING, INC., LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 

Ms. DRZYZGULA. Good afternoon, Representative Edwards and 

Ranking Member Boozman, Members of the Subcommittee. I am 

pleased to be here today. I thank Chairwoman Johnson for inviting 

me to testify about Chesapeake Bay restoration activities within 

the context of reauthorization of Section 117 of the Clean Water 

Act. I am Cathy Drzyzgula, a member of the Gaithersburg, Maryland City Council, and also Chair of the Chesapeake Bay and 

Water Resources Policy Committee of the Metropolitan Washington 

Council of Governments, commonly known as COG. COG is a regional association of 21 local governments in the Washington Metropolitan region whose combined population represents more than 

one quarter of the population of the entire watershed. 

COG and its Bay Policy Committee have a long record of support 

for the Bay restoration effort. Members of the Committee serve on 

the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Local Government Advisory Committee and served on the Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon Financing 

Panel. COG’s Board of Directors recently revised its longstanding 

policy principles to guide local government involvement in the Bay 

restoration effort. The principles, which highlight the need for equity, sound science, and local government input in setting Bay policy, serve as the basis for my comments today. A complete description of COG’s policy principles is included in my written testimony 

to the Committee. 

As you begin to consider what new regulations and programs 

should be included in reauthorization legislation, please consider 

the following comments, which were distilled from many discussions of these issues among our members over the past weeks and 

months. 

EPA and its Bay Program partners are already working to issue 

regulations by December 2010 for a series of Bay-wide Total Maximum Daily Loads to achieve the needed reduction in nutrients and 

sediment to achieve Bay water quality standards. The standards 

will include implementation plans, measures for assuring progress, 

and consequences for lack of progress. This is arguably the most 

complex regulatory process ever undertaken under the Clean Water 

Act. In response, COG’s member governments will need to impleVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
51 

ment new programs and practices to meet more stringent regulatory targets. COG recently hosted a meeting of EPA Bay Program 

and State staff to explore some of the many questions that this 

process has raised. A list of questions from that meeting is included 

in my written comments and provides an illustration of the challenges we face. For instance, it is not yet clear how to best align 

the geographic scope and overlapping timetables of the TMDLs 

themselves, their watershed implementation plans, and the twoyear State milestones. 

COG’s member governments are concerned about efforts to prescribe in great detail new regulatory requirements in the Bay watershed. Because of its existing authority under the Clean Water 

Act, EPA, together with the States, already regulates municipal 

wastewater plants and municipal separate storm sewer conveyance 

systems, MS-4s. All of COG’s members are subject to MS-4 regulation. Prescribing specific penalties for non-compliance may limit 

EPA’s flexibility and lead to an unproductive use of limited municipal resources. 

Additional regulatory measures for restoring the Bay, whether 

crafted by EPA under its existing authority or prescribed in the 

statute, should recognize the variability and economic conditions, 

geography, and other factors throughout the 64,000 square mile 

Bay watershed. This is particularly true of requirements aimed at 

reducing the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from 

urban areas. Baseline performance requirements should not specify 

the technology to be used to achieve them. 

Similarly, our experience underscores the importance of making 

a distinction between new development and redevelopment in 

meeting performance standards. Baseline performance requirements for urban stormwater control should make a distinction between new development and redevelopment sites, and any redevelopment requirements should be balanced by the critical need to encourage infield development and smart growth. 

A Federal stormwater performance standard, if established, 

should extend beyond the areas currently subject to MS-4 permits. 

This is important both for the sake of equity and to ensure that 

more stringent stormwater regulations do not wind up pushing 

sprawling growth into areas where the requirements do not apply. 

Overall cost and cost efficiency cannot be ignored in crafting implementation plans and new regulatory approaches for restoring 

the Bay. It is common sense to pursue the most cost-effective measures for reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution 

first. Most of these measures involve agriculture, as was documented in the December 2004 report Cost Effective Strategies for 

the Bay by the Chesapeake Bay Commission. By contrast, achieving significant nutrient reductions in stormwater runoff from older 

urban areas, those built before the mid-1980s, and the advent of 

modern stormwater management technology is extremely costly. 

The Washington region’s experience with funding improvements 

in wastewater treatment demonstrates that water quality progress 

is best achieved by sharing costs across levels of government. This 

has not been the case for municipal stormwater management programs, which, alone among the major sources of pollution to the 

Bay, lack a significant dedicated source of Federal or State costVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
52 

share funds. Toward that end, it is encouraging that the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 2009, which we heard about earlier 

from Representative Connolly, includes a provision to authorize up 

to $1.5 billion in Federal cost-share funds for local government 

stormwater management efforts. Cost-sharing funding for 

stormwater management is a critically important component of 

successful restoration of the bay. 

I will conclude my statement by emphasizing the continuing commitment of local governments in the Metropolitan Washington region to the Bay restoration effort. We look forward to working with 

you to ensure that new congressional legislation complements ongoing efforts and builds upon the work that has already been done. 

Thank you, Representative Edwards, Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Boozman, and Members of the Subcommittee for allowing me to testify on behalf of COG today. I would be pleased 

to answer questions. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Congresswoman Edwards, Ranking Member Boozman, and Congressman Cummings, 

and other Members of the Committee. I am Jerry Johnson, General 

Manager of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, and 

I am honored today to speak to you on behalf of WSSC and the 1.8 

million residents we serve in Maryland to testify on the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program and share recommendations to protect the national treasure that we call the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

By way of background for the Subcommittee, WSSC is a public 

utility. It is the eighth largest combined water and sewer utility in 

the Nation, with over 1,000 square miles in our sanitary district. 

In addition to the 1.8 million residents served, WSSC directly 

serves nearly 30 Federal facilities, including Andrews Air Force 

Base, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, the National Institutes 

of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration, to name a few. 

Restoring and maintaining the health of the Bay is the linchpin 

from which we can ensure protection of the region’s waterways and 

ecosystems. The WSSC has played an important role in reducing 

pollutant loading to the Bay from its wastewater treatment plants, 

designing and deploying technologies that are at the limit of technology. However, we can never address the multitude of challenges 

facing the health of the Bay without equitably sharing the burden 

among all sources of water quality impairment which impact the 

Bay. To move forward in a meaningful way will require a comprehensive approach that allocates Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental resources efficiently, and mandates equality to maximize pollution reduction from all remaining sources. 

