ANNOUNCER: This program is made by MPT to serve all of our diverse communities and is made possible by the generous support of our members.

Thank you.

FRANK SESNO: The Chesapeake Bay, one of the world's most beautiful places, once called The Land of Pleasant Living.

200 miles of estuary, but also a complex network of 50 major rivers and streams.

64,000 square miles of watershed, stretching from New York to the District of Columbia through six states.

Freshwater flowing into the saltwater of the ocean.

Once the world's most productive estuary, the Bay supplied the world with more than half its oysters.

It was home to thousands of watermen and a thriving seafood industry.

Maryland blue crabs were world-famous.

Record harvests of rockfish, shad and perch made the Bay a fisherman's and a nature lover's paradise.

That was then.

No longer the most productive, the Chesapeake Bay is now the world's most studied estuary.

Pollution has taken a terrible toll on the Chesapeake Bay.

Chesapeake oyster stocks have fallen to just 1% of historic levels.

Runoff pollution from nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus feed huge dead zones in the water that suffocate marine life.

There is polluted stormwater from cities and suburbs, sediment from Pennsylvania farm fields, pet waste, car exhaust, household chemicals.

18 million people now live in the Bay watershed, more on the way.

Billions of dollars have been spent, trying to clean up the Bay.

There's been some success, but much more needs to be done.

In 2009, President Obama signed an executive order calling for renewed commitment to Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

The EPA put the Bay on a pollution diet, a set of regulations that limits and reduces over time the amount of nutrients that can escape into the Bay from sewage treatment plants, farms, septic systems, suburban lawns, storm runoff systems, and many other sources of pollution.

But in 2020, enforcement of these regulations was called into question.

A group of watershed states, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia together with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a suit against the EPA.

They claimed the agency failed to hold Pennsylvania accountable for its share of the cleanup effort.

That lawsuit is still pending.

Still, EPA guidelines remain.

By 2025, all the programs, systems and regulations to clean up the Bay should be in place.

But with just four years to go, meeting that deadline remains a herculean task.

It will take new ideas to accelerate progress and bring this national treasure, this Land of Pleasant Living back to health.

That calls for a different kind of conversation, and that's why we're here tonight at Maryland Public Television's 2021 Chesapeake Bay Summit.

And good evening.

Welcome to Maryland Public Television's 2021 Chesapeake Bay Summit.

I'm your host, Frank Sesno.

When the federal government put the Chesapeake on that pollution diet more than a decade ago, some saw it as our region's last chance to clean up our nation's largest estuary.

The deadline 2025 is fast approaching.

We still have a long way to go.

The Chesapeake is an invaluable ecosystem, a place of beauty and retreat.

And if the Bay fails, that means the rivers that feed it have failed too, freshwater systems that millions depend on for clean drinking water.

So we all have a vested interest in the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

That's why we're here tonight.

The people joining us know the ins and outs of the fight to restore the Bay.

They know its value and they revere its beauty.

If you've watched our program in years past, you'll notice things look a little different this year, as we strive to keep our guests safe and socially distant.

Our first guest is Carin Bisland, Chief of the Partnerships and Accountability Branch of the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

She's responsible for coordinating federal, state, and local actions to improve water quality, habitat, and living resource conditions in the Bay and its tributaries.

We have representatives from three States.

Ben Grumbles is Maryland's Secretary of the Environment.

He also chairs Governor Larry Hogan's Chesapeake Bay Cabinet and the Maryland Climate Change Commission.

Matt Strickler, the Virginia's Secretary of Natural Resources and Chief Resilience Officer joins us, and Jill Whitcomb.

Director of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Chesapeake Bay Program Office.

So welcome to all of you.

We also have Tim Wheeler, he's an Associate Editor and Senior Writer for the Bay journal.

He's covered the Chesapeake Bay and other environmental topics for more than three decades, a former President of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

And speaking of the Bay Journal, it's our partner in this initiative.

So thank you to the journal and to all of you for being with us.

Before we begin our conversation, let's take a look at where the restoration efforts stands now.

We call it the Bay's pollution diet.

Officially, it's known as the total maximum daily load or TMDL.

It's the amount of pollution that each state must reduce for the Bay to meet federal clean water standards.

With four years left before the 2025 deadline, the road ahead will be, at best, a challenge.

The region must reduce the major nutrient polluting the Bay, nitrogen, at a rate four times faster than we're seeing now.

There's been some progress.

Since the pollution diet went into effect, nitrogen reduction has averaged nearly two and a half million pounds a year.

The District of Columbia and West Virginia have already achieved their goals.

Most of the progress comes from upgrading wastewater treatment plants.

In terms of pollution reduction, that's low-hanging fruit.

To close the gaps that remain however all states must zero in on runoff from farms and development.

Each has written a plan submitted to the EPA, laying out how it intends to meet its share of the cleanup goals.

One state, Pennsylvania, falls especially short however, both in the amount of nutrient pollution it needs to reduce and the amount of funding it needs to make it happen.

Maryland, Virginia, New York, and Delaware have plans that on paper at least will allow them to reach their goals.

But to put those plans into practice, states must accelerate their efforts dramatically.

Maryland must reduce nitrogen from agriculture by more than six times its current rate.

Virginia needs a 14-fold decrease, and Pennsylvania must reduce nitrogen runoff 67 times faster than it's doing now.

