committee will come to order good morning today the subcommittee will hear testimony on the reauthorization of the great lakes legacy act and this program aims to address the legacy of contaminated sediment and that degrades water quality throughout the great lakes and threatens the health of populations who live in the region the great lakes led you see an act of two thousand and two was a good for a st addressing the contaminated sediment that this boils the water resources upon which a successful transformation of the region will dip in man introduced by  it's aimed to clean those many contaminated sites that have been largely overlooked by our own going federal traffic waste site cleanup efforts not only was a super fun process perceived as slow lyrica and will be many contaminated sites in the great lakes region were not included on the list of sites that would ultimately be addressed by the super fun yet many of these sites were too large and too toxic for states and localities to deal with on their own in addition to many many communities throughout the great lakes region were left with the chronically tactical fix of contaminated sediment that relegated their towns and peoples to health risk and economic under achievement the great lakes legacy act of two thousand and two sought to address these largely abandoned sites and areas of concern provide a dedicated source of federal funding for cleanup and remediation this morning we look to what has worked over the past five years with the legacy act and what challenges remain and how these can be addressed the legacy act of two thousand to authorize fifty million dollars a year for five years to clean up contaminated sediment of hazardous waste sites in thirty one areas of concern to this in the program has been successful but only to a degree of the thirty one areas of concern one way goalie in new york has been what is the list that clean up has been completed at four sites i want to highlight whatever i want to have light however this is a cleanup of only four sites mad for areas of concern many of the sites targeted by the original there are structural issues within the legacy act itself that need to be addressed nevertheless the fact remains that to the areas of concern in michigan or in new york one in pennsylvania three in ohio and three in wisconsin remain whol duress let me be clear about our colleagues on the subcommittee the scientific record is very well established on the health impacts of these toxic on human population to be blunt that so many hazardous waste sites remain on address in a public health risk of the first order as a former nurse i can say with a clear conviction that we would be remiss if we did not find a way to clean these toxic and had spots for faster pace than we have over the past five years we cannot freak from our responsibility on this front i look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesse today and how we can improve the legacy act program and i yield to my colleague ranking member mr bowles thank you very much madam chair i want to welcome all the witnesses today i look forward to their testimony his years of work with stakeholders from the great lakes to the great lakes legacy act when i was appointed to this position it probably was not five minutes later that vernon called and said i for drinking industrial and agricultural purposes the source of hydroelectric power and swimming and other recreational activities but the industrialization and development of the great lakes basins over the last two hundred years has had an adverse effect on the great lakes although cypher drinking and swimming in many places fish from the great lakes are not safety like sediments contaminated from the history of industrialization and development in the region are one of the primary causes of this problem by treaty id states in canada are developing clean up plans for the great lakes and for specific areas of concern the great lakes legacy act passed in two thousand and to help citizens restore the quality of the great lakes by taking action to manage contaminated sediments and to prevent further contamination the great lakes legacy act authorized the environmental protection agency to carry out qualified sediment remediation projects and conduct research and development of innovative approaches technologies and techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment in the great lakes legacy act funding must be matched with at least a thirty five percent nonfederal share encouraging local investment banker urging cooperative it efforts through public private partnerships the great lakes legacy act provided a better way to address the problem of contaminated sediments some sites removing settlements will be the best way to address short and long long term risks and other side's the last thing we want to do is go in and start down and i did sediments by dredging causing more harm to the environment obviously how to address contaminated sediments of each coders to express their support for the great lakes legacy and offer any suggestions to modify that i look forward to hearing today's witnesses reading the testimony i want to compliment you in the sense that it looks like the stakeholders are thank you very much madam chair and i certainly appreciate you having this hearing today i'll enter my statement for the record but just briefly let me certainly welcome and recognize their lieutenant governor from the great state of michigan and we work very closely together at the federal and state star it was a great hearing i think that much will come of it in the great lakes we we think of the great lakes obviously as the twenty percent one fifth of fresh water supply of the entire planet and all of us in michigan do  recognize the extraordinary work that remains to be done for restoration and maintenance of the great lakes we love the great lakes but we haven't treated it particularly well for many generations and so as has been articulated already challenges facing the great lakes with industrial contamination invasive species the combined sewer overflows exciter etc and as people have said that the last century was perhaps about oil this century is going to be about freshwater we're certainly at the  forefront of all of that and again we look at it as a national treasure and certainly it's long overdue that the federal government is recognizing what a national treasure it is and having the political will in the courage to stand up with their dollars as well and invest in in this fantastic treasure so again with that i certainly look forward to the testimony of all the witnesses but want to recognize the lieutenant governor cherry for his participation as well thank lakes commission on the great lakes legacy i'm honored to serve both as michigan's attorney governor and sure the great lakes commission commission is a public agency established by the great lakes basin compact  fifty five to help the eight great lakes states speak with a unified voice and collectively fulfill a common vision let me begin by record my recognizing the committee members from the state of michigan representatives candice miller i want to thank you and the other members of the great lakes region for your support for the priorities for the great lakes in particular congress for neighbors you have been a key champion for the great lakes and it is because of your leadership in sponsoring the great lakes legacy act of two thousand and two that we're here today reflected on the success of this important program the committee's support for reauthorizing and strengthening the great lakes legacy act  a necessary step forward a strong agenda for the great lakes i have submitted written testimony that i asked to be made part of the record for today's hearing the testimony includes the great lakes commission's complete recommendations for reauthorizing and strengthening the great lakes legacy act the great lakes are unique and extraordinary natural resource for our region and the nation as a whole more than thirty two million americans  ve the benefits of the great lakes including drinking water food recreation commercial navigation and water resources for industries and utilities public interest in restoring and protecting the great lakes is greater today than  perhaps any time in the past the great lakes region has united behind the great lakes regional collaboration strategy to restore and protect the great lakes as you know areas of concern that are most heavily are the most heavily degraded areas of the great lakes there are thirty one u s and bi national areas of concern including fourteen in my home state of michigan cleaning up these