It is time that Congress, the States, the regulators, Chesapeake 

Bay Commission, non-government organizations such as the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and others work in concert to take a serious 

look at addressing all sources of pollution, and not just point 

sources. This means taking an aggressive step or taking very aggressive steps to address agriculture, development, stormwater 

runoff sources in a manner that is not only equitable to all, but enforceable as well. The WSSC and the wastewater industry as a 

53 

whole have invested heavily in infrastructure and programs to reduce pollutant loadings. 

Now I believe it is time to acknowledge that the Clean Water 

Act, and the reauthorization of the Bay Program as a part of it, 

must be updated to recognize the critical remaining challenges. 

First, we need to consider a holistic approach to addressing multijurisdictional challenges like the Bay by creating flexibility for watershed-based solutions. Second, we need to restore a strong financial partnership with the Federal Government to replace our aging 

infrastructure. Third, the Clean Water Act must be renewed to ensure that we target limited resources to the most important challenges. And while I am certainly appreciative of the House of Representatives in passing H.R. 1262 to renew the State Revolving 

Loan Fund and increase the funding levels, I am concerned that 

those funding levels don’t quite meet the task of renewing the infrastructure that we have to repair. Currently, as a Nation, we face 

a $500 billion gap in the spending for wastewater facilities. I look 

forward to working with this Committee to make important revisions to the Clean Water Act and SRF funding. 

WSSC is doing its part to address the single largest remaining 

impairment, nutrient loading. We are moving to the limits of technology and we are doing the most anyone knows how to do in the 

scientific universe to reduce the amount of nutrients that are discharged into the Bay’s tributaries, but we cannot, by our own actions, solve the problems. As previously stated, a watershed approach with a truly equitable regional and inter-regional approach 

is the only path to success for the Bay. The Federal role in this effort needs to include more meaningful regulatory initiatives that 

address non-point source pollutants as robustly as they have addressed point source pollutants. It is critical that we abandon the 

silo approaches that have existed since 1987, when the Clean 

Water Act amendments moved to a comprehensive approach that 

includes all sources to the Bay. Let’s address the worst problem 

first. 

I have provided a series of recommendations in my written testimony that include funding for E&R upgrades to wastewater treatment plants, providing equitable regulatory framework in the 

Clean Water Act, reauthorization based on actual threats to water 

quality, increasing funding for SRF program, direct grants for specific projects under the Chesapeake Bay Program, adopting a comprehensive grant program within the climate change legislation 

that is pending before Congress, and to allow water and wastewater utilities access to critical resources and ensuring robust program for Federal grants. 

Ms. Edwards, let me conclude by saying that I believe that we 

can all agree that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. The 

Bay supports an incredibly diverse ecosystem. It is in a place 

where people come from all across the Country to swim, fish, boat, 

and enjoy its national beauty. For those who live in its shadows, 

it enriches our very existence. The Chesapeake Bay touches too 

many lives and impacts our environment too greatly for everyone 

in the region not to work towards improving its health. But this 

will only occur with a balanced and effective program that targets 

today’s water quality impairments, non-point solutions. 

54 

That concludes my testimony, and I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions that you might have. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Dr. Brinsfield? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Thank you, ma’am. It is an honor to be here. I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify on this important legislation. 

My name is Russell Brinsfield. I am a scientist with the University 

of Maryland and actually the mayor of a small community on the 

eastern shore of Maryland as well. 

Despite more than two decades of efforts to restore this beautiful 

Chesapeake Bay, very little verifiable progress has been made towards reducing nutrient losses from agriculture. This is especially 

apparent where watersheds are predominantly agriculture and the 

major land use are row crops, animals, including poultry, that are 

the dominant commodities that are produced. For example, to date, 

there is very little evidence that water quality at the USGS monitoring station in the Upper Choptank is going down. In fact, data 

suggests that is from a predominantly ag watershed that nitrogen 

levels are actually still increasing. 

Likewise, phosphorus transport in watersheds dominated by agriculture are even less clear than those for nitrogen. Although manufacturers determine phosphorus losses in the long term, soil phosphorus levels are the best available indicator towards progress in 

meeting the phosphorus reduction goals. To date, there is very little evidence that soil phosphorus levels are decreasing. 

Currently, progress towards meeting the nutrient reduction goals 

result mainly from estimates using the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

model. Unfortunately, these efforts have proven to be of little value 

for predicting the effects of implementing agricultural best management practices on delivered loads of nutrients from agriculturedominated watersheds. This lack of verifiable progress has created 

doubt as to whether the current strategies will even achieve the reductions needed to restore the Bay. This doubt has created pressure for more regulatory approaches and support for more funding 

for cost-share programs. However, before adjustments are made, it 

is important that methods be developed that would allow the assessment of the actual changes in nutrient losses resulting from 

the current strategies. Without reliable tools for tracking progress, 

it would be difficult to determine if policy adjustments are needed 

or if we just need more time to demonstrate that the current policies are in fact working. Reliable strategies for tracking progress 

are also necessary to develop efficient regulatory and incentivebased programs that do not put undue burden on our farmers. 

These hearings on the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay 

Program provide a unique opportunity not only to evaluate our current strategies for nutrient reduction from agriculture, but to integrate the latest science into future strategies. The following set of 

recommendations, performance-based recommendations, I want to 

emphasize, is submitted to help move agriculture closer to meeting 

its responsibilities as outlined in the Chesapeake Bay restoration 

goals. These recommendations should be viewed as a framework to 

begin a broader dialogue to develop a consensus for a future strategy. 

55 

Recommendation 1: We need to better target funding both geographically and programmatically. We need to identify those locations geographically—based on things like salt type, slope, distance 

to streams, cropping systems—that are contributing disproportionately large parts of a load and implement strategies to maximize 

those reductions. 

Recommendation 2: We need to improve our nutrient management process through a series of practice and program changes 

that include: making sure that the long-term goal for phosphorusbased nutrient management planning is to reduce soil phosphorus 

levels to those needed for optimum crop production. The current 

strategy under certain conditions, using the site index, allows farmers to increase soil phosphorus levels beyond those needed for optimum crop production. 

Number two under nutrient management planning, develop a 

GIS-based system that allows the tracking of soil phosphorus levels 

at the watershed scale over time. Currently, there is no way to 

quantify field, farm, or watershed phosphorus levels to evaluate the 

effectiveness of our current strategy. 

