FRANK SESNO: Tonight, after decades of work and billions of dollars spent to improve conditions in the Chesapeake Bay... Is it time for a course correction?

With a cleanup deadline looming in 2025, that's next year, the watershed will fall short of many of its goals.

Runoff from cities and farm fields continues to exceed set limits.

Tree cover is declining.

The population is growing rapidly, and communities of color are often left out of the conversation.

Our panel of experts will grapple with why progress has been so slow, and what's next.

DENICE WARDROP: Not meeting the goal isn't the failure.

The failure would be if we didn't learn how to do it better.

ADAM ORTIZ: We've got to get people engaged and passionate about their local watersheds.

CARMERA THOMAS-WILHITE: The things that people need make the most impact.

FRANK: I'll pay a visit to a local waterway that has an interesting story to tell.

KEOTA SILAPHONE: So why are we seeing increases in best management practices and, um... FRANK: And also seeing increases in the pollutants?

We'll discuss what it means to restore the Bay in the face of a warming climate and tough tradeoffs.

All that, coming up, on the 2024 Chesapeake Bay Summit.

(audience applause).

FRANK: Good evening.

I'm your host Frank Sesno.

Tonight's program takes place just over 40 years after the signing of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.

This simple one-page document acknowledged the decline of living resources in the nation's largest estuary, this beautiful place, and it launched a multi-state federal partnership, the Chesapeake Bay Program, tasked with handling clean-up.

But four decades in, we haven't come as far as we'd hoped, or even expected.

The people joining us tonight represent different facets of an ongoing difficult conversation about the path to progress.

They understand the complexity of the watershed restoration science and policy, they care deeply about the health of the Bay and its rivers.

Our first guest tonight is Adam Ortiz, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Adam oversees federal environmental and public health protections across five states, the District of Columbia, and several, or seven rather, federally recognized tribes.

Denise Wardrop is executive director for the Chesapeake Research Consortium, an association of seven research and education institutions in the Chesapeake Watershed.

A renowned scientist and engineer specializing in wetlands ecology and hydrology, she's also a professor of geography at Penn State University.

Carmera Thomas-Wilhite is the Vice President of Diversity Equity Inclusion and Justice with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

She leads the efforts to increase diverse voices engaged in advocacy for clean water in the Bay watershed.

Joining us from a bit farther out in the watershed is David Sligh, conservation director for the non-profit Wild Virginia.

David has spent more than 40 years fighting for the enforcement of environmental laws.

Previously, he served as a Senior Environmental Engineer for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

And finally, Karl Blankenship, co-founder and Editor-at-Large of the "Chesapeake Bay Journal."

He's been reporting on bay clean-up policies for more than 30 years.

And speaking of the "Bay Journal," it is our very esteemed partner in this initiative.

Thank you all for being with us tonight.

I look forward to that conversation.

(audience applause).

We will hear from our guests in just a minute.

But first, let's take a look at how the Chesapeake has changed over the centuries to get to where it is today.

At nearly 200 miles long, the Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest estuary, its tidal expanse fed by fresh water from more than 100,000 streams, creeks, and rivers...

Some, hundreds of miles from the Bay proper.

Today, more than 18 million people in six states and the District of Columbia live on land that drains into the Chesapeake.

Our impact on these local landscapes directly affects the waters downstream.

When John Smith made his famous Bay voyage in 1608, some 40,000 to 50,000 native people were living along its shores, harvesting its bounty of fish and shellfish.

Early British settlers and enslaved Africans arrived to virgin forests and clear waters.

But by 1900, human activity had begun to diminish the watershed's natural systems.

Deforestation depleted the region of 70 to 80% of its tree cover, allowing more and more sediment to erode into waterways.

Overfishing caused harvests of oysters, an important filter feeder, to decline and later plummet.

After World War II came industrialized agriculture and rapid population growth.

More livestock and more people meant more pollution.

Fertilizer and manure from farm fields.

Car exhaust.

Sewage discharge.

Household chemicals.

All carrying nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus downstream.

And without those trees or oysters to provide natural filtration, these nutrients began feeding large algal blooms that depleted oxygen and created dead zones, suffocating marine life.

In 1972, the passage of the Clean Water Act empowered the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency to regulate pollution and water quality standards.

In 1983 the EPA, along with Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, acknowledging shared responsibility to address the bay's declining health.

Since then, billions have been spent on studying and cleaning up the Bay.

But with participation voluntary, progress was slow.

Which is why in 2010, the EPA exercised its authority under the Clean Water Act and put the watershed on a “pollution diet"... A set of regulations to limit and reduce, over time, the amount of nutrients that can escape into the Bay.

Officially it's known as the, "Total Maximum Daily Load" or TMDL, and it comes with a deadline.

By 2025, all practices to meet water quality standards are to be in place.

In 2014, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement set additional goals, establishing concrete outcomes needed to achieve an environmentally and economically sustainable watershed.

With abundant life... Conserved lands.

Engaged communities.

Climate resiliency and clean water.

It, too, set a deadline, 2025.

Strides have been made, wastewater treatment plants are polluting less, and large-scale oyster restoration projects are showing promise.

But the watershed, at large, will fall short on many of the 2025 goals.

From water quality to wetland to the diversity of voices in the clean-up conversation.

What's more, a recent landmark study has called both our current course, and expectations about restoration, into question.

And here is that report, it's called, "A Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response," or CESR.

It's an imposing title with a hefty message.

An assessment by the Bays, by the Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of our progress toward water quality standards.

More than 60 experts weighed in for this report.

Now, as we just heard, we're not going to be meeting all of those standards, nor many of the other 2025 goals.

So, to our discussion now and Denice, first to you, because you're co-editor of this report, right?

DENICE: Right.

FRANK: What's the bottom line here, what went wrong?

DENICE: I don't think it's a question of what went wrong.

I think, um, there are three themes in the report that, um, it talks about.

One is that, um, not because for lack of trying, but it's become much more challenging than we ever thought it would be.