areas is a longstanding priority for the great lakes states act has proven highly successful in these efforts has become a cornerstone of restoration efforts for the areas of concern in michigan alone has facilitated the cleanup the approximately two hundred fifty thousand cubic yards of legacy i will mention three important highlights number one increase the authorized funding level to one hundred fifty million dollars annually this funding will better match the long term cost of completely remediating contaminat funds to restore habitat a clean up sites this is an appropriate use of legacy funds that will facilitate the complete restoration and redevelopment of the site extend the life of appropriated legacy farms beyond two years will be the third point given the length complex nature of sediment cleanups in the possibility of unanticipated the two year limit is inappropriate for the legacy program the great lakes states are united in their approach to a comprehensive restoration strategy a recent study found that local governments alone are spending an estimated fifteen billion dollars each year restoration and activities collectively the great lakes states look to the federal government to be a critical partner them that help wind our nation's wars and fueled our economic prosperity in the twentieth century from the buffalo river in new york to the rouge river in michigan the grand kill river in indiana the other rivers suffered as our  nation prospered the areas of concern other quitters legacy of our use of the great lakes the great lakes will not be fully restored until these areas are restored the great lakes legacy act is a key component of our strategy for chair it's great to be here and to be joined by gary collision the director of the great lakes national program office and it's great to see you congressman bozeman in your position of leadership on the water subcommittee and i'm looking at congressional leaders in the great lakes congressman a o lers congresswoman miller e p a appreciate your work your leadership on this effort madam chair it's great to have the opportunity to discuss the successes to y as well as some of the challenges ahead as you know during this administration e p a has put a real priority behind protecting and restoring the great lakes and accelerating the restoration and protection  great lakes and a key part of that is the great lakes legacy act so the first thing i would like to do is that to say that we believe that our major success to date has been the ability under the act to accelerate the pace of sediment remediation in the lakes since two thousand and four when the first amount of funding was made available under the act we've are mediated over eight hundred thousand cubic yards of sediment at a cost of almost ninety seven million dollars for these remediation projects we've provided fifty three million in legacy act funding which in turn as leverage to forty four million in additional funds that has allowed us to remove over one and a half million pounds of contaminants from the environment it's a model that may be used well in other regions of the country it's about accelerating the pace of clean up through innovation and collaboration and that collaboration is based on partnerships the two thousand and two act vision to stronger partnerships among the agencies and with the public and private sector e p a and other federal agencies such as the army corps of engineers have been working providing efforts to get the environmental restoration underway the corps in particular has provided technical assistance and disposal capacity at their confined disposal facilities and working closely with state agencies and industry and local governments to get get environmental progress moving another key component that we urge the committee to keep in mind is that the key to continued success is going to be the continued ability of nonfederal sponsors to provide the necessary cost share remediating the remaining contaminated sediments will cost in excess of one billion dollars while some of those clean ups will be accomplished through superfund and other authorities the potential demand for legacy act resources is expected to be high course how much we can utilize will be a function of and limited by the availability of the nonfederal match so i think it's important to identify nonfederal sponsor at projects and and to move forward because we won't be able to move forward if we're not able to identify nonfederal sponsors with the requisite cost share it's all about leveraging as you know so we're looking forward to working with states and other interested parties to find creative ways to provide the necessary funds another major point to make is that the polluter pays principle and i know congressman a o s in particular has been following this very closely e p a continues to honor the polluter pays principle it's a fundamental part of how we approach remediation in the great lakes we believe that is a key principle to continue to follow we also recognize that there are situations where there is an orphan share there are situations where these projects the key to celebrating the clean up is by using legacy act funding using the authorities under the legacy act to help fill the gap to help make restoration possible the honorable the lieutenant governor also mentioned the two year life of funding is one of the key issues to focus in on the two year life of funds could be problematic as in most cases it takes time to conduct the necessary upfront work to get these very complex projects ready for implementation so this time intensive upfront pre remedial work is critical in order to conduct environmentally sound and fiscally responsible projects the last point madam chair is to underscore the point that environmental cleanup is an economic engine for health and prosperity recent studies have shown that there is an economic benefit from contaminated sediment remediation the northeast midwest institute and others are identifying savings that occur the environmental benefits that occur in the economic benefits that occur when the sites are cleaned up we agree with you that it's important to continue to use this authority as a way to accelerate cleanup and avoid costly debilitate of litigation which has  been something that has occurred in the past so we look forward to working with you and others as legislative proposals are introduced and as the committee moves forward on this very important and successful environmental statu  in the state of michigan i believe that we have been fortunate enough to be able to match that work that has proved to do well we've had the benefit of what we call clean michigan initiative  s of canada to the st lawrence river roughly fifteen billion dollars is spent annually by local government in the states great lakes remediation so i think that the funding would be challenging if we if we were on a schedule that would complete cleanup in ten years but my sense is that there is a public will to make those expenditures at least that's been the case in the state of michigan and i would think that if you were able to fund that one hundred fifty million dollars a year to a ten year period the states would probably be able to match that i would believe as required pointed out that this is a it is sometimes a lengthy process to determine what is actually there in the area of concern and that's a process can drag out more than two years and  match level i think if we're reduced to twenty five percent would allow us to engage at least there would be more if it brought more federal money into the into the picture it would allow us to engage in more clean ups i also believe that that remediation should include as well restoration of habitat i mean much of this is done to encourage  march of two thousand and six the great lakes national program office briefed the congressional staff on the implementation of the great lakes legacy at in that briefing e p a identify potential percent has it been an impediment cost share and having sufficient non federal funds to match the federal funds is very important to moving orde legacy at projects to date has not been a problem in terms of utilizing the funds that we've received under the the legacy act in the future it could be more of a problem but i think i really see that as one of our challenges in the coming years to make sure that we have sufficient non federal cost share to make these projects a success i would just add that local and private industry investments are unlikely to be sufficient to make full use of the federal funding that's provided so the state bond fund such as michigan's clean michigan initiative will