Next, provide incentives to eliminate the surface application of 

all inorganic and organic nutrients. Recent research at our center 

and others have demonstrated that applying nutrients to the soil 

surface without some incorporation increases the probability of 

higher levels of nutrients in our surface water runoff. We also need 

to have a goal to eliminate the application of nutrients during the 

fall and winter months, and I might suggest that that also should 

include our urban lawns. 

Recommendation number three: Maximize the use of winter cereal cover crops. Research at our center and others have shown 

that winter cereal cover crops planted in the fall have been shown 

to significantly reduce nitrogen losses to groundwater during our 

fall and winter recharge period. 

Recommendation number 4: Establish buffers around all ditches, 

streams, tributaries, and surface waters of the Chesapeake Bay. 

While we have incentives now for tributaries and streams, we need 

to expand those opportunities for buffers to be installed around 

ditches located in farmers’ fields to keep farmers from spreading 

nutrients directly in those fields. Now, obviously, there has to be 

some compensation for the farmer for having a setback or whatever. 

And, number 5, we need to develop several watershed monitoring 

programs throughout the Chesapeake Bay region at a scale large 

enough to determine the effectiveness of our current nutrient management plans. There are no watershed monitoring programs in 

place around the Bay region that allows us to discern and to tease 

out the trends related to the practices that we are implementing, 

and the scale of the current monitoring program, for example, the 

Choptank River, is at such a broad scale it is hard to tease out 

those signals. 

In closing, implementation of these recommendations will result 

in major changes in the way we manage our working landscapes 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. However, based on 25 

years of experience working on these issues, I believe that while 

our current strategies are important, collectively, they will not reVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
56 

sult in achieving the nutrient reduction goals needed to meet our 

Bay goals. 

Finally, we need to work more closely with the farming community to implement these recommendations in a way that minimizes 

their financial burden and should promote the economic viability 

and the environmental sustainability for our working landscapes 

and for our farmers and future generations. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Dr. Brinsfield. 

Ms. Pugh? 

Ms. PUGH. Thank you, Congresswoman Edwards, for letting me 

share comments with you today. We would also like to thank Representative Perriello for his leadership on this issue. 

My name is Molly Pugh, and I serve as Executive Director for 

the Virginia Grain Producers Association. We represent Virginia’s 

corn and small grain growers, and make up about 800,000 acres of 

crop land in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia’s ag and forestry makes up about $79 billion of the Commonwealth’s annual income and about 10.3 percent of the State’s employment. 

When you look at the Bay Program and challenges to Bay restoration, we would assert that there is one first and foremost challenge that must be addressed, and that is complete and accurate 

data. In 2003, six years ago, Virginia Tech, which is Virginia’s land 

grant university, did a survey of growers in Virginia’s Coastal 

Plain region, and in that survey they found that there were 75,630 

acres currently in conservation practices, but only 5,630 of those 

acres were currently being implemented through incentive-based 

voluntary programs. So, in other words, 70,000 acres in the Coastal 

Plain of Virginia were not being counted or given credit in the 

Chesapeake Bay model, because, as you see, unless a grower is 

being paid to implement a practice, that practice is not being 

counted in the Chesapeake Bay model. 

Without accurate info, one, our growers are certainly not getting 

credit for what they are currently doing and the results that come 

out of the program may be inaccurate; and, two, without a comprehensive reporting system to track acres, we will never be able 

to meet a milestone or complete Bay restoration goals. 

We have heard a lot about accountability today, and I will suggest that that goes both ways. Growers need to give us information, 

but we need to commit to protect that information. So we would 

suggest that any organization outside of USDA receive aggregate 

data only in tracking these practices. 

Looking at the Executive Order, Section 202, Report 202(a) defines reasonable assurance as enforceable or otherwise binding programs to be enforced by the State to achieve set goals. That also 

impacts the definition of a comprehensible plan as addressed in 

Section 117. As interpreted by Virginia Governor Kaine, this 

means, in some cases, mandatory programs. One of his initial proposals is mandatory nutrient management plans for all farms and 

all growers in Virginia. 

Certainly, Virginia grain producers are not opposed to nutrient 

management plans or those practices, but mandatory does become 

problematic. For example, if we were to acquire mandatory nutrient management plans today, there would not be nearly enough 

57 

certified plan writers to even write the plans for farmers to implement. Mandatory plans should be considered only after that practice is proven to deliver significant water quality benefit on every 

acre in every type of operation. Virginia farming is extremely diverse and there is no one size fits all approach that will work. 

Another danger of mandatory programs is creating unfunded mandates. Grain farmers pay between $3 and $6 per acre to have 

a certified nutrient management plan written, and with a mandatory plan they have no assurance of cost-share assistance. This 

equates to burdensome regulations for our producers, on top of 85 

percent of Virginia’s grain producers already implementing best 

management practices, which include nutrient management plans. 

Looking at the Chesapeake Bay Program specifically, we ask you 

to remember that the model with which they adhere is that, it is 

just a model. It is not necessarily reflective of reality or real farming scenarios, although it is based on scientific information and assumptions. The Bay Program and its model needs to be more transparent. We ask that a peer review process be created to allow for 

scientific review period for recommended changes to the Chesapeake Bay Program’s model. 

After the scientific review, we ask for a comment period to be set 

to allow stakeholders to review changes and to issue necessary 

feedback. Inside funding, we ask that EPA should give the State 

as much authority and flexibility as possible, establish adequate 

funding for technical assistance and production research, certainly 

not suggesting that we expand State agency infrastructure, but 

tools like private crop consultants, private writers, Web-based programs, et cetera. 

In closing, environmental goals must meet with farm profitability. To borrow a phrase, a well managed farm is the Bay’s best 

friend. Supporting one grain farmer that manages 2,000 acres is 

much easier and cost-effective than dealing with 2,000 homeowners 

that could inhabit that land if farm profitability fails. Acre for acre, 

agriculture is the preferred land use in the Bay watershed. By effectively supporting production agriculture, we deliver the most efficient, cost-effective water quality benefits to the Bay and our region’s waters. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Ms. Pugh. 

Mr. Hughes. 

Mr. HUGHES. Congresswoman Edwards, Madam Chairwoman 

Johnson, Representative Boozman, and Representative Cummings, 

I thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of the reauthorization of the Chesapeake Bay Program. I believe the role of 

the Federal Government is critical to the success of the Bay restoration effort. I am here today to lend a voice from an agricultural 

perspective; more specifically, an animal agricultural perspective 

from the neighboring Chesapeake Bay State of Pennsylvania. 

