2024年考研英语一试题及答案：英语一Text 4（36-40题）

2024年全国硕士研究生招生考试初试英语一Text 4试题及答案内容如下：

Text 4：

The miracle of the Chesapeake Bay lies not in its depths, but in the complexity of its natural construction, the interaction of fresh and saline waters, and the mix of land and water. The shallows provide homes for hundreds of species while storing floodwaters, filtering pollutants from the water, and protecting nearby communities from potentially destructive storm surges. All this was put at great risk late last month, when the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in a case that provides the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) far less authority to regulate wetlands and waterways. Specifically, a 5-4 majority decided that wetlands protected by the EPA under its Clean Water Act authority must have a "continuous surface connection to bodies of water." This narrowing of the regulatory scope was a victory for builders, mining operators, and other commercial interests often at odds with environmental rules. And it carries "significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States," as Justice Brett Kavanaugh observed. In Maryland, the good news is that there are many state laws in place to provide wetlands protections. But that's a very shortsighted view, particularly when it comes to the Chesapeake Bay. The reality is that water, and the pollutants that so often come with it, don't respect state boundaries. The Chesapeake Bay draws from a 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends into Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, the District of Columbia, and Delaware. Will those jurisdictions extend the same protections now denied under Sackett v. EPA? Perhaps some, but all? That seems unlikely. It is too easy, and misleading, to see such court rulings as merely standing up for the rights of land owners when the consequences can be so dire for their neighbors. And it's a reminder that the EPA's involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Program has long been crucial as the means to transcend the influence of deep-pocketed special interests in neighboring states. Pennsylvania farmers, to use one telling example, aren't thinking about next year's blue crab harvest in Maryland when they decide whether to spread animal waste on their fields, yet the runoff into nearby creeks can have enormous impacts downstream.

And so we would call on state lawmakers from Richmond to Albany to consider reviewing their own wetlands protections and see for themselves the enormous stakes involved. We can offer them a visit to Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge in Dorchester County, where bald eagles fly over tidal marshes so shallow you could not paddle a boat across them, but teeming with aquatic life. It's worth the scenic drive.

翻译：

切萨皮克湾的奇迹不在于它的深度，而在于其自然的复杂构造、淡水和盐水的相互作用，以及陆地和水的混合。浅水区为数百种物种提供了家园，同时储存了洪水，过滤了水中的污染物，并保护了附近的社区免受潜在的破坏性风暴潮的影响。

上个月末，所有这些都面临巨大的风险，当时美国最高法院在一个案件中作出裁决，大大减少了美国环境保护署（EPA）监管湿地和水道的权力。具体来说，5比4的多数决定，根据《清洁水法》的授权，由环保局保护的湿地必须具有“与水体连续的表面连接”。监管范围的缩小对建设者、矿业运营商和其他经常与环境法规相悖的商业利益来说是一场胜利。正如布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官所指出的那样，这对美国各地的水质和洪水控制产生了“重大影响”。在马里兰州，好消息是有许多州法律来保护湿地。但这是一种非常短视的观点，尤其是当涉及到切萨皮克湾时。

现实情况是，水和经常随之而来的污染物并不尊重州界。切萨皮克湾的水源来自一个6.4万平方公里的流域，该流域延伸到弗吉尼亚州、宾夕法尼亚州、纽约州、西弗吉尼亚州、哥伦比亚特区和特拉华州。在那些司法管辖区，是否会延续现在在Sackett v. EPA案中被剥夺的保护措施呢？也许有些会，但全部都会吗？这似乎不太可能。

很容易误导人们认为这样的法院裁决只是为了维护土地所有者的权利，而对他们的邻居来说后果可能是致命的。这提醒人们，环保局参与切萨皮克湾项目长期以来至关重要，这是超越邻近州财力雄厚的特殊利益集团影响的一种手段。例如，宾夕法尼亚州的农民在决定是否将动物粪便撒在田地上时，并没有考虑到明年马里兰州的蓝蟹捕捞，然而流入附近小溪的径流却会对下游产生巨大的影响。

因此，我们呼吁从里士满到奥尔巴尼的州议员们考虑审查他们自己的湿地保护措施，并亲眼看看所涉及的巨大风险。我们可以带他们参观多切斯特县的黑水国家野生动物保护区，那里秃鹰飞过潮汐沼泽，沼泽浅得无法划船穿越，但水生生物却非常丰富。这趟风景优美的车程是值得的。

36 The Chesapeake Bay is described in paragraph I as

[A] a valuable natural environment

[B] a controversial conservation area

[C] a place with commercial potential

[D] a headache for nearby communities.

37 The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the Idaho case

[A] reinforces water pollution control

[B] weakens the EPA's regulatory power

[C] will end conflicts among local residents

[D] may face opposition from mining operators

38 How does the author feel about the future of the Chesapeake Bay?