Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Overview and Issues for Congress

June 26, 2026

Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Overview and Issues for Congress

The Chesapeake Bay (Bay) is the largest estuary in the

United States. Congress has described it as a “national

treasure” (P.L. 106-457), and the United States has

designated wetlands within the Bay as “Wetlands of

International Importance.” The Bay is part of the broader

Chesapeake Bay watershed, an over 64,000-square-mile

area that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New

York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the

District of Columbia (Figure 1). The watershed is home to

more than 18 million people and thousands of species of

plants and animals.

Figure 1. Boundaries and Rivers of the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed

aspects of these conditions in the Bay. EPA and nonfederal

entities signed a revised Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Agreement in December 2025—the most recent

commitment to restore and conserve the estuary and

watershed. Congress has examined, and may continue to

examine, Bay restoration efforts, including through

oversight and legislation.

Past Restoration Efforts

Joint state and federal Bay restoration attempts began in the

early 1980s, when the governors of Maryland,

Pennsylvania, and Virginia; the D.C. mayor; the chair of the

state-level Chesapeake Bay Commission; and the EPA

Administrator signed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of

1983 (1983 agreement). Under the 1983 agreement, the

signatories agreed to “improve and protect the water quality

and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine

systems.” In 1987, Congress codified the Chesapeake Bay

Program (CBP) through amendments to the Clean Water

Act (CWA) and directed EPA to “improve the water quality

of the Bay,” among other functions (33 U.S.C. §1267).

Congress has since amended the statute and directed the

EPA Administrator to develop and implement restoration

management plans with partners and offer financial and

technical restoration assistance.

Since 1983, the original signatories and governors from

Delaware, New York, and West Virginia have partnered on

new agreements and revisions, including in 1987, 2000, and

2014. The 2014 agreement contained 10 goals and 31

outcomes to be implemented by 2025. Some of the

outcomes established under EPA’s 2010 Chesapeake Bay

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) were incorporated

into the 2014 agreement’s water quality goal.

Most Recent Agreement

Source: CRS adapted from National Geographic Education,

“Chesapeake Bay Map Gallery.”

Over time, the Bay’s ecological conditions have

deteriorated due to land-use changes, increased sediment

loads and nutrient pollution, the use and spread of chemical

contaminants and fertilizer, overfishing and overharvesting

of aquatic species, and the introduction of invasive species.

These changes have resulted in reductions to economically

important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of

habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual

dead zones, as nutrient-driven algal blooms die and

decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation,

and real estate values.

Governors of Chesapeake Bay watershed states, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other

partners have developed multiple agreements to address

In December 2025, federal and state partners signed the

most recent Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2025

agreement). The signatories released a draft agreement in

July 2025. Many commenters, including some Members of

Congress, scientists, environmental groups, the public, and

others argued that the proposed plan needed to be

strengthened. The final agreement addresses some of the

concerns regarding timelines and state pollution reductions

raised by commenters.

The 2025 agreement identifies four “interconnected”

goals—“thriving habitat, fisheries, and wildlife,” “healthy

landscapes,” “clean water,” and “engaged communities”—

and 21 corresponding outcomes. CBP is responsible for

updating or developing management strategies to achieve

the outcomes, as well as monitoring, assessing, and

reporting progress and coordinating action among partners.

The strategies are to be re-evaluated every six years, with

goals and outcomes realized by 2040 or earlier.

https://crsreports.congress.gov

Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Overview and Issues for Congress

Congressional Considerations

Progress Toward Restoration

Congress continues to be interested in whether and how

quickly progress is being made in restoring the Bay. Several

entities, including CBP and nongovernmental

organizations, periodically evaluate the Bay and its

watershed, with differing priorities, methods, and results.

For example, both CBP and the University of Maryland

Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) annually

assess the Bay’s ecological, societal, and economic

conditions. According to a CBP 2024-2025 annual report,

progress under the 2014 agreement was made in some areas

(e.g., oyster habitat and public access) but was lacking in

others (e.g., forest buffer plantings and wetland

conservation). UMCES rated the Bay and broader

watershed as moderately healthy in 2024 (with grades of C

and C+, respectively). The Bay and watershed health grades

have remained relatively consistent over the reporting time

frames. EPA also uses an accountability framework that

includes evaluation of two-year milestones to measure

progress in attaining the Bay TMDL’s water quality goals.