So, we thought our investments, that we were making, would have a greater return than they have.

There's reasons for that.

The second thing is that the Bay of the future is not the Bay of the past, and I know we're gonna talk about that but we can't return to a historical precedent.

The world is changing.

And the third point the report makes is that there are opportunities to improve the effectiveness of what we're doing, but it's gonna take some significant change in policies and programs.

FRANK: I have the report right here and there's a line that's really striking and it says, "The Chesapeake Bay Program has estimated that 27% of the Bay Area met water quality standards in 1985."

"By 2020," it says, "That figure had only risen to the mid-30% range."

DENICE: Mmm-hmm.

FRANK: Can you explain that?

What happened?

DENICE: Well, I think that you look at the headwinds with, we weren't only pursuing water quality during that time and I think, um, your video highlighted that.

There's been a tremendous amount, there's been multiple objectives, right, to the watershed during that same time.

It wasn't just improving water quality.

It was adding 6 million more residents and places for them to live.

It was intensifying agriculture on, on less and less agricultural land.

All those things were happening at the same time we were pursuing...

It's amazing to me the line is going up, that we've made progress against those headwinds.

FRANK: So, Karl, there is progress but there are obviously these places where we've fallen significantly short.

So, what is, what should we make, what should the public make of what seem to be mixed messages about our progress with the Bay?

KARL BLANKENSHIP: Well, it's a really more difficult job, I think, than a lot of people originally thought and it's just gonna be, you know it's something you have to keep, and I think this is kind of why the things that came out of CESR... You have to do experimentation.

It just takes a lot of work and it's just going to be a long slog.

It's not to give up, but you know, if we just keep working at it, plugging away, figure out what works, we can make progress.

FRANK: Adam, EPA, it's your job.

Do you see progress, do you see problems?

Where, what's most significant to you?

ADAM: Well, there's a lot to build on.

And, uh, you know, the results have been mixed, but uh, basically we've taken care of what's called, "Point Sources" so that's pipes, pollution coming out of pipes like wastewater treatment plants and factories.

We've pretty much got that under control pretty quickly as we expected.

What's tougher is the "Non-point" stuff.

So, this is pollution that comes from more general areas, and we're talking stormwater runoff from urban areas and that's thousands of, millions of properties and property owners and also farms.

You know, here in the mid-Atlantic region, it's not like the West where you have these big, huge commodity farms.

They're mostly historical small family farms and there's 80,000 of them.

So, that's, you know, what Denice was talking about, some of the stuff is a little bit tougher than we expected, um, but you know, every iteration and your video did a great job of this, you know, we level up.

You know, so, we've leveled up every decade or two, stepped up our game, and now that 2025 is coming we're gonna work together to step up our game again.

FRANK: I think it's really important to emphasize and make sure people understand, that we understand, what you just said between "Point" and "Non-point" sources.

Just to understand.

"Point source" is a specific place, wastewater treatment plant, you can go there and you can change, adjust what's coming out of it.

"Non-point" is, like, everything else.

All the vast area that's represented in this watershed and the land that leads to the flow into it, right?

I mean, like you said, farms, cities, roads.

ADAM: Yeah, it's big stuff.

So, most of us, you know, travel around, go to the shopping center, you know, get on the bus, drive someplace... All that is "Non-point."

You know, those are, um, you know, often uncontrolled places where water is coming down and taking the pollution into the closest storm drain and that's, that's a big area, as we know.

FRANK: David, you know, we, we hear about these things and missed deadlines and all the rest and I'm wondering how you process that and, um, whether you think this has sparked a change in the conversation around cleaning up the Bay?

DAVID SLIGH: Yeah, I think, first of all, the CESR Report said some really important things.

One of which is that the predictions on how well these corrective actions, these, these management practices would work just haven't necessarily worked out that way and, you know, we talk about "Best Management Practices," BMP's, all the time.

Fact is that the practices aren't necessarily the best and in specific circumstances, we need to figure out what is the best for a construction site, for a, for a farm, for a place where we're applying sewage sludge to farms.

Uh, in each of those places, in each of those activities, the standard for what's good enough, we have to figure that out and we have to do more monitoring so we know.

FRANK: And you have to engage the people in those communities.

DAVID: Absolutely.

FRANK: Is there more that needs to be done there?

DAVID: Absolutely and, you know, frankly, as we've described, this is a huge watershed and there are a ton of people out there who may never even think about the Bay.

Uh, they like oysters maybe, but they're not necessarily on a daily basis talking about the Chesapeake Bay.

But they care about the stream in their backyard, that runs through their park, where they fish and where they swim and they need to be involved in their specific place and, and helping come up with those, those, uh, solutions.

FRANK: Carmera, thinking about people who need to come up with those solutions and participate in this, your, part of your focus is to bring more people into it and bring more diversity into that conversation.

CARMERA: That's right.

FRANK: Why is that so important?

CARMERA: Yeah, I think the science is really important, but the people who are on the frontlines and the forefront of the experiences and the place-based knowledge are just as important.

So, having different voices, different people with those perspectives, they're just, they're experts as well because of their rooted life experiences.

FRANK: So, where, where are you working?

Who are you trying to engage and how?

CARMERA: Yeah, so we're working all over the watershed, but, um, in particular smaller farmers.

In cities, we're working with community members who are dealing with extreme flooding.

They might not know it's sea level rise, but they know that their street floods and their car is floating down the road, but, um, they're experiencing that, they're experiencing flooding and those things that come along with climate change and pollution, but they just don't have the vocabulary to name it, but they know what that means and what they're experiencing and how it might affect where they live and how they get to work and things like that.

FRANK: Denice, as co-editor of this report, and looking at the science, but hearing the conversation about the people.

Could you talk about that and how we bring more people into this conversation?

Cause we're gonna need them if we're gonna get action.

DENICE: Right, and I think, um, um, they've already talked about two points.

I mean, I think one is it's not only, um, there's a reason we need the highest possible diversity of solutions at the table, right?

