[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET:
ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
(113-19)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2013
__________
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
81-151 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment
BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
GARY G. MILLER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
Arkansas, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JEFF DENHAM, California ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
STEVE DAINES, Montana JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina (Ex Officio)
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Nancy K. Stoner, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........................... 5
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Nancy K. Stoner.................................................. 32
Mathy Stanislaus................................................. 39
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Timothy H. Bishop, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, request to submit the following report: U.S.
Government Accountability Office, Funding for 10 States'
Programs Supported by Four Environmental Protection Agency
Categorical Grants, GAO-13-504R (May 6, 2013).................. 58
Hon. Bob Gibbs, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, request to submit a letter that he and 16 other Members
of Congress signed and sent to Hon. Bob Perciasepe, Acting
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, that
expressed concern over EPA's release of farmers' private
information to environmental groups, April 17, 2013............ 11
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responses to questions for
the record from the following Representatives:
Hon. Bob Gibbs, of Ohio...................................... 49
Hon. Duncan Hunter, of California............................ 52
Hon. Don Young, of Alaska.................................... 55
Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, of Arkansas.................. 57
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.009
THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2014
BUDGET: ADMINISTRATION PRIORITIES FOR
THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:25 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Gibbs. The Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will come to order.
Today, we are having a hearing on ``The President's Fiscal
Year 2014 Budget: Administration Priorities for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.'' We have two witnesses on our
first and only panel.
First, I want to just do a unanimous consent for any
followup for the records that we may have. Seeing no objection,
so ordered for that.
And I will start with my opening statement.
First of all, I would like to thank everybody for coming to
the hearing today.
When Congress wrote the Clean Water Act and other Federal
environmental statutes some 40 years ago, it envisioned the
Federal Government and the States would be equal partners in
solving the Nation's environmental problems. For many years,
that Federal-State partnership has worked well.
However, in the past few years, we have seen a substantial
change in the approach taken by the Environmental Protection
Agency that is now serving to undermine the balance of the
Federal-State partnership that has long existed. EPA is now
insisting on imposing its Federal will on States, local
government, and the private regulatory community with a heavy-
handed, Federal, top-down, one-size-fits-all policy, regulatory
approach that is taking away the flexibility they need to
address their environmental issues.
EPA is aggressively moving forward on several regulatory
fronts simultaneously, with the result that States and local
governments all across the Nation, as well as the private
regulating community, are facing increasing regulatory
enforcement and financial pressures to address a multitude of
burdensome regulatory requirements that recently have become
EPA priorities.
There has been an exponential increase in regulations
coming out of the EPA related to this subcommittee's
jurisdiction. These include more stringent and widespread
regulation of stormwater discharges, nutrients, and other
pollutants, which could lead to many communities having to
install and operate, at great expense, state-of-the-art
treatment, removal, and prevention technologies.
I am particularly concerned about the EPA's use of so-
called guidance as a means of short-circuiting the process for
changing Agency policy without following a proper transparent
and unbiased rulemaking process. Much of this so-called
guidance amounts to being de facto rules instead of advisory
guidelines.
Many of these regulatory efforts are based on questionable
science and questionable authority under the law. Many of the
efforts stand to substantially increase the regulatory burdens
for States and local governments, as well as businesses,
especially small businesses.
All of these initiatives are piling up additional layers of
regulatory requirements and economic burdens that our
communities are having to somehow deal with. This is making a
mockery of the administration's regulatory review initiative to
reduce regulatory burdens in our country.
A large portion of these regulatory mandates are going
unfunded by the Federal Government, with the result that many
local communities and private entities are now increasingly
struggling with how to pay for complying with these mandates.
EPA's aggressive actions have created financial pressures and
regulatory uncertainty for States, local governments, and the
regulator community and have a chilling effect on the Nation's
economy and job creation.
The EPA budget put forth from the administration for fiscal
year 2014 does nothing to alleviate my concerns. While the EPA
is imposing more unfunded regulatory burdens on communities,
businesses, and citizens, the administration at the same time
is calling for a reduction in spending for many of the programs
that assist communities in their efforts to come into
compliance with these regulations.
While the administration is willing to increase enforcement
spending, it is cutting spending for compliance assistance
efforts. And while the administration is willing to allow the
EPA to continue imposing regulatory mandates, the
administration is willing to cut financial assistance to our
communities through the Clean Water SRF and other programs
needed to help pay for complying with these mandates.
Hence, what we have here is a Federal agency that will add
to the burden of rules and regulations and reduce programs to
help folks come into compliance but will also put more boots on
the ground to track down those who cannot come into compliance,
with little or no benefit to the environment.
And what we have is an agency that has a reckless disregard
for the privacy interests of both individual citizens and
businesses. The EPA has amply demonstrated this recently when
it leaked personal and confidential business information
related to farmers not just once but twice. This is Government
at its worst.
I want clean water as much as anyone, but I recognize that
we have to have a strong economy so we can be able to afford to
invest in new programs that 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 would like to recognize Mr. Bishop for any
remarks he may have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you holding this hearing on the Environmental Protection
Agency's fiscal year 2014 budget request.
Very few Federal agencies are as praised or as vilified as
the EPA. Depending on your point of view, this agency, which
was created by a Republican administration and charged by
Congress with safeguarding the health of the public and the
environment, is often portrayed either as the last safeguard of
the natural environment or an overzealous impediment to
unfettered industrial growth. I suppose the reality is
somewhere in the middle, where this agency takes concerted
effort in reaching a sustainable balance between the health of
the public and the health of the environment and the health of
the economy.
I have long made the case that you do not have to choose
between economic growth and protection of public health and the
environment. In my congressional district along the eastern tip
of Long Island, the health of the economy and the health of the
environment are one and the same. People and businesses are
drawn to my district when the quality of the environment
improves, whether through visits to our Long Island beaches or
through supporting a robust fishing industry. Yet when the
overall health of the Long Island environment declines, so,
too, does the health of our local economy.
I hope we can agree on the need to balance healthy economic
growth and protecting the health of the public and the
environment. Unfortunately, ensuring this careful balance will
be more difficult now that the EPA must face the budgetary cuts
dictated by the recently passed Republican budget. Just
yesterday, the House Appropriations Committee released its
302(b) allocation for EPA's appropriations bill that mandated
an 18-percent cut below the fiscal year 2013 appropriated
levels.
And the slide shows these cuts relative to fiscal 2013.
The number is about 20 percent below the President's
request for the Agency for fiscal year 2014 and about 14
percent below current sequestered funding levels. An 18-percent
cut to EPA's budget will result in over $1.4 billion less for
the Agency for fiscal year 2014. To put this in perspective,
this would decrease the EPA's overall budget to the actual
level it received in fiscal year 1997, not reflecting
adjustments for inflation.
But it gets worse. Over the remaining years of the House
Republican budget, the EPA would face additional annual cuts
ranging between 12 to 16 percent below the fiscal year 2013 CBO
budget baseline.
It is without question that withholding resources from EPA
will have an impact on the Agency's ability to carry out its
statutory obligations. As the Agency witnesses will later
testify, it has had to prioritize where to place its declining
resources and has had to make tough choices in not funding
programs and policies that are important to our businesses, our
industries, and our communities.
For example, as we discussed in our April budget hearing
related to the Corps of Engineers, a significant number of
businesses and industries petitioned Federal regulatory
agencies for Clean Water Act permits. However, under the
Republican budget and the proposed appropriations level, both
the regulatory office of the Corps and the permits division of
the EPA would face potentially significant budget cuts. As a
result, we should expect that Clean Water Act permit review
times will take longer as a result of underfunded staffs.
Similarly, if the Republican budget discretionary cuts are
implemented uniformly, we should expect continued cuts to other
programs with widespread support from our communities, such as
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, the
Superfund cleanup program, and the Brownfields remediation
program. In each example, our communities can point to specific
projects that, if implemented, would improve the overall health
of the community and protection of the environment. However,
these projects continue to languish for lack of available
funding.