Although I grew up on a dry land wheat farm in Washington 

State, I have lived in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for the last 10 years. 

Eight years ago, I started an agricultural consulting and engineering company called Red Barn Consulting. Red Barn has grown over 

the years and currently 10 employees work with approximately 650 

farm clients within the Pennsylvania Chesapeake Bay. 

58 

Most of our farm clients are third and fourth generation farmers, 

and they certainly wouldn’t recognize me today if they saw me in 

a coat and tie. Red Barn is a niche consulting business solely focused on agriculture, tasked with guiding our farmers through the 

environmental stewardship and compliance. We serve the gamut of 

Pennsylvania agriculture, from the 30-head Amish dairy to the 

2,500-head dairy CAFO located on the Mason Dixon Line. 

As you know, 50 percent of the fresh water flowing into the 

Chesapeake Bay comes from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

With over 83,000 miles of streams and rivers, and an estimated 80 

trillion gallons of groundwater, Pennsylvania is truly a blessed 

water-rich State. I would like to sit here and look you in the eye 

and tell you that Pennsylvania’s nitrogen and phosphorus loading 

problems are only because of the 164 waste treatment plants and 

urban and suburban stormwater runoff. But this statement is simply not true. Depending on what pie chart you use, the largest contributor to nitrogen and phosphorus and sediment to the Chesapeake Bay is from agricultural activities. 

One does not have to go far to read about the issues surrounding 

the depletion of the blue crab populations or the dead zones that 

plague the largest freshwater estuary. Even though we had the scientific modeling and the statistics to support the degradation of the 

Chesapeake Bay, we are crippled by the sociological and geographical connection to the Bay. Seventy-three percent of all Pennsylvanians have never seen or will ever visit the Chesapeake Bay. 

That is why it is important for agriculture to change its rhetoric 

and mind-set about what the Bay means to its future sustainability. 

Although we may not have the mental connection to the Bay 

itself, I do not know a single farmer who does not have a direct relationship with a stream that runs through his or her property. We 

must think of the Chesapeake Bay as our report card for environmental stewardship, but focus on the streams that run through 

those local lands. There are a myriad of regulations backed by the 

Clean Water Act for the protection of those local streams and watersheds. If we are to meet and exceed the expectations of the Executive Order of the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration, 

we in the agricultural industry must first and foremost focus on 

our local water bodies. 

It is my contention that agriculture not only has the will but the 

ultimate ability to meet these reductions in nitrogen, phosphorus, 

and sediment. In order to meet these challenges and raise the bar 

of environmental stewardship, agriculture does need the technical 

and educational tools provided under the reauthorization of the 

Bay initiative. I believe we already have the laws and statutes 

within Pennsylvania to guide compliance, but we need to muster 

the political will to enforce these regulations. 

Enforcement of regulations under the Clean Water Act is only 

one tool in the toolbox of the Chesapeake Bay restoration. A boots 

on the ground local effort needs to be sorted through the strengthening of technical assistance of the public and private sectors. Agriculture desperately needs the leadership of technical assistance 

provided by soil conservation districts, natural resource conservaVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
59 

tion service, crop consultants, and the Land Grand University extension agents. 

We have seen a dramatic cut in personnel and budgetary constraints over the last three years, at a time when the knowledge 

of soil and water conservation are needed the most. The Chesapeake Bay reauthorization needs to provide significant resources 

for technical assistance, outreach and education to enable and 

guide the agricultural community. 

The private sector is also ready to meet the agricultural challenge, but many depend on grant and funding and Federal dollars 

to support agricultural conservation practices. Red Barn has received Federal stimulus money in the form of ARRA. I know the 

private sector will be fiscally responsible with this money as it is 

applied to agricultural operations and new ingenuity. Pennsylvania 

has become a national model for a nutrient cap-and-trade free market systems that farmers have embraces. Due to low commodity 

prices, especially milk prices, farmer are more than ever seeking 

ecosystem services to bring new revenue streams onto their farm 

through the acres that they own. 

Three years ago, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection put forth a nutrient credit trading policy to foster the 

development between the point sources and the non-point sources. 

Red Barn is a certifier of nutrient credits, and we started a sister 

company called Red Barn Trading to aid in the pounds of reduction 

and phosphorus through various forms of best management practices. We conducted the first point to non-point credit trade with 

a local municipal authority two years ago and continue to sign contracts with developers in waste treatment plans so they are able 

to meet their NPDES permits. 

Since the Chesapeake Bay does not recognize the State and geographical boundaries drawn on a map, it is my contention that, for 

a cap-and-trade system to truly work, we need a robust interstate 

trading framework. This will bolster the fledgling credit trading 

market and allow for economic and environmental sustainability. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Hughes, if you could wrap up. 

Mr. HUGHES. You bet. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I know my colleagues have a number of questions. 

Mr. HUGHES. Sure. 

Agriculture is willing to do its part for restoration. We need to 

have a level playing field and we need to have the laws set in place 

to make sure that we are all following the same laws. 

It has been an honor for me to give and share my views with 

you. I cordially invite each of you to put on your boots and support 

the Chesapeake Bay initiative by keeping our farms sustainable 

and environmentally responsible. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Hughes. 

I will go to Ranking Member Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Dr. Brinsfield, you testified that we don’t have adequate or very 

little, if any, watershed monitoring stations. Ms. Pugh lamented 

the fact that she didn’t feel like we were getting accurate information either. What is the reason for that? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Well, part of the problem could be the scale at 

which we are monitoring. The data that I referred to at the USGS 

60 

monitoring station in Greensboro drains about 50,000 to 60,000 

acres of land, so part of it could be, even if practices were implemented, there hasn’t been enough time for that signal, that reduction signal to move its way through the system. 

The other possibility is, with regard to groundwater, there is a 

huge lag time between when we implement a practice and we get 

a reduction in groundwater in a field before we see that reflected 

downstream in a gaging station. In some cases, that could be decades. 

So it could be a lag time between implementation and monitoring, or it could be the lack of effectiveness of the strategies that 

we are currently implementing. But the problem is we don’t know 

whether it is one or the other or a combination of the two. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. In the Bay area we have seen a tremendous increase in population. We have seen a shrinking of agricultural land 

and we have seen the growth of cities. That is the normal progression. 