Because not meeting the goal isn't the failure.

The failure would be if we didn't learn how to do it better, right, and, and re-basically, engage everybody.

So, I think the other point is that local makes sense.

I mean, if exactly right, what's in your backyard is what matters.

Maybe the Bay is the co-benefit, but what you're really concerned about is what's happening in your local area.

FRANK: Adam, I asked a moment ago about how this has changed the conversation.

You're at the EPA, it's the EPA that's responsible for the regulations that are supposed to lead to this cleanup.

How has this changed the conversation from your perspective and from your agency's perspective?

ADAM: Well, EPA is on the team and we have some authorities, but we don't have control over, like, local land use, you know, and things like that that are more localized.

So, we really need the states to step up as well as local communities.

And over the 40 years of the agreement, there's been times where some states have really stepped up and accelerated but others have, have, have fallen back.

So, you know, in the Biden Administration we've had a tough-love approach to make sure that, we're making sure that the states are engaging and stepping up but at the same time we've been delivering historic amounts of funds, and technical assistance to places from farmers and rural communities to urban places as well, including the city of Baltimore.

But, you know, to the point, to the conversation that we're having now, we've got to get people engaged and passionate about their local watersheds.

That even if you don't live near the Bay, you're part of the watershed and you relate to your neighborhood, you relate to your local stream, and that people are empowered and weighing in.

Not just with EPA, but also with their local leaders and state leaders to make sure that we're doing everything we can on "Team Chesapeake" to clean it up.

FRANK: So, speaking of that local stream, I went to one.

(chuckles).

We've been talking big picture, so I wanna zoom in now to a single tributary.

The Choptank River, on Maryland's Eastern Shore, is one place where our expectations about nutrient pollution haven't lined up with reality.

FRANK: Across the watershed, planning, and policies are often driven by predictions, of how the land, water, and even air will respond to changes in land use, climate, and pollutants.

Scientists are able to make these predictions thanks to computer models, mathematical representations of complex real-world ecosystems.

For the Choptank River, on the Delmarva Peninsula, the model tells us that if we applied “best management practices” to reduce runoff like stream buffers and cover crops, that nutrient pollution in the Choptank will go down.

And so, for decades, area farmers have been doing just that.

But is it playing out as the model predicted?

I met up with environmental scientist Keota Silaphone on a rainy day when we could see the water running from the land right into the river just upstream of Greensboro, Maryland.

FRANK: You've been studying this river for 10 years.

Why?

KEOTA: Well, so the Choptank River is one of the main tributaries flowing into the Chesapeake Bay.

This area here, the headwaters of the Choptank River, it's been monitored by USGS since, like, the mid-‘60s.

So it's got this very long good record of nitrogen and phosphorus FRANK: So what you've seen and what you've been able to measure is essentially a gap between the modeling and the monitoring, what we've seen here.

KEOTA: Yes, so the Bay Model considers all the best management practices that are being applied in the headwaters, and it suggests nitrogen and phosphorus are decreasing, and they have decreased, since 1985.

FRANK: But the monitoring tells a different story.

Each month, the United States Geological Survey collects water samples at 123 non-tidal sites throughout the Chesapeake watershed, including here, they measure nutrient levels when it's calm and during storm flows.

Since 1965, both nitrogen and phosphorus have been trending up at Greensboro.

KEOTA: So why are we seeing increases in best management practices and, um,... FRANK: And also seeing increases in the pollutants?

KEOTA: Right.

So with modeling right now, there's a lot of good data going into it, right, but there are also some assumptions.

We assume that cover crops are very efficient in intercepting nitrogen.

FRANK: But perhaps, Silaphone says, they're not as efficient as the model assumes.

Another consideration, the intensification of agriculture.

KEOTA: The poultry industry has grown exponentially over the years.

FRANK: And that industry produces in addition to chickens, a lot of manure.

KEOTA: Manure exactly.

the amount of farmland hasn't increased that much.

You're simply applying more of that manure to a limited amount of farmland.

FRANK: What's the significance of this gap, of this disparity?

KEOTA: A lot of policies are based on what the model is showing.

I think overall we're trending in the right direction for the Bay.

It's little pockets like this where I think it shows us that we just have some more questions.

We have some unknowns.

And we need to figure out what else do we need to do with this model or actually on the ground to move the needle in the right direction.

FRANK: We stood out there in the rain for a lot longer than we have time to show you here tonight.

Mostly we stayed dry!

But you can watch an extended version of that conversation, it's quite fascinating, online at mpt.org/baysummit.

Adam, Denice, Karl, this is a really interesting example, a sort of snapshot where the modeling and the monitoring are different, discrepancies.

Significant discrepancies.

What does that tell us, and do we see that a lot throughout the, the watershed?

DENICE: Well, I can say in, in, um, the model predicts in the nine major tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay that the phosphorus should've been going down in almost all of them, and in fact, phosphorus is going up in six out of the nine.

FRANK: Going up in six out of the nine?

DENICE: Yeah, yeah, so... FRANK: Oh, is that, does that surprise you?

DENICE: Oh, uh, well sure.

You know, so you wanna know why, and, and I think the model is important.

The model gave everyone an even accountability system, right?

And a model pretty much combines everything we know, but it operates at a spatial scale that doesn't match what actually happens on the ground.

And there's these, Karl can be quite articulate about this, about um, what we call mass imbalances, where these pots of nutrients that are continuing to contribute, no matter what we do.

FRANK: Alright, Karl, you're invited to be quite articulate.

(laughter).

KARL: Well, yeah, the economics of agriculture basically force a lot of very intense agriculture, usually animal agriculture, into fairly conf- you know, fairly geographically restricted areas, and you just end up with more manure, um, than the land can handle, as they said in that segment.

And it, it's just a really difficult question because the economics really force that.

When you talk to farmers and when you talk to companies, you know, the market competition's so intense, there's not a lot of margin for increasing costs or anything, and... FRANK: So it's the market competition?

It's the market that's driving this?