What's worse, the picture has changed since 2010 when the TMDL was established.

With better science and a better understanding of climate change, we can see how more rain and stronger storms are driving pollution toward the Bay at a faster rate and the reservoir behind the Conowingo Dam, which for decades has held back sediment, trapping nutrients that would otherwise flow down the Susquehanna River to the Chesapeake Bay, it's full.

Both factors mean pollution must be cut even more than previously thought to meet the 2010 standards.

And economic hardships from COVID-19 have complicated the job even more.

Many state and local governments are wondering how they will fund the programs to meet the 2025 goals to clean up the Bay.

So billions have been spent on Bay restoration.

Local, state, and federal governments are all working the problem, along with environmental groups and many farmers.

But meeting those goals is an enormous challenge as we've seen.

One that some say, simply won't happen.

Tim, you've been covering this for years.

You know this story and this situation better than just about anyone.

So it's 2021, in your view, how are we doing?

TIM WHEELER: It's a mixed bag, Frank.

We're making progress or there's been progress on uh, reducing pollution, but there's, as your segment pointed out, the road ahead is even steeper and it calls for reductions that are well beyond what have been occurring to date.

And the low hanging fruit has already been taken.

Controlling non-point runoff is extremely challenging and it's hard to even measure at times.

SESNO: Carin, from your perspective in the overview, are the systems in place, plans in place sufficient to get to these ambitious goals?

CARIN BISLAND: Well, as the video just showed, the plans are all in place in all of the states that are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed as is D.C. Pennsylvania does fall short, but they plan to put something in place by the end of this year, that will show that they can make it on paper, but there are a lot of programs that need to still happen.

We have to think differently between now and 2025 about how we get there.

How we've gotten here is not how we're going to get there.

And so we have to really stay together, work together as a partnership to do everything we can to move this forward and to think differently.

SESNO: Okay.

Perfect way for me to get to the states then.

Ben Grumbles, perspective from Maryland to accelerate, to do what Carin was just saying, what is your state doing?

BEN GRUMBLES: We're continuing to emphasize science and stewardship, regulation and innovation, and looking for game changers.

SESNO: Like what?

What's a game changer?

GRUMBLES: One of the big game changers is to incorporate like never before climate resiliency through our whole state effort and efforts with our partners.

And much greater focus on the unseen or unrecognized challenge of Conowingo and the Susquehanna River.

That's a really important part to the State of Maryland and to the Governor.

SESNO: Okay, Matt, let me turn to you and the State of Virginia, same question.

How does Virginia accelerate things and what specifically is it doing?

MATT STRICKLER: So Governor Northam, at his work at the General Assembly during his term to make record investments in the Chesapeake Bay and our quality improvement as well as his living resources restoration, we've put in more than 225 million for agricultural water quality improvements, 150 million for wastewater treatment plant upgrades, and more than a hundred million for urban, suburban stormwater in addition to other investments in a combined sewer overflows and oyster restoration.

So we're doing our best to put our money where our mouth is in Virginia.

We've got a very strong plan and we're trying to come up with the resources to implement it.

SESNO: Is it enough?

STRICKLER: We think so.

We're optimistic that we can make it happen.

SESNO: But you can meet those goals with the resources that you've got allocated now?

STRICKLER: No, we'll need continued investment in future years between now and in 2025, but we're moving in the right direction.

SESNO: Okay.

We'll come back to that.

Jill Whitcomb, how about you?

As I pointed out in that piece, massive effort is going to be needed in the State of Pennsylvania to deal with nutrient pollution.

How do you get there in the commonwealth?

JILL WHITCOMB: Well, under the Wolf administration, there's been a transformational local commitment to this effort through our countywide action plans and our support directly to our counties and our conservation districts.

People working together can do great things.

So we're really focused on the local action and the on-the-ground implementation in order to accelerate moving forward to 2025.

SESNO: Can you accelerate by a factor of 67 times as we pointed out that would be needed?

WHITCOMB: Well, we're optimistic.

Again, our phase three watershed implementation plan lays out our strategies as well as the resource needs.

Again, I think that we have momentum built up from the development of the watershed implementation plan all the way through even last year, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

SESNO: Tim Wheeler, let me come over to you.

Anybody who knows the Bay, loves the Bay, fishes, walks, swims, whatever it is, knows how important this is.

We just heard some of what will be needed.

Is what's needed most broader participation and activity, or is it funding as you've covered this story?

WHEELER: Well, you really need both.

You need more buy-in from people, especially those who were property owners, waterfront users, farmers, developers, and the average citizen.

We can't take the Bay for granted, and everybody has to do their part, but we need resources as well.

I mean, you get what you pay for and we're...

I hate to say it, but Pennsylvania is well short in terms of, by their own acknowledgement, of the amount of money that is needed to bring them up to speed.

And the problem is the unwillingness of the legislature in Pennsylvania to really address that.

SESNO: Okay.

Jill, you want to address that?

WHITCOMB: Again, we are- every resource, every dollar that we have available to us, we've been looking at innovative strategies in order to reduce hurdles and obstacles to getting those dollars out the door and on the ground to where it's needed.

We've also focused on prioritizing geographically within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Pennsylvania has 43 counties that the Bay watershed touches and within that, we've identified high-impact areas.

And to date, we've worked alongside eight counties so far at helping them implement their plans, as well as working with the rest of our counties in the watershed to help them develop their plan.

