TABLE OF CONTENTS(Click on Section)

PURPOSE

BACKGROUND

CHAIRMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT

WITNESSES

The Water Resources & Environment Subcommittee is scheduled to meet on Thursday, May 4, 2006, at 10:00 A.M., in Room 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building, to receive testimony on H.R. 4126, the “Chesapeake Bay Restoration and Enhancement Act.” Witnesses will include representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

An estuary is a waterbody where ocean tides and river water merge. Of the 130 estuaries in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay is the largest and one of the most diverse. Half of its total water volume is supplied by the Atlantic Ocean, and the Susquehanna River provides a majority of its freshwater. Other major tributaries like the Potomac River and the James River contribute to its water supply. Spanning parts of six States (Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York) and the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay watershed covers 64,000 square miles and is home to 16 million people. There are 150 major streams and tributaries in the Chesapeake Bay basin.

Chesapeake Bay health is attributed to the diversity of habitat within the watershed. Upland and riparian forests, streams and rivers, wetlands, tidal mudflats, submerged grasses, oyster reefs, and open water support a vast array of plants and wildlife. The Chesapeake Bay supports almost 350 species of finfish, almost 175 species of shellfish, and over 2,700 plant species. The Bay watershed is a prime nesting ground for more than one million waterfowl during the winter months in the Atlantic Migratory Bird Flyway. In addition, the Bay provides millions of pounds of seafood, extensive wildlife habitat, a wide variety of recreational opportunities, and is a major hub for shipping and commerce. Two of the nation’s largest ports reside in the Chesapeake Bay, at Baltimore, Maryland, and Hampton Roads, Virginia.

Concerns over the health of the Chesapeake Bay have been raised since the 1930’s. Signs of deterioration include a decrease in water clarity, a decline in oyster populations, and a lack of underwater grasses that provide habitat for fish and shellfish. Of the 200,000 acres of underwater grasses historically present in the watershed at one time, approximately 65,000 acres remain. Studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated the cause of this deterioration to be excess nutrients from agricultural development, loss of forest cover, overharvesting of fish and shellfish species, population growth (and its associated hydrological modifications), and discharges from sewage treatment plants. Nutrient and sediment runoff causes a majority of the health problems in the Chesapeake Bay. These excess nutrients and sediments cause an excessive growth of algae called algal blooms, which reduce water clarity and prevent sunlight from reaching underwater plants. These underwater plants provide important food and habitat for crabs, fish, and birds. When the algae die, they decompose in a process that removes oxygen from the water. This creates no-oxygen “dead zones” in the Bay.

The largest source of nutrient runoff into the Chesapeake Bay comes from upstream agricultural activities. Agricultural lands make up nearly 25% of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In the Susquehanna River basin, agriculture is the dominant land use, with over 8,000 square miles devoted to agricultural production, much of that in the form of cattle raising. Another agriculturally dominated area, the eastern shore of the Chesapeake, includes a significant number of poultry farms. While they are a major contributor of nutrients and sediments to the Bay, these farms are an important economic and social factor in the watershed, and provide significant open space.

About 322 municipal and 68 industrial wastewater treatment plants account for ninety-five percent of all wastewater flows into the Chesapeake Bay. The largest single point source discharge into the Bay watershed is the Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility in Washington, D.C. While treatment plants remove pathogens and much of the nutrients associated with wastewater, they are still significant contributors of pollution to the bay. However, these treatment facilities have also improved water quality in the tributary systems and rivers that lead to the Chesapeake Bay. With more than 100,000 additional people moving to the Bay watershed annually, the nutrient load from wastewater requiring treatment will continue to grow.

Between 1950 and 2000, the population in the watershed nearly doubled to 16 million people, and by 2035 this is expected to swell by an additional 3.7 million people. As this population grows, so will its footprint in the watershed. Areas that were once wetland, forest, or open space have been hydrologically modified to be impervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces produce 16 times the amount of runoff that an equivalent area of open space produces greater flows and results in more sediment and more nutrient load reaching the Bay. There has been a 41% increase in impervious surfaces in the last ten years. However, it is this development that allows the region to economically prosper.

Additional nutrient and sediment loads come from nearby septic systems and from air deposition of emissions from power plants, cars, trucks, and other off-road sources. These economic and environmental tradeoffs make the health of the Chesapeake Bay a difficult balancing act.

CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM

In 1933 at the Interstate Conference on the Bay, participants from the federal government, the States of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia met to discuss issues surrounding the health of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Participants agreed on the creation of a multi-state, permanent Chesapeake Bay committee in order to help coordinate and promote the preservation of the watershed. In 1967, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation was chartered to help restore the Bay's essential habitats and to educate the public about issues affecting the watershed. In 1980, the General Assemblies of Maryland and Virginia created the Chesapeake Bay Commission. Comprised of legislative delegations from Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the Commission promotes intergovernmental cooperation and coordination for resource planning for ecosystem restoration.

