[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012
BUDGET AND PRIORITIES OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
IMPACTS ON JOBS, LIBERTY, AND THE ECONOMY

=======================================================================

(112-12)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 2, 2011

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-482 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
TOM REED, New York MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio LAURA RICHARDSON, California
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma

(ii)

Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman

DON YOUNG, Alaska TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
GARY G. MILLER, California ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois Columbia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DUNCAN HUNTER, California BOB FILNER, California
TOM REED, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington, JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chair STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LAURA RICHARDSON, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JEFF DENHAM, California (Ex Officio)
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)

(iii)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi

TESTIMONY

Stanislaus, Mathy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, United States Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 16
Stoner, Nancy, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
United States Environmental Protection Agency.................. 16

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee.................................. 47

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Stanislaus, Mathy................................................ 48
Stoner, Nancy.................................................... 56

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, request to include chart entitled, ``H.R. 1:
State-by-State Cuts to Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Investments''.................................................. 5

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.006

REVIEW OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2012
BUDGET AND PRIORITIES OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
IMPACTS ON JOBS, LIBERTY,
AND THE ECONOMY

----------

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. The committee will come to order. This is the
subcommittee hearing of Water Resources and Environment of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Today we are
having a hearing, ``Review of the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget and
Priorities of the Environmental Protection Agency: Impacts on
Jobs, Liberty, and the Economy.''
And before we get started, I would like to just take a
minute or two and let the Members kind of introduce themselves.
And I guess we can start down there with the Representative
from Oklahoma.
Mr. Lankford. I'll do that. James Lankford, representative
from the central Oklahoma, Oklahoma five, it's Oklahoma City.
Mr. Landry. Jeff Landry, Louisiana three, that's the
coastal area of Louisiana. A lot of water.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington
State's Third Congressional District. We have the Columbia
River, and a lot of water, as well.
Dr. Harris. Andy Harris, Maryland's First District, the
Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Miller of California. Well, this is a first, Chairman.
Gary Miller from California's 42nd District.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Let me introduce our ranking member,
Representative Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Tim Bishop, New York one, eastern Long Island,
also lots of water.
Mr. Rahall. Representative Nick Rahall from West Virginia,
ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. Carnahan. Representative Russ Carnahan from the St.
Louis area, along the Mississippi River.
Ms. Hirono. Mazie Hirono from Hawaii, and we are totally
surrounded by water.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbs. Again, I would like to welcome everybody and our
two guests from the EPA. But first, I will start off with an
opening statement.
I have a number of concerns about the Environmental
Protection Agency's ongoing activities and plans in fiscal year
2012. These are issues I want the subcommittee to explore
during this Congress, and hold hearings on some of them, when I
think it would be helpful to Members.
First and foremost, I am concerned about the proliferation
of so-called guidance coming out of EPA, in an attempt to
short-circuit the process for changing Agency policy without
following a proper transparent rulemaking process. Much of this
so-called guidance amounts to being de facto rules instead of
advisory guidelines.
In addition, I note the exponential increase in regulations
coming out of the EPA in recent months, or planned for the near
future, related to the subcommittee's jurisdiction. Many of
these regulatory efforts are based on questionable science, at
best, and stand to substantially increase the regulatory burden
for States, local governments, and businesses, especially small
businesses. EPA is making a mockery of the administration's
regulatory review initiative to reduce regulatory burdens in
our country.
These guidance and rulemaking efforts of concern include,
but are not limited to: guidance to expand the scope of
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act; guidance on permitting of
sole surface coal mining; EPA's recent veto of an existing
permit for an ongoing mining operation; expanded regulation of
storm water, including post-construction site run-off; new
development and redevelopment and existing development through
retrofitting; numerical water quality standards for the State
of Florida; numerical water quality standards for the entire
Mississippi River basin, including water intake structures.
I am concerned that more regulations means more unfunded
mandates to burden our cities and towns at a time when they
need relief from these types of injustices.
I am concerned that the EPA seems to have a fondness for
guidance, as opposed to regulations, and thus, have found a
backdoor way to get de facto rules in place without the
transparency that is built into the formal rulemaking process
of the Administrative Procedure Act.
I am concerned that the EPA has usurped State authority by
effectively taking over the implementation plans for the
Chesapeake Bay States, and has expressed its intention to do
the same elsewhere.
I am concerned that the requirement for numerical standards
for the State of Florida is just the beginning, and other
States will soon have costly, job-killing requirements placed
on them, as well.
I am concerned that while the President is imposing more
regulatory burdens on communities, businesses, and citizens,
he, at the same time, is calling for the reduction in spending
in many for many other programs that assist communities in
their efforts to come to compliance with regulations. While the
President is willing to increase enforcement spending, he is
cutting spending for compliance assistance efforts. So, what I
have here is a Federal Agency that will add to the burden of
rules and regulations, reduced programs to help folks come into
compliance, but would also put more boots on the ground to
track down those who cannot come into compliance with little or
no benefit to the environment.
This is a government at its worst, an Agency cutting
facilitators but increasing regulators. I want clean water as
much as anyone, but I recognize that we have to have a strong
economy so we can afford to invest in new programs that new
regulations require. Today is not the day to put more burdens
on the American people. We need to make significant progress in
creating long-term jobs and a stronger economy before we can
tolerate more expensive regulations.
At this time, I will turn it over to Ranking Member
Representative Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing on the President's fiscal year
2012 budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Today marks the first of two planned hearings to review the
budgets and priorities of the agencies under the jurisdiction
of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment.
These hearings provide a valuable opportunity for our new and
returning Members to learn the breadth of this subcommittee's
jurisdiction over several executive branch departments and
agencies. And I look forward to working with the chairman to
hear firsthand from the other agencies within our jurisdiction
during these planned hearings.
Mr. Chairman, all of us recognize the gravity of the
financial situation facing this Nation and, indeed, the world
today. This Nation is just starting to emerge from the worst
economic recession since the Great Depression. However, with
the national unemployment rate still standing at 9 percent, and
the unemployment rate for the construction sector at 22.5
percent, we are far from completing our work.
Thanks, in part, to the foresight of this administration
and the courageous actions of the previous Congress, our Nation
was able to lessen the potential impact of the last recession
on hardworking Americans, and pull our economy back from the
brink. Conservative estimates confirm that, but for the
infusion of additional infrastructure investment advocated by
this committee for inclusion in the Recovery Act, job losses in
the construction sector would have been far worse.
As this committee has shown time and time again, investment
in our Nation's infrastructure does have a significant impact,
and positive impact on the economy, and it does create jobs.
This is why I am so concerned that the new Republic Majority
has taken aggressive steps to cut funding from many Federal
programs with a proven record of providing economic benefits to
the Nation, and for creating jobs.
Unfortunately, Republicans have responded to this Nation's
economic situation with an axe, when a scalpel would seem more
appropriate. Just 2 weeks ago, the Majority pushed through a
stop-gap spending bill that decimated several critical
infrastructure investment programs, and threatens increased job
loss and economic uncertainty at an extremely delicate time on
the Nation's economy.
Today's budget hearing title references impacts to jobs and
the economy. According to two separate reports from Wall Street
analysts, the Republican Majority's proposal to cut $61 billion
from the current fiscal year budget would decimate broader
efforts at job creation throughout the Nation, and would be
taking an unnecessary chance with the ongoing economic
recovery.
Specifically, these reports highlight how, if enacted as
passed by the House, the Republican proposal would result in
400,000 fewer jobs created by the end of fiscal year 2011,
700,000 fewer jobs by the end of 2012. In addition, news
analysis of the report suggests that the proposal would reduce
the growth in the gross domestic product by up to 2 percent
points this year, essentially cutting in half the Nation's
projected economic growth for 2011.
Christine Todd Whitman, a Republican EPA administrator
under President George W. Bush, estimated that the needs of our
Nation's aging water infrastructure topped $660 billion. Yet,
with the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, within
that budget, the most notable reduction is the $1.4 billion
proposed cut to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the
primary source of Federal investment for our Nation's
wastewater infrastructure. Unfortunately, this proposal marks a
clear reversal of recent bipartisan efforts to increase
investment in our Nation's failing and outdated wastewater
infrastructure, and on efforts to improve our Nation's water
quality.
In terms of job losses, this cut alone would eliminate over
39,000 direct construction jobs throughout the country, and
countless additional jobs in the industries and small business
that support the wastewater construction industry at a time
when many small businesses and the construction sector are
struggling to recover. Furthermore, this cut undermines
longstanding Federal efforts to address our Nation's aging
infrastructure system.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the
record a chart showing the direct State-by-State losses under
the Republican Majority's proposal to cut the Clean Water State
Revolving Fund.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
[The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5482.007

Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I would like to highlight just a few
additional programs where the cuts voted on by the Majority
will have significant adverse impacts on the economy, could
result in additional job losses throughout the Nation, and
place at risk the health of a greater number of families.
First, the Republican Majority has proposed to cut EPA
Brownfield site assessment and clean-up grants by 30 percent.
This popular bipartisan program provides valuable seed money to
cities and towns throughout the country to restore abandoned or
under-utilized properties, to promote economic development, and
to return commercial properties to local tax rolls. Estimates
suggest that the Republican proposal will result in 300 fewer
properties being assessed during the current fiscal year, 20
fewer sites being cleaned up, and a potential loss of over
1,500 additional jobs, and approximately $300 million in
leveraged redevelopment funds.
The Majority has also proposed to cut EPA's Superfund
budget by $32 million. This program, which was created by this
committee to clean up the Nation's most toxic waste dumps, is
critical for protecting public health and the environment, and
for exposure to hazardous substances. While the exact number is
not yet know, EPA expects that the Republican proposal to
reduce funding for this program will result in fewer clean-ups
being undertaken, will increase the risk that our communities
and families remain exposed to toxic chemicals and substances,
and could lead to the layoff of countless clean-up workers.
Finally, the Majority has voted to pull back on EPA's
compliance and enforcement capabilities, making it far more
difficult for the Agency to identify and pursue serious
violations impacting public health and the environment in
communities across the Nation. According to estimates, the
Republicans' continuing resolution could result in the loss of
as many as 100 compliance and enforcement personnel, 1,000
fewer inspections across all media--that is to say air, water,
waste, and toxins--and the loss of millions of dollars to the
U.S. Treasury from foregone fines, penalties, and settlements
from the most egregious violations.
In my view, this proposal stands in stark contrast to the
Agency's effort to increase compliance in critical areas within
a limited budget, and suggests that a weakened compliance and
enforcement presence is somehow better for the Nation. These
are just a few examples of the potential negative impact of the
Republican continuing resolution on our Nation's economy and on
jobs.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I recognize the
challenging economic times facing this Nation. In my view, this
administration has taken a pragmatic approach to respond to our
economic situation at the same time as prioritizing the
programs and policies that preserve its core mission of
protecting public health and the environment while reducing air
and water pollution.
However, in contrast the administration's efforts stand
with respect to the Draconian cuts proposed by the Republican
Party in the continuing resolution. In my view, as well as a
great many respected non-aligned economics, the cuts proposed
by the new Majority will result in immediate and significant
job losses, will significant weaken national efforts to emerge
from the last recession stronger than before, and will shift
the balance from protection of public health to protection of
the polluters.
In short, these cuts take the Nation in the wrong direction
at the wrong time. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. I thank you, Representative. Any other
representatives like to be recognized?
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you,
Chairman Gibbs, and Ranking Member Bishop, for holding these
hearings, and allowing me to participate today. And I join in
welcoming our acting assistant administrator, Nancy Stoner, and
assistant administrator Mathy Stanislaus.
This hearing is timely, without a doubt. Given recent
action by the House of Representatives during consideration of
the fiscal year 2011 CR, the Agency faces the prospect of some
challenging times ahead, to make an understatement. I often
feel that the Majority's backdoor way to defund EPA is to
require so many appearances of the administrator and her staff
on Capitol Hill these days, that all the budget will go to gas
money at today's increased gas prices.
Those of us who live in southern West Virginia believe that
we can have a balance between energy development and
environmental preservation, and we have been doing such for
decades. But balance cannot be achieved without fairness and
equity. And the policies of the EPA at times have been anything
but fair and equitable when it comes to coal mining in
Appalachia.
When the EPA issued its detailed guidance concerning Clean
Water Act permitting in April of this year--in April of 2010,
last year--it did so singling out coal mining, and coal mining
only in Appalachia. Though the Agency labeled it interim
guidance, the regime it spelled out was made effective
immediately. And now the EPA is scheduled to finalize the
guidance on April 1st, less than a month from today.
A government cannot have one set of rules for one industry
in one region of the country, and a separate set of rules for
everyone else, and claim to be fair and just. What is more, the
EPA is treating this so-called guidance as if it were binding
policy. It is limiting State-issued discharge permits based on
non-compliance with this guidance, bypassed an existing law,
and longstanding regulation, and it is substituting a wholly
new, barely studied, entirely confusing criteria for
determining water quality, along with new timeframes for review
and approval of petitions.
Further, the regime that is set forth in that guidance memo
has thrown the permitting process throughout the region into
utter turmoil, with rules being determined on a case-by-case
basis. The EPA erred in the way it pursued changes in its
surface coal-mining permit processes. Now, some changes were
warranted, grant you. Certainly, the status quo was not
working.
I do not know of anyone who opposes clean air and safe
water, or who wants our children's health put at risk due to a
degraded environment. And I worry that deep funding cuts will
weaken our economy and stifle job creation that we so sorely
need. But the message that I hope our witnesses take back with
them today is that, in striving to achieve worthy valued goals,
the EPA must work with the Congress and with the people who
elected us. Or it will, as the framers intended, find its power
checked.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you again for having these
hearings, and I do ask unanimous consent that I may submit
written questions for the record, and ask that they be
responded to.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
At this time I want to call on the vice chair,
Representative Herrera Beutler, for opening comments.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a
pleasure to have you here today. I know that this is going to
be, hopefully, a very productive time of discussing priorities,
and priorities as they relate to jobs and job growth. In my
region in southwest Washington State we have double-digit
unemployment in every county, save the county that has the
State capital in it. And we have been languishing there for
several years now.
We have a tremendous resource with our rain. I know people
complain about Washington State and the west side of the State
and the rain and the gray. But, actually, if you grew up there,
you kind of love it.
We have the fourth largest river system that abuts my
district, and we have tremendous resources when it comes to
lakes and streams throughout the region. And because of this,
one of our biggest challenges has been not just how those
streams are taken care of, but really, the government's
willingness to help us do a good job in taking care of those
things.
I hear from small employers all over my district, that they
can't--they physically cannot hire the people to comply with
some of these regulations.
Let me tell you. Two years ago our department of ecology
cited the Clean Water Act requirement that we not be allowed to
wash our cars in our driveways, because of the run-off. I mean
we're to the point where we're beside ourselves with some of
these regulations.
And so, it was disheartening--and I know there is a lot of
talk about the CR that passed a week ago that's obviously not
passing in the Senate, is not--you know, that whole bill is not
likely to become law. So we are really dealing--we are not
dealing with some of the Draconian job cuts that were
discussed. But what we're really dealing with is an
administration and a Congress that seem to be going in two
different directions.
Last year alone your Agency promulgated over 900 new rules
that small businesses in my district are struggling with. It's
not just the small businesses, it's the counties and the
cities. They are coming under intense challenges and
regulations to upgrade systems. And we're talking about small
cities with very, very small rate-based--rate payers in the
region, and they are having to come up with multimillion-dollar
upgrades. All of this, in light of the President's budget,
which reduces help with compliance, and increases the number of
boots on the ground, when it comes to enforcement.
Now, in my mind, if our common-shared goal is to keep our
waterways clean for the next generation, we should be wanting
and jumping at helping people comply. In my limited lifetime
experience, I have learned that honey goes further than a
stick. The willingness to work with people who have a shared
goal versus just drop a hammer on them is the way we reach that
goal. And it really seems like--and I'm expressing some
frustration that it seems like your Agency has been unwilling
to work with us on some of these issues.
So, I am looking forward to working with you. You will
likely receive a tremendous amount of correspondence from my
office. I had my PUD in from my largest county yesterday, gave
me this EPA rulemaking timeline, and I will make a request for
unanimous consent to have it put into the record. These colored
boxes--I had to deliver to them the news that they are losing
ability, or help, with implementing these requirements from
your Agency. At this time, in my mind, that is unacceptable.
So, I look forward to finding some solutions with you, as
we move forward. Thank you for being here today.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative?
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member
Bishop, for holding this hearing today on the administration's
fiscal year 2012 budget and priorities for the EPA.
I am pretty sure we all agree there are important steps we
must take to address our deficit. It's critical that we balance
this with making important investments in water infrastructure
and public safety to ensure sustainable economic growth and job
creation.
In my opinion, the President's budget request for the EPA
does just that. It balances the need to make investments in our
water infrastructure with the need to reduce our deficit. We
hear often from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
about the job-killing nature of regulations, but we don't often
hear about the problems with killing our health and our
environment. I think the key is that we have common sense
environmental regulations. That should not be viewed as a
burden, it should be viewed as a responsibility of all of us.
And tough economic times and serious plans to bring down the
debt do not equal a free pass for polluters.
So, I think I would like to see a common sense balanced
approach. We all my have different ideas. We obviously are
dealing with a divided Congress this year. But there is areas
where I think we should focus, look for some common ground.
I was pleased to hear the President, in his State of the
Union, talk about the need for additional investments in
infrastructure. All of us on this committee, I think, can agree
with that. And the very next day we had the head of the U.S.
Chamber and the head of the U.S. AFL-CIO come out and make a
joint statement, also talking about the need for that, the
importance for business creation to grow this economy and to
grow jobs.
So, I would like to look at some of those common ground
issues. Specifically in the President's budget it proposes
$1.55 billion in Federal capitalization grants for the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund. In my home of St. Louis, the
metropolitan sewer district has used that Clean Water Revolving
Fund to address a serious problem of combined sewer overflows.
We still have a lot of work to do there.
While this is a decrease of funding over the fiscal year of
2010, it's far better than the 67 percent decrease included in
the Republican CR. The quality of our streams, in fact, the
mighty Mississippi, the health of our citizens depend on these
programs and us really administering them in a smart way.
So, I look forward to working with you, and working with my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to continue to make
progress in a common sense way. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Landry, do you have an
opening statement?
Mr. Landry. I sure do, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
thank you, and I ask unanimous consent to revise and supplement
these comments.
I want to thank Chairman Gibbs for calling this hearing,
and our witnesses for giving their time to testify.
I want to start off by telling the committee I am an avid
hunter and fisherman. In fact, one of my favorite places on
earth is hunting at my camp. I hold a bachelor's degree in
environmental science and renewable resources. I own several
businesses that did environmental work. So I feel like I have a
personal understanding of the importance of EPA's
congressionally designated mission to provide us with clean
water, fresh air, and abundant wildlife.
However, I am concerned that, in practice, EPA's mission
bears little resemblance to the congressionally authorized
mission, and instead, is more about impeding commerce than
protecting the environment. While I could use many examples
today, I will specifically address the issue of 404 permits.
Before I do, let me provide two clarifications.
First, I certainly understand that, under the Clean Water
Act, the Army Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal Agency.
However, when I meet with the Corps, they tell me you are to
blame. I'm sure that today you will tell me that they are to
blame. I'm here to tell you you're all both to blame. Everyone
is involved in this 404 permit process.
Secondly, I want the committee to know that I understand
the importance of wetlands protection. In my district, wetlands
provides invariable protection to human lives against hurricane
storm surges. These wetlands are disappearing at an alarming
rate. In just almost the half-an-hour that we've been in this
committee, Louisiana has lost half a football field already,
disappearing into the Gulf of Mexico. If this erosion
continues, 2 million people in Louisiana will become subject to
more frequent floods, and more susceptible to the effects of
hurricanes.
The Clean Water Act was designated to protect these vital
wetlands. As used, though, section 404 has caused huge delays
to projects with minor impacts to minor wetlands. Let me give
you an example.
Recently, a local levee district went to perform a
maintenance dredging on a drainage canal. EPA came out, looked
at the canal, and declared the canal now a wetland, because the
prior owner had not provided proper maintenance. This drainage
canal, the canal that was specifically built and specifically
designed and specifically used as a drainage canal is now, in
your eyes, a federally protected wetland. So, instead of facing
a $200,000 maintenance dredging project, this levee district
faces a $500,000 to $1.1 million dredging and mitigation
project. That does not even include the costs and delays
associated with securing the 404 permit.
I want to remind you that the dollars for this project come