be key to future success and meeting the cost share which we feel is extremely important principle of the great lakes legacy at just as it is for the corps of engineers water resources program what problem under the current circumstances  and gary may want to elaborate on this but i i think the key for us is following the priority system that's currently laid out in the statute and laid out well about focusing on remediation funding in the future i think for us a key part of it madam chair is to work with the authorizing committees in the appropriations committees to think about innovations innovative approaches to the water bonds that aren't directly related to the legacy act but that we feel are the wave of the future when it comes to meeting clean water act the infrastructure needs is critically important to bring in more innovative funding not to change the cost share that has worked well we believe so far but to remove barriers to potentially innovative approaches both at the federal level and at the state level and on the issue of innovative finding and generating nonfederal cochere i think the concept of return on investment really needs to be taken into account on the economic valuation work that we've done at some of the legacy x sites such as what keegan we were able to estimate that there could be increases in property value in the city of waukegan of two hundred fifty million dollars were we to do a legacy at project that would cost about thirty million dollars so if you look at nonfederal cost share that would be twelve million of the of the thirty million and the return on investment from property tax receipts from that kind of a property value increase would pay for that in several years so to the extent that that kind of thing can be taken into account it may be a way of generating nonfederal cost share through bonding  i understand that seventy six million cubic yards of toxic sediment remain to be corrected is it is it your estimate based on the work of the regional collaboration where states and cities and non governmental organizations came together some estimates were made of the remaining contaminated sediments in the great lakes basin the total amount all that was estimated was on the order of seventy five million we think about seventy five million approximately forty million will need to be remediated in some way mr grant was in your testimony you know that  this eight hundred thousand cubic yards represent based on our current estimates it's about ten percent based on these calculations it seems it will take over three hundred years to accomplish that and to remove all the toxic sediment you know if you put in a timeframe on it and i'm not comfortable with making us  mean funding what i am comfortable in saying is that we recognize just like our nonfederal partners recognize is there's a tremendous amount of work that remains to be done that the great lakes legacy act is a excellent framework for addressing some of the side of the problems with existing environmental statutes like the superfund statute or other regulatory authorities are also important ones and we think the key is not to view this as a public works project but as a public private works project and to use the authorities and to focus continue to focus on streamlining the program under the great lakes in this country it seems to me that we could get into a public health problem and we could not move any more rapidly to clean the sediments that well as you know well  congressman miller mentioned about the importance of water in the twenty first century and what it really is the oil of the twenty first century we see clean water as more than just an environmental protection issue it's a public health issue and that's why all of us i think are supportive of efforts to accelerate the pace of clean up using tools like the great lakes legacy act it's a threat to public health over time particularly when you look at  the the water flow patterns within the great lakes and it's important to come up with ways to remediate or to prevent the spread of potential toxins that could pose a risk they're any more rapidly moving them what the u s is we have a strong cooperative program with canada there is a bi national executive committee where the u s agencies meet with the canadian agencies and we also have a bi national talk strategy where we specifically review the progress that's made on both sides of the border in cleaning up contaminated sediments the canadians are making similar progress to us  these projects are complex they're they're expensive they've had some recent appropriations in their side to assist them with moving forward with their contaminated segment problems and learn from each other too in terms of how best to approach these problems you know we had a hearing on the great lakes here a couple of months or so ago and there was testimony from one of the house e that's why e p a has for the last several years been putting a priority in terms of our enforcement program and enforcement priority on sewer overflows and in the great great lakes and it doesn't make the situation any easier in remediating contaminated sediment if you're not also working upstream in the watershed to reduce sewer overflows and we feel that it is it's a collaborative effort and the great lakes strategy recognize that sewer overflows is a key area of priority just like sediment remediation and the two need to be thought of together  we are working with the states and we're working with the cities and it's not just a question of more federal funding it's a question of using the various tools to improve the management of those community assets and to find financing ways based on rates local rates and also state efforts to finance the upgrade of those systems so that the sewer overflows are reduced and we see progress but it takes time it takes years for these control plans to get developed and implemented thank you very much thank you madam chair mr grumbles you mention the  can you talk a little bit more about that and maybe give us some examples of how that affects things and well we appreciate the decisions that are made in the appropriations process you know the amount of funds i think the act contemplated no year funds that could remain available until expanded but in the decisions made in the realities of the appropriations process these funds are essentially two year limits and as was noted and i think everyone would agree as was noted in our testimony these are complex projects and they take some time and  key to sustainable projects is building the partnership up front and having a local community support and also having the necessary technical information at these very complex sites and so we do run up against a lot of pressure we want to streamline accelerate cleanup projects but so one observation we've had in the five specific successful cleanup projects to date is that that two year time frame can can be a real challenge and so that's an area that we agree there needs to be a discussion and when we look forward to having that discussion with you and your colleagues in other committees for good the right now you know it looks like the appropriat five million dollars or so a year for these things if all of a sudden you say that we were able to do that hundred fifty million dollars what capacity do you have how much money you know with your staff and things like that how much capacity do you have to actually do as far as appropriations i know we've got we are continuously looking into the future and what's in the pipeline i think we're looking at nine projects potential projects adding to the five that we've we've seen great success with in terms of the capacity how quickly we could move towards those it depends on a variety of things i would just say that that we know there's a tremendous need out there we also know that an authorization level like one hundred fifty million is a very significant one that  i think we would need to work with you on getting more specific answer in terms of the timing and the capacity to actually make use of that type of funding in the near term when adding i think that's all i have right now thank you ma clarity myself out of the thirty one areas of concern how many individual sediment remediation prior projects are located wholly within the united states i can respond to that congressm hall there are approximately seventy sites that have contaminated sediments and of the remaining thirty areas of concern on the u s side of the border and some of those are jointly shared with canada each and every one of them has contaminated sediment problem of one kind or another and so where are those seventy