So again, it really takes... SESNO: Sorry, go ahead.

WHITCOMB: I was going to say, it really takes an effort from the state agency angle, our external partners at the state level to support the efforts at the local level and meet them where they are.

SESNO: So how much do you figure, does the Governor figure that you need?

How much more in resources that you need to do what needs to be done?

WHITCOMB: Well, our watershed implementation plan had identified costs associated with the practices and as well as our needs.

Not only for the cost share of the practices themselves, but also for the technical assistance, the planning assistance, and the agency support staff.

Of that, I believe the number might be around 312 million for the cost share of those practices, for the total cost of those practices needed, plus about 24 million for the people aspect of it.

SESNO: And does that, if you've got that, does that sort of lock in success or even then you're going to need more?

WHITCOMB: I think one of the main items of- the main challenges is making sure that we have the technical assistance on the ground available to the land owners and the municipalities to support them and to help design, plan, implement those practices.

And that has been identified as a challenge throughout this whole timeframe, even before the Phase III WIP.

SESNO: All right.

Carin, let me come quickly back to you in the conversation about resources.

When you look as you look to the full watershed, is Pennsylvania struggling the most?

Other places where this is needed?

BISLAND: Well, I think across the board, what we're doing is pretty expensive and we have a lot of resources going across the whole watershed for EPA.

Most of our funding goes out to grants at the state and local levels to do what we can to help out.

But funding is not the only thing that we need.

We need to make sure- I think that for funding, we really need to look at innovative financing.

This is an area we're exploring as a program, as a partnership, but public private partnerships are going to be key to finding the resources that we need.

Technical assistance is big.

Targeting and focusing our efforts in the areas that are going to have the highest impact.

SESNO: Sure.

That would leverage both the partnerships and the resources and the technology that can be brought to bear, and probably the political support to.

Well, there are things that add to this that weren't taken into account in 2010 when the water quality goals were established.

One of those, as we mentioned, is the Conowingo Dam, the reservoir behind it, as you heard earlier, is full.

The Bay program agreed in 2017 to fund a separate cleanup strategy for Conowingo.

Outlining additional actions needed to offset the increasing surge of nutrients as one way to pay for it.

Ben Grumbles, looking at Maryland's plan, how do you pay for it?

It's quite a cost.

What?

North of $50 million?

GRUMBLES: Right.

Well, the cost of cleanup pales in comparison to the cost of inaction, and everybody knows that.

So working together, we can make a real difference.

But when we look at the Conowingo, the Conowingo factor, that is one of the glaring omissions that really isn't part of the TMDL.

So that's why I'm proud of the work that Virginia and Maryland and Pennsylvania and other states focus on.

We need a watershed implementation plan to deal with the Conowingo factor, and we need to hold the operator of the dam responsible finally.

So we're seeing real action on that front.

Enforceable progress to deal with the Conowingo factor.

SESNO: Let me ask all of you, and I'll start with Jill if I may.

What is the biggest single thing, very briefly, that would have the most impact in getting from here to there and cleaning up the Bay?

WHITCOMB: Well, there's no silver bullet, but I think what Tim had noted earlier is continued local engagement and buy-in to this whole plan and the implementation of water quality improvement strategies.

It's really important that we continue to build partnerships, continue to support those partnerships.

And I think that will, in and of itself, bring the biggest results because buy-in equals action and action equals results.

SESNO: Matt, from your perspective in Virginia?

STRICKLER: I think one of the things that Governor Northam is really trying to focus on during his time as Chairman of the Chesapeake Executive Council, which has kind of oversees the entire Bay restoration effort from the perspective of the states, is getting by.

And kind of as Jill, mentioned from all of the watershed.

When streams and rivers in Western Virginia or Central Pennsylvania or lower Delaware, run brown or become choked by algal blooms, that hurts communities in those areas as well, and not just the ones that are right on the Bay in terms of increased costs for water treatment and lack of recreational opportunities.

So try to make real, make the Bay restoration real for folks throughout the watershed, I think is a really important thing we need to focus on.

SESNO: Ben Grumbles.

GRUMBLES: Always keeping the science strong, public engagement, increased diversity and the innovations and financing where there are markets for.

Carbon markets for green infrastructure, for blue carbon.

Maryland is so supportive of climate action and Chesapeake Bay cleanup that we believe that the funding and the support will be there if we keep emphasizing the value of a cleaner Chesapeake.

SESNO: An important way we measure success, and are going to measure success, is through monitoring water quality, knowing how much nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment are making their way into the Bay at a given location.

How's that done?

And what are we seeing?

Let's take a look.

SCOTT PHILLIPS: So we're at Rock Creek Park and the U.S. Geological Survey is taking a water sample to measure the amount of pollution that eventually is going to drain into the Chesapeake Bay.

We have 123 sites across the 64,000 square mile watershed at the Chesapeake Bay.

In each of those, we measure nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment so we can see what the current conditions are and if things are improving as practices are being put in to improve water quality.

We come out once a month, but then we also come out during storms.

Because it's during storms when you have greater amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous and sediment being washed down.

Climate change, at least in the Mid-Atlantic area, we'll probably get more rainfall and more intense storms.

Trying to look at the effects of climate change on the monitoring data.

In some places where we have over 30 years of information, we can see increases in the amount of flow through the climate.

And we've seen increases in the water temperature.