I have heard others say that cutting the budget of EPA will
not have an adverse impact on the environment because any
decreases in Federal protection of the environment will be more
than made up for by individual States. However, a report that I
recently received from the Government Accountability Office
reveals that quite the opposite is often true.
For example, GAO found that cuts to Federal grants that
support State programs, such as section 106 of the Clean Water
Act, can have equal adverse impacts on State environmental
program implementation and are especially problematic in those
States where local budgetary challenges are even more
pronounced than the Nation's.
In specific examples, GAO identified several States where
cuts to the Federal environmental grant programs will result in
reductions to State environmental staff, cutting less critical
programs, and increasing State fees. State officials noted that
the effect from these cuts will include additional State
permitting backlogs, decreased capacity to conduct permitting
and monitoring activities, and the loss of compliance outreach
and technical assistance activities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make this GAO
report part of today's hearing.
Mr. Gibbs. So ordered.
[The report entitled ``Funding for 10 States' Programs
Supported by Four Environmental Protection Agency Categorical
Grants,'' can be found on page 58.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we are at a
crossroads on finding the proper balance in protecting the
health of our communities, our environment, and our local
economies. One path would place fiscal austerity over all other
priorities and would have a significant and adverse impact on
our communities, our local economies, and our industries, and
place at risk the improvements we have made over the decades in
protecting public health and the environment. The other path
would call for tough choices but would recognize that wise
investments in our Nation's infrastructure and our communities
will have lasting rewards.
I welcome our witnesses here this afternoon, and I look
forward to their testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. At this time, I want to welcome our two
witnesses.
Our first witness is Ms. Nancy Stoner. She is the Acting
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
And our second witness is Mr. Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, United States Environmental Protection Agency.
At this time, Ms. Stoner, the floor is yours. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF NANCY K. STONER, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; AND
MATHY STANISLAUS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF SOLID
WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Ms. Stoner. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member
Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Nancy Stoner. I
am the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water
at the U.S. EPA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request
for EPA's National Water Program.
The President's request reflects the EPA's ongoing efforts
to protect the Nation's clean water and identify opportunities
for savings in these challenging economic times. The requested
level of $3.3 billion allows the National Water Program to
continue to spur communities, improve infrastructure, drive
innovation, spur technology, increase sustainability, and
strengthen partnerships with States, tribes, and local
governments.
One of the EPA's highest priorities is supporting
communities in meeting their clean water and drinking water
goals. One way we do this is through EPA's Clean Water and
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, or SRFs. These funds
provide critical funding to States and local entities to
improve wastewater and drinking water infrastructure and reduce
water pollution.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget request includes
$1.095 billion for the Clean Water SRF and $817 million for the
Drinking Water SRF. This funding will enable States and tribes
to begin approximately 450 clean water and approximately 370
drinking water projects nationally.
The President's request, when combined with enacted
appropriations, including the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, totals approximately $20 billion invested by
the Federal Government in the SRFs over the last 6 years.
The EPA is also working with municipalities across the
country to expand and institutionalize the use of integrated
planning that considers a full range of infrastructure
alternatives, including green infrastructure, so that priority
investments are made first and at the lowest lifecycle cost.
Despite the fiscal challenges we face, supporting our State
and tribal partners, the primary implementers of environmental
programs, remains a priority for EPA. Funding for States and
tribes through the State and Tribal Assistance Grants account,
or STAG, is once again the largest percentage of the EPA's
budget request, at nearly 40 percent in 2014.
Total National Water Program categorical grant funding for
the fiscal year 2014 budget request is $558.9 million, a $14.9
million increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
The fiscal year 2014 request includes $258.7 million for
water pollution control grants to States, tribes, and
interstate agencies, an increase of $20 million over fiscal
year 2012 levels. In fiscal year 2014, the EPA will designate
$15 million of this increase for States to strengthen their
nutrient management efforts. This will help States tackle
nutrient pollution, which has caused serious environmental and
human health issues while harming the economy. These additional
funds will help ensure the effectiveness of State environmental
programs and support economic growth.
Finally, the President's budget also requests continued
funding for critical regional restoration and community
programs in which the EPA works in close coordination with
States and other stakeholders. These include programs working
to restore the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and America's
urban waters.
Thank you, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Bishop, and
members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to discuss
the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for EPA's
National Water Program. The President's budget reflects the
EPA's ongoing efforts to identify potential savings while
continuing our commitment to the core mission of sustaining
water quality, public health, and our economy.
We look forward to continuing our work with the
subcommittee to ensure clean and safe water for all Americans.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
Mr. Stanislaus, the floor is yours. Welcome.
Mr. Stanislaus. Good afternoon, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking
Member Bishop, and members of the subcommittee. I am Mathy
Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response at the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to appear
today to discuss EPA's proposed budget for OSWER's programs
falling under the subcommittee's jurisdiction.
The President's fiscal year 2014 budget demonstrates that
we can make critical investments to strengthen the middle
class, create jobs, and grow the economy, while continuing to
cut the deficit in a balanced way. The President's budget
reinforces our firm commitment to keep America's communities
clean and healthy, while also taking into consideration the
difficult fiscal situation facing State, local, and tribal
programs.
To clean up our communities, the President is proposing
investments that clean up contamination and promote economic
development and job creation. The President's fiscal year 2014
budget proposes $156.3 million for OSWER's Brownfields program
to support State and tribal cleanup programs and to support
planning, cleanup, job training, and redevelopment of
brownfields properties, especially in underserved and
disadvantaged communities.
EPA's Brownfields program use this funding to successfully
leverage economic investment. On average, nearly $18 is
leveraged in private and public funding for every EPA dollar
expended. And more than 85,000 jobs have been leveraged through
brownfields project funding since the inception of the
Brownfields program.
Another effort to help turn formerly contaminated sites
into community assets and provide economic development and job
creation opportunities is our RE-Powering America's Land
Initiative, which was recently recognized by Harvard's Kennedy
School as one of the top 25 innovations in the American
Government. This is an initiative to work with energy
developers and financiers to site renewable energy on
contaminated properties. This has resulted in the installation
of 250 megawatts of installed capacity, which can power
approximately 35,000 homes across the United States.
The budget also requests $1.18 billion for Superfund
cleanup efforts across the country, which represents a
reduction from fiscal year 2012 enacted levels and reflects the
hard budget choices that are being made. Superfund removal and
homeland security program funding levels are maintained, with
focused reductions associated with long-term remediation in the
Superfund remedial program.
The value and benefit of Superfund resources are
significant. Academic research published in the American
Economic Review found Superfund cleanups reduced the incidence
of congenital abnormalities by roughly 20 to 25 percent for
those living within 5,000 meters of a site. And a study
completed by researchers at Duke University and the University
of Pittsburgh found that the deletion of sites from the
national priority list of Superfund sites significantly raises
the value of owner-occupied housing within 3 miles of a site by
approximately 18.6 percent to 24.5 percent.
A reduction in the Superfund remedial program will result
in only a limited number of new EPA-lead construction project
starts in fiscal year 2014. EPA will balance its Superfund
remedial pipeline while focusing on the completion of ongoing
projects rather than new starts. The cumulative effect of
funding reductions in the recent years will potentially delay
construction work at approximately 40 to 45 new construction
projects by the end of fiscal year 2014.
Notwithstanding the constraints on the appropriated funding
levels, we have been particularly successful in leveraging
cleanup funding through the use of responsible party
settlements to establish site-specific special accounts.
Through the end of fiscal year 2012, EPA has collected more
than $4 billion, including interest, in more than 1,000 site-
specific special accounts.
Of this amount, EPA has disbursed or obligated more than
$2.5 billion for site response actions and developed a
multiyear plan for nearly 100 percent of the remaining funds in
the special accounts available. In total, through fiscal year
2012, EPA has secured more than $37 billion in responsible-
party commitments for site cleanup and reimbursement of past
costs.
The Superfund removal and emergency response programs
conducted or provided oversight for 428 EPA-led and
responsible-party cleanup actions in fiscal year 2012. The
fiscal year 2014 target for EPA-led removal actions is 170 and
is the target for responsible-party removal actions, as well.