from local taxes, not the Federal Government. Obviously, the
levee district cannot afford this amount. As a result of the
cost increases, the levee district has not only--has been not
only prevented from dredging the canal, but also from
installing a new pump station in Lockport, Louisiana. Because
this pump station has been delayed, a major shipyard, a major
employer in my district, is in danger of flooding.
So, instead of protecting the important coastal protection
wetlands, the EPA is using the act to increase the cost,
decrease the effectiveness, and delay projects which protect my
constituents, create jobs, and further economic activity.
I know I am not the only having this problem. As cited in
``Sitting on our Assets,'' a report from this committee, the
average 404 permit takes 2 years and $271,000 to complete.
Overall, private industry and local governments spend $1.7
billion every year in preparing and securing 404 permits. I
hope today's witnesses will address how EPA hopes to streamline
the 404 permit process in order to protect our important
wetlands without interfering with job creation, economic
development, and community protection projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Ms. Hirono?
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Chairman Gibbs and Ranking Member
Bishop. Today we will hear from the EPA regarding your fiscal
year 2012 budget request for water and wastewater management.
No community can thrive or even survive without clean water
and efficient wastewater management systems. Likewise, we
cannot ensure the health and safety of our population without
adequate enforcement of the rules and regulations necessary to
enforce the laws that we have passed.
We have heard a lot this morning about the need and desire
to work with you. So I was pleased to read in your testimony,
Administrator Stoner, that the EPA, for example, is
implementing a sustainable water infrastructure policy that
focuses on working with States and communities to enhance
technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
There is no doubt that every State will be affected by what
we do here today and in the coming months. So let me focus a
bit on Hawaii. Hawaii is especially sensitive to water issues,
as run-off from the mountains in the center of our islands
often pours down quickly through our communities and into the
ocean. Without adequate wastewater management, we would be
putting our already fragile marine environment in jeopardy.
For example, a temperature change of one degree, or sudden
flow of mud and water from the land, can kill the corral that
helps to attract so many visitors to Hawaii, and also provides
a habitat to our unique marine wildlife.
Of course, in addition to insuring the safety and security
of our natural environment and communities, water
infrastructure projects serve as serious job creators, which is
why I was very concerned over the Draconian cuts to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund in H.R. 1, which cuts Hawaii's
fiscal year 2010 portion of these important funds from
approximately $16 million to only $5 million, and would put
approximately 300 people out of jobs. And I know that our
ranking member is putting into the record a chart of the impact
of these cuts on every other State.
We should be putting programs like the SRF at the top of
our priority list, and effectively funding the key
responsibilities of agencies like yours. If we underfund the
core responsibilities of the EPA, which includes effectively
enforcing our environmental laws, we not only undermine job
creation, but we are also playing chicken with public health
and safety in the future.
Of course, we have a lot of tough decisions ahead of us,
and we are sure to disagree about how best to meet these goals.
For example, I disagree with the President's decision to
terminate the USDA's small watersheds programs which, though it
is not an EPA program, is so vital to ensuring access to clean,
safe water for the rural communities and farmers in Hawaii.
However, these disagreements cannot end in deadlock. We
need to work together to move forward. So I look forward to
hearing your testimony. And I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative from Oklahoma,
Lankford?
Mr. Lankford. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for being here.
I know this is probably the favorite part of your week, when
you get a chance to run up and get a chance to testify. And I
thank you for doing that.
Let me mention a couple of things. I have no question that
Republicans and Democrats are committed to clean water. All of
us like to drink water. All of us like to bathe in it. All of
us like to be around it. So this is not an issue of suddenly
Republicans want dirty water and Democrats want clean water.
This is an issue of how we handle that balanced perspective of
keeping things in a focused relationship between business and
individuals in government regulatory environments.
Let me also say to you region six of the EPA, which
Oklahoma is in, has been extremely helpful. They have been very
responsive. And I would pass on my great compliments to them,
both from local businesses and municipalities, that when they
have asked questions, region six has been very responsive. So
thank you very much for the continued work there on that.
There are obviously key issues in America, and EPA seems to
be the signal point for a lot of those. Jobs are obviously
affected. I was in a separate hearing where there was constant
conversation about the increasing regulatory environment and
the acceleration of regulations. One of my friends from the
other side of the aisle said, ``The more regulations we create,
the more jobs we create, because there is more compliance
officers that are hired.'' The people that were on the panel at
that time were not real pleased with the fact that the way
we're making more jobs in America is by making more compliance
officers in America. They really want to be able to produce
products, produce goods and services.
The more compliance officers that we hire to be able to
fill out paperwork and be able to submit it back to EPA and
other agencies, the slower our economy becomes, because we are
dragging down into it. We are dealing with things like energy
and not permitting in different areas. We are dealing with the
way we're handling hydraulic fracking, and the constant threat
over hydraulic fracking at this point.
Transportation infrastructure is slowing, because they're
trying to figure out how to deal with storm water runoff around
the construction site, and there is this constant acceleration
of what has to be done to maintain storm water runoff around a
construction site.
Cities and municipalities are dealing with unfunded
mandates that are being placed on them dealing with wastewater
and their water coming in for drinking water. It is this
acceleration that is occurring that is causing them to have to
invest dollars they currently don't have. It literally takes
police officers and firefighters off the streets and puts them
into investing into storm water systems and into compliance
people that are filling out paperwork and sending it to
Washington and police officers are not going on the street in
local municipalities because they have limited dollars. And
they have got to be able to make those hard choices. So, the
more we accelerate the requirements on local municipalities,
the fewer services, actually, municipalities are getting on
this.
The issue is we've got to find a balance. And my hope is,
in the days to come in our conversations, that we don't come in
a combative way, we come in a conversation to say, ``This is
what we are hearing from our district, from individuals, from
city leaders, from businesses, to say we are hearing these
things. You may or may not be hearing these things; we are
hearing them screamed at us, saying, `Please get the EPA off of
us, we cannot continue to function this way, and can't continue
hiring people that are not producing goods and services, but
only producing paperwork for the EPA.' ''
So, I appreciate you coming. I appreciate the conversation.
Hopefully it can be a very warm, friendly conversation to
actually come to some solutions. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Harris, do you have an
opening statement?
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
Member Bishop. I would ask unanimous consent to extend and
revise my comments.
I look forward to a spirited hearing today, as it should be
whenever we're talking about something as important as clean
water. As a physician, of course, look, I understand the
importance of clean water. I think everyone does. But, you
know, we do have a discussion ongoing as to the budget
implications. I mean that's what this hearing is about.
And the facts are that, you know, we have had triple-digit
growth in the EPA budget since fiscal year 2008, when we are
approaching double-digit unemployment. Now, I venture to
guess--and I will ask you later about whether or not you had
double-digit employment growth in your Department while the
Nation went the other direction.
And clearly, the discussion about jobs and the CR is not as
clear as some Members on the other side of the aisle would have
it. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
into the record a letter from 50 leading economists, just to
say that H.R. 1 actually will improve the job environment in
the United States, not make it worse.
Now, nature was good to the Eastern Shore of Maryland;
that's the part I represent. You know, it carved out the
Chesapeake Bay, which is beautiful, but it also created some of
the best agricultural land in the eastern shore of this
country.
And when I go back into my district, I talk to farmers and
I talk to poultry growers--we're also one of the leading
poultry regions--and I talk to people who live on the water.
And I tell you. There is great concern over what the EPA is
doing. And not only from those constituencies, because the
natural constituencies, the agriculture, the farmers in
Maryland and the poultry industry in Maryland--this is Maryland
we're talking about--are pretty used to coming under the rather
rigid thumb of the environmental controls in Maryland.
But the surprise was from the small municipalities, some as
small as 40 houses, and the large municipalities in my
district, and the counties in my district, that look at the
heavy hand of the TMDL regulations, as they are currently
proposed, and say they can't afford it. In fact, my
jurisdictions would have property tax increases of 50 percent
in order to afford those regulations.
Now, perhaps people in the Department have a different view
of what the economy looks like, and what it looks like for the
average property owner on the eastern shore of Maryland. But
they can't afford a 50 percent increase in their taxes from an
unfunded mandate coming from a faceless bureaucrat who, I don't
think, understands the real world realities of what's going on
in the First District of Maryland.
So, I will tell you. We're going to talk about a lot of
these things, because we have to. The economy, as I go out and
talk to many of the business owners in my district, and I ask
for an example of regulations, there are two they always give
me. One is the 1099s, which we will deal with on the floor
later today, and eliminate that regulatory boondoggle, and then
the second is the EPA.
I don't know what you have done to gain the ire of so many
hardworking people in my district, but you have. And I think
we're going to have to look very closely and very carefully at
how the administration does its business, and why there is this
uniform feeling in our district that the EPA is holding back
certainly our economic growth with regards to agriculture and
the poultry industry, and this worry among our municipalities
and counties that there is this huge unfunded mandate coming
down on them.
And I will tell you, from the budget situation, they are
not going to get help from the Federal Government. I know the
Maryland budget situation. They're not going to get help from
the Maryland State government. They're going to be left to
raise their property taxes on hard-working Americans and our
seniors, our retired folks who--that's the biggest tax bite
they have in their budget. They're going to get 50 percent
property tax increase because of what TMDLs are going to do.
And that's just in one of our jurisdictions.
So, I look forward to a very spirited discussion on a wide
variety of issues. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Gibbs. And, so ordered, your statement will be entered
into the record.
Representative Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I got
here a few minutes late because of other meetings, and I really
hadn't intended to say anything, but then I heard Ms. Herrera
Beutler's statement, and I thought about how I am hearing the
exact same things from small businesses in my district. And I
heard the statements of some of these other Members. And I can
tell you. This is my 23rd year in the Congress. And in all that
time, I have never heard as many complaints or concerns about
the EPA as I have just within the last few weeks or months.
In fact, just yesterday, I had consulting engineer in my
office who worked for many years for the Knoxville Utilities
Board, and now he is a consulting engineer for--I think he said
Nashville and Chattanooga and Memphis. He said--he's in his
mid-fifties. He said he had never seen so many unnecessary or
excessive regulations coming down on these utility boards as he
had just in the last few months, and he was talking about the
billions in costs that we're talking about.
Yesterday I had the administrator and some other officials
from a very small town in my district just outside of
Knoxville, and they were talking about the same thing, and how
they couldn't afford it. I heard my colleague from Maryland
talk about that. I am hearing the exact same thing.
This morning I met with representatives of the coal ash
industry, and they were talking about the regulations,
potential regulations from the EPA, that could cost billions on
the highway construction process in this Nation. And last week
we saw on the front page of the USA Today that the gas prices--
the top of their front page story says that gas prices were
going to go to $5 a gallon or higher.
Yesterday I had the--I had a meeting with their transport
association, and I had representatives of the eight largest
airlines. And they told me that each one penny increase in jet
fuel costs the aviation industry, as a whole, $200 million a
year.
I think too many people within the EPA don't realize that
some little minor change in regulations can cost this Nation
billions. And it doesn't hurt the big giants. In fact, in any
highly regulated industry, the small guys go out first, and
then the medium-sized businesses are run out, and in these
highly regulated industries, they end up in the hands of a few
big giants. So, when you over-regulate, it helps the big
giants, but it sure hurts the small and medium-sized
businesses. And what it does, it drives up costs for the poor
and the lower income and the working people. That's who is hurt
the worst.
And so, I hope that--I saw where the administrator said,
well, she is hearing the same doomsday things that were spoken
40 years ago. Well, 40 years ago we hadn't sent millions of
jobs to other countries. And 40 years ago we weren't going
through the situation that we're going through today. And we
have just seen some--we've been seeing a start of a recovery.
But if we drive these gas prices back up, and--to even higher
levels, and do some of these other things, we're going to back
in. We're going to have a double-dip. And the EPA will deserve
a lot of credit for that, if we do that. But it's going to hurt
a lot of poor and lower income people in the process. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Representative. At this time I want
to welcome Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the acting assistant
administrator for the office of water in the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
Welcome.