That will affect the amount of nutrients and sediment coming down.

That is we'll get more pollutants being washed down from the land to the rivers.

SESNO: Now the Chesapeake Bay program computer models says climate change will make cleanup something like 10% more difficult than was thought when the goals were first established.

So Carin, let me come to you.

Are there plans to update the goals to reflect the science and the climate change?

BISLAND: Yes.

So we're learning every day about climate change and the impacts of climate change and it's complex.

And we know a little bit.

We're hoping by 2025, we can re-look at what it's looking like for 2035 and so on.

Climate change is going to be here for a while.

Its impacts are going to continue for a while and we have to do more things that allow us to be resilient to that climate change as we move forward.

So some of the practices that we're doing now are perfect for that.

Putting in, creating more wetlands, more forest buffers, more tree canopy, all of those things are going to really help us in the future to mitigate some of the impacts of climate change as they come.

SESNO: Tim, over to you.

What are some of the most tangible effects that climate change may already be having and is projected to have in the Bay?

WHEELER: Well, one thing, I live in Catonsville, which is not too far from Ellicott City, and this is well up river, up to the Patapsco River from the Chesapeake Bay.

It's suffered two devastating flash floods from 500 year, 1,000 year storm events, that uh... two years apart.

The scientists are telling us that extreme weather events like that are an example of climate change.

That that can be more frequent.

And that precipitation can be harder to control, so the runoff itself is going to be harder to control.

The stormwater regulations that are in place now may not be sufficient.

In fact, maybe they aren't sufficient now uh, to deal with what we're already seeing happening.

SESNO: So I want to come to the three states here.

And we'll go, oh, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania this time.

And how are you calculating or factoring in climate change into your calculation of what it's going to take to get to 2025 and these goals?

Matt?

STRICKLER: Sure.

So we understood that this was something that was going to be an additional challenge when we were putting together our first, our phase three watershed implementation plan.

And at the time the estimates were about nine million pounds of total nitrogen in addition to what we were already seeing for the entire watershed.

And while that was a preliminary estimate, we knew that there was going to be some impact.

So we just took Virginia's share of that, about 1.7 million pounds, and baked it in to our projections, our calculations in the amount of pollution that we needed to reduce.

So we have already factored it in to our water quality goals.

The new estimates are a little bit less from climate change and that's good.

So we have a little less than we thought we had to do, but we're moving in the right direction there, as far as the nutrient pollution piece goes.

SESNO: And Maryland?

GRUMBLES: Science-based regulation to incorporate the latest modeling and forecasting for storm water and overflow events.

More green infrastructure that's resilient.

And sturdier gray infrastructure.

Dams, dam safety and dam water quality, including the Conowingo.

But it's very exciting the actual opportunities to incorporate more resiliency into our Chesapeake Bay programs.

SESNO: Exciting, but also more urgent because of these changes taking place.

How about Pennsylvania?

WHITCOMB: Sure.

In April, 2020, DEP published an update to their climate change assessment impacts.

So as part of that, they focused on impacts to livestock production within Pennsylvania, as well as watershed management strategies and water quality goals.

And part of that, there's still some unknowns about the relative impacts, the positive and negative impacts to some of our best management practices that we utilize in Pennsylvania, specifically on livestock production operations, as well as in crop fields as related to precipitation, leaching, crop uptake, all of that.

As far as the Chesapeake Bay WIP, our Phase III WIP, much like Matt in Virginia, we did not include it in our original WIP, but we are going to be including it in our revised WIP as per the Chesapeake Bay program partnerships principal staff committee approval.

And our new climate allocation is roughly 1.8 million pounds additional in nitrogen.

SESNO: So one of the big changes here is the change in Washington.

The change in the Biden administration, the change at the EPA and elsewhere.

The EPA has put its climate change website back up.

The EPA is saying we're going to be driven by science and climate change is at the center of pretty much everything right now.

Not long ago, I had the opportunity to have a conversation with the new EPA administrator, Michael Regan.

And I asked him about the Chesapeake Bay.

And I asked him about how under his leadership, under this administration, the agency will address the urgency of Bay restoration and the pressure that he might bring to bear to get it done.

Here's what he said.

MICHAEL REGAN: Our focus is making sure that I and this agency stay engaged in all of the states holding everyone's feet to the fire so that we can make it right in terms of the promises that were made about protecting the Bay.

It's going to take engagement, engagement, engagement.

And I plan to do that with all the states, from the governors to the senators to the locally elected officials, to the stakeholders that are passionate about it.

SESNO: Okay, Carin.

There's your boss.

So I'm going to ask you, engagement, engagement, engagement, and holding their feet to the fire.

You've got three states here.

Let's start with the fire part.

What does that mean, holding their feet to the fire?

BISLAND: Well, I think that we're trying to hold everybody's feet to the fire, including EPA's, I'll start with that.

The partnership has always worked that way, but I think that we have tools under the Clean Water Act that we can bring to bear.

But I also- SESNO: Like what does that mean?

Does that mean taking people to court?

Does that mean fines and penalties?

BISLAND: Well...

It means a variety of things.

So when you have, we have permits that we provide for point sources.

Point sources are things like wastewater treatment plants, stormwater management.

So we work with the states to develop permits so that we can make sure that the water going off of those, through those point sources is at a pollutant level that that is acceptable.