KARL: That is a huge driver in agriculture, yeah.

It's very hard to overcome that.

FRANK: Adam?

ADAM: So, a few different things.

One, uh, we have fewer farmers every decade.

We have more people to feed every decade, so the intensification is a big deal.

On the model, it, it's a pretty young model.

So if we think about a model we're all familiar with, weather forecasting, it's been 200 years since we built on Ben Franklin's first weather model, it's pretty good nowadays.

So this is a pretty good model, but we know it's not always perfect.

There's another watershed upstream, um the western branch of the Susquehanna, which actually shows the opposite trend of what we see in the Choptank.

In the Choptank, it overestimated the progress, but in that watershed, it underestimated the progress.

And overall, and we've recently done assessment, in partnership with our scientists, we find that on average, the model's just about right.

But, there are sort of these outliers and skews and the Choptank is one of them, and we need to figure that out.

Another point I wanted to make is, you know, we're in a federal system here, as we were talking about earlier.

And the Bay Program and the partnership is the most federal of the federal programs, among them, that we have at EPA in partnership with the states.

So, when it comes to farming, and I said earlier, this is the tough stuff, the small farms.

EPA only has regulatory authority over 2% of farms.

FRANK: 2%?

ADAM: 2%, the rest is up to the states.

FRANK: David, you talk to farmers, you know them, live with them.

If somebody were with us now, he or she would say, “Do you know what it's like to be doing the job that I'm doing and to be up against nature and everything else, and now you're going to impose burdens on me because way downstream, maybe some of this manure ends up out there?” What is that conversation sound like?

DAVID: I, I'll say, yes I understand that it's a hard life, it's not one that I would probably be very good at.

Um, you, you're, you know, subject to so many vagaries of, of weather and, and all kinds of other things.

At the same time, I'd say, we're not, we're not choosing to impose something upon you.

I'll tell you that, the Clean Water Act, again 51 years ago as you said in your piece, that set what we're supposed to be doing here.

And there are actually, in place already, permitting systems and regulations that uh, the, frankly the states, in my case the state of Virginia, uh the permit's requirements that they're imposing on things like, uh, land application of, of animal waste, don't meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act.

Um, and the fact is, that we've gotta fix that.

And, yes, it is a burden on the farmers.

And yes, we can figure out how to help them.

But, we can't ignore those, those problems.

And I'm not just telling those folks, worry about the Bay.

I'm telling ‘em, worry about the Chesa...

The Shenandoah River, where every year you have horrible algae explosions in certain areas.

FRANK: Carmera, you mentioned earlier that you are talking to farmers too.

How do we close this gap between what's happening and what needs to happen if we're going to address this huge problem that ends up in the water?

CARMERA: Yeah, well, um, you know, people are smart.

When they make the connection between what they're doing on the farm and the science behind it, and having that awareness and education, it really makes a difference.

So, really having farmers talking to farmers, folks who, you know, can make that connection, know what they're dealing with.

Um, really helps bring in those voices and those perspectives.

So, awareness, education, and having smaller groups connect with them, and make that interconnection about what they're dealing with, and the science behind what's actually happening on the ground.

FRANK: So literally, what do you say to them?

CARMERA: What do, I mean we say the bottom line.

I mean, the economics are really important to farmers, they want to know how much they're gonna make that year, they wanna know how much money they're spending, um... FRANK: But do you say, “Stop using manure” or “Stop using so much” or, “Use this instead”?

CARMERA: So it's a little different in each state, too.

So, you know, there, in Maryland in particular, you know, I can speak to that, there are farmers that are fencing their cows out of the stream, they're putting in stream crossings for them, they're putting stream buffers in, that helps out with that erosion control.

But, we're talking to them about what those practices look like, and how that can save them money.

FRANK: Adam.

ADAM: So, farmers have not been at the table.

And, you know, I think the environmental movement has to make more of an effort going forward than we have historically to engage farmers.

My very first in-person meeting in this job, and I've been in this job for about two-and-a-half years, was with the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.

And I drove to their office in Harrisburg, sat in their, their paneled conference room, their board of directors and staff was there, and um, I said, “Hey, we gotta work together more”, and uh, and I'm under a lot of pressure here, as you're putting on me in, in this discussion Frank, which is great, and important, but we need to figure out how to, how control runoff from farms, um and, and other sectors.

And the response I got back from the president of the Farm Bureau, was “We agree”.

And, uh, that gentleman, uh, President Rick Ebert said, “I'm a no-till farmer.

I've been a conservationist my whole life, and most farmers are.

What, um, what's missing Adam is that farmers don't get the support, don't get the support from uh, states and the federal government that other sectors do”.

FRANK: Meaning financial support, is that what that's all about?

ADAM: Yeah, so we put billions of dollars into wastewater treatment plants, and the technology's very clear and we've figured that out.

We have not made a similar investment in, into farms, especially small farms, where the economics are tougher and it's a little more complex.

DENICE: Well, and I would say that, that the way we try to incentivize farmers, we need to reflect on that and revisit if that's working.

It's, um, we ask them to volunteer and we say we'll share, you know, we'll cost-share with you.

Well, that doesn't negate the fact that some of these things are large up front costs, right?

And not a lot, not all of them have private benefits to the farmer.

So, we're asking a farmer to do some capital outlay for something that they don't get any benefits out of.

And so, I think that we have to look at how we incentivize people to, to engage.

FRANK: There's that word, people again.

We talk about nitrogen, we talk about phosphorus, but people.

Carmera?

CARMERA: Yeah, I think Adam made a really good, great point.

I mean, just making that um, relationship and authenticity, and showing up, and being in their space.

I think that's how you bring in diverse voices, because you're holding yourself accountable to listen, to hear what they're dealing with, their perspective.

Maybe the regulation isn't something that they need at that point, but how can they be a part of the decision-making to change that?