What is your model for what is causing the problem? Is it that 

agricultural practices now are much more restricted in the area 

compared to how they were 50 years ago when this area was much 

more agricultural? If it were pure agriculture then you would think 

that there would be more pollution then than there is now. See 

what I am saying? Tell me the model as to how it works. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. First of all, I don’t want to suggest at all that 

agriculture is not trying to do its part. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, I understand. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. But the truth of the matter is that the suggestion that the progress we have made in agriculture is being offset 

by urban is why you are not seeing a change, that may be true in 

some cases. However, in the watersheds that my colleagues and I 

are monitoring like the Choptank, it is 95 percent agriculture. Development pressures are certainly not there. The gauging stations 

where we monitor are above the two major towns that are on the 

Choptank. Those would be Easton and Cambridge, Maryland. So it 

is easy to say that it is being offset, and some of that is probably 

true, but it still is not clear from my point of view as a scientist. 

It is not that the farmers aren’t implementing what we are asking them to. The question is how effective are the components of 

the plans that we are asking farmers to implement. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I guess what I am wondering is that 40 years ago, 

that was agriculture then? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Yes, it has always been agriculture. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Why is it more polluted now than it was 40 years 

ago with it still being agriculture? What is the difference now? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Well, it is more intense agriculture now. For example, when I was a kid, I am a farm guy and still farm, we were 

diversified. We had a dairy farm but back then the number of animals that you had on your farm was sized specifically to the acres 

that you had. I remember we had one and a half cow/calf units per 

acre of ground. Our stocking density was dependent on that. 

What you have now are more concentrated animal operations. 

You have, particularly on the eastern shore, more poultry. So the 

manure that is generated from poultry is increasing even though, 

say, dairy farming and others are decreasing. And it is much more 

61 

difficult to manage, from a water quality point of view, nutrients 

that come from organic sources, whether it be poultry, animal 

waste, and/or sludge. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I think Mr. Hughes said that in his area in his 

State he felt that—I will let you comment, too—there were many 

statutes on the books and this and that that take care of a lot of 

this stuff. What percentage are we enforcing? 

The gentleman testified earlier that 90 days out of the year they 

are sending raw sewage into the river. That obviously, under the 

Clean Water Act, shouldn’t be happening. 

What percentage are we enforcing? What aren’t we enforcing? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. With agriculture? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. No, just with everything. Like I say, that was a 

good example. It shouldn’t be happening but it happens all the 

time. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. It is a small percentage that is being monitored 

closely. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. You are the Mayor of your city. What is the phosphorus of your sewage treatment plant? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. What is what, sir? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. The phosphorus level of your treatment plant. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. We meet the advanced discharge requirements 

for the State of Maryland. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. What is that? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. I don’t know what it is for phosphorus. I think 

it is four parts per million for nitrogen. But I don’t have that on 

the tip of my tongue. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay, very good. Thank you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. 

I just have a couple of questions, first from Mr. Hughes. Your 

testimony was very fascinating. In your testimony, you note that 

due to low commodity prices, especially milk prices, farmers are 

more than ever seeking ecosystem services to bring new revenue 

streams onto the farm through the acres they own. I wonder if you 

could expand on this? Are you actually saying that a farmer could 

make money while at the same time adding BMPs and reducing 

agricultural runoff? 

Then I wonder if you could comment more specifically on the 

kinds of technical assistance you referenced. We know that resources are needed, but what specific kinds of technical assistance 

do you think that farmers need so that they can both farm and stay 

in business, and maybe even get ahead of the curve, but also meet 

their responsibilities for protecting the ecosystem? 

Mr. HUGHES. I appreciate the question. As you can see by my 

testimony, I could probably talk about this all day. You bring up 

a really good point. 

First and foremost, it needs to be shown that in order for a farm 

to participate in ecosystem services such as generating nitrogen 

credits, phosphorus credits, or carbon credits, they first must meet 

a baseline level of compliance. They must have a conservation plan. 

They must be applying those nutrients in a way that is not overloading the streams. If we are going to get above and beyond any 

type of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to the Bay, they first 

and foremost have to be meeting compliance. Then the type of innoVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:44 Mar 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\52467 JASON
62 

vation of what they can do above and beyond compliance is where 

we can get the reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus that we 

need. 

This is not rocket science. Everything about cap and trade is to 

incentivize a sector to do more so that we can have the environmental benefit for a sector where it is too cost prohibitive. We have 

that within agriculture. We have that with the way they till the 

soil, with the way that manure is spread. These are very simple 

practices with technical services from outside professionals or with 

technical services from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. We have these in place. 

We need to get the word out. We need to have those farmers 

know where those grant and funding opportunities come from. 

They will go for it. 

Ms. EDWARDS. I hear what you are saying. 

I guess I wondered, Dr. Brinsfield, if you might comment on this 

notion of a mandatory set of standards? It seems that is in slight 

contradiction to Ms. Pugh’s testimony that you have some kind of 

a baseline for compliance and provide some set of technical assistance. We want to incentivize doing it, but farmers have to know 

what it is that we want. We also need to then impose whatever 

sanctions on non-compliance. Dr. Brinsfield? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I 

certainly agree that there needs to be a base level of standards that 

farmers have to comply with before they would be eligible for the 

incentive programs that Mr. Hughes was talking about. 

On the question of regulation, in Maryland every farmer is required to have a nutrient management plan. That plan has to be 

certified by the State by the Maryland Department of Agriculture. 

There are random checks. I know as a farmer I am subject to on 

a random call having my nutrient management plan verified, to 

having a consultant come out, sit down with me, and go through 

that plan. 

Having every farmer in the watershed have that baseline I think 

is a good thing. I think a regulatory framework that requires a reasonable nutrient management plan for every farmer is not an unreasonable thing to do. That ought to be the minimum standard 

from which a farmer then could be eligible for these ecosystem 

services that were being discussed. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But that is actually not true throughout the watershed, though. There is, as I described earlier, this disharmony 

among the States in the entire watershed in terms of this kind of 

baseline standard. So that might be a role for the Federal Government or for this Committee to look at in terms of setting that. 

Again, for incentives and the kind of technical assistance that 

farmers need to comply, since you are a farmer, Dr. Brinsfield, how 

much financial stress do you think that places on the agricultural 

community to proportionally implement your share of nutrient reductions? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. For a nutrient management plan itself, what I 

have learned as a farmer is that the savings resulting from the reductions in nutrients that I am applying and the timing for applying those nutrients actually pays for itself. 