TESTIMONY OF NANCY STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AND MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID
WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

Ms. Stoner. Good morning, Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Nancy Stoner, the acting assistant
administrator for the office of water at the U.S. EPA. Thank
you for the opportunity to speak about the President's fiscal
year 2012 budget request for EPA's national water program.
Mr. Chairman, clean water is not a partisan issue, and--as
several of the Members have recognized today--residents in
urban areas, rural areas, young and old, from red States and
blue States, all demand clean and safe water in their
communities and when they turn on their taps. Protecting public
health and the environment is the core mission of the EPA, and
this includes our work on clean and safe water.
Our programs not only fund water infrastructure in every
part of the country, but also help communities ensure that
their drinking water is safe from a litany of threats. Clean
water is vital to the U.S. economy. A wide range of businesses
depend on clean and adequate water supplies, including
manufacturing, energy generation, tourism, farming,
development, fishing and shellfishing, food processing and
beverage production, and others. The Clean Water Act is
precisely designed to provide--to protect those many uses of
water by American businesses, which employ millions of
Americans and impact virtually all citizens and communities.
While much progress has been made, America's waters remain
imperiled. More than 59,000 water bodies in the U.S. do not
meet water quality standards, which are based on those uses.
The primary sources of impairments are pathogens, nutrients,
sediment, PCBs, and mercury.
Consider these facts about the value of clean water to the
U.S. economy. About 40 million anglers spend $45 billion
annually to fish all kinds of waters. Manufacturing companies
use 9 trillion gallons of fresh water every year. The beverage
industry uses more than 12 billion gallons of water annually to
produce products valued at $58 billion. Farms depend on clean
water for irrigation. Thirty-one percent of all surface fresh
water withdrawals in the U.S. are for irrigation. And, in an
example nearby, the Chesapeake Bay is valued at $1 trillion for
its fishing, tourism, property values, and other water-
dependent business.
The EPA request for the national water program is for $3.98
billion, which is a 25 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010
enacted levels. The requested level still allows EPA to
maintain its fundamental mission of protecting human health and
the environment, but also reflects the tough choices that
Americans are making every day, and which many of you spoke
about this morning.
The funding will allow the Agency to drive technology
innovation for a stronger economy, spur job creation, and
protect the environment cost-effectively. That substantial cut
goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We have made difficult,
even painful, decisions. We have done so, however, in a
thoughtful, careful way that preserves EPA's ability to carry
out its core responsibilities to protect the health and well-
being of American children and adults.
You have been reviewing the fiscal year 2012 budget request
for EPA for more than 2 weeks now, so I will not march through
all of its details in this opening statement. However, the
largest aspect of the water budget at EPA goes directly to
States for water infrastructure. Specifically, the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water Revolving Fund provide
affordable loans to local communities to finance public waste
water systems and other water quality projects that protect
public health and vital water resources.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes
$1.55 billion for the Clean Water SRF, and $990 million for the
Drinking Water SRF, enabling States and tribes to begin over
600 clean water projects, nationally. This represents a
reduction of $947 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
level.
The fiscal year 2012 President's budget also provides $350
million for the Great Lakes restoration initiative, $67.4
million for the Chesapeake Bay program, and $6 million for the
Mississippi River basin. These funds will target the most
significant environmental problems in these critical
ecosystems, including Asian carp prevention, reducing harmful
nutrient pollution, and working with State partners and local
stakeholders.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
the members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to
discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for
EPA's national water program. EPA looks forward to continuing
our work with this subcommittee to foster protection of
America's waterways, and the public's health and well-being.
And I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Our next witness is Mr. Mathy Stanislaus. He
is the assistant administrator to the office of solid waste and
emergency response of the U.S. EPA.
Welcome.
Mr. Stanislaus. Good morning, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking
Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Mathy
Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
discuss EPA's proposed budget for Superfund, Brownfields, and
other programs that fall under the Committee's jurisdiction.
In addition to protecting human health and the environment,
EPA is responsible for ensuring that our land and our
communities are safe, habitable, and prosperous for all
Americans. Protecting human health and the environment is a
non-partisan issue that affects all of us. EPA has employees
throughout the country working closely with State and local
officials to clean up hazardous sites in our communities, many
of which have a long history of pollution.
This budget request allows EPA to carry out its core
mission and fund the most critical efforts to protect the
health of American families, while making tough choices that
Americans across the country are making every day. To clean up
our communities, the President is proposing investments that
clean up contamination and promote economic development and job
creation.
The President's 2012 budget proposes $175 million for the
Brownfields program to support State and tribal clean-up
programs, and to support planning, clean-up, job training and
redevelopment of Brownfield properties, especially in
underserved and disadvantaged communities. EPA's Brownfields
program uses this funding to successfully leverage economic
investment in rural, small town, and urban areas. More than $17
is leveraged for every dollar expended by Brownfields program
funding. And more than 67,000 jobs have been leveraged through
Brownfields program funding. And studies show that residential
properties adjacent to cleaned-up and redeveloped Brownfields
sites have increased in property values.
In fiscal year 2012, Brownfield grantees are expected to
assess more than 1,000 properties, clean up 60 properties,
leverage at least 5,000 clean-up and redevelopment jobs, and
leverage $900 million in clean-up and redevelopment funding.
EPA encourages community revitalization by providing funds to
assess and clean up Brownfields and to support greater
community involvement.
The President's budget also proposes $1.23 billion for
Superfund clean-up efforts across the country, which represents
a reduction from fiscal year 2010 enacted levels, and reflects
the hard budget choices that are being made. We will continue
to respond to emergencies, clean up the Nation's most
contaminated hazardous waste sites, and maximize the
participation of liable and viable responsible parties in
performing and paying for clean-ups. We are committed to
continuing the Superfund program's success in protecting human
health and the environment and providing local communities
opportunities for economic development by cleaning up our
Nation's worst hazardous waste sites.
The Superfund program to date has provided clean drinking
water to more than 2.1 million people living near our National
Priority List Superfund sites. It has reduced child blood
levels at 150 sites where residential yards were contaminated
with lead. It has controlled unacceptable exposure from site
contamination at close to 1,400 sites, more than 84 percent of
the sites listed on the National Priorities List, and
facilitated the re-use and re-development of nearly 550 sites,
helping to generate more than 34,000 jobs.
For example, the South Side Sanitary Landfill Superfund
site, located 5 miles southwest of Indianapolis, Indiana, is a
former 300-acre landfill listed on the Superfund National
Priorities List in 1989. This site was contaminated with heavy
metals, asbestos, paint, waste, and sludges, which contaminated
ground water and nearby drinking wells. A slurry wall and
leachate collection system was constructed to control
contaminated groundwater migration. The clean-up was designed
to allow future beneficial uses of this site. Today, a methane
gas collection system powers the largest commercial glass
greenhouse in North America, along with the nearby aircraft
turbine plant. This site has also provided room for commercial
businesses in addition to a golf course. The site now supports
more than 50 jobs.
The Superfund program also continues to identify hazardous
waste sites that pose the most significant risk to human health
and the environment. In fiscal year 2010, the Agency listed 16
new sites on the National Priorities List, and proposed an
additional 8 new sites. EPA has continued its efforts to
efficiently utilize every dollar and resource available to
clean up contaminated sites and to protect human health and the
environment.
In fiscal year 2010, EPA obligated nearly $443 million,
including funding from Superfund program appropriation, State
cost share funding, and PRP, or potential responsible party,
settlement funding, for Superfund construction and post-
construction projects. EPA used $106 million of its obligated
funding to fund 18 new construction projects on 17 National
Priorities List sites.
Finally--I will just continue and finish up--EPA's oil
response program is designed to protect inland waterways
through oil spill prevention, preparedness and enforcement
activities associated with more than 600,000 non-
transportation-related oil storage facilities that EPA
regulates. A budget increase in fiscal year 2012 will allow EPA
to broaden and expand prevention and preparedness activities,
particularly inspection of high-risk facilities, including
implementation of a third-party audit program.
EPA and the Coast Guard evaluate thousands of spills
annually to determine if assistance is required. On average,
EPA manages the oil spill response or oversees response efforts
of private parties at approximately 250 to 300 sites per year.
The fiscal year 2012 budget requests an increase of $4.5
million, totaling $19.5 million for OSWER's oil spill program
to focus on high-risk sites.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for
inviting me to testify.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I will start with the first question
to Ms. Stoner.
You know, budgets are about setting priorities. And as for
the President's budget that has been submitted to us there is
lots of cuts. I think it's bringing EPA down to levels closer
to where they were a couple of years ago. We all know we've got
to cut the budget.
One concern I have I would like you to respond. There is
one area of the budget that you are increasing, in the
compliance assistance. But there is three sub-categories:
incentives, monitoring/enforcement, and assistance. And my
understanding is you are zeroing out the incentives and the
assistance, and increasing the funding to the enforcement, the
compliance part. And I would like you to respond to how you
justify that. Because I think we need to work with businesses
and entities out there.
Ms. Stoner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
Unfortunately, the first question is one I can't answer. It's
about the enforcement and compliance budget, which is not
within the office of water.
So we actually do a lot of compliance-related activities in
the office of water, including providing funding to local
communities to help them meet Clean Water Act obligations, to
build waste water treatment plants, to address sewer overflows.
We also provide technical assistance to States and to local
entities in developing water quality standards and in figuring
out how to comply with--but I believe you are asking me about
the budget for the office of enforcement and compliance----
Mr. Gibbs. Let's go on, then.
Ms. Stoner. And I don't know, I'm sorry.
Mr. Gibbs. Would you please submit that for the record, if
you can, from the other sections?
Ms. Stoner. We would be delighted to do so.
Mr. Gibbs. Another major concern I have is on the
permitting process, you know, when an entity goes through all
the hoops and requirements, the environmental impact studies
and everything. And, as you know, we had the one operation in
West Virginia that went far beyond the process and did the
environmental EIS study and all that, and got their permit and
got up running, spent millions of dollars putting rail in, and
about 3 years later this administration revoked their permit.
And, I think that's setting a huge precedent across all
sectors of the economy, because what's going to happen when
people--they're not going to be incentivized to take that risk
and work to get the permit, so you're going to stifle economic
activity and growth. And would you please respond on the
rationale for revoking that permit in West Virginia?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question. I
believe you are asking about the Spruce Mine permit.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Ms. Stoner. Which the Agency vetoed that permit under 404
of the Clean Water Act. And we did take that action, which was
a very unusual action for us. There have only been 13 404
vetoes in the whole history of the Clean Water Act, back to
1972. We felt that it was necessary to do so in this case,
because of the filling of more than 6 miles of streams in--
direct filling in the project's proposal, as well as downstream
impacts on wildlife. So we did take that step in that case.
Mr. Gibbs. Let me be clear. Please tell me if I'm wrong.
But I believe the 13 that you mentioned was all pre-issue of
the program, or through the application process. This
revocation of this permit was after the permit was issued, and
3 years after the fact.
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir. You are correct, that it is even more
infrequent that we would take an action to eliminate or veto
the specification for a particular permit after it was issued.
And 13 is the total number of 404 vetoes that we have done.
Again, very much a last resort, in our view. We would very much
prefer to be able to work out the issues.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think we should let the record show that
this was the first time the EPA revoked a permit after it was
approved, and they were up and running and operating. I think
that's clear. I think the permits that you're talking about
were during the process before they were finally--final
approval. I think we will show that for the record. Will you
concur with that?
Ms. Stoner. I think there may have been one other permit
that was revoked in a landfill. But at most, it was the second.
Mr. Gibbs. The guidance that is going to OMB on the--that
would--regarding the jurisdiction on the Clean Water Act, when
do you expect that to be formal from the OMB?
Ms. Stoner. We don't know the answer to that question. It
did go over there late December. And usually OMB makes
decisions within 90 days. We will expect it to go out for
public comment. It will not be immediately effective. We look
forward to talking with you and your staff about that when it's
out.
Mr. Gibbs. And, why are you using guidance, instead of just
coming out in the rulemaking process and have the official
hearings and the testimony, versus doing the guidance?
Ms. Stoner. We are moving forward with the guidance as a
first step. We are considering additional steps, including
rulemaking. Be happy to discuss that with you and your staff,
as well.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I thank you, and I will turn it over to the
ranking member, Congressman Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to start with the first question that the chairman asked. And,
Ms. Stoner, I would appreciate it if you would submit a
response for the record, to make sure that we all have the same
information.
But my information, with respect to the--or my
understanding, with respect to the compliance assistance budget
is that it has been combined with the enforcement budget, and
the net increase requested for the two combined is $27.5
million. But if--so that there is not a cut to compliance. It
appears as if it's a cut, given how the budgets are presented,
but the category has been folded into another category. If you
could please confirm that so that we all have the same
information, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Stoner. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. For both of you--and thank you very
much for your testimony--you both indicated that the budget
requests reflect the fiscal realities that the Nation is
currently grappling with, and that these budgets are--you
didn't use the word, but essentially Spartan budgets, but that
they still allow the EPA to pursue its core function of
protecting human health and protecting the environment. And the
budget that the President has requested, in total, for the EPA
is about $1.4 billion below current--or, pardon me, fiscal year
2010 enacted.
The budget that would be the budget for fiscal year 2011
for the EPA would be another $1.4 billion below that if H.R. 1
were to ever take on the force of law. I am one that hopes that
it does not. But that budget would spend $7.5 billion on the
EPA, as opposed to the $10.3 billion that is in fiscal year
2010 enacted. Does that budget, if it were to ever take on the
force of law, does that allow the EPA to continue to perform
its core functions, or would we be veering out of the category
of difficult and painful cuts, and into the category of
destructive cuts? I will ask that of either of you.
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure. Well, again, I can talk more
specifically about the 2012 budget. And, as you mentioned,
Congressman Bishop, there were tough choices and we are able to
maintain our core responsibility to protect public health and
the environment. But it is tough, and we are going to be
challenged on the 2012 budget. And we understand that the