EPA's emergency response programs will continue to maintain
capability to respond to imminent threats to human health,
including incidents of national significance. EPA's oil spill
program is designed to protect inland waterways through oil
spill prevention, preparedness, and enforcement activities
associated with more than 600,000 nontransportation-related oil
storage facilities that EPA regulates. There are approximately
20,000 oil spills reported to the Federal Government on a
yearly basis.
Recognizing the importance that this sector has brought to
our economy and to our environment, the fiscal year 2014 budget
requests a $2.5 million increase for OSWER's oil spill program,
which would fund efforts to broaden and expand prevention and
preparedness activities, particularly with respect to the
inspection of high-risk facilities and the development and
implementation of a third-party audit program.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to your
questions.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
I will yield myself 5 minutes for the first questions.
Ms. Stoner, I am really concerned about the EPA's release,
twice now, of animal livestock farmers around the country, I
think about 18,000 of them, of their private emails, their
private information, contact information, to environmental
groups such as Earth Justice and the Natural Resources Defense
Council and others. And I know that the EPA has requested that
the information be sent back, that your agency has admitted
they made a mistake.
I sent a letter, along with 16 other congressmen here,
earlier in April requesting what your agency is doing to make
sure this doesn't happen again. Of course, after I sent the
letter, it happened again. And I haven't had a response, we
haven't had a response back to the letter.
But, also, in the letter, we requested that a full
investigation be held and people held accountable. Because, you
know, these livestock farmers have to have trust in your agency
with this information. And this could really be dangerous to
their operations and their personal security and the security
of their operations, because some of these groups sometimes are
radicalized. And that is a concern.
So my first question is, you know, what are you doing about
that to make sure it doesn't happen again? And are you holding
an investigation? And will there be people held accountable?
Ms. Stoner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss this issue with you.
As you know, what did happen is that the Agency released
information that we believed at the time was publicly available
information. We had asked States only for publicly available
information. Under the FOIA, all requesters are treated
equally, in terms of the data being requested to them. And we
did release that information. And we believed, upon careful
scrutiny of the information, that there was some information in
there that there were privacy concerns associated with.
We have been in discussions with the agricultural community
ever since then about that and have made redactions to that
release to address those privacy concerns that they raised and
that we take very seriously. We also requested the information
back and have received it.
We are continuing to work to make sure that we have very
thorough, proper FOIA training for everyone in the Office of
Water, including on privacy issues like those that you asked
about today, and have set up a regular group to meet with the
agricultural community to discuss the data and how we should
move forward together.
Mr. Gibbs. You said you asked for the information back?
Ms. Stoner. That is correct.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. That is a little preposterous. I am sure
that this information was probably sent out, copies were made,
probably sent out to other organizations. Just be aware of
that, that there might be instances of concerns.
But you are looking into it, are you actually doing a full
investigation to make sure your personnel will have FOIA
training, but I think it goes far beyond training. Is anybody
being held accountable? Are there going to be any disciplinary
actions or anything like that?
Ms. Stoner. We believe we have dealt appropriately with
this specific incident at issue, at this point. And we have
redacted the information that we believe to be appropriate to
be redacted at this time and have received back the earlier
information. So we will be looking prospectively----
Mr. Gibbs. What did you do to handle it? You say you
believe you handled it appropriately. What did you do?
Ms. Stoner. Very carefully reviewed all of that
information, discussed it with the agricultural stakeholders,
among others----
Mr. Gibbs. Agricultural stakeholders. How about the people
who work for you that disseminated that information?
Ms. Stoner. Absolutely. We have had many discussions about
that to ensure that the concerns that were raised by the
agricultural stakeholders were ones that our staff is very
cognizant of. And we will be ensuring, moving forward, that we
take those types of concerns into account.
Mr. Gibbs. I think you should do as much as you can,
because it is obvious what is going on in some other agencies.
And there is a real lack of public trust and confidence in our
Government right now, and things like this make people feel
uneasy. And it can be, like I said, a very dangerous situation
for those producers out there.
Ms. Stoner. Yes. The public trust is very important to us,
and we will be making sure that we are treating everyone fairly
at EPA under the FOIA, as we are required to do.
Mr. Gibbs. And along those lines, also came up the issue
about some of the Freedom of Information requests, that I saw
some reports that some groups are being charged for those
requests and some groups aren't. Is that a practice that the
EPA is doing?
Ms. Stoner. Again, we have policies under the FOIA about
when to grant a fee waiver. And that will be part of the
training, to ensure that everyone is fully briefed on those
policies to make sure, again, that we treat everyone fairly.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Quickly--and my time is up, but I want to follow through on
this. What are those policies to make sure that everybody is
treated fairly? I mean, if some groups come in and ask for a
Freedom of Information request and you deem it that is in the
public interest, will you still charge a fee for those
requests, for the paperwork? Do you have a set program, or
everybody gets charged?
Ms. Stoner. I believe that there are policies about
treating, for example, the media differently than others. But
we will be making sure that the policies that exist, which, in
general, treat----
Mr. Gibbs. Could you send to the committee a copy of those
policies?
Ms. Stoner. We would be happy to follow up with you on
that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Appreciate that.
Just before I yield to my ranking member, the letter that
myself and 16 other Members of Congress sent to the Acting
Administrator, I ask unanimous consent to put in the record.
Seeing none, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 81151.011
Mr. Gibbs. And I yield to Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stanislaus, I am going to start with you. I am very
concerned about the Superfund and the inadequacy of funding to
the Superfund. I mean, just to review, we have stopped taxing
industries that manufacture and sell hazardous substances in
1995. Superfund was fully spent down in 2004. And since 2004,
all Superfund cleanup activities have been funded by General
Fund taxpayer-generated revenue.
And it seems to me we have an analogous situation; we have
something, as you know, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund. We tax those industries that refine and import petroleum.
We tax them 8 cents a barrel. And so we are saying that if you
are going to profit from the importation or sale of petroleum-
related projects, you have to bear the burden of the cleanup if
something goes awry. It is something that the Congress has
authorized, something that the Congress leaves in place.
And so my question, I guess, to you but also to my
colleagues is, why is it that we are willing to give the
companies that manufacture and sell hazardous materials, why
are we willing to give them a free pass and we are not willing
to give other elements of the industry that same free pass?
So that is question number one to you, as I say, but I
really am also asking it rhetorically of my colleagues.
And the second question is, what is the ongoing impact of
the inadequacy of funding? My understanding is that we have 40
to 45 Superfund sites ready to go for construction, but we
don't have sufficient funds to go there. And we have some 1,600
identified Superfund sites across the country that we are not
addressing because of inadequate funding.
So if you could answer both those questions.
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
With respect to those parties who are responsible for
contamination of the site, within our program we pursue
responsible parties as the path of first course.
The President has also proposed the reinstatement of the
Superfund tax, focusing on those entities that are associated
with the creation of Superfund sites.
Thirdly, we are working on putting in place a financial
assurance mechanism. And we have identified a number of
categories of industry, so that entities that have been
associated with the contamination of Superfund sites and where
Superfund has been used to clean up those sites, that those
industries would have a financial assurance mechanism in place
that, should contamination happen, we would have a private
instrument to do the cleanup.
Mr. Bishop. If I could interrupt you?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, sure.
Mr. Bishop. There exists, we all know, these so-called
orphan sites----
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. Bishop [continuing]. Sites for whom we cannot either
identify or pursue a responsible party. Of the 1,600 Superfund
sites that have been identified, can you estimate how many of
them are so-called orphan sites?
Mr. Stanislaus. I don't have that number here, but I can
get that to you. What I can say, of the backlog at the end of
this fiscal year, those all would be in the orphan category.
Mr. Bishop. They are all orphan sites, and if we are going
to act on them, we are going to act on them with taxpayer-
generated General Fund revenue, correct?
Mr. Stanislaus. That is correct.
Mr. Bishop. And whoever created the mess is going to walk
away--well, has already walked away.