approximately seventy sites in the process  what i'm what i'm asking i guess is that the five sites that are listed in written testimony are five of the seventy not five of thirty one  me when you're talking eighty five percent of the freshwater united states and twenty percent of the freshwater and world i compare it to twelve billion a month in iraq that's about how i calculate things nowadays and by my own minds terms of national priorities but anyway just getting off topic a little bit i wanted to ask governor cherry first of well i guess one of the reckoned a great recommendations at the g l r c was to encourage clean disposal and treatment technologies what are some of the best technologies in your mind that have come out of this question is what are some of the promising technologies are in jail or is he recommended encouragement of clean disposal and treatment technologies and outside of the different kinds of dredging is there anything else that's surface there are a number of approaches that we've looked at over the years in terms of innovative approaches there are different kinds of dredging that can be done and as part of the legacy act we've experimented with different kinds of hydraulic dredging which are more efficient and do a better job of scavenging the contaminated sediments that's something that we worked on at the the ashtabula river project there are also other possibilities out there in terms of things like carbon mat that can absorb some of the toxic substances where you might be able to have a more efficient cleanup that would actually not involve dredging at all so there are a number of possibilities that we have add you way each and every time we do  a project under the legacy act a carbon mat right this would be like activated charcoal built into a mat that you would place over the contaminated sediments that would lakes protection and the ability to meet the goals of the program to come and sure and i would i would say that one of our first priorities in the great lakes regional collaboration is on wetlands and that is to restore improve protect two hundred thousand acres within the great lakes ecosystem and one hundred thousand the federal agencies have said stepped up to the plate and said we're going to do that now we we've made progress word about sixty two thousand acres restoring improving or protecting and that has not been hampered by the legalities of the of the supreme court decision it's been more of the federal agencies all focusing in as was invasions in the great lakes regional collaboration and saying what tools can you use to really make progress and we look forward to working with the states on the other one hundred thousand acres and congressm frankly when you do get into the jurisdictional complexities what we're doing is we are surveying the regions and the core district offices of what experiences are they finding on the ground when it comes that significant nexus analysis and you know the various tests that were laid out in that supreme court decision and we'll be happy to provide the committee with our observations or insights from that as we continue to use that guidance will be helpful thank you i just my time is up but it is one of thank you for the work that you're doing and hope that we can provide the resources for you to do more of it and as a representative from new york state which is connected to the great lakes by  thank you very much thank you madam chair and thank you very much for having this hearing this issue is a very important one to me and i think to most the people around the great lakes i think governor perry for taking the time to be here and speak on it we spent many years together in the michigan senate and got a lot of companies together even though he was outraged a leftist democrat and i was an outrageously conservative republican you know that's not true from knowing me but any rate we worked very closely together and none of these issues and it's good to see you again john and thank you for being here and thank you for your kind words i also apologize for being late i was speaking at another meeting and i would just have my opening statement be entered into the record without objection i hope he'll do that the first version of the legacy act which is the version that we've been discussing here has been fantastically successful and i normally don't brag about my work to that extent but i keep hearing it from the people around the great lakes extremely pleased with the act and i think what has made it so successful is that we designed it to be a combined federal local environmental and state project with funding coming from all the parties and accomplished much more had the congress allocated the funds the president has cut it in the a p a advocated full funding every year that the bill is been in effect unfortunately the congress cut back the funding every year but in spite of that i have been told by numerous individuals who have worked on superfund and worked on this that this is by far the best cleanup activity that they have ever engaged in because everyone worked together everyone knew what the parameters were we managed to keep most of the attorneys out of it and it would just set up a structure where all the parties could work things out together and get the job done and i really appreciate your cooperation and work in that the  response to the comments about the increasing funding i have no doubt that the congress will appropriate the money that can be usefully used and so i  think setting the goal at an authorization of one hundred fifty million is eminently reasonable and i know the congress will not throw money at the problem unless it can be used effectively so i'm not worried about increasing the authorization since i allocate appropriate money and i think it's important to increase it because we are poised in a number of areas of this nation to rapidly go ahead with clean up local communities states running out funding to be able to deal with the environmental communities are excited and ready to go building local support and so i think it's eminently reasonable to increase the else or zation and i hope the appropriations will match the local enthusiasm and and energy broke the law to local and state governments so i will defend hundred fifty million authorization i don't think we can go wrong with that obviously we want to spend it all that's not all needed but i think it's a good way to go and i just think the state of michigan for its work as you mentioned there are four states there are several of them and they went and they clean up with amazingly rapidly and i say this after having spent a lot of time on the county level working with superfund and on the state level working with superfund i was just astonished that in the space of two years we could clean up sites that under the superfund act would have taken seven years to clean up and so i think this is an effective program i believe mr oberstar and i will be interested in producing a bill on this fairly shortly and i hope we can have a lot of support from our colleagues and from people across the nation in the real key as has been pointed out by witnesses is the cooperative aspect of it and i recall when we had our first hearing on the original bill  senator permit congressman duncan was the chair of the quiney at the time and we have testimony from the federal government that this is a good program had testimony from state and local governments that it was a good program testimony from the business community that it was a good program and testimony from the environmental community that was a good program and congressman duncan turned to me after after the hearing was over he said that is the first time in his twenty years of experience in the congress that he has ever had all of those groups agree on something and he says we will report this bill to the floor immediately and i am very pleased that cooperation is continuing and that all of you involved not just this panel but the next  member for being here and for having this hearing and thank you for coming to give your testimony that i missed i was on the house floor giving a present taishan about our oil crisis my question has to do not just with the cooperation which i appreciate but the fact that we still have thirty areas of concern that have not been remediated and i'm wondering if you could mr grumbles clue me and as to why it's taking so long i think we've cleaned up one site most knowledge on the specifics that congress make you the biggest barrier to cleaning up the areas of concern is cleaning up contaminated sediments the only area that we have the list is the oswego area and the