63 

Let me give you one example of a technology that is emerging 

that is pretty well used at least across Maryland and I think across 

the watershed. For farmers growing corn, we love for farmers to 

split their nitrogen application. In other words, don’t put all the nitrogen on when you plant the crop. Wait until the corn comes up 

and then put some more nitrogen on to try to match the supply of 

nitrogen with the demand by the crop. Up until recently, that was 

guesswork for how much additional nitrogen the farmer would 

need to apply to meet his optimum yield. 

Now there is a test called a pre-sidedress nitrogen test, a PSNT 

test. You can go in when the corn is knee high, pull a sample, and 

within 24 hours a consultant can calculate for you the amount of 

nitrogen that is available in the roots. By subtraction you can determine the amount needed to grow the corn to where you are not 

way over-applying. 

That in and of itself, the savings from that plan or that strategy 

way offset the cost of the consultant that I hire privately to develop 

the plan and to do that test for me. My point is that nutrient management planning, I think for the most part, saves farmers money 

and also helps protect the Bay because we are matching the demand of the nutrient with the growth stage of the crops. That way 

you don’t have a large amount of nitrogen sitting in the roots that 

could be leeched out if you have a rainstorm event before the crop 

could take that nitrogen up. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much. That is very helpful to 

know because nutrient planning is good farming, good business, 

and at the same time goes to the preferences that we have about 

a thriving Bay. 

My last question is really directed to Mr. Johnson. Again, thank 

you very much for being here as well. Publicly owned treatment 

works have long been regulated under the Clean Water Act. Is it 

your view that improvements can still be made by your sector 

under the Clean Water Act? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think as science and technology advance 

there is always some room for improvement in doing the kinds of 

things that we are doing to protect the ecosystem, the environment, 

and public health. But the things that we are doing now, especially 

with respect to nitrogen and phosphorus removal, are to the limits 

of technology. We are pushing these systems as far and as hard as 

we can with all the science we are aware of out there. 

But I might take a step further. I realize that this is not the 

question that you posed but I think that it has implications. I view 

the fact as that we have reached a time when perhaps the Clean 

Water Act has outlived its usefulness in its present form. The 

Clean Water Act has made some tremendous accomplishments and 

has done some wonderful things as we have progressed through the 

years and improved our wastewater treatment systems and the like 

across the Country. But now that we have taken these regulations, 

a lot of them are being implemented in silos. 

There is one regulation that relates to the CSO control. There is 

another regulation that relates to nutrient removal and something 

that comes on the permit with that on that side. Just taking those 

two examples, what has happened is that if you implement those 

as separate free-standing regulations, the cost and your ability to 

64 

apply certain new technologies and different approaches to operate 

and optimize the operation of wastewater treatment plants simply 

can’t be done. 

The example is right here in the District of Columbia where we 

save some $500 million by working closely with the EPA to convince them that we needed to look at both a CSO long-term control 

plan and nutrient reduction as a single wet weather phenomenon. 

Just by doing that and by accomplishing that, we save $500 million 

and will have a better effluent going into the receiving water. 

There needs to be a look at that so we move to more of a watershed-based approach for dealing with these problems and impairments in our water body so that we are actually addressing the 

worst problem first, not the first regulation that we come to. We 

function in silos. How can we take all of these things and blend 

them, look at the problem and the most critical impairment, and 

look at the most viable solution for addressing that? 

I think that there are examples of that. I think we are ripe for 

that right here in this region with the water bodies that we have. 

We have to look at it from a watershed-based approach. 

I think that Mr. Hawkins, earlier in his comments when he 

talked about having sort of the same approach for some of the regulatory standards, makes a great deal of sense. If we took that approach, then we could look at working across boundaries and borders and not having these thousands of different plans and approaches for dealing with the pollutants. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Johnson. I 

think that you probably speak to less how the Clean Water Act has 

outlived its usefulness than how the Clean Water Act and our ability to implement it may need some more expansive thinking in 

terms of coordination. Thank you very much. 

I know that Chairman Oberstar has some questions for this 

panel. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am glad you made that clarification with the 

help of Ms. Edwards. I would take issue that the Clean Water Act 

has, in a broad, sweeping statement, outlived its usefulness. It has 

not been implemented in the way it should have been. It has not 

been carried out the way it was intended. It has not been funded 

to the extent that it should have been. And the funding was dealt 

a severe blow in 1981 in the Reagan Reconciliation Bill when the 

$6 billion sewage treatment plant construction grant program was 

whittled down to $2 billion for the balance of that fiscal year and 

then converted to a loan program the next year. 

Those jurisdictions that were in greatest need of funding support, 

those of under 50,000 in population, had to go into the marketplace 

and borrow money. And the larger facilities still hadn’t completed 

addressing the needs of the biggest waste streams. 

So we have been hobbling along on funding of the Clean Water 

program for 20 some years. We need to turn this around. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I agree. I think that what has happened is that 

there is a fundamental misalignment, if you would, with the way 

that we are going about implementing it and the resources that are 

available and the demands that are placed on various communities 

for the work that needs to be done. 

65 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not to mention the torpedo that the Supreme 

Court fired, two of them, at the Clean Water program. It blew a 

hole in its operation, the effects of which we are still trying to cure, 

in saying Congress really didn’t mean what it wrote in the opening 

paragraph of the Clean Water Act of 1972. 

I was in this Committee room where we held a lot of the conferences between the House and the Senate. I was Chief of Staff 

for the Committee at the time. We didn’t spend 10 months shaping 

the future of the Clean Water program to be told by the Supreme 

Court that we didn’t mean what we said. We meant what we said. 

The purpose of this Act is to establish and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters. We 

did not mean little water streams here and there, not just the Mississippi, the Ohio, the Illinois, or the Columbia that are navigable 

waters where ships can move. We meant all the waters on a watershed basis. That is what we need to do. That is what we need to 

restore. The Chesapeake is emblematic of this need for a watershed 

approach. 

Dr. Brinsfield, you have addressed some very interesting new developments, relatively new, with the nutrient management plans 

you described. I think that is a good watershed approach principle. 

Not only does it have the ability to lessen the pollution load on the 

receiving waters but it also has benefits for farmers. They are not 

going to spend as much money or throw money away over-fertilizing or under-fertilizing but doing it progressively throughout. 