And then we have the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, which is authorized by the Clean Water Act, and our office provides funding and technical support.

It makes sure that that we're monitoring the progress that we're all making and making sure that... we are making adequate progress and we are transparent about that.

We make sure that the public is aware of how well we're doing against all of our goals.

SESNO: Tim, what does it mean when you hear the new EPA administrators say holding their feet to the fire?

WHEELER: Well, the TMDL was developed to Total Maximum Daily Load, the pollution diet, whatever you want to call it, with the premise or the statement from EPA that there would be consequences if milestones, if goals weren't met.

And the consequences, though, are a little challenging.

There are limited tools, regulatory and legal tools that EPA has to really force states to spend what it takes to provide the necessary resources.

So they're in a bit of a bind.

But certainly more public pressure, use of the limited tools that are there, or at least threatening to use them, may prompt folks.

And maybe just sort of the publicity, the public shaming factor if nothing else when folks are falling short, can motivate them to want to get on the right side of history.

SESNO: Jill, as we were talking the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has particular challenges with some of the reduction goals and the funding around it.

When you hear Administrator Regan talking about engagement, engagement, engagement, and holding people's feet to the fire, what do you think lies ahead?

WHITCOMB: Well, I think that, again, we've been an active participant in the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership.

We've actively worked with EPA and other jurisdictions and at large members around the table to ensure that we're all getting to where we need to be.

It's also about mutual accountability.

So not only holding ourselves accountable, but also holding the others around the table, the partnership accountable.

We've identified areas of federal coordination within our phase three watershed implementation plan that was published in 2019.

And we look to continue to work toward...meeting in the middle or wherever we need to meet in order to get to those end goals- SESNO: And to do the coordination along the way.

Matt, let me come to you in Virginia.

And just ask this question.

When we think about, again, the Biden Administration, what we just heard from the EPA administrator, the $1.9 trillion that's already been passed and talk about infrastructure and additional money maybe being spent there.

How does that help the Commonwealth of Virginia and the states work together to make progress toward these goals?

STRICKLER: Well, in theory, it'll help a lot.

Let me just first say that I'm a huge fan of Administrator Regan.

He was my counterpart in North Carolina before he took this job and we worked on a number of things together.

So it's very refreshing to hear about his approach versus the last administration, which frankly didn't believe that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL was enforceable, which we know it is under the Clean Water Act.

And we hope to work with Administrator Regan and his team to get that resolved relatively quickly.

I think as far as infrastructure, we view the Chesapeake Bay itself and the Chesapeake Bay watershed as critical infrastructure.

The Bay, as you know, is very important as far as navigation for shipping and commerce.

It's also very important, the infrastructure along the shorelines and the habitat for fisheries production and supports extensive fisheries and aquaculture industry.

So in addition to those things, Secretary Grumbles mentioned green infrastructure earlier.

We have a major climate resilience initiative, a coastal resilience master plan that we're getting off the ground in Virginia.

And we hope to work with the Biden Administration to convince them hopefully that we can draw down significant funds out of an infrastructure package for green infrastructure, like our climate resilience efforts, and then of course, Chesapeake Bay restoration as well.

SESNO: Yeah.

It's very interesting.

Ben, very, very quickly, how will the state of Maryland put some of those dollars to work tangibly?

GRUMBLES: Recognizing that every dollar invested needs to do more than one thing.

So we need co-benefits to focus on resilient infrastructure, managing storm water more effectively.

The really big part of it with a new administration coming in is to advance the clean energy and clean transportation economies, because we know that air pollution, multi-state air pollution can also have a really big impact on the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

So using our Clean Air Act tools, as well as our Clean Water Act tools and our innovative financing and sustained funding approaches, dedicated funding for the Bay are going to put us in a much better place to achieve success.

SESNO: So you think this big money, this infusion of money will make a significant and tangible effect?

GRUMBLES: Absolutely.

Absolutely.

SESNO: So as we noted, one of the most challenging areas to address is nutrient pollution from agriculture.

We're about to dig in, if you'll pardon the expression a little bit, on that discussion.

First, let's take a look at where it comes from and why it's so problematic.

Each summer in parts of the Chesapeake Bay destructive algal blooms starve the water of oxygen, suffocating aquatic life.

Once vibrant ecosystems, replaced by dead zones.

This deadly growth is fueled by powerful fertilizers, nitrogen and phosphorus found in human and animal waste.

The Bay is meant to have some of these life sustaining nutrients, but when the excess finds its way into streams, rivers, and ultimately the Bay, the result is disastrous.

In developed areas this happens by way of discharge from wastewater treatment systems and leaky or overflowing sewer pipes.

Another culprit, vast grassy lawns, where pet droppings abound and golf courses and large grounds of institutions and businesses kept green by fertilizer.

In rural areas the main source of nutrient runoff is agriculture.

Too much fertilizer applied to fields, piles of manure exposed to rainfall, and animals defecating in streams.

Historically bay states have struggled to reduce pollution from farms.

Only about 1% of nutrient reductions over the last decade have come from agriculture.

But it's not for lack of effort.

Best management practices are established standards of sustainable farming.

These include things like buffers between farm fields and streams, and fencing off waterways to keep livestock out.

Many farmers have invested in precision agriculture, equipment that allows them to vary the amount of fertilizer they apply to different parts of the field in an effort to prevent over fertilization.