Congress and the administration are going to be working on the
fiscal year 2011 budget.
So, we've not done the specific analysis, in terms of the
cut. But what I can tell you is in terms of the hard choices at
the fiscal year 2012 budget, we were able to, with the cut,
enable the core mission to move forward while--with those cut-
backs. So it is going to have some challenges, but we were able
to maintain that core mission.
Ms. Stoner. Let me just add on the Clean Water and the Safe
Drinking Water SRFs, which is a large part of the budget of the
office of water, that we do anticipate that there would be more
than 700 projects that wouldn't be able to go forward, and
21,000 jobs that wouldn't be created under the budget for H.R.
1.
That is--lots of people have been speaking this morning,
Members have been speaking this morning about the need for
local communities to get assistance in complying with the Clean
Water Act. That's what those funds are for, complying with the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and those
would be cut, and jobs would be lost, as a result.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Let me move to that, because I
listen to Mr. Duncan, my friend, talk about how he has heard
more from business leaders over the last several months about
the EPA, and hearing characterizations of the EPA that are not
terribly complimentary or favorable.
What I hear from my business leaders, more than anything
else--and I represent a coastal resort area district--is the
necessity for additional Federal involvement in the area of
wastewater infrastructure. I represent a district that is
approximately 80 percent septic systems, and, at most, 20
percent sewers. And my business leaders all over my district
view the absence of sewage treatment systems as an impediment
to economic growth, given our environment and given the fact
that we are surrounded by water.
So, I am particularly concerned about both the President's
request for a significant cut in the SRF budget, and even more
concerned about H.R. 1, which cuts it even more drastically.
Could you comment on that, please?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for that question.
Yes, those funds are very valuable. There is also the 319
Program, which is the nonpoint source program, and helps
address problems associated with septic systems and other
nonpoint sources of pollution. All of those are very helpful to
local communities in protecting beach water, tourism, fishing,
and other very economically valuable activities.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you for indulging my time. I
yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. OK, thank you. Representative Herrera Beutler?
Ms. Herrera Beutler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it was so
great to sit in your seat for, like, 30 seconds.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Herrera Beutler. A question for Ms. Stoner. And forgive
me, I'm going to read a little bit of it, because to try and
get it all out--I just want to get the particulars out.
For longer than I have walked this earth, the EPA has
defined in its regulations that forestry operations are
nonpoint sources, and therefore, not subject to Clean Water Act
permits. Specifically, the NPDES permits. The forest products
industry has a documented record of compliance. And that
industry enjoys a warm welcome in my district, and is a
significant source of jobs.
A recent decision by the Federal ninth circuit court of
appeals in Seattle suggests this regulation is invalid, and
that forest roads, private forest roads, State and Federal
forest roads are, in fact, point sources and will require Clean
Water Act NPDES permits. EPA is not, as you know, a party in
the case. And it's still winding its way through the process,
through the judicial process.
We do understand the Agency is currently working on
guidance that would be applicable to all EPA regions, not just
regions 9 and 10. This guidance would provide a framework for
those wanting to obtain permit coverage, and to be able to do
so. And I understand that the Federal appeals court in Seattle
has questioned the authority of EPA to establish, by rule,
nonpoint source status of forest roads.
I have thousands and thousands of these forest roads on
private lands in my region. So this is very, very significant
to our--I mean immediate impact--to our economy. And most of
those roads are really indistinguishable from thousands of
miles of farming and country roads in our region.
So, my question is this. Does the EPA plan to stand behind
its own longstanding regulation, and avoid imposing this
enormous regulatory burden on forest owners, farmers, and
governments throughout this country?
Ms. Stoner. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
The--we intend to follow the law, and the court has determined
that in the situation in which logging roads collect and
discharge directly into the waters of the U.S., that those are
point sources.
So, to assist those entities that will need permitting, we
are planning to make a permit that we have already on the books
available, called the multisector general permit, available to
those entities so that they can obtain coverage and be able to
continue to discharge. But we will do so in compliance with the
law, as determined by the Federal courts.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And to follow up no that, I understand
that, you know, of course I'm not asking you to go against the
law of the land. That is winding its way through the courts. It
is not currently law. And your standing practice has been not
to--has been, interpretation of the Clean Water Act, that you
don't have jurisdiction over those private lands, and making
them--or requiring permits from them.
Should the courts--so take that piece out of this. Does the
EPA want to continue to follow its longstanding practice, or
are you telling me that this is a direction you would like to
go, irrespective of the court?
Ms. Stoner. We haven't made that policy decision,
Congresswoman, because right now what we are doing is planning
to implement the law, as articulated by the courts. If, of
course, that decision is changed, if the supreme court were to
accept--we would take another look at that question at that
time.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. And with that, it's likely that I will
be looking at legislation to provide a protection for our
forest owners, or small forest owners on our private lands, as
we move through. So you may also be receiving, it would be my
hope, a law to follow in this case. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Mr. Miller, or Representative Miller.
Mr. Miller of California. Mr. Chairman, thank you. You're
referred to as the EPA. I think of ourselves as the citizens
protection agency, because our job is to represent the citizens
who elect us. And some unusual things are starting to happen
with EPA that I am kind of surprised at.
Within the last month, we were representing a constituent
to the EPA, and we received an email sent to us with an
attachment containing an internal memo restricting
communication with Members of Congress. Basically, it said,
``EPA guidelines, Member of Congress inquiring on behalf of the
constituents are treated the same as media.'' That's a joke.
I remember about 8 years ago I had a dairy that was being
fined by EPA, and I went out and looked at a date of discharge.
And when I went to the site, the EPA gal had a little Earth
First tee shirt, it was kind of cute, but the dairy man didn't
really appreciate it. And I looked at the road coming into the
dairy, and it had 18-inch curbs, which meant that it was a
flood control channel that dumped right into the dairy
property, and the dairy man's property was flooded. And when an
executive came out from EPA they said, ``It's not the dairy
guy's fault.''
But my problem is when an agency internally--that's part of
the Federal Government--has a guideline that says you cannot
communicate with a Member of Congress representing their
constituents, something is severely wrong and arrogant with the
agency. Now, hopefully, something can be done internally so we
don't have to legislatively override a stupid regulation. But
when people have problems with a Federal agency, you're the
only Agency out there that restricts access to Members of
Congress.
Give me one reason why you would not have dialogue with a
Member of Congress concerning a situation that one of their
constituents is going through.
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, Congressman, I am not familiar with
the memo. But I can tell you personally----
Mr. Miller of California. You need to go back and look at
your internal communications. Because your guidelines says,
``Members of Congress inquiring on behalf of their constituents
are treated the same as members of the media.'' I received the
guidelines in an email. And communication with us was
immediately terminated, on behalf of the EPA.
Mr. Stanislaus. OK. Well, I can't speak to that. All I can
tell you, in terms of--I personally respond to congressional
Members' inquiries with respect to their constituents' requests
on a daily and regular basis, and I will continue to do so.
Mr. Miller of California. So we need to go to the top
levels when we have a problem, rather than just dealing with
EPA?
But to be honest with you, if one of our constituents has a
problem with EPA, they're not even going to receive a response.
They're going to make a phone call, they're going to be put
through this legislative bureaucratic process, it's not--I'm
not chastising you, but that's what they go through. At least
when they come to us, we can usually go to the agency,
regardless if it's FHA, VA, whatever it is, and--even the FBI,
we get a reasonable response back, and they will have dialogue
with us. But when EPA sends my office an email terminating all
communications with my office, something is severely wrong with
the Agency.
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I can tell you that, our
infrastructure, we have a separate office to coordinate and
interact with congressional Members. And, clearly, there are
some rules when things are an enforcement posture which
restricts our ability to communicate with anyone. But beyond
that, you know, we are committed to--we have a separate staff
to communicate with congressional Members.
Mr. Miller of California. So if we have a question
regarding EPA policies, and there is an enforcement going on
with somebody else, you can't respond to us about your
enforcement policies?
Mr. Stanislaus. We clearly can, and I have talked about the
policies.
Mr. Miller of California. I would like you to find out
internally, and notify the committee, that that procedure is
available to Members of Congress, and tell me what guidelines
that you have implemented that would restrict our access.
Now, if we are trying to get involved in litigation, trying
to influence you in some way, we are not--that's not the goal.
But if we question a policy and a procedure that you're
implementing, and we look at it and say, ``This is just
unreasonable,'' you know, would you give us guidelines in which
you apply these standards?
I mean it just--I have never--we have dealt with EPA over
the years. I have always had a favorable--even when they had
imposed fines. On this one dairy I told you about, they had
imposed a fine. They had given a 30-day period to either pay
the fine or they would proceed from there. And when I contacted
them and I said I would like to have somebody at a senior level
come out and just look at the situation. When they came out,
they looked and said the enforcement is unreasonable, it was
not the dairy's problem. It was basically the flood control
agency had not put a diversion channel upstream from the
property. Thereby, the property was focused on to this man's
land.
But when we're questioning an internal policy and the way
you enforce the policy, and we think that the guidelines for
that policy are unreasonable, to receive an email terminating
all communications just is an unreasonable approach. I mean we
are elected to represent--we're the House of Representatives.
And when we cannot call a government agency on behalf of our
constituents, something is severely wrong with the structure of
government. And either it needs to be corrected internally, or
Congress will correct it, one way or the other.
Because many of us are not happy with the EPA as it is,
with what they're doing in many areas. It's not your problem,
that's our problem. But when it comes to communication, when we
are cut off, there is a serious problem, and that--I guess my
time has elapsed. So if you would like to----
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure, I will provide clarification on the
record. But I can tell you, on a regular basis, I do, as well
as the regional offices, interact with the congressional
Members----
Mr. Miller of California. And this is the first time it's
happened, as I said. But I received the memo.
Mr. Stanislaus. OK.
Mr. Miller of California. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Let's move on. Representative Landry, do you
have a question?
Mr. Landry. Sure. I was getting ready to have to go into my
next committee. Yes. My question is, do you believe that there
are certain projects that are important enough to this Nation
to require waivers or exemption from the 404 permit process?
Ms. Stoner. Thank you for that question, Congressman. There
actually are some exemptions in the 404 process for certain
kinds of activities. Often farming activities of various kinds
are exempt from the 404 process. So I would say Congress has
made that decision in a number of instances. And I think there
are good reasons to encourage farming activities. We like to
have farmers on the land, farming. We know that's a good land
use, from a water quality standpoint.
Mr. Landry. OK. Would you consider maybe some exemptions
that would lower the cost of--for levee protection and flood
control back in Louisiana, equal to the same level as those
farming activities, as well?
Ms. Stoner. Quite honestly, I am not that knowledgeable
about levee protection and flood protection, which isn't within
the jurisdiction of the office of water. The Corps of Engineers
would have more information about that, about whether those
exemptions should be granted.
Mr. Landry. OK. On Monday, Administrator Jackson was in New
Orleans to take part in the Gulf Coast eco-restoration task
force meeting. And at this meeting, the task force asked the
participants, ``What is the greatest Federal impediment to your
recovery,'' and the response most often given--which, again,
many of my constituents--was the cost and delays associated
with compiling and submitting 404 permits.
Do you all have anything in the plans or protocols to try
streamlining this process?
Ms. Stoner. We have a number of agreements, MOUs, with the
Corps of Engineers which are designed to make sure that that
process goes smoothly and as rapidly as possible. I know that
it is a high priority for the Army Corps to get those decisions
made promptly. And we try to work as quickly as we can with
them to--in our joint roles in the permitting process.
Mr. Landry. What was your fiscal year 2008 budget?
Ms. Stoner. I'm sorry, we might have to get back to you on
that.
Mr. Landry. OK.
Ms. Stoner. I just have the fiscal year 2010----
Mr. Landry. Do you know the increase between fiscal year
2008 to fiscal year 2009, and then--because I know that you all
mentioned--I had it here in my notes--that your current budget
is a decrease from the--by 25 percent from fiscal year 2010,
and I am--but I'm trying to figure out how much did it increase
between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2010.
Ms. Stoner. We would be happy to submit that information
for the record, Congressman.
Mr. Landry. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Herrera Beutler. [presiding.] Mr. Lankford, do you have
a question?
Mr. Lankford. I do. Thank you. Shift subjects a little bit.
Let's talk a little bit about energy production and
transportation, obviously two major issues in our American
economy on that.
The EPA has obviously been very engaged in energy
production, and how much oil and natural gas that we will have
in America in the future days, based on current conversations
that are happening right now. It is a unique responsibility
from our Department of Energy now, that actually EPA is the one
driving how much energy we will have in America, rather than
the Department of Energy and the other sectors, based on some
future decisions.
My understanding is science advisory board has a draft plan
that's coming out this next week. Is that something that the
members of this committee could see, in advance of when that
comes out? I understand it's coming out the 7th and 8th. I
would assume it's already done and is ready to go to release
out to everybody. We would like to be able to see that in
advance, so we can get a chance to read and review it and see
it before the rest of the group gets to it, on the hydraulic
fracking issue, specifically.
Ms. Stoner. I can check with the office of research and
development on that. That--it is their plan, hydraulic
fracturing research plan, that you are referring to.
Mr. Lankford. Correct. Yes, it is the hydraulic fracking
plan, and it deals with water, specifically. That--my
understanding, my research, is that is coming out, like I said,
Monday. So I would like to be able to see it in advance so I
can have time over the weekend to be able to review that and
prepared for that. Can that be provided?
Ms. Stoner. I can check with ORD on that today.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you very much. This is a major issue to
us in America, on how we're going to deal with hydraulic
fracking. The majority of natural gas in America that heats our
homes and that has so much production in so many ways for
chemical plants and such and fertilizer is done through
hydraulic fracking now. If this plan continues to move forward
in a way that is not consistent with science, the actions of
the EPA could dramatically increase the cost of every product
in America, based on a single decision. So we cannot get this
wrong.
We are also at a very tenuous point that energy producers
are a little tenuous on being able to invest into future plans
and to future fields because of the overhang of a threat of the
EPA that they may do something at this point to hydraulic
fracking. Is there any conversation at this point on what will
happen with hydraulic fracking, and what EPA's thoughts are on
how to be able to enforce, or what thoughts may be on that? I
know the reports are not out. Tell me where the discussion is
at this point.
Ms. Stoner. Absolutely we are in discussions about it. The
