Anna Killeus, executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, told the committee the Bay restoration partnership is marking 40 years of work and must now set the next course as 2025 target dates arrive. “We are marking 40 years of progress, through partnership, guided by the watershed agreement,” Killeus said. She told lawmakers the program will continue implementation while revising goals and the partnership structure.

The committee heard a consistent message from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the three Maryland cabinet secretaries with related portfolios, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation: progress is real but fragile, and the next phase must target nonpoint sources of pollution — especially nitrogen from agriculture and stormwater from development — while protecting investments already made.

Killeus summarized the program-level framing: jurisdictions and partners are reviewing the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement’s outcomes and the structure governing the partnership. The executive council charged staff and technical committees to recommend revisions to the agreement’s time‑bound targets and to simplify governance within the next 12–18 months. She told the committee that 18 outcome targets are on course or complete and 13 are off course or uncertain.

Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary Kurtz said the state is at an “inflection point” and emphasized the role of improved science and the state’s leadership while implementing watershed projects. Kurtz described the state’s recent monitoring and modeling as alignment between what is observed on the ground and model expectations, and he credited targeted programs and the CAESAR scientific evaluation for focusing interventions.

Agriculture and stormwater remained central themes. Secretary Addicks (Department of Agriculture) highlighted agricultural programs and a new voluntary “LEAF” (Leaders in Environmentally Engaged Farming) pilot to incentivize high‑value conservation practices on farms. "We need to think about new practices," Addicks said, describing LEAF as a tiered incentive approach to reward regenerative and climate‑resilient farming practices.

Maryland Department of the Environment Secretary McElwain reported progress on wastewater upgrades and regulatory work. McElwain said the department’s early warning system and increased inspections have reduced nitrogen discharges, noting that statewide permitted improvements and investments in wastewater treatment have produced measurable declines in permitted nutrient loads. She also said stormwater regulations are being updated to reflect climate change and that the state is pursuing more green infrastructure and septic system upgrades.

Speakers cited recent results and specific gaps: Killeus noted the smallest recorded dead zone in 2023 and more than 1,600,000 acres permanently protected since 2011; the panel reported 640 miles of forested buffers installed in 2023. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation emphasized that, while Maryland is on track for phosphorus and sediment, nitrogen reductions lag and the combined effect of development and climate change has eroded net stormwater gains since the 2009 baseline. "The net progress we have seen from 2009 to 2023 is actually 0%" for stormwater‑related nitrogen reductions, CBF Maryland Executive Director Allison Colden told the committee.

Committee members also raised living‑resource questions. Senator Caruso pressed the panel on oyster sanctuaries and cited a local analysis claiming many sanctuaries have underperformed; the Chesapeake Bay Commission and state officials said outcomes vary by site and that sanctuary success depends on a range of factors including shell availability, salinity and disease. Officials said some large, targeted tributary scale sanctuaries have shown strong oyster recovery metrics after major investments.

Federal funding uncertainty was discussed: secretaries said a short‑term hold on federal grants could affect timelines and that Maryland is assessing contingency allocations. Secretary Kurtz said state special funds and internal planning reduce immediate vulnerability, but partners who rely on federal grants may feel impacts if holds continue.

Committee members asked about coordination among state commissions and mapping consistency for permitting. Panelists said the governor’s Watershed Council and state planning agencies are intended to help align updated mapping and data across departments and local governments; they also encouraged the committee to request more detailed status reports on stormwater permitting updates.

The briefing closed with officials asking the committee to preserve and protect existing investments while supporting targeted, science‑driven measures (farm incentives, targeted watershed projects, trees and updated stormwater regulations) to accelerate remaining progress.

Looking ahead, the executive council will review technical recommendations over the coming months and the Chesapeake Bay partnership expects to propose amendments to the watershed agreement and a streamlined governance approach before the end of the year. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the briefing.