[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4127-4129]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             CHESAPEAKE BAY

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have taken to the floor many times to 
talk about the Chesapeake Bay--the largest estuary in the Northern 
Hemisphere, and declared a national treasure by not only President 
Obama but by several U.S. Presidents.
  For the 17 million people who live in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, 
it is part of their life. From the residents of Smith Island, which is 
the last inhabitable island in the Maryland part of the Chesapeake Bay, 
to those who enjoy fishing for rockfish in the bay, to its oysters, its 
crabs, the over 11,000 miles of shoreline created by the Chesapeake 
Bay, the 150 major rivers that feed into the Chesapeake Bay, and the $1 
trillion to the economy, the Chesapeake Bay is truly part of the life 
of those of us who are privileged to live in the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed.
  I have spoken about this bay many times because it is being 
threatened. Over 30 years ago, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, along 
with the EPA and other partners, entered into a Chesapeake Bay 
agreement.
  This has grown to six States, including the Presiding Officer's State 
of West Virginia, and other governmental entities in the private 
sector. The Chesapeake Bay agreement has been revisited over time, and 
the most recent effort to update this agreement was the draft submitted 
by the Obama administration on January 29 of this year. This draft 
agreement is what I wish to speak about with my colleagues.
  The development of sound policies to restore the Chesapeake Bay has 
been a top priority of mine over the course of my career in Congress. I 
have been fortunate to have great partners in Congress representing the 
Bay States. Together we have worked to develop effective conservation 
and ecosystem restoration programs in the farm bill, the Water 
Resources Development Act, the Clean Water Act, and elsewhere in law 
supporting a variety of conservation and ecosystem approaches across 
different sectors.
  The Army Corps, USDA, and EPA are not the only Federal agencies doing 
important Chesapeake Bay work. NOAA, USGS, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, and the National Park Service are also important Federal 
partners in the broader effort to restore the Bay.
  President Obama's May 2009 Chesapeake Bay Executive order recognized 
both the national interest in restoring

[[Page 4128]]