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I mean, though, the reason why----
Mr. Bishop. Yes. The answer is yes.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. And the reason why they are orphan
sites, the responsible party is not around anymore for them to
take responsibility for the cleanup.
Mr. Bishop. Precisely.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you.
All right. Ms. Stoner, you indicated in your testimony that
even with reduced expenditures brought on by the fiscal climate
we find ourselves in, that--and your measure of reduced
expenditures was the President's budget.
Ms. Stoner. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. If that number were to be reduced an
additional--by 18 percent, which is what the 302(b) allocation
is that came out of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee
yesterday, would the department be able to continue to pursue
and accomplish its core mission?
Ms. Stoner. Obviously, that would be very difficult for us.
And the programs that we run that are so important to the
American public in ensuring that they have clean waters to swim
in and safe drinking water, fish that they can eat, all of
those programs that are so important to the American public, to
the economy, and so forth. And we would have very serious
difficulties.
There was a lot of concern expressed about our ability to
work with our State partners, and we made a lot of choices in
the President's budget for this year to continue programs
uncut, like the 319 Nonpoint Source Program, or to actually
increase programs, like the 106 program that gives money to the
States to run their clean water programs, or the PWSS, which
gives money to States to run drinking water programs.
With cuts like that, I don't know how we could continue to
support that great work that our State partners do, working
with the Agency to implement the Clean Water Act and Safe
Drinking Water----
Mr. Bishop. I have exceeded my time, but if I could just
ask one more question. If I could ask each of you to provide
the committee, with as much specificity as possible, the impact
that implementation of an across-the-board 18-percent cut would
have on the ability of the department to pursue its core
mission.
Ms. Stoner. Of course.
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbs. Mrs. Capito?
Mrs. Capito. Thank you.
And I want to thank the witnesses for being here.
Ms. Stoner, the October 6th, 2011, and July 31st, 2012, NMA
v. Jackson decision struck down the interagency memorandum of
understanding and guidance and made clear that such attempts
were outside of EPA's statutory authority and that the Corps
alone can implement.
I am wondering, are you--and I have asked you this question
before, but I would like an update. How is the EPA working to
ensure that this is being implemented? Where are you on that?
Ms. Stoner. So we are no longer relying on that document
and on the implementation procedures that we had worked out
with other Federal agencies that the Federal court struck down.
That case is, of course, on appeal and is a matter in
litigation.
We continue to work closely with other agencies, however,
under the authorities of the Clean Water Act that authorize us
to do so.
Mrs. Capito. OK. Thank you.
Guidance documents also have had significant impact on the
issuance of the 402 permits. In West Virginia, for instance, we
have 724 applications for NPDES permits for mining activities
pending in January of 2013. To put that in perspective, we only
had 306 applications pending in 2008.
What do you feel is a reasonable amount of time that a
permit applicant should have to wait in order to secure a
permit?
Ms. Stoner. Some are more complex than others, but it is
very important that the agencies work together effectively to
issue those permits as rapidly as possible after ensuring they
meet the requirements of the law.
Mrs. Capito. Are you doing anything to help with the
backlog that exists right now to speed that up?
Ms. Stoner. We absolutely are working very closely with our
colleagues at the Corps and with our State colleagues, because,
as you know, through Appalachia, the States are issuing the
NPDES permits, to ensure that those permits are issued in
compliance with the law.
Mrs. Capito. Well, you may be aware that I introduced a
bill to try to make definitive the length of the process so we
could have some predictability and stability in this.
So I am not sure what the future of that is, but that is
something that we will be talking about hopefully in this
subcommittee, sir.
The other court case that I would like to talk about is the
EPA v. Mingo Logan.
Ms. Stoner. Yes.
Mrs. Capito. And, as you know, I disagree with this
decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld EPA's authority
to retroactively veto a permit. As you know, this opinion has
created widespread anxiety in the coal-mining industry. And EPA
argued successfully that it has the authority to take away a
404 permit irrespective of whether the permit holder is
complying with the terms of the permit.
But if we look back to the deliberations on the Clean Water
Act originally, there were three hallmarks for permitting
regulations that exist: One is uniformity, one is finality, and
one is enforceability.
Do you agree that finality is an important consideration
for permits? In other words, when they have been finally
issued, are they finally issued?
Ms. Stoner. So the court held that the 404(c) authority
allows the withdrawal of a specification, so a particular
location for the discharge of material, when certain findings
are made. So the permit remains, and the permit allows
continued mining at that operation as at others. But those
specifications that we had moved to withdraw, the court found
was appropriate under the statute itself. It was an
interpretation of the statute itself, the Clean Water Act.
It is important to keep in mind, of course, that we use the
404(c) authority extremely rarely. So it is about 13 times ever
in the history of the Clean Water Act, which has been 40-some
years now, 41 this year I guess. So we use it very rarely, and
we would only use it for particular instances of grave concern.
Mrs. Capito. Well, as you can imagine, this isn't just coal
mining, it is other entities that are seeking these types of
permits. And the chill of investment--if you feel that you have
put 10 years, which this company did, into securing a permit,
working it and reworking it, working under the permit, and then
having it yanked out from under them after probably millions
and millions of dollars of investment, you can imagine what
that does to chill the investment in anything, not just coal
mining, in the area.
I have a final question. In 2002, the EPA and Corps of
Engineers adopted a joint regulatory definition of fill
material. The current rule includes fill materials that, when
placed in the waters of the U.S., had the effect of raising the
bottom elevation or filling the water, and maintains the proper
legal distinction between discharges between the 404 and the
402. However, EPA and the Corps have stated that they are now
considering revising that definition.
What specific problems with the current rule is the EPA
having?
Ms. Stoner. We have no active discussions with the Corps on
revising that rule at this time.
Mrs. Capito. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Ms. Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Stoner, the Navajo Nation EPA obtained primacy for the
public water supply supervision program in 2000, and the Navajo
Nation EPA has done a tremendous job of maintaining compliance
over 164 drinking water systems. Grants in fiscal year 2014 are
slated for reductions, although we hope that does not happen.
So I have two questions, but I am going to ask them
together so you can answer them together. The first one is, how
can EPA apply appropriate discretion to maintain resource
investments in the continuation of the Navajo Nation EPA public
water supply supervision? And then, what can be done to elevate
the resource issues to support the establishment of base
funding allocations for the Navajo Nation public water supply
supervision program?
Ms. Stoner. So the cuts that we have taken under the
sequester are across-the-board cuts designated for particular
programs, so we have very limited discretion to protect
particular programs.
We do continue to work closely with the tribes on those
programs, and including with the Navajo, and have put
particular attention on ensuring that the drinking water
systems and the compliance is as good on tribal lands as on
other lands. And we actually have a measure to measure how well
we are doing on that. So it is a priority for the Agency.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Do you see another source of funds to
continue that project?
Ms. Stoner. I think that if we continue to have continued
funding under the PWSS program, there is a specific amount of
that that goes to the tribes. So the more funding in that
program generally, the more funding we will have available for
tribes.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Hanna?
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
Ms. Stoner, do you believe the EPA jurisdictional authority
to regulate water is limited or unlimited--and this isn't meant
to be an accusation or any inference whatsoever--limited or
unlimited under the Clean Water Act?
Ms. Stoner. It is limited. And it is actually more limited
than it used to be under the two Supreme Court decisions
addressing the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.
Mr. Hanna. To that end, Congress has expressly opposed
legislative attempts to remove the word ``navigable'' from the
law and replace it with a new term, ``waters of the United
States,'' as broadly defined by the EPA.
Isn't this exactly what the EPA's so-called guidance
attempts to accomplish?
Ms. Stoner. The guidance that was put out in proposal and
as a draft is currently pending, would seek greater clarity
about the question that you ask. So it is currently somewhat
muddled as to where the scope of jurisdiction lies and where
the line lies that you ask about----
Mr. Hanna. What is your opinion about what you would like
to see in the language? What would you like to see, ultimately,
that language to be?
Ms. Stoner. We would like to see greater clarity that helps
the Federal, State, local agencies and local entities----
Mr. Hanna. What does that mean to you, though? Which way
would you go, ``navigable'' or ``waters of the United States''?
