• 2026考研英語全程班 6班
• 26考研全科上岸規(guī)劃營(yíng)「擇校▪規(guī)劃▪備考」
• 2026考研專業(yè)課復(fù)習(xí)資料「真題▪筆記▪講義▪題庫」

本文主要為大家提供考研英語一閱讀Text4試題及答案解析。具體內(nèi)容如下：

英語一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.

翻譯：

切薩皮克灣的奇跡不在于它的深度，而在于其自然的復(fù)雜構(gòu)造、淡水和鹽水的相互作用，以及陸地和水的混合。淺水區(qū)為數(shù)百種物種提供了家園，同時(shí)儲(chǔ)存了洪水，過濾了水中的污染物，并保護(hù)了附近的社區(qū)免受潛在的破壞性風(fēng)暴潮的影響。

上個(gè)月末，所有這些都面臨巨大的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，當(dāng)時(shí)美國(guó)最高法院在一個(gè)案件中作出裁決，大大減少了美國(guó)環(huán)境保護(hù)署(EPA)監(jiān)管濕地和水道的權(quán)力。具體來說，5比4的多數(shù)決定，根據(jù)《清潔水法》的授權(quán)，由環(huán)保局保護(hù)的濕地必須具有“與水體連續(xù)的表面連接”。監(jiān)管范圍的縮小對(duì)建設(shè)者、礦業(yè)運(yùn)營(yíng)商和其他經(jīng)常與環(huán)境法規(guī)相悖的商業(yè)利益來說是一場(chǎng)勝利。正如布雷特·卡瓦諾大法官所指出的那樣，這對(duì)美國(guó)各地的水質(zhì)和洪水控制產(chǎn)生了“重大影響”。在馬里蘭州，好 消息是有許多州法律來保護(hù)濕地。但這是一種非常短視的觀點(diǎn)，尤其是當(dāng)涉及到切薩皮克灣時(shí)。

現(xiàn)實(shí)情況是，水和經(jīng)常隨之而來的污染物并不尊重州界。切薩皮克灣的水源來自一個(gè)6.4萬平方公里的流域，該流域延伸到弗吉尼亞州、賓夕法尼亞州、紐約州、西弗吉尼亞州、哥倫比亞特區(qū)和特拉華州。在那些司法管轄區(qū)，是否會(huì)延續(xù)現(xiàn)在在Sackett v. EPA案中被剝奪的保護(hù)措施呢?也許有些會(huì)，但全部都會(huì)嗎?這似乎不太可能。

很容易誤導(dǎo)人們認(rèn)為這樣的法院裁決只是為了維護(hù)土地所有者的權(quán)利，而對(duì)他們的鄰居來說后果可能是致命的。這提醒人們，環(huán)保局參與切薩皮克灣項(xiàng)目長(zhǎng)期以來至關(guān)重要，這是超越鄰近州財(cái)力雄厚的特殊利益集團(tuán)影響的一種手段。例如，賓夕法尼亞州的農(nóng)民在決定是否將動(dòng)物糞便撒在田地上時(shí)，并沒有考慮到明年馬里蘭州的藍(lán)蟹捕撈，然而流入附近小溪的徑流卻會(huì)對(duì)下游產(chǎn)生巨大的影響。

因此，我們呼吁從里士滿到奧爾巴尼的州議員們考慮審查他們自己的濕地保護(hù)措施，并親眼看看所涉及的巨大風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。我們可以帶他們參觀多切斯特縣的黑水國(guó)家野生動(dòng)物保護(hù)區(qū)，那里禿鷹飛過潮汐沼澤，沼澤淺得無法劃船穿越，但水生生物卻非常豐富。這趟風(fēng)景優(yōu)美的車程是值得的。

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?

[A] Worried

[B] Puzzled

[C] Relieved

[D] Encouraged

39 What can be inferred about the EPA's involvement in the Chesapeake Bay Program?

[A] It has restored the balance among neighboring jurisdictions.

[B] It has triggered a radical reform in commercial fisheries.

[C] It has set a fine example for state authorities.

[D] It has ensured the coordination of protection efforts.

40 The author holds that state lawmakers should

[A] be cautious about the influence of landowners

[B] attach due importance to wetlands protection

[C] recognize the need for wildlife refuges

[D] improve the wellbeing of endangered species

36-40題答案：ABADB