On Sept. 16, 2026, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Providing Meaningful Water Quality Improvements Through Collaboration and Oversight of Federal Support,” revoking President Barack Obama’s 2009 Executive Order 13508, “Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration.”

The Obama executive order, signed as the 2010 Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was in development, established a Federal Leadership Committee chaired by EPA and broadly mandated the coordinated participation of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Interior and Transportation in Bay restoration efforts.

The 2010 Chesapeake Bay TMDL, established under Clean Water Act Sections 303(d) and 117(g), remains a binding regulatory instrument setting pollution load allocations for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment across 92 tidal segments. EPA’s statutory backstop authority to enforce the TMDL — including its ability to expand National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit coverage, object to inadequate state permits, condition federal grants and increase enforcement actions — is unaffected by the revocation.

The new executive order repeals the Federal Leadership Committee framework — but notably, not the Bay TMDL itself — with the stated intent of removing “unnecessary administration costs” and redirecting federal resources toward “more direct, on-the-ground projects” in areas of “highest need” for the “most impactful water quality improvements.”

Unlike the Obama executive order, the new order does not mention expanding public access to the Bay, strengthening scientific research, protecting or restoring important Bay habitat, or evaluating the effects of climate change on the Bay. The new executive order uses reported Bay restoration progress already achieved and the desire to reduce the economic burden on residents in the Bay watershed as its justification.

A notable feature of the new executive order is its targeting of stormwater management fees as imposing significant financial burdens on residents and small businesses. (The Obama executive order did not mention stormwater management fees.) These stormwater management fees — which may be broadly interpreted — are characterized in the new order as imposing “hundreds of dollars in annual financial burdens on residents and small businesses” with “little to no measurable benefits” to the Bay.

The new executive order directs EPA to coordinate with the Bay states — Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York and West Virginia — and Washington, D.C., to: (1) assess additional financial burdens placed on residents through the imposition of stormwater management fees; (2) explore initiatives to promote Bay environmental health that do not increase costs on residents; and (3) take measures to encourage the repeal or rescission of stormwater management fees imposed by states or localities. The order further requires that all agencies prioritize strategies grounded in “objective metrics and proven water management practices,” supported by empirical data and scientific analysis, with measurable performance indicators such as reductions in sediment, phosphorus and nitrogen loads (similar aims were expressed in the Obama executive order).

For regulated entities and Bay watershed stakeholders, the practical implications of this shift bear watching. While the TMDL and its state Watershed Implementation Plans remain in effect, the dissolution of the Federal Leadership Committee removes the interagency coordination body that linked federal agencies’ resources, milestones and land management decisions to Bay restoration. The new executive order’s emphasis on reducing financial burdens on residents and businesses, and its directive to encourage repeal of stormwater management fees, may also signal a shift in EPA’s enforcement posture, even as the agency’s legal authority regarding the TMDL remains intact. Notably, the term “stormwater management fees” in the order is broad enough to potentially encompass fees beyond typical stormwater utility charges, including those associated with land development activities.

McGuireWoods

This insight was originally posted on the website of our parent firm – McGuireWoods LLP – here and is also co-authored by the following individuals from McGuireWoods LLP:

• Heather Nixon Stevenson