Ms. Stoner. Well, both are currently in the Clean Water
Act, but what we would like to do is to interpret the language
of the Clean Water Act in light of those Supreme Court cases to
provide greater clarity on that question.
Mr. Hanna. I understand that numerous stakeholders,
including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Association
of Counties, League of Cities, National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, are strongly urging the EPA to update its
affordability guidelines to better reflect the financial needs
that communities are facing in trying to meet multiple unfunded
regulatory mandates.
What are the EPA's plans to amend the affordability
guidelines, if any? And why does the EPA, if it is, why does it
seem to be so resistant to these changes?
Ms. Stoner. We are actually in very productive discussions
with the National League of Cities, Conference of Mayors, and
the National Association of Counties, on issues of financial
capability. I would not say we are resistant at all. In fact,
what we are doing is working out a range of factors that can be
considered on financial capability to address those concerns.
And it is a very productive dialogue that----
Mr. Hanna. Can you break that down a little bit more? Can
you say what that might look like and what kind of timeline we
are looking at?
Ms. Stoner. Well, the discussions are occurring now, and I
believe--we just had one meeting, and I believe there are two
more ahead to discuss this in more detail.
Cynthia Giles, my colleague in the enforcement office, and
I already issued a memo explaining the general idea about
financial capability and considering a broader range of
factors. And what we are working on now is what further detail
on that would include.
Mr. Hanna. All right. Well, thank you.
Mr. Stanislaus, since 1995, thousands of brownfields sites
have been assessed, and well over 2,000 properties have been
made ready for reuse.
Can you talk a little bit about the progress for that reuse
and how successful it has been? Not just the cleanup, of
course, but there are 2,000 sitting out there. What kind of
actions are you taking to dispose of these properties and to
facilitate new companies, new use of these properties?
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
And I actually think the program is very successful, but we
have lots of challenges. On a yearly basis, we are only able to
fund about one-quarter of all requests.
And the tools that we provide are generally in the category
of grants for investigating a site to determine how
contaminated the site is. We provide cleanup resources, we
provide redevelopment resources. And, generally, it is led by
local governments.
Mr. Hanna. How many of these sites, can you give me an
estimate of how many are actually being used for some other
purpose?
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes, I can give you a comprehensive list,
but let me give you an overall summary.
Mr. Hanna. OK.
Mr. Stanislaus. Roughly, every dollar of U.S. grants
leverages about $18 of private and public investment. And the
reason for that is, because particularly on the site assessment
side, it provides more certainty so the private sector can
underwrite these projects.
And, in fact, I got together with a number of local leaders
and developers just last week at our semiannual meeting to
bring actors together to redevelop----
Mr. Hanna. My time is almost up, but do you think that
there is enough certainty? Do you imagine, after working
through this, there are ways that the Government can either
take on more legal responsibility or relieve the downside
potential to companies in order to facilitate their interest in
these properties?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, I would have to consider more the
liability question. What we have done is to provide even
further liability clarification.
For example, we recently had a conversation with those who
were interested in siting clean energy on contaminated
properties. You remember, developers and financiers. And they
thought that we needed to provide further liability
clarification for lessees.
Under the Brownfields Law that was passed a number of years
ago, it provided certainty for owners but not lessees. So we
have recently issued further clarification, which can be used
in the underwriting process to provide that kind of certainty.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
My time has expired, long past. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Representative Hahn?
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bishop. I
am glad we are having this hearing.
I just wanted to start by going on the record, and I know
everybody doesn't have the same experience that I have, but I
have really found in the areas that I represent out in Los
Angeles that we never really had to choose between protecting
our environment and creating jobs.
In fact, what I found was cleaning up the air and cleaning
up the water at the Port of Los Angeles actually created jobs.
And, with our insistence that the Port of L.A. clean up its
act, we actually created a laboratory where we had just
numerous small businesses and entrepreneurs who were able to
start up businesses that helped to clean up the port and gave
them a consistent and reliable reason to create businesses and
products and technology that would continue to support that
mandate.
So I never had to choose between clean air and good jobs. I
think we can do both.
I am going to follow up on my friend and colleague, Mr.
Hanna's line of questioning about brownfields. And many of the
communities that I represent have significant brownfields, and,
you know, they are the recipient of decades of being used as a
dumping ground for a lot of the rest of Los Angeles. The city
of Carson is one of those, and they are discovering that these
brownfields sites represent significant development
opportunities on valuable, well-located land. And what they are
doing now to clean, remediate this is impressive. It is
creating jobs and growth and opportunity.
But, Mr. Stanislaus, in what you just said, that every
dollar of EPA brownfields spending leverages nearly $18 in
private and public funding, of course I am sitting here
troubled by the administration proposing to cut brownfields
grants by $9 million. And, by your math, you know, cutting this
$9.1 million is really a $173 million cut to brownfields
projects that are creating jobs, rejuvenating communities, and
figuring out a way to deal with these brownfields.
So when we are so desperately in need of jobs and
opportunity that these brownfields remediations have provided,
how can the EPA ensure that this proposed cut does not
adversely impact the progress of brownfields remediation
activities across our country and in my district? And how can
we leverage more private funding when we are losing a
significant leverage tool in this grant money?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, thank you. And, you know, ideally, we
would not have that cut. You know, we are in this constrained
budget time that we have right now. And so we tried to minimize
the cut to the greatest extent we can.
So it will have impact in terms of the total numbers of
grants that we can give and reduce the number of communities
that we can touch. But despite that, you know, we will try to
aggressively, one, get the money out as quickly as possible,
shrinking that time period to get the money out as quickly as
possible.
When I have had a series of discussions with local leaders
around the country, in these budget-constrained times, the
single most important activity they underscored in today's
climate is technical assistance, on-the-ground technical
assistance, probably even more than grants in a lot of cases.
So we are really ramping up our technical assistance, both
our direct technical assistance in terms of staff time, our
contractor assistance. We recently awarded an independent
technical assistance provider to provide capacity to local
governments so they can compete for resources in a way that we
cannot.
So those are some of the things we are trying to do. The
other things--in fact, last week, when we brought together
probably about 28,000 various folks from around the country,
you know, we continue to want to provide resources and
technical assistance to them to advance their projects. And
that is some of the various things that we are trying to do.
And I should also underscore, which I always like to do,
the increase of property values.
Ms. Hahn. Uh-huh.
Mr. Stanislaus. So it is not only the direct leveraging.
Our studies show that within a mile of a cleanup of brownfield
sites increasing property values from 5.1 percent to 12.8
percent. So it directly relates to increases in local tax
revenue, you know, property values. So there is a lot of
stimulative effects of brownfield sites. That is why I am a big
champion of that.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Crawford?
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Stoner, I want to focus on EPA's regulations of on-farm
fuel storage. It has been a source of constant frustration for
farmers in my district and, I suspect, across the country, as
well.
The most recent continuing resolution, H.R. 933, included a
provision, section 1416, that bars the EPA from enforcing the
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Rule that went into
effect on May 10th.
If your agency can't legally enforce these rules at this
time, then why does the EPA's SPCC Web site still direct
farmers to be in compliance by May 10th?
Mr. Stanislaus. So----
Ms. Stoner. I am going to direct that question to my
colleague.
Mr. Stanislaus. That is actually my question.
Mr. Crawford. My apologies.
Mr. Stanislaus. Sure.
So, you know, we have done extensive outreach with the
farmers, going back probably, I would say, 10 years or so, to
put in place the proper balance of the protections to prevent
oil spills. And I think we, I think the farmers, the farm
bureaus, we all agree that preventing oil spills is a good
thing and limits, prevents impacts on farmland, it prevents
impacts on local community water sources.
So, given that, we have tried to make it as lean as
possible. And just to be clear, the SPCC rules only cover farms
that have a significant size of oil tank. So, of the total farm
universe, it is less than 10 percent. And, of that 10 percent,
95 percent is basically self-implementing. So basically they
put together their own plans, they have a file so that they can
ensure that oil spills do not happen.