the Chesapeake Bay and improving Federal coordination of restoration 
efforts because of a wide-ranging involvement of different departments 
and agencies of the Federal Government. The coordination of seven 
jurisdictions, hundreds of local communities, seven cabinet-level 
Federal departments, and stakeholders of all stripes have necessitated 
the development of the Chesapeake Bay agreement to affirm the 
conservation goals of everyone involved in this effort.
  I wish to stress the importance of broad involvement of all 
stakeholders in the effort to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The 
populations living and working in the bay watershed must realize we are 
all in this together. The major stakeholders in regard to our 
conservation action include farmers. Farming is not only a way of life 
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, it is a desirable activity within the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed for the future of the Chesapeake Bay. But 
there are certain challenges as a result of farming as it relates to 
nitrogen in the bay and in the sediments.
  Developers. We are proud of the fact people want to live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed. We have seen a major increase in population. 
But with that comes the challenge of storm runoff, and we have to do a 
better job of preventing storm runoff dumping pollution into the bay, 
and the municipalities which are responsible for the growth of 
populations have to deal with how they treat wastewater, and the 
wastewater treatment plants need to be updated so we can have the 
maximum results in removing the pollution which otherwise would end up 
threatening the future of the bay.
  The Chesapeake Bay agreement outlines a fairly comprehensive approach 
to continuing efforts to restore the bay which is dependent upon all 
stakeholders doing their part. The draft agreement is a good outline, 
but there is room for improvement in the draft agreement as well. I 
hope that while the agreement is in this period of public comment, the 
final will be approved.
  The Chesapeake Bay program partnership was formed in 1983, when the 
Governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the Mayor of the 
District of Columbia, the chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and 
the EPA signed the first Chesapeake Bay agreement. For more than 30 
years these entities have remained committed to the goal of restoring 
the Chesapeake Bay. As the science has determined and the interest in 
Bay stewardship has broadened, this partnership has since expanded to 
become a basin-wide effort where all six States of the basin are now 
party to the agreement.
  Working together to achieve the various goals of the agreement is 
what will help ensure the Chesapeake Bay we will leave for our children 
is healthier tomorrow than it is today. The agreement does acknowledge 
the partnership cannot address every goal in the agreement 
instantaneously. Certainly some goals may take longer to realize than 
others, but all the goals are achievable, and some I think should be 
even more ambitious. They are based upon best science. We think science 
needs to judge what we can do as far as cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay.
  The agreement wisely suggests action be taken in a strategic and 
cost-effective manner. We want to make sure this is doable. We 
understand the burdens which can be caused. We want to make sure this 
is layered in a way which achieves best science results but does it in 
the most cost-effective manner.
  Of the principles laid out in the agreement, I wish to acknowledge 
the partnership's commitment to transparency and consensus building. We 
want all stakeholders involved in the process, and we want local 
involvement. We think local governments know how we can best achieve 
our results. The goals of the agreement deal with very sensitive issues 
such as natural land preservation, nutrient pollution reduction, and 
others.
  The process must be fair and open. The strategic development process 
and achieving the agreement's conservation goals must be devised in an 
all-inclusive manner which is open to the public so that all are 
included in the process.
  There is a great deal of skepticism in certain communities about the 
government's role and its actions to protect and restore the bay. I 
have heard that skepticism from certain constituencies. I have learned 
that having an open dialog with stakeholders, carefully explaining 
intentions, listening to concerns, and answering questions goes a long 
way toward building consensus and acceptance.
  The agreement acknowledges the role the bay TMDL plays in achieving 
the water quality goals of the bay. A majority of the waters of the 
Chesapeake Bay are within the boundaries of the State of Maryland. 
Thousands of Maryland watermen make their living on the bay. The 
property value and tourism draw of communities up and down the Eastern 
and Western Shores of Maryland, not to mention the Marylanders who swim 
and fish in the bay, all depend upon a healthy bay.
  But there is no degree of action Maryland can take on its own, no 
matter how drastic, which will improve the bay quality--not without the 
other five States and the District of Columbia in the watershed doing 
their part as well. The TMDL assures that all Bay States are 
coordinated in their efforts to improve bay water quality. The 
agreement acknowledges the importance of the TMDL.
  The TMDL gives us a level playing field so we can make sure all 
stakeholders in all geographical areas are treated fairly in achieving 
the goals of reducing pollution in the bay. I support the fisheries 
goal of the agreement. Restoring the iconic Maryland blue crab in the 
bay is important for so many reasons. The agreement sets the goal of 
maintaining a population of 215 female adult crabs through 2025. Blue 
crabs are a vital part of the food chain throughout the bay's ecosystem 
and they are at the heart of the Mid-Atlantic's multibillion dollar 
seafood industry.
  Restoration of native oyster habitat and replenishing the bay's 
oyster population is critical from both an economic and water quality 
standpoint. The agreement sets the goals of restoring native oyster 
habitat and populations to the ten tributaries of the bay by 2025.
  As I am sure the Presiding Officer is aware, our oyster population is 
a fraction of historic levels. The oyster is not only an important cash 
crop in the bay; it also acts as a filter to the pollution in the bay, 
restoring bay water quality. Bay oysters are another important seafood 
commodity for watermen making their living on the bay. Oysters are also 
important to improving water quality. Oysters are bivalve mollusks 
which play an important role in reducing nitrogen pollution in the bay.
  Oyster populations had been in sharp decline due to the destruction 
of oyster beds along the seafloor of the bay. Habitat restoration 
efforts led by the Army Corps, the growth of oyster farming operations, 
and Virginia and Maryland's efforts are helping oysters rebound across 
the bay, which is good for the economy and water quality of the bay.
  The agreement's wildlife habitat and wetlands restoration goals are, 
in my opinion, too low. I would encourage the partnership to consider 
setting more ambitious goals. Wetland restoration is critical to flood 
protection and water quality improvement as well as providing important 
duck habitat and fish spawning habitat.
  Reauthorizing the North American Wetland Conservation Act, which I am 
a cosponsor of and was happy to see the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee recently report with unanimous support, will provide 
additional financial and technical assistance to help achieve improved 
wetlands conservation in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Programs such as the North American Wetland Conservation Act, the 
Corps' Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Restoration Program, and the farm 
bill's Regional Conservation Partnership Program, along with numerous 
State efforts to restore wetlands and habitats across the six-State 
region, are why I believe the agreement can do better.

