1. Chesapeake Bay Initiatives in 2005

2. The State of the Bay has been in decline over the past 30 years. The major problem is non-point pollution, which cannot be traced to a single source Six states are in the CB drainage basin

3. Management of the Bay Complex system of policy implementation and management in part because the Bay is managed by all three levels of govt. and is impacted by and impacts so many different parties. Main dispute between state and federal government over funding to restore the Bay.

4. Past policies at State level CB States were mainly responsible for the health and maintenance of the Bay, while the federal government simply supplied aid through various grants and funds. The Chesapeake Program was established in the 70’s to help combat the non-point pollution not well addressed under the Clean Water Act The first Chesapeake Agreement was released in 1983 by the Bay commission, network of federal, state and local executives, which called for continued research and evaluation of the state of the Bay and for long term restoration and management of a healthy watershed The Chesapeake 2000 agreement is the most specific document to date detailing the goals that need to be met in order to restore the Bay by 2010.

5. Past policies at State level Most of the states policies have been considered “directives” or firm suggestions as to how different parties should be influencing the Bay, which is why restoration has been so slow moving The rate at which past policies have been and are being implemented the goal of restoration by 2010 will not be met The Bay states want more federal funding and support to carry out their executive council directives.

6. Past policies at State level Since the federal government has not answered to the pleas of state governments to fund programs, the states are beginning to implement more restrictive policies concerning the Bay Following the 1997 pfiesteria scare, Maryland established the first law requiring that agricultural nutrients be regulated to prevent excessive amounts of pollution from entering the Bay Virginia recently enacted similar legislation

7. Dispute between farmers and states Poultry, swine and cattle farmers do not want nutrient regulations because they will have to update their equipment and adjust their feeding practices to limit nitrogen and phosphorous in their livestock’s manure Farmers are calling for extra funding and time to allow them to accommodate to the new restrictions or else they will be out competed by other states that do not have such policies yet Farmers continue to press the federal government to create legislation aiding them in countering the extent to which the states had authority over Bay management

8. Federal Initiatives Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes of Maryland, and other Congressmen are heading the proposal of a bill, s.1491 that would more actively involve the federal government in Bay policies Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Removal Assistance Act was introduced in the Senate on July 26th, 2005 then referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would allow the EPA to provide increased federal funding to help restoration of the Bay. The monies would go toward upgrading waste water treatment facilities located along the watershed in different states

9. Federal Initiatives There are many other measures similar to the former that are pending in various committees in Congress, leaving state authorities on their own in policy implementation for the time being The goal of restoration by 2010 seems bleak at this point The directives of the Chesapeake Bay need to be supplemented with enforced federal legislation in order to make sure that they are met.