And so, we believe we have done a lot to really accommodate
the farmers and the farmers' compliance. And, actually, we have
had a great exchange with the farming community in terms of the
rules themselves.
Mr. Crawford. OK. Well, with all due respect, you haven't
answered my question. What I want to find out is, why are you
directing them to be in compliance when you don't have the
authority to enforce the compliance based on the section 1416
of H.R. 933, which extended that beyond May 10th? So I am just
wondering why you would direct them on your Web site to be in
compliance on May 10th.
I guess my followup question would be, when the CR expires,
is the EPA retroactively going to enforce those regulations if
farmers weren't in compliance by May 10th?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, again, our primary objective is to
work with farmers to put in the protections necessary. So that
is what we will continue to do. And we continue to have
exchanges with the farming community to do that. And I think it
is a win-win for us to be doing that.
Mr. Crawford. OK. So you will not, then, enforce
retroactively for those farmers that are not currently in
compliance?
Mr. Stanislaus. Well, let me get back to you in terms of
that.
You know, again, our primary role here is not lead with
enforcement; our primary role is to lead with compliance. And
that is why we have done lots of outreach with the farming
community, going back multiple of years. We have actually
developed informational materials with the farm bureaus to
distribute to the farmers. We have really worked on making sure
during the nongrowing season that we do a lot of outreach to
them. So I think we are really working hard to work with the
farming community.
Mr. Crawford. Well, I appreciate that, but you just said
you lead with compliance, and a key component to compliance is
enforcement. My concern is that farmers won't be retroactively
penalized based on a compliance date that was superceded by the
current CR that is in effect right now.
So I am concerned about that. And I just want to restate
for the subcommittee here, I hope that we do something about
this very soon because there are a whole lot of small farmers
out there, and the thresholds that you have prescribed under
the Clean Water Act really are unreasonable, 1,320 gallons. And
hopefully we can address that.
I want to switch gears real quick, as my time is limited
here.
Along with Chairman Gibbs, I also sent a letter on March
12th requesting some information regarding the EPA release of
sensitive information to environmental groups. Have not yet
received a response to that letter. So I am also very
frustrated with that, as well.
But can you tell me and tell the committee what the process
used by the EPA was to acquire released information from State
agencies?
Ms. Stoner. So we contacted States directly and asked them
for publicly available information to help us implement the
Clean Water Act's requirements----
Mr. Crawford. OK, let me ask you this: Do you know, was
there any information such as a Social Security number
possibly, GPS coordinates, and so on that would identify the
exact locations of any of these production facilities?
Ms. Stoner. I am not aware of seeing any Social Security
numbers. There were some addresses that were part of the
information. And, as you know, we have taken steps to redact
the information, where there were privacy concerns having to do
with individuals, and have taken that step and have asked for
the other data back, which we have received.
Mr. Crawford. Well, thank you. I am out of time. But,
unfortunately, redacting after the fact does little to protect
those farmers in question.
I yield back.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Mullin?
Mr. Mullin. Real quick, I want to reiterate what Mr.
Crawford was saying. As an active farm operator, it is absurd
to me that the EPA is going to start coming on our land trying
to tell us how to take care of stuff we have been doing for
years. I can assure you, you are not going to find anybody that
has more pride in their property than someone like myself that
has been on the same land for four generations. We don't need
the EPA to come in and start telling us how to take care of
something we have been doing for years. That is not my
question. That is just me venting.
Now, my question is, though, the EPA Scientific Advisory
Board recently announced their independent panel of 31 experts
to study the EPA's conduct on--or conducting on hydraulic
fracturing. And how did these experts get chosen?
Ms. Stoner. I believe you are asking about a question of
the study being done by the Office of Research and Development.
So that is not a study that we are doing out of my office, but
we would be happy to provide that information to you.
Mr. Mullin. So you guys don't know how the panel was put
together?
Mr. Stanislaus. It was set up, as Nancy noted, by another
office. We can get you that information, how the experts were
selected.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I mean, I think that would be pretty
important, just for the simple fact--and I just want to point
out something here. The panel, 60 percent of those, of the 31
that are on that panel, 60 percent of them had direct funding
from the EPA, 60 percent of them. Now, out of that, Missouri is
on there, Washington is on there, North Carolina has three
universities on there, Penn State has two, Colorado has four.
Oklahoma, who has, as we speak, 149 active fracking sites. We
gave out 10,000 permits last year alone, not on there. North
Dakota, where we are hearing all this stuff going on, not one
person is on there.
Something needs to be checked in on this panel. I really
hope this doesn't have to do with an agenda. I would really
hope that this panel was put together for the purpose of truly
giving an independent study point of view. But everything we
are seeing, that is not going on. What we are seeing is the EPA
once again has their own agenda, has nothing do with getting it
right. It has their own agenda.
And so I would appreciate it if you guys could bring that
to my office or at least get it sent to me.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First off, thank you both for coming in today.
You know, if you are a farmer or a producer and you look at
the news for the last few years, you are kind of concerned with
your agency. You had proposals to further regulate farm dust,
proposals to treat milk spills like oil spills. I know there
has been a lot of discussion about the ``navigable'' term out
of ``navigable waterways.'' And, also, your agency admits to
releasing personal information on over 80,000 livestock
producers to activist groups.
As you can see the hits, they keep on coming to the
agricultural community. And I must ask, are you personally
aware of the disconnect between the agency you work for and the
people that I represent in the agricultural community?
Ms. Stoner?
Ms. Stoner. So we have set up a group to supplement the
usual group that we have to periodically discuss issues with
the agricultural community to try to improve the communication
and understanding on issues like the ones that you raise.
We are well aware of the benefits to clean water from
having land in farming, particularly, as opposed to developed.
And we also recognize what good stewards of the land farmers
are in the United States.
So we are actively working with those groups to improve
communication on issues on which we have had some difficulties.
And I will acknowledge that we have had some, and we are doing
the very best we can to improve that situation.
Mr. Davis. Ms. Stoner, thank you.
I had an idea, and I successfully included an amendment to
the farm bill that would provide agriculture with a place at
the table whenever EPA is proposing a new regulation that deals
with ag. My amendment does three simple things. It increases
the USDA review of the EPA regs that just affect the
agriculture industry. It sets up a mechanism where farmers can
just provide you input on these regulations. And then it
summons an ag review panel that submits a report and
recommendations to EPA on the concerns of the ag community.
Given the principles that I have outlined, does the EPA
support this type of involvement by the agricultural community
and the USDA?
Ms. Stoner. I am not familiar with the details of your
specific legislation, and I don't believe the administration
has a position on it right now.
I will note, though, that every person in the United States
has the opportunity to comment on proposed rules and that there
also is a process under which USDA and other agencies work
through the clearance process that we go through with OMB on
every rule, so that those opportunities exist now under current
law.
Mr. Davis. OK. Well, I mean, you are saying that the
farmers and the agriculture industry is already involved in the
regulatory process. I just can't fathom, then, how the EPA
explains some of the issues that have come out of your agency
that I mentioned earlier. I just think there is a disconnect,
and I think it demonstrates a lack of understanding that I was
just discussing.
I think the EPA needs to provide better access to the
agricultural community so that we are not--we are dealing with
issues so that your agency understands the ag sector on the
front end, rather than having to fight back those proposed
rules and regulations on the back end.
I urge you to take my message back to your agency. And if
there is any way I can help facilitate that and facilitate that
type of message with the EPA and with the USDA, I am more than
willing to do that so that we don't have hearings like this or
future hearings to discuss what I consider adversarial rules
and regulations to the many constituents that I represent in
central and southwestern Illinois.
But, again, I do want to thank both of you for your time
today. I know it is long and arduous to sit in one of these
hearings. I commend you for doing so. And I want to say thank
you again on behalf of this subcommittee.
And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this
issue. And I would like to yield back my time.
Ms. Stoner. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. I will start giving myself some time here for
questions.