oswego area was the only area where we don't have a contaminated sediment problem these problems are complex they're expensive to deal with and even once you get the contaminated sediments clean up cleaned up before we can designate the areas we have to see the beneficial uses come back for example we need to have fish healthy fish and wildlife populations  there amongst other things before we could put the list in the area but the primary barrier is cleaning up contaminated sediments and is there a ranking order of locations that you're going to take on is there a certain order which you're attacking these and if so  where does the menominee river in the fox river stand on your list we're trying to take on all of them at once with all of the authorities that are available and the work that we're doing at the areas of concern is a work that is shared by the local communities the states and the federal government and within the federal government there are a number of programs that can be brought to bear  example at the fox river the approach that we're using is the use of is the super super fund law and as you know that's been progressing it's going to be a very very significant  clean up there and we're really looking forward to that one on moving forward we have been working in the menominee area with the local committee that's working at the area of concern to define the problem and to define needs for cleanup there and we've got similar activities going on at each and every one of the thirty areas of concern across the great lakes on a related matter the brownfields program has a relatively high number of applications that are ready to go there on the shelf and what hang up there is at the funding is it and then goes through a variety of specific factors in the statute itself about innovative technologies and other approaches when it comes to the brownfields program congressman i would say the best thing to do is for us to commit to get back to you and with with our folks back at the agency to really have more knowledge of the brownfield program then we do the congressman just like to brownfield program the contaminated sediments program under the legacy act as well as the proposed legislation on good samaritan cleanups at hard rock mines which is something we hope that the committee will act on our three examples of environmental progress by taking innovative collaborative approaches and in terms of the prioritization we think it's an important role for congress in the legacy act they laid it out and we will work with our partners in a key part of that is finding projects where there are there is the local community support which is often reflected in their ability to provide a cochere but it's more than that it's having the buy in from the community and where we feel the legacy act and the brownfields program and those good samaritan cleanups are all very positive and promising programs for environmental restoration thank you for your answers and my opening statement which i was working with all of my colleagues both sides of the aisle to make sure that we do reauthorize and and hopefully appropriate one hundred fifty million dollars for this this year i think it is critically important and i'm going to follow up a little bit with mr kagan was asking about some of the sites in his district and i'd also like to i'm just trying to get a handle on where all of these how you prioritize the various sites and and i know in my neck of the woods thank claire river in the clinton river saginaw b all river all seas and i'm just wondering i don't think they're in the nine sites that you talked about mr grumbles but does anyone have any information where they may fall and if they have not you're not having much success because of the lack of match available or what is happening there one of the no we're going to want to commit to you to get back to you with far more specific ok permission on this b you want to add on we can get back to you with specifics on those i appreciate that and not so i'm obviously very interested in that and want to assist in any way that i can to be a conduit to assist with that mr graham you mentioned about how  imitation remediation needs to be accelerated and i certainly do agree with that i think we all agree with that hopefully we have enough places to put all of the sedimentation remediating and i just raised that now to get too much in the weeds on this but as i mention the clinton river they can find us both of the philippines for the clinton river the c d f for the river because of dredging that has occurred and we've been all year marking to get dredging project because of the historic low water level the dredging that's going to occur on the clint river this year will essentially fill as i understand it from the corps of engineers our district director there phil the c d f for the clinton river so i'm just wondering how is the e p a in the corps of engineers are they working with the states to identify proper disposal facilities if we do get all of these funds and we have nowhere to put this how is that all  provided i can tell you that we have been working with the corps closely on that issue of confined disposal facilities and capacity for remediation but i don't know it's an issue that's going to depend on the specific so i appreciate that and i did want to raise that because that's one that i happen to be familiar because it's literally in my backyard but there may be other areas like that so we do need to be i think working a cooperative way to recognize this if we're going to increase the funding and you can get back to me on that as well let me go on to my next question then since i don't have too much time here we have talked today about the cost year and it's no secret that the state of michigan is facing unbelievable economic challenges and the lieutenant governor mentioned about the clean michigan bond which passed overall well mainly in michigan and i'm not even sure how much money we have left there i know there's a phased in areas you're the draw down on some of the funding i'm not sure how much we have left in that but i do know that it is difficult obviously for the state and the local minutes apologies counties and what have you to come up with a cautious year we saw the most recently with the water quality monitoring system actually that this committee had a field hearing a mention in port huron in my district last last week and we talked about the the initial expense of the water quality monitoring system where we were able to get federal earmarks we split it between two counties pretty quickly there was a sixty forty match that the counties themselves matched and there has been money for maintenance some of which was vetoed by the state but i think was put back in but everybody is concerned about the money obviously i just wonder if anyone has a comment about the appropriateness of the percentage of the match here and is there some feeling that perhaps the federal government should take a look at this again in the state of michigan whatever we clean up is not just dollars but i should say in spite of that we should understand as well that throughout the great lakes region in the st lawrence that local and state government prevents or government has spent fifteen billion appropriation people will think of innovative ways to get there such as the bond proposal that we use and we have about twenty five million dollars left i believe we're contemplating a renewal so we understand that the great lakes issues are remediation are a long term effort and that we need to be in position to engage in the long term but i think what ultimately we all need to do local state and federal government is step up because it's sort of norma's problem it's an important issue you know these are problems that emerged in time of industrialization and and in much of it is a result of the great and the importance of having a car share that helps to stretch the federal dollar as far as far as possible is important and so we will forward to having further discussions with the authorizing committee as well as the appropriations committees and i think one very important aspect of the whole debate is to ensure that more information is made available of the state and local economic benefit of clean up the more communities the more all of us see the value of clean up and how it stimulates the environment economic benefits that can help bring more parties to the table to help meet the sixty five thirty five there is some degree of flexibility in our regulation but essentially we're operating off of the the statutory framework that you and others have been involved in and so we look forward