ORD study plan that you referenced is about gathering the
science, gathering the data, so we understand what is happening
out there, in terms of hydraulic fracturing. There is a lot of
public interest and concern, frankly, about the impacts of
hydraulic fracturing on surface water and drinking water
resources.
We had a series of listening sessions last year about them
that were very well attended, gathering public input on it. So
we are definitely in discussions now, within the Agency, about
what--how well we are addressing the issues that are being
brought to our attention under the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as well as other authorities that are
outside the scope of the office of water.
Mr. Lankford. Several years ago--very similar done with
this, with coal methane, and on the fracking issue. Do you
recall what the finding was on that, as far as what was done,
and the final result of how the fracking was going to be
handled, dealing with coal methane?
Ms. Stoner. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring
to right now.
Mr. Lankford. Well, just the conclusion. Were there
additional regulations that were placed on coal, based on the
study that was done for fracking for coal methane and such?
Ms. Stoner. I am----
Mr. Lankford. That's all right. I'm just trying to track--
coal has already had this study, and it's much more shallow
than what gas and oil are. And so we've done studies like this
very similar. We have already been through this. Now we are
redoing it again for a different industry, and trying to re-
evaluate it. And I am trying to figure out the path and the
pattern.
I understand that Congress did request this, so a previous
Congress came to you and said, ``We want you to do this
study.'' I get that. The concern is that it has put an entire
industry and prices and everything else into quite a bother,
because it's slow to respond, and we are unsure of what EPA is
going to do.
Ms. Stoner. Yes. And we will certainly be looking at the
existing information we have about coal bed methane. There are
certainly some similarities in the industries, and in that we
have done a lot of information, including evaluating
technologies there.
Mr. Lankford. Sure.
Ms. Stoner. And we will be looking for commonalities, as
you suggest, Congressman.
Mr. Lankford. One quick question on it. Is there a State
that you can identify that says, ``This State is incompetent to
oversee its own water area, so the EPA has to be able to step
in on it? If we don't step in, the people in that State are
going to get bad water?''
Ms. Stoner. We have not withdrawn the authority of any
State to run the water program, to my knowledge.
Mr. Lankford. OK, terrific. That is one of those areas I
know EPA has partnered with multiple States to be able to
continue to have the States handle local enforcement on that.
I would just recommend the more that we can hand back to
the States, and the fewer things that we're trying to do from
DC, and the more things that an individual State--being from
Oklahoma, the department of environmental quality, the water
resources board in Oklahoma are some fantastic people, and they
work very hard for our land and water, to make sure it's clean.
And the more moments that they have, of having to worry about
what EPA is doing over their shoulder, it gives them the
assumption that they are being treated as incompetent, they are
not thinking about our land and water, when they are.
And so, the more that we can get a chance to evaluate and
say a State is already handling that, rather than the Federal
having to take that over, the better.
Ms. Stoner. Yes. Yes, sir. We coordinate closely with the
States. We work with them as partners. And we try to do work-
sharing, to do the kind of thing you're talking about, ensuring
that we're not engaged in the same endeavors that they are.
Mr. Lankford. I appreciate that. Let's accelerate that.
Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Stoner, Mr. Stanislaus, for coming
before the committee.
First, one question I have is just kind of a quick
question. Ms. Stoner, are you familiar with the Goodlatte
amendment offered to H.R. 1 on the floor that removes funding--
and it's very simple, I will read it. ``None of the funds made
available by this act shall be used to develop, promulgate,
evaluate, implement, provide oversight to, or backstop TMDLs,
or watershed implementation plans for the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.'' Are you familiar with that amendment?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir.
Dr. Harris. OK. Now, the interpretation of some has been
that this will remove all the on-the-ground activity for this
fiscal year, with regards to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. Do
you concur with that?
Ms. Stoner. I am not sure of the interpretation of the
lawyers, but I do know that the Agency is engaged in a lot of
activities with the States in the Chesapeake Bay and the
district.
Dr. Harris. I understand that. My question is very
specific. Fiscal year 2011, this says that this has to do with
watershed implementation plans. Now, is it my understanding
that those watershed implementation plans aren't--the final
plans aren't even due until fiscal year 2012, the final local
implementation plans? They are not due until fiscal year 2012,
is that right?
Ms. Stoner. Well, there are implementation plans that have
been submitted already, and we are moving forward now with the
State partners and the local entities to clean up the
Chesapeake Bay.
Dr. Harris. They are not due until fiscal year 2012, is
that correct?
Ms. Stoner. I don't----
Dr. Harris. The deadline is December of this year, which is
fiscal year 2012.
Ms. Stoner. I don't know the answer to that question.
Dr. Harris. Well, if you could provide in writing why you
believe that any on-the-ground funds would be--so your
interpretation is that on-the-ground activities to clean up the
Chesapeake Bay are negatively impacted for this fiscal year by
the Goodlatte amendment?
Ms. Stoner. No, sir. What I said was that we are providing
funding to the State and local governments to help implement
clean-up for the Chesapeake Bay this year.
Dr. Harris. Sure.
Ms. Stoner. We did so last year, and we have increased the
funding this year----
Dr. Harris. Right, but they're not under approved watershed
implementation plans, because those aren't due until next
fiscal year. Is that right?
Ms. Stoner. We--the TMDL is finalized, and we are working
with the States to implement it now.
Dr. Harris. But you have--the first step is you have to get
the watershed implementation plans approved. And they're not
due until December.
Ms. Stoner. I would be happy to get back to you on that.
Dr. Harris. Thank you. Could you? Second of all, you
probably read this in the Wall Street Journal. You all are
responsible for that dairy farm exemption issue with the oil
spills. Is that your bailiwick? It is EPA, is that right?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Dr. Harris. So, my understanding is the EPA suggested a
rule in January of 2009 to exempt dairy farms from creating oil
spill disaster response plans, literally for spills of milk on
a dairy farm. What in the world has taken 2 years for the EPA
to finalize that rule?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, we are planning to finalize the rule
as we speak. It's been submitted to OMB last week. And so,
the----
Dr. Harris. What took 2 years to implement a rule that milk
spills on a dairy farm should not come under oil disaster
response plans? Because, I've got to tell you, five kids at
home, I hope I don't have to do an oil spill plan for the EPA.
Although I suspect, the way the EPA is going, it's getting
there. Well, let's move on. Thank you very much. You can get
back to me in writing on that.
If we institute--Ms. Stoner, if we institute the TMDLs
under the watershed implementation plans, and no Federal or
State funds flow--now, I have 12 counties that are subject to
this TMDL. One county alone, Anne Arundel County, has estimated
it will cost $1.87 billion--with a ``B''--for that county, that
that county is responsible for, to implement that plan. That's
one of my 12 counties, Anne Arundel County, $1.87 billion, if
there are no Federal funds available. And, let's face it,
you've got $67 billion in this fiscal year budget. Anne Arundel
County alone would have to spend $200 million in this--that's
just one of my counties, and there are seven States and the
District of Columbia under the jurisdiction.
If there is no Federal money, and there is no State money,
because our State, like other States, are running short of
money, would it--would the county really be responsible for
that money, in order to come under--to come into compliance
with the TMDLs? I mean if there is no money, do they have to
pay, or do you--will they be taken into court to pay?
And this is a 50 percent increase in the property taxes.
That's what it would take in that county to pay for that TMDL.
Is that true, that if there is no Federal money, no State
money--doesn't make a difference--that local jurisdiction has
to do what that watershed implementation plan says?
Ms. Stoner. Compliance with the Clean Water Act is
generally not dependent upon the existence of Federal funds for
that compliance. But, as we've been saying, we provide a lot of
funding to help communities.
Dr. Harris. If there is no funding. If there is no Federal
funding, that community has to come up with the dough? That's
about right. That's what I thought.
Last question. There are estimates that 10 percent of
cropland would have to be removed from production--10 percent--
in order to come up under the TMDL compliance, at least in the
State of Maryland. And I have looked at the figures on nitrogen
loading, and that's probably true.
Will the EPA promise that they will not order farmers to
give up crop production--we're an exporter. Fortunately, the
United States is a net exporter of grains. We have a lot of
grain on the Eastern Shore. Is there a promise from the EPA
that they will not force those crop lands out of production, in
order to comply?
Ms. Stoner. I am not aware of the EPA ever forcing any crop
lands out of production. We are working closely with the USDA
in making sure that there is funding available to help
communities in the Chesapeake Bay comply.
Dr. Harris. Is that a yes, or--I guess the EPA will not.
That's not their intention. My farmers will feel much better.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Representative Reed, do you have a
question?
Mr. Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A lot of my questions
have been addressed with the TMDL and the hydrofracking that
come from western New York, and that is a priority--those are
two priority issues that we are dealing with in our office. So
any information you can send or reply to my colleagues, I would
greatly appreciate being CC'd on that information.
I have a question to Mrs. Stoner--or Ms. Stoner, I am
sorry. I noticed in the President's budget it zeroed out the
compliance assistance program and it increases the enforcement
budget. Is that an indication from the administration that we
are going to focus more on enforcement rather than to encourage
compliance?
Ms. Stoner. Congressman, I was asked earlier about the
difference between the two budget categories. And that is
actually in the budget for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. So I don't know the answer to that.
But I do know that compliance assistance is a very
important part of the work that EPA does. We don't do
enforcement activity in the Office of Water, but we do a lot of
different kinds of compliance assistance activities--technical
assistance activities, funding, as we have been discussing. We
provide a lot of assistance to individuals in how to comply
with the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Reed, may I ask you to yield for a second?
Mr. Reed. Sure, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. We talked about this before you came
in.
Mr. Reed. OK.
Mr. Bishop. And we have asked Ms. Stoner to provide
documentation for the record to make sure that we all have the
same information. But my understanding of the budget request is
that the compliance function and the enforcement function are
joined as one, and the total increase for the two combined is
now $27 million in the President's request.
It looks as if compliance is zeroed out and enforcement is
increased dramatically, but it is a combination of the two
functions together for efficiencies, and with the total
increase of expenditure for the two categories combined of $27
million. But I have asked that that information be submitted
for the record so that we all have the same information. I want
to make sure my interpretation is correct.
I'll yield back.
Mr. Reed. Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Reed, would you yield?
Mr. Reed. Yes, I will yield.
Mr. Gibbs. I am looking at a document here--I guess I will
address Ms. Stoner. It looks like the $27.5 million increase is
all for enforcement. It is in monitoring programs, increase the
number of inspections, and new enforcement paradigm. So the
increase is all enforcement. Is that correct?
Ms. Stoner. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. But we will get
back to the committee on that.
Mr. Gibbs. Submit it to the record. Thank you.
Mr. Reed. OK. Thank you for that clarification because
where the money is and the increases in the money, I mean,
obviously is an indication of what the policy of the EPA and
the Office of Water will be on it.
I just want to hear from you, as the director. Do you feel
that compliance is still a primary role or a secondary role?
What role in the Agency do you see it?
Ms. Stoner. Obviously, compliance is very important. And we
are working very hard to try to make sure that we are getting
information out, including through the States that run most of
the Clean Water Act programs; that we are working with local
governments.
We understand that times are tough and that people are
trying to figure out the most cost-effective ways to meet their
obligations under the Clean Water Act and to make sure their
waterways are safe for the public. We view that as one of our
principal missions, to work with communities to do that.
Mr. Reed. OK. And in regards to its relationship to
enforcement, do you see it as the same level of importance, or
do you see it as a priority over enforcement? What comes first,
compliance or enforcement, from your perspective?
Ms. Stoner. Well, temporally, often, compliance assistance
comes first. For new requirements, often we are in a position
of compliance assistance early on, outreach compliance
assistance, and so forth. The enforcement tool is used for
different kinds of situations than compliance assistance in a
lot of cases. So we view them as two complimentary tools used
for different circumstances.
Mr. Reed. And then--I have got about a minute left here--
the Executive order that was issued on January 18, 2011, talked
about using the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
ends. I don't know if this was asked previously. Was it asked
previously? No?
OK. How do you intend to accomplish that? And I will start
with you, Ms. Stoner, and then we will go to----
Ms. Stoner. Yes. We are working Agency-wide to gather
information from the public about what we should do. We are
planning listening sessions in every office and across the
Agency. And we are in the process of reviewing our regulations
to identify regulations that meet the criteria of the memo that
you referred to.
Mr. Reed. The least burdensome standard?
Ms. Stoner. There are actually lots of different things in
there about different ways. But it is all about streamlining,
regulation, making it more cost-effective, and so forth. And
those are the kinds of opportunities we are looking for.
Mr. Stanislaus. We are doing the same.
Mr. Reed. You are doing the same?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. Reed. All right. I guess I am out of time, so I will
yield back to the chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Representative Cravaack, you have a question?
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today.
I live in Minnesota, the land of 10,000 lakes, and I hear a
lot from our constituents. And I have a question to ask you.
Who do you work for? I know what Agency you work for, but who
is your overall--who do you work for----
Ms. Stoner. Well, my salary is paid----
Mr. Cravaack. No, no, no. Who does the EPA work for?
Ms. Stoner. I was going to say the public. The American
taxpayer pays my salary, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. OK. And I agree with you. I work for the
American public, too, and this is what the American public is
telling me. The American public is telling me that the EPA is
overreaching. It is regulating--it is legislating by
regulating.
I have a question for you. We have a very large lake in the
middle of Minnesota; it is called Mille Lacs. Who owns that?
Who owns that lake? Who is the ultimate authority of that fresh
body of water?
Ms. Stoner. I am not--I don't know the answer to that
question. I don't know who owns that lake.
Mr. Cravaack. Sir, do you?
Ms. Stoner. But I am confident the public uses the lake,
but I don't know who owns it.
Mr. Cravaack. Sir, who do you believe owns that lake?
Mr. Stanislaus. Again, I don't know that--I am assuming it
is probably a home rule issue and----
Mr. Cravaack. The 10th Amendment says that the State of
Minnesota owns that lake. Federal overreach by the EPA on a
body of water that has absolutely no regulation for commerce,
as we just saw most recently with the America's Commitment to
Clean Water Act, endorsed by the EPA.
Now, there are two very significant legislations--or court
cases, the Swank Agreement and also the Ropanus Agreement.
Again, Federal overreach by the EPA. From the migratory bird
theory, where a migratory bird would be able to light upon a
body of water, it was considered a Federal piece of property.
This is an extreme overreach by the EPA. And I am
challenging the EPA to step back and reassess who their boss
is. Their boss is the American to people, just as who my boss
is as well.
I would like to see a statement from you stating how the
EPA is partnering with the people of the United States of
America--instead of legislating by over-regulating, how they
are partnering with them to assist in that we all want clean
water. And I can tell you what: The independent Minnesotans in
the Eighth District of Minnesota are more interested in clean
water than anybody here in this room.
So my question to you is, how are you partnering with the
people of America to ensure that you are not overreaching, to
ensure you are not putting in guidelines that are just