[[Page 4129]]

  I also believe the agreement's goals to improve fish passage along 
the bay's rivers and tributaries could be more ambitious. The agreement 
aims to open an additional 1,000 stream miles to fish passage. The 
revisions to the Continuing Authorities Program in WRDA will help fund 
critical dam removal projects around the watershed which will improve 
fish passage. If the decisions to remove dams and other barriers to 
fish passage are strategically made, this goal could be far exceeded, 
which is why I think the goal should be revised and be based upon the 
execution of strategic fish passage projects. This would include 
improving eel passage on the Conowingo Dam. I am pleased to know that 
the dam's operators are aware of and interested in helping us devise 
practical solutions.
  With respect to the agreement's goals on forest buffer and tree 
canopy, I believe there is room for improvement in the goals the draft 
agreement sets. The agreement sets the goal of restoring 900 miles of 
riparian forest per year and expands the urban tree canopy by 2,400 
acres by 2025. This seems to be low given the opportunity which exists 
to grow more trees in urban areas because of how desirable trees are to 
improving the quality of life and character of urban communities and 
importance of trees to reducing storm water runoff in urban areas.
  The agreement sets the goal of protecting an additional 2 million 
acres of land throughout the watershed. This is critically important to 
stem poor land-use planning and sprawl while also establishing lands 
which serve as critical water quality improvement mechanisms.
  One omission from this land conservation goal I think is important is 
to ensure public access to lands conserved by the State, local, and 
Federal Government. Public-preserved for the purpose of protecting 
habitat and improving the ecosystem within the watershed is important, 
but so is providing outdoor recreational access to the public. After 
all, ensuring public access to conservation lands and encouraging 
people to experience these lands is critical to building the public's 
understanding of the environment and developing an appreciation for all 
conservation efforts happening around the watershed.
  In Maryland, my colleague in the House, Congressman Sarbanes, has 
been very instrumental in the leadership of No Child Left Inside. By 
this we mean the education of our children including getting outdoors 
to understand the importance of the Chesapeake Bay and understanding 
what they can do to help the bay. Access to these restoration 
projects--by the public, by our students, by all--helps build the 
support base we need to get these programs moving forward and also 
understanding what we do here in the watershed and the importance it 
has on the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
  Lastly, I wish to speak about a couple issues the agreement does not 
address. Reducing the presence or improving the secure storage of toxic 
chemicals in use around the watershed is a growing problem. As the 
Presiding Officer knows, while the recent chemical spill in West 
Virginia was not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the incident does 
highlight the risk facilities such as the one which failed in 
Charleston pose to our great water bodies. In the Chesapeake Bay 
watershed there are dozens of chemical storage facilities and 
industrial activities which use toxic chemicals on a regular basis. 
Improving the security and reducing the contamination risks from these 
facilities should be a part of the Chesapeake Bay agreement.
  The agreement also makes no mention of the single greatest threat to 
the bay and the world over. Adapting to the effects of climate change 
should also be part of the bay restoration plan. I talked about this 
earlier today, as many of the Senators who came to the floor to talk 
about climate change: Rising sea levels pose threats to the hundreds of 
Chesapeake Bay communities and millions of people who live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed.
  Aquatic acidification poses a long-term threat to all aquatic 
species, including blue crabs, oysters, rockfish, sturgeon, menhaden, 
and other hallmark species of the bay. If the fish and shellfish go, so 
does a way of life for many thousands of families around the bay.
  Let's deal with these problems. We have a chance in the Chesapeake 
Bay agreement to be more ambitious in dealing with acidification in our 
ocean and in the bay. And we must adapt our water infrastructure to 
handle the effects of more intense weather events in the bay region to 
reduce the water quality impacts of these events and to protect 
individuals' property.
  The agreement is an important step toward the restoration of the 
Chesapeake Bay. Billions have been spent and progress has been made. 
And I wish to stress that we have made progress. We have done a lot of 
good things in the Chesapeake Bay. But our resources are large and 
fragile and face unprecedented pressure, and it is going to continue to 
take increased resources to restore and protect for future generations. 
So the good news is we have made progress.
  We can do much more. We can preserve the iconic Chesapeake Bay for 
future generations, so people, our children and grandchildren, can 
enjoy the fishing, crabbing, swimming, and the sheer beauty of the 
Chesapeake Bay, and can benefit from its economic importance to our 
region. We can do this for future generations.
  Let's be more ambitious in the Chesapeake Bay agreement. Let's work 
together, use best science, and be practical. But let's be on a 
constant path of improving the Chesapeake Bay.
  Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________