Um, and really get the feedback that they need, and the results that they need and the solutions, so partnerships... FRANK: And Karl, are we taking, sorry, I... Are we, are we taking advantage of the watershed communities themselves, learning from them, engaging them, or is that part two of the post-2025 strategy here if we're gonna make progress?

KARL: Well, I think if, when you are talking, at least in the farming context, there hasn't been very good outreach, historically.

I think that's started to improve, but this is going to be a very difficult challenge, and that gets back to those economic, you know, our federal, state, um market pressures are to produce more to keep farmers viable.

Farming's a very nutrient-intense operation.

You, you do not grow food without nutrients, and nutrients, and crops tend to lose a lot of, um, nutrients, you know, even under good management.

And, we've spent about $3 billion on various programs for agricultural control since the TMDL went into place.

And it, it's not clear that we're making a lot of progress.

We, we're holding the line, we may be making a little bit of progress, but it, that's a very difficult.

You know, society has very different goals.

We want those farms, but we want clean water.

And there, that's a very difficult question, and... FRANK: David?

DAVID: I just wanted to say, one other thing farmers tell me is, "Why are you picking on me, and why aren't you focusing on that construction project over there, that, that city..." FRANK: Fair point?

DAVID: “That's dumping all kinds of stuff off of the, off of the streets.” FRANK: Fair point?

DAVID: And, and, absolutely it's a fair point.

And, here again, um, frankly, we're not stepping up on those, on those aspects either.

Um, the state of Virginia, in 2017 produced an assessment that said 39% of all the streams, stream miles in Virginia are affected by sedimentation.

Not, not just muddy water but sediment that is affecting the habitats, that is hurting the biological life there.

A lot of that comes from construction projects.

FRANK: Carmera, I want to come back to you on the, on the conversation with farmers.

Um, and ask you this.

Because I had a fascinating conversation with a Maryland farmer not long ago, who talked about because the rains have changed, re-berming his property.

Re, changing the way his property drained, to address issues of runoff.

So it's not just what you put on the land, but what, how you mold the land, what you do with the land.

Is that a conversation that you have had, is that something that is happening, and is going to need to happen more, because of the changing world that we're in?

CARMERA: Absolutely, I mean, and as you know everything that happens upstream also comes downstream.

So, it's not their fault, you know, that that happens.

And we can't control the weather or the heavy rain and storms like that.

But just having that conversation, to be prepared for that, um, and adapting some of those solutions to um, compete with the climate change and the heavy rains and, and more intense storms that we will be seeing for the future.

FRANK: When you have that conversation, have you found that um, a lot of farmers have either made those sorts of changes or are now contemplating those changes?

Because there's cost associated with that too.

CARMERA: Yeah, I mean, I think having conversations about what those costs are, um, and them being a part of what they need, and having that feedback.

But um, I think they understand what the issue is, um but having that conversation around, um, you know, what they can do and how they can, um, work with local government, federal, um, their state agencies, other farmers who are doing other things, a lot of our programs are talking, you know, farmer-to-farmer so they're hearing what's happening on their neighbor's farm.

Um, so they're able to make adaptations in that way.

Um, I really think, you know, the cost-benefits of doing those things is not just great for the water quality and the farm, but it's also great for them.

You know, they end up, um, having more money, you know, in their pocket after they put in some of those, um, practices.

FRANK: Denice, um, from the reports, the CESR Report again, thinking again about this kind of runoff, phosphorus, and nitrogen and what needs to be done.

What is the future course, knowing that this is so difficult and that we haven't made our goals to date, and won't for for 2025?

DENICE: Mm-hm.

FRANK: What does the future suggest?

DENICE: Well I think that, uh, what the CESR Report tried to do was, more than anything else, try to point out the opportunities.

Um, for improved effectiveness, and there are a couple.

Um, one is targeting, right?

Probably um, 80% of the load comes from 20% of, of the farm land.

FRANK: Really?

DENICE: So, yeah, and so... FRANK: So, say that again, 80% of the load... DENICE: Yeah, 80% of the load.

FRANK: Comes from 20% of the farmland.

DENICE: Probably comes from 20%, right, around that.

And so, we don't target now, right?

Voluntary.

And who normally volunteers are people that, where the load isn't so great already, they're early adopters.

And so, if we could target where we went, that would make a difference.

Um, we have uh, talk about incentives.

Um, so let's pay for outcomes, not just the number of BMPs you installed, because people teach to the test, right?

FRANK: BMPs is best management practices.

DENICE: Best management practices, sorry, but um, you know, we do if, if we paid them for outcomes, they'd go looking for the problem areas.

Um, which would be much more effective.

FRANK: Okay, so as we've heard, cleaning up the Bay has proved to be much harder than we thought.

And it seems to be getting even more challenging.

As we take steps towards a healthier bay watershed, major headwinds threaten to derail our progress: Climate change.

The intensification of agriculture.

Population growth.

TIM WHEELER: Population, uh, in the Chesapeake Bay region has more than doubled since 1950.

We're going to top 20 million within the next decade.

You have to deal with more wastewater, more development.

We've been adding impervious surface, meaning buildings and pavement, at the rate of about 50,000 acres every five years.

FRANK: When it rains, these impervious surfaces channel runoff into storm drains, sending pollutants on a fast track to the Bay.

And more people demand more food from the region's farmers, but farming costs are on the rise.

KEVIN ATTICKS: Farmers are under incredible pressure, not just from development but from finances.

If a farmer is required or, or their crop requires a certain set of equipment, a certain set of nutrients, a certain type of labor, and that labor, that equipment, that material is in short supply, prices go up.

And if you're operating as a farmer in one of the low-margin crops, corn or wheat or soy, it can be extremely detrimental.

FRANK: Farmers offset these shrinking profit margins by producing more food on the same land.

Which means more fertilizer and more manure.

And then there's climate change.

Since 1995, the average summer water temperature in the Chesapeake has increased by about 1.8 degrees.

This trend has heavily offset the work to improve conditions in the Bay.

We've reduced nutrient pollution, with the goal of increasing dissolved oxygen and shrinking the Bay's dead zone.

