In legislation advancing in Congress, several key Chesapeake Bay federal initiatives could avoid the budget cuts facing many other environmental programs, though advocates warn potential pitfalls remain.
Spending bills approved by committees in both the U.S. House and Senate last month would fund the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Bay office next year at $92 million. That’s the same level the office has received in the last three years.
The EPA Bay Program office coordinates activities among federal agencies and states within the Chesapeake watershed that are aimed at meeting restoration goals, including water quality monitoring and computer modeling.
About two-thirds of the funding goes toward grants to state and local governments, universities, and nonprofit organizations to carry out work related to Bay goals.
The Trump administration had also supported full Bay Program funding in its proposal.
But the House and Senate version of the bill, which funds the EPA and Department of Interior, also supports several initiatives the administration flagged for cuts.
The House version of the bill would provide $17.57 million for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Chesapeake Science and Monitoring Program, the same as this year, which provides water quality monitoring and analysis that is critical for Bay cleanup efforts.
The administration had proposed significant cuts to USGS, especially for its ecosystem-related initiatives. But language attached to the House bill notes the importance of that work, which it said helps Bay partners “make informed management decisions to restore and protect the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed.”
It specifically highlighted the need for USGS “efforts to coordinate an adaptive invasive blue catfish research framework” — highlighting growing concern about the impact the nonnative fish could have on the Bay ecosystem.
The Senate version of the bill did not specify a funding level for USGS’s Bay work but did increase the overall budget for the USGS ecosystem research program, which supports Bay efforts. That would appear to spare the USGS Eastern Ecological Science Center, which employs about 150 scientists and other staff with two laboratories in the Bay watershed.
The bills would also provide $8 million, the same as this year, for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service program called Chesapeake WILD (Watershed Investment for Landscape Defense), which funds fish and wildlife restoration projects in the Bay watershed. The program had been proposed for elimination in the administration’s budget.
They would also provide $3 million to the U.S. National Park Service’s Chesapeake Gateways Program, a network of historic, cultural and natural sites in the Bay region that provide public access and help tell Bay-related stories. That program had also been proposed for elimination in the administration’s budget.
Bay advocates praised bipartisan support from the Chesapeake region’s Congressional delegation for helping maintain funding for those efforts.
“This first step of Congress demonstrating their continued commitment to clean water is an encouraging sign,” said Kristin Reilly, director of the Choose Clean Water Coalition, which represents more than 300 mostly grassroots organizations around the watershed.
“We are grateful for the strong bipartisan support for clean water and look forward to working with all members of Congress to maintain these federal investments.”
While Chesapeake work has maintained support, Keisha Sedlacek, Chesapeake Bay Foundation senior policy director, cautioned that the House bill in particular includes measures that would cut or harm other important environmental programs.
“This bill would still slash total EPA funding 23%, roll back bedrock clean air and water protections, and lock in the administration’s destabilizing mass layoffs and senseless reorganization plans,” she said.
In other appropriations measures, the House and Senate are considering different versions of the bill that funds the Department of Commerce, which includes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office is funded out of NOAA’s Habitat Conservation and Restoration program. The Senate version of the bill funds the national program at $57.7 million, up from $56.2 million this year. But the House version of the funding bill slashes that program to $35 million.
NOAA’s Bay Office supports fisheries population assessment, restoration and habitat improvement, including oyster reef restoration, which has been considered one of the Bay’s most significant successes.
With Congress in recess until after Labor Day, lawmakers will have barely three weeks to pass their appropriations bills and then try to work out differences between House and Senate versions. They must do so by Sept. 30 to avoid a federal government shutdown. In the process, the final appropriations bill may differ in key respects from what either chamber passed.
If the House and Senate can’t reach a compromise on the spending bills, Congress would need to pass a continuing resolution that essentially calls for maintaining federal funding at previously approved levels.
“Clearly, the intent of the House and Senate [appropriations] committees are to fund Chesapeake work at the same level as in the past few years,” said Peter Marx, federal affairs contractor for the Choose Clean Water Coalition. But given the differences in the House and Senate spending bills, Marx said it’s possible if not likely that Congress may pass a continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown.
Congress has resorted to continuing resolutions multiple times in recent years, but this year might be different. Such resolutions give the administration more discretion, Marx said, to move money around or not spend to the level lawmakers approved. The Trump administration already has shown that it’s willing to withhold congressionally approved funding. If Congress doesn’t object to what the administration does, he said, “they just do it.”
Even if Congress formally passes a budget by the end of September, there’s uncertainty about whether the White House will abide by it. After getting Congress in July to rescind $8 billion it had previously approved for foreign aid and public broadcasting, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, recently suggested that the administration is may ask Congress to revoke other spending decisions.
Despite such uncertainties, the Bay Foundation’s Sedlacek said that Chesapeake federal initiatives, for now, “are doing much better than what the president’s budget request was.”
Bay Journal Staff writer Timothy B. Wheeler contributed to this report.