We have had that experience in my district. In several years 

there was low moisture with near drought conditions. Farmers put 

the fertilizer on the fields and the little bit of moisture we did have 

drained some of that nitrogen and phosphorus down into the 

groundwater and poisoned the wells. Then there were years of 

abundant moisture and crops grew well beyond because there was 

so much nutrient in the land. 

More effective management will save money, save the land, and 

save the water as well. 

But I dispute those who say we need to study this issue more. 

The studies are measured in feet and pounds, maybe in hundreds 

of pounds. They are good for the pulp and paper industry in my 

district but not good for management. We need to get on with the 

management plan. There is enough known about all these waste 

loads from the sources throughout this watershed that we need 

now the political will and the participatory will of those in the watershed to deal with it. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Can I comment, sir? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. I don’t disagree at all. However, one of my recommendations as a scientist I need to reiterate. I know you don’t 

want to talk about spending money on research so we will call it 

monitoring. We simply don’t have the data that we need to substantiate in an agricultural setting whether the suite of BMPs and 

nutrient management plans that farmers are implementing are 

working or not. 

The reason that is frustrating to me is because it is my opinion 

that it is not because farmers aren’t implementing those plans. 

They have every reason to implement those plans, particularly 

66 

when they can save money and save fertilizer through better timing, better genetics with crops, and all of the above. 

However, because we don’t see a signal at a large scale that what 

farmers are doing is working, there are more and more calls for 

regulation to enforce the plans. I would argue that that may not 

be the case. It may be because of the scale of monitoring or it could 

be that the effectiveness of the elements of the plan are not getting 

the reductions that we thought they would as a science community 

early on. So some specific allocation for monitoring at, say, a 5,000 

to 10,000 acre watershed that is predominantly agricultural where 

the suite of BMPs is implemented is critically important to tease 

out whether or not our strategies collectively are working and, if 

they are not, what it is we need to do to make them more effective. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I don’t disagree with that. I think you make a 

good point. I don’t want farmers, of whom I have a great number 

in my district, to feel beleaguered or feel that this Chesapeake Bay 

restoration is solely aimed at them. 

It is the land owners, the property and home owners who are 

pouring on unnecessary amounts of fertilizer that is then running 

off into the streets and gutters. They spray the fertilizer on the 

sidewalks and in the streets so it doesn’t go into the lawn at all. 

There is no scientific application for them. There is much more 

science applied on farms than there is on the back and front yards 

of these grassy expanses we have. That is all running off directly 

into the gutters, creeks, streams, and into the Potomac, the Chesapeake, and elsewhere all throughout this watershed. 

But the point is that we know enough that we need to get an 

overall comprehensive plan and have Chesapeake standards, as I 

discussed with the previous panel, to apply to the management of 

this watershed. We need to get on with the things that we know 

can be done. 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. I agree. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Johnson, I think that is what you were headed toward. 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is what I was trying to say, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am glad you were. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Though very unartfully. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We are going to come out of this with a good bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If we put one tenth of the money into Clean 

Water that we are putting into the TARP program and the bailing 

out of banks—there is more money going into bonuses for bank moguls than there is for cleaning up the pollution of this Country— 

it would be a whole hell of a lot better for America than where it 

is going now. So that is my speech and I am sticking to it. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Boozman, I believe you have one question? 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Very quickly, you mentioned that it is more concentrated with poultry and things like that, animal waste. I am familiar with what they do with that in Arkansas in the sense that 

I represent a district that has Tyson and a lot of stuff like that 

going on. In this part of the Country, what do you do with the 

67 

waste? Again, anybody that wants to answer can. Mr. Hughes? Dr. 

Brinsfield? 

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, sadly I do know that. Most of it is land applied. We have got broken nutrient budgets. We have all of that 

feed coming from the Midwest feeding the birds and that manure 

stays here within the Chesapeake Bay. We do have nutrient management plans but there is no way of disposal. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. They are not burning it? They are really not doing 

anything creative to get rid of it? 

Mr. HUGHES. No, that is just now starting. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. That is something, again, I think that we 

need to look at. There really are a lot of creative ways to use it 

where it can be beneficial. 

Dr. Brinsfield? 

Dr. BRINSFIELD. Yes, I have to come to the defense of my farming 

community on this. The poultry manure is a huge resource for the 

farming community, particularly since nitrogen and phosphorus 

prices went through the roof. I would argue that it is not so much 

the use or overuse of the poultry manure. It is the methods that 

we apply, the timing of when we are applying it, how we are storing it, and the distance that we are allowing it to be spread from 

streams. I would argue that with good nutrient management planning, particularly a phosphorus-based planning, we can use that 

manure as a resource. 

But we are going to have to make sure that we don’t apply that 

in the fall and the winter. We need to apply it in the spring. We 

are going to have to have some tillage to get that manure under 

the soil surface because our runoff losses are far greater when we 

don’t incorporate that manure. We are going to have to have setbacks from our ditches on our farms, as well as from our streams 

and tributaries. 

So I think there is a suite of things that we have learned in the 

last decade as a science community that has not been fully implemented in the farming arena that would allow the use of these organic wastes in a way that is much more sustainable and much 

more friendly to the Chesapeake Bay. I would argue that we need 

incentives to get farmers to do those things. 

Let me give you an example. In Europe they have developed 

equipment where a farmer can drive along a ditch and he has a 

shield on the manure spreader that stops the manure from being 

spread directly in the stream. We need that kind of technology. Or 

we need to say to a farmer you have got to have a 25 foot setback 

from the stream from where you spread your manure but we will 

incentivize you for planting, say, switchgrass. Maybe that 

switchgrass could emerge as a biofuel for direct combustion or for 

cellulosic ethanol. That way the farmer could get some return on 

his investment that he has lost because he has had to provide that 

setback. 

I think there are all kinds of creative ways that we have not 

tapped very well because of a sort of disconnect, maybe, sometimes 

between the science and the implementation. You may or may not 

have had a chance to look at those recommendations that I submitted. They were developed not by me but by a broad consensus 

of scientists, farmers, and environmentalists as key steps to move 

68 

ourselves much farther towards meeting the agricultural Bay reduction goals and keeping agriculture economically viable. That is 

the key. 

I agree that we never see farms go from farming back to forest. 

They go from farms to urban/suburban development. I have just 

one other point. Agriculture is the largest contributor because it is 

the largest land use. But if you look at it on a per acre basis, it 

is not necessarily the largest contributor. So we need to keep that 

in context as well. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. I think that is a very, very good point. 