to further discussions with you and other members on that issue i appreciate that i think everybody does recognize recognize the economic advantages of the clean up of the of the great lakes and i guess i'm somewhat embarrassed to still see the huge amounts of combined sewer overflows going into the great lakes on the other hand the cost to the locals to rightsize the inadequate underground infrastructure is mind boggling by some estimates in the southeast michigan alone fifty know my time is expired and thanks very much madam chair thank very much are there any other questions and we will thank the first panel and appreciate your coming for testimony committee would like to welcome the second panel mr cameron davis president c e o of the line for the greatly chicago illinois miss emily green director of great lakes program sierra club madison wisconsin and liste joyce cooper president of the council of great lakes industries and arbor michigan  is davis you can begin your testimony well good morning and thank you chairwoman johnson ranking member bozeman and members of the subcommittee i'm cameron davis president and c e o of the alliance for the great lakes for the oldest citizens great lakes organization in either the u s or canada i'm also representing the healing or waters great lakes coalition as one of their co chairs representing roughly a hundred or more organizations from around the great lakes basin who are by lee concerned about this issue with ninety to ninety five percent of the nation's fresh surface water the great lakes could cover the united states and roughly nine to nine and a half feet of water in the continental united states but the fragility because they are relatively closed ecosystem they do not flush like rivers what goes in tends to stay and that is true of legacy pollutants persistent toxins that remain at the bottom of industrial harbors which are a legacy of the midwest past the result of this is contamination that can continue to circulate circulate through the food chain from fish to people especially children women and other sensitive populations the contamination can also suppress property values as we heard before and since more than thirty talks a cost spots were listed on the clean up list of areas of concern more than twenty years ago only one has been removed from the list the longer we wait to remediate these areas of concern the more expensive cleanups get and the more they threaten the health of our children and families simply put it is time to act we consider a viable revitalizing our nation's waters through the clean water restoration act combat invasive species and other efforts to be important in addition to reauthorizing the great lakes legacy act which has as was mentioned before a proud history of bipartisan and multi stakeholder support and reauthorizing this act will help greatly since congressman oberstar and congressman nadler has introduced the first generation of the act several years ago the legacy act has been extraordinarily helpful but several years of experience one of the first generation of the legacy actually was that there are ways we can get more mileage out of the law several years ago roughly one thousand five hundred stakeholders from around the region including agency officials elected officials and geo representatives and businesses put together this plan of attack for helping to clean up and restore the great lakes and one of the series of recommendations that came out of this great lakes restoration collaboration strategy was that we do want to see the act boosted in terms of its authorization we want funds to go for habitat restoration it's not enough to just clean the contaminants out we need to make sure that these areas of concern are fully restored with habitat so that they function again we want to see public information and education be part of the funding effort as well research shows that when there are coordinated proactive public education efforts that preceded cleanups those priest those cleanups can can be facilitated in accelerated which i know is our goal through much of the reauthorization of the legacy act enhancing matching opportunities by allowing potentially responsible parties to contribute and dropping the nonfederal cost  five percent which we heard a great deal about earlier from the first panel focusing on sentiment cleanups as a top priority is incredibly important removing the maintenance of effort requirements eliminating the need for exclusive federal agency project implementation so the contractors can execute cleanups with agency oversight and extending the life of legacy funds beyond two years which as we also heard today is a time frame that is difficult for many of these complex cleanups to meet in conclusion we urge you to act quickly to pass the next generation of the great lakes legacy act to address these recommendations thank you for your efforts so that we can ensure that we leave a legacy of health for our families in the future not a legacy of pollution members and supporters nationwide i'm here in washington today to ask for your help in addressing the toxic pollution in the great lakes thanks to the leadership of congressman eleanor's this committee and others the great lakes like the act of two thousand to has been an extraordinarily successful program that has allowed us to clean up toxic sites despite being underfunded i'm here to ask you to pass legislation reauthorizing the program this year increasing the authorized funding level and making some minor policy changes to increase its effectiveness program is one of the major recommendations of the great lakes regional cooperation strategy which is you've heard is a comprehensive blueprint for the long term restoration and protection of the great lakes it is critically important to legislation move this year to avoid gaps in the implementation of the program and to allow us to more effectively address one of the worst problems that our region faces the longer we wait the more difficult and expensive this perp problem will be to solve as you noted in your entered introduction to rome and johnson contaminated sediments in the great lakes are linked to numerous and very well documented human health and ecological impact as well as economic impacts and it really it doesn't have to be this way we know how to clean up these sites and we can gain much by doing so institute study found that cleaning up toxic pollution the great lakes will directly raise property values by twelve to nineteen billion dollars we simply need the funding and the political will to act before the great lakes l passed in two thousand and two we attempted to clean up these sites through a variety of programs most of which were designed for other purposes and none of which were adequately funded this approach in short did not work in two thousand and five the u s policy committee for the great lakes identified seventy five remaining contaminated sediment sites in us areas concerned i believe that reauthorizing expanding and most importantly funding the great lakes legacy act is the single most effective and important thing we can do to advance the  cleanup of the site the program has arguably been the most effective contaminated sediment cleanup tool that we've had to date even though it has been chronically underfunded and some of its provisions have created unintended obstacles to clean up despite its limited funding and moved almost two million pounds of toxic contaminants to date and has completed cleanup that otherwise languished for years as i noted previously it's reauthorizing the act is also a top recommendation of the great lakes regional collaboration strategy introduction of equality and base a species and pass the clean water restoration act and we appreciate the committee's interest in all of these issues the recommendations to expand and reauthorize the legacy act as a product of a strong collaboration of industry environmental organizations agency staff and scientists we are all in agreement on these recommendations we all believe that congress should reauthorize the legacy act this year and make the policy changes that have been discussed by both of my colleagues here today in summary and i'm happy to talk about these in more detail and questions these would be to increase the authorization level to one hundred fifty million per year at a habitat restoration component clarify the intent of the act to allow potentially responsible parties to contribute to the nonfederal share and share support for public education and outreach as part of the clean up process remove the maintenance of effort requirements allow the dispersal of legacy of funds to non