Although the requested cuts are not likely to pass, the proposal would return the responsibility of both these efforts back to state-level and local entities. However, without a federal agency tasked with holding states accountable, many goals may not be met. In the Chesapeake Bay, states have proved in the past they were not able to reach cleanup goals by themselves without federal intervention.

More than 150 major rivers and streams flow into America’s largest estuary with a watershed extending from Virginia into southern New York and throughout six Mid-Atlantic states. More than 17 million people live in the 64,000-square-mile bay watershed. All precipitation and runoff from this watershed drains into the Chesapeake Bay and onward to the Atlantic Ocean.





The Chesapeake is an economic powerhouse, serving as a major link in the intercoastal waterway as well as supporting a robust fishing industry famous for its blue crabs and oysters. It’s also a major draw for tourism, attracting boaters, outdoor enthusiasts and sport fishermen.

The bay has recently found itself struggling to coexist with the population centers and agricultural hubs that are within its watershed. Through efforts by the EPA and other organizations, the bay has started to rebound and is the healthiest it’s been in years, according to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

In 2014, the six governors of the watershed states and the mayor of the District of Columbia signed an agreement along with the administrator of the EPA to set goals and track the progress of the bay’s restoration. This agreement holds several states accountable and allows collaboration across state lines.

One part of the agreement is maintaining healthy blue crab populations and restoring oyster populations and habitat. The agreement maintains a population target of 215 million female blue crabs in the bay and has facilitated an annual gathering of the various federal and local jurisdictions. If the population fell near or below the established threshold of 70 million, it would prompt management action from the jurisdictions.





“If we’re just talking about blue crabs among the [local jurisdictions], we’re sort of only talking about what they can do, and what they can do is control harvest,” said Bruce Vogt, a manager of National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association’s Chesapeake Bay Office and coordinator for the Chesapeake Bay program’s sustainable fisheries goal implementation team. “What the partnership in the bay program provides that’s valuable is, we’re able to say we think these other factors – habitat, water quality – are also important.”

But the bay’s health is still not perfect. In 2010, the EPA established total maximum daily loads of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the bay, providing a goal for each of the jurisdictions to work toward to decrease the levels of these pollutants. Without the EPA to hold local governments accountable, water pollutants could go unchecked.





The EPA limits set a goal of implementing strategies by 2025 to decrease nitrogen and phosphorus levels, with acknowledgement that the actual reduction process may take longer. According to data from the United States Geological Survey, although most jurisdiction areas have improved their pollutant levels since 2005 and some have met the goals, the majority of them have not yet reached them.

In addition to nutrient pollution, sediment that is washed into rivers that feed the bay also cause problems. The fine, silty dust covers underwater grasses, harming an important part of the ecosystem. Part of the cleanup plan across the watershed states is to reduce runoff from farms and municipalities by upgrading dated sewer infrastructure.





The Conowingo Dam, on the Susquehanna River in Maryland, is ground zero for the sediment problem in the bay. Over the years, sediment has accumulated behind the dam, filling it to the point where it can hold no more. When major storms bring heavy rain, tons of sediment is washed into the bay. After particularly heavy rains associated with Tropical Storm Lee, in 2011, the sediment plume was visible from space. It’s not uncommon for some parts of the bay to be shut down after storms because of the increased levels of pollution. When this happens, fishing, boating, tourism and recreation all suffer.

Trump’s budget proposal also cuts the EPA’s Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which was launched in 2010 to protect and restore the lakes. The Great Lakes region stretches across eights states and affects more than 30 million people in the United States and Canada. The lakes hold 84 percent of all surface freshwater in North America. Efforts to restore the lakes also represent a diplomatic collaboration via the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the two nations. With the EPA spearheading U.S. activities, the agreement was first introduced in 1972 and was updated most recently in 2012.





The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1987 identified 43 geographic areas of concern: 26 in the U.S., 12 in Canada and five shared between the two countries. These were locations suffering environmental degradation as a result of human activity. In 2012, the updated agreement reaffirmed these areas and the effort to restore them.

Since being identified, four areas in the U.S. and three areas in Canada have been removed from the list, because they have been restored. Two of the recovered U.S. sites received nearly $13 million total funding from the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.

Restoration of White Lake, Mich., an area of concern delisted in 2014, spurred new real estate development, said Richard Hobrla, head of the Great Lakes Coordination Program within the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.

“If [the budget] went through as it’s proposed, it would be fairly catastrophic,” Hobrla said. Although he expects some funding cuts, Hobrla doesn’t think the GLRI will be completely shut down. “There’s just too much support for the EPA and for the program and for the general goals of clean water and clean air.”

Nevertheless, some areas could be heavily affected if funding stopped. Torch Lake, Mich., on the shore of Lake Superior, is one example of a trouble spot that needs more work, according to Hobrla, who speculates that a loss of funding from GLRI would mean it might never get cleaned up. For similar areas of concern that have not significantly improved, Hobrla thinks it’s unlikely there would be state funding to support these initiatives if federal funding were to be drained.

A 2011 study by the University of Michigan found that more than 1.5 million jobs are directly connected to the lakes, generating $62 billion in wages annually. The Rust Belt states that border the Great Lakes rely on them for shipping and transporting manufacturing goods. But the lakes’ impact on the region extends beyond the factories. According to the Brookings Institution, every dollar spent on the GLRI will bring in $2 of long-term economic gains.





Among other things, the EPA fights the spread of invasive species within the lakes. These non-native animals out-compete native species and disrupt the ecological balance of the lakes. Many, like the Asian carp, have voracious appetites and no natural predators in the ecosystem.





The EPA has been fighting a number of invasive species over the years. Some have already infiltrated the lakes. It’s estimated that aquatic invasive species cost the region $100 million a year.

Asian carp were introduced into Arkansas lakes in the 1970s and have been spotted as close as six miles from the lakes in the Chicago River. When startled, the fish—which can grow to be up to 50 pounds—have been known to leap out of the water, high into the air. This behavior can be dangerous, risking the safety of recreational boaters and property.

Another invasive species, the zebra mussel, attach themselves to surfaces and can cause problems when they block intake pipelines. They also attach themselves to docks, buoys and the lake bed. Their sharp shells have led to beach closings to protect swimmers, which hurts local tourism.





The EPA is also responsible for monitoring the water quality of the lakes. When bacteria is high, local areas might close swimming at beaches. A major problem for the lakes is phosphorous pollution and associated algae blooms, which can deplete oxygen. Low oxygen levels can kill fish, putting vital fisheries at risk.

In addition to funding, the EPA provides research that helps local jurisdictions make decisions as well as coordination to hold them accountable. While Trump’s proposed cuts may not pass, a significant reduction in the EPA’s budget may have wide-ranging effects.

Sources: Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, USGS Chesapeake Bay River Input Monitoring stations data, USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database, USDA, Chesapeake Bay Stock Assessment Committee, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Brookings Institution, Office of Management and Budget.