Cover crops help keep sediment on farm fields during winter months, and manure storage, transport and application regulations aim to keep nutrients out of the water.

But despite billions spent implementing these practices, the needle hasn't moved much.

The Chesapeake Bay Commission estimates that 72% of the remaining nutrient reductions have to come from agriculture.

Nowhere is this challenge so acute as it is in Pennsylvania.

It has nearly three and a half million acres of farmland, nearly a million more than Virginia, and double the amount found in Maryland.

But the challenge of feeding a growing population sustainably is one that stretches across the watershed.

And I'm happy to welcome two new panelists for this part of the conversation.

First is Fred Tutman.

He's the Patuxent Riverkeeper.

He lives on a farm in Prince George's County that's been in his family for a century.

And Jennie Schmidt, a full-time grain farmer, a sustainable farming advocate, and a member of the Maryland Grain Producers board of directors.

She's also a member of the U.S. Grains Council.

So thanks to both of you for being with us.

Jennie, let me start with you.

How much do we know and how much do we pursue the best practices on farm land?

JENNIE SCHMIDT: I think that for the most part, the farmers, especially like, and I can only speak for my family farm and most farmers in Maryland, I think since the 1998 nutrient management plans, specifically a mandate that farmers have really been progressive in trying to implement best management practices.

I know in my farm, my father-in-law started no till farming and doing cover crops in the 1960's, way ahead of any of the recent adoption of cover crops and no till farming.

So I think that we have really tried to adopt the practices that we know are going to help us keep our nutrients on our soil- SESNO: Fred, let me turn to you.

The farm has been in your family, as I mentioned for a hundred years.

So you know something about farms, big farms, and little farms.

Are they in this nutrient pollution issue equally, they're both sharing that, or is the problem much greater for the larger farms?

FRED TUTMAN: You know, my sense of it is these are plans that look really good on paper, but the implementation of them, in fact, the verification that the implementation is occurring is a little thin.

I don't want to demonize farmers.

I'm saying the structure within the system doesn't really put the incentives on the farmer to produce particular results and the state, at least in Maryland, isn't really doing the inspections to make sure that the subsidies that we're giving them to do various practices are actually being fulfilled.

So the point I'm making is that it's voluntary.

It's entirely voluntary that they follow these things.

And I'm sure the intentions are good, but the results speak to the contrary, right?

SESNO: And Tim, what would it take to ratchet up the incentives that the Fred's talking about to really affect this?

TUTMAN: Much more intensive inspections, buffers, creation of buffer zones.

And I'm sorry, did I cut you off Tim?

SESNO: No, that's okay, it's okay.

SESNO: I addressed that Fred, but I'm delighted to get your answer.

We'll turn to Fred next.

Fred Tutman: Sorry.

I missed the Tim part.

All right.

Well, give him my credit.

But I mean, I think, these are serious stakes and serious problems, and it takes a serious regulatory scheme to make sure that the work is actually being done and that the results are being achieved, right?

To me, this instance, the results speak for themselves.

We have a C minus or somewhere in there abouts Bay, and yet the practices we're using, the ideas to actually make them mandatory and to actually...proportional to the problem we're facing.

SESNO: Tim, what about incentives for farmers to trim this nutrient pollution that's such a problem?

WHEELER: Well, it sort of goes back to one of your earlier questions about, is it more broader participation or more resources?

And again, it's both.

We saw this in Virginia, where they were having a challenge with getting farmers to fence their cattle, their livestock out of streams.

They were offering money.

They finally, they came forward with a big chunk of money that basically offered to pay the freight to do it.

And the signup response has been very good.

Many farmers are not making a ton of money.

And so to ask them to even put up a cost share for some of these things is challenging.

So they need technical assistance, they need financial assistance, they need to have somebody checking up to see that what they put in place actually works.

And that's the job of the state and the regulators and all those things we need more of.

And we need better science about which BMPs are working and which ones aren't.

SESNO: So Jill, let me travel back to you and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ask about what works.

You've got so much agricultural land in Pennsylvania.

As we've observed, this is really such a challenge.

But there must be things that you can point to that say, "If we could do more of this, we could make a big difference."

What works with the agricultural community?

WHITCOMB: Well, I can address the nutrient management aspect.

We've had state regulatory requirements for nutrient management since 1996.

They were revised in 2006 to include the phosphorus index.

And these farms that are regulated under Act 38, the Nutrient Management Act are those that are considered the most environmentally risk- risky, or have the highest animal density.

Also are CAFOs or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations that are federally permitted operations, also have to follow these Act 38 nutrient management program requirements, and farms that are regulated under Act 38 are visited annually by delegated conservation districts or the state conservation commission.

When we talk about nutrient management, we also have manure management plans, manure management requirements that have been put in place in the mid 1980's.

And we have begun since 2016 a Chesapeake Bay agriculture inspection program, whereby we have our Chesapeake Bay technicians at the conservation districts, as well as DEP inspectors go out and visit farms, inspect them to ensure that they're meeting compliance.

And to date in the last five years, more than 11,000 inspections have been performed to assess compliance- SESNO: Let me go over to Jennie again, who's the farmer, and presumably you've been visited by inspectors and a few other things.

So from your perspective, from the farmer's perspective, how much is voluntary, how much is mandatory, and what works?

SCHMIDT: I think, to me, the biggest issue that what's working is when you go back to the U.S. Geological Survey study that was published in the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology.