absolutely ridiculous, like our colleague here in regarding
milk? Why does it take 7 years and $27 million to push projects
through the EPA--we have open pit mining in our area, and
mining in general, and it's the EPA watershed. Could you tell
me that?
If you can't do it in 1 minute and 57 seconds, I
understand. But I would like to have your comments on record on
saying how the EPA is working with the American people instead
of against the American people.
Ms. Stoner. I appreciate that. And we actually take very
seriously our obligation and responsibility to hear from the
public on these issues. We do, as I mentioned, have a lot of
different forums in which we obtain information from the
public. We also work through our regional offices, where we
have additional ability to reach out to people.
We view that as a very significant part of our work, is to
ensure that what we are doing is benefitting the public,
benefitting the public's use of the waterways, and hearing
their concerns not only about clean water but how we achieve
it.
Mr. Cravaack. Well, I ask you, then, ma'am, in issuing
guidance instead of the rule, for the Administrative Procedure
Act requirements regarding this, it actually almost violates
what President Obama has come out for open and transparency.
And yet here we go. You are legislating again through
regulating. You don't have open comment for the American
people.
Ms. Stoner. On the particular guidance I think you are
referring to, which is currently pending at the OMB, that
guidance will go out for public comment. It will not be
immediately effective, and we will be looking for input from
the American public. We would be delighted to talk with you and
your staff about it as well.
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you very much, ma'am. I appreciate
that. And I will yield back my 22 seconds.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Representative Bucshon, do you have a question?
Dr. Bucshon. Just for your information, your budget for
2008 was around $7.6 billion. And in 2010 it was $10.3 billion,
which is an increase of almost $3 billion in a 2-year period;
in addition to the fact that in that same timeframe, the EPA
acquired $7.2 billion in stimulus dollars.
So that is kind of where you are funding-wise. And so your
current request of $8.973 billion is actually a significant
increase from 2 years ago. And I think, anyway, that is where
the numbers lie.
Being from southwestern Indiana and the State of Indiana,
our electrical energy depends on the coal industry. And I know
Chairman Gibbs has touched, before I came to the meeting, on
the permitting process for mining operations and the one that
was recently retracted.
And the question I have is, as you probably know, the
company that was responsible for that mine is losing $250
million because of that move. And I would like to know that if
the EPA is going to retroactively pull permits and cause
problems for American business, what are we planning on doing
to reimburse businesses when this is, again, another indication
of retroactive, I think, policymaking through regulation, based
on the fact that people have, and the President has said, a
negative view on the coal industry, including a statement made
by the President, and I am paraphrasing, that you can build
another coal-powered plant, but we will bankrupt you.
So I would like to know how the EPA is planning to put
regulations in place--how are we going to reimburse private
industry out there if the agenda that we have here in
Washington, DC, is to create jobs and not to stop them? Because
the State of Indiana, if you decide suddenly in my district to
retroactively pull back permits, we want our money back.
Ms. Stoner. Thank you for that question, Congressman. Both
of my parents are Hoosiers, so it is always nice to see someone
from the great State of Indiana.
Dr. Bucshon. Probably not me, but someone.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Stoner. My mother actually has a farm in southwestern
Indiana.
But I appreciate your question about the coal mining. Let
me just say that from the standpoint of the Office of Water, we
have no opposition to coal mining or any particular kind of
coal mining. Our role is solely to protect waterways.
And that is what we were looking at in that permit veto
that you referenced, the Spruce Mine veto, is merely our
obligations under the Clean Water Act to protect those
waterways. We felt like that we needed to take that action to
protect those waterways, and that's the action that we took.
Dr. Bucshon. Can I say that how come in the original
permitting process that the EPA didn't identify the waterway
issue up front before the company investing $250 million in the
business?
Ms. Stoner. EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service were
involved in commenting on that permit in the initial commenting
process as well, and expressed concerns at that time as well.
Dr. Bucshon. Then how come the permit was issued? That is
my question. You know, you have to understand that in my
district, with all the coal mines and other things, with
farming--the Clean Water Act comes into play there also, as you
know--that I have not heard from one constituent, not one, that
what EPA is currently doing with the Clean Water Act is helping
create jobs, getting people back to work, and spurring the
economy.
In fact, people have grave concerns in my district about
what it is going to do for jobs going forward. And if EPA has
initially commented, then grants a permit, and then a company
loses millions of dollars and you can just pull that at any
time, I have got serious concerns about that.
And I want to know how, if the EPA is going to do that, out
of the $7.2 billion in stimulus money you had, you would think
that you would have enough money, maybe, to reimburse the
industry that lost that money.
The other thing is, as a general question, what did the EPA
do with $7.2 billion in stimulus money?
Ms. Stoner. We used those funds to assist local communities
in addressing clean water problems, drinking water problems,
and in creating jobs.
Dr. Bucshon. Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt. But can
you submit to the committee an itemization of the uses,
specific uses, of $7.2 billion in stimulus money? I would like
to see an itemized statement on exactly what that was used for,
whether that was used to expand the size and scope of the EPA
or whether that was actually used for what you said, for job
creating. Because I would like to see--I would really like to
see that in money, what the money was used for.
I mean, you have to recognize that that amount of money was
almost as much as the entire budget for 2008.
Ms. Stoner. We would be happy to submit information on the
uses of the ARRA. It was not used for the Agency's budget, but
rather, to give funding to other entities to meet----
Dr. Bucshon. I understand. I just want to see it myself.
Ms. Stoner. We would be happy to do that.
Dr. Bucshon. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Back my series of questions for Ms. Stoner. Dealing with
the sewage sludge incineration and, of course, this comes under
our purview a little bit because of the sewage sludge, but last
week the EPA issued new regulations outlining a definition of
nonhazardous solid waste. The new definition would result in
significant restrictions on the ability of publicly owned
treatment works to generate electricity from those biosolids.
Biosolids generated by the public works have the potential
to generate as much as 10 percent of our electricity
consumption for our country, and is a renewable source of
electricity. Did the EPA examine this issue as part of its
rulemaking process? And why would the EPA allow the burning of
tires to be considered as an allowable fuel stock and not the
burning of biosolids?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I can talk about my office's aspect
of the rule. The Clean Air Act rule is under the Office of Air
and Radiation.
In our rule, we did take a look at the use of biosolids as
far as fuel use, and we identified the circumstance under which
it can be used. And there are a few facilities in this country
that currently use that, but we didn't lay out a criteria for
the use of manure, for its use as a fuel.
Mr. Gibbs. My next question--would you care to answer, Ms.
Stoner, on that?
Ms. Stoner. No, sir. I don't have anything to add to that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you.
Also on the clean water intake structures, Ms. Stoner,
there was individual permits--States have standards for
individual permits on specific cost-based analysis studies that
were upheld by the United States Supreme Court. And it is my
understanding the Agency will propose to issue new rules that
will severely limit the site-specific analysis. This will
likely increase the cost to customers and diminish the
reliability of service.
Why does the EPA believe the current program to be
inadequate?
Ms. Stoner. Mr. Chairman, we will be issuing a proposed
rule in March on the cooling waters, and we will be tailoring
that proposal to take into account site-specific information,
as you suggest.
Mr. Gibbs. What kind of improvements should we expect in
that rulemaking?
Ms. Stoner. It hasn't yet been cleared to be released. But
I am anticipating that we will allow consideration of different
factors in different places of the country.
Mr. Gibbs. It is also my understanding that there was some
litigation on this issue. Is that correct?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. Was there a settlement with the litigants?
Ms. Stoner. Yes, sir. It is being promulgated under a
schedule pursuant to a settlement with the litigants. Yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. As part of the agreement, did the EPA help pay
for the costs to the litigants?
Ms. Stoner. I don't know the answer in this specific case.
But they are entitled to costs under the law if they prevail.
Mr. Gibbs. That is interesting. But there wasn't--was there
a judicial order requiring this?
Ms. Stoner. I think that the current schedule is due to a
settlement. But there certainly have been cases, including all
the way up to the Supreme Court, about this issue. And so the
Agency has been working to promulgate rules for many years, and
has had, I think, all of them challenged and subject to
litigation.
Mr. Gibbs. What about this specific matter, though?
Ms. Stoner. I think it is on remand right now.
Mr. Gibbs. Pardon me? I couldn't hear you.
Ms. Stoner. I believe it is on remand. We are doing this
rulemaking pursuant to a remand, I believe.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess, to follow up a little bit more, was
there anything driven for the EPA to have to pay for those
litigants' cost? How was that determined for the EPA to pay for
those costs?
Ms. Stoner. There is a provision of the Clean Water Act
that entitles litigants to obtain attorney's fees and costs in
matters in which they sue the Agency and prevail.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess my concern is you settled it, but there
wasn't a judicial order requiring it. And I think, under the
law, there has to be a judicial order. I don't think the EPA
has the authority to move forward on their own on that. Is that
correct?
Ms. Stoner. Settlements often have attorney's fees and
costs in it. If you would like me to get specific information
about this particular matter and how the attorney's fees issues
were handled, I could do that. I don't know that answer.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I would like to have a written response on
that. Thank you.
Is there any other questions? Yes, go ahead, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two things. One, I see
that Mr. Bucshon has just left. And I appreciated his request
to Ms. Stoner for a breakout of the $7.4 billion that went to
the Environmental Protection Agency as a result of the Recovery
Act.
I would point out that the vast majority of that money went
to the States for the State Revolving Funds. I would also point
out that that information, a specific delineation of where
every dollar went, what projects were undertaken, and how many
jobs were created as a result of those projects was a component
of the T&I Committee website until such time as the majority
changed hands, and then that information came down.
It is several hundred pages worth of information. It is
available. And I think it is important for all of us to look at
it again so that we all have the same information available to
us as we evaluate.
I want to go to an area--you know, as I said before, I
represent a coastal district. The principal industries of our
district are travel and tourism, everything associated with the
second home industry, farming, and fishing--in other words, a
district that is dependent on clean air and clean water for its
economic vitality.
And I perhaps have the luxury of representing a district
where everyone in the district recognizes that the environment
is the economy and the economy is the environment. And
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, all
agree that an imperative we have is to see to it that our
actions are consistent with protecting our environment.
And so I know it is now I guess I would say fashionable, if
not required, to not use the term ``regulation'' inside the
Beltway unless it is preceded by the phrase ``job-killing.''
But in my district, regulations, frankly, are welcomed by
Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, because they
recognize that regulations are moving us forward in terms of
our ability to have an economy that sustains our location.
So my question to either of you is: Is my district unique?
Is there any other district in the United States that
recognizes the importance of environmental regulation, and
recognizes that, in fact, to be pro-environment is to be
decidedly pro-business?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I will give it a shot. We believe we
laid out rules and regulations that do, in fact, integrate
environmental protection and economic development. And I have
noted a number of them in my opening statements.
For example, Brownfields resources do in fact lead to
cleanup, protection of public health, and redevelopment and job
creation. Our experience in the Superfund program is similar in
terms of the protection of the public. We believe that it can
and must link environmental protection and economic
development. We believe we are moving forward with that
balanced approach.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Stoner. Let me just give one example from Cleveland,
where Cleveland is addressing a problem of 5 billion gallons of
untreated sewage that has been discharged into Lake Erie every
year.
And EPA recently reached an agreement with the city to
invest in a combined sewer overflow control, including a green
infrastructure, and the sewer district in Cleveland estimates
that the total investment will lead to more than 30,000 jobs in
the Cleveland area and return $2.63 for every dollar invested
there. So I think that is an example of what you are looking
for.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. And I want to be clear. I am not
suggesting that every regulation is one that we ought to
embrace or that every regulation is well-thought-out. I think,
as Chairman Rahall said--or, pardon me, Ranking Member Rahall--
said in his opening statement, that the challenge before us is
to find the appropriate balance. And I believe we have found
that balance in my district, and I hope that we can find it in
districts across the country.
I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. I just want to comment and maybe lead into a
question. In the President's proposed budget on this, the areas
he is cutting are areas that help incentivize and assist
entities and public entities to make environmental
improvements, and the areas where you are increasing your
spending is in the compliance and the enforcement. So I think
that is a clear delineation, you know, difference.
And it has always been my thought--I have been self-
employed since 1978 in a farming operation. In the years that
we were making money, we could think about things to improve
waterways and buffer strips and all that on the farm. But the
years when the hog prices went south, we were totally focused
on staying in business and paying the bills.
And what I am hearing from my business people, and even
public entities, too, is that the overlap of regulations and
the burdensome compliance costs are hindering them. So we are
not getting it done for the goal that we all want, to improve
the environment.
And so I guess, simply put, what I would like to see happen
is where we would have either a public entity or a private
entity, when they are doing their day-to-day work, and they
have to comply with regulatory--whatever they are doing, to
say, hey, this makes sense, we ought to be doing this, versus,
why the heck are we doing this?
And I think that is what I am hearing from a lot of
businesses. There is no cost/benefit analysis, and they are
just getting slapped higher and higher on costs, and they will
actually go backwards. Because most people want to do the right
thing.
And do you concur that most people do want to do the right
thing?
Ms. Stoner. Absolutely. People respond to incentives. And
if you have the right incentives, most people want to do the
right thing. And everybody loves clean water. That is true.
Mr. Gibbs. But would you also concur that the budget that
has been sent to us from the President and your administration,
it is increasing enforcement actions and it is cutting the
incentive action, and, you know, that just goes counter to what
we are discussing.
Ms. Stoner. I completely agree that you need a variety of
tools to reach people. Outreach and education can reach a lot
of people, and that is the preferred tool to reach people, if
possible. Enforcement is a different tool for different people,
and for some people it is necessary.
Mr. Gibbs. I am going to move on to ask if there are any
more questions.
Representative Cravaack?
Mr. Cravaack. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. In Minnesota
it is timber, taconite, and tourism. Now, I can understand,
with some of the statements that you spoke of, but I can also
guarantee you that people in Minnesota are most interested in
clean water, because they live there. That is truly the
important thing to bring back here.
And once again, the Federal overreach of telling us how to
conduct our business within the State on non-navigable waters
is something I am very concerned about. Could you give me what
your definition is of ``navigable''?
Now, I would like to know what, in the Clean Water Act--by
the way, do we have a copy of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction
guidance?