Ms. Stoner, back on spending and spending priorities, it
has come to my attention there is a $12 million request to
design a new federally owned facility in Las Vegas. And I guess
I want to know about that.
Is this going to be--in a time when we have budget
restraints and there are more pressing needs than to build new
facilities, I hope this isn't a start of a new construction
program. So can you address a little bit what the priorities
are? And are you getting into the building business?
Ms. Stoner. My understanding is that what you are referring
to is a lab that is not part of the Office of Water budget, so
I am not familiar with the request that you are asking about.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Because I believe it is going to be referred
to as the Harry Reid building, if that stimulates any----
Mr. Stanislaus. Yes. We will get back to you. I am not
familiar with it either.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. OK.
I wanted to talk a little bit about how the past
subcommittee hearings in the last Congress, we had some good
discussion, I think, on the integrated permitting initiative.
Ms. Stoner. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gibbs. And since then, we have had some other hearings,
some of the local stakeholders in, and concern that it is not
really functioning. I am not so sure that your agency has
really been aggressive enough to get that program going, help
the municipalities, and craft an acceptable integrated plan.
What is the status? Are you looking at maybe doing 15 or 20
pilot projects? Because this is an area where I think we can
really help on the cost side and actually get something done to
improve the environment.
Ms. Stoner. Yeah, we appreciate your support for that
program, and it is moving forward. The goal of it is to work
with communities to prioritize their investments so that they
can achieve as much as possible with the dollar, given the
difficult fiscal times in which we find ourselves.
And that program is moving forward. There is a lot of
interest in it across the country. We have not had to turn away
anyone yet, so we are not actually in the pilot project mode,
in the sense that we are talking to everyone who is interested
in it. It is voluntary for them to decide whether they would
like to participate in integrated planning. And those who do
are working with their State and with EPA to move forward to do
so.
We are also making sure it is implemented consistently
throughout the country through regular calls with the regions
as well as quarterly meetings between Cynthia Giles and the
enforcement office and myself to go through the docket of where
these discussions are occurring to make sure they are moving
forward smoothly.
Mr. Gibbs. Just a suggestion, since we were just talking
about the $12 million construction project in Las Vegas, maybe
that might be well better spent on pilot projects for this
integrated permitting.
A question on that. Is your agency putting out to the local
authorities what you would like to see, what kind of projects?
Are you trying to stimulate the thought process to try to
stimulate the interest? I know there is interest at the local
level, but maybe they need some parameters or some guidance.
Ms. Stoner. Right. So we actually did put out a document
that helps communities identify what elements of an integrated
plan would like look. And we have urged them to come in early
to talk with both us and the State permitting authority to
figure out how to do that together constructively, to develop
an integrated plan that can move through the system. So that is
how we are addressing that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
We have also heard that there are some EPA regional offices
where certain cities with the combined sewer overflows promised
to keep on spending in the limit where they can afford to solve
the combined sewer overflow problems, even if spending more
money will not result in meaningful water quality improvements
and substantially less costly controls are available that will
meet water quality standards.
I thought the EPA Deputy Administrator and you both have
said that the EPA would not make cities spend the limits of
their affordability without getting meaningful water quality
benefits. My question is, what is your policy in spending to
the limit of affordability? And why aren't all the regions
listening to the DC office?
Ms. Stoner. There is no required spending amount, but it is
often expensive to address combined sewer overflows. And so
part of what we are trying to do is to make sure we are
identifying the most cost-effective approaches and working on
those with communities to make sure every dollar is well-spent
and achieves improved water quality.
Mr. Gibbs. Do you have affordability guidelines that you
work with with local municipalities?
Ms. Stoner. Right, so we are currently working--in addition
to integrated planning, we are working with local governments
on identifying a broader array of factors to be considered on
financial capability, as well, to ensure that there is a good
understanding on that. But there has never been a minimum
spending amount.
Mr. Gibbs. My understanding is that you have guidelines and
you are trying to revise them. Are you working through a
revision of those guidelines for affordability?
Ms. Stoner. We are working to do something on financial
capability similar to what we did on integrated planning. And
so that would be some kind of a framework or strategy document
that we would work on with the Conference of Majors, National
League of Cities, and National Association of Counties.
Mr. Gibbs. I hope it progresses quicker because I think we
had this discussion 2 years ago, and it doesn't seem like we
have moved far and fast enough. So maybe we ought to try to
prioritize that. Because I think that would really help
municipalities meet their clean water standards and do it in a
way they can afford to do it.
Ms. Stoner. Again, thank you for your support.
Mr. Gibbs. Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, I share the concern that Congresswoman Capito
has with respect to the length of time that it takes for
permits to be reviewed and granted, and I indicated that in my
opening statement.
My question is, I am assuming that if there is an 18-
percent cut across the board to EPA that that means some people
who currently work for the EPA will lose their jobs. Is that
correct?
Ms. Stoner. I can't tell you specifically how we would take
such a cut, but it would certainly impair our ability to do our
job, including working with States on permitting----
Mr. Bishop. And so, if there were fewer people available to
review permits, it is reasonable to assume that an already-
lengthy permitting process would become even more so; is that
correct?
Ms. Stoner. I think that is fair to assume.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Thank you. And I thank you very much for
the work that you do under pretty adverse circumstances, and I
thank you for your testimony today.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I think I have just a couple more questions.
On stormwater, the EPA has initiated a controversial
national rulemaking to establish a potentially far-reaching and
costly program to regulate stormwater discharges.
What is the status of rulemaking? And when can we expect to
see a proposal? And how long will the public comment period be?
Ms. Stoner. So I don't have answers to all of the details
that you are asking me about. We are working on a stormwater
rule which we actually think will, again, address these cost-
effectiveness issues that we have been talking about in terms
of the problems associated with water pollution that cities
face, many of which have to do with population growth and
urbanization and so forth.
So this is part of the approach that we are taking to help
to bring down those costs. And we are continuing to work on
that. And I actually have been doing a series of roundtables
across the country to get more input from cities and others on
the proposals we are developing now.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Also, I know the question came up earlier, but I wanted to
follow up a little bit more, because there has been so much
concern out in the country, especially in the rural areas with
agriculture. What do you believe the EPA's jurisdictional
authority to regulate water is? Is it limited or unlimited of
the Clean Water Act? Where do you think that authority ends?
When you talk about navigable waters, just where do you see the
Agency?
Ms. Stoner. So that is exactly why we would like to put out
a clarification, because that question is one that comes up
often across the country by individuals who are trying to
determine whether they need permits or not. So many of them are
concerned that the jurisdiction is unclear, that they just
assume there is jurisdiction and move ahead with the permitting
process.
So we think it would be better to clarify the scope of the
Clean Water Act and the limitations that do exist. And there
are limitations. And so we would like to get that clarified.
Mr. Gibbs. Would you agree that in, I guess it was 1972,
when the Clean Water Act was enacted into law--it has always
been my understanding, it was enacted into law under the
constitutional authority of the interstate Commerce Clause
because the word ``navigable'' was in there. Would you agree
that ``navigable'' is a key word to the constitutionality of
the Clean Water Act?
Ms. Stoner. What I would say is that there was a broader
scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act earlier than
there is now. And some of that was based on the Commerce Clause
and the use of waters by migratory birds. And the Supreme Court
has indicated that use by migratory birds is not sufficient.
There is a narrower scope of jurisdiction under the Clean Water
Act that----
Mr. Gibbs. That would be your opinion, right? That you
think there is--because I would----
Ms. Stoner. I think it is pretty well-recognized, but, yes,
it is my opinion that the Supreme Court narrowed the scope of
jurisdiction that was previously recognized across the country
under the Clean Water Act.
Mr. Gibbs. Interesting.
I just want to also ask, we talk about the nutrients in the
numerical versus narrative standard. Can you tell me where the
EPA is on setting criteria? Are you moving more toward the
numeric in some areas? Are we still using more of the
narrative? Or where are we at?
Ms. Stoner. So I appreciate you asking that, particularly
in light of your opening remarks about partnerships. So we have
indicated that our approach is to work with States on statewide
nutrient reduction strategies and on criteria.
