Maryland and other plaintiffs have reached a proposed settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in their 2020 lawsuits arguing the agency did not adequately enforce the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan in Pennsylvania.
The suits argued that the EPA was failing to hold Pennsylvania accountable for its lackluster plans to reduce harmful nutrient and sediment pollution it sends downstream into the nation’s largest estuary.
Under the settlement agreement, the EPA committed to “take a number of steps regarding EPA oversight and funding of Pennsylvania’s efforts” to reduce bay pollution, according to a document posted in the federal register Thursday morning.
The federal agency also agreed to evaluate by the end of 2026 how each Bay state fared in meeting its Chesapeake Bay pollution limits, which have a 2025 deadline.
The settlement, which is scheduled to be released in full Friday, will undergo a 30-day public comment period.
Maryland filed suit against the EPA with Delaware, Virginia and the District of Columbia. That suit was combined with a similar suit filed by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Anne Arundel County and the Maryland Watermen’s Association.
Pennsylvania has long been maligned by bay advocates and neighboring states for what they consider inadequate commitments to fund pollution reduction. The state has a high density of agricultural operations, which send large amounts of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus into local waterways thanks to animal waste and fertilizer use. The Susquehanna River, which runs through the heart of Pennsylvania, is the bay’s largest tributary, contributing about half its fresh water.
Stemming the flow of these nutrients into the Chesapeake is seen as key to the estuary’s recovery, since they contribute to suffocating algae blooms that are responsible for oxygen depletion, and therefore species and habitat loss.
The current Chesapeake Bay agreement, set in 2010, established state-by-state limits on nutrient and sediment pollution — known as the total maximum daily load (or TMDL) — with a 2025 deadline.
The TMDL for the bay was prompted by a 2010 settlement between the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the EPA, which also laid out consequences for failure, including the withholding of permits for new pollution-creating facilities such as wastewater treatment plants.
The 2020 lawsuits came shortly after environmental groups raised alarm about comments from an EPA official under then-President Donald Trump, who called the Chesapeake Bay agreement an “informational document” that is “not enforceable.”
But the focus of the lawsuit was a pollution reduction plan submitted by Pennsylvania in 2019. The EPA determined that, under the plan, Pennsylvania would not meet its target for nitrogen reduction, though it would reach its target for phosphorous.
In initial responses to the suit, the EPA argued that it couldn’t accept or reject such a watershed implementation plan, but merely serve in an advisory role.
In November, EPA officials announced that Pennsylvania’s revised cleanup plan remained deficient, even after the state committed $154 million of federal American Rescue Plan funding to a cost-sharing program for farmers, aiming to encourage the uptake of sustainable practices such as forested buffers to slow nutrient runoff.
In response, the EPA’s Region 3, which includes the bay states, said it would continue an increased pace of environmental inspections in Pennsylvania, which could come along with fines for pollution. That posture was announced initially in April 2022.
The future of the 2025 agreement as a whole remains uncertain. Last year, officials from the Chesapeake Bay Program admitted the agreement was unlikely to be achieved by 2025. A Chesapeake Bay Program committee has been tasked with reevaluating the timeline.
As of the last tally, the states party to the agreement were collectively less than 50% of the way toward their goal for nitrogen, and about 60% for phosphorus, though the goal for sediment reduction has been reached.
According to a recent EPA evaluation, only Washington, D.C., and West Virginia are on track with their nutrient reduction commitments, which are smaller than those for the states directly upstream from the bay.
Analysis by the Bay Foundation has shown, however, that Pennsylvania is the farthest behind.
Experts have said many states relied on technological upgrades at wastewater treatment plants to make their initial reductions, and have found reductions from other sources, such as farms and urban stormwater runoff, to be more difficult to come by.
The history of bay restoration agreements began in 1983 with the signing of a vague, one-page pact by Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C. Over the years, bay agreements became more specific, setting goals for reductions in harmful contaminants. But the nutrient goals have never been reached. And even if the reductions come, the intention is for them to be maintained, even in the face of demographic growth and development, which worsen runoff concerns.
