A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 3.1 of Title 62.1 a section numbered 62.1-44.6:2, relating to Chesapeake Bay Pay for Outcomes Fund established.
HB386 creates the Chesapeake Bay Pay for Outcomes Fund as a permanent, nonreverting special fund in the state treasury. The fund would be used to make outcome-based payments for verified reductions in nutrient and sediment pollution from nonpoint sources in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, with priority for projects that help meet Chesapeake Bay TMDL requirements, local nutrient-impaired stream TMDLs, and projects in high nutrient loss areas.
The bill directs the Department to run a competitive solicitation process for awards, develop technical guidelines for measuring and verifying pollutant reductions, and use a scoring rubric that emphasizes assurance, cost-effectiveness, total load reduction, project readiness, and habitat/resilience benefits. It also allows the Department to contract with experts, academic institutions, nonprofits, and third-party verifiers, and it encourages incorporation of funded reductions into the Chesapeake Bay Program accountability framework.
The bill would add a new section to Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia and create a dedicated funding mechanism for environmental restoration projects tied to measurable water-quality outcomes. It would affect state budgeting and administration by establishing a permanent fund that does not revert to the general fund, authorizing the receipt of appropriations and outside contributions, and directing the Department to oversee project selection, verification, and administration. The measure would primarily affect state environmental agencies, project developers, and third-party technical partners involved in Chesapeake Bay nutrient and sediment reduction efforts.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support/opposition in the materials provided. The bill was introduced and referred to committee but ultimately left in the House Appropriations Committee, suggesting it did not advance through the budget process. Based on the text alone, the bill appears policy-focused and technical, with an emphasis on accountability and measurable environmental results.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the use of state funds for outcome-based payments, the reliability of verification methods, and whether projects funded under the bill would produce truly additional reductions rather than benefits already captured by existing programs. The bill also anticipates debate over how to measure assurance, how to avoid leakage, and whether innovative restoration techniques should qualify even if they are not part of traditional best management practices. Stakeholders most likely to care include environmental agencies, conservation groups, agricultural and watershed interests, and budget writers in Appropriations.