But warmer waters hold less oxygen.

Both in the Bay itself and in the streams and rivers of the watershed, species that are sensitive to heat are declining.

Eel grass, brook trout, striped bass.

There's another potential problem.

Warm waters could also increase the toxicity of heavy metals and promote bacterial growth, contributing to public health issues.

Bay waters are also rising, and projected to continue.

1.3 to 5.2 feet over the next century.

Leading to shoreline erosion and coastal flooding.

Cities like Baltimore, Annapolis, and Norfolk have already felt the effects, as have low-lying rural communities.

Increased precipitation, another consequence of climate change, creates more runoff, and more flooding.

With water levels already high, storm surges can be devastating.

In both urban and rural areas, low-income communities and communities of color are often disproportionately affected by flooding, heat waves, and other climate-related impacts.

As a result of clean-up efforts across the watershed, we've held the line on many fronts.

But the pressures and threats are real.

New strategies, technologies, and thinking are needed to expedite progress towards a healthier Bay in the future.

FRANK: New ways of thinking are needed so we've talked a little bit about this, we've also talked about, because there's some pretty rough stuff out there, there are areas to give us some hope, there is some progress, can we just pause for a minute and hover on that and then we'll come back to climate change and all of this, what is hopeful about what's happening?

ADAM: Well people are more engaged than ever.

So that's a good thing.

The generation that's coming up now are majoring in environmental science things that we didn't, you know, that we're available to me and maybe not you, but we're seeing oysters doing well, we're seeing blue crabs doing well, uh, and, and we're seeing you know, overall people participating in their local waterways.

FRANK: Karl, you've been covering this for a long time, where's the good news out there right now?

Pause.

(chuckles).

KARL: Yeah, there is good news out there.

(laughter).

And although some people on this very panel think I'm kind of a gloomy person, um, there actually is... FRANK: Well there's plenty to be gloomy about.

KARL: Hope, hopeful signs.

Uh, yeah, although the nutrient trends may not be positive, some of the BMPs, Best Management Practices, um, have definitely shown improvements for streams.

I can show you many places where streams have improved and be, um, been taken off the “Dirty Waters List” because of those BMPs and so... FRANK: Denice?

Good news, what, what if you, from this report... DENICE: Absolutely, the Bay's.

FRANK: What is the one thing that would really stand out if somebody stopped you on the street and said, “Show me where there's been the most progress.” DENICE: I think, well, I have two things, I'm gonna cheat, I don't, one is that the Dead Zone, the size of the Dead Zone is decreasing.

That's huge, that was, that was, started the whole thing.

But I think for me is looking at the amount that we've learned, that, that, we've learned an incredible amount about what works, what doesn't work, where to put things, how to do things better.

That's incredibly hopeful to me.

FRANK: Carmera and David, you know, everyone wants a healthier Bay.

Everybody wants a vibrant economy.

We want food that we can afford as we talked about before, are, and we're continuing grow, are all these forces completely at odds?

CARMERA: Uh, no, I think there's an intersection of all those things, I mean, the social piece, the economic, the environment, um, and I think what makes me hopeful is that there are people that are being heard and um, more organizations and federal agencies are, are listening to those diverse voices, um, so they're part of the solution which is really exciting, um, because the communities that have been dealing with some of these issues for decades are finally being, you know, uh, part of the implementation and the solutions.

FRANK: And you're seeing real traction there?

CARMERA: I am, I'm, you know, behavior change and some of the tangible things that you can see like trash and um, people being involved, yeah, we're seeing that a lot young people like, um, Adam mentioned, definitely.

FRANK: David?

DAVID: Well yeah, I think involvement from folks, um, we work a lot on advocacy and we work on bringing people in to work beside us in advocacy to make uh, you know, to represent their interest and the things they see need to be done.

One of the things I think that is um, kind of balances out some of these concerns about the economics is that if people can understand that doing it better now will save them money down the road, uh, putting in green infrastructure, uh, doing things that are more natural keeps you from having to build that concrete structure to handle the flow coming off streets.

So it, people need to understand better that it's an investment that will pay off because you won't face some of those problems farther down the road.

FRANK: So we're talking about people, we're talking about advocacy, we're talking about the future, so let's take a question from someone who will live the future and has been experiencing it, Noel Welday is a student at Bowie State University in Maryland.

NOEL WELDAY: Knowing what we do about pollution, over-harvesting, and climate change, is it possible to revert the Chesapeake to what it once was?

How do we explain to the people what mean when we talk about restoring the Bay?

FRANK: What a great question.

Can we restore the Bay and how do we talk to people about restoring the Bay?

David, you want us to kick that off?

DAVID: Uh, as a long-time devotee of The Clean Water Act, I'll go back to what it says.

It said we were gonna work to restore and maintain our waters, but what it talks about is the integrity of these systems.

We're not, we're not gonna go back to the John Smith time, no we would be delusional if we thought that was gonna be the case, what we need is the water bodies to work, as uh, aquatic systems, that support the, the wildlife and the species and support the things that we want and need to do with these waters.

So it, it's, do they function?

Do they work?

FRANK: Carmera how would you answer, Noel's question?

CARMERA: Yeah, I think it's about revitalizing the Bay, not necessarily restoration, you know, not going backwards but moving forward, um, and because we have you know a diversity of voices that can be incorporated into the science and the place-based knowledge, um, I think we will see that, you know, as people learn more and are more engaged.

Um, and I think that you know, like David said, the things that people need make the most impact, um, we need to make sure we're being equitable and have holistic solutions that meet all people's needs, not just you know the organization or the government or what the waterway says.

FRANK: There's a very serious amount of focus now and it's something you spend a lot of time on, I know you do too Adam, on environmental justice and making sure that more people are engaged in this, so when you think about revitalizing versus restoring, what does that mean for under served communities?