Ms. Stoner. It is currently pending at OMB. It will be out
for public review, including congressional review, once it's--
--
Mr. Cravaack. I would like to have a copy of that, if you
don't mind.
Ms. Stoner. I can make that request of the OMB.
Mr. Cravaack. OK, I would--I demand a copy of it. So if you
would, please.
The reason why I ask that question is this. Because of
guidance in our forest industry, there has been pressure upon
agencies within the government to comply with certain--even
though they are guidances, comply with certain restrictions and
regulations that are putting small loggers out of business,
because they simply don't have the money to do it.
So, be very careful when you say ``guidance.'' Because I
would like to know, is this guidance, therefore, going to
become mandatory?
Ms. Stoner. A guidance is an interpretation of the statutes
and the regulations. It is never mandatory. It is actually
always subject to--it's just advice, so we can--and it----
Mr. Cravaack. So the EPA will not pressure anyone into
following this guidance. Do I have your word on that?
Ms. Stoner. It's our----
Mr. Cravaack. Is that on the record?
Ms. Stoner. It's our interpretation of the statutes and the
regulations. The statutes and the regulations are what is
binding. So it provides information and advice about how we
interpret the statutes and the regulations. The statutes and
the regulations control.
Mr. Cravaack. Well, I can tell you how all that guidance
has affected timber industry in the State of Minnesota, not
positively.
Second thing is I would like to know what the--since I have
not had access to the Clean Water Act jurisdiction guidance, I
would like to know what the definition is of ``navigable.''
Ms. Stoner. ``Waters of the U.S.'' is the term that's in
the Clean Water Act to define navigable waters. There are
regulations that specify how that has been defined. Those
regulations have been in place for several decades.
Mr. Cravaack. OK. So are we just talking about navigable
waters that conduct commerce? Or are we talking about all
waters of the United States?
Ms. Stoner. The definition includes navigable, in fact,
waters and other waters that have a relationship to
traditionally navigable waters.
Mr. Cravaack. So are you talking about sloughs? Are you
talking about wetlands? What are you talking about here?
Ms. Stoner. A lot of those elements are reflected in the
regulations, sir.
Mr. Cravaack. So, again, we go back to the overreach of the
Federal Government, interfering with States and their waters
that are considered non-navigable.
I would contest to you that a wetland is not a navigable
water. And I would also contest that you are--once again, the
EPA is overreaching. We are going back to Swank. We are going
back to the Ropanus Agreement, that--already struck down twice
by the Supreme Court. You are overreaching. The EPA is
overreaching and interfering with states' rights, states'
waters. And I am very concerned about this guidance that you
are putting out. If this is the direction that the EPA is going
in, you are going to have a hard fight from people from
Minnesota. So that is my statement to you.
And I would like to see a copy of the Clean Water Act
jurisdiction guidance. I think this is an overreach, and I
will--I look forward to that information, and I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. I think--do you have--go ahead,
Representative Harris.
Dr. Harris. Thank you very much. Ms. Stoner, I just want to
follow up with, I think, the questioning that we ended with
last time.
In the supposition that we pass the--that these TMDLs get
promulgated and the watershed improvement plans get approved
and all, and the local jurisdiction doesn't comply, they can't
comply, they just don't have the money, what happens? What's
the backstop to that? They just can't do it, it's just too
expensive.
Ms. Stoner. We are working very hard with State and local
entities to ensure that they are able to meet the----
Dr. Harris. Ms. Stoner----
Ms. Stoner. But the----
Dr. Harris. Ms. Stoner, the supposition they can't, the
local jurisdiction can't afford that mandate. Anne Arundel
County can't afford the $1.87 billion mandate. There are no
Federal funds, or a very small amount of Federal funds, very
small amount of State funds.
Very specific question. What's the EPA's plan from that
point? Do they go in and try to enforce a court order to force
a local jurisdiction to raise the taxes to provide--to
implement the plans? What's the EPA's plans in the not-unlikely
circumstance that the local jurisdiction simply can't afford to
comply?
Ms. Stoner. Congressman, the watershed implementation plans
actually came from the States. They figured out what they could
do in order to meet the obligations of the TMDL.
Dr. Harris. Ms. Stoner----
Ms. Stoner. And that's what we would be looking for them to
do.
Dr. Harris. I--so the EPA will take no action. Is that your
answer? The EPA will take no action, because you said the
States are in charge. Is it your testimony the EPA will take no
action against a local jurisdiction or a State, if the local
jurisdiction can't afford to comply?
Ms. Stoner. We will look at the facts and circumstances at
that time to determine what's appropriate.
Dr. Harris. Ms. Stoner, the facts are simple. The local
jurisdiction doesn't have the money to comply, and ask me--
another set of suppositions. It's a very simple statement. I
have met with my local jurisdictions. They tell me, ``We can't
afford to comply.'' There is not enough Federal money, there is
not enough State money.
It's a very simple question. What's the EPA's plans? Are
they going to take the local jurisdictions to court in order to
force an increase in property taxes? Because we can't create
money. Only in Washington we create money. My local towns and
counties can't do it. They don't have the same ability we have
here in Washington. What's the EPA's plans? Will the EPA--is it
your testimony today that they will not take action against the
local jurisdiction?
Ms. Stoner. It's my testimony that we will look at the
facts and circumstances at that time.
Dr. Harris. So you cannot tell me what will happen if a
local--see, Ms. Stoner, this is why these local jurisdictions
are so afraid of the EPA. This is why they get emotional about
it. Because they're faced with bureaucrats from the EPA who
won't even tell them what they're going to do in the very real-
world circumstance that they can't afford to do what the EPA is
forcing them to do.
And, Ms. Stoner, your testimony reinforces that impression.
Because this is a very simple question. I want to go back to my
local jurisdiction and tell them why they shouldn't be afraid
of the EPA, and your answer is, ``Well, we won't promise that
we won't take them to court and force them to raise property
taxes,'' or, ``We won't promise that we're going to go in there
and force them to do something.''
Is that your testimony, that you can't say whether you're
going to--what you're going to do?
Ms. Stoner. We can't decide in advance what we are going to
do for a particular situation. But we will be involved in
discussing it with those local jurisdictions if--in the event
that they have difficulty meeting those obligations. There are
a number of mechanisms of flexibility within the Clean Water
Act. There are opportunities to discuss those. And we will work
with communities to ensure that they are able to meet their
obligations, and to clean up the Chesapeake.
Dr. Harris. Ms. Stoner, are you going to send them money
to--when you say, ``We're going to help them make sure they can
meet those obligations,'' Ms. Stoner, it takes money. It's a
huge unfunded mandate. The local jurisdictions don't have the
money. You are not going to have the money. We're broke.
Ms. Stoner, the Federal Government is broke. Where is the
money going to come from to pay for those things?
Ms. Stoner. The President has sought, in an increase in
funding for the Chesapeake Bay in his fiscal year 2012 budget
to help communities like the ones you're talking about.
Dr. Harris. $17 million, Ms. Stoner. That's the President's
increase. Anne Arundel County alone has a fiscal year 2012
share--that's one of my 12 counties, I am only one part of the
State of Maryland, that's only one part of the six States plus
DC--their share alone is $200 million. I love that kind of
generosity out of the Federal Government, but I'm afraid my
local jurisdiction is going, ``Oh, my God, this is coming our
way.''
So, Ms. Stoner, if you think $17 million is all it's going
to take to help the fiscal year 2012 State and local
governments to fulfill their watershed improvement plans or
implementation plans--WIPs, whatever they are--I'm afraid you
don't get it.
Ms. Stoner. We are also working----
Dr. Harris. Thank you.
Ms. Stoner [continuing]. With other Federal partners to
help them, as well.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, you know, I think I'm going to follow up
just a little bit on Representative Harris. You know,
obviously, since the Clean Water Act has been in effect in the
1970s, we have made great strides in this country on point
source pollution, even nonpoint source pollution.
And you know, I think he is making a good point here. I
have seen it. You come in, EPA comes in to a local public
entity, and they want to do the right thing, but the EPA
doesn't seem to want to work with that public entity, and what
they will do, they will actually file a lawsuit against them,
and actually add cost and put fines on them, and you just get
into a--you know, a litigation that doesn't solve anything.
So I guess my question is, you know, what--has the EPA
given any thought to, when you're looking at the regulations
and where that--a municipality might be at, and what they're
trying to do, and what maybe they can do in the short run
without charging the rate payers so much money that nobody can
afford it, and they can't afford it, and set up a plan to how
they can get there in a reasonable time period, and work with
them, but instead, it seems like the EPA just wants to go in
and start fining them, or litigation.
So, is there any flexibility, any show of flexibility to
work with the public entity to develop a plan that's reasonable
that they can agree on?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, what I will promise to do is get
information from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
There is a longstanding practice where ability to pay is
considered, where the circumstances are looked at, in terms of
a compliance schedule. And we have done that for years. So, in
terms of how that is considered, I am not the expert in that.
But we do, in fact, look at those kind of issues. And we are
currently in conversation with local government--I know in
respect to my shop--with ability to pay in a certain
circumstance.
Mr. Gibbs. Do you want to respond, Ms.----
Ms. Stoner. We have the same thing, in terms of ability-to-
pay polices that we look at, in terms of what communities can
afford to do.
The other point about the Chesapeake Bay is that the
watershed implementation plans that were submitted by the
States are for implementation through 2025. So there is a
period of time to spread out those investments that need to be
made to clean up the bay.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I don't pretend to be as familiar
with the issue as Mr. Harris is, but it seems to me--my
understanding is that a significant component of the TMDL
compliance issue will be met by improving and/or expanding
waste water treatment capability. And so, if I understand the
issue correctly, it seems to me that the issue that's being
described is an open and shut argument for not cutting the SRF.
And, as I said before, I am opposed to the President's cuts
to the SRF, and I am opposed to the cuts that were included in
H.R. 1. I think that there are few things we can do to improve
water quality more important than seeing to it that our
communities dispose of their waste in a fashion that is
environmentally responsible and, as I said before, in a fashion
that enhances economic growth.
And so, again, I will defer to your knowledge, sir, of the
specific situation. But it seems to me that we are at cross
purposes. We are saying that we need more money to handle an
issue with respect to TMDL and, at the same time, we are
cutting the source of the funding that would help localities
handle that issue. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Reed, do you have a quick question? We're
going to wrap this up here, soon.
Mr. Reed. Yes, thank you. I just have a quick question. Ms.
Stoner, you're familiar with the recent article in the New York
Times? I think it was on February 26, 2011, about hydro-
fracturing, and that article that was prepared. Are you
familiar with that article?
Ms. Stoner. Yes.
Mr. Reed. In that article, it cites that thousands of
documents were provided to the New York Times from the EPA. Was
that something you're aware of?
Ms. Stoner. My understanding is there were documents
provided under the Freedom of Information Act, that's correct.
Mr. Reed. OK. So all those documents that were provided
were in response to a Freedom of Information request.
Ms. Stoner. I actually am not sure that that's the case. I
know that there was a Freedom of Information Act request, and
documents were provided pursuant to that. I'm not sure whether
other documents were also provided.
Mr. Reed. OK. So you're not aware of any other documents
that were released from the EPA outside of the Freedom of
Information request protocols in regards to this article or any
articles related to it.
Ms. Stoner. I'm just not sure.
Mr. Reed. OK. Mr. Stanislaus, are you aware of that report
or this article?
Mr. Stanislaus. I am.
Mr. Reed. You are? And are you aware of any reports or
documents that were released from the EPA to the New York
Times, outside of any Freedom of Information Request?
Mr. Stanislaus. I am not.
Mr. Reed. OK, OK. Can you check on that, Ms. Stoner? If you
are not aware of it, can you--I would like to make sure that
any requests that are going--or any information that is going
out of the EPA is following the procedures of the Freedom of
Information request, and that there is not internal documents
that are being leaked to--it's a concern of mine, and you
promise me you will follow up that----
Ms. Stoner. We certainly will check on that. I will tell
you that it is a concern of mine, that--making sure that
documents are not leaked from the EPA and the office of water.
We need to have internal deliberative processes, and not have
our documents published in the press. So I absolutely agree
with the concern that you are expressing.
Mr. Reed. OK. I appreciate that. And then, on the article
itself, do you have any concerns about any of the comments that
were expressed in the article about any of the concerns that
were highlighted there?
Ms. Stoner. As I mentioned earlier, we have heard a lot
from the public about concerns with drinking water, with
discharges into surface waters associated with hydro-fracking.
The article was focused on radiation--or nuclear----
Mr. Reed. Yes, radiation.
Ms. Stoner. Yes, right. And that's one area. There is one
area. There is others that we have heard from the public about.
We are evaluating all of those. We are gathering science
through the office of research and development, and evaluating
those concerns to make sure we are protecting public health and
the environment from any potential impacts from hydro-fracking.
Mr. Reed. OK. So you are following up on those concerns.
How about the waste impact, from your point of view?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, it's something that we are following.
See, we've gotten similar requests, in terms of how the way
this is handled.
I mean currently, as the article notes, it's been handled
through State programs that have requested for EPA to take a
look. And we're kind of looking at that.
Mr. Reed. And in regards to looking at it, what are you
looking at, in regards to that?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, we have gotten requests as to whether
there is any jurisdictional role. Right now, per congressional
mandate, there is not a jurisdictional role in that right now.
Mr. Reed. OK. Are you exploring trying to expand that
jurisdictional role?
Mr. Stanislaus. We are not. We are responding to a petition
to look at what role we have, and whether we need to continue.
I should note that we cannot act without congressional action.
Mr. Reed. Sure, absolutely. So there is no priority, from
your perspective, to expand that in your department?
Mr. Stanislaus. No. We are evaluating that. And the
particular provision in the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act requires congressional action for that to change.
Mr. Reed. OK, good. So you recognize that----
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. Reed [continuing]. And you will abide by that.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, yes.
Mr. Reed. OK. Thank you. Nothing further.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Harris, do you have a question?
Dr. Harris. Thank you. Just a very brief question. And I
appreciate the comments of my colleague, the ranking member.
But, pardon the pun, I suspect that the amount of Federal
funding is a proverbial drop in the bucket.
Ms. Stoner, is the--did the Agency--and you will probably
have to get back to me on this--estimate the total cost of
compliance in the entire watershed, Chesapeake watershed
region, of compliance with the TMDL regulations.
Again, and I would like--appreciate it broken down by
public and private sources, because again, you know, we have
two counties that did pilot plans--Anne Arundel County, $1.87
billion, that's just for one county, and that's only for the
public, that's only what the county is responsible for, not--
and some counties have municipalities, of course, and of course
the private cost to landowners for compliance.
So, if you could just get back to me. Do you think--well,
has the Agency done that? Has the Agency come up with a total
cost?
Ms. Stoner. There may be such a cost.
Dr. Harris. If you could do that, I would appreciate that.
Because then we can put in perspective what that, you know, $17
million increase that the President put in the budget, you
know, where that compares with the total cost of what we're
talking about to not only our local governments, but also to
our private industries.
So, thank you very much. And thank you, again, for coming
to testify.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. That's going to conclude the first
hearing of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. We
will be meeting next week, and we will be looking at the
budgets of the Army Corps of Engineers. We are concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]