So numeric criteria do help States implement programs to
help address problems associated with nutrient pollution, like
algal blooms and nitrate contamination of drinking water and so
forth. And so what we have been doing is working with those
States that are interested in doing numeric nutrient criteria
to help them with the science, with technical assistance, to
have criteria that work for them in their program.
Mr. Gibbs. Are there some issues with your own science
advisory board? I think they have expressed concerns about
using the numerical standard.
Ms. Stoner. I think that there was a document at one point
that they made comments on. That was some period of time ago. I
think we have already addressed those comments.
But what we are doing is making sure that we have a sound
scientific basis for all the work that we do with our State
partners on developing numeric criteria.
Mr. Gibbs. Did I understand you correctly to say that some
States are moving forward, mostly using the numeric?
Ms. Stoner. Yes. There are some States that are currently
developing numeric criteria, and we have approved a number of
criteria----
Mr. Gibbs. About how many States would that be?
Ms. Stoner. I will have to get back to you on the specific
answer on that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. My understanding, you could have a high
nitrogen or phosphorus content in some areas that causes a big
problem, obviously, with algae blooms and what else. But there
are some instances where you could still have a high
phosphorous standard and maybe not have a problem, but it would
exceed the numeric standard.
So I don't know, if you move totally to a numeric standard
and don't use the narrative, will you take in all that is going
on in that watershed or that water body or river, the pH, the
water flow, the biology. We just have to be careful we don't
get constricted to this one-size-fits-all policy that is going
to cause problems. Because there are different things going on
all across the country in different water bodies. Is that----
Ms. Stoner. You are correct that there is no one national
number that applies to everyone. And that is actually true of
water quality standards generally. They are set by the States
based on the uses of the waters.
But for nutrient pollution, different water bodies
naturally have different amount of nutrients in them. And so
that is one of the factors to be taken into account. And we do
that in developing the science, working with the States to set
criteria that are appropriate for them.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
There is a provision in the Clean Water Act that aims to
prevent conflicts of interest with people that get appointed to
State water quality boards overseeing the administration of
Clean Water Act permits. EPA's long-existing rules have a 10-
percent income restriction, which has led to problems over the
years in many States being able to get qualified people to
serve on such, quote, ``citizens boards.'' Some have attempted
to use these provisions, in maybe Florida and Maine, as a
weapon to try to disqualify political appointees from
environmental agencies.
Section 304 of the Clean Water Act directed U.S. EPA to
develop regulations to prevent an individual that receives
significant income from a permittee or permit applicant from
sitting on a water quality authority that reviews and issues
NPDES permits. U.S. EPA has defined ``significant'' to be
income in excess of 10 percent of an individual's annual
income. This test applies to immediate family members also.
Please explain the basis of this decision that led to the
determination that a 10-percent income threshold was the
appropriate way to protect against conflicts?
Ms. Stoner. I believe we are working on a revision
associated with that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
It has comes to the committee's attention that EPA's Office
of Water is considering ways in which it might revise the
income restriction rule to better reflect the realities and
complexities of implementing the NPDES permit program, the
reach of which has greatly expanded over the years since
passage of the Clean Water Act.
Can you explain how the Agency envisions developing
alternatives that would ensure that qualified individuals can
be appointed to water quality authorities using true conflict-
of-interest tests?
And that probably is in your vision, I am assume you are
going to tell me.
Ms. Stoner. Yeah. Those are the issues that we are looking
at in the revision, yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. What about timing? You are working on the
revision. Do you have a timetable?
Ms. Stoner. Not one that I can share with you now, but we
would be happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
I do have another issue here that I guess I might as well
bring up, since nobody else is going to ask a question.
Apparently, there is, in Region 9, in the San Diego area, a
continue to push permit users in California to impose a numeric
influence standard for bacteria in permits based on EPA's
November 2010 memorandum that is still not approved and
finalized through the OMB review process.
In light of the recent Eighth Circuit opinion in the Iowa
League of Cities case finding the practice to violate
Administrative Procedures Act requirements, does the EPA intend
to withdraw the November 2010 memorandum?
Ms. Stoner. So the water-quality-based effluent limits that
are in MS4 permits are not reliant on that memo. They are
actually reliant on the regulations and the findings that
States make that waters are impaired and that they are impaired
by stormwater.
So the memo is not actually critical to that
decisionmaking, which is an authority that the Ninth Circuit
has found that the Agency has under the stormwater program to
implement water-quality-based effluent limits to protect water
quality. And that is what is being addressed in those permits
that you are asking about.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Well, I guess we will conclude, and I appreciate----
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, yes? Go ahead. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, thank you. And I apologize, but I am
glad the chairman brought up the NPDES permit process.
A few years ago in my previous job, I was working with many
stakeholders in rural areas who were concerned about the EPA
regional office that covers Illinois, their attempt to work
with the Illinois EPA to regulate and require testing of above-
ground septic system discharge systems, commonly known as
aeration systems.
Is there a national push by your agency to require an NPDES
permit for individual systems, above-ground discharge systems?
Ms. Stoner. No.
Mr. Davis. OK. OK. So that was a regional push and----
Ms. Stoner. Septic systems are problems in some areas. They
are covered by the Nonpoint Source Program. And when they are
problematic, we work with States to use the 319 funds that we
can provide or other State authorities. And States may have
different authorities than we do to address septic system
pollution.
It can be a big problem in some areas, and so we do like to
work to address that. Sometimes it can be addressed by
something as simple as helping people clean out their septic
systems. So if you have one, you should make sure you clean it
out periodically. But they can cause some bacterial kinds of
contamination and nutrient pollution of waterways nearby.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. And I do have one, and I do
clean it out periodically.
There was a big concern, though, that the State and the
regional office were going to require in Illinois testing of
discharge on each and every above-ground septic system,
aeration system, throughout the State, which would inordinately
hurt some of the most rural and poorest areas of the State of
Illinois. I know that that push was a few years ago. I am glad
to hear that there is not a national push from the EPA to do
that.
And I would encourage your agency to work with those
regional offices in the States to understand the impact that a
proposed rule like this might have. And the fact, in Illinois,
where I live, we didn't have the testing facilities that would
be able to take the tests and figure out whether or not someone
passed. There were no further rules about how many tests is it
going to take to actually prove, if you failed, if you are now
up to your standards.
It was an issue that was big a couple of years ago. It is
one that I hope doesn't become a major issue again. And I hope
all of the septic system owners like myself do clean their
systems out and do take advantage of the technology that is out
there, because it is not a permit that should be needed on an
individual basis in rural States like mine.
So thank you for clarifying that. Thank you again for your
time today.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you.
I just wanted to close by just kind of a statement that I
think today we learned that--I am happy to see you recognize
that agriculture can play a key role in enhancing water
quality. I am a firm believer of that, especially with a lot of
the new technologies that are being used, with no-till and min-
tillage practices and grass waterways and all that.
I am concerned, obviously, we had the issue about public
disclosure of private information. Hopefully that stays at the
top your radar screen and is addressed appropriately.
And, also, we are working--we have challenges out there in
infrastructure. And I get a lot of people coming into local
municipalities; they are all under, most of them, some EPA
edict, combined sewer overflow or overcapacity in the sewage
treatment plant. And that is why I think the integrated permit
process, which I know you support, I think would be a key
initiative to help them. Because there is not just enough money
to go around. And, hopefully, we can do some things here
legislatively. One thing I have been working on is a private-
public partnership to bring some resources in, especially in
that area, that I think could make a lot of sense for both the
private and public sectors. So, encouraged by that.
But I think it is also worth mentioning that--I am sure my
ranking member gets it, too, a lot of his constituents and
local businesses are concerned about how sometimes the EPA
operates. I think everybody wants clean air and clean water.
And I think it is important that as much as we can do to help
them come into compliance and do the right thing, instead of go
out and beat them over the head. Sometimes that doesn't always
work as well either. So I think that is always important, as we
work as public servants.
So I want to thank you for both being here.
And we will conclude this hearing. Adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]