CARMERA: Yeah, I mean, the acknowledgment first that communities, BIPOC communities, low-income, were, are indis... You know, disproportionality impacted by impacts of pollution, by climate change, knowing that the solutions need to make the most impact in the places that need it most, um, so just making sure we have that awareness first and foremost that internal discussion, um, with the organizations and then also working with communities who are at, on the front lines and who are already engaged in community advocacy.

They already have been a part of these conversations for decades.

FRANK: So Adam over to you the EPA actually has granting funds to address environmental justice or injustice issues.

How is that being applied to watershed communities, to the kind of communities that Carmera is dealing with, talking to?

ADAM: Well there's, well there's historic funding and to help communities build capacity.

FRANK: So what does that mean?

ADAM: So uh, our, our, we have new programs across the charts um, going to communities to help them have some staff and have some time to be able to go to meetings.

So if you think about it, you know, it's usually the wealthiest communities where people retire early, they were attorneys, that have the time to show up to our meetings or advocate.

Working-class communities, people are working, you know, they're raising families, they don't have time to do that stuff.

So to support those local organizations, but importantly Frank, what we're doing in the Biden Administration is we're going to them.

So these are groups that didn't always have uh, representation uh, electorally, that were marginalized racially or, or economically, so we're going to those communities to their tables to listen and we've been Sparrows Point, Turner Station neighborhood working with them on resilience uh, South Baltimore, uh, it's prone to flooding, uh lots of environmental justice communities there, as well as the Eastern Shore.

FRANK: But, but, it's nice to go and listen, what are you actually doing?

I mean if the, if under served communities are disproportionality hurt by this, what are you actually doing now that's different, that's helping?

ADAM: Well, there's a few different things.

One, we know that there's contaminants and problems that have been neglected for a long time.

So in this Sparrows Point area, we're dredging up and cleaning up just decades of toxic material that's been sitting there from the steel days, so that's a big deal.

Shoreline, uh, resilience to help communities not flood so that's a big focus in Crisfield on the Eastern Shore.

So that hard stuff.

But also, when you show up to communities that are disadvantaged, it's not just one or two things, it's like seven or eight or nine, or 20 things that they're dealing with historically.

So we're working, we have to listen to their local wisdom, as you said, things that have been neglected.

And also use our role as a federal partner, can't regulate everything, can't enforce everything, but we can also bring in state or local partners, even philanthropy to help solve those problems.

But you've gotta show up, you gotta listen, uh, to the people that have not been listened to, historically.

FRANK: Karl, if you're writing the story about revitalizing rather than restoring, how does that narrative change, how does that story change?

KARL: I, I think it's trying to have continual improvements and have tangible goals where you can show that things actually improve.

Whether it's oysters in the bay, healthier streams in the system and, and be able to make steady progress.

I think sometimes our impatience has worked against us.

When we set aggressive goals, then it sets us up for defeat, it causes people to point fingers.

But I think if we have goals where people actually see results that are tangible to them, I, I think that would help a lot.

FRANK: So Denice, let's talk a little bit about targeting, something you raised before.

Focusing on shallow waters, and some of the particulars now about how we move this thing forward.

DENICE: Yeah, and I think, um, I love the term revitalization.

I think restoration sets up these false expectations.

Um, the, the definition, right, of revitalization is, "Imbue with new life or vitality."

And I think that there's a conversation that we need to be headed to that's, “What does vitality mean to all of us?” And that requires a diverse set of voices to, to have that visioning, and it also, you know, just requires, it's going to require a diverse set of solutions.

We've gotta learn to experiment and fast fail, and it's okay, you know, as long as we're moving forward.

So, I think the CESR Report talks about focusing on shallow waters for these restoration efforts, for a number of reasons.

One is it's, it's where the living resources are, it's where the people are, it's where we interact with the resources.

FRANK: What does that mean, shallow waters?

Just so everybody understands, is that the coastal areas, is that particular bodies of water?

Just so we're clear.

DAVID: It's, it's all the edges of the bay, all the way up into the watershed.

And those near shore waters, that's shallow water.

FRANK: That's also the stuff where we walk and swim and fish and... DENICE: Right, right, and what makes the Bay so special, right, is that it's shallow and it's got lots of edges.

FRANK: So if you focus on shallow areas... DENICE: Mm-hm.

FRANK: What are we doing there that we haven't been doing for the last 25 years?

DENICE: Well I think if you make, um, you're making water quality investments.

And CESR says a couple things about, um, making those investments.

It says, first of all, change the way you express the returns on those investments.

Instead of talking about, uh, molecules of nitrogen and phosphorus, talk about what people care about, you know?

FRANK: What's that?

DENICE: Usually it's living resources, right?

Can I fish in it?

Can I swim in it?

Those types of things.

So talk about the returns, assess your returns on that basis.

And then it says, make them, make those investments smart.

If you make them spatially in shallow waters, you're going to get a much bigger living resource return.

That's where the habitat matters.

And so, focus on those areas, you'll get the water quality benefits to the whole Bay, but go there first.

FRANK: I see a lot of head nodding and agreement here.

So Carmera, what are you thinking?

CARMERA: Yeah, I mean, we uh, at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation we're working with the Nansemond Indian Nation and they, uh, are reclaiming some land that they, you know, in Mattanock Town, and part of that is reintroduction to the oyster habitat and to fishing habitat that's part of their cultural um, experiences and, and pastimes, and also a part of their culture and their traditions.

Um, and just reintroducing those oyster habitats benefit not only the bay, and the coastal resiliency, but also the community because it's a part of their culture and their practice, and also as a part of their living experience, and where they live.

FRANK: And as we noted before, some of the oyster repopulation is really, it's working.

CARMERA: Yep, that's working.

ADAM: So I just have to brag on my home watershed.

(laughing).

Uh, which is, uh, the Anacostia River on the east side of Washington, DC.

Historically, you know, it's the side of the city that was redlined where all the bad stuff went.

Landfills, and power plants, and dumping, you know, and a variety of other, uh, pollutants.

And, um, you know, 20 years ago it was unimaginable that it would ever come back.

