After decades of work to clean up the polluted Chesapeake Bay, the federal, state and local partners within the 64,000-mile watershed have acknowledged they won’t reach their 2025 goals. But neither are they giving up.

Representatives of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, the regional partnership of states within the watershed, will gather Tuesday in Annapolis to discuss how to achieve not only those goals but new ones.  

In Virginia, the discussion already has included pollution reduction measures farmers can adopt, and funding for them.

“The good news is that we’re entering this meeting with the partnership stronger than ever,” said Adam Ortiz, the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator in the mid-Atlantic, who noted this will be the first meeting since 2014 with the governors from Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania in attendance.

The presence of all three is an indication of the importance of the Chesapeake Bay to their states’ ecosystems — it is home to over 300 types of fish, birds, insects and plants — and economy. The Bay’s seafood industry alone is worth $3 billion a year to Virginia and Maryland, according to the Virginia Secretary of Natural and Historic Resources. 

Acknowledging the shortcomings of the work so far, the Chesapeake Bay Program Beyond 2025 Steering Committee earlier this year recommended recommitting to the partnership and streamlining processes. It also advocated for local involvement and new approaches.

On Thursday, Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued a four-page Executive Directive, stressing that, “Virginia is committed to being a part of the Partnership and continuing our efforts to protect the bay.” 

But he also wrote, “it is evident that a clearer path forward is needed.”

After starting the partnership in 1983 with a one page document, the partnership’s work has become a complex system with the states making commitments to reach certain outcomes, such as oyster abundance and water quality standards.

Virginia has met 100% of its sediment reduction targets, but only reached 80% of the reduction for nitrogen and 62% of the reduction for phosphorus. The concern is that those nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients feed harmful algal blooms and oxygen-deprived “dead zones,” that culminate with less than desired water quality standards. 

In October, 29.8% of the Bay and the tidal tributaries feeding into it were found to have met water quality standards, “below the 100% attainment necessary to support a healthy Bay ecosystem.” 

“Chesapeake Bay restoration is at a crossroads,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation Virginia Director Chris Moore in a recent statement lauding Youngkin’s commitment to the partnership. “Virginia’s upcoming legislative session is a prime opportunity for the Commonwealth to continue our important investments in cleaner waterways and iconic living resources.”

The causes

Work on the bay the past 40 years have focused on pollution reductions from the stormwater and wastewater sectors, and the agricultural community. 

During a December 2023 meeting with the Virginia State Water Commission, Mike Rolband, the director of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, reported that upgrades to stormwater treatment plants, which are behind on the goals, and wastewater treatment plants, which are ahead of the goals, had led to a reduction of 8.2 million pounds of nitrogen and 708 pounds of phosphorus.

But farmers, while making progress last year, have only installed about 6,095 acres of forested buffers, or 28% of what’s needed for targets set for 2027. 

Martha Moore, vice president of governmental relations with the Virginia Farm Bureau, said the slow adoption rates were due to insufficient funding from the state’s cost-share program

“They got really frustrated,” said Moore of farmers who were told, “we just don’t have the money.”

Farmers also were upset that they were not part of the conversation. This year that changes with the creation of a farmers advisory committee.

“We know that we can’t see an acceleration of and completion of the restoration effort without the success of farmers,” Ortiz said. 

In his directive, Youngkin acknowledges a need to verify best management practices that may be happening but not being counted, which happens because they haven’t been reevaluated in years. Moore said a survey with the Virginia Cooperative Extension will help capture those numbers. 

“Really what we want to see is the continuation and building upon where we’re seeing those successes,” said Travis Voyles, secretary of Natural and Historic Resources, in an interview. “Avoiding the hammer, but really embracing those incentive based approaches, in a voluntary manner, that are being effective.”

The funding

Youngkin’s directive also calls for an evaluation of water quality improvement funds, which provide the funding for the stormwater and wastewater plant upgrades. Excess revenues for the fund are to be directed to the best management practice cost-share program.

In an interview Friday, Chris Pomeroy, an attorney with the Virginia Association of Municipal Wastewater Agencies, said funding for the wastewater sector must continue in order to maintain the reductions that have been made, calling it “the single most important thing Virginia can do.”.

Pomeroy said about $600 million had been appropriated so far and about $800 million is needed to complete projects underway.

With the agricultural program fully funded now, Moore said, “I’m just very proud of the fact that we finally have achieved that goal. Now, I think we just have to figure out, how do we get to the end?”

One potential way, according to the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board that oversees the conservation districts around the state that administer the cost-share program, is more staffing to get the money out the door. A point the board made in a letter to Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Fairfax, and Del. Alfonso Lopez, D-Arlington, the chairs of Virginia’s natural resource and agricultural committees.

“The team is now deploying more resources than at any point in their history, while pay compression and uncompetitive salaries strain the Department’s ability to retain key staff,” wrote board chair Charles Newton. “The Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board is concerned that without new investment into the Department’s team, the agency will face more staff loss and be unable to keep pace with the growing demands for their services.”