[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 7197-7198]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE TESTIMONY OF PENELOPE A. GROSS

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DAVIS

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 4, 2006

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the Chesapeake Bay is one of 
our region's greatest assets. Keeping the Bay clean is a major priority 
for the state and local governments.
  Our colleague Wayne Gilchrist recently held a hearing on the status 
of the Bay. One of the participants in that hearing was Supervisor 
Penelope Gross from Fairfax County, Virginia. I would like to enter 
into the Record her thoughtful comments presented at that hearing. 
Supervisor Gross has long been an advocate for Bay restoration and her 
testimony reflects how local governments can be critical partners in 
that effort.

 Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee House Transportation and 
                        Infrastructure Committee

       May 4, 2006.--Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
     the opportunity to appear today to discuss Chesapeake Bay 
     restoration activities and the vitally important role of 
     local governments in those efforts. I am honored to be 
     invited to provide testimony. Chesapeake Bay issues are of 
     particular interest to me, which is why I serve on the 
     Chesapeake Bay Policy Committee of the Metropolitan 
     Washington Council of Governments, was a member of the 
     Chesapeake Bay Program's Blue Ribbon Financing Panel and 
     recently was elected Chair of the Bay Program's Local 
     Government Advisory Committee, also known as LGAC. I also 
     chair Virginia's Potomac Watershed Roundtable, and I 
     represent the Mason District on the Fairfax County Board of 
     Supervisors. As you may know, Fairfax County is one of the 
     largest jurisdictions, population-wise, in the Chesapeake Bay 
     watershed.
       Each of these responsibilities has helped shape my 
     perspective on what is needed to keep our efforts to achieve 
     a clean Bay on track. I would like to share several themes 
     that are the basis of my remarks today:
       Implementation and restoration happen primarily at the 
     local level and we need more state and federal funding to get 
     the job done; EPA and their state counterparts need to 
     provide stronger leadership on regulatory issues that will 
     drive much of the multi-billion dollar Bay cleanup effort; a 
     more focused approach to enforcement of existing federal 
     laws, regulations, and policies by EPA to the state would 
     alone make significant strides to clean up the Bay.
       The Chesapeake Bay Program partners need to set clear 
     implementation priorities, emphasizing those measures that 
     offer the greatest pollution reduction return on investment;
       The implementation and funding burden must be shared 
     equitably between and among sectors and levels of government.
       Of the 98 commitments in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, 22 
     specifically involve local governments, and other commitments 
     imply local government involvement. And I want to remind you 
     that there are more than 1,650 local governments throughout 
     the 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay Watershed. From a local 
     government perspective, we know what to do to continue making 
     progress, but we need more help from our state and federal 
     partners. The Bay Program has successfully generated plans 
     and documents that outline what actions local governments 
     should take to help restore the Bay. However, I believe we're 
     heavy on written plans, and we're struggling on the follow-
     through--i.e., technical and financial assistance to get more 
     done. This was the most common and strongly voiced concern 
     among LGAC members from all jurisdictions at our most recent 
     meeting, held right here in this building. And I want to take 
     this opportunity to thank Congressman Gilchrest and his staff 
     for engaging in substantive dialogue with LGAC members about 
     this legislation.
       Local governments throughout the watershed are currently 
     spending millions of local citizenry dollars to do our part 
     in cleaning up the Bay. However, there needs to be a greater 
     emphasis on developing mechanisms to capture those 
     substantial implementation efforts by local governments and 
     others which are not funded through state or federal 
     Chesapeake Bay funds. For instance, the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia still does not have an effective mechanism to track 
     urban nonpoint source Best Management stormwater facilities. 
     This could be accomplished through a direction to the 
     Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the states to develop an 
     enhanced tracking and reporting system. I understand that the 
     states may already be working on such a system, but to 
     facilitate reporting by implementing entities, I would 
     recommend that this system be web-based and simple to use.
       I'm sure it is no surprise to you that the biggest help we 
     could use is additional federal and state funding. The ``Cost 
     of a Clean Bay'' report prepared by the Chesapeake Bay 
     Commission estimated that more than half of the cost for 
     meeting C2K nutrient and sediment reduction goals would be 
     borne by local governments. In some of the most expensive 
     programmatic areas, such as stormwater management and urban 
     nonpoint source pollution control, the local government share 
     is closer to 100% since there are virtually no federal or 
     state funds to help address the problem. While, sadly, the 
     thoughtful recommendations of the Chesapeake Bay Blue Ribbon 
     Finance Panel seem to have faded from memory, the needs that 
     were identified there have not. It is critical that the 
     federal and state governments in the watershed assume a major 
     role in providing financial assistance for implementation at 
     the local level.
       On the issue of funding, I also need to mention my concern 
     with deep cuts being proposed to the Clean Water State 
     Revolving Fund (CWSRF). While local governments and our State 
     partners are working to increase funding for clean water 
     programs, the federal SRF is being targeted for cuts totaling 
     $199.2 million. Many local governments, especially in rural 
     areas, in the Bay watershed depend on this federal funding to 
     pay for high priority water pollution control projects, and 
     the proposed budget cuts are exactly the opposite of what's 
     needed to achieve our goal of a clean and healthy Bay.