But, you know, folks leaned in.

At the community level, at the city level, the state level, uh, at the utility level.

So, we, uh, we're stopping, and have stopped much of the combined sewer overflow, so sewage going directly into the water.

Nonprofit organizations built trash traps in the little tributaries going in, catching floatable trash.

So it's actually hard to find a piece of trash on the Anacostia River.

Now, I can go on and on at all the different levels, but the biggest validation, Frank, is, is not necessarily the model, but is the critters.

So we have river otters coming back, we have sea grasses, we have mussels that we never thought would come back that are there.

Uh, bald eagles, you know, there's bald eagles everywhere.

Unimaginable.

So, um, so that's a real-life example that I see every day.

And also recreation, so people are fishing there more, they can bike there, they're participating and they're invested.

And, you know, that's what we mean by the living resource.

FRANK: Karl, you're the journalist here, you cover this, the good the bad, and the disappointing.

Um, when we talk about targeting, you know, draw on your knowledge and, and the work that you've done, what's the kind of targeting that needs to take place going forward?

Okay, we're not going to make the goals in 2025, but there's 2026, and 2027, and 2028.

KARL: Well, what's your target depends on what results you want.

Um, if you want nutrient reductions you target one place, if you want, um, shallow water improvements you target other places.

And that, it's kind of like a societal question of, you know, what, what you really value.

You know, you, you can target really at intensive "ag" areas for your nutrients, but that's going to be a real tough slog and it's going to be a hard time to show results.

And so I would target areas where I thought I would actually see results that people would see quicker.

FRANK: Such as?

KARL: Um, there's a lot of shallow water areas like, and a lot of streams.

Like I said, there's streams all over that have improved because of actions that were taken on the land.

And I think, you know, looking at the number of stream miles that we've improved would be a really effective measure going forward.

FRANK: David, what would you target, what should we target?

DAVID: I think, again, it's not a simple answer.

It is figuring out what is most effective like uh, like others were talking about.

That farmers, or anybody else, they don't want to feel like they're just checking off a box.

Uh, we and, and we need more, we have probably more information about the Bay than just about anywhere else, but we need more.

FRANK: Adam, very quickly to you, before everybody gets a chance to sort of sum up what we've heard here tonight, and where we're going.

Is there going to be another target set?

Uh, another daily load kind of thing like we had for 2025, by the EPA going forward?

ADAM: Yeah, so we're working on that now, and we're doing it in, in consultation with dozens of stakeholder groups, as well as all the member states and the District of Columbia, and the tribes.

So it's looking forward, not just a new date, but really practically how are we gonna get there, and how are we gonna improve the living resource?

FRANK: With teeth?

ADAM: With teeth.

But uh, you know, it's a, you know, the federal government, um, we don't have as much authority necessarily on the Bay.

Remember the Bay was above and beyond, and it's a voluntary agreement beyond the Clean Water Act.

So we do what we can, we're enforcing, but you know, we need the states and the localities to also step up as well.

FRANK: We had a very wide-ranging conversation that's just really touched the surface, ‘cause this is such a deep and complex area, but let me ask you each to take a moment, a sentence or two, if you had to come away from this conversation, come away from the CESR Report, thinking about the future, to tell people what to take away, what would that be?

Karl, you want to start us off?

KARL: Well it's a really unsexy answer, it's like, you know, just recognizing that it took a long time to get into the situation that we got into, it's going to take a long time to get out.

And we just need to think about making, um, incremental continuous improvements.

Learning what works, what doesn't work, apply what we learn and, and move forward.

If we just set grandiose goals, we're probably setting ourselves up for failure.

FRANK: Adam.

ADAM: We're smarter now than we were 40 years ago.

We've learned a lot and we have the benefit, not just of so many more people involved, but also better science, better technology, better mapping, high-res.

So we just, we're more, we can be more strategic, and we have to be.

FRANK: David?

DAVID: My message is kind of what we've been saying is, you can have an effect on your place.

So show up, have your interest represented and, and, you know, tell people what matters to you, and what you want.

FRANK: Denice?

DENICE: Uh, writing the CESR Report is probably the most hopeful thing I've ever done.

FRANK: Really?

DENICE: There's opportunity everywhere, at every scale.

From individual to, to federal.

Um, and, um, what a fascinating conversation to have about what vitality means for all of us.

So dive in.

FRANK: Carmera, you get the last word.

CARMERA: Awesome, well, partnerships and relationships.

I think we saw with the first Bay Agreement, we're seeing with the CESR Report, we're seeing with all the work that we're doing together, um, it's really about building those relationships with one another, and building that partnership and collective to build solutions.

FRANK: A lot of challenges, a lot of opportunities, a lot to do.

You've given us a lot of food for thought, so thank you all.

You can find the extended versions of my conversation with Keota, and also of our interviews with the "Bay Journal's" Tim Wheeler, and Maryland Secretary of Agriculture, Kevin Atticks, on our web site, MPT.org/BaySummit.

Cleaning up the Chesapeake and its watershed will be harder and take longer than most thought when that first Bay Agreement was signed 40 years ago.

So tonight we heard a few of the perspectives about what the path to progress might look like, and how it could involve all of us.

What that route and its destination may be.

It's a beautiful and vital resource that we all treasure, and we must preserve.

Thanks to our panelists, thanks to our partners at the "Bay Journal," and to our audience here in the studio, and to you for watching.

I'm Frank Sesno, from Maryland Public Television.

Goodnight.

(audience applause).

(music plays over credits).

FRANK: Does anybody have a, one, two, oh look we've got, yes!

Why don't we start right here?

PARTICIPANT: How do we clean up that stormwater before it goes into the Bay because I know it contains a lot of pollution?

PARTICIPANT 2: I've got runoff coming out of, down my yard and I'm like, what do I do?

PARTICIPANT 3: The future of the Chesapeake Bay belongs to the future, which is our children, so my question is we have to start educating them so much earlier so where's the partnership between the EPA at the federal level and the Department of Education?

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