These evaluations are scheduled to continue under the 2025

agreement through 2040.

Entities evaluating progress recognize positive outcomes of

Bay restoration efforts but acknowledge several factors that

pose challenges to meeting Bay-related goals, including

land use changes, population growth, changes in climate,

and the voluntary nature of actions used to address nonpoint

source (i.e., diffuse) pollution. Nonpoint source pollution

(e.g., agricultural and other runoff) is generally unregulated.

Potential congressional actions could include directing

federal agencies to focus on specific types of improvement

within certain time frames or continuing to allow federal

and nonfederal partners the discretion to do so (e.g., H.R.

3898). Congress may also consider incentivizing certain

efforts. For instance, H.R. 2091 and S. 971 would

incentivize and support efforts to reduce agricultural runoff.

Some stakeholders have argued for an alternative

mechanism: the creation of an interstate compact among

Bay agreement signatories. Such a compact would need

congressional approval and would make certain activities

obligatory and transfer decisionmaking power to the

Chesapeake Bay Commission, for example. Others may

argue that additional legislation is not needed, and

restoration efforts could be improved with better

implementation of existing authorities.

Federal Government Role in Restoration

Congress may scrutinize whether the federal government’s

Bay restoration efforts are sufficiently coordinated and

resourced. In contrast to restoration efforts in other large

waterbodies, such as the Great Lakes, Congress has not

directed federal agencies to establish an overarching action

plan or provided a unified funding stream. Most other

geographic programs authorized in the CWA require

development of an overarching action or management plan

or identify which existing plan the program will follow.

Congress may consider whether authorizing a single plan

and/or establishing a dedicated funding stream would

benefit Bay restoration efforts or may choose to maintain

the status quo on this issue.

Congress may also examine whether federal restoration

efforts are effectively coordinated and integrated with state

activities. Apart from requirements under the CWA, federal

and state roles in Bay restoration are not defined by law. In

the Bay, coordination between state and federal agencies is

largely achieved through the voluntary 2025 agreement and

CBP, where decisions are determined by consensus.

Congress may consider whether to direct federal agencies

and nonfederal partners to work together in certain ways.

For example, H.R. 7788 and S. 3986 would authorize the

CBP Office to serve as an advisory member of certain state

watershed programs. Congress could also consider

approving an interstate compact that would dictate specific

roles, as described previously.

Funding and Total Cost of Restoration

Congress has appropriated funds in recent years and may

consider if, and how much, to appropriate to various federal

agency restoration activities in the future. The Chesapeake

Bay Accountability and Recovery Act (CBARA; P.L. 113273) requires the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) to compile Bay restoration funding information

from seven federal departments in an annual crosscut

report. According to OMB, federal agencies estimated

$591.1 million in funding for Bay restoration activities in

FY2024. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had the

greatest share at $266.0 million. Using the crosscut reports,

CRS estimates that Congress has provided over $5.7 billion

in total funding levels for federal Bay restoration activities

between FY2014 and FY2024.

Stakeholders have varied opinions on whether and how

much federal funding should go toward Bay restoration.

Some would like to reduce or eliminate federal funding for

some Bay restoration activities. For example, the Trump

Administration proposed to reduce or eliminate funding for

the Chesapeake Bay Geographic Program in each of

FY2018-FY2021, and FY2027. Others, such as the

Chesapeake Bay Commission and environmental groups,

have argued to maintain or increase funding for activities to

potentially accelerate restoration progress. Modifications to

the amount appropriated toward restoration efforts may

dictate the types of activities funded and the speed at which

restoration goals are met.

Determining the appropriate level of funding may depend

on how restoration is defined and how much it is expected

to cost in total. While groups have previously attempted to

estimate the total potential cost of restoring and maintaining

the Bay, those estimates have not been comprehensive and

may now be outdated. For example, a 2014 report estimated

it would take $5 billion per year to implement the TMDL

by 2025, not considering other restoration needs. Congress

may consider directing CBP or another entity to develop an

up-to-date total cost estimate, including the types of

restoration activities, expected results, timeline for

achievement, and/or the anticipated federal share.

Eva Lipiec, Specialist in Natural Resource Policy

Laura Gatz, Specialist in Environmental Policy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

IF13258

Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Overview and Issues for Congress

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to

congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.

Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has

been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the

United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be

reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include

copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you

wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF13258 · VERSION 1 · NEW