federal contractors reduce the local twenty five percent and extend the legacy the life and legacy that funds beyond two years in our view these improvements are essential to cleaning up the sites in the great lakes in closing i urge you to reauthorize and expand the great lakes legacy this year and to build support for the full appropriation of funds this is one of the most important things that congress can do this year to implement the great lakes regional collaboration strategy and to protect the irreplaceable treasure that is the great lakes now and this is future thank you very much for your time and for inviting me to speak to you today thank you thank you very much cooper good morning madam chair members of the subcommittee thank you very much the high name is george cooper i represent three do large canadian u s companies focused on sustainable development policies in the great lakes basin and it's a privilege to be here here in the spirit of an old industrial operating principle namely that of continuous improvement  industry has really appreciated the opportunity to work with us e p a region five and other stakeholders such as those on my on my right in the region both on the specific projects that you've heard about and those that are in the contaminated to that end i'd like to emphasize five improvements among the ten that were here collectively representing that more details in my submitted testimony the first is the eligibility criteria for nonfederal the original intent which was clearly expressed in the statute was to allow potentially responsible parties p r p s to participate in the nonfederal share and this implementation policy the implementation great lakes regional collaboration secondly pilot and demonstration projects innovative pilot or demonstration projects that could lead to more effective or efficient remediation techniques for contaminate sediment are not now being funded because of the perception that these are quote research not projects and no research funds have been appropriated are suggested that you give discretion to program prevents using two federal sources of funding on the same project at the same time raises a barrier to using great lakes legacy funds superfund sites even where little progress is being made under super around the maintenance of effort requirements may force delays or detrimental changes to propose remedial projects our recommendation is the maintenance of effort requirements should be removed from the legislation and lastly project implementation currently the great lakes legacy requires a federal agency project implementation which precludes dispersal of funds to other entities this is  inefficient really inefficient to have multiple contractors on site because of the limitations of dispersal songs and dispersal to non solo contractors is allowed under water resources development act and the proposed fix utilizes th e approach our recommendation is that you should allow the dispersal of funds to other entity in conclusion our recommendations are obviously that you read reauthorize the great lakes legacy act and do so in a timely fashion so there's no interruption of the program and do so for five years at one hundred fifty four million dollars per year that is one hundred fifty million for projects three million for research and one million for public information and participation programs and we hope that you'll take the opportunity in this already authorization to create to correct the inefficiencies and issues with the implementation of the great lakes legacy act and thank you for your time and attention to this important program that much accomplishment and attempting to clean the hazardous area waste site and i'd like you to give me your opinion be thank you sharon johnson i do think that whether or not much has been accomplished is relative we have a lot of work that's been done under the legacy act that otherwise wouldn't have been done which i think is very commendable that being said we still have a long long way to go to a little bit like climbing a mountain and seeing that you have a long way to go and not really appreciating that where you have been so we do have a long way to go on that why why do we have so much further to go why haven't we made as much progress i do think funding is a key piece of that answer many of the great lakes states are struggling you heard from lieutenant governor cherry earlier today that michigan has the clean michigan initiative many of the other states don't have that kind of bonding authority for these kinds of purposes and so while that's put michigan in and in a decent position many of the other states have not had the luxury of matches to be able to reach that thirty five thirty five percent i do think that that's one thing that could be addressed you mentioned the structure of the act and that certainly we think that many of the recommendations that we have made today will help excel rate the pace of these cleanups i do know this since the list was created it is unacceptable that  we continue to make as little progresses as we have we've done some good work we need to speed that pace up thank you very much thanks for asking that question i think i would agree with cameron that that we actually have made some good progress and i take sites like rudman creek as an example a site that sat for years in the local community and advocated for years and years and years for something to be done about the legacy i came along and finally it's cleaned up and like salmon are now back and so but why not faster i'd love to see it go faster i think i think there are three things i think it's really all of the things you mentioned it's the lack of funding of been consistently underfunded under appropriated since it was started the cost share i think is an issue in some sites and it's hard to pinpoint because what you have is with the thirty five percent cost share you likely have communities that don't even apply for great lakes like c x funds because they can't raise that cost or so it becomes an unnecessary barrier to application so at least in the case of orphan sites we ought to look at reducing that cochere and then the administrative changes that you've heard all of us bring up some of them seem small were i think really not intended to be barriers like the maintenance of effort provision and like the dispersal of funds to nonfederal contractors but together they have really kept a number of sites from flowing through the through the process and so i think if we could tackle those as part of the reauthorization it would help make this make this fact and program more efficient thank you very much madam chair there are probably eight or ten points that i try to summarize for you first is the eligibility of potentially responsible parties where they able to participate in the in the cost share or should have more projects use of project funds for an over  fixed so that we can spend great lakes legacy money at superfund sites we need to drop the maintenance of effort requirements that clearly has been a barrier to projects we need to eliminate the current limitation  that requires a federal agency project implementation need to have everybody in in that project that can possibly make a difference and you need to use the legacy act funds for the restoration  ought to be prioritizing those funds reveal projects we ought to have a public participation program to make sure the public information that's getting out about these projects is in the spirit of the of the act and the object we're all trying to work on as emily said we need to have car share that is more affordable and we need more money in the program thank you very much  thank you i guess one of the problems early on one of the things i don't quite understand is you just mentioned that we need more money in the program but i don't understand if you if you reduce the c significantly how that gets more money in  program well i think we are talking about expanding the authorization pretty significantly two hundred fifty million a year so despite a slight reduction in the costs are there still going to be more money to go around if we do that so i mean you know what i'd like you know earlier you know the reality is there is a finite amount of money so if we get as much federal as we can in there and with the authorization of one hundred fifty million dollars when when you know we st up i think from nine to thirty five million dollars and maybe we'll get a little bit more this go around but the reality is is that you know unless you do an awful lot of legwork with the appropriators it's not going to happen so i think the danger is you know you get a