       But funding alone isn't enough. We also need our state and 
     federal partners to work cooperatively with local governments 
     on a watershed basis to:

       1. Clearly articulate measurable goals for local 
     governments to achieve and couple these with appropriate 
     levels of funding support. I support the requirement for 
     measurable goals for local governments under the Local 
     Government Involvement section, with the provisions that this 
     be woven into a realistic implementation plan that includes 
     equitable levels of funding support. To guarantee success of 
     the Tributary Strategies, it is critical to have a detailed 
     plan for implementation that explains who, what, when, where, 
     why, and how.

       2. Increase the level of support for the Small Watershed 
     Grants Program to the proposed authorized amount of $10 
     million. While far short of the estimated funding necessary 
     to achieve the C2K goals, the Small Watershed Grants are 
     perhaps the most effective mechanism for engaging local 
     governments in the common effort to achieve water quality and 
     habitat goals. The current funding level of $2 million 
     translates into just $1,212 for each of the 1,650 local 
     governments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. In addition, I 
     recommend increasing the cap on individual small watershed 
     grants to as much as one million dollars, a substantial 
     increase over the present $50,000 limit. Let me give you an 
     example: in Fairfax County, we often do not apply for small 
     watershed grants because the staff time involved in preparing 
     the grant application actually costs more than the grant 
     itself. The current $50,000 cap effectively eliminates larger 
     jurisdictions from participating in the Small Watershed 
     Grants Program. In addition to the review and prioritization 
     of grant proposals by the Chesapeake Bay Local Government 
     Advisory Committee, there also should be a mechanism for 
     prioritizing grants within watersheds or metropolitan areas 
     to ensure that grants address priority local or tributary-
     specific issues. A good example of a priority might be the 
     ongoing efforts to restore the Anacostia River which flows 
     into the Potomac River just a few blocks from here.


[[Page 7198]]


       3. Establish a ``Measurable Goals'' provision for Soil 
     Conservation Districts comparable to the provision for local 
     governments. As the level of accountability and 
     responsibility for local governments is increased, equity 
     suggests that there be a comparable provision for 
     ``Measurable Goals'' for the agricultural sector. A logical 
     geographic unit would be the soil conservation district. As 
     above, implementation should be coupled with equitable levels 
     of funding support.

       4. Enhance the Tributary Strategies and Implementation 
     Plans to explicitly address nutrient and sediment ``Cap 
     Management'' as growth continues. Cap management is clearly 
     required by the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, and the population 
     of the watershed is projected to increase by upwards of 2 
     million between now and 2030. If not explicitly addressed at 
     the State level in Tributary Strategies and related 
     implementation plans, there is a very real risk of losing 
     ground, literally, as new development occurs.

       5. A one-size-fits-all approach to local government 
     coordination and C2K Agreement implementation will not work. 
     Outreach and implementation must be tailored to the abilities 
     of large and small jurisdictions to undertake those efforts. 
     Differences in local government access to technology must be 
     considered during the development of communications 
     strategies. A strong, structured technical assistance program 
     to local governments is needed, especially in smaller, more 
     rural jurisdictions that lack staff expertise in stormwater 
     management and watershed protection. In many localities, 
     watershed management still is not reflected in land use 
     planning. As a result, development patterns and practices 
     ignore the many values that riparian buffers, protected 
     floodplains and protected natural resource lands offer for 
     water quality, water supply, and wildlife habitat. More 
     importantly, as a local elected official, I know that local 
     government officials need to understand the local benefits 
     that would result from changes in land use policies. 
     Otherwise, they won't be persuaded to defend these changes 
     before their constituencies.
       6. We are concerned about the proposed language that 
     requires tributary strategy goals or BMPs to be included in 
     NPDES permits, both point and nonpoint source, or MS4 
     permits. In Virginia, nonpoint source pollution standards 
     should not be written into MS4 permits because, as mentioned 
     earlier in my testimony, the Commonwealth does not yet have 
     an effective mechanism to track urban nonpoint sources.
       Each of these areas is of strong interest to LGAC. With 
     appropriate staff and requisite resources, I can envision an 
     activist role for LGAC, as the Tributary Strategies are 
     turned in to action plans, including:
       Developing goals at the local level and helping to ensure 
     that localities live up to their responsibilities;
       Partnering with state and local agencies to achieve an 
     equitable allocation of funding;
       Reaching out to other sectors, especially agriculture and 
     private industry. We need to open or continue dialogue with 
     all our partners in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. We are all 
     in this together: from those who labor under the Statue of 
     Freedom atop the Capitol dome to the Pennsylvania farmer, the 
     Maryland waterman, the Virginia technology worker, the long-
     time resident, and the new Americans. Finger-pointing won't 
     clean up the Bay; working together just might.
       Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to appear 
     here today and for your leadership in helping to keep the Bay 
     restoration effort moving forward. We are looking forward to 
     working with you, other members of Congress, and our State 
     and federal partners to achieve our shared goals of a 
     restored Chesapeake Bay watershed.

                          ____________________