In 1983, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Environmental Protection Agency signed the first Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The voluntary agreement created the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council comprising State government officials from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia and the District of Columbia, and the Region III Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Agreement established an implementation committee to coordinate technical matters, developed management plans, and created the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s participation in the Chesapeake Bay Program was authorized formally in the 1987 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly called the Clean Water Act), which added section 117 to that Act. Section 117 authorized $52 million in federal assistance for the Chesapeake Bay Program: $3 million a year for each of fiscal years 1987 through 1990 for the Chesapeake Bay Program office and $10 million a year for each of fiscal years 1987 through 1990 for grants to implement interstate development plan grants. In 2000, Congress reauthorized section 117 through 2005 and increased the authorization to $40 million a year.

The Chesapeake Bay Program is a unique regional partnership that directs and conducts the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay under the voluntary 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement. Additional Chesapeake Bay agreements were signed in 1987, 1992 and 2000. The signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreements are Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These agreements set restoration goals for the Bay.

EPA reports that some progress has been made in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Nitrogen and phosphorous levels are decreasing in non-tidal portions of rivers that flow to the Bay. Sediment levels in some rivers are declining as well. These decreases are a measure of the success of the point and nonpoint source management programs being implemented throughout the Bay watershed. However, the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program have not yet been reached and most agree that more needs to be done to reduce pollutant loadings.

The states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency adopted a new agreement: Chesapeake 2000. The Agreement set a large number of ambitious and aggressive objectives to be achieved by 2010. In addition to establishing goals related to habitat protection, water quality protection, and sound land use, the Agreement's centerpiece was to remove all nutrient and sediment water quality impairments in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries by 2010.

These ambitious goals have been met with some criticism recently. In general, the goals have been described as unattainable. The Government Accountability Office in October 2005 issued a report detailing some of the shortcomings of the Chesapeake Bay Program. While the Government Accountability Office recognized the Bay Program as a model for intergovernmental cooperation, it questioned whether EPA’s Bay Program had overstated the progress made in restoring the health of the system. Despite having over 100 individual measurable goals in determining health of the Bay, the Program does not have an integrated approach to collectively determine what the individual measurable goals mean for the overall health of the Chesapeake Bay. For instance, while the Bay Program tracks crab and oyster populations, it does not have an approach for integrating these results to assess progress toward the overarching goal of protecting and restoring the Bay’s resources. Further, the annual reports of the Bay Program fail to explain the impact that opposite trends, like an increase in rockfish population and a decrease in crab population, mean for the overall health of the Bay. The Government Accountability Office also noted in its October 2005 report that the Bay Program does not have a comprehensive, coordinated implementation strategy, which has negatively impacted its ability to achieve the goals laid out by the Chesapeake 2000 agreement.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the Chesapeake Bay Program sometimes finds it advantageous to report on the Bay’s health in a more positive light than reality may indicate. Positive trends and reports help sustain political and financial support for restoration, therefore, there is a perverse incentive for the Bay Program to present the most positive picture to the public of its progress. Questions also have been raised regarding funding for the Bay Program. Over the last ten years, $3.7 billion dollars in direct funding has been provided to the Program from the federal government and the States. $972 million has been provided by the federal government, with the United States Army Corps of Engineers providing the greatest amount of direct funding. Indirect funding that has an impact on Chesapeake Bay health (for instance, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service provides funding that assists farmers in implementing best management practices) contributed an additional $1.9 billion over ten years. The Environmental Protection Agency has also provided more than $1 billion to Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania through the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund over this same time period. Despite this financial investment, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel has recommended a regional financing authority be created for the Bay Program with an initial capitalization of $15 billion, $12 billion of which is proposed to come from the federal government.

H.R. 4126, “THE CHESAPEAKE BAY RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT ACT”

The Environmental Protection Agency, Members of Congress, and the States have recognized some of the deficiencies in the Bay Program. Coinciding with the release of Government Accountability Office’s report on the Bay Program, Representative Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and 16 bipartisan co-sponsors introduced H.R. 4126, the “Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2005.” The bill would reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay Program through 2011, with some modifications. The bill proposes to increase accountability for Chesapeake Bay Program partnership efforts to achieve water quality goals, increase the role of local governments in Bay restoration by increasing financial support for local projects, broaden representation of local governments in the Bay Program, and focus Bay restoration strategies to improve local water quality. Specifically, H.R. 4126 would create annual “tributary health report cards” for each major tributary that flows into the Chesapeake Bay. This is aimed to evaluate progress in achieving and maintaining nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each Chesapeake Bay tributary basin. The bill would require water quality standards or best management practices to be included in Clean Water Act permits for point and non point source pollution. The bill also directs the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator to establish measurable goals for local governments for nutrient and sediment reduction in the Chesapeake Bay. H.R. 4126 would increase funding available for the Bay Program, from $40 million annually to $50 million annually through 2011.