significant increase in authorization you don't get a whole lot more money appropriated you have a decrease in the cross year and then you're going to see a lot you're not going to see a significant increase in your in your dollars does that make sense i mean that's that's the scenario that that i see happening as well i understand the principle the problem is we're trying to lower  the barriers to getting projects up and underway it's clear that the local cost share is one of those barrier so to the extent that we have more projects in the pipeline appealing for those federal funds  hopefully make the appropriators more aware of what's possible with the federal dollars that make sense and i understand but again i think that the scenario that i just said is more realistic in the know i think on your side in trying to get as much money pushed in that direction as possible that you you know you have a problem you've got you've got less cochere a little you know some more dollars but i don't see how that really helps you a whole bunch the other thing is you mention the increasing we're actually diverting some money to habitat what percentage would you divert we've got clean up money now is think of this more in terms of prioritization first prioritization get these contaminated sediment sites cleaned up get the pollutants out the extent that there is money left over then look at helping to rebuild these aquatic habitats so that the site function so that the harbor fronts and river fronts can again be gathering places for these communities so that fishing can help boost the local economies in many instances these are places that have been hit hard for decades as a result of this contamination so i would think of it more in terms of a prioritization scheme than slicing up a pie with various percentages that way and again i would agree that the priority needs to be the cleanup again politically you have to think through this in the sense that what you don't want is you know communities that have powerful people that happen to be in congress pushy habitat over the other knows those are the political realities that we deal with so i would agree i think cleanup is the major thing you mention an ecological tipping point with the great lakes can you come in kind of tell me what you mean by that and kind of your reasoning behind that sure recently a sort of a collection of scientists around the great lakes were just looking at  the huge number and variety of stressors on the ecosystem as a whole and released a report that suggests that the impact of all these stressors was pushing the ecosystem towards what they call the tipping point towards a point at which it would no longer be able to respond to additional stressors that would change permanently beyond the point of repair so that even if we made changes to kind of enhance restoration cleanup some of these sites the ecosystem wouldn't respond and that poses a real threat in my mind because it would change the way that all of us are able to use and interact with the with the great lakes whether it's for recreation or industry or drinking water whatever it is so i think it puts the onus on us to act quickly to sort of address some of these issues and increase the ecosystems resiliency it's adaptability to stressors including climate change by the way which you know it's going to have some sort of impact before it is too late for a good you mentioned power projects which again you know makes sense if you can do the you know if you can do things more expeditiously less expensive do you have any specific things that you're thinking about in that regard there's been several have been proposed and i'd like the opportunity to tell you about them from an expert rather than myself so i'll get back to you with that now that would be fine if you could respond to that that would be very helpful again if if you know if we could come up with things that are more expeditious i think we have thank you for your work with this year club and i appreciate all of your testimony in the work you've done over the past number of years and in case someone is watching back home you didn't change your last name to green because of your belief in a green economy did you know i did not  and can you be any more specific with regard to habitat restoration money if any with regard to the legacy act sure what we're really thinking about there and i guess a little bit to your question as well is limiting the type of habitat restoration work we would do to actually just restoration at the site of cleanup so it's a relatively small expenditure in compared to the price of cleaning up the contaminated sediment but is this what it would take to return the cleaned up site you know back to a functioning habitat so for example in the case of rodman creek and this was actually done by the local community they replanted the creek bank with native grasses and plants and education and got it back to what  state which is what it was before it was stretched so you would like funding to be amped up sufficient to cover the complete restoration of the toxic site that area concerns as we call it that's correct ok so that's where that stands and mr cooper i want to thank you for delineating very nicely the different definitions for redefinitions of pick and stick and research you know whenever a physician takes care of a patient it's really research you're getting a prescription and it might or might not work and might have some toxic effects you could call that research it might not be covered by your insurance carrier but in much the same way a pilot project and you've got a pilot project in mind as i responded earlier the answer is yes but i'd like the opportunity to supply those to you subsequently because there are a lot of people involved and generated by the right and you also highlighted the problem at the level of the toxic site where the local community might have some speed bumps or resistance to joining and applying for a program and if i heard you correctly you really want everyone to be able to apply for this funding is that correct including the responsible parties that is correct yes is there any reason not to include them are we really rewarding them for their bad behavior this is not to replace their obligations this is in addition to their obligations so you're focusing on the area of concern on the environment itself and not those who may have purpose caused the problem correctly ok in terms of local cost sharing components how does that factor into a community can you give me a specific example i'm not i'm not sure i understand the question well if if the local community has to do cost sharing can you give me an example where a community may not have applied for the money  i think we heard from gary galician earlier today that while that has not been a barrier up told right now there is some anticipation that in the future that we could see sites that are not able to apply because of that ca share problem congressman the problem with the answer to your question which is an excellent question is we don't know about a lot of the applications that don't have don't become applications you can't measure i don't see it and you can't manage what you can't measure about it that's correct ok we have heard anecdotally that buffalo may fall into the kind of scenario that you're talking about dr kagan or the caution or maybe a speed bump and can you educate me about the participation or nonparticipation of non federal contractors a tough issue it's a matter of whether or not you  can spend money with an expert who may not be a federal contractor on the same site federal contractors are working and the answer is you can't one of the current ways the program is administered so i'll be fixed so say you have a judge in the water that's being paid for by the state of minnesota under some other authority and there's a little bit of extra part of the site that could be part of the legacy act or french air you can't right now pay that contractor to do the cleanup you have to bring in your own federal you know federally funded inefficient wasteful i understand sort of make sense it might not be happening so we should change the legislation so that it makes sense in the area which i'm familiar with in terms of research projects with an eye a training as a kind of funding it's not uncommon to get funding from a number of different grantors to study the problem of cancer or as more any number of other problems it's the question of commingling of the funds and making sure there's an accurate accounting of the money that congress i think is most interested in well thank you for a testimonial back my time thank you very much