We know that the average age of the groundwater here on the Delmarva is 30 years old.

So the median age is from 1991.

This is 2021.

So we're not seeing the benefits of even the progress that we've made through nutrient management since 1998.

That's still not tangible yet in our... groundwater sources.

I think that, regardless of whether it's mandatory or voluntary, agriculture being a non-point source... of nutrients has a huge lag time in where that water makes its way to the Bay.

And like I said, for Delmarva, but it's a 30 year age according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

SESNO: Yeah.

Let me ask you this.

When you're talking with other farmers and you're an advocate for conservation and an advocate for a clean Bay, how do you express what needs to be done and the urgency with those who might be reluctant or see just extra cost and burden to the way they're trying to run their farms and their businesses?

SCHMIDT: Well, I think what farmers do is taking a look at what's economically sustainable for them.

It's to Tim's point, giving that technical and financial support that certainly probably smaller farmers have a greater need for.

But also looking at what's feasible for them in terms of their structure of their farm.

Farms are not all the same.

We all have different practices and we also are leveraged differently.

Some of us are heavily leveraged.

So that has to be taken into account for when, say at the Grains Council when we're meeting with farmers about what the adoption rate of various things are, Maryland has a very high adoption rate of cover crops compared to many of the Midwest states or- SESNO: Carin- Carin, let me turn to you and ask you if I may, how the EPA's relationship with agriculture works.

Certainly it's a regulatory agency, right?

And what's on track there?

BISLAND: So I think one of the things that I would say is that Administrator Regan in his confirmation hearing addressed how he likes working on solutions together with farmers to find sustainable solutions.

But more importantly, I think that EPA and the Chesapeake Bay program represents the federal government.

And USDA is a large player in this, in terms of technical support and resources to the farmers, along with the cost share that the states provide.

So with EPA, we do have some regulatory things.

I think Jill raised the confined animal feeding operations, the CAFOs.

But more importantly is the technical assistance that USDA and the states provide and the need that we have and the administrator has shown to continue building relationships with the agricultural community.

SESNO: I want to pick up on that last point, building relationships.

We've heard several times in this conversation that if we're going to make real progress, there need to be relationships between and among the states, public private partnerships and with communities.

So let's turn now to a very important topic that's related and that will help drive this and bring an inclusive conversation forward and that is environmental justice.

SESNO: In recent years, the environmental justice movement has been gaining momentum.

The EPA defines the movement this way, the idea that all people, regardless of race, color, national origin or income should be involved and treated fairly when it comes to environmental policy and funding.

Historically, certain communities have been burdened with more pollution than others.

Usually these are low income neighborhoods and home to people of color.

The environmental justice movement recognizes that righting those wrongs often takes a back seat to other environmental issues.

Here in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, people of color comprise 35% of the population.

Among the program's leaders, people of color were especially scarce making up just nine percent.

By 2019, those percentages had risen just one percent a piece.

Last summer, the Chesapeake Executive Council outlined a plan to increase diversity amongst its leadership and end environmental inequities.

But much more progress is needed.

SESNO: Fred Tutman, this is a topic, an issue you know very well.

You've lived it.

You are the only Black river keeper.

And looking at communities of color and looking at the inclusiveness, how is the current bay restoration plan working?

Is it leaving out low-income communities?

Is it leaving out communities of color?

TUTMAN: I think communities of color have become an afterthought in these calls and movements.

And I think it's because the people running these movements that haven't really experienced the disparities firsthand.

There's a presumption that people of color aren't really interested in these issues.

And the truth is we're left to our own devices to work on the environment in our own communities, often enough in unfunded roles.

But I do think it's ignored.

This movement has ignored the intersectionality between environmental justice, which isn't just about people of color.

Really, most of the issues we work on in the watershed are in fact, environmental justice transactions in the sense of the haves fighting the have-nots, people with more money overwhelming people with less power and less resources to fight off unwanted uses.

So environmental justice is frankly a missed boat I think for the Chesapeake Bay movement frankly.

SESNO: So Fred, this is something that the EPA administrator made a central issue when we talked, he and I.

He said environmental justice will be at the core of the EPA's activities.

There will be a commission or a group that will have a direct line to the EPA, to the White House for that matter.

They've got environmental justice community grants.

What would that actually look like and how would it change things?

TUTMAN: Well, fundamentally these are ideas about how to restructure movement so that they're less tone deaf to where the hardest and most severe problems actually are.

I think that's really what the potential is there.

People of color have been boycotting these conservation movements for a long time because we're afterthoughts, because we're not important.

And because I think these movements don't recognize that they actually have to change in order to serve black and brown communities.

They can't simply sprinkle in a few people of color and simply assume that we're going to go back to doing exactly what we've always done, because that's what the science says.

Actually, for the most part, we bring a lot to the table, people of color, as we have in virtually every other area of endeavor in American life.

SESNO: Sure.

Tim, what's your read on this and what changes?

WHEELER: Well, there's been a real reckoning, to use that overused word in the last year, for sure, in the last couple of years, and a recognition that things have to change, that there has to be more inclusiveness.

There has to be more diversity.

The bay program has addressed that.

They promised to make changes.

They're starting to make changes.

We're seeing that in the federal administration.

There are changes there.

Lots of changes happening on the state and the local level.

SESNO: What are some of those changes?

WHEELER: Well appointments.