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank all of you for being here. I have 

really enjoyed the testimony. You were very, very helpful. It has 

been a good hearing. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you. 

Thank you again for your testimony and for your patience. It has 

been a learning experience, I think, for all of us. We appreciate it. 

It still tells us that we have a little bit more work to do. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

69 


Insert offset folio 19 here 52467.019
70 


Insert offset folio 20 here 52467.020
71 


Insert offset folio 21 here 52467.021
72 


Insert offset folio 22 here 52467.022
73 


Insert offset folio 23 here 52467.023
74 


Insert offset folio 24 here 52467.024
75 


Insert offset folio 25 here 52467.025
76 


Insert offset folio 26 here 52467.026
77 


Insert offset folio 27 here 52467.027
78 


Insert offset folio 28 here 52467.028
79 


Insert offset folio 29 here 52467.029
80 


Insert offset folio 30 here 52467.030
81 


Insert offset folio 31 here 52467.031
82 


Insert offset folio 32 here 52467.032
83 


Insert offset folio 33 here 52467.033
84 


Insert offset folio 34 here 52467.034
85 


Insert offset folio 35 here 52467.035
86 


Insert offset folio 36 here 52467.036
87 


Insert offset folio 37 here 52467.037
88 


Insert offset folio 38 here 52467.038
89 


Insert offset folio 39 here 52467.039
90 


Insert offset folio 40 here 52467.040
91 


Insert offset folio 41 here 52467.041
92 


Insert offset folio 42 here 52467.042
93 


Insert offset folio 43 here 52467.043
94 


Insert offset folio 44 here 52467.044
95 


Insert offset folio 45 here 52467.045
96 


Insert offset folio 46 here 52467.046
97 


Insert offset folio 47 here 52467.047
98 


Insert offset folio 48 here 52467.048
99 


Insert offset folio 49 here 52467.049
100 


Insert offset folio 50 here 52467.050
101 


Insert offset folio 51 here 52467.051
102 


Insert offset folio 52 here 52467.052
103 


Insert offset folio 53 here 52467.053
104 


Insert offset folio 54 here 52467.054
105 


Insert offset folio 55 here 52467.055
106 


Insert offset folio 56 here 52467.056
107 


Insert offset folio 57 here 52467.057
108 


Insert offset folio 58 here 52467.058
109 


Insert offset folio 59 here 52467.059
110 


Insert offset folio 60 here 52467.060
111 


Insert offset folio 61 here 52467.061
112 


Insert offset folio 62 here 52467.062
113 


Insert offset folio 63 here 52467.063
114 


Insert offset folio 64 here 52467.064
115 


Insert offset folio 65 here 52467.065
116 


Insert offset folio 66 here 52467.066
117 


Insert offset folio 67 here 52467.067
118 


Insert offset folio 68 here 52467.068
119 


Insert offset folio 69 here 52467.069
120 


Insert offset folio 70 here 52467.070
121 


Insert offset folio 71 here 52467.071
122 


Insert offset folio 72 here 52467.072
123 


Insert offset folio 73 here 52467.073
124 


Insert offset folio 74 here 52467.074
125 


Insert offset folio 75 here 52467.075
126 


Insert offset folio 76 here 52467.076
127 


Insert offset folio 77 here 52467.077
128 


Insert offset folio 78 here 52467.078
129 


Insert offset folio 79 here 52467.079
130 


Insert offset folio 80 here 52467.080
131 


Insert offset folio 81 here 52467.081
132 


Insert offset folio 82 here 52467.082
133 


Insert offset folio 83 here 52467.083
134 


Insert offset folio 84 here 52467.084
135 


Insert offset folio 85 here 52467.085
136 


Insert offset folio 86 here 52467.086
137 


Insert offset folio 87 here 52467.087
138 


Insert offset folio 88 here 52467.088
139 


Insert offset folio 89 here 52467.089
140 


Insert offset folio 90 here 52467.090
141 


Insert offset folio 91 here 52467.091
142 


Insert offset folio 92 here 52467.092
143 


Insert offset folio 93 here 52467.093
144 


Insert offset folio 94 here 52467.094
145 


Insert offset folio 95 here 52467.095
146 


Insert offset folio 96 here 52467.096
147 


Insert offset folio 97 here 52467.097
148 


Insert offset folio 98 here 52467.098
149 


Insert offset folio 99 here 52467.099
150 


Insert offset folio 100 here 52467.100
151 


Insert offset folio 101 here 52467.101
152 


Insert offset folio 102 here 52467.102
153 


Insert offset folio 103 here 52467.103
154 


Insert offset folio 104 here 52467.104
155 


Insert offset folio 105 here 52467.105
156 


Insert offset folio 106 here 52467.106
157 


Insert offset folio 107 here 52467.107
158 


Insert offset folio 108 here 52467.108
159 


Insert offset folio 109 here 52467.109
160 


Insert offset folio 110 here 52467.110
161 


Insert offset folio 111 here 52467.111
162 


Insert offset folio 112 here 52467.112
163 


Insert offset folio 113 here 52467.113
164 


Insert offset folio 114 here 52467.114
165 


Insert offset folio 115 here 52467.115
166 


Insert offset folio 116 here 52467.116
167 


Insert offset folio 117 here 52467.117
168 


Insert offset folio 118 here 52467.118
169 


Insert offset folio 119 here 52467.119
170 


Insert offset folio 120 here 52467.120
171 


Insert offset folio 121 here 52467.121
172 


Insert offset folio 122 here 52467.122
173 


Insert offset folio 123 here 52467.123
174 


Insert offset folio 124 here 52467.124
175 


Insert offset folio 125 here 52467.125
176 


Insert offset folio 126 here 52467.126
177 


Insert offset folio 127 here 52467.127
178 


Insert offset folio 128 here 52467.128
179 


Insert offset folio 129 here 52467.129
180 


Insert offset folio 130 here 52467.130
181 


Insert offset folio 131 here 52467.131
182 


Insert offset folio 132 here 52467.132
183 


Insert offset folio 133 here 52467.133
184 


Insert offset folio 134 here 52467.134
185 


Insert offset folio 135 here 52467.135
186 


Insert offset folio 136 here 52467.136
187 


Insert offset folio 137 here 52467.137
188 


Insert offset folio 138 here 52467.138
189 


Insert offset folio 139 here 52467.139
190 


Insert offset folio 140 here 52467.140
191 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 141 here 52467.141