You're seeing new faces in positions of influence and in positions of importance.

And you're hearing statements, a philosophy that we're going to be diverse and that we're going to consider the environmental justice implications.

The big question is going to be is how do those play out on the ground?

SESNO: Exactly.

So Carin, that's a perfect question to come to you.

How do you expect or how do you imagine these things will actually play out on the ground?

BISLAND: Well, I think that that Fred's right, that we have a lot of things that we have to make up for, but we're starting.

You have to start somewhere.

And so I think that the start was good.

In 2014, we had a watershed agreement that recognized the need for diversity.

And it's expanded since then to what was just shown on the video with our executive council signing a statement.

But those two things alone are not going to change what we're doing.

And I think that one of the things that we're really looking at is how we incorporate diversity, equity, inclusion in our everyday work, both in our committees as well as on the ground.

SESNO: Right.

Fred, let me come back to you then.

Let's time travel out two, three, four years.

What are we seeing?

What will have actually changed on the ground and in communities of color?

TUTMAN: So I'm skeptical because I think the change that actually has to occur in these movements.

I- SESNO: What do you mean it has- TUTMAN: In other words, if the idea is that we're going to change the Black community in order to make them more responsible, receptive, or oriented towards these movements that were created without us in mind at all, frankly, I think that's a long shot.

The truth is these organizations themselves have to change.

And as support for that, every time I've met the head of a large, big green organization who was involved in a diversity endeavor, I've asked them to visualize for me what the organization looks like with more people of color.

And not one has been able to give me a straight answer.

What does this organization look like if it has substantial participation from people of color?

No visionary thinking to that in most instances.

And so that suggests to me why I should be skeptical.

We're just sprinkling in people of color to cure the idea that maybe there's some racism there.

But in fact, we're not really changing the underlying organization in order to make it more robust in terms of- SESNO: So you're saying that deep and systemic changes is really what needs to occur.

TUTMAN: And that is the essential paradigm of environmental justice.

It attacks these issues through systemic ideas.

These other movements don't.

They actually want to pick off the pollution all by itself as though somehow it's disconnected from all the other problems.

SESNO: We've talked about a lot of things here this evening.

We've talked about environmental justice.

We've talked about the particulars of what actions can be taken and working together and all the rest.

So in the final few minutes, I'd like to come back to everybody and ask you for some sort of concluding comments, final thoughts.

As you're looking forward at a time of change and very dynamic activity, what are the top things that you're looking for to actually measure, not just progress, but accelerating progress?

And Tim, let me start with you.

WHEELER: Well, I think we need to- I think one of the things we need to recognize right away is that 2025 is kind of an arbitrary artificial deadline.

SESNO: It's also close.

WHEELER: It's very close.

Yeah.

And that doesn't mean that we shouldn't stop or that we shouldn't continue to accelerate.

Clearly we're paddling upstream and we need to paddle harder.

I started covering this issue in 1984.

And frankly, I thought it would be settled by now.

But I've come to realize, and I think everybody has to, that this is a lifetime, this is a perpetual obligation to work on maintaining the bay.

And it's about much more than just the TMDL.

It's more than nutrients and phosphorous and sediment.

It has to do with the living resources.

It has to do with everyone's ability to access and enjoy the natural resources of the bay and of its watershed.

We forget that the watershed that drains into the bay is every bit as important.

It tells you what's going to happen to the bay.

And we're not paying, frankly, nearly as much attention there as we need to.

SESNO: So Carin, to you and from your perspective with the EPA, what does progress look like?

What are a couple of tangible things that you'd point to proudly down the line a bit?

BISLAND: Well, I think that progress looks like sustainable practices and sustainable practices look not only like what's on the ground, not more forest and wetlands.

Certainly we need that.

Not more sustainable fisheries.

Certainly we need that.

But also sustainable communities and sustainable practices that the communities are doing.

SESNO: Yeah.

Across the communities.

Fred, in the last 30 seconds or so, your thought?

TUTMAN: On our side of the street, it's grassroots action.

The professionals aren't going to clean up the bay all by themselves.

It's that pulse of activism because clean water is an activist endeavor.

It's not a nine to five.

It's something you have to struggle for and fight for.

And I guarantee you, someone's going to get mad at the end of it.

So frankly, we have to be much more activist oriented.

Movements run by professionals who are juggling career aims against bay aims, sometimes that's problematic.

So these movements have to be bigger, much more comprehensive, much more inclusive, needs new blood, new ideas, and more struggle.

SESNO: And your guidance is the operative guidance.

It's not a nine to five job so thank you very much.

There's a lot to be done.

Well tonight, we heard about some of the opportunities, progress and challenges facing the Chesapeake Bay about what it will take to make the Bay clean and accessible for all people.

To meet federal water quality goals by the 2025 deadline, it's going to require money, ingenuity, human resources and of course, political will.

Things have changed.

Broadly speaking, there's a new sense of urgency.

There's opportunity with new technologies.

And of course, there's this new leadership in Washington that's highlighting this.

And there's a growing awareness, finally, that this must be an inclusive enterprise if it is to succeed.

Maryland Public Television, together with our partners at the Bay Journal, will continue to follow the progress over this next year.

And we'll be back to you.

Thanks to all our panelists this evening, to our partners at the Bay Journal and to you for watching.

I'm Frank Sesno